I feel your analysis is biased because I don't know how come you are using being able to sign players to rate coaches. In my opinion Arteta should be a better coach than Ten Haag based on their performance last season. Despite not winning the league last season, Arteta have been able to transform Arsenal by making them a more attacking team than they have ever been. Through his initiative, Arsenal was scoring goals at every given opportunity unlike when we know them as romancing the ball with no result to show. Don't forget that he almost won the league if not that they ran out of luck.
No justification for that whatsoever, Arteta can’t be said to be better than Ten Hag because all his time at Arsenal hasn’t won him any trophy. Ten Hag has spent two seasons and have won two trophies already, in every season he won at least two trophies. Mikel Arteta may have shown great performance with Arsenal and has improved them in all sides and made them more competitive and successful than before but without a trophy to show for it, it’s meaningless. That is why they need to do better in the next season, they need to fight to the end and now allow another team to take over from them as they do in previous seasons. A coach success is only calculated by the number of trophies and not the number he finishes the league with every season.
That's it. The point is to compare the trophies won by Ten Hag and Arteta. Most of us use trophies to judge a coach's success. I found something interesting.
I can't really say that if Arteta is much better than Ten Hag in term of achievements. To be fair, Arsenal plays better than United in term of gameplay. That's a fact. But, Ten Hag has won more trophies than Arteta. This is also the fact.
If they demand an amount like 50-60 million euros from Chelsea for the deal then it is a big trap. I certainly don't believe Felix is worth that much. Because he has literally wasted a big part of his talent at Atletico Madrid over the years.
