Its abit of an unusual comparison tbh

I think Diabys long absence has distorted your memory.

no one is on diabys level not even park

Diaby is a very good footballer. Has everything, if he stayed fit he would be a top player for us .

Great feet for a big man

Thanks inventor. Just needed a confirmation. Seems a lot of us have very short memories.

Diaby had so much talent he'd be a starter for us now no question. Unbelievable at going past players but often beat 3 players almost Zidaneish then passed the ball to the opposition. If he ironed out the brain farts he could've been one of the best midfielders in the world

Isnt Daiby an app?

Diaby wouldn't start imo. He isn't a DM, and Ramsey is a better player.

His injuries were his nemesis. Coming back from long spells out resulted in inconsistencies

bit odd to compare a CM player with a winger come forward player!

but as you are asking, walcott is an integral part of the team / squad... Diaby is not.

not sure who is better at what they do as Diaby is never fit.

Of course Walcott is integral because he is fit and hitting fine form, while Diaby is on the treatment table. The discussion was about their footballing capabilities. For me, Diaby is a more gifted footballer.

I answered that in my last line then

I can't help but feel that Diaby gets consistently overrated because of his lengthy absences. Clearly talented, but he was a sloppy player, in his manner and in his actions. How much this had to with him being repeatedly unable to regain match sharpness for any length of time due to his next injury break, we may never know, but I think it is a major stretch to suggest he would be a starter in our current midfield.

" as you are asking, walcott is an integral part of the team / squad... Diaby is not."

Diaby would be, had he stayed fit - when he has played he often runs the game. Walcott may pop up in very useful positions, and scores important goals - but he never, ever 'runs the game'. Both cracking players, but completely different jobs on the pitch.

Someday I see your point, we talking about natural footballing abilities, I really can't rate Walcott higher than Diaby. I've seen enough of both of them to know who I feel is a better footballer.

Diaby would be, had he stayed fit
-------------

but thats just it.... we dont know that because he is never fit, people can assume he would be running the midfield, but he could also be another flop

walcott is fit and therefore we can see what he adds to the team.

In terms of natural footballing ability, then I would put Diaby above Walcott, but that was never Theo's strength.

Of course Walcott has pace, endurance and an eye for goal among other things.

Diaby had a couple of good games.

Diaby should retire!

Most fans see players only as good as their last game.

both diaby and walcott are great players and wish them all the best during recovery and diffuclt times, arsenal needs you.

"but thats just it.... we dont know that because he is never fit, people can assume he would be running the midfield"

You misread my post LNB, I said when he is fit he runs the game. He has been fit (on those rare occasions) and when he was, and he played, he more often than not ran the game. Great player, not 'could be', but is.

HenrysCat you are a proper football thinker not just a blind fan. Nice to have you around.