And the runs off the ball? That is something he is very good at. You do not get 13 goals from out wide without having that in his game.
He's playing in a very attacking role, though. Not a traditional winger in a 4-4-2, by any means. He's essentially another striker in that role.
But he still starts out wide, higher up the pitch like you said. And you have to time the runs from out to in so you can find yourself in good goal scoring positions. And Walcott has to take those chances, which he did last season. I think he has developed into a very good player for us in this role. If anything its the perfect learning tool for him if he gets moved into the middle with a player behind him in a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1.
Walnut has great speed and unfortunately for England little or no football brain plus (or minus) is a "precious" asset in his own mind Lennon has been out of salts for at least two seasons but when on his game does supply intelligent cover for his full back with an understanding of defending space and allowing his full back to be the second tackle Lennon has the skills to go past with dribble or raw pace most fullbacks Walnut simply freezes when defenders stand in his path lacking dribbling skills at any level Truth is there are other wide men who should be in the England squad in front of the Walnut I.E one decent cross do not make evidence of improvement
Maybe he should go and buy some. As for your other points its probaly spot on in terms of England and the system they use. Walcott was told off by Fabio when he cut in because they wanted him to stay out wide and cross. Thats not Walcott. So its no wonder Fabio lost the plot with him. But what England do with him is not something I care about. He does a job for us and thats all I care about.
Walnut is your Darren Bent. He'll score you goals, but you'll still be toying with relegation this season He's a headless chicken, out on the wing. Always has been, always will be. Capello picks him because Capello is a terrible international manager, and doesn't know what he's doing.
Walcott's finishing isn't good enough to play centre forward, he can score goals but he misses the simple chances too often. Lennon vs Walcott's probably a draw, they're both frustrating players who haven't developed enough to fulfill their early promise.
"pabird" is my user as one of my sons played pro football and had a bird nickname and I am a father who played at a reasonable level for many years The expression "out of salts" is a well known expression meaning performing below par (in this case) If Walnut does such a good job for you why does he never achieve 90 minutes on the pitch
I tend to agree with that, but the Gooners, almost to a man, genuinely believe that Walnut is better than Lennon! Not that it should matter much to them, as I've heard that he's refusing to sign an extension to his contract now, so he'll be off as soon as he can.
Walcott can't play 90 minutes. His hamstrings will not cope for a start. You have to save him because his best aspect is his physical gifts. Guys like Lennon and Walcott pick up injuries for a reason.
Yes. But he is not the type of player you use for 90 minutes. Against Botlon, Wenger should have taken him before he did something to his knee. But that time it was not a serious injury.
Please! Give me a warning before you come out with stuff like that! I've just spat coffee all over my jeans!
