Is Wenger right about Walcott?

[IBK]

I've read the Sp*rs reaction thread, and while some comments are well made, I'm not sure the Wenger ones are so on point. FWIW I was OK with yesterday's result. Spurs were at full strength and this is their game of the season. The match was well set up for them to do what Pochettino does best - press with his more athletic players - and they dominated midfield. But we still fought back even though our performance generally was below par, and their goal came from our mistake. It happens.

In the circumstances I thought Wenger did the best he could with a decimated squad, and after all his substitution worked.

What concerns me more, I think, is how key Walcott's injury has been in our last few games. Looking at the season as a whole, I think that Wenger has tried to address the big problem from last year - our inability to break defences down - and I think that if Walcott had been on the pitch yesterday we would have won that game even with most of our team looking jaded. Playing Walcott more centrally has been more effective than having him on the right because he both creates spaces and has a goal threat in that position, and IMO, Wenger has seen this and planned a different approach around the player - and we have seen how effective this can be. While aerial balls into the box created our chances yesterday, our cutting edge has looked a lot sharper in those games where Walcott has been used - and I don't think this has been any coincidence.

But I wonder whether the Walcott issue encapsulates what is looking like our main problem this season - injuries to key players rather than inflexibility of our approach/team balance or quality which has been a problem in the past. We have seen evidence that Wenger was right to promote Walcott to striker based on his ability/attributes. But is/was he right to rely on his new team approach on a player who seems to be a perennial crock.

Thoughts?

[fakeyank]

I wouldnt depend on Walcott to walk 10 meters without getting injured. It was wrong to depend on Walcott, just like it was wrong to depend on the Rosicky's and Diaby's of Arsenal.

Btw, I do agree (for a change) that Wenger did the best with a decimated squad yesterday.

[IBK]

I wouldnt depend on Walcott to walk 10 meters without getting injured. It was wrong to depend on Walcott, just like it was wrong to depend on the Rosicky's and Diaby's of Arsenal.

Btw, I do agree (for a change) that Wenger did the best with a decimated squad yesterday.

Yes - I think its fair to mention Rosicky and Diaby - not to mention Wilshere. I suppose the difference, though, is that Walcott is an even bigger risk because of Wenger's obsession with collecting midfield players - but shortage of strikers. I'm really torn on this one, because I think Wenger's teams have always relied on understanding and 'telepathy' because of the technical nature of our passing game. So this requires consistency of personnel and I can see why players like Walcott are long-term projects. What I honestly can't understand though is the manager's pernennial gamble taking with fragile players.

[Globalgunner]

Anybody who relies on Walcott for anything, walk run, score goals, needs his head examined. Only at Arsenal will an anaemic, goal shy, striker, even be considered an option. He will most likely retire on the treatment table before 30.

[Power n Glory]

I think the reaction to Wenger over the Bayern and Spurs games are a bit over the top. Injuries have hampered us and I think if he's to be taken to task, it's for the lack of signings, preparation and it seems like he hasn't done enough to get a firm grasp on the constant injuries we have. Way too much finger pointing instead of looking at what he's doing in training and match day.

But on to Walcott. He's been missed and I've said for a long time on here that he should be playing as striker. It's his best position and even when not scoring you can see the positive effect he adds to our game compared to when he's stuck on the right. You only have to compare the two Bayern games to see how he's been missed. Against Spurs, before the game, I felt like Sanchez, Giroud and Campbell would struggle. On a counter attack, Giroud makes slow ponderous runs looking for a cross to the back or front post rather than helping our wingers with a quick one two and then rushing to the box. You can already see how Sanchez's form has fallen off since playing with Giroud. It feels like Giroud needs wingers that stay wide and whip in crosses rather than inverted winger because the link up play isn't working and maybe that's because he's looking to get into more goal scoring positions this season. He can't do both and that's why we need a more pacey player.

Also, I'm sure the lack of pace up front is forcing us to try and make the pitch smaller with our backline playing higher so there isn't massive gaps between the defence, midfield and strikers. With a pacey striker like Walcott, we can play deeper and not worry about the front three making up the ground. I really feel as though we should have been playing Walcott as a striker a couple of seasons ago or at least towards the end of last season. If he had doubts about Walcott then he should have at least given Sanchez more of a shot there. Giroud just isn't the type of striker that should be first team for us. Putting aside his quality and the chances he misses like we saw yesterday, he isn't the sort of striker that fits into our philosophy of attack. He'd thrive off crosses and we're not that sort of team. We don't play it long and from wide positions. He's a plan B striker for us. Not plan A. I would have thought Wenger would have figured that out but he hasn't. He either has to change our attacking philosophy or change Giroud for a more pacey striker. I don't why Wenger has moved away from Henry and Anelka type strikers but he needs to get back to it.

[Kano]

They've changed medical staff, changed how they do pre-season (no more Austria) and no doubt turned over every stone possible trying to figure out why this keeps happening.

You have that Dutch (?) coach who has had a go at Wenger's training methods. Fabregas had a lot of hamstring problems with us but I'm not sure he has since he left. A lot of the players that pick up these injuries seem to be the 'high energy' sort. Walcott, Ox, Ramsey, Rosicky Wilshere. Maybe this is the first of many for Bellerin. Diaby is one of the few I'd excuse because he was never the same after that Sunderland fucker shattered his ankle.

There are arguments to put forward on both sides. The bottom line is if the club doesn't know, we sure has hell don't. So all that matters from my point of view is who can and cannot be relied upon.

Theo isn't one of them and I've banged in about it since the start of the season. He'll always pick up injuries, which goes back as long as you can remember. They have ruined his development meaning he'll always be behind where he needs to be as a player and never teach his potential. Wilshere is the other other priority to get rid off and if Ox carries on underperforming on the pitch and overperforming in the medical room, then he can follow.

[Letters]

I think the reaction to Wenger over the Bayern and Spurs games are a bit over the top.

There you go again, defending Wenger at every opportunity

[Power n Glory]

There you go again, defending Wenger at every opportunity

Even I’ll admit it’s been a bit OTT over the last couple of fixtures.

[IBK]

I think the reaction to Wenger over the Bayern and Spurs games are a bit over the top. Injuries have hampered us and I think if he's to be taken to task, it's for the lack of signings, preparation and it seems like he hasn't done enough to get a firm grasp on the constant injuries we have. Way too much finger pointing instead of looking at what he's doing in training and match day.

But on to Walcott. He's been missed and I've said for a long time on here that he should be playing as striker. It's his best position and even when not scoring you can see the positive effect he adds to our game compared to when he's stuck on the right. You only have to compare the two Bayern games to see how he's been missed. Against Spurs, before the game, I felt like Sanchez, Giroud and Campbell would struggle. On a counter attack, Giroud makes slow ponderous runs looking for a cross to the back or front post rather than helping our wingers with a quick one two and then rushing to the box. You can already see how Sanchez's form has fallen off since playing with Giroud. It feels like Giroud needs wingers that stay wide and whip in crosses rather than inverted winger because the link up play isn't working and maybe that's because he's looking to get into more goal scoring positions this season. He can't do both and that's why we need a more pacey player.

Also, I'm sure the lack of pace up front is forcing us to try and make the pitch smaller with our backline playing higher so there isn't massive gaps between the defence, midfield and strikers. With a pacey striker like Walcott, we can play deeper and not worry about the front three making up the ground. I really feel as though we should have been playing Walcott as a striker a couple of seasons ago or at least towards the end of last season. If he had doubts about Walcott then he should have at least given Sanchez more of a shot there. Giroud just isn't the type of striker that should be first team for us. Putting aside his quality and the chances he misses like we saw yesterday, he isn't the sort of striker that fits into our philosophy of attack. He'd thrive off crosses and we're not that sort of team. We don't play it long and from wide positions. He's a plan B striker for us. Not plan A. I would have thought Wenger would have figured that out but he hasn't. He either has to change our attacking philosophy or change Giroud for a more pacey striker. I don't why Wenger has moved away from Henry and Anelka type strikers but he needs to get back to it.

My thoughts exactly - and I like the point re the higher backline.

The problem is that while I think Wenger's tactics have evolved with Walcott - his risk taking/blind spot re depending on players' injuries haven't.

Do you think that we should be looking to buy an attacking player with pace in January? I'm beginning to think so - even if another injury prone player - Welbeck - might be back by then. Because IMO its not even Walcott's goals that are the most important - its the spaces that direct pace provides. I'm fond of Giroud, but its too easy for well-organised physical pressing teams to nullify us when he is our starting striker.

[IBK]

They've changed medical staff, changed how they do pre-season (no more Austria) and no doubt turned over every stone possible trying to figure out why this keeps happening.

You have that Dutch (?) coach who has had a go at Wenger's training methods. Fabregas had a lot of hamstring problems with us but I'm not sure he has since he left. A lot of the players that pick up these injuries seem to be the 'high energy' sort. Walcott, Ox, Ramsey, Rosicky Wilshere. Maybe this is the first of many for Bellerin. Diaby is one of the few I'd excuse because he was never the same after that Sunderland fucker shattered his ankle.

There are arguments to put forward on both sides. The bottom line is if the club doesn't know, we sure has hell don't. So all that matters from my point of view is who can and cannot be relied upon.

Theo isn't one of them and I've banged in about it since the start of the season. He'll always pick up injuries, which goes back as long as you can remember. They have ruined his development meaning he'll always be behind where he needs to be as a player and never teach his potential. Wilshere is the other other priority to get rid off and if Ox carries on underperforming on the pitch and overperforming in the medical room, then he can follow.

Its a mystery of the highest order that Wenger seems unable to address our recurring nightmare. Stubbornness?