Theo Walcott, would you have him at City?

TCIB said:
Newman123 said:
Arsenal fan here. I'd ideally like to see Theo sign a new contract and stay because although he doesn't offer much work rate up and down the flanks he offers goals and assists. The season before he got injured he was in the form of his life and was one of the major reasons for us winning games and scoring goals. The injury has set him back but he's not been given a run of games to find his feet.

I could see City going in for him as well as Liverpool and theres talks that Barca are interested as a Pedro replacement. He offers movement off the ball and finishing so if thats an area city need to improve then it would be a good buy. Once he gets his confidence back you see him start to pick up the ball and drive with it and you see him do things you didn't think he could (lol). Once he's in a good dribble its hard to stop him without fouling him and so he'd be winning a set piece. He may want to play as a striker though and could be used as a ss or a rotation option. The game he got injured he played upfront against tottenham and was probably one of his best games.


Hi Newman123,

I think one of the reasons you have hovered around 4th is because of the debilitating injuries your squad suffers on a reasonably regular basis.
Would you agree with that to any extent or ?
I do like Walcott but it is a big risk imo to have him in a top squad, you included. He is an attacking asset no doubt, i just wonder if his injury record is going to continue in a less than positive direction.

I'd agree to an extent. Yes we've had an unfair amount of injuries every year but its also to do with the fact that wenger didn't change his tactics in big matches which saw us lose quite a few times to Utd/City/Chelsea. Even if we did have our full squads I doubt we would have beat these teams but I do think we would have had more points against mid table teams and so finished higher. Apparently the reason our players are injured so much is because of our training style and I've heard the pitch too,

Some players just get unlucky with injuries. His last one was a cruciate knee ligament injury. It wasnt something which could have been picked up on but was something that happened in the match.


TrueBlue1705 said:
bluechampion7891 said:
Would take sterling over both of them. Isn't injury prone, shown more potential than chamberlain with better end product.

Walcott's a better finisher than Stirling, can play as a genuine striker or winger ..... Walcott I would think may cost half of what Stirling could go for ......


As its his last year next year I think he'd probably go for 15-25M probably more on the side of 25m to a bpl team. Once he gets a run of games and finds his form he'd score for fun and has been called our big game player recently. Though like I said he doesnt track back that much and usually isnt the type to pick up the ball and run with it but look for the space and run into it.
 
Just reeks of a Liverpool signing.

If he isn't good enough to get in Arsenals' first 11 when he is fit why would he get in ours?
 
@BluePhil8 said:
Just reeks of a Liverpool signing.

If he isn't good enough to get in Arsenals' first 11 when he is fit why would he get in ours?

I agree with a lot of that, but how would you feel about Walcott being an impact sub here?

For example, if we got him for £15 million and took him on in the last half an hour of games, I think that could potentially be a really good signing.
 
To be fair to Walcott I think he would be an upgrade on Navas.
His all round game and defending / tracking back is not as good as Jesus's but
as an attacking threat he is more potent.
 
Absolutely no point in buying squad players. We already have all the squad players we need, it's the first xi that needs improving

Also he wont be happy to leave arsenal and not get first team action. He is on 100k I think, we shouldn't offer that much money to a squad player who is also likely to be unavailable when we need him (like jovetic)

For me, keep Navas for a year, evaluate the academy players, if any of them are good enough sell navas in 2016 otherwise keep him for a year more. We don't need to line arsenal pockets so they make another 40m£+ signing
 
ToorakBlue said:
To be fair to Walcott I think he would be an upgrade on Navas.
His all round game and defending / tracking back is not as good as Jesus's but
as an attacking threat he is more potent.
Fuck Sake !


Why is this thread still fuckin going .
 
bluechampion7891 said:
Absolutely no point in buying squad players. We already have all the squad players we need, it's the first xi that needs improving

Also he wont be happy to leave arsenal and not get first team action. He is on 100k I think, we shouldn't offer that much money to a squad player who is also likely to be unavailable when we need him (like jovetic)

For me, keep Navas for a year, evaluate the academy players, if any of them are good enough sell navas in 2016 otherwise keep him for a year more. We don't need to line arsenal pockets so they make another 40m£+ signing
Agree with this.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
Just reeks of a Liverpool signing.

If he isn't good enough to get in Arsenals' first 11 when he is fit why would he get in ours?

1) As good as and as quick as Navas on the wing but with better goal return

2) Can also cover as striker

3) Counts towards homegrown quota

Would be a good signing ... Ok bit of risk with the injury record but at a decent price I wouldn't definitely take him ....
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.