I think Walcotts 3rd goal and the 2 assists he provided kinda counters your argument gent. It shows how he has evolved as a striker this season but you are still using the same old arguments to define him. I think you need to evolve your argument against Walcott as he is evolving his play to prove you and his critics wrong.
You can call his 3rd goal shambolic defending but some with a more positive outlook or those not so rigid in their argument might say Walcott showed great drive and determination after getting clattered to get up and score. Kruls face was like "I just saw you get taken out... Wtf are you doing here"? He had no right to score that 3rd goal.
Gent does have a point and I made one that was similar yesterday. Against teams who play a high-line, Walcott will give them nightmares. Against teams like Stoke, or ones who defend very deep, I'm still not convinced. That's where Giroud comes in as plan B. We haven't had that option in quite a while, and with both Oxo and Walcott on either side to supply, at least we won't be one dimensional.
Yeah gent has a point but his point does not define Walcotts play in my opinion. I think we still have the best of Theo to come and IF we hold on to him we'll wonder why we were ever thinking of letting him go. The facts are clear to see. He loves to play though the middle and this is where he is most effective. It does not mean he cannot be played out on the wings when conditions require but my issue with gent is his inability to compliment the progress Theo has made, particularly this season.
I have been one of Walcott's fiercest critics over the years but even i've been impressed with his improvement this season.He now needs to perform consistently
walcott only really scored a strikers goal with his third. the other two he cut in from the wing, and his two assists were also from the right. the difference is when he's striker he can go wide and no one in the middle will take the space he wants to run into. but he still plays more as a winger. would work much better as part of a front 2 where he can go wide freely.
Like you said playing as a striker affords him the opportunity to make runs in between defenders far more than if he plays as WF as they can always see him coming. I agree he would be ideal in a little and large combo but our squad and style dont suit a 442. Also with him upfront defenses do sit back more meaning our AM's have more space to operate in as well as having someone to feed through balls to due to his pace. Also i must say his dribbling while inconsistent still is getting a lot better he seems to be able to beat players with a bit of skill now and again. That being said there are lot of things he could improve on his crossing/final ball also awareness of team mates. There were 2-3 times where he could have fed someone in and it would have been one on one but was let down by not looking up or a bad pass
Walcotts crossing has improved massively... Look at all the assists he got last season for RVP and the assists he is getting for Giroud this season. I think he is one of our better crossers of a ball. Who do you think is better than him at delivering a ball from out wide? His assist for Giroud's first goal yesterday was superb.
Yes, but as a striker we can leave him up front when we are defending. On a break the striker can go accross the full width of the pitch to find space. In this case his position was more a question of depth than width, he can be on the "last shoulder" of the defender (as they say). He wouldn't have got that chance playing wide because he would have been back where Podolski was, helping his full back. His second was a striker's goal as well IMO, fairly typical I would say.
Compared with two years ago, Walcott has: Better crossing Better range of skills to beat players with Better finishing Better control Better composure Better free kicks and corners Gent is just relying on the arguments he has left. Only yesterday he talked about Walcott running into traffic and being able to do nothing when he has defenders in front of him: Walcott's 3rd goal showed how that is utter bollocks, as have many of his goals in the past two seasons. Because the match ended 7-3, he thinks he can still rely on the "snowball games" argument. However, in just the first half of this season Walcott scored away from home against West Ham, Schalke, and Everton. Those were tough, tight games against good defenses. I don't understand the hatred, but bouncing from argument to argument shows it's nothing more than that.
