Is Wenger right about Walcott?

I'm not saying he doesn't want speed. But it's clear he has priotised physical size and hold up play over speed. My hindsight over certain players is irrelevant. It's Wenger and the scouts that should be aware of these players. Not me and just further proves the point that there were players available and could very well be more out there now.

As for Suarez, we sold Ade for £25m and that sat in the bank for a while. I don't believe we'd have gone bust with that signing. £5m more than our record signing.

I think the players we've bought reflects on our unbalanced team. Too heavy at the top but very light in midfield. Wenger trying to find another Adebayor hasn't helped up. You only have to look at his words on Chamakh when we signed him to see the strategy at play. I just think it was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

As for Suarez, we sold Ade for £25m and that sat in the bank for a while. I don't believe we'd have gone bust with that signing. £5m more than our record signing.

---

not bust, but Arsenal is not a club that can sign expensive flops. Particularly in that period. Its damaging. IT was damaging when we couldnt get bums like Bendtner off the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastermind84

not bust, but Arsenal is not a club that can sign expensive flops. Particularly in that period. Its damaging. IT was damaging when we couldnt get bums like Bendtner off the books.

---

Suarez wouldn't have been an expensive flop. Like David Villa at Valencia or Aguero at Atletico it shouldn't take a genius to see these players were worth the money.

We can't afford expensive flops and £22m isn't cheap. But you can't compare Suarez and Bendy in that regard. Two totally different risks being taken but we'll take the expensive gamble on bums like Bendy and pay £10m here another £10m there and £2m here and that's your £22m on flops.

Suarez moved to Liverpool in the January 2011 window. In the summer 2011 window we spent around £50m.

£12m on Ox,
£10m on Gervinho,
£10m Arteta
£8m Merts
£6m on Santos,
£3m on Park Chu Young
£1m on Campbell
£500k on Eisfield

Only two of those players are regular starters, Campbell was eligible to play because of his work permit, you've already said your piece on Ox, Gervinho, Santos and Park were flops already gone. That's what I deem expensive and risky over signing someone like Suarez. I don't understand why we were shopping in bargain basements and taking risks on players nobody ever heard of over proven players just destined for a move to a big club. Senseless stuff. Not wanting to take the risk resulted in the trophyless years and players leaving. Instead of investing the money from sales of players like Henry, Ade, RVP we'd go for the above type players. The ones on other top club would bid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Have we really seen enough of Walcott to make any solid judgements? He's played well in a few games, but that's all we've had from him because he's injured most of the time. Will we ever get a season out of him, or enough of a season to make a difference? He needs to have a RVC recovery and get a season under his belt. If he can't do that we need to be looking for a player who can. However good Theo is or isn't, makes no odds if he's not on the pitch.

---

Good question - but given that he's not had the striker's role for very long - the team has made a step change in terms of balance. He gives Ozil and Sanchez some space to work in, and we have seen the greater opportunities the team has had going forwards as a result. As you rightly say, however, can he stay on the pitch to make the new approach mean something for us.

If people are being honest with themselves then we already know the answer to that - no he can't. He'll score goals, put in some good performances but if by this age he is still getting injured so much then it will remain that way for the rest of his career. Walcott is not a player we can rely on to build a strategy around.

First you were saying he can't play as striker and that he doesn't score goals and now the crystal ball is saying he'll never stay fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Suarez wouldn't have been an expensive flop. Like David Villa at Valencia or Aguero at Atletico it shouldn't take a genius to see these players were worth the money.

We can't afford expensive flops and £22m isn't cheap. But you can't compare Suarez and Bendy in that regard. Two totally different risks being taken but we'll take the expensive gamble on bums like Bendy and pay £10m here another £10m there and £2m here and that's your £22m on flops.

---

I didnt compare Suarez to Bendtner.

I mentioned Bendtner because we had bad contracts on the books like Bendtner's. Like Denislon's (who I loved as a player and really feel he got a raw deal). Like Diaby. Like Rosicky.

And if I told you a 23 year old striker, who is a proven nutcase, was scoring goals in Holland for fun, a lot of people would say "but its Holland?" Do not compare that situation to La Liga.

I do agree about nickel and diming that Wenger and Co did which either lead to talents like a Nasri and Koscielny, or bums like Gervinho. Its a tricky game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Suarez moved to Liverpool in the January 2011 window. In the summer 2011 window we spent around £50m.

£12m on Ox,
£10m on Gervinho,
£10m Arteta
£8m Merts
£6m on Santos,
£3m on Park Chu Young
£1m on Campbell
£500k on Eisfield

Only two of those players are regular starters, Campbell was eligible to play because of his work permit, you've already said your piece on Ox, Gervinho, Santos and Park were flops already gone. That's what I deem expensive and risky over signing someone like Suarez. I don't understand why we were shopping in bargain basements and taking risks on players nobody ever heard of over proven players just destined for a move to a big club. Senseless stuff. Not wanting to take the risk resulted in the trophyless years and players leaving. Instead of investing the money from sales of players like Henry, Ade, RVP we'd go for the above type players. The ones on other top club would bid for.

---

I dont disagree with you entirely, but this summer we lost Fabregas and Nasri. Those monies were basically from those sales. Wenger may have felt its best to spread the quality instead of making the big huge signing. TBF, he had done that many times before and it was shown to be successful. (in 1999, we sold Anelka and signed Henry, Sukur, and Slyvinho)

He had just flopped with that summer's signings because I still feel he thought he could keep Nasri and Fabregas.

I dont know how that summer relates to Suarez though since we sold neither during that period.

I know you're not comparing Bendy and Suarez as players but it's a bad comparison in terms of transfer risks. That should be obvious.

Again, fan perception of a potential signing and what league they play in is totally irrelevant. That's for the scouts and manager to make a call on. Also we bought Giroud, Gervinho, Park and Chamakh from the French league. Clubs that have no history of a producing great talent like Ajax. That's a another bad point you've made. Santos came from the Turkish league. Jenkinson and Ox came from the Championship. If we as fans accepted them, I seriosuly doubt there would have been strong objections from fans because a player came from Ajax with that sort of record. You only had to watch a couple of games of him to see what sort of player he was. He had a very sketchy history, it got worse at Liverpool but it makes no sense that we moved in after he had gone to Liverpool and lead astray by those northern, feral, racists. :lol:

But back to the original point. You say there were no players on the market we could afford at that time. I say you're wrong because I'm using Suarez's move to Liverpool as one example and also, the same year Liverpool bought Suarez, we bought Ox and Gervinho. That's the funds for that deal. £22m identified and we bought those two players early in the summer without having to sell. Gazidis also kept saying we had funds in the bank so I don't know how much more evidence you need. Can't always defend the indefensible. We just had a bad strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

First you were saying he can't play as striker and that he doesn't score goals and now the crystal ball is saying he'll never stay fit.

---

I don't think you need to be Derren Brown to see what a fuck up this boy is. 26 (closer to 27) and established as a legend in the medical industry and nothing more than another vanity project for Wenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano

I don't think you need to be Derren Brown to see what a fuck up this boy is. 26 (closer to 27) and established as a legend in the medical industry and nothing more than another vanity project for Wenger.

---

Again, I remember you saying he doesn't contribute to this club and isn't good enough to be a striker for us. That's I find it comical. Keep those knives out for him. :lol:

This is too easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano

This is too easy.

---

Like your mum?



:woohoo:

:run:

If you like dead people sure, can't get easier than that.

Letters, once again, digs himself into hole. :run:

Well, that would be the first step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano

If people are being honest with themselves then we already know the answer to that - no he can't. He'll score goals, put in some good performances but if by this age he is still getting injured so much then it will remain that way for the rest of his career. Walcott is not a player we can rely on to build a strategy around.

---

And this is the crux of it - Wenger has altered his approach, but his perennial gambles with crocked players, and inactivity with transfers as a result is likely to sabotage it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

I know you're not comparing Bendy and Suarez as players but it's a bad comparison in terms of transfer risks. That should be obvious.

---

I will say it once again, I was not making a comparison.

The point I was making is that Bendtner's contract, and the other bad contracts that were signed, may have impeded Arsenal going at Suarez. The money that could go for a Suarez was being spent elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Again, fan perception of a potential signing and what league they play in is totally irrelevant. That's for the scouts and manager to make a call on. Also we bought Giroud, Gervinho, Park and Chamakh from the French league. Clubs that have no history of a producing great talent like Ajax. That's a another bad point you've made. Santos came from the Turkish league. Jenkinson and Ox came from the Championship. If we as fans accepted them, I seriosuly doubt there would have been strong objections from fans because a player came from Ajax with that sort of record. You only had to watch a couple of games of him to see what sort of player he was. He had a very sketchy history, it got worse at Liverpool but it makes no sense that we moved in after he had gone to Liverpool and lead astray by those northern, feral, racists. :lol:

---

thats a bad point.

Ligue 1 has a proven record of providing the Premier League with talent the last 10-15 years. Suarez is the only attacker from the Eredivsie to light up England since... I wouldnt count van Persie since he was a kid. What Ajax did in the 80s and 90s has nothing to do with today.

We seeing a great product from PSV struggle at United right now. PSV has a great history of producing players as well, right?

Suarez was the goods, but if someone was apprehensive at spending 20 million+ on him I would get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

But back to the original point. You say there were no players on the market we could afford at that time. I say you're wrong because I'm using Suarez's move to Liverpool as one example and also, the same year Liverpool bought Suarez, we bought Ox and Gervinho. That's the funds for that deal. £22m identified and we bought those two players early in the summer without having to sell. Gazidis also kept saying we had funds in the bank so I don't know how much more evidence you need. Can't always defend the indefensible. We just had a bad strategy.

---

Dont believe everything the club said. Actions speak louder than words and Wenger and Gazidis are now saying that there are more funds available than before.

The way you are talking, you think Suarez was a slam dunk in 2011 to be great. He wasnt. I think the club scouted poorly and has for a while, but I understand the Suarez apprehension.

Quote:

---

Ligue 1 has a proven record of providing the Premier League with talent the last 10-15 years. Suarez is the only attacker from the Eredivsie to light up England since... I wouldnt count van Persie since he was a kid. What Ajax did in the 80s and 90s has nothing to do with today.

---

Well this is getting silly. :lol: We bought Park from a relegated Monaco in the French league. Giroud used to play in Ligue 2 for a while. Santos came from the Turkish league. Ox was playing in the Championship and he had very little experience in that league as well. Yet you understand the apprehension to buying Suarez because he played for Ajax? You’d be making perfect sense if we weren’t a club that took risks on players, but as said, Gervinho and Ox alone totalled up to £22m. Maybe we dropped the ball on some players but we can’t make lame excuses for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Yet you understand the apprehension to buying Suarez because he played for Ajax?

---

no, I understand anyone having an apprehension of paying 22 million for an attacker from the Eredivsie back when 22 million was a huge sum. Thats what I have said over and over.


Giroud lead Ligue 1 in goals. Park was a nonsense signing that I never liked. Santos was a Brazilian international. Chamberlain had big English clubs chasing him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastermind84

no, I understand anyone having an apprehension of paying 22 million for an attacker from the Eredivsie back when 22 million was a huge sum. Thats what I have said over and over.


Giroud lead Ligue 1 in goals. Park was a nonsense signing that I never liked. Santos was a Brazilian international. Chamberlain had big English clubs chasing him.

---

Santos a Brazilian International. :lol:

Suarez was a top goal scorer too. How do you miss a guy that scored 49 goals from 48 in 09/10?

Again, the excuses are silly. Let’s just say we had RVP and weren’t looking for a striker at the time. That makes more sense. But to try and discredit the Dutch league when we’re buying guys from the Championship division and Turkish league is quite remarkable. £22m is a risk but so is spending that combined total on a teenager who hasn’t developed as quickly as you’d like and a winger in the French league that you could see was a very flawed player from his days in France.

And Suarez wasn't an international?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Suarez was a top goal scorer too.

---

In the Eredivisie.

Jozy Altidore scored 23 goals there.

Alfonso Alves scored like 100 goals in Holland and then was shit in Middlesborough. There is a track record of Eredivise attackers being terrible in England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastermind84

In the Eredivisie.

Jozy Altidore scored 23 goals there.

Alfonso Alves scored like 100 goals in Holland and then was shit in Middlesborough. There is a track record of Eredivise attackers being terrible in England.

---

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

We’re really shifting goal posts here. What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud. Putting aside goal scoring records, stats and club rep, they have eyes. It should be clear as day which of the punch suits our style and who doesn’t. Dribbling ability, pace, stamina and intensity, handling pressure…Suarez is one example of many. It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

---

for 8 million, DUDE!

The point I was making, and what you keep ignoring, is that Suarez cost 22 million in 2011. This club didnt have that much money and hedged the money they did have on bad contracts.

You are speaking with hindsight instead of remembering 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud.

---

none of them cost 22 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

---

were the club ever in for any of those players, minus Mata? And Mata isnt really hot stuff anyway.

The Xabi Alonso stuff seems like it was made up. Once Liverpool couldnt get Gareth Barry, Alonso was going nowhere. Villa and Silva were not serious.

Quote:

---

The point I was making, and what you keep ignoring, is that Suarez cost 22 million in 2011. This club didnt have that much money and hedged the money they did have on bad contracts.

---

I’m not ignoring the fee. I totally understand that £22m isn’t cheap. But when you take £10m and another £12m, spend it on two lesser players it equates to the same fee. Is that hard to understand? And we’re talking about a very flawed player from the French league and a kid that’s never played in the Premier League. Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

I’m not ignoring the fee. I totally understand that £22m isn’t cheap. But when you take £10m and another £12m, spend it on two lesser players it equates to the same fee. Is that hard to understand? And we’re talking about a very flawed player from the French league and a kid that’s never played in the Premier League. Does that make sense?

---

and the thing i will repeat again, is that Wenger has done this before and the fans lauded him for it when those players turned into an Henry or Fabregas or Adebayor or RVP. He messed up with the players he bought for those fees but I get why he did it. Also the club needed more bodies, more depth. It turned out to be completely wrong and we needed a magician like Suarez but I get what the thinking was.

And Giroud is not a very flawed player. Thats crap. He is limited due to his lack of speed, but very flawed he is not. The wastemen you wanted earlier like Ba and Bony are flawed.

edit: I will amend this, Bony is not a wasteman. Remy is though.

The flawed player I was referring to was Gervinho. The more depth argument doesn't work if you're combining the fees of Ox, Campbell, and Park with Gervinho's. Gervinho was a first team regular and the rest barely or never featured to help our season. We might have well spent £20m+ on a player that would feature and contribute.

What Wenger has done before and what he was lauded for is a different matter. He got it wrong but that's different to the players and money not being there. It's not a valid excuse. He was trying to make £20m stretch over 2 or 3 players and we just ended up diluting the quality of player. Yes, he messed up and that is the point I've been making from the start. I don't believe the type of player we needed was never available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

We’re really shifting goal posts here. What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud. Putting aside goal scoring records, stats and club rep, they have eyes. It should be clear as day which of the punch suits our style and who doesn’t. Dribbling ability, pace, stamina and intensity, handling pressure…Suarez is one example of many. It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

---

:gp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

We’re really shifting goal posts here. What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud. Putting aside goal scoring records, stats and club rep, they have eyes. It should be clear as day which of the punch suits our style and who doesn’t. Dribbling ability, pace, stamina and intensity, handling pressure…Suarez is one example of many. It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

---

IMO our flaws in the transfer market have more to do with Wenger's desire to be proven right than anything else. He persists with players that he has developed rather than cashing in his chips and moving on - when more pragmatic managers would either accept that they are perennial crocks or that they will never fulfill their promise. Which brings us back to the question that I posed originally. With Walcott, I don't think the problem is the manager's vision for the player and what he brings to the team, I think it is that his castle may be built on sand - because there's no point building the team's new approach on a striker who looks like never being there for a whole season. We have Giroud who has shown consistently that he can't do the business over a period of time, and his alternative that is usually crocked. Wenger seems to insist on shooting himself in the foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

IMO our flaws in the transfer market have more to do with Wenger's desire to be proven right than anything else. He persists with players that he has developed rather than cashing in his chips and moving on - when more pragmatic managers would either accept that they are perennial crocks or that they will never fulfill their promise. Which brings us back to the question that I posed originally. With Walcott, I don't think the problem is the manager's vision for the player and what he brings to the team, I think it is that his castle may be built on sand - because there's no point building the team's new approach on a striker who looks like never being there for a whole season. We have Giroud who has shown consistently that he can't do the business over a period of time, and his alternative that is usually crocked. Wenger seems to insist on shooting himself in the foot.

---

I agree with Wenger persisting with players and being stubborn but I don't think that's the case with Theo playing as striker or the striker position in general. Theo's had to really fight his way past the crowd for that position. This wasn't planned. If Wenger had his way, Sanogo would be his second striker from the bench. If Welbeck hadn't gotten injured, I doubt Theo would have had a long run either.

Theo playing as striker reminds me of how Flamini and Song emerged as DM's. If you recall, Wenger had Flamini pegged as a wingback and Song as a CB. If it weren't for injuries, neither player would have played in their preferred position. That's the case for Theo. He was a striker when we bought him, Wenger thinks otherwise and he's stubbornly played on the wing most of his career.

We've seen a few changes in personnel up front but Wenger has consistently valued height and power over pace and mobility. Adebayor, Bendy, Chamakh, Giroud, Sanogo...he's given more games and chances to these sorts of players over short, quick and nimble strikers. Maybe it's a fear of the shorter players being bullied off the ball but I think yesterday showed the weakness in having someone to slow to lose his marker and gets caught up in the physical battles.

We've had plenty of opportunities to move away from this sort of striker, as said, it goes as far back as Adebayor, but it's been an age since we bought a striker with pace. I just don't think Wenger has been looking for that sort if striker. When speaking of Martial moving to Utd, he said he saw him more as a wide player and not a striker.

As for building a castle on sand, I think we're building that if we continue on with Wenger. Regardless of who we buy or the type of player we need, he'll find a way to crock them. I thing his actions of the weekend proves the point I've been saying for a while. Sanchez imo would be the ideal candidate to convert into a striker. He's perfect for it. But he's just been crocked so we end up at square one again.

The manager needs to buy more quality in the key positions and then learn how to rotate the squad so he can keep players fresh. Plenty of opportunity for Theo, Bif and A.N.Other if Wenger was sensible with his selection policies. As it is, his version of rotation is to change the whole team when he doesn't care about the result. Rest of the time the same players get run to death. Going back to buying quality in depth, he won't ever do that so everything else is a non-starter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

IMO our flaws in the transfer market have more to do with Wenger's desire to be proven right than anything else. He persists with players that he has developed rather than cashing in his chips and moving on - when more pragmatic managers would either accept that they are perennial crocks or that they will never fulfill their promise. Which brings us back to the question that I posed originally. With Walcott, I don't think the problem is the manager's vision for the player and what he brings to the team, I think it is that his castle may be built on sand - because there's no point building the team's new approach on a striker who looks like never being there for a whole season. We have Giroud who has shown consistently that he can't do the business over a period of time, and his alternative that is usually crocked. Wenger seems to insist on shooting himself in the foot.

---

I agree with both you and PnG, in terms of the squad, I think Wenger has mismanaged transfer windows for a good few seasons now, of course he bought well in Cech, Sanchez & Ozil but they really were no brainers and were brought in to improve our first XI which they all have and significantly. Where Wenger falls over is consistently leaving the squad short of quality and consistent back up players, I agree with you in as much as he does it to prove a point. The fact that he has to come out with statements like "Quality isn't linked to price" and stuff like that tells me all I need to know about his approach and stance on the transfer window. I'm more than happy with him to persist with players assuming they remain fit, the problem we have is that every single season we have half our players out crocked, the likes of Arteta and Rosicky are pretty much worthless to us now because they are never fit! They are essentially clogging up squad space.

I do agree with P'n'G in as much as we should have pace up front, the team seems to function better that way, some of our performances have been explosive with Theo up top, he might not be the solution but an alternative with pace would be better suited to the team than Giroud. Giroud is an OK player, he scores goals...but his lack of consistency and lack of pace lets him down.

Finally and I know I have banged on about this a bit, the problem for me is Wenger, he will always do enough to keep most of us satisfied but he will never do enough to move us forward. He needs to go now, we need a new man in who is a little more pragmatic and who is focused on moving the football team forward at all costs.

3 thoughtful posts, so I will do my best to give a considered reply.


PnG - I agree wholeheartedly with you about the principle of Walcott. As with so much about our manager, his promotion represented a lot that is good about Wenger. I think that he realises that with Ozil as a prime playmaker and Sanchez capable of drawing defences out of position, Walcott was a key link in a team evolving to deal with teams deling with our technical ability and close passing skills by having the discipline and patience to sit deep and catch us on the break. I think you also made the point some time ago that using Walcott's pace means that we don't have to play so high up the pitch and are therefore less vulnerable to the sucker punch. And the frustrating thing is that it was working extremely well - and Walcott was performing betters as a striker than many thought he was capable of. Earlier
this season we were looking like we had proper team balance and that was making a real difference to the way that we were able to impose ourselves upon teams rather than simply keeping possession and desperately looking for individual brilliance from a star player to do something exceptional to score.


But we have seen this fresh approach falter for the simplest of reasons. Walcott can't stay fit. And unlike our other brilliant players in this category - Rosicky and Wilshere - we have no replacement.


So we come to NQ's point. We don't have adequate back up. I think that if we didn't have the long long history of Wenger's key players being out long enough each season to kill us as far as the league is concerned we would give him more of the benefit of the doubt. But as it is, the Walcott situation more than any other recently illustrates something that I think most of us feel deep down. As Selassie says, it feels like he is Wenger is doing the bare minimum to give the illusion that we can still compete for trophies. The problem with Walcott is not the principle, it's the execution. The team works with him in it but winning the league relying on Walcott is a gamble, with more of a chance of it failing than succeeding when the player is absent as usual for months on end.


So I guess the real question is - is Wenger right to gamble with building a team around Walcott. As usual, the manager could say that this is justified. However a pragmatist - and the manager of one of Europe's top teams would say no - that this variable is something that can't be tolerated if the team is going to have the best chance of winning. in this sense I think we could say that Walcott sums up where we are as a team - an incomplete solution - and a player whose fitness issues will ultimately prevent us from winning the league.

I wouldn't even suggest Wenger built the team around Walcott this season. I wouldn't go that far. He was on the bench for our opening 3 games and we looked just as lifeless in those games as we do right now. I'm really not sure what Wenger had planned for this season. It's way too early to say we got it wrong with Walcott. He could come back and fingers crossed, stay fit for the rest of the season. But then it comes back to injuries and fitness again. Sanchez is looking at roughly the same amount of time out as Walcott and that could set us back offensively. Cazorla may be out for a while and if Ozil picks up an injury it's curtains and we end up with a situation where we have a quick striker cause trouble but none of the service. All very hypothetical but the way things are with our injuries are going, I'm expecting more problems to unbalance the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

I wouldn't even suggest Wenger built the team around Walcott this season. I wouldn't go that far. He was on the bench for our opening 3 games and we looked just as lifeless in those games as we do right now. I'm really not sure what Wenger had planned for this season. It's way too early to say we got it wrong with Walcott. He could come back and fingers crossed, stay fit for the rest of the season. But then it comes back to injuries and fitness again. Sanchez is looking at roughly the same amount of time out as Walcott and that could set us back offensively. Cazorla may be out for a while and if Ozil picks up an injury it's curtains and we end up with a situation where we have a quick striker cause trouble but none of the service. All very hypothetical but the way things are with our injuries are going, I'm expecting more problems to unbalance the team.

---

Hmmm - perhaps not 'built around' but I'm going to give Wenger the credit for having a plan to address our lack of penetration both last season and early this season. No point in having a plan (Walcott) - only for the player to be absent, though. As for Theo staying fit after he comes back - like all our other serial crocks, a betting man would stay well away. Only our manager would back this. And that's the problem!

What is the point of this guy? He's either out injured or a waste of space on the pitch. The little shit needs selling in the summer. I'm sure Liverpool would spend £30m on him.

The 10 years tribute - laughable.

I want rid of him.

Ten years of hoping he'll come good.

Fuck off.

It might be time to move him on. He has to play through the middle as striker or nothing at all.


But considering we had 10 men and Wenger's tactics and instructions were unclear for this game, I'm not reacting off this game.

Wenger's tactics are suspect if they exist at all, but I doubt they involve telling Theo to run into offside positions whenever we are on the attack.

The tactic was to get in behind their defenders and hit them on the counter. Sometimes it doesn't work out and were weren't creating much today. The passing was off today.

My main gripe with Theo and the tactics was him still playing on the left after Giroud went off. Senseless.