What’s behind the story that Aubameyang is going to Liverpool?

By Dr Billy “the dog” McGraw, senior psychologist at the “What Lies Behind Department of the University College Hospital of the North Circular Road.

There was a hilarious piece in the Mirror recently under the title “Arsenal need to be careful with Pierre Emerick Aubameygang – trouble could be brewing.”

So we wondered, what could this trouble be?  And following this, what was behind what turns out to be an extraordinarily bizarre and downright wacky tale? 

 Was he being sued for slander over something he had said?   Has he got a secret injury that none of us knew about? Has he done something naughty in terms of currency smuggling?  We needed to know.

Thus urgently we read on, through line after line of advertisements and notes about other stories.  Then three links to other (seemingly equally preposterous) tales followed by a wholly irrelevant paragraph about how many goals the guy has scored, which country he plays for, the fact that he has made assists as well (although we are not told how many, probably because Stan Collymore’s internet was down when he wrote the piece and couldn’t find out).

Then there is a bizarre comparison with Teemu Pukki of Norwich (has anyone compared Aubameyang with Pukki before?  Come to that has anyone heard of the young fella before?) before ultimately and finally we get to the nub of the matter.

“There is a feeling that if Aubameyang doesn’t find the net, then Arsenal struggle to find goals.   That’s why it’s imperative the club remains in the top four.”

OK let’s try and decipher this.   “There is a feeling.” A feeling felt by whom?  Stan Collymore? The guys at the Mirror? Frederico Bloggisimoso the famous Italian internet commentator on all things Arsenal?   The annoying six year old who plays football on the village green opposite my house? The dad of the annoying six year old?  Neil Armstrong?  Dr Alfonz Merryweather, head of Certain Things at the University College Hospital?

We are simply not told and thus we cannot judge the validity of the commentary.

But there is something of an explanation in that we are told it is “imperative” (not essential but imperative) that Arsenal stay in the top four so that he (Auba) “can at least challenge for the game’s top prizes.”

“At present, Arsenal will be on the outside looking in, as far as the title race is concerned.  It’s touch and go whether they qualify for the Champions League next season too.”

So let’s consider this one.   No one is suggesting that any club other than Liverpool or Manchester City look likely to win the title.   So a more accurate statement would be, “At present, 18 of the 20 Premier League clubs (or 90% for those of a mathematical bent) will be on the outside looking in, as far as the title challenge is concerned.”

As for the champions league places one could equally say the same – the only two clubs that look certain at the moment to qualify are the aforementioned. Others are sauntering along in the distance.

“So failure could mean that Aubameyang decides to move on.”   Well, yes except for three things, First his age makes it less likely that Manchester City or Liverpool or Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern etc or any other club that is likely to be guaranteed a place in the Champions League next year will either need or want to pay a lot for him.

Second Auba himself must know that this is not at all like RVP moving to Manchester United for the final year of Sir Alex Ferguson’s term in office where no money was spared to ensure that Man U won the title in his final season.  Although it is true that the club has not since picked the right manager to succeed Sir Alex, it is also true that the level of provision for the future at that point was not as high as it might be. Which is why they have since finished 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th.  Everything was done to secure that final title, and nothing was done for the year after.

So when the nutters at the Mirror add “He is also exactly the kind of pacy striker that Liverpool’s Jurgen Klopp favours” we are in the land of outsourced gibberish.   If Liverpool feel they need another pacy striker (and why would they?) why not buy one who is 25 years old and who will last them a good few years, rather than one whose performance (with his speed) can only decline.

Third, Arsenal have in their ranks Lacazette, Martinelli, Nketiah and Pepe.   Now they are not scoring at Aubameyang’s rate because… well we have Aubameyang.  Plus Laca has been injured, Eddie was loaned to Leeds because we have Auba, and Pepe is clearly taking time to adjust to English football, English VAR, Arsenal’s moaning crowds, English journalistic attacks, and the PGMO.

So what is behind this tale?   Obviously in part it is a desperate attempt to gain an audience by the Daily Mirror.  But also it should be seen as part of the continuing journalistic trend of knocking Arsenal at every opportunity.  This trend exists because these articles get an audience.   So more and more of them are created and as long as they keep being treated seriously by those who really ought to know better, they will continue to flourish

So deconstructing the stories as well as pointing out what a bunch of self-centred burks are involved in the mechanical production of such gibberish is the only weapon we have left.

5 Replies to “What’s behind the story that Aubameyang is going to Liverpool?”

  1. OT but here’s yet another example of double standards when talking about Arsenal.

    Watching the Man Utd Liverpool game there was an turnover involving Lindelöf on Origi in the build up to Utds goal. No foul was given and Utd scored from the resultant break away. It was checked by VAR and stood.

    If it was a foul it would of been extremely soft. Yes there was ‘contact’ but as far as I’m aware football is a contact sport, so that’s irrelevant. That means the only question is, was it a foul? Personally I don’t think so as the contact was minimal. Once not given, under the present VAR guidelines it was never going to be overturned.

    Anyway, all that is just the background to my point. And my point is the reaction to it from Souness and Neville.

    They cant believe it wasn’t called a foul. According to Souness “There’s ‘contact’, there’s not even a debate” ! Really? Since when is ‘contact’ a foul?

    This from a guy that earned a living kicking players off the park. If he’d been pulled up for a foul in those circumstances he would of gone ballistic.

    This is from 2 guys who took great delight in laughing at how Arsenal where ‘bullied’ in the infamous game 49.

    This is from 2 guys who saw absolutely nothing wrong with Manchester Uniteds tactics in that match.

    You just know if an Arsenal player had thrown himself to the ground as did Origi they’d be ripping him to pieces. ‘You’ve got to be stronger’ ‘you can’t be bullied like that’ blah blah blah.

    Complete and utter hypocrites the pair of them

  2. @ Nitram

    Their hypocrisy is so blatant. We were mocked for getting a draw at old Trafford, but somehow Liverpool should be pleased getting a point. They move the goalpost when Arsenal is concerned.

  3. King 2

    Good point. Indeed we were.

    I remember Neville endlessly banging on about the poor quality of the game. Well I didn’t seem much quality today either.

  4. Nitram
    How often have you heard these ‘experts’ come out with….
    ‘there was contact but not enough for him to go down, so no penalty for me’
    followed a few minutes later by….
    ‘there was a slight touch so he was entitled to go down, so yes a penalty for me’
    These morons need to make their minds up!
    In the game today did you notice the two references made about Arsenal by the commentator, the first pointing out that we lost our unbeaten record in the infamous Riley debacle, though no mention of the appalling refereeing was made, and then when Ox came on in the second half how he made his debut for Arsenal in the 8-2 drubbing we suffered at the hands of Man U.
    They never miss an opportunity to put us down.

  5. MickHazel

    I certainly did, as did Mrs Nitram.

    We said exactly the same thing. Couldn’t wait to have a dig.

    Not a mention of the shameful premeditated United tactics, of which Neville has talked about with such pride and gusto many times since, or of course as you say, the diabolical refereeing performance, which has subsequently been confirmed as such when refereed in retrospect.

    The ref missing slight contact is unacceptable a terrible refereeing.

    A ref allowing Arsenal to be cynically and systematically kicked off the park is perfectly acceptable, in fact, as I’ve mentioned once or twice before, they actually found it funny.

Comments are closed.