To me the answer’s obvious. But maybe my views are extreme, you never know. Stranger things have happened (like Arsenal bidding £30m for Luis Suarez, according to some sources). Maybe everyone else thinks the exact opposite to me. Please vote and confirm my prejudices or cast me as a no-nothing pariah. One question and one question only:
Twitter: @AngryOfN5
angryofislington 
very many years have gone by without winning any trophy for the club.
that is very observant of you!
“One question and one question only”
Not so as your poll poses two questions ‘Is Wenger as great as he was previously’ and ‘Was Wenger great at all?’. It matters only to the extent that those taking the option to claim he was never great are in fact also, perhaps but not necessarily unintentionally, agreeing with the proposition that to the extent that he was great at all he is only as great, and no greater than he ever was.
Are you Ziontrain in disguise?
It’s still one question, though perhaps for completeness I should have included an option for people to answer ‘He didn’t used to be great but now he is’.
No, Ziontrain seems to take it a tad too seriously. I’m just amusing myself really. I guess a ‘Greater’ option might have its benefits but seeing as it is a simplistic proposition (far too simplistic really) then maybe a simple yes or no would have been the best way to go. The compulsion that led you to add the third option might lead some to think that you are one of those ‘worst extremists who don’t realise they are at that end of the spectrum’ you spoke of recently.
Well if people would have thought that based on the options presented, they’re idiots.
In the absence of any explanation from you as to why you felt the need to add the 3rd option and what purpose you imagine it serves in answering the question in your headline it wouldn’t be idiotic to imagine that you’re betraying a mindset that is hostile to Wenger. No problem if it does course unless, at the same time, you are seeking to claim that you occupy the middle ground and extremists are either side of you.
Have I really got to explain this? Quite clearly there are four logical possibilities around the question:
1 – AW was always great and is still equally great
2 – he was great and is now less great to some degree
3 – he was less great in the past than he is now
4 – he was always at a level lower than greatness and remains there
I thought it was safe to assume, given that this is an Arsenal-centric blog, that most readers would be very unlikely to think he wasn’t great in the past (say 1997-2005) but now is. So I left that option off. I included the possibility that there might be some Arsenal fans who are so against him that they thought he was never great, but if they didn’t think he was great from 1997-2005 they’re hardly likely to think he is now, are they?
Have I explained that satisfactorily?
You’re talking without saying much. To answer the first question, no you haven’t really got to explain it and indeed you still haven’t, at all let alone satisfactorily, why you included the third option nor what purpose it serves in the context of the headline question. The conclusion that it betrays a latent hostility seems perfectly reasonable. It’s your blog so you can post what you wish but when you claim impartiality and condemn extremist comment as you do then you must expect any tendency to hypocrisy to receive comment.
Like I said, there are four logical answers; I only put three of them because the fourth (the modern post-2005 Arsene being better than the pre-2005 version) would only be voted for by a madman. I thought I had explained that, but obviously not clearly enough in this case.
It certainly isn’t clear enough when you start from the position that, underneath the question in your headline, you announce there’s ‘One question and one question only’. That question seems straightforward enough whereas your answer to the question ‘what purpose does option 3 serve in the context of that one question’ only makes sense if you were seeking different answers to more than the one question or you simply wanted an option for some to express hostility to Wenger. As I said before that’s fine but why the need to pretend that it serves any other purpose?
I’m not pretending anything. I was just pre-empting people coming along from the WOB end of the spectrum and saying ‘I can’t vote, because I’ve always thought he was a tosser and there’s no option for that’ or words to that effect. If you don’t believe that, fine, it’s up to you. I think I’ve probably spent long enough on this particular point now.
So you’re happy to cater for the needs of the WOB but not the AKB’s? You see anyone who might try to argue that Wenger is greater than he was, no matter how unlikely that might be, as extreme to the point of being a madman but see nothing extreme in the view that Wenger, who among other achievements, is the only manager in the modern game to win the title with an unbeaten season and holds the longest unbeaten run, was never a great manager. The real point in all this is really to show the extent of your self deception in painting yourself as the reasonable majority and others as the extremists. I don’t think you’ve spent enough time on that particular point.
NO
Where’ve you been Noel? Have a nice holiday?
LOL
Judgement of ‘greatness’ can only be retrospective: it requires a historical perspective. Particularly if we are judging someone in mid-career.How many would have thought Churchill ‘great in 1939, how many would not have considered him ‘great’ in 1945? This summer spells the end of austerity (that is, if we believe the Great Gatz). Thus Arsene’s tenure can be split into (a) pre-austerity – great, (b) austerity – not so great and (c) post-austerity – remains to be seen. And Wenger’s ‘greatness’ (or otherwise) will be defined by the ‘remains to be seen’.