If we could sign either Walcott or Sturridge in January, who would you prefer?
I'd say Sturridge personally, got an eye for goal, got a considerable amount of goals playing wide last season, when given a chance and as seeing, as we need a striker, he'd be a realistic option, as hes not playing much right now.
Walcott or Sturridge!?
posted on 30/9/12
I'd rather we signed no one than signed Walcott, he's a waste of space.
posted on 30/9/12
Sturridge any day ahead of Walcott
posted on 30/9/12
Sturridge all day..
posted on 30/9/12
We have no chance of Sturridge unless Chelsea sign a striker in January (or can get Lukaku back)
They only have Torres and Sturridge who can play centre-forward so are not about to let anyone leave without a replacement signed.
posted on 30/9/12
I have a feeling they'll go in for Llorente.
posted on 30/9/12
I thought I read somewhere that Sturridge has an attitude problem (may be mistaken). If so, Brendan won't want him.
I don't rate Walcott personally.
posted on 30/9/12
as hes not playing much right now
------------
He's injured
posted on 30/9/12
If I had to take one it would be Walcott. Although he's having a bit of a dispute at Arsenal at the moment, he is less likely to upset the apple-cart. Brendan is building a team of players who'll fight for the shirt, we don't need drama queens.
posted on 1/10/12
We may not get a chance to ever sign Sturridge. Rumour has it RA wants Rademel Falcao. Its Roman's ''If you can't beat him, sign him'' atitude. If this happens, its likely ''El Nono'' is on his way out of Stamford Bridge. RA adopted the same approach with him. That's the reason why Liverpool got £50 million for the sulky Spaniard.
They may need Sturridge if they decide to sell Lukaku. He may be a better option than Sturridge anyhow. If we can't get Sturridge, lets go for Lukaku.