Money aside... Who benefitted more from Cole-Gallas Swap?

We sold Cashley for a Gallas plus 5m. One of the world's best left backs replaced by a top class CB who had just a year left in his contract and wanted out. Financially it looks like we got shafted.

But is it really that bad?

Our backline is strengthened greatly by Gallas.

The back four of

Eboue--Toure--Gallas--Clichy/Flamini is much stronger than before. Also we have good cover in form of Senderos for CB.

But have Chelsea improved that much? With Gallas and Huth leaving they dont have proper cover for their CB position. Boula is more of a RB. Cole is just a few notches better than the LB the had(Bridge).

In a way we have been strengthened well while Chelsea have in fact weakened themselves (More to do with Huth also leaving at the same time). I fully expect Mourinho to sign a top notch CB in Jan window.

Our defence now looks pretty damn great! Clichy is basically a ready-made replacement for Cole, only slightly quicker. Once he's back I'll feel quite confident - I'm not happy with Hoyte (I don't think he'll ever make the grade at Arsenal). Gallas is one of the top CB in Europe...no doubt whatsoever. He will improve our defence hugely. Senderos and Djourou are almost ready - but not quite. Anyway, I'm sure they'll still get games. So in answer to the question who benefitted more - We did. We needed a world class CB and we got one. We also needed some experience and we got it. The perfect signing.

It’s a difficult question. Let’s look at what the two clubs have in common: both got rid of players who were doing nothing more than destabilising their respective teams: neither had made an appearance so far this term. Were the deals not completed, both Wenger and Mourinho would have been stuck with players who didn’t want to be at the club. Ashley Cole’s difficulties at Arsenal were exacerbated by the forthcoming release of his book. However, Cole did at least declare himself available to play - It was Wenger’s decision to leave him out. Gallas, however, reportedly went on strike to assure he got his move.

Chelsea might therefore claim they had got rid of one difficult player, and instead signed the world’s best left-back. And that’s probably true. But they’ve lost Gallas, a man who last season was probably better defensively than John Terry. Neither Ricardo Carvalho nor Khalid Boulahrouz have the same pace and power that the Frenchman posseses. What’s more, Wayne Bridge had been one of Chelsea’s best players of the season up until this point.

Which raises another point: did Chelsea really need a left-back? With Bridge and Gallas, they seemed perfectly set. What’s more, did Arsenal need a centre-back? Toure and Senderos were set to be our first choice pairing this season, with the impressive Djourou filling in. This transfer is one of convenience, not neccessity.

So what’ve we got out of it? Well, we got rid of Ashley Cole. I really do think that’s something worth saying. I, for one, wanted him nowhere near our club. Secondly, we got £5m out of them. Not a huge sum, but a) I’m led to believe that potential add-ons will take it closer to £10m, and b) does it really matter? It’s not like we particularly need the money. What’s more, if we’d recieved £15m, we would have had to spend £10m on another defender anyway. As it is, we got that defender as part of the deal: William Gallas.

This is where the pendulum swings in our favour. Gallas is arguably one of world’s top central defenders. The second he walks into our club he becomes one of our best players. A partnership between him and Kolo Toure would be terrifyingly hard to beat. Not only that, but he can play left-back, centre-back, and right-back. For the first time in years, we have genuine options at the back. Imagine this previously dreaded scenario: Kolo Toure goes off to the African Nations, and we’re forced to play… Gallas and Senderos. Not bad, eh?

Finally, speak to any Chelsea fan and they’ll tell you that as pleased as they are about signing Cole, they’re gutted about losing Gallas. Most Arsenal fans wanted Cole gone; they didn’t care where. But Chelsea fans were terrified of losing Gallas. At the end of last season my Chelsea brother told me that losing Gallas would be “as bad as Arsenal losing Henry”.

Therein lies victory, my friends.

Source: Gunnerblog.com

Gallas strengthens Arsenal more than Cole strengthens us.

tbh I feel this is more a statement about the relative strengths of the teams than anything else.

@aby_gooner

Boulahrouz is more of a Cb than RB - the opposite to what you say.

Hardrada wrote:Gallas strengthens Arsenal more than Cole strengthens us.

tbh I feel this is more a statement about the relative strengths of the teams than anything else.

@aby_gooner

Boulahrouz is more of a Cb than RB - the opposite to what you say.

true. saw a quote from boula saying he hadn't played right back for 2 years...

read that gallas is earning more than cole... not sure how true this is... it's just a great move all round for both clubs...

Hardrada wrote:
@aby_gooner

Boulahrouz is more of a Cb than RB - the opposite to what you say.

I stand corrected. Thanks. BTW dont you feel you guys are now stretched thin at the back. Just pray that Terry/Carvalho dont suffer long term injuries between now and Jan.

Wenger gave into Gallas' demands and gave him a 4 year contract worth £80,000 per week.

In effect he takes over Sol Campbells wage packet.

COTR wrote: read that gallas is earning more than cole... not sure how true this is... it's just a great move all round for both clubs...

Really? Where did you read that? I think that Cole is getting £90,000 a week. I would have thought Gallas was on a bit less, but maybe he's on roughly the same. We can probably afford it, we've got less players on big wages than two years ago. I wouldn't have thought anyone other than Henry was on more than £50,000 a week before our recent transfers.

One of the world's best leftbacks? Can't cross in the air, cuts inside too much, weak in the air. That's like saying 'Henry can score every sort of goal' (i.e. more London tabloid media hype that has nothing to do with the actual game).

Gallas has signed a reported £100,000 a week contract, which is considerably more than Arsenal were paying Cole. Indeed, over the lifetime of the contract the money over what you would have paid Cole in that time eats up the whole 5 million quid. But Gallas is a lot, lot better than Cole.

I'm slightly bothered that Arsenal have moved out two naturally left-sided players and brought in two right-footed players who like to play centrally. It's not so much the quality of the players (in my opinion Baptista and Gallas are better than Reyes and Cole), but your side looks drastically unbalanced now. 5 million quid to lose your whole left side? Not convinced it'll work out.

But we'll see - Clichy is a talented player, as is Rosicky, but it looks like another season of the same type of football for Arsenal - great when it works, useless when it doesn't.

aby_gooner wrote:

Hardrada wrote:
@aby_gooner

Boulahrouz is more of a Cb than RB - the opposite to what you say.

I stand corrected. Thanks. BTW dont you feel you guys are now stretched thin at the back. Just pray that Terry/Carvalho dont suffer long term injuries between now and Jan.

People keep saying this.

TBH I don't really see it. If we get 2 first choice CBs injured its not going to be ideal, sure, but what teams could really cope well? ManU perhaps.

If I'm honest I feel just as comfrotable playing Boulahrouz-Ferreira, Boulahrouz-Mancienne or Boulahrouz-Essien as I would Boularhouz-Huth.

We had in effect lost Gallas anyway, he wasn't going to play this season.

saintgoingmarching wrote:One of the world's best leftbacks? Can't cross in the air, cuts inside too much, weak in the air. That's like saying 'Henry can score every sort of goal' (i.e. more London tabloid media hype that has nothing to do with the actual game).

Gallas has signed a reported £100,000 a week contract, which is considerably more than Arsenal were paying Cole. Indeed, over the lifetime of the contract the money over what you would have paid Cole in that time eats up the whole 5 million quid. But Gallas is a lot, lot better than Cole.

I'm slightly bothered that Arsenal have moved out two naturally left-sided players and brought in two right-footed players who like to play centrally. It's not so much the quality of the players (in my opinion Baptista and Gallas are better than Reyes and Cole), but your side looks drastically unbalanced now. 5 million quid to lose your whole left side? Not convinced it'll work out.

But we'll see - Clichy is a talented player, as is Rosicky, but it looks like another season of the same type of football for Arsenal - great when it works, useless when it doesn't.

Losing Reyes and Cole both naturally left footed does look bad initially but then when you weigh against the fact that neither wanted to stay it isnt as bad.

Having said that 100k PW for Gallas looks more of a Tabloid sh*t. That is more money that what was being offered to him by the Russians. Doubt if it is true. The number I have heard from various Arsenal forums is around 80k, which is believable.

Also weighing it against the fact that three of our big wage earners departed this season (Cole @ 70k PW, Campbell 70k PW, Pires 50k PW) we could in theory have got a player on a fat pay packet.

Also signing Bappy will give us the physical presence needed in the middle of the park against the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. I am sure that we will do much better than last year in terms of points, though not so sure about the position in the league table.

saintgoingmarching wrote:One of the world's best leftbacks? Can't cross in the air, cuts inside too much, weak in the air. That's like saying 'Henry can score every sort of goal' (i.e. more London tabloid media hype that has nothing to do with the actual game).

We had a long thread on this yesterday.

While Cole cannot indeed cross (possibly it will improve when he has to practise at a team where crossing is not illegal ?), he has his strengths which you disregard here.

For athleticism and playing vs wingers, he is certainly one of the best around. He'd make my top 5 LBs anyway.

On balance he is probably better than Bridge for our 451/433 system, but worse for a narrower system.

aby_gooner wrote:
Losing Reyes and Cole both naturally left footed does look bad initially but then when you weigh against the fact that neither wanted to stay it isnt as bad.

True, the disruption caused by unhappy players can be huge, but Reyes was your most creative player last year and now you only have a single forward who is naturally left-footed, Van Persie, and he's in and out of the team and inconsistent (albeit brilliant when he's on form) when he does play.

It's more that you've replaced the two with two right-footed players who like to play in the middle of the pitch - you now don't have a single naturally left footed option for the wide midfield position (Diaby plays through the middle, Ljungberg, Rosicky, Walcott and Hleb are all naturally right footed), and the leftback position is looking a little weak. That makes the whole left hand side a problem, in a year when Arsenal have more competition than ever to stay in the top 4.

Having said that 100k PW for Gallas looks more of a Tabloid sh*t. That is more money that what was being offered to him by the Russians. Doubt if it is true. The number I have heard from various Arsenal forums is around 80k, which is believable.

Fair enough, it does sound high.

Also weighing it against the fact that three of our big wage earners departed this season (Cole @ 70k PW, Campbell 70k PW, Pires 50k PW) we could in theory have got a player on a fat pay packet.

That did occur to me after I'd posted, though when did Campbell go down from 90 grand to 70 grand a week? Did he sign a second contract with Arsenal?

Also signing Bappy will give us the physical presence needed in the middle of the park against the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. I am sure that we will do much better than last year in terms of points, though not so sure about the position in the league table.

Like I say, you've got a lot more competition this year. Tottenham nearly had you last year, and it was only last-day drama that got you into the CL for this season. Pompey, Villa and West Ham could all make a serious bid for fourth, along with Spurs and even Newcastle if they get their act together.

But you're right - one thing Gallas and Baptista do bring is a much greater physical presence, particularly in the air. You've always been a bit dodgy on set pieces against teams that are good in the air, and struggle to score many from indirect set pieces because you've lacked strong headers of the ball. Gallas, Baptista and Adebayor are all strong in this respect, as well as being good enough on the deck to play the quick, direct counter-attacking style that has characterised your team under Wenger. So what you've given away in terms of width on the left hand side you've gained in aerial ability at both end of the pitch.

Hardrada wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:One of the world's best leftbacks? Can't cross in the air, cuts inside too much, weak in the air. That's like saying 'Henry can score every sort of goal' (i.e. more London tabloid media hype that has nothing to do with the actual game).

We had a long thread on this yesterday.

While Cole cannot indeed cross (possibly it will improve when he has to practise at a team where crossing is not illegal ?), he has his strengths which you disregard here.

For athleticism and playing vs wingers, he is certainly one of the best around. He'd make my top 5 LBs anyway.

On balance he is probably better than Bridge for our 451/433 system, but worse for a narrower system.

Top 5? There are easily 5 leftbacks I'd rather have than Ashley Cole, and he's a miserable, whinging little tosser who can't take losing and blames everyone else for his own mistakes. He's extremely quick, great on the turn, very atheletic. But he's useless offensively in the air and almost useless defensively in the air. And has an attitude problem.

I'd pick Bridge if I was Jose. And if I was McClaren. Better in the air, better crosser, almost as good at passing, no attitude problem. Pace isn't everything.

Hardrada wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:One of the world's best leftbacks? Can't cross in the air, cuts inside too much, weak in the air. That's like saying 'Henry can score every sort of goal' (i.e. more London tabloid media hype that has nothing to do with the actual game).

We had a long thread on this yesterday.

While Cole cannot indeed cross (possibly it will improve when he has to practise at a team where crossing is not illegal ?), he has his strengths which you disregard here.

For athleticism and playing vs wingers, he is certainly one of the best around. He'd make my top 5 LBs anyway.

On balance he is probably better than Bridge for our 451/433 system, but worse for a narrower system.

I really don't get it when people keep on saying ' winger X or fullback X can't cross, so he's not all that '

U don't need to be a good crosser to be a good winger/fullback . Messi , robben , ronaldo can't cross , tell me they are all not that good

saintgoingmarching wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:One of the world's best leftbacks? Can't cross in the air, cuts inside too much, weak in the air. That's like saying 'Henry can score every sort of goal' (i.e. more London tabloid media hype that has nothing to do with the actual game).

We had a long thread on this yesterday.

While Cole cannot indeed cross (possibly it will improve when he has to practise at a team where crossing is not illegal ?), he has his strengths which you disregard here.

For athleticism and playing vs wingers, he is certainly one of the best around. He'd make my top 5 LBs anyway.

On balance he is probably better than Bridge for our 451/433 system, but worse for a narrower system.

Top 5? There are easily 5 leftbacks I'd rather have than Ashley Cole, and he's a miserable, whinging little tosser who can't take losing and blames everyone else for his own mistakes. He's extremely quick, great on the turn, very atheletic. But he's useless offensively in the air and almost useless defensively in the air. And has an attitude problem.

I'd pick Bridge if I was Jose. And if I was McClaren. Better in the air, better crosser, almost as good at passing, no attitude problem. Pace isn't everything.

You miss the key problem - Bridge cannot defend. He backs off all the time. You also moan about Cole - but Bridge also has an attitude problem. He is a chain-smoker (despite being told to quit numerous times) and he has a bit of a penchant for betting as well. Bridge is also not very good in the air at all. Cole at least can defend the odd cross when tucking in.

You seem to be basing your footballing opinions of Cole on the fact that as a person - hes a total arse-hole. Im not going to disagree, but when you use phrases like "he's a miserable, whinging little tosser who can't take losing and blames everyone else for his own mistakes" it's hard to believe you can be totally unbiased when assessing his contribtuion on a football pitch.

saintgoingmarching wrote: It's more that you've replaced the two with two right-footed players who like to play in the middle of the pitch - you now don't have a single naturally left footed option for the wide midfield position (Diaby plays through the middle, Ljungberg, Rosicky, Walcott and Hleb are all naturally right footed), and the leftback position is looking a little weak. That makes the whole left hand side a problem, in a year when Arsenal have more competition than ever to stay in the top 4.

I think you raise an interesting point here, but I don't think it affects Arsenal as much as it would most teams. We played for years with Pires being our first choice left midfielder and he was a right-footed player who often cut inside. Seeing as we don't cross the ball very often it isn't as big a handicap not having a left-footed player. Having said that, it would help having Clichy play because he does provide width when the midfielders cut inside.

We do lack a bit od wdth now though - Clichy and Eboue will be required to provide this but IMO Clichy isn't all that in the attacking third + if any team plays their wingers high up against us, our width is effectively gone.

IMO this is our next priority - the name Im'm thinking of: N'Zogbia

i think arsenl got the better of the deal

Man United and Liverpool are the losers.

Chelsea and Arsenal managed to solve a problem by replacing quality *they were going to lose anyway* by quality.

@ Axeslammer !

Manchester United don't need Cole or Gallas...

I find it quite funny that Man Utd and Liverpool are the most supported clubs on this forum but that their last day of the transfer window was such a let down.

@ Tweedledum

Liverpool did their major signings before the deadline ... Manchester United on the other hand simply missed the bus.. (not sure what is going on behind the scenes) but if SAF is happy with the squad he has, there's no point in complaining -- hes the one in charge ...

we have a squad to compete however if we had got the signings we wanted......supposedly Torres and Hargreaves we would be on a whole other level

arsenal have IMO.

clichy is good enough to takeover from cole whereas arsenal had 1 top class CB, and now they have got gallas their defence instantly improves.

rai Mihawk wrote:@ Axeslammer !

Manchester United don't need Cole or Gallas...

Did I write that ?

...didn't think so

Axeslammer ! wrote:

rai Mihawk wrote:@ Axeslammer !

Manchester United don't need Cole or Gallas...

Did I write that ?

...didn't think so

You said "Man United and Liverpool are the losers." in a thread that asks the question on 'who benefited from the sale of Gallas and Cole" .. sorry if i misinterpreted you..

saintgoingmarching wrote:

aby_gooner wrote:
Also weighing it against the fact that three of our big wage earners departed this season (Cole @ 70k PW, Campbell 70k PW, Pires 50k PW) we could in theory have got a player on a fat pay packet.

That did occur to me after I'd posted, though when did Campbell go down from 90 grand to 70 grand a week? Did he sign a second contract with Arsenal?

Actually Campbell signed a new contract at the end of 2004-05 season (basically when his previous one expired). During his first 4 years at Arsenal he was our highest paid player because of the fact that he had come on a free around 110k pw.

He had signed a two year contract extension at the end of 04-05 season at a much reduced pay around 70k pw (the contract from which he has been released). What I am not sure is that, since he has been released from his contract, are we paying part of his salary while he is at Pompey.