Theo or Raheem

So its naive to score more than the opposition? Reinvented the rules of football have they? Last time I checked you won the premier league by getting the most points. You get 3 points for a win and you WIN games by scoring more than the opposition.

The rest is utter poppycock.

Thats why to this day as in the past the players who cost the most money are goal scorers or those who directly assist. That is the only way to measure a forward. This is why C.Ronaldo and Messi are considered so great. Because they score or directly assist at amazing rates.

Walcott is one of the best midfield attackers in England. But you don't want to recognise that because for some reason he doesn't run about the pitch influencing games whatever that means. I am sorry but you just come across as someone who hates the player and floundering at any justification o enforce your bias when confronted by facts.

comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
So its naive to score more than the opposition? Reinvented the rules of football have they? Last time I checked you won the premier league by getting the most points. You get 3 points for a win and you WIN games by scoring more than the opposition.

The rest is utter poppycock.

Thats why to this day as in the past the players who cost the most money are goal scorers or those who directly assist. That is the only way to measure a forward. This is why C.Ronaldo and Messi are considered so great. Because they score or directly assist at amazing rates.

Walcott is one of the best midfield attackers in England. But you don't want to recognise that because for some reason he doesn't run about the pitch influencing games whatever that means. I am sorry but you just come across as someone who hates the player and floundering at any justification o enforce your bias when confronted by facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you wasting your time Jenius:

He's not the Arsenal or England manager so what he thinks of Theo in all honestly is completely irrelevant

Sheriff

Or maybe AW had the foresight to persevere with a player he knew had the potential to succeed at the club, and appreciated the progress made year after year, while others could not?

AW’s perseverance in turn culminated in TW providing some fantastic contributions from 2011 onwards as you previously acknowledged.

I was forced to ask the same question simply as you kept dodging a direct response. Previous posting refers. It wasn’t that difficult a question.

To single out one solitary player for half a decade of adversity is at best naïve, and at worst nonsensical.

"So its naive to score more than the opposition?"

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and twisting my words. AGAIN, I have never said goals and assists don't matter. I said it's an incomplete, inadequate measure of contribution and using it solely as a measure of Walcott's contribution is a load of naive, ignorant twaddle about how the game really works. If football was all about outscoring the opposition (simplistic "poppycock", managers would simply fill their teams with as many strikers as possible. Your view ignores many dynamics in the game and how his style and presence affects the other players. It also forgets the fact Walcott is a wide forward and not a winger so simplistically comparing his stats to genuine wingers is as absurd as comparing Lampard's scoring record to Xavi or Pirlo or Zidane.

You can check his record as an actual winger for England - Ox, Townsend, Lallana etc are all far better options - and you can see the clear limitations when he has to perform the job of an actual winger rather than simply playing off the shoulder of defenders in Arsenal colours with no midfield responsibilities.

"To single out one solitary player for half a decade of adversity is at best naïve, and at worst
nonsensical."

"Singling" him out? Can you read? My statement clearly meant that the persistent faith of Wenger in underperformers represents the failures of that era. I'm not blaming our results solely on Walcott. I hate spending big portions of a thread having to clarify simple comments just because someone wants to have a dig at all cost.

Sherriff

“He had options and chose to remain loyal to an underperforming player. Perhaps, that's the reason we were a trophyless, bottling mess in that period”


The significant words in the above sentence are “he” “player” and “the reason”

You’re not really doing yourself any favours here.

Yes. His penchant for sticking to underperformers has been costly. It has been clarified. Move on from tedious, repetitive stuff about how our God Wenger stuck with Walcott for a century and that means Theo is automatically amazing, cos Wenger can never be wrong. We've laboured and overflogged the point to death. Can we move on now?

Sheriff

As I’m sure you are aware I haven’t referred to AW as a “God” and neither labelled TW as “amazing.”

I just feel a little objectivity is required when compared to some of the gibberish you have provided.

You believed Walcott was a total liability to the squad, and I felt his contribution during the period discussed was a reasonably acceptable.

I feel the only contributor on this thread that has laboured has been your good self

Have a good weekend.

Sterling easily, when Walcott was 20 he was still a comical player... yes he's improved since then but Sterling has more intelligence, football brain and natural talent.