You may well be right, but he certainly had more natural talent than Walcott so he probably would have been a more effective player than he has been in his 11 years here. Walcotts' major strenght was essentially his pace, anything else needed to be taught, Bale had more than that.Originally Posted by Delusions of Grandeur
Wenger hasn't been able to develop and elevate young players for years. His coaching is ancient.
They all come onto the scene raw and exciting but give it a few years and the common trend is they won't have a position, their bad habits will remain and they'll probably become scapegoats for the fans too. Bellerin is the latest guy heading down that path.
The exact same thing was said about Ox being more talented than Walcott which was true. But look how he has turned out? I highly doubt Bale would have been more effective for us.
Bellerin, Iwobi... Two more examples of players that have everything in their locker to be top players. Raw talent that will be wasted.
We are going back a long way here. However, I can’t remember anyone anywhere mentioning Bale when we were competing with other teams including Manchester United for Walcott.
Sure we could have signed Bale, but this was not an either/or.
Can’t believe I’ve joined in such a pointless discussion.
If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
He is more talented and you can see that, last season he was decent for us, granted he hasn't developed as much as he could have but he still showed some of his quality.
Walcott had very little natural ability in truth, pace and that's about it, paying 12 million for that was illogical, I could understand it if he was prolific or had dazzling skills, but for a speed merchant, really??? I can understant the Ox signing more than the Walcott one, Ox clearly has some decent football attributes at his disposal.
Last edited by Özim; 25-10-2017 at 09:31 PM.
To be honest, Walcott was a signing out of the blue, noone knew who he was and when we did sign him we all assumed he was some sort of magician based on how much we paid for a kid, the only surprise was that he turned out as one dimensional as he was. What possessed us to spend so much money on a kid who was nothing special at all is beyond me (and by that I mean he's not particularly naturally gifted).
Nooone mentioned Walcott before we signed him anyone, not saying we talked about Bale either, but I do remember Bale was highly rated after his first season (a year after we signed Walcott), we could have signed him for 5 million then (a pittance), we have a habit of missing out on all the top quality talent in favour of the more middle of the road young players, Mbappe being the perfect example (apparently we we're interested but scoffed at paying a few measly million to his advisers, if we thought he was that good we'd have paid up, clearly we didn't).
He is more talented. But does it matter considering he produced far less than Walcott and was just an injury prone? So even when we identify someone with more talent, we somehow produce a worse player. All the players Wenger has said he was close to signing would probably be nobodies or unbalanced in a way that makes them flawed and not considered as the world class talents they are. A young Maldini could be made to look an absolute shambles under Wenger.
Walcott was not a signing out of the blue. Even though it is a long way back, I remember enough to know he was slated to be the next big English talent and we were in fierce competition for his signature.
If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote