I don't know why you guys are turning this into Theo vs Giroud when pretty much everyone here agrees that Giroud isn't good enough. The wider issue is whether Theo is good enough to lead the line for a title challenging team, which I'm not convinced of.

Quote Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory View Post
Good points again. Someone made the point about him struggling to hold up the ball against an organised defence again today despite the fact that he just did that against Stoke of all teams. We dominated possession and kept the ball in their have for the majority of the game. Not only that, we created chances as well. There is nothing more frustrating then watching us have all that possession and create next to nothing and we've seen that in many games with Giroud struggling to get a chance on goal. There are positives to take away from this game and as seen against West Brom last season, Theo can be quite a menace when he has his shooting boots on.
He didn't hold up shit against Stoke, he did what he normally does which is making runs into space. Come on PnG, you know very well that this is not the Stoke of old. They try to play football under Hughes and came to the Emirates with a very attacking line up. If they were sitting deep how did Theo get through on goal two or three times, and if they were organised how did we create 30 odd chances? Even Barca don't create that many chances! They were all over the place.

Quote Originally Posted by Blink 1nce Quince 2wice View Post
One of the latter questions on today's Arseblog extra was 'Does the amount of Chances Theo had against Stoke, prove that he is capable of being a forward'. I found the question interesting and even Arseblog who hates Theo found the evidence for compelling and at least thought provoking. I sometimes get the feeling that the argument against him shifts from 'oh he can't hold it up' to 'oh he couldn't finish his wife's dinner never mind a chance' as per the whim of his naysayers arguments. Which is it though? If he is missing so many chances then surely the first stand point of not being able to hold it up increasingly becomes moot?...after all...he's getting the chances and himself in the positions.

If it is about him holding the ball up....why is that such an issue if he himself is getting so many chances? If it is about his lack of finishing.....do we believe Giroud's is generally any better? How many honestly believe that Theo could or would go several games WITHOUT scoring as Giroud did last season (that is a wide spread of different teams to face)? If we don't believe he would then why shouldn't we allow him the run of games up front he has never had whilst we have the options we have and why are we so against it if the alternative leaves a lot to be desired when it most matters?
The point is he wont get those chances in every game. Have a look at the starts he has made up front. In order it has been: West Brom, Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle, and Stoke. I'll give him credit for the West Brom game, which was arguably the best I've ever seen him play. Villa and Stoke were open games from two teams with terrible defences, so those are the games we expect Theo to do well in. But the Chelsea and Newcastle games were the ones where Theo struggled in. Newcastle put everyone behind the ball when then went down to ten men and Theo was nowhere to be seen for the rest of the match. I've already mentioned the Chelsea game which he didn't even get a shot in. Where were the chances in those games?

Those are exactly the type of matches people have been saying he'll struggle in. That's where the limitations of his overall game will show themselves up. If you're in a game like that and your striker can't receive the ball, doesn't have the skill to create a chance for himself and can't head the ball you might as well be playing with 10 men.