Go? No way, we need squad depth. If we get rid of one and get 2 midfield injuries we would be doomed. Allen is very reliable. If people dont rate him they dont pay enough attention.
He is light weight and blown away every time a half decent side comes to town. if we are talking ok we play chesterfield in fa cup or some no name in europa group ok fine.. but 15mi linvestment for that is proved a waste.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/04/martin-skrtel-liverpool-contract-unacceptable Well you can **** off then, Skrtel!
Our midfield will not be as good as with a young Gerrard but it will still be better than anyone else but Chelsea
Skrtel's on a hiding to nothing taking umbrage with the club as we're the only thing between him and irrelevancy
That would suit my team idea I wrote above. I'd heavily prefer Walcott to Benteke. In fact I'm going more of Benteke every day.
Errrr. Would point you to his goal in the cup final. think there's value there. He's never gonna be a superstar worldie but he has something i.e. a good finish, which Sterling certainly don't I don't disagree that he's over-hyped but most young (er) English players are, plus he's a million miles better than that useless sack of **** Wilshere will ever be
In comparison to Sterling, fair enough. But fact is City will probably cough up £50m for him. Would you rather £50m or Walcott and Gibbs? Lol
Yeah, I wouldn't be dead against it Benteke I;m currently 50/50 on. He's a strong, muscular player but dunno if he's skillfull or scores enough for what we need or has the overall movement. Causes most probs in the box but do we need a striker who can blur the lines and play in/outside the area?? Walcott is a very different player, got better skills I think but is more versatile if less strong and more injury prone
benteke pros: unplayable at time, genuine goalgetter, good shot, heading etc cons: lazyish. injuries, cost, style just doesn't make sense! For me at this point the cons outweigh the pros. He is a player who's not delivered a full year and will cost a fortune. the other question: walcott and gibbs or 50mil. with our record... I'd take wlacott but never gibbs, don't even rate him. average at best IMO. we have flanagan after all who might play. So all in all.. i'd take the 50mil... just get pedro if he is really available and throw the fee at him in wages. 7mil plus 200k per week.
So why doesn't he spearhead Arsenal's attack, week in, week out? He flatters to deceive - like Sterling tbh.
Because Walcott's finishing is just as useful when running in from wide. He scores a lot of impressive goals from tight angels. Walcott was also established as Arsenals RW as a teenger and Wenger has kind of build a team around that, and a few other players. The system works for Wenger with Walcott wide so why change? Now Arsenal have striker issues Wenger has experimented and as a striker Walcott has delivered.
breaking news... dybala signs for juventus for 23.4 mil pounds cheap that... good move for them. Expect to see a huge sale later in summer (pogba) and they will balance
