Lets have another generic striker discussion. Here are two strikers I believe we will take a good look at ahead of the January transfer window, and are also both players we have been linked with before. Both players are frustrated at their clubs, and not getting as many games as they would like for differing reasons. Both players share a frustration for being used on the wing when they want to play as strikers, and both players have better recent goal scoring records than the players who are getting selected ahead of them in their preferred striker positions. They both share some very similar attributes. They both are: -English -23 years old -Very fast -Have a good first touch -Are good finishers (Any one who denies this needs to watch Walcott more) -Have good goal stats Theo Walcott's contract will expire in the summer, and if he doesnt sign a new one soon Arsenal will let him go for a reduced fee in January to avoid loosing him for free. He will add pace to our front three, and could feed off of Suare's creativity well. His versatility will allow him to interchange with the rest of the front three. Walcott has more experience having played in many big games so far in his career. Daniel Sturridge will be allowed to leave Chelsea if they bring in a new striker. Chelsea have been linked with Shurlle, Falcoa and Neymar. Like Walcott he will add pace to the front three and could feed off of Suarez very well. He will make the forward runs that players like Gerrard like. Sturridge could join us on loan, with the view to a permanent deal. This could free up budget space to also bring in some on else in January. So who is your preference? Walcott please log in to view this image or Sturridge please log in to view this image I believe both would improve us, and both could score a nice amount of goals for us. Over all, I think they are both pretty even. But I have a feeling some here will disagree.
Wouldn't mind either one if not both! I think Sturridge is more technical and has better game intelligence. Walcott has more directness to his game as well being virtually unstoppable on his day (which happens are far too infrequently). Both are capable of scoring goals and creating chances. However, I would hope we concentrate our efforts on a more prolific and experienced striker.
Neither in terms of attitude both should really be happy where they are and if they were good enough would have a regular place anyway. The money either of these would cost could easily be spent much better elsewhere.... ...However if it was a simple either-or type thing....then Walcott I think. Just to keep you happy Mrs W
Neither for me. I don't think we would get value for money by signing either of theese, both of them imo are over rated and im sick of us siging poor English players for scandalous prices.
I think both could be prolific. There is especially plenty of evidence to suggest this with Sturridge. At Bolton he scored 8 goals in 12 games. This is the only time he has had a good run of games in his preferred position. For Chelsea he has scored Chelsea 22 in 84 games. But many of those games have been out of position or as a substitute, or both. Walcott hasnt ever had a run of games up top, but he scores a lot of goals for a wide player.
In comparison I may actually favour Sturridge. Sturridge has had it hard. He scored more than Torres last season, but constantly got ignored so that Torres could carry on playing. Di Matteo dropped Torres, but unfortunately for Sturridge, Drogba hit sensational form. If Sturridge had played ahead of Torres last season he would have got 20 goals.
Wallcott for anything around £10mil would be a good option. As much as you badmouth him, look at his stats (and I know you can't base everything on stats) but his goal scoring record/assist is up there with the best in the league over the last few seasons. Sturridge on loan would be decent, however he has a habbit of being too selfish and don't think him and Suarez would link as a good partnership with them both wanting to take on the whole back 4 before scoring themselves.
I scored more than Torres last season Plus I'd have got twenty goals in a season playing in the same team as Mata and Drogba. Basically I think both will be way over-priced and demanding ridiculous wages. Personally if we want to bring in an over-priced, over-paid young English striker I'd rather just call Mandy back from West Ham.
Just to add to my post - I would prefer that we looked for players outside of England for better value and probably better quality.
I think we will end up with a Walcott in january, seems to be the type of Fwd that Rodgers prefers and he will be considered a safer bet than a Negredo, Llorente type, younger too. Not saying that is who we should get but I can see it.
Walcott will be available to speak with other clubs in January, whilst i believe sturridge is under contract for another few years. Possibly Sturridge on loan with view to signing in the summer if Walcott doesnt agree to any pre contract terms in the January window.Id still like to have carroll back but the way it has been discussed recently by BR, its likely he will remain there and West Ham will get him end of season.
I prefer sturridge as he has proven he can score when played in the centre. That said Walcott has been playing in the PL and has more experience, so should in theory should add more to the first time & squad. All we wants is goals, the question is which would score more in centre?
Not sure why but I would say Walcott. Wealth of experience as well in various competitions ranging from the league, CL, to World Cup.
Sturridge for me. He's a proven striker and try before you buy isa good prospect too as long as we agree the potential fee before signing him on loan. last thing we need is to sign him up on loan, he plays out of is skin and then Chelsea say we have first refusal.... for £25m
