The Top 10 Right Backs in the Premiership 2009?

Where would we be without space?

Hlebagone wrote:

borocooper wrote:He isnt bad on the ball..like I said, he's not Messi..but he's not useless with the ball at his feet.

If he has space.

Yes, when he isnt running around inside a small corridor he seems quite capable.

Hlebagone wrote:

borocooper wrote:He isnt bad on the ball..like I said, he's not Messi..but he's not useless with the ball at his feet.

If he has space.

Lots and Lots of space - a good 25 yards to push & run into methinks.

Did you chaps miss his finish against Villarreal?

He is a good player. Only on this board would so much shite be spouted about how useless he is.

And banging on about a 20 year olds scoring record is pointless, he has a better record than Shearer did at his age, and he went on to become the best player in the universe ever!!!

Kimbo wrote:And banging on about a 20 year olds scoring record is pointless, he has a better record than Shearer did at his age, and he went on to become the best player in the universe ever!!!

I doubt Shearer received 10% of the hype Walcott has gotten, at 20 years old.

@ Allez

Jamie O'Hara scored a nice goal at West Ham, should I hype him?

Allez les rouges wrote:Did you chaps miss his finish against Villarreal?

He is a good player. Only on this board would so much shite be spouted about how useless he is.

I dont understand it. He's clearly a good player..only in the world of EMB could "he's fast!!" be used against someone. Definitely one of the best YBMs around.

Walcott is a decent talent. Nothing more at this stage. He has blistering pace, but as yet, there is nothing else particularly exceptional about his game. He has little to no vision, isn't a good passer of the ball, and isn't clinical in any sense of the word. Admittedly, he does shows glimpses of class, but it is few and far between, nor in anyway exclusive to his game.

For all the stick Bender get's, he's still a far more effecive player and credible threat than Walcott currently is.

I do like Walcott however, he's a humble lad and tries to let his football do the talking, it's just unfortunate that it doesn't have a lot to say at this time.

Dragões azuis e brancos™ wrote:

Kimbo wrote:And banging on about a 20 year olds scoring record is pointless, he has a better record than Shearer did at his age, and he went on to become the best player in the universe ever!!!

I doubt Shearer received 10% of the hype Walcott has gotten, at 20 years old.

Both Southampton players, but the comparison essentially ends there. Except that Theo will in all likelihood end his career with as few trophies as Wor Alan.

Calidad wrote:
For all the stick Bendtner get's, he's still a far more effective player and credible threat than Walcott currently is.

.

I think the reason Bendtner gets stick is because he thinks he's the bollocks..where as Theo just gets on with playing.

I think Bendtner's only marginally less shit, but he does seem to get more invovled in matches, have more of an impact.

He's a disgrace though.

Poor lad!!

Surely instead of trying to cover his face he could have been doing up his trousers!

I think it's just sour grapes from TS because his beloved Lennon never gets a look in.

Lennon is a better player than Walcott, so the grapes are bound to be sour.

Aye Saints - Walcott gets hyped to the high heavens for coming on Fresh and outsprinting a fatigued Liverpool defence who aren't very mobile to begin with. When he actually starts these games, he gets eaten alive and plays shit.

Lennon actually has a decent record when starting, he'll produce & play well against the best teams in the EPL in such scenarios.

He took the best LB in the league to pieces the other week.

Whereas Walmart struggles to just keep control of the ball.

Lennon is a better player but then Lennon wouldn't have got a hat trick in Croatia. If you break down into football manager stats i can see why it looks like Walcott is shite, but in reality that's not the case.

There's a reason Theo gets chosen ahead of him for England.

L-r d wrote:Lennon is a better player but then Lennon wouldn't have got a hat trick in Croatia. If you break down into football manager stats i can see why it looks like Walcott is shite, but in reality that's not the case.

Why not?

Slow defence, a lucky ricochet, Croats were down to 10 men too. Possibly the most ideal situation for a player like Walcott.

Theo's finishing (as the Chelsea game showed) needs a lot of work, though I would say his natural strikers instinct takes him into the box a lot more than Lennon. When Lennon does decide to do that, he's actually pretty decent, I'd wish he'd do it more frequently than he does in truth. Anyway his striking of the ball has definitely improved this season. Nowadays, there's a venom to his shots that there really wasn't before.

Ray Parlour wrote:There's a reason Theo gets chosen ahead of him for England.

Yes, he plays for a bigger club.


Theo's hattrick was a fluke (even Wenger said as much). His other performances for England have largely been a joke.

Ray Parlour wrote:There's a reason Theo gets chosen ahead of him for England.

Arsenal hype?

Walcott getting picked by Sven for the World Cup remains one of the most bizarre selection decisions of all time.

Erm doubt it. Capello's not one to pick someone on reputation or because of their name.

If he thinks Theo is better than Lennon then you can't argue with him considering his track record.

So Capello buys into the hype

Ray Parlour wrote:So Capello buys into the hype

You make him out to be some sort of revolutionary!

He's still picking Beckham, he stuck with Terry as captain, what major changes has he really made?

Arsenal need the obligatory player in the squad, Walcott just happens to be it since Cashley sold out.

Ray Parlour wrote:If he thinks Theo is better than Lennon then you can't argue with him considering his track record.

He consistently picks a player who can't pass, can't dribble, can't cross, can't finish and whose general contribution is considerably less than those around him.

It's not like Walcott is just a generally good all round player who even on his bad days will do the simple things right - when he's bad, he's a waste of the ball. I couldn't give a rat's testicles for Capello's reputation.

In hindsight, Beckham is underrated by comparison.

None of them play like a certain Waddle. Shame on England for not producing such high quality technical wingers any more. Pace merchants.

Dragões azuis e brancos wrote:

L-r d wrote:Lennon is a better player but then Lennon wouldn't have got a hat trick in Croatia. If you break down into football manager stats i can see why it looks like Walcott is shite, but in reality that's not the case.

Why not?

Slow defence, a lucky ricochet, Croats were down to 10 men too. Possibly the most ideal situation for a player like Walcott.

Theo's finishing (as the Chelsea game showed) needs a lot of work, though I would say his natural strikers instinct takes him into the box a lot more than Lennon. When Lennon does decide to do that, he's actually pretty decent, I'd wish he'd do it more frequently than he does in truth. Anyway his striking of the ball has definitely improved this season. Nowadays, there's a venom to his shots that there really wasn't before.

Yeah he got two when they were down to 10 but you still need to take advantage of that fact. Two of the goals were great finishes and the game just showed how dangerous he could be in future years. I don't think Lennon has ever got a hat trick or even come close. Let alone in a big match like that.

So while his close control is much better and when he dribbles he can beat any defender out there...his game still and always has lacked certain aspects, ones which are more important overall than those. And Walcott's game is the oppisite. So IMO two players with great potential but Walcott is more useful in more situations than Lennon.... breaking down ability doesn't work in every case.

L-r d wrote:

Dragões azuis e brancos wrote:

L-r d wrote:Lennon is a better player but then Lennon wouldn't have got a hat trick in Croatia. If you break down into football manager stats i can see why it looks like Walcott is shite, but in reality that's not the case.

Why not?

Slow defence, a lucky ricochet, Croats were down to 10 men too. Possibly the most ideal situation for a player like Walcott.

Theo's finishing (as the Chelsea game showed) needs a lot of work, though I would say his natural strikers instinct takes him into the box a lot more than Lennon. When Lennon does decide to do that, he's actually pretty decent, I'd wish he'd do it more frequently than he does in truth. Anyway his striking of the ball has definitely improved this season. Nowadays, there's a venom to his shots that there really wasn't before.

Yeah he got two when they were down to 10 but you still need to take advantage of that fact. Two of the goals were great finishes and the game just showed how dangerous he could be in future years. I don't think Lennon has ever got a hat trick or even come close. Let alone in a big match like that.

So while his close control is much better and when he dribbles he can beat any defender out there...his game still and always has lacked certain aspects, ones which are more important overall than those. And Walcott's game is the oppisite. So IMO two players with great potential but Walcott is more useful in more situations than Lennon.... breaking down ability doesn't work in every case.

Got 2 at home to Boro - both pretty good finishes

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/sports/watch/v17920294asxm4WDs

5:05 & 6:50

Lennon's major problem is that he doesn't get into those positions enough for my money, if he does this there's gonna be no contest between the 2 of them, 'cos he's a canny finisher once he does.