Will Theo ever step up?

[kamikaze80]

if he had half henry's footballing intelligence and/or technique, we'd have quite a player on our hands. technically, ljungberg was superior to walcott. if walcott doesn't develop any further, he might just become the new wiltord, which isn't bad. i think wiltord was the better shooter, but again theo is still very young and getting better all the time.

 

[mood]

Walcott has to play as a centre forward for us to truly see the best of him. He's not a dribbler, but he has plenty of pace and can make excellent runs - perfect attributes for a centre forward. I think he's got a good finish on him and he can get a goals in from a more central position and further up front.

 

[Macho]

The notion that Theo lacks technique is as big of a myth as any.

Depends on a person's definition of technique I suppose.

I mean looking at it through my understanding of technique, there is nothing he can't do. His crosses are decent, his shots at goal are ok even if they lack any sort of power, he has shown he is a good dribbler despite what many people say.

His understanding of the game in my opinion is what lets him down. A lot. Well, he struggles to play the way we are supposed to play anyways. Games can easily pass him by. He lacks imagination when it comes to losing/beating his marker and his decision making is off when it matters.

In a team where the football is more straight foward like Aston Villa, I can see Walcott doing very well. We can use his displays for England as an example of this.

 

[MAK 14]

The 1st part of the highlighted bit is an backhanded admission that he is not currently good enough, as far as the second, Wenger is human and humans get things wrong! One would have thought that "Wenger knows" would be used less and less considering our successes in the last 4-5 years!

Of course he's not good enough for a starting place, we all know that - but he's definitely good enough to be at Arsenal. You're right humans get things wrong, but do you think that Wenger would keep persisting with Theo if he realized he got it wrong? He would of given up on him by now.

Again a backhanded admission that he is no good in his current position

I'm definitely not denying that, he's a terrible winger. My point was that you play anyone in a different position it'll be hard for them, too.

I am not going to the go into the issue of the ever moving goalpost, we've been at this since he was 16! suffice to say what i always say: I am only interested in what's best for Arsenal, Theo Walcott's development is secondary to me and his education should not come at the expense of the team, If he need sto improve aspects of his game, it should not come at the expense of the team, he should do it on his own time and come back when he's ready. If you are not currently good enough for the spot you occupy, you should not be there, simple! Each game you put a square peg in a round hole, you weaken the team, the player may have the odd good game, but over the course of a season it will tell! You don't win trophies that way.

I agree with that, young Theo's development should definitely not come before the team. I love Arsenal much more than Walcott, this is why i say that a cameo role off the bench would be best for Theo. For now he needs to be an impact sub, and with the players we've got, i think he will.

 

[Anzac]

Let's be honest - I can't see AW playing 2 up front so that would mean Theo would either have to play the wide man OR as lone striker. Currently he's not up to the latter without a creative player behind him in the hole.

With the current shape he'll stay on the flanks, the only way he'll play centrally is in a 4411/4231.

 

[est]

Depends on a person's definition of technique I suppose.

I mean looking at it through my understanding of technique, there is nothing he can't do. His crosses are decent, his shots at goal are ok even if they lack any sort of power, he has shown he is a good dribbler despite what many people say.

His understanding of the game in my opinion is what lets him down. A lot. Well, he struggles to play the way we are supposed to play anyways. Games can easily pass him by. He lacks imagination when it comes to losing/beating his marker and his decision making is off when it matters.

In a team where the football is more straight foward like Aston Villa, I can see Walcott doing very well. We can use his displays for England as an example of this.

Good post. I'd also add that what's frustrating about him is his inconsistency, rather than his lack of technique.

Agree with the bit in bold completely. Too often he tries to rush things and crosses to nobody or takes on defenders if he'd be better off waiting for his teammates to catch up. These are things one can improve with experience, hence I still have faith in Theo.

 

[Anzac]

Depends on a person's definition of technique I suppose.

I mean looking at it through my understanding of technique, there is nothing he can't do. His crosses are decent, his shots at goal are ok even if they lack any sort of power, he has shown he is a good dribbler despite what many people say.

His understanding of the game in my opinion is what lets him down. A lot. Well, he struggles to play the way we are supposed to play anyways. Games can easily pass him by. He lacks imagination when it comes to losing/beating his marker and his decision making is off when it matters.

In a team where the football is more straight foward like Aston Villa, I can see Walcott doing very well. We can use his displays for England as an example of this.

Good post. I'd also add that what's frustrating about him is his inconsistency, rather than his lack of technique.

Agree with the bit in bold completely. Too often he tries to rush things and crosses to nobody or takes on defenders if he'd be better off waiting for his teammates to catch up. These are things one can improve with experience, hence I still have faith in Theo.

I agree with point B regarding intelligence.
As for experience - isn't this what these youngsters have, or so we have been told = they aren't inexperienced & Theo has had more opportunity to gain experience than most. He's been a part of the 1st team for 2-3 seasons now and an automatic starter when not injured since Hleb moved into the hole behind Ade.

 

[Captain]

Theo is good enough if the rest of the team is reliable. He may not effect the game for the full 90mins but he can produce match winning moments at any given time.

 

[progman07]

Theo is good enough if the rest of the team is reliable. He may not effect the game for the full 90mins but he can produce match winning moments at any given time.

I also thought so, but I'm starting to change my mind about Theo.

2 goals, 2 assists are VERY poor for a player whose job is nothing but to provide end product, and we were forced to play ineffective formations just because Theo is too attacking minded so we had to get guys like Diaby involved.

 

[JGooner]

We were successful when we were quick and direct.

When we were successful Theo wouldn't have gotten on the bench. We were quick, direct and technically brilliant.

Ljungberg wasn't technically brilliant. He was technically inferior to Walcott, by some margin.

 

[Captain]

Can't agree with that assessment at all; Ljungberg had the basics of football down pat, Theo still struggles with simple technical issues like carrying the ball and controlling it with one touch.

 

[qs]

Theo is too attacking minded so we had to get guys like Diaby involved.

This makes no sense at all.

 

[progman07]

Theo is too attacking minded so we had to get guys like Diaby involved.

This makes no sense at all.

Tell it to Wenger, it isn't my thought but Wenger's.

He thinks if we have Arshavin and Theo in the same team we have to get another "more defensive midfielder" in for the balance, not that Diaby cares about defending but Wenger thinks so.

 

[lagos]

There is a romantic notion of what Theo is, what he can do and what he can be for us and then there is the reality! Unfortunately many people are too emotionally involved with the notion of Theo as the next superstar to recognise the reality and they tend to merge the reality with their romantic notion.


The issue with Theo boils down to your aspirations for the club, if like Hill-Wood you consider $th spot a prize, we can probably get away with using Theo as a 1st teamer for another season (the likes of Mancity, Everton, Sp**s and Villa won't be hanging around for ever). However if as I believe like most fans you want to be among the elite of football and actually win things, then 1) Theo Walcott should be banished from our midfield, 2)if he indeed is a decent striker (let's face it we haven't really seen him in that role, our "belief" that he will be is based primarily on what we were told when we signed him and a lot of what we've been told has turned out to be hogwash), then he should work hard and compete to earn his spot with our current strikers 3) He should be deployed primarily as a sub if we need something different or the opposition are heavy legged or in games that are well won and we need to rest players.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

We were successful when we were quick and direct.

When we were successful Theo wouldn't have gotten on the bench. We were quick, direct and technically brilliant.

Ljungberg wasn't technically brilliant. He was technically inferior to Walcott, by some margin.

Ljungberg was a great technician who started out playing centrally. He only moved to the wing once he was bought by Arsenal. Most people never thought he'd succeed in that role. If anything that's what's surprising.

Theo is too attacking minded so we had to get guys like Diaby involved.

This makes no sense at all.

Tell it to Wenger, it isn't my thought but Wenger's.

He thinks if we have Arshavin and Theo in the same team we have to get another "more defensive midfielder" in for the balance, not that Diaby cares about defending but Wenger thinks so.

No he doesn't. That's usually the argument for playing three central midfielders, but Diaby has never - or at least very rarely - played centrally during those circumstances.

 

[fabo]

Agree with all 3 points.

Regarding number 2, it seems to be brought up when people are defending his mediocrity from midfield saying how it's not his best role. Yet there's little to suggest he'll perform from a central position. Actually, this right forward role is more likely his best position depending on how high up the pitch we can get him. Regardless, I don't think he has enough competition for his place - it's just too easy for some of these lads to get games at a top club.

Read a comment back a few pages saying Theo would get into most big 4 teams but IMHO he wouldn't start for any of them aswell as teams like City, Sp**s and Villa. Maybe underrating him slightly but I don't think so.

 

[lagos]

I really don't understand this idea that Walcott is technically superior to Ljunberg, another example of romanticism. Walcott is one of the weakest (if not actually the weakest) player technically in our current 1st 22.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

fabo: I think you do. I think Theo would have a good chance at getting a start at both Liverpool and United.

lagos: That doesn't say much to be honest though - we've got a team made out of excellent technicians all over. Theo is quite good in that aspect compared to pure pace merchants like Agbonlahor and Traore. It's just that he's usually operating at a much higher speed than your average player. His ability to move the ball at high speed is very impressive.

 

[lagos]

1. I'd rather have Agbonlahor than Theo, it's a bit rich calling Agbonlahor a pure pace merchant!

2. which Traore? Armand?

3. yeah but what how about when he isn't moving the ball at pace? how often with our style of play does he get the chance to move the ball at play? and what does he contribute when he isn't? which brings me back to 1 above, isn't he just a pure pace merchant? and in that respect isn't Agbonlahor better as he offers more than just pace?

 

[Lancelot]

His link-up play has improved a lot, I would say; with that in mind in addition to the fact that speed merchants are often and tightly marked by a defender or two due to what they can do when there is space available in front of them, I sincerely believe that, at the very least & without the ball, he would either provide for a good passing outlet or a good zonal destroyer as he tends to drag one defender along as he moves.