WALCOTT - which position is best etc?

[supergeorgegraham]

Souness and Redknap got it spot on yesterday. They said that losing Van Persie has given the club no option with what they have available. If we had Van Persie then Walcott would not be in the bargaining position he is currently. In fairness to Theo in the few games where he has not scored he has had little or no service at all.
It will be hard for him at Arsenal if players like Cazorla can only truely shine against the like of Reading.
I am not a fan of our formation because the good teams can break us down easily and defend any type of attack we try.

[flash gunner]

Has he signed yet?

[LeftfootlegendGooner]

I was one advocating to sign him up and pay him the 100k or whatever it is but tbh I don't care if he fucks off or not now, this whole saga is only being drawn out so come the last couple of days in January when it is evetually announced that he has signed a contract then wenger knows that this will placate most fans regarding new signings.

And so we will struggle to gain top 5 let alone 4, so if this is how it has been planned then I hope theo does go and today would be best, this would force wenger into the transfer market, although his recent signings do not give me any confidence that he could sign the right player.

This is a nadir in my time as a gooner, I saw my first game at highbury when I was 9 or 10 and willie young scored the first goal i ever saw against sunderland and although that game ended in a 2-2 draw and we were no great shakes at the time we had some great cup runs and it was exciting.

Now I see the likes of bendtner, denilson, squillachi etc being paid HUGE sums of money by Wenger and although I will not throw personal abuse his way I think the guy needs to move on, I believe it is these sums of money that have caused players like Bendtner to have terrible attitude problems, they believe their wages reflect their talent and thus they believe when facing lesser teams (supposedly) than ourselves they are far superior

Yet the truth is that they are closer in ability to players on half their wage, this has not only given them huge egos but also hindered their progress, they no longer have to work hard to improve because their wages suggest they have already reached the pinnacle of their careers.

I can't believe that wenger thinks this squad is strong enough, not considering what squads we have had in the past, I can only assume logically that he is suffering from some form of stress related mentalness

[Top Londoner]

Laughed at "stress related mentalness".

Perhaps Wenger sees his inflated salary as a reflection of his talent?
It might go some way to explain his terrible attitude too?

[LeftfootlegendGooner]

Laughed at "stress related mentalness".

Perhaps Wenger sees his inflated salary as a reflection of his talent?
It might go some way to explain his terrible attitude too?

There is that yes

[Mr Eboue]

Arsenal's Theo Walcott put in a performance to be embarrassed of at the weekend in the club's 2-0 loss to City.

There are statistics, and then there is context, and the combination of the pair is pretty damning for Theo Walcott when you consider his weekend's performance.

Arsenal needed him, badly, against Manchester City, and he was found wanting. Yet it wasn't his performance, but his attitude.

Quickly, the statistics - Walcott touched the ball 18 times against City. In 90 minutes.

By comparison Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain had 13 touches in 12 minutes, and Olivier Giroud when he came on had 21 touches in 33 minutes - More than Walcott in just over a third of the time.

At the other end of the pitch, City's forwards, albeit aided by a more blessed midfield in terms of control of the game, were far more involved, Dzeko 47 touches and Tevez with 53.

What the above shows is just how stringently Walcott stuck to his centre-forward role. Even when Giroud came on, Walcott did not budge from the centre, despite barely getting a kick.

Perhaps he thought Giroud would provide him with flick-ons, and of course Wenger will have issued instructions, but this should have been changed up quickly when it was clear the plan was not working.

Walcott has been accused of holding Arsenal to ransom off the pitch in recent weeks over his ongoing contract situation, with Wenger relenting to his demand to play up front.

It was clear on Sunday that Walcott was playing for himself and not for the team.

Arsenal needed him to drop deep, go wide, and get possession of the ball and help Arsenal build attacks. Unlike Giroud, he has the ability to do this with great effect, as he has repeatedly proved, yet he chose to stay isolated up front - Because he wanted to play striker.

Some Arsenal fans will excuse his performance given some positive showings in recent weeks and the circumstances of having 10 men, but being a man down was exactly why Arsenal needed Walcott to drop deep and get involved, especially once Giroud came on for him to play off.

The fact he touched the ball just five more times than Oxlade-Chamberlain in near than 80 minutes more illustrated his lack of involvement, and lack of willingness to play for the team, when he needed to stop playing as a striker and get more involved.

Walcott wants a big contract at Arsenal, and he will probably end up getting it if it is what he really wants. But he didn't do himself any favours against City.

He has held the Gunners' transfer window to ransom by being a big distraction over the past month, and Arsenal can't afford it to affect the team on the pitch. It smacked of an 'I'm playing up front, and I'm not moving' attitude.

As it is he is essentially conducting a very public trial as a striker, he probably feels it, but he needs to remember it is about the team and not about Theo Walcott; Sunday was a selfish show from him and it isn't one he nor the club's fans will want to see repeated.

http://hereisthecity.com/2013/01/14/ana ... -the-pitc/

Edited to stop confusion.

[Chippy]

Arsenal's Theo Walcott put in a performance to be embarrassed of at the weekend in the club's 2-0 loss to City.

There are statistics, and then there is context, and the combination of the pair is pretty damning for Theo Walcott when you consider his weekend's performance.

Arsenal needed him, badly, against Manchester City, and he was found wanting. Yet it wasn't his performance, but his attitude.

Quickly, the statistics - Walcott touched the ball 18 times against City. In 90 minutes.

By comparison Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain had 13 touches in 12 minutes, and Olivier Giroud when he came on had 21 touches in 33 minutes - More than Walcott in just over a third of the time.

At the other end of the pitch, City's forwards, albeit aided by a more blessed midfield in terms of control of the game, were far more involved, Dzeko 47 touches and Tevez with 53.

What the above shows is just how stringently Walcott stuck to his centre-forward role. Even when Giroud came on, Walcott did not budge from the centre, despite barely getting a kick.

Perhaps he thought Giroud would provide him with flick-ons, and of course Wenger will have issued instructions, but this should have been changed up quickly when it was clear the plan was not working.

Walcott has been accused of holding Arsenal to ransom off the pitch in recent weeks over his ongoing contract situation, with Wenger relenting to his demand to play up front.

It was clear on Sunday that Walcott was playing for himself and not for the team.

Arsenal needed him to drop deep, go wide, and get possession of the ball and help Arsenal build attacks. Unlike Giroud, he has the ability to do this with great effect, as he has repeatedly proved, yet he chose to stay isolated up front - Because he wanted to play striker.

Some Arsenal fans will excuse his performance given some positive showings in recent weeks and the circumstances of having 10 men, but being a man down was exactly why Arsenal needed Walcott to drop deep and get involved, especially once Giroud came on for him to play off.

The fact he touched the ball just five more times than Oxlade-Chamberlain in near than 80 minutes more illustrated his lack of involvement, and lack of willingness to play for the team, when he needed to stop playing as a striker and get more involved.

Walcott wants a big contract at Arsenal, and he will probably end up getting it if it is what he really wants. But he didn't do himself any favours against City.

He has held the Gunners' transfer window to ransom by being a big distraction over the past month, and Arsenal can't afford it to affect the team on the pitch. It smacked of an 'I'm playing up front, and I'm not moving' attitude.

As it is he is essentially conducting a very public trial as a striker, he probably feels it, but he needs to remember it is about the team and not about Theo Walcott; Sunday was a selfish show from him and it isn't one he nor the club's fans will want to see repeated.

Sorry mate if you copy and paste can give the link or at least say where it is from. Cheers

[I Hate Hleb]

Is this your own view or copied from a blog/article? If the latter, please indicate the source.

[northbank123]

He was dire. But do you really think it would have helped if he dropped deep? He would have been getting the ball well in our own half with nobody further forward in that case. The best option was still to look for balls in behind, unfortunately his runs were terrible and he was caught offside too often and only looked like possibly getting in once that I can remember.

But I wouldn't say he held us to ransom or was selfish. He just had a poor game like the rest of our players.

[augie]

Not a walnut fan but dropping deep sunday would have been worse as far as I am concerned cos we would have been left with no outlet at all. That being said, when you look at the number of touches he had in the game then you would have to agree that he was fcuk all of an outlet anyway and I am absolutely astounded at how few touches he had in the entire game especially when you compare it to ox's stats (and to a lesser degree giroud's).
Lets face it, feo is not built to play the lone striker job - he might work up front in a 4-4-2 but we cant say for sure and it is also worth noting that only 5 of his goals this season came when he was playing as a centre forward

[mcdowell42]

Understand that there's been some movement today on Walcotts new deal, and close to finalization now. Club gone as far as possible

What that means now is if they know he 'may' be signing could mean that they could be ready to move in market



TWITTER

[BournemouthRED]

Understand that there's been some movement today on Walcotts new deal, and close to finalization now. Club gone as far as possible

What that means now is if they know he 'may' be signing could mean that they could be ready to move in market



TWITTER

What an absolute crock of shit

[DB10GOONER]

Quickly, the statistics - Walcott touched the ball 18 times against City. In 90 minutes.

By comparison Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain had 13 touches in 12 minutes, and Olivier Giroud when he came on had 21 touches in 33 minutes - More than Walcott in just over a third of the time.

Once again, proof of why statistics without a qualifier are absolute bollocks. Walcott was playing as an out and out striker. Ox as a midfielder. In a team playing (for all intents and purposes) a 4-5-1. In a team that over-elaborates and over passes the ball continuously and slowly IN MIDFIELD. In a team that has struggled to supply it's strikers all season. OF COURSE THE OX GOT MORE TOUCHES!!

The author's solution? Walcott should have dropped deeper to get the ball. Yeah, and further packed out an over crowded midfield leaving us with nothing up front.

I agree with augie that Feo is not suited to the lone striker role, but that was the role he was handed by our inept manager. The lone striker's job is to stay up front as an outlet for the midfield. Dropping deep just kills that outlet off.

If Feo playing as a striker is going to work we either need to play him as part of a 4-4-2 or utilise a deeper midfield to put the ball in behind the oppo and use Feo's pace. But then that would also require efficient fast movement of the ball in midfield, NOT tippy tappy passy pass pass and proper pacey attacking support from the midfield.

[augie]

Granted stats are mostly a pile of shit (although don't tell flash cos he loves them ) and I agree about midfielders touching the ball more frequently but surely to Christ 18 touches in 90+ mins of football compared to 13 in ox's 13 minutes is absolutely shocking ? If true I also find the stat that only 5 of Wally's goals this season came when he was playing centre forward to be very relevant - I am sick of hearing how his goals prove that he is a natural centre forward so scoring most of his goals from the wing might undermine that argument

[DB10GOONER]

Granted stats are mostly a pile of shit (although don't tell flash cos he loves them ) and I agree about midfielders touching the ball more frequently but surely to Christ 18 touches in 90+ mins of football compared to 13 in ox's 13 minutes is absolutely shocking ? If true I also find the stat that only 5 of Wally's goals this season came when he was playing centre forward to be very relevant - I am sick of hearing how his goals prove that he is a natural centre forward so scoring most of his goals from the wing might undermine that argument

Yeah, I agree 18 touches is poor when viewed by itself, but again I'd probably point at the qualifying circumstances that our system and style of play wouldn't help him. Also, this is one game. We were down to 10 men so of course he'd see less of the ball than our crowded midfield would. To get something even vaguely close to an accurate reflection of his input to games as a striker we'd need to evaluate it over a whole season in the same position. Then there are other qualifying criteria such as did he have a drop in form for that one game and the aforementioned 10 men v 11 men.

Not defending Theo here because TBH I'm still not convinced about him either way, just arguing that stats taken out of context, based on one game, with no qualifying criteria, are very open to interpretation and prove zilch.