Jump to content

Theo Walcott


Danny

Recommended Posts

When SGE picked Walcott ahead of Defoe for Germany 2006, the British press about went insane - a 16/17 year old nipper who was barely featuring for his club had been picked for the world cup over an established international with bags of talent?

Yup, it was a bizarre decision, but maybe, just maybe, SGE saw in Walcott something special which justified such a strange selection even though he ended up not using him.

If that's the case, SGE is one of the most eagle-eye managers out there. When the rest of us were laughing at the decision, who could have known Walcott was going to bloom into what he is becoming now?

He's still young, but from what I have seen of him, he is looking more promising than Rooney did at the same age.

He has power, pace, skill, and superb vision - this kid has every chance of becoming something special, and he has maybe the best manager around to cultivate him - Wenger has been so careful about nurturing him, and not throwing him in before he was ready.

And now it seems the benefits of that are being seen.

Walcott is a class act - and he's going to continue to get better over the next few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SGE says he has the attributes to be the next Maradona!

I think Walcott is a quality player. He has unbelievable pace and is strong for a young lad. Wenger has done a fantastic job in developing Walcott.

I think he'll tear up the EPL in the coming season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's still young, but from what I have seen of him, he is looking more promising than Rooney did at the same age.

Not at all. Walcott (19) is warming the Arsenal bench and getting 15 - 20 mins here and there while Rooney at the age of 18 was headlining Euro 2004.

Walcott is looking very promising but others in the same age group like Messi, Fabregas, Aguero and Anderson are already asserting themselves as first team players while Walcott is only in the team because Rosicky and Eduardo are out injured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's still young, but from what I have seen of him, he is looking more promising than Rooney did at the same age.

Not at all. Walcott (19) is warming the Arsenal bench and getting 15 - 20 mins here and there while Rooney at the age of 18 was headlining Euro 2004.

That doesn't mean anything?

This is not me pouring cold water on Rooney - he's world class. I am just saying that imo Walcott looks a potentially better player.

Furthermore, Rooney's club in 2004 was Everton - he moved to Utd in August that year. It was a tad easier for him to be a regular for Everton than Walcott to be a regular for Arsenal.

Walcott is looking very promising but others in the same age group like Messi, Fabregas, Aguero and Anderson are already asserting themselves as first team players while Walcott is only in the team because Rosicky and Eduardo are out injured.

What's your point? I never said Walcott was better than Messi?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy is electric... strong on the ball and knows when to co for goal or overlap at real pace...doesn't give defences time to breathe.... you know a player is class when he makes you sit forward as he comes on...

Lookin forward to seeing him develop even further as his confidence grows... It was shocking how the English press treated the lad...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet Wenger said he wasn't progressing the way he expected?

Curious. He looks exceptional to me. So Wenger thinks he should be better? Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy is electric... strong on the ball and knows when to co for goal or overlap at real pace...doesn't give defences time to breathe.... you know a player is class when he makes you sit forward as he comes on...

Yup - his setup for the goal V Liverpool (I think it was) was just pure class.

Lookin forward to seeing him develop even further as his confidence grows... It was shocking how the English press treated the lad...

English press have a very bad habit of building up heroes then knocking them down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... thank god for them....otherwise the England national side would be world beaters mate.... they (and through the sentiments they stir in the average fan) whip everyone up into an ALL/ F*CK ALL frenzy that creates expectations and pressures no-one should be asked to handle...

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean anything?

This is not me pouring cold water on Rooney - he's world class. I am just saying that imo Walcott looks a potentially better player.

Furthermore, Rooney's club in 2004 was Everton - he moved to Utd in August that year. It was a tad easier for him to be a regular for Everton than Walcott to be a regular for Arsenal.

I just want to know why you think Walcott at 19, who is only in the Arsenal team because Rosicky and Eduardo are injured looks a potentially better player than Rooney?

Like I said, Rooney was headlining Euro 2004 at 18! not just on the bench and at 19 he was a regular and still is for Manchester United.

What's your point? I never said Walcott was better than Messi?

I know you never, but look at the player's around Walcott's age...

Fabregas,

Anderson,

Messi,

Aguero,

Benzema..

He is nowhere near the level of these player's.

You claim he is a class act, I think he is lagging behind. That's not to say he wont become a very good player though...cant write off a lad who is only 19.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know why you think Walcott at 19, who is only in the Arsenal team because Rosicky and Eduardo are injured looks a potentially better player than Rooney?

Like I said, Rooney was headlining Euro 2004 at 18! not just on the bench and at 19 he was a regular and still is for Manchester United.

Rooney bloomed at Everton because they were a smaller team who could afford to play a promising youngster. During Rooney's time there they challenged for little, so there was less 'risk' in playing a player like Rooney all the time. It became obvious, thanks to the amount he played, that he was a very good player, and very much primed for a big side to come in and lure him away.

Walcott is already AT said big club, and big clubs rarely give their own youngsters a chance. Look at Man Utd - since the golden era of Beckham et al, can you name a single recent youth player who is currently established in their team? None.

Ditto Arsenal. Ditto Chelsea bar Terry.

Even Liverpool have only Carragher and Gerrard, far as I know.

None of whom are recent.

My point is for youth to bloom, it needs a chance, and you don't get many at big clubs. Instead it's better to bloom at a smaller club and for the big clubs to come in for you.

Walcott has a job on his hands to remain established.

I know you never, but look at the player's around Walcott's age...

Fabregas,

Anderson,

Messi,

Aguero,

Benzema..

He is nowhere near the level of these player's.

Given a run in the team, he could be.

You claim he is a class act, I think he is lagging behind. That's not to say he wont become a very good player though...cant write off a lad who is only 19.

You're right. Give the poor git a chance :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, SGE is one of the most eagle-eye managers out there. When the rest of us were laughing at the decision, who could have known Walcott was going to bloom into what he is becoming now?

the difference between being a competent manager and being an eagle-eyed manager is in knowing when to launch your young talents.

Wenger is a master at raising and mentoring young stars as is Ferguson. by contrast SGE had the foresight to know Walcott was incredible but lacked the understanding to know that picking a player based only on scouting reports doh ahead of the top rated forwards in England was unfair to both established players and to the youngster.

I don't doubt Walcott may go on to be an England regular, but IMO that doesn't mean taking him to the WC was a good idea. And SGE obviously agreed with me as he wasn't prepared to even play him when they got there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, SGE is one of the most eagle-eye managers out there. When the rest of us were laughing at the decision, who could have known Walcott was going to bloom into what he is becoming now?

the difference between being a competent manager and being an eagle-eyed manager is in knowing when to launch your young talents.

Wenger is a master at raising and mentoring young stars as is Ferguson. by contrast SGE had the foresight to know Walcott was incredible but lacked the understanding to know that picking a player based only on scouting reports doh ahead of the top rated forwards in England was unfair to both established players and to the youngster.

I don't doubt Walcott may go on to be an England regular, but IMO that doesn't mean taking him to the WC was a good idea. And SGE obviously agreed with me as he wasn't prepared to even play him when they got there.

Oh, no, you misunderstand me, or I didn't put my point across well.

You're right - taking him to the world cup was a stupid move. But you agree that SGE definitely saw him as something special. And that is my point, and only that.

As for Walcott, a damn good player is he.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your 'Rooney was at Everton' argument. If you do remember correctly, Theo isn't one of 'Arsenals own players' He was bought in off of another team that weren't playing him, Southampton.

He is nowhere near the standard Rooney was at 19. At this age Rooney was the first name on the Man Utd teamsheet, playing in the Champions League and EPL regurally and turning heads all around the world.

Rooney, at 19, was someone that made you say, 'I can't beleive he's only 19.' Walcott however makes you say 'What a good prospect this guy is'

Walcott is a prospect, and hey, he could be great! But Wayne Rooney was an established player at his age, not a benchwarmer.

It makes you wonder whether or not you watch football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your 'Rooney was at Everton' argument. If you do remember correctly, Theo isn't one of 'Arsenals own players' He was bought in off of another team that weren't playing him, Southampton.

He was a 16 year old trainee at Southampton who put in around 15 appearances in his single year there. 'Weren't playing him'?

He is nowhere near the standard Rooney was at 19. At this age Rooney was the first name on the Man Utd teamsheet, playing in the Champions League and EPL regurally and turning heads all around the world.

Rooney, at 19, was someone that made you say, 'I can't beleive he's only 19.' Walcott however makes you say 'What a good prospect this guy is'

Walcott is a prospect, and hey, he could be great! But Wayne Rooney was an established player at his age, not a benchwarmer.

I really wonder whether you have read anything I've said.

It makes you wonder whether or not you watch football.

Oh touche. Admittedly it was with a feather duster, but touche :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, SGE is one of the most eagle-eye managers out there. When the rest of us were laughing at the decision, who could have known Walcott was going to bloom into what he is becoming now?

the difference between being a competent manager and being an eagle-eyed manager is in knowing when to launch your young talents.

Wenger is a master at raising and mentoring young stars as is Ferguson. by contrast SGE had the foresight to know Walcott was incredible but lacked the understanding to know that picking a player based only on scouting reports doh ahead of the top rated forwards in England was unfair to both established players and to the youngster.

I don't doubt Walcott may go on to be an England regular, but IMO that doesn't mean taking him to the WC was a good idea. And SGE obviously agreed with me as he wasn't prepared to even play him when they got there.

Oh, no, you misunderstand me, or I didn't put my point across well.

You're right - taking him to the world cup was a stupid move. But you agree that SGE definitely saw him as something special. And that is my point, and only that.

As for Walcott, a damn good player is he.

(tu)

wonder what its like for the scouts (SGE apparently picked him entirely on a scout's report) when they see a talent like that and suddenly realise they are watching a young boy with the talent to become a real top level talent?

I've seen video reels of some of these young prodigies and it's incredible to see the ability they have at such a very young age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your 'Rooney was at Everton' argument. If you do remember correctly, Theo isn't one of 'Arsenals own players' He was bought in off of another team that weren't playing him, Southampton.

He was a 16 year old trainee at Southampton who put in around 15 appearances in his single year there. 'Weren't playing him'?

He is nowhere near the standard Rooney was at 19. At this age Rooney was the first name on the Man Utd teamsheet, playing in the Champions League and EPL regurally and turning heads all around the world.

Rooney, at 19, was someone that made you say, 'I can't beleive he's only 19.' Walcott however makes you say 'What a good prospect this guy is'

Walcott is a prospect, and hey, he could be great! But Wayne Rooney was an established player at his age, not a benchwarmer.

I really wonder whether you have read anything I've said.

It makes you wonder whether or not you watch football.

Oh touche. Admittedly it was with a feather duster, but touche :D

To your only serious answer, He made 10 substitute appearances, most probably less than 10 minutes. He made three starts, probably against lesser opposition. It's hardly getting a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your 'Rooney was at Everton' argument. If you do remember correctly, Theo isn't one of 'Arsenals own players' He was bought in off of another team that weren't playing him, Southampton.

He was a 16 year old trainee at Southampton who put in around 15 appearances in his single year there. 'Weren't playing him'?

He is nowhere near the standard Rooney was at 19. At this age Rooney was the first name on the Man Utd teamsheet, playing in the Champions League and EPL regurally and turning heads all around the world.

Rooney, at 19, was someone that made you say, 'I can't beleive he's only 19.' Walcott however makes you say 'What a good prospect this guy is'

Walcott is a prospect, and hey, he could be great! But Wayne Rooney was an established player at his age, not a benchwarmer.

I really wonder whether you have read anything I've said.

It makes you wonder whether or not you watch football.

Oh touche. Admittedly it was with a feather duster, but touche :D

To your only serious answer, He made 10 substitute appearances, most probably less than 10 minutes. He made three starts, probably against lesser opposition. It's hardly getting a game.

'probably'.

Just about sums your footballing knowledge up.

Still want Cousin injured my dear chum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, SGE is one of the most eagle-eye managers out there. When the rest of us were laughing at the decision, who could have known Walcott was going to bloom into what he is becoming now?

the difference between being a competent manager and being an eagle-eyed manager is in knowing when to launch your young talents.

Wenger is a master at raising and mentoring young stars as is Ferguson. by contrast SGE had the foresight to know Walcott was incredible but lacked the understanding to know that picking a player based only on scouting reports doh ahead of the top rated forwards in England was unfair to both established players and to the youngster.

I don't doubt Walcott may go on to be an England regular, but IMO that doesn't mean taking him to the WC was a good idea. And SGE obviously agreed with me as he wasn't prepared to even play him when they got there.

Oh, no, you misunderstand me, or I didn't put my point across well.

You're right - taking him to the world cup was a stupid move. But you agree that SGE definitely saw him as something special. And that is my point, and only that.

As for Walcott, a damn good player is he.

(tu)

wonder what its like for the scouts (SGE apparently picked him entirely on a scout's report) when they see a talent like that and suddenly realise they are watching a young boy with the talent to become a real top level talent?

I've seen video reels of some of these young prodigies and it's incredible to see the ability they have at such a very young age.

Walcott has everything a player needs to make it to the top - all he needs now is a real chance to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

im still sceptical about Walcott, i think he has a great talent and could be a great player, but i dont think he has progressed much, which wenger admits too. Is he a striker or a winger?

Sorry Danny i have to agree with the others, you cannot compare Walcott to Rooney. Rooney at the same age, was miles ahead Walcott, Rooney was scoring amazing goals and was 1st on the teamsheet for Everton, Man Utd and England.

For me Walcott needs to do a bit more, yes his run was amazing but thats all he has really done this season (maybe scored a few goals aswell).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...