This is another one of those very obvious scenarios where stats are deceiving, or flattering in this case... As I've said in countless threads last season I would prefer Theo mostly to come on as a sub and only start against certain teams where there's opportunity for counter attacks from the get go (Liverpool was an obvious for me, but worked out perfectly without him in the end.) For me he does well in 1 out of 5-6 games he starts in, and he tends to do well in games that are not well contested (games that "snowball" is the term I would use). For some of the rest of those games he could as well not be on the pitch, he is that unproductive. He loses possession more than most, the midfielders hesitate to pass to him if there isn't miles of space ahead of him, etc., etc. To me that SCREAMS situational player. I don't blame Wenger for giving him so many starts last season though, there just weren't many options in the team with Gervinho out of form after ACON. Now to the flattering stats part, here are the matches of his assists and goals: please log in to view this image please log in to view this image So out of all those goals and assists, only 5 games were really well contested and his 'stat' contribution actually mattered, the rest were games that snowballed in our direction and the irrelevant 8-2... To me it's obvious he should never start against teams that will defend really well from the start, and only should be used as a sub in those later in the game when their defense is worn out a bit. He really contributes nothing unless he has acres of space ahead of him. Sagna kind of gets something out of him even against those teams, but it isn't worth it to play 60 mins with a man down. DISCLAIMER: I wanted him to stay to retain squad depth/options after news of contract "issues", when most of those who blindly defended him last season wanted him to **** off . (I'm going to use this 'quickfact' a lot I suspect )
Um, how do you know Walcott didn't get the 1st goal in those "uncontested" games? It may have been a hard fought 0-0 until he scored.
I'm not saying he can't be a useful player, just replying to those posting with "Stat" single-liners to support Walcott starting games. The fact that he had better goal/assist stats doesn't tell the whole story, that he is completely useless against teams that defend hard and leave no spaces. For that you have to actually watch the games and see his (lack of) contribution.
Actually the Chelsea goal was at a very important time in the game, so that won't count. The rest of those were when we were almost certain to win, everything going our way.
his 2 goals against Spurs were very important, he gave us a 2 goal lead by scoring the 4th, that goal effectively killed the match, until he scored again just to rub it in deeper for Spurs. You already mentioned the Chelsea goal, another important goal for us. The goal against Swansea was important too, it got the equaliser, only for our defence to mess it up by conceding a goal a minute later, had they not done so, we would've earned a point that day thanks to his goal.
Swansea is counted as a "well contested" game (in red)... Spurs "fit the profile" of teams I would start him against... teams that leave space for him to be effective. It's just that there aren't many match ups for Arsenal like that for Theo to be a first choice starter, rather than a situational one. Plus the momentum was on our side by the time Walcott sealed it, meaning Spurs opened up even more and he became effective (favorable situation for Walcott). That's what I meant with he mostly does well on games that snowball.
Even when he doesn't get goals / assists, teams tend to double mark him out of the game, leaving more space for others - thus he's worth it (keeping, not 100k/wk).
Bristol citys fans point of view The OX will become a better player than theo, but to say he is better now is a very silly statement, watching him against Liverpool he didnt have the best of games, and every time he came into a 1 on 1 with sterling, 9/10 times he lost the ball, but none the less he is a great player that i rate highly and can't wait for him and Jack to partner up for arsenal and england, Also be nice if Gibbs had a shot at the england LB position
I agree that we should try to keep him for reasonable amounts, but I would start him in fewer games this season against the likes of Sunderland and Stoke.
The team play between Walcott, Sagna, Rosicky and RVP along the right side of the pitch was the best part of our team for large parts of last season. I think it's unfair to say he isn't given the ball and i also think his off the ball contribution is ignored. He makes constant runs which keep the defense moving and opens up space. He is regularly doubled up on as teams know he can hurt them. I agree when he comes on as a sub he can change a game - the 2-2 with Barca is the best example that springs to mind, he completely changed the game with a goal and an assist to drag us back into the game. But that doesn't mean he can't start. I can't believe people go on about him so much, he is a good player and currently better than oxocube.
Talked about this the other day, and it's great that we are trying to get the Ox on a long term contract. He is hopefully going to play a massive role in our future alongside the likes of Wilshere,Gibbs and Chensey. I see him in the Cazorla role and hopefully he is learning from him, because he plays that role to a tee.
I'd just like to add that last year, RVP wouldn't have been half as prolific if he didn't have Theo creating space and making runs. Theo keeps defenders occupied which gave RVP the space to work his magic.
It's true of Gervinho and Oxo as well though. It's not uncommon of Gervinho to drag 4 opponent players to the line with him.
Oxo-c has had a good season and has now got a new contract when he is only one season into a 4 or 5 year deal? Maybe this is how Bendtner and the others ended up on £50 0r £60,000 per week. I'd have given it at least another year....at the minimum before offering a payrise.
There is a CLEAR difference in talent here. Lot's of people had their doubts about Bendtner,Denilson and Vela, when they were getting those contracts. Chamberlain has shown that he is on a different level. Also, from what I read, Oxo is not on a contract which says that he is now firmly part of the first team or even first team squad. He is more closer to what the youth players are getting. Since then, he has developed a lot and has even become an international.
I didn't mean it as a dig...my point is that many gooners complained about unproven young players being paid a **** load and not being worth it and hard to move on. I remember most people raving about Bendtner in 07/08 (his break through season) after he scored the winner against us with a monster head at your place. Everyone at the end of that season (when he was given a big contract) predicted big things for him. Denilson and Vela and Chamakh were all signed and acclaimed as being very good young players with huge potential to become great and were given big contracts.
Chamakh was not some youngster. We got him on a free and he went straight into the team. He was the main forward for the then French Champions and he did really well in the CL. I always had my doubts about Bendnter, his first touch was never good enough. Denilson and Vela was a mistake, and Wenger's faith in them was clearly misplaced. Chamberlain with the reputation he has in this country, will not be hard to shift if for some reason he does not fulfil his potential and we want to get rid, but I can't see that ever happening, because Chamberlain has everything needed to be a top player.
Couldn't agree more with all of you, let's not go back to evaluating players based on superficial observations.
