• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Theo Walcott discussion

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, and the top 3 wingers/forwards in the world that are over 25 (your peak argument) havent lost any of their pace.

Robben (28), Ribery (29), Ronaldo (27).

You can add Jesus Navas (27), Valencia (27) and the list goes on and on. If you want to I can add so many names of players with great pace that still has it when getting close to 30.
This has nothing to do with their technical abilites though.

If Walcotts pace does indeed start to decline at 27, he will have a decent resale value regardless.
 
I love this 'not technically good" argument that people like to push on Theo. Not technically good!!!

This coming from supporters who've shouted themselves hoarse supporting Dirk Kuyt. Technically good?!?


Walcott isn't technically good when you compare him to Messi, Ronaldo or Smicer; he's technically amazing when you compare him to Young, Downing or Kuyt. None of which is of any importance cause he gets things done on the pitch. 11 goals and 13 assists last season. 9 goals and 7 assists the season before.

He's still a kid and would thrive in the system that Rodgers intends to play.

Also, he's not Swedish so he ticks all the boxes.
 
Wizardry said:
I love this 'not technically good" argument that people like to push on Theo. Not technically good!!!

This coming from supporters who've shouted themselves hoarse supporting Dirk Kuyt. Technically good?!?


Walcott isn't technically good when you compare him to Messi, Ronaldo or Smicer; he's technically amazing when you compare him to Young, Downing or Kuyt. None of which is of any importance cause he gets things done on the pitch. 11 goals and 13 assists last season. 9 goals and 7 assists the season before.

He's still a kid and would thrive in the system that Rodgers intends to play.

Also, he's not Swedish so he ticks all the boxes.
Click to expand...

I disagree with most of that.

Kuyt's lack of technical ability had me tearing my hair out for years (and I moaned about it on here along with others, endlessly).

Young is excellent technically (but has other failings).
Downing has good technical skills but no bottle, pace.
Kuyt see above.

I can't argue with the stats and they support an argument to get him (hence my ambivalence).

Rodgers system relies heavily on a good first touch and comfort with the ball in tight spots. I don't see Walcott having that in abundance. He does have searing pace which is another requirement of Rodgers' Swansea system but can't we go for someone with potentially both, a good deal of pac and trickery, technical ability? A Navas, Muniain, Pedro, Rodriguez, etc?

Agreed, he's not Swedish.

I still think there's untapped potential in Theo, but possibly as a striker to make use of his pace and knack of being in the right place, right time. But it seems we're looking for a wing forward in a 4-3-3. Just for once, I'd like us to seek a player with real pace and trickery for that position. Theo's decent with more to come, but he'll never be a specialist in that position. Haven't we spent enough money on decent players with good stats but glaring weak spots? There's better out there - and I like Walcott.
 
I like Walcott because I think he'll improve here but given a choice of him and Sinclair, I'm in the Sinclair corner. His unpredictability wins it for me and he can beat a man one on one without pushing the ball past him and relying on speed.
 
Rosco said:
Astounding. Did you say something similar about Downing last summer ?

Who gives a fuck when his pace goes ? You realise we buy players for more than just next season ? We get fucking saddled with them for years and as such we should contemplate what they'll be in years 2,3 and 4 of a contract when deciding whether to buy them and at what price. (This is all very simple, I know - but it's rare anybody thinks about anything other than what the player adds to the team right now)

The Bellamy example is one extreme and you can't presume it applies to everyone. Michael Owen is an example of a player that was finished as a top level player by about 26 when his pace was gone. The reality is that a players physical peak is generally around age 25, it's often earlier for players with explosive pace like it was for Owen. They rarely get quicker as they get to their thirties. Plenty of players last at the top after their pace has gone, but they tend to be intelligent and very good technically - not qualities people associate with Walcott.

As it is I'd be alright with signing him for now at the right price, but I'd be looking to sell him after he has a couple of seasons under his belt with us.
Click to expand...

Massive contradiction there Ross. So you slate the Bellamy example as extreme, but then use Michael Owen losing it at 26 after being overplayed and injured ravaged for years, as an example of why Walcott would be pointless, because you'd be looking to sell after a 'couple of seasons'?

For someone who continuously questions the importance of statistics, your general thoughts around various subjects regarding players are far too methodical, and bordering on mathematical. It's not an exact science.
 
Ossi said:
What does it matter if our winger beats a man with skill or pace? I don't care as long as he beats him.

Sweet Baby Jesus if we had a winger who could get past a player...
Click to expand...

Because if space is at a premium then kick and rush is less effective. Ask Stewart Downing about that.
 
keniget said:
Because if space is at a premium then kick and rush is less effective. Ask Stewart Downing about that.
Click to expand...

I was going to touch on this yesterday, but I think that's why he's not really succeeded as well as expected at Arsenal. He's a very direct player, suited to getting played in behind, rather than to their one touch football. He'd be great for a counter-attacking side or a more direct team. In Arsenal's setup, it's all about patient build up and his strengths become largely void.
 
mark1975 said:
Massive contradiction there Ross. So you slate the Bellamy example as extreme, but then use Michael Owen losing it at 26 after being overplayed and injured ravaged for years, as an example of why Walcott would be pointless, because you'd be looking to sell after a 'couple of seasons'?

For someone who continuously questions the importance of statistics, your general thoughts around various subjects regarding players are far too methodical, and bordering on mathematical. It's not an exact science.
Click to expand...

If I may explain, Owen was a deliberately extreme example. We've got enough information on players similar to Walcott to make an educated guess about what to expect and why.

If we sign Walcott now, it'll be a four or five year deal. After about two seasons he's going to look for an extension. With a bit of luck he'll have been good and his value inflated. I don't think he's going to be finished at 26, I think he's going to be overvalued and I'd rather sell him then rather than hang on until he gets shit while earning 120k a week.
 
Buddha said:
But it seems we're looking for a wing forward in a 4-3-3. Just for once, I'd like us to seek a player with real pace and trickery for that position.
Click to expand...

Cough ...Sterling ... Cough.

I don't know if he can make the step up but is the difference between Walcott (who I would not say no to us signing) and Sterling so great that we couldn't take a chance on a youngster ? He has looked the real deal whenever I've seen him, although some others here thought he didn't come on enough last season. He's in the squad though so no doubt Rodgers will decide if we need Walcott after assessing Downing /Sterling.
 
Which players then Ross besides Owen are you basing your educated guess on?

And I wouldnt call Walcotts two last seasons not a success tbh, and he's still 23 with hid best years ahead of him.
Getting him for a decent fee is a no brainer. Paying high wages to Cole/Downing was stupid, but for young up and coming players it makes sense.
 
Rosco said:
If I may explain, Owen was a deliberately extreme example. We've got enough information on players similar to Walcott to make an educated guess about what to expect and why.

If we sign Walcott now, it'll be a four or five year deal. After about two seasons he's going to look for an extension. With a bit of luck he'll have been good and his value inflated. I don't think he's going to be finished at 26, I think he's going to be overvalued and I'd rather sell him then rather than hang on until he gets shit while earning 120k a week.
Click to expand...

I think he's at a key stage now and he could go either way. He's just had his best season at Arsenal, statistically (I know, I know) it was excellent. He's 23, realistically how many players do you buy with thoughts beyond 3 or 4 seasons? I don't think he'd command a massive wedge either. He's gone to Arsenal as a kid so I'd imagine he'd be in the 50-60k bracket. At around £12m I don't think it's a bad deal, £3m per season, arguably and you could sell at 27 if needs be getting the difference back at the very least. I know it doesn't always turn out that way, but every signing is a gamble in terms of longevity. Lampard could have gone to Barca 3 seasons ago, last year he looked finished at one point.
 
Wizardry said:
I love this 'not technically good" argument that people like to push on Theo. Not technically good!!!

This coming from supporters who've shouted themselves hoarse supporting Dirk Kuyt. Technically good?!?


Walcott isn't technically good when you compare him to Messi, Ronaldo or Smicer; he's technically amazing when you compare him to Young, Downing or Kuyt. None of which is of any importance cause he gets things done on the pitch. 11 goals and 13 assists last season. 9 goals and 7 assists the season before.

He's still a kid and would thrive in the system that Rodgers intends to play.

Also, he's not Swedish so he ticks all the boxes.
Click to expand...


I didn't realise he was so productive, in truth.
 
fatherted_dougalsbrain.gif
 
Rumours abound Arsenal have just rejected a bid from Chelsea for Walcott..

Some saying bid of 25 million has been rejected

25 million!!!!!! That's us out the running then..
 
jono@home said:
Rumours abound Arsenal have just rejected a bid from Chelsea for Walcott..

Some saying bid of 25 million has been rejected

25 million!!!!!! That's us out the running then..
Click to expand...

25M with one year left on his contract ? Not a chance, massive WUM somewhere out there.
 
Buddha said:
I disagree with most of that.

Kuyt's lack of technical ability had me tearing my hair out for years (and I moaned about it on here along with others, endlessly).

Young is excellent technically (but has other failings).
Downing has good technical skills but no bottle, pace.
Kuyt see above.

I can't argue with the stats and they support an argument to get him (hence my ambivalence).

Rodgers system relies heavily on a good first touch and comfort with the ball in tight spots. I don't see Walcott having that in abundance. He does have searing pace which is another requirement of Rodgers' Swansea system but can't we go for someone with potentially both, a good deal of pac and trickery, technical ability? A Navas, Muniain, Pedro, Rodriguez, etc?

Agreed, he's not Swedish.

I still think there's untapped potential in Theo, but possibly as a striker to make use of his pace and knack of being in the right place, right time. But it seems we're looking for a wing forward in a 4-3-3. Just for once, I'd like us to seek a player with real pace and trickery for that position. Theo's decent with more to come, but he'll never be a specialist in that position. Haven't we spent enough money on decent players with good stats but glaring weak spots? There's better out there - and I like Walcott.
Click to expand...


I don't think half the people replying on this thread have ever actually watched him. The "thump it into space and run after it" were the youtube clips from before he went to Arsenal. Since then his control and possession have improved year on year. As if Wenger is going to be starting a player who can't run with the ball at his feet - I reckon he uses that as a criteria for his keeper as well.

Walcott is never going be Messi with the ball at his feet but he's got much better close control than Downing or Young. He can keep the ball in tight spaces or else he'd never be succeeding in an Arsenal team that doesn't play to what people on here think are his strengths. Do people not consider the fact that Walcott is playing for a team we deride as trying to "walk the ball into the net" and yet he's got those stats. He doesn't get picked in spite of not playing to the managers directives you know.


All that said, my main point in regard to comparing him to Dirk was style and substance. I wasn't having a pop at Kuyt; I thought we needed better touch from a player like him but I loved him because he made things happen on the pitch. The same's true of Theo - he makes things happen. He may not tick the boxes that Hazard ticked but he makes things happen on the pitch (just like Dirk did) and he's far better technically.

People are so desperate to take the lazy approach its unreal. Put players in a little box based on one aspect of their game; Walcott is fast ergo he plays like Cisse or Ryan, Carroll is big ergo he's not got much ability when the balls on the ground.

This kid (and he's still a kid) ticks most of what we're looking for plus he's been a fan of the club since nappies. So lets see how many different flaws we can think of to justify not going in for him and instead spend 25m on "some sexy Brazillian" who can dance like Michael Jackson and claim he's getting belted out of the English game.
 
Walcott is a good player and while i'd be happy if we signed him I still think there are some better options elsewhere, hell if Brendan is adamant in getting players who have played in this country or play in it i'd rather Adam Johnson or Daniel Sturridge! Not to mention the plethora of quality wing forwards across Europe and South America who are as good as if not better than Walcott.
 
I'd like Walcott at Liverpool but i'd be a bit surprised if Rodgers wanted him as his football philosphy is obviously based around possession and controlled football and Walcott's game isn't exactly suited to that.

Walcott would surely be more suited to a counter attacking side. Who knows, would still be quite excited if this came off.
 
I think there's more to come from Walcott and he'd be a good signing for us. Gets goals, assists, gets all over the pitch, tracks back, he's 23, what's not to like?
Caveat that with, if 25M is being mooted for him then forget it. 10M or so, good deal.
 
We're contractually obliged not to sign anyone young, English & good.

I think him, Borrini & Suarez would be a good front line - young, fast, technically good.
 
Wizardry said:
I don't think half the people replying on this thread have ever actually watched him. The "thump it into space and run after it" were the youtube clips from before he went to Arsenal. Since then his control and possession have improved year on year. As if Wenger is going to be starting a player who can't run with the ball at his feet - I reckon he uses that as a criteria for his keeper as well.

Wiz, I've not said he's a "thump into space and run" player at all. I've also seen him in the flesh 4 times over the past 2 seasons (I have a few friends with Arsenal season tickets having lived in North london) and haven't seen enough improvement with regards his close control. Moreover, most of the Arsenal fans I speak to at the game and before/after seem exasperated with his lack of ball control when faced with an opponent, hence the (exaggerated abuse he gets sometimes). That doesn't mean to think he's regarded as a poor player, more one not suited to Arsenal's style.

Walcott is never going be Messi with the ball at his feet but he's got much better close control than Downing or Young. He can keep the ball in tight spaces or else he'd never be succeeding in an Arsenal team that doesn't play to what people on here think are his strengths. Do people not consider the fact that Walcott is playing for a team we deride as trying to "walk the ball into the net" and yet he's got those stats. He doesn't get picked in spite of not playing to the managers directives you know.

I disagree that he's better close control than Young (who I think has excellent skills in this area) or Downing. Walcott hasn't always played 90 mins of late either and has got dogs abuse this season from the Arsenal fans for his perceived failings. Arsenal aren't exactly blessed with alternatives on the wings at present either. That all said (as I said earlier), his stats are impressive and to the non-Arsenal fan it's difficult to understand why he's not a favourite there. Arsenal also seem willing to let him go (hence no contract negotiations) which is unusual for a young Wenger player. It's a different situation to Van Persie in that there's a sound financial argument not to offer RVP a big contract at 29/30.

All that said, my main point in regard to comparing him to Dirk was style and substance. I wasn't having a pop at Kuyt; I thought we needed better touch from a player like him but I loved him because he made things happen on the pitch. The same's true of Theo - he makes things happen. He may not tick the boxes that Hazard ticked but he makes things happen on the pitch (just like Dirk did) and he's far better technically.

Good point. Every team needs players who might not tick al the boxes, but their contribution outweighs that.

People are so desperate to take the lazy approach its unreal. Put players in a little box based on one aspect of their game; Walcott is fast ergo he plays like Cisse or Ryan, Carroll is big ergo he's not got much ability when the balls on the ground.

I think that's a "lazy" statement. I'm not putting Walcott in a box just because I wonder if his ball control/technical skills are up to the job we want him for (whilst acknowledging his strengths hence my ambivalence and "liking" of him). Similarly, if I mention that I think Carroll's movement is poor, it's because I think it's poor, not because he's a "big".

This kid (and he's still a kid) ticks most of what we're looking for plus he's been a fan of the club since nappies. So lets see how many different flaws we can think of to justify not going in for him and instead spend 25m on "some sexy Brazillian" who can dance like Michael Jackson and claim he's getting belted out of the English game.
Click to expand...

Again, ironic that you've talked about putting people in boxes then take a stereotypical view of other posters. I'm "ambivalent" about the signing because (given my view of him at the Emirates and those of other Arsenal supporting mates) I'm not sure he's the right man for Rodgers' vision. For that reason I'm not as excited by the prospect of signing him as you are. It doesn't mean I'm "looking for flaws". The "sexy Brazilian" quote (from another post) is a light-hearted reference to the fact that Chelsea/Man Utd are bidding for samba kids I've never heard of (but will doubtless turn out well) and my previous Neymar debacle. That said, I'd rather sign Neymar than Walcott.
 
jono@home said:
Rumours abound Arsenal have just rejected a bid from Chelsea for Walcott..

Some saying bid of 25 million has been rejected

25 million!!!!!! That's us out the running then..
Click to expand...

He has 12 months left on his contract. My fucking hoophole someone has offered 25M for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Woland
    • Like
    • Glum
    • Love
  • Locked
Hillsborough
2 3
Replies
62
Views
1K
localny
localny
dee
  • Locked
Claire Balding's love child is gagging for it
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
3K
dee
dee
Modo
    • Like
  • Locked
Happy Quansah
2
Replies
34
Views
792
Frogfish
Frogfish
Squiggles
    • Like
  • Locked
05/10/2024 - Weeks Other Games Thread
2 3
Replies
60
Views
1K
rubans
rubans
dee
  • Locked
The Scouse Fringe
Replies
24
Views
511
MomoWASright
MomoWASright
Back
Top Bottom