Theo Walcott

Bodinki

Bodinki

You're welcome
Forum Moderator
Dec 14, 2011
28,088
16,150
113
Just want your guys opinion on Theo.
I am not trying to take this piss or anything.

But having seen him grow up as a promising player, watching Sven inexplicably take him to the World Cup as a 16 year old that hadn't played a second of Premier League football, do you feel he has come along and developed to match his potential.

Saw a mini rant from Alan Shearer the other day, and he did an article on BBC a while back about how he feels Theo has been a disappointment in terms of the amount of potential he had.

What are your guys opinions on it? I am inclined to agree with Shearer, as a Chelsea fan, the kid always had great pace and when you get these pacey forwards, you are always waiting for them to develop their "end product" which is usually something that comes later, with experience. Think Cristiano Ronaldo and Arjen Robben in their early days at United and Chelsea respectively and then we saw the players they became.

One of the things Shearer also bought up is that Walcott still doesn't know his best position, flitting between a striker role and an attacking winger, which is pretty bad at 26!
How much of this do you put on Wenger?
 
He has very little actual technique or skill. His ball control is average.

He's all about pace and instinct finishing.

That's all he's ever had.

People who were excited about his potential just assumed he had something he never had. He's reached his potential because his potential was always just 'quite a good premiership standard footballer with average technique'.
 
Every time he ever starts to look like a decent player he picks up a long term injury and takes a year to get back to form, I believe he has the second worst injury record of any Arsenal premiership player behind Diaby. Wilshere will take that honour from him soon enough though
 
cini65 said:
He has very little actual technique or skill. His ball control is average.

He's all about pace and instinct finishing.

That's all he's ever had.

People who were excited about his potential just assumed he had something he never had. He's reached his potential because his potential was always just 'quite a good premiership standard footballer with average technique'.
Click to expand...

But add the ability to do stepovers to that list and you could also be describing a young Cristiano Ronaldo.
Everybody laughed at him and called him twinkletoes when he arrived at United.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luvgonzo
Bodanki said:
But add the ability to do stepovers to that list and you could also be describing a young Cristiano Ronaldo.
Everybody laughed at him and called him twinkletoes when he arrived at United.
Click to expand...
So basically: young Ronaldo with age on his side to develop = a 26 year old Walcott who will make little development with age + skill and technique

Yeah, that's basically what I said.
 
cini65 said:
So basically: young Ronaldo with age on his side to develop = a 26 year old Walcott who will make little development with age + skill and technique

Yeah, that's basically what I said.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Walcott never seemed to take that next developmental step
 
Bodanki said:
Indeed.
Walcott never seemed to take that next developmental step
Click to expand...
What step is there to take? We've established that Ronaldo had a high level of technique and skill even at a young age that could be developed. Walcott has never had that.

Why would we therefore expect Walcott to develop the same way? He can't develop faster legs.
 
cini65 said:
What step is there to take? We've established that Ronaldo had a high level of technique and skill even at a young age that could be developed. Walcott has never had that.

Why would we therefore expect Walcott to develop the same way? He can't develop faster legs.
Click to expand...

If you call Stepovers a "high level of technique and skill" then yes <ok>
 
cini65 said:
If stepovers are all you've seen of him when he was younger then that's not a fault in my argument.
Click to expand...
I am not even sure what your argument is, you seem to be thinking that I am saying Walcott should have grown to be as good as Ronaldo, which I am not.
What I am saying is, most players grow and develop in general, and Walcott didn't.
I was just using Ronaldo and Robben as two extreme examples of players who developed into awesome players.
I wasn't saying Walcott should have developed to be just as good, just that he should have developed to be better than he was at 16, which he didnt
 
Bodanki said:
I am not even sure what your argument is, you seem to be thinking that I am saying Walcott should have grown to be as good as Ronaldo, which I am not.
What I am saying is, most players grow and develop in general, and Walcott didn't.
I was just using Ronaldo and Robben as two extreme examples of players who developed into awesome players.
I wasn't saying Walcott should have developed to be just as good, just that he should have developed to be better than he was at 16, which he didnt
Click to expand...
Ronaldo and Robben were far better at that younger age than Walcott was. Walcott was raved about simply because he was English.
 
cini65 said:
Ronaldo and Robben were far better at that younger age than Walcott was. Walcott was raved about simply because he was English.
Click to expand...

You are still missing my point.
Yes they were both better then, and are both better now.
My point is that they got better as they aged and Walcott didn't.
Even the ****test of players are better at 26 than they were at 16. Why do you think Walcott stalled?
 
Bodanki said:
You are still missing my point.
Yes they were both better then, and are both better now.
My point is that they got better as they aged and Walcott didn't.
Even the ****test of players are better at 26 than they were at 16. Why do you think Walcott stalled?
Click to expand...
But Walcott is far better now than he was at 16. At 16 he was poor. Now he's quite good. Why should there be an expectation that he should now be incredible?

What some fans are annoyed about is that we have him earning £100k a week, often as a starter, in a team that has the budget to challenge for the title.

In reality being simply 'quite good' should make you a first teamer earning about £30k a week at a team like Everton trying to cement top half of the table status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sign Da Ting
cini65 said:
But Walcott is far better now than he was at 16. At 16 he was poor. Now he's quite good. Why should there be an expectation that he should now be incredible?

What some fans are annoyed about is that we have him earning £100k a week, often as a starter, in a team that has the budget to challenge for the title.

In reality being simply 'quite good' should make you a first teamer earning about £30k a week at a team like Everton trying to cement top half of the table status.
Click to expand...

He probably would be better suited at a club like Everton or West Ham.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sign Da Ting and cini65
cini65 said:
But Walcott is far better now than he was at 16. At 16 he was poor. Now he's quite good. Why should there be an expectation that he should now be incredible?

What some fans are annoyed about is that we have him earning £100k a week, often as a starter, in a team that has the budget to challenge for the title.

In reality being simply 'quite good' should make you a first teamer earning about £30k a week at a team like Everton trying to cement top half of the table status.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. He is not quite good. For me he's not a good footballer. He's nothing top 10 EPL quality. He's been overhyped. Wenger got it wrong with Walcott and seems to want to keep playing players he's invested a lot in regardless of form. Theo has not football intelligence whatsoever. Ox who is just OK is miles better in my eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sign Da Ting
Bodanki said:
He probably would be better suited at a club like Everton or West Ham.
Click to expand...

But then he'd put in a few good games and be talked up about a big money move to City or Chelsea. Where he'd then be shown to be merely average. Then fans would say "why isn't he as good as thought he was?"

So he'd then get sold to Newcastle. Where he'd be one of the best players. And talked up about a big money move to Liverpool or Spurs. Where he'd be shown to be merely average. Then fans would say "why isn't he as good as he thought he was?"

So he'd get sold to..................
 
Not really sure I would agree that his footballing brain has improved since his teens to be honest.
He is still just a really fast lad who can get behind defences and then acts instinctively with the ball. As an Arsenal fan you will have watched him more than me I wager, so maybe you noticed things like his passing has improved or his dribbling maybe, but he doesn't seem to have added anything substantive to his game in all those years
 
Bodanki said:
Not really sure I would agree that his footballing brain has improved since his teens to be honest.
He is still just a really fast lad who can get behind defences and then acts instinctively with the ball. As an Arsenal fan you will have watched him more than me I wager, so maybe you noticed things like his passing has improved or his dribbling maybe, but he doesn't seem to have added anything substantive to his game in all those years
Click to expand...
That, rather unfortunately, is a fair summary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back