"Sterling for Walcott would be deal of the century"

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ott-would-be-deal-of-century-says-paul-merson

Not often I agree with Merson, scrap that, it's hardly ever. But I totally do here.

Would be really happy with Walcott. Injury prone but when he is fit he's a better player than Sterling hands down. And would probably cost less than the 100 grand we've already offered Sterling.

 

No mate, he's average, Jimmy said

 

Walcott is very good when fit and scores goals to go with it, he has his faults in that his workrate getting back is poor but at this point he is a better player than Sterling (again when fit).

When fit is the key, would I want that deal? No way, he must have huge problems to break down so often and is simply not worth the risk we should look elsewhere.

 

Paul Merson? does he know his right from his left?.

 

You say would probably cost less than the 100 grand contract offered, but isn't Walcott on a 120,000 contract (or there abouts)?

Main concern with Walcott is the fitness issue, been injured a fair bit with long term injuries and then seems to take a long time to recover full fitness (sometimes whole seasons).

 

Walcott is probably in his prime for another 2 years? After that he'll start to lose his pace and he doesn't offer anything other than that. If he's injured for 1 of those years then pretty much missed out.

 

There are issues around both players. Neither are the finished article. Would rather keep Raheem I think. He's much younger, less injury prone and stronger than Walcott. At this point he can become a much much better player than Walcott has ever been. A top talent coveted by big clubs.

For me Walcott isn't one of those players. He hasn't lived up to expectations. Partly that's because he's brittle but I also think he's over-hyped and doesn't have much going for him other than running at teams. And even that's compromised because he's twiggy. That aside he's still a very capable player and worth having in a side, but given what Rodgers has said about only buying to improve the squad/first team ( we all know how that has turned out on several occasions) I don't see the value in swapping Raheem for Theo.

 

I'd want at least 35m as well

 

Some fans are upset that Sterling is asking for over £100k. Yet, are happy to give Walcott more?

No thanks to the deal - I rather have someone who actually plays majority of the game. Walcott is in his prime - he's 26. He will not get any better, and once he loses a bit of pace, he offers little.

And Paul Merson is a waste of oxygen.

 

If we sell Sterling, them Memphis Depay is the man to replace him.

We will be able to afford him and have enough money for a quality DM with what we get with the Sterling money.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/man-united-vs-liverpool-transfer-5500496

 

Yes, he plays for Arsenal.
They run their players into the ground, you only need to look at their injury list for the last 10 years to see that.
They have had more injuries than any other club by a country mile

 

I agree, some thing is wrong at Arsenal. So many of their players are incredibly injury prone.

A move could save Walcott.

BUT

At the same time I remember Owen at Walcott's age, he was also so brittle. From 26 on wards Owen's problems just got worse and worse. Like Owen Walcott has been playing senior football since he was 16/17 years old, and if he was mismanaged and under protected at that age, like I feel Owen was, then the damage is probably already done.

In conclusion, I'll have Walcott on the reasonably cheap if he can stay fit. He could thrive for us and score a lot more goals than Sterling, Coutinho, Lallana and Markovic (combined...), but only a very good doctor and fitness coach could judge if that is likely.

 

All I can see is Walcott keeping Studge company at the Specialists or at the physios

 

the problem with merson is he is so utterly "devoted" that he is blind to arsneal's flaws.

he's bascially said here that sterling is a turd of a player who's only got pace and he can't pass fast enough or see a pass.

He's then made walcott out to be gods gift when in fact I'd accuse walcott of being exaclty the same type of player.

IMO what makes walcott a better player is he can actually finish a goal off

 

Walcott for £8-12m approx - yes.

Anything more - no.

 

oh no don't say that cos uir will cry that that is utd's "bad luck"

 

At this point?

Walcott's cntract actually has less time than stelrings... one year less... he's not proved his fitness really...

but... it is 2015 and fees are nuts

I'd say someone would pay 20mil for him... but that would mean for me its 30mil plus walcot on 100k per week as a deal.

 

It's insane really isn't it.

Walcott is just as likely to be a disaster as a success... we aren't paying for potential so why pay for risk.

We could buy from abroad much easier.

 

Walcott no way, we would have Balo Studge and Walcott. Might as well throw ****ing dice every week to see who will be fit