****ing newspapers, I suggested this as a potential transfer about a week ago, they clearly read the summer transfer rumours thread.
Not sure the point of swapping Walcott for a player that we already have in abundance. We already have OXO on the left and Sanchez on the right. Walcott is fine staying with us. Better to have someone different who can offer a different threat. I also forgot Gnarbry who is quality and will factor with us in the coming seasons. If we're going to get a player then bring in a beastly DM and or a top quality CF. We already have sufficient cover everywhere else.
No. I like Sterling but as lazarus pointed out he is not needed. He have an abundance of skilfull 'creative' players. Walcott gives us a goal threat, something we don't get enough from Oxo, Carzorla, Rosicky,Ozil etc..
As Lazurus says what's the point. The only reason we'd seemingly get rid of Walcott is that he'd demand more money than we're willing to offer - yet people want to go for Sterling who wants more money than Liverpool are willing to offer (which based on the unfounded rumours in the tabloids is supposed to be more money than offered to Walcott). I can't see it happening, and Walcott is a very potent goal threat, and links up really well with our other attackers.
We all know what Walcott offers, blinding pace with very good finishing. What's the point of comparing him to this player or that. Yes there may be more skillful players around but what Walcott offers is obvious. On his day he can be very destructive and very hard to catch. Play him on his strengths I say, even if it means a tweak to our formation. Call this a plan B if you will. Walcott can still have a fruitful future with us.
It would be a logical swap on the assumption that Sterling is stalling on a new contract because he wants out rather than because he wants obscene money. He's already a better footballer than Walcott and is 6 years younger. If the transfer fees balanced each other out and the wages were the same, we'd be insane not to do it. Knowing what Walcott's strengths are is irrelevant to the question in hand... for a straight swap with no change in transfer balance or net wage total, it's a logical yes.
Yes but is it really illogical to talk about their strengths and what they bring to the table. We already have Sanchez, OXO, Welbeck and Gnabry with Ozil, Cazorla and Wilshere who can play in the wide positions. Walcott is an out an out goal scorer who offers something different, will Sterling for us? Of course if Walcott starts playing silly beggers then fine, move him on. But as it stands, Walcott has a fair amount of peak years left.
Cazorla, Wilshere, Welbeck and Ozil are all rubbish out wide. The only good wide men we have are Sanchez, Oxlade, Walcott and potentially Gnabry if he isn't already dead, The question was would we swap for Walcott for Sterling. The logical answer is yes. You keep talking about the goals that Walcott brings. You know he's only scored more than 10 premier league goals once in his career?
Would I or would the club? I don't think I would. I'm 100% sure the club wouldn't. Never really sure with these things whether he's making these claims because he wants out or because he actually expects that sort of money. I'd take him on anything up to £120k a week though. He's one of the best young players in the world. If we can offload some of the expensive filler by getting rid of at least some of Walcott (£90-100k?), Diaby (£65k), Podolski (£75), Flamini (£65k) and Arteta (£80k) then we'd free up a heck of a lof of budget to get in 3-4 top class first teamers. One top class central midfielder (Kondogbia?), one class winger/forward (Sterling?), a utility central midfielder (Ginter?) and then Petr Cech thank you very much. If a top drawer centre forward was available too then go for it. Aaaaaaaaand... wake up...
Hasn't Ozil been playing really well out wide recently? Interchaning with Cazorla, Sanchez and Giroud when Ramsey plays in the centre?
He hasn't played that wide when playing... His best performances have been more central with Cazorla centre mid next to Coquelin.
But then Sterling doesn't play that wide IMO, he tends to cut in, looks to play in the 10 channel, play off the striker, as well as playing wide - kinda more similar to what we've already got - which was Lazarus' point.
Personally I wouldn't be entirely against the move. I do think Sterling is a better player than Walcott overall and is six years younger, however Walcott's speed, movement and (generally) decent finishing is so important to the way we play, so I wouldn't like to see him go to a rival and watch him flourish. In reality I could never see this happening, but if it did happen, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to it.
Walcott's a better finisher than Sterling, so wouldnt make the move. Sterling has all the same negatives Walcott has, weak, not good at defending, and is pretty one dimensional in his gameplay, but Walcott has better finishing than Sterling, so I wouldnt go for it. Sterling is also more of a diva, Walcott is at least down to earth, but Sterling does get like a sissy sometimes when he's on the pitch, and has been known for his off field issues.
Walcott is one-dimensional, all he has is pace. He'll be finished the minute he loses that. He's never amounted to much to be brutally honest and that's bcos pace alone will only get you so far, you have to have talent as well and Walcott has very little of that. Sterling on the other hand plays for our biggest rivals but in all honesty he has 10 times the talent and skill of Walcott. He will go on to be much more successful and end up at a big club. I doubt any club of note will ever come in for Walcott.
