Walcott..
- Thread starter omogooner
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Probably down to the emergence of Rashford and that they have enough quick forwards (some similar) that have had better seasons and a better skillset- Sturridge, Vardy, Rashford, Townsend, Barkley and Sterling. He didn't do enough for us to justify selection, from 28 prem games, he only got 5 goals and 3 assists, which is a poor return for a top team like ours and with its quality service. It was probably his worst return for us considering he was largely injury free and he played so many games. Sadly, had he done better, we would have had a better chance of challenging for the title. He failed when we most needed him.
I don't think he would have been selected as a striker. Apart from Vardy, Sterling and Sturridge, I still think Walcott deserves a place in that line up. He is a big game player. I don't think Hodgson has got the balance right between youth and experience. I also looked at the qualifying stats, and noticed Walcott was selected in majority of the games. Granted, you have to chose based on form, but that solely is generally not enough, Rashford, really should not be in the squad, he is far too raw. The test will be when the going is tough, England find themselves a goal or 2 down, I can see heads dropping.
I wonder how much tournament experience the squad have?
That is a bit harsh. Walcott, may not have fulfilled his potential, but to say he is a terrible footballer.
He is so basic, it's untrue. When he was at his best, he developed two good traits, clever runs off the ball, and decent finishing. After his injury, he has lost both those traits as well. When he has the ball and has time as well, he is utterly awful.
It's all relative, I guess. When compared to the best, Walcott is a terrible footballer, hence I want him nowhere near our squad and want Arsenal to buy a skilful wide player, but the England squad is awful, and I guess compared to Townsend and co, Walcott is not that bad. But Walcott only has himself to blame for not making that awful squad, he went hiding for most of the season and did not really deserve a call up based on what he did last season.
It's all relative, I guess. When compared to the best, Walcott is a terrible footballer, hence I want him nowhere near our squad and want Arsenal to buy a skilful wide player, but the England squad is awful, and I guess compared to Townsend and co, Walcott is not that bad. But Walcott only has himself to blame for not making that awful squad, he went hiding for most of the season and did not really deserve a call up based on what he did last season.
Giroud went missing when we needed him most, yet he made the French squad. I don't think Theo is as bad as you are making him out to be. I think he has to knuckle down and accept he is not a Striker in the way we want our Striker to be. My contention is, seeing who made the squad, he should be in the 23 man squad!
Giroud had a much better season than Walcott (16 goals and 6 assists) and to be honest, France isn't flush with CFs nowadays. He did enough to justify France selection. But Wenger gave Walcott plenty of chances and in various positions, but pretty much struggled and ended up as a bit part player in the last quarter of the season. So much so that Wenger started playing newbie Iwobi, who had much more impact.
Walcott wasn't the only English player that struggled all season, so did Oxo, who would have failed to get selected if he wasn't injured. What about Gibbs, did he get selected?
You bring a good point. Problem started when many compared him to Henry when the only thing similar was the speed. Henry has a wide skillset that included dribbling, passing, finishing and strength. Even when he lost some pace, he could rely on his skills. He had suprisingly good vision and was a complete CF. Walcott relies heavily on his pace and without it wouldn't get into any Premiership team. Wenger has worked heavily on developing him and he's managed to work well with others but still lacks the skills to go past players with trickery on the wings, have the strength to hold up the ball or play through the centre.
But as you say, he needs to work with his strengths and that is running in the channels onto that killer pass.
Wenger needs to use him for what he is and not expect him to do anything extra. If used to his strengths, he can be very destructive, especially when you have Ozil behind you. Walcott still has a use in our squad, but used in short bursts, as a counter attacking force.
Form is temporary and class is permanent. England is not blessed abundantly with wide players, particularly on the right. The club form sometimes is just that (club form). Kyle Lafferty could not get a game with Norwich, however he is off to the Euros. I think England is guilty of over-promoting its youngsters, and quick to discard well established experienced players. Just my observation. However we'll see.
I've just read that Wilshere, Henderson and Sturridge are injury worries but still picking them. Why oh why are we risking taking players that are not 100% fit??? It's not like they are Messi or something and are worth the risk. In that case I would take Walcott over Sturridge and bring in two other midfielders. If Wilshere's injury record is anything to go by, the England hierarchy are fools for taking him.
Yup, he has taken 3 players who have collectively not played 38 games between them.
Walcott is a decent RWF when he's fit and on form. The trouble is that both his fitness and form are fleeting at best. Last season he basically might as well have not been in the squad because when he came back he was completely ineffective. If we get a good offer for him this summer then I think we should sell him AS LONG AS we get in a better replacement.
Why do we need a better replacement when we have Sanchez, Campbell, Iwobi, Welbeck, Oxlade, and Gnabry who can play wing forward, probably all at least as well as Walcott? Walcott serves no purpose other than emptying our coffers of £100k+ a week for doing sweet FA. If we can sell Walcott and put the finds and wages to buying a top drawer centre forward and centre back then that's fine with me. Trim the fat...
Welbeck is out injured until who knows when. Ox is also injury prone and hasnt improved the way we thought he would. Iwobi is looking promising but still young and likely prone to inconsistency. Gnabry?? He's made 3 appearances in the last two seasons. Walcott hasnt been good but listing Gnabry is a bit of a stretch.
I agree its time to move Walcott on and free up those wages, but I would still like a replacement in the squad.
Furthermore, Ox, Gnabry, Iwobi and Campbell are not big game players. I think Walcott is being harshly judged here. I think the boss has his favourites as well, Giroud being one of them. Walcott missing the Euros could be the kick up the backside that he needs. I think he did ok last season, just like most of the squad. He was amazing in a few games (e.g. the City game), he just needs consistency and as someone already alluded to stop trying to be the next Henry.
I also wish people stop referring to his 100k wages. Rooney is on 250k and I am struggling to see how he justified that last season. Theo, still however retains a lot of support from the faithful at the Emirates.
I'm not sure you can say Theo is a big game player anymore, particularly not based on this last season - especially not the last half, where his return was shocking and he was absent for most of the games. He scored a few important goals (he scored 5 total in the league!) but to compare him to Rooney or Giroud has little evidence I'm afraid. Even Giroud, who has been dire at times last season and went 8(?) games without scoring, still scored 16 goals in the league. And while I'm no massive fan of Rooney and his status as the missing link, he has scored some important goals and has a far greater return than Theo consistently over the past 10 years.
EDIT - I should add that we hoped that Theo missing the World Cup and getting the chance to play striker would be the kick he needed, but instead his form regressed. He had a mostly injury free season last season and performed well below expectation, falling behind Giroud, Welbeck, Iwobi, Ramsey and occasionally Campbell for Arsenal and falling totally out of consideration for England. I'm not sure this is a good place to expect him to suddenly fulfil his potential!
Rooney on obscene wages is not justification to pay Walcott obscene wages. That's playground logic.
Walcott is so average it's untrue.