i disagree, with england as with arsenal he is better employed as an impact sub IMO
Impact sub without doubt,against tiring defenders.
Theo has got 11 goals and 13 assists this season
Its been ages since Walcott has performed for England
We have seen improvements in him at Arsenal but for England he hasnt shown people whats he capable of
I was more going to the tune than a deep tactical analysis
I would say he's a supersub but i'm not a Milner fan
I want a Theo and I want one now
He was on for half an hour and had possession for 17 seconds. Make of that what you want.
He was on for half an hour and had possession for 17 seconds. Make of that what you want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All i can make of that is that you are keen to find some negative in what was a brilliant performance . I guess some people are too biased to ever give Walcott any credit.
I am pretty sure the manager wont be pulling him to one side and telling him he was only on the ball for 17 seconds.
If you could get past your ridiculous bias, then you would also realise that Theo tracked back to snuff out a couple of Swedish breaks and he also made two runs that offered Gerrard and Carroll an easy opportunity to play him in 1v1 vs the goalkeeper - which they didnt take (not Theo's fault, just lack of quality for Gerrard and Carroll).
If you think seconds on the ball is in any way important for us to 'make of it as we want', then you need to reassess how you judge football.
I prefer to look at his goal and assist, his work, his intelligent running to create chances, and his other run and cross that should have been a goal had Gerrard not wanted to the glory boy.
I stated a fact, not an opinion. A stat from opta.
I thought he was very good, my point was that it's what you do with your time.
To quote yourself back at you "keen to find some negative"
He was on for half an hour and had possession for 17 seconds. Make of that what you want.
-----
I make of that that the England midfielders ae greedy whatsits and didn't pass him the ball enough
i thought walcott played just like milner only not as good
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Theo
Page 1 of 1
posted on 15/6/12
Trio?
Damn..
posted on 15/6/12
i disagree, with england as with arsenal he is better employed as an impact sub IMO
posted on 15/6/12
No.. he is a super sub.
posted on 15/6/12
Impact sub without doubt,against tiring defenders.
posted on 15/6/12
Theo has got 11 goals and 13 assists this season
Its been ages since Walcott has performed for England
We have seen improvements in him at Arsenal but for England he hasnt shown people whats he capable of
posted on 15/6/12
I was more going to the tune than a deep tactical analysis
posted on 15/6/12
I would say he's a supersub but i'm not a Milner fan
posted on 15/6/12
I want a Theo and I want one now
posted on 16/6/12
He was on for half an hour and had possession for 17 seconds. Make of that what you want.
posted on 16/6/12
He was on for half an hour and had possession for 17 seconds. Make of that what you want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All i can make of that is that you are keen to find some negative in what was a brilliant performance . I guess some people are too biased to ever give Walcott any credit.
I am pretty sure the manager wont be pulling him to one side and telling him he was only on the ball for 17 seconds.
If you could get past your ridiculous bias, then you would also realise that Theo tracked back to snuff out a couple of Swedish breaks and he also made two runs that offered Gerrard and Carroll an easy opportunity to play him in 1v1 vs the goalkeeper - which they didnt take (not Theo's fault, just lack of quality for Gerrard and Carroll).
If you think seconds on the ball is in any way important for us to 'make of it as we want', then you need to reassess how you judge football.
I prefer to look at his goal and assist, his work, his intelligent running to create chances, and his other run and cross that should have been a goal had Gerrard not wanted to the glory boy.
posted on 16/6/12
I stated a fact, not an opinion. A stat from opta.
I thought he was very good, my point was that it's what you do with your time.
To quote yourself back at you "keen to find some negative"
posted on 16/6/12
He was on for half an hour and had possession for 17 seconds. Make of that what you want.
-----
I make of that that the England midfielders ae greedy whatsits and didn't pass him the ball enough
posted on 19/6/12
i thought walcott played just like milner only not as good
Page 1 of 1