Are you for real? I suppose when he got the assist for Wellbeck's goal he thought a lion was chasing him and when he realised a football was in his path he kicked it out of the way.
He tried to score with that shot, so how was it an unintentional goal? If it was one of those miss-hit crosses that flew into the far post, then yes I get that point. But Walcott clearly tried to score with that effort against Sweden.
Exactly - how could it possibly be unintentional ??? It was a shot ! The smiley remains, you are a div Traore
Sigh, I see you've ignored the part that makes you wrong, but that's okay. Ronaldinho's lob for PSG all those years back is an example of an intentional finish. Walcott took a shot, which he was right to do, but he certainly didn't intent for it to fly over the keeper and into the net. If you can't see that small, but meaningful difference then I really don't know what else I can say to you. Also, why are you leaving a space after your words for punctuation? Can't stand that sort of thing personally.
No, the assist was a nicely weighted cross after a good burst into the box I'm not disputing that, credit where it's due and all.
all shots have the aim of going in, otherwise players would never take them. even if its from distance, there is every chance that the goalkeeper will make a mistake, hence why the shot is taken. that is what walcott was hoping for, and he got it (although still a great shot)
Walcott thought ' those poor buggers up high in the cheap seats, I'll give 'em a ball to take home.... but he mishit and scored'.
I think what Traore is saying is that Walcott was taking a potshot that he didn't really think had much of a chance of going in so was surprised to see it fly over the keeper (who should have saved it). "Unintentional" is the wrong word to use in this instance, as by taking a pot shot he's obviously intending to try and score.
The action of shooting was intentional. The finish was unintentional. Are there any rocket scientists among us to differentiate between these two factors? But GoonerRVP thank you for a reasoned response.
ok I'll end the debate with some infallible fat phact. Theo is an Arsenal forward and as such, he scores when he likes.
If he intended to loop it down the middle of the goal, then the "no football brain" critics are infallibly correct. He certainly intended to shoot and attempt to score, but the finish (the ****ty effort down the middle) was not what he intended.
Just look at Walcott's face straight after he scores the goal, and you know that he thought it was a bit of a fluke. Saying that, Walcott's impact was important and without him, England would be out....
I can't believe you are insisting with this !! Ronaldinho's shot/cross produced doubt because it could have been a cross or a shot, we dont know. How the fcuk could Theo's effort have been ANYTHING OTHER than a shot ??? If it was a shot (which it OBVIOUSLY was), he didn't strike the ball to make it go to the side of the goal, he struck the ball so it went straight. When you strike a ball a certain way you kind of know where it is going to go. Theo's surprise that it beat the keeper was just that, sometimes you shoot for the sake of shooting but from certain positions/angles you don't EXPECT it to go in so when it does there is an element of surprise. Did Crouch expect his volley to go in ? Did Cisse expect his volley to go in ? Did Van Basten expect his volley to go in ? Of course not, but you try your luck anyway. This is the beauty of football ......
Why would he shoot if he wasn't intending to try and score? by your logic anyone who shoots from a distance at a goal and scores does not expect to have finished the way they did. Does that mean all those wonder goals Alonso and Gerrard scored over the years were just flukes then?
