Walcott

[Power n Glory]

Are those just Prem stats or full season?

I know Theo has more goals than that according to Arsenal's official website stats.

[Boss]

All comps.

Didn't include the European qualifying games against Udinese for some reason which I've now included

[Power n Glory]

Thanks dude.

[bignev]

That's an interesting comparison. I've never been a Walcott fan but maybe it's time too give him his dues.

I think he's one of those players that appears worse than he is, if that makes sense?

[Letters]

That's an interesting comparison. I've never been a Walcott fan but maybe it's time too give him his dues.

I think he's one of those players that appears worse than he is, if that makes sense?

That does make sense because his stats are impressive but I watch him as I guess a lot of us do and while sometimes he really impresses me at other times he's maddeningly ineffective, runs into players, looks far too easy to dispossess. Think how effective he could be if he could be more consistent.

[Coney]

That's an interesting comparison. I've never been a Walcott fan but maybe it's time too give him his dues.

I think he's one of those players that appears worse than he is, if that makes sense?

Yes, it does. If you watch a player looking for his mistakes, you'll have a different opinion of the player than if you watch him, looking for where he gets it right. Some people forget Henry's cock-ups and the fact that a lot of a game, he would be doing almost nothing, putting on a spurt and doing the bizz when needed. But if Walcott waits for a bit, he is slagged off. Now it is accepted (quite rightly) that Henry at the same age was a far better player then Walcott is but that does not in itself mean Walcott is shit. In any case, compare most forwards to Henry in his prime and Henry will make most of them look ordinary.

That might be stating the obvious but when some people get on their hobby horse, they seem to forget.

[Letters]

I don't think anyone on here (WUMs and point-scorers aside) has an overtly pro or anti Walcott agenda. People just call it like they see it.
Of course all players make mistakes but when a player is at the level of Henry (and it helps, of course, that the side were winning a lot of trophies) then those are easily forgotten.
Walcott HAS been inconsistent. Sometimes he's effective, other times he looks far too easy to play against and adds very little. His stats show that when he is effective he's very effective. And the crowd have been very patient with him. What he needs to do is get more consistent.

[Coney]

I don't think anyone on here (WUMs and point-scorers aside) has an overtly pro or anti Walcott agenda. People just call it like they see it.
Of course all players make mistakes but when a player is at the level of Henry (and it helps, of course, that the side were winning a lot of trophies) then those are easily forgotten.
Walcott HAS been inconsistent. Sometimes he's effective, other times he looks far too easy to play against and adds very little. His stats show that when he is effective he's very effective. And the crowd have been very patient with him. What he needs to do is get more consistent.

Sure - hopefully consistently effective, not consistently crap.

[GP]

[Letters]

Sure - hopefully consistently effective, not consistently crap.

Well, quite.