Walcott

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Bobby Pires

Bobby Pires

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2011
2,102
89
48
Cardiff
benendsbasement.blogspot.co.uk
I'm always having to defend Walcott when I get into discussions with other fans. A lot of England followers would prefer Lennon or A Johnson. Theo is always getting stick for 'having no footballing brain' and 'relying on pace' so I'm so happy to see him put in a peach of a cross for the opening goal last night!

I'm glad that Capello see's his effectiveness, particularly away from home where defences can be stretched, but people still moan about him. I think it's really unfair because although he can be hot and cold, stats PROVE that he has more of an end product than Lennon, A Johnson and Milner who is occassionally thrown onto the wing.

Him and Ashley Young seem to have a good partnership for England, so if people got behind him more then this team could do well.
Anyone else feel that he is grossly under-appreciated for England? The 3rd goal against Bulgaria is an example of this: running from the half way spot, dribbling past 3 defenders and assisting Young. But people only focused on the Young/Rooney combination...
 
Walcott is quality, he's not had the easiest time with injuries over the last few seasons, but I think he is really starting to demonstrate his talent now
and he is still only 22 !
 
Jayramfootball said:
The media detest Theo Walcott because he is well spoken, doesnt give them many stories, and plays for Arsenal, so he will always get a hard time. If he moved to Utd at the end of his contract all of sudden he'd be reported as one of the best players in the world.
Click to expand...

Just like Young. He always was that good (as was shown with his performances for england) and was the star player for villa. But as soon as he signs he becomes "amazing"
 
Walcott is a good player but no more . Slightly better than Lennon , but with the same characteristics, all pace , average skill and marginal more
end product than Lennon. Both at best are the perfect impact player. Johnson is hard to judge as he as sold his soul to the devil and does not
play that much. I think Walcott would have struggled to hold a first team place in the great Arsenal sides of yesteryear.
My eyes are maybe tinted but Bale is a far superior player than all three but alas not English.
 
i disagree with the argument that bale is amazing. he had a few good games in the CL, but apart from that, he has only been above average. against switzerland he was the best player, but he only seemed to use pace to beat players and very little skill. plus he has no right foot AT ALL.
 
Lennon is well behind Walcott as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not saying he's not a good player, but he offers what Walcott does averagely, a little less effectively.
Whereas Walcott can do what Lennon does better and offer more in a striking capacity.
 
Nearly every team would take Bale over Walcott . I also think most Arsenal fans if they were being honest with themselves would have
Bale over Walcott. To be fair to balance the topic I would love to have RVP than Defoe upfront for Spurs.
 
Sidney Fiddler said:
Nearly every team would take Bale over Walcott . I also think most Arsenal fans if they were being honest with themselves would have
Bale over Walcott. To be fair to balance the topic I would love to have RVP than Defoe upfront for Spurs.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt have him. He can cross better but Theo is better at finishing. Everything else is about the same.

Although crossing doesnt really suit us but theo's cutting in does. If were were talking about a team that loves crosses into the box Bale would probably be preferred.
 
Jayramfootball said:
Bale just doesnt do enough to be compared. If and when he starts creating and scoring goals, then make the comparison. Last year he didnt do much because apparently he had poor strikers? What about this year? No assists and one goal. He's on course to have a typically unimpressive season. And thats with Spurs in form.
Click to expand...

Stats are irrelevant.
Chris Brunt had better stats than Xavi last season.
 
Van Persie's lost Shoelaces said:
I wouldnt have him. He can cross better but Theo is better at finishing. Everything else is about the same.

Although crossing doesnt really suit us but theo's cutting in does. If were were talking about a team that loves crosses into the box Bale would probably be preferred.
Click to expand...

Bale is better at dribbling, has better technique, is stronger and better decision making.
 
CanarySpurs said:
Bale can play on the right too <ok>
Click to expand...

I said PRIMARILY, and why would you have Bale on the right, when he is far superior on the left.

Pointless going further than that, they play in different positions, don't know why they are being compared, since you can play them both in the same team.
 
davethegooner said:
I didn't realise that, that would ever be a choice, since Walcott is deployed primarily on the right, and Bale on the left....
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be a clever dick , but Bale can play both wings and is considered to be far better player by the majority of the football cosmos.
This is why most teams would want Bale over Walcott.
 
Sidney Fiddler said:
I am not trying to be a clever dick , but Bale can play both wings and is considered to be far better player by the majority of the football cosmos.
This is why most teams would want Bale over Walcott.
Click to expand...


By who? BBC pundits who because of a couple of champions league performances think he is a god of a player?

Bale is a good player, but to insinuate that the majority of people would prefer Bale over Walcott is absurd.

Combined with the fact that they are most effective on OPPOSITE sides of the pitch, leads me to believe you don't actually understand how a team works.
No one is going to buy Bale as a right sided player, as he is a FAR FAR superior player on the left hand side.. As much as no one is going to buy Walcott to play on the left hand side, the fact that he "can" play there is irrelevent.

This makes this whole Bale vs Walcott, you keep banging on about, completely irrelevent.

The discussion was about how Walcott has developed and the OP praising Capello for recognising that in the face of bias journalism. Not about how some left sided Spuds player is somehow comparable to a Right sided Arsenal player.
 
davethegooner said:
By who? BBC pundits who because of a couple of champions league performances think he is a god of a player?

Bale is a good player, but to insinuate that the majority of people would prefer Bale over Walcott is absurd.

Combined with the fact that they are most effective on OPPOSITE sides of the pitch, leads me to believe you don't actually understand how a team works.
No one is going to buy Bale as a right sided player, as he is a FAR FAR superior player on the left hand side.. As much as no one is going to buy Walcott to play on the left hand side, the fact that he "can" play there is irrelevent.

This makes this whole Bale vs Walcott, you keep banging on about, completely irrelevent.

The discussion was about how Walcott has developed and the OP praising Capello for recognising that in the face of bias journalism. Not about how some left sided Spuds player is somehow comparable to a Right sided Arsenal player.
Click to expand...

I did not realize that I was dealing with such a tatical genius. With your gift of a higher intellect everything will seem an irrelevance. Overcomplicating
matters to justify a simple point is a grasp of brilliance. An inspiration to us all. The Enstein of the Arsenal Forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back