Walcott

normally a special player should shine in his team, Walcott hasnt shined in 5 games


Özil did, so what does this mean

Walcot is only worth to mention because he plays for Arsenal, not for what his done on the pitch for his entire career

And did you know the square root of pi is 1.7724.
Well you learn something new everyday!

The second post in this thread is considerably more interesting than the first.

Walcott was disappointing today, but I seriously don't get why the English fans keep bashing this guy. He has enormous pace, he can be a valuable weapon to have, if used as a supersub. He is not effective as a starter (yet?), at least most of the time that is from my impression.

blutgraetsche wrote:Walcott was disappointing today, but I seriously don't get why the English fans keep bashing this guy. He has enormous pace, he can be a valuable weapon to have, if used as a supersub. He is not effective as a starter (yet?), at least most of the time that is from my impression.

Makes perfect sense

The new David Odonkor/Darius Vassell...



If he's lucky

MadVillain wrote:The new David Odonkor/Darius Vassell...



If he's lucky

Vassell was good for England though, most of the time he played. Walcott has had one goodgame really

blutgraetsche wrote:Walcott was disappointing today, but I seriously don't get why the English fans keep bashing this guy. He has enormous pace, he can be a valuable weapon to have, if used as a supersub. He is not effective as a starter (yet?), at least most of the time that is from my impression.

We keep bashing him because he can't even do basic things like trap and pass a football with any consistency, and the only reason he gets picked is to keep the Arsenal brand intact. We have better players in his position who are overlooked because they aren't at big four clubs, and given England's problem with keeping/using the ball having a wing forward who offers no defensive protection and loses possession more often than not just exacerbates our greatest weakness.

Basically, being really fast doesn't even come close to making up for his failings as a footballer.

i think rooney is the closest thing for the englands when it comes to football intelligence and vision


now i understand why the englands not let a single bad word on him

Özil wrote:i think rooney is the closest thing for the englands when it comes to football intelligence and vision


now i understand why the englands not let a single bad word on him

Yes. Him and J.Cole.

Walcott has never ever been picked or praised for his football intelligence or vision.

Stimulus Package wrote:
We keep bashing him because he can't even do basic things like trap and pass a football with any consistency, and the only reason he gets picked is to keep the Arsenal brand intact. We have better players in his position who are overlooked because they aren't at big four clubs, and given England's problem with keeping/using the ball having a wing forward who offers no defensive protection and loses possession more often than not just exacerbates our greatest weakness.

Basically, being really fast doesn't even come close to making up for his failings as a footballer.

I won't get into the "big four vs. the rest of the league" thing, but jut say this: Many people on here are too dogmatic, in the 'football purism' sense. Not every player needs to have brilliant skills, or be a source of creativity. Exceptional pace is not "less important" than a great set of skills (it just fades faster) - this is a sport after all - you need to have variety in your team, and most importantly, something that is very often overlooked on here, see the team as a whole.

Yes, this English side did lack creativity, particularly in the centre. But Walcott could have added a surprise element to the team if he would have been used as a supersub IMHO, and not as some kind of 'saviour' who is expected to lead the team to ultimate victory, and as a consequence start every match. Such a player he is not.

blutgraetsche wrote:

Stimulus Package wrote:
We keep bashing him because he can't even do basic things like trap and pass a football with any consistency, and the only reason he gets picked is to keep the Arsenal brand intact. We have better players in his position who are overlooked because they aren't at big four clubs, and given England's problem with keeping/using the ball having a wing forward who offers no defensive protection and loses possession more often than not just exacerbates our greatest weakness.

Basically, being really fast doesn't even come close to making up for his failings as a footballer.

I won't get into the "big four vs. the rest of the league" thing, but jut say this: Many people on here are too dogmatic, in the 'football purism' sense. Not every player needs to have brilliant skills, or be a source of creativity. Exceptional pace is not "less important" than a great set of skills (it just fades faster) - this is a sport after all - you need to have variety in your team, and most importantly, something that is very often overlooked on here, see the team as a whole.

Yes, this English side did lack creativity, particularly in the centre. But Walcott could have added a surprise element to the team if he would have been used as a supersub IMHO, and not as some kind of 'saviour' who is expected to lead the team to ultimate victory, and as a consequence start every match. Such a player he is not.

Agree with much of that.

Would say Walcott had to start, being the closest thing to a striker that was available with Gabby + Campbell suspended. I think he was left on the bench in one of the earlier games when everyone was available and I'd prefer if Capello thinks of him as bench option, rather than starter when it comes to WC, unless he steps it up a lot this season.

blutgraetsche wrote:I won't get into the "big four vs. the rest of the league" thing, but jut say this: Many people on here are too dogmatic, in the 'football purism' sense. Not every player needs to have brilliant skills, or be a source of creativity. Exceptional pace is not "less important" than a great set of skills (it just fades faster) - this is a sport after all - you need to have variety in your team, and most importantly, something that is very often overlooked on here, see the team as a whole.

None of the England team have brilliant skills, and not that many are a source of creativity, but I can see their role far more easily that I can Walcott's.

I disagree, exceptional pace is worth little if the player largely uses it to give the ball away. If Walcott knew how to use his pace (e.g. if he had particularly good movement or control of the ball) then it would be a tremendous asset. But he doesn't, so all you have is an average player who is very, very quick.

Yes, this English side did lack creativity, particularly in the centre. But Walcott could have added a surprise element to the team if he would have been used as a supersub IMHO, and not as some kind of 'saviour' who is expected to lead the team to ultimate victory, and as a consequence start every match. Such a player he is not.

Sure, if we are to use him then I think you're right about the way to best use him. He may improve on certain things, he'll never be exceptional technically but if he can learn to exploit offside traps and lax marking he could well develop into a player capable of threatening over 90 minutes. But he turned 20 a few months ago and he's still producing the odd glimmer and good moment without ever really playing well over the course of a game or more.