The Arsenal Society VIII

Please?

Please?

He is not saying Walcott has a 'goal a game' ratio. He's saying that it's very hard to find a midfielder (and he is a midfielder judging from how much effort he puts into tracking back) who does have a 1:1 ratio. His goalscoring record this season has been good...not exceptional, and it doesn't make him one of the world's best, but it has been good. You would be silly to deny that. But performing for half the season isn't good enough and he needs to do well in these last 16 league games as well. Agreed?

I think this is completely unfair for a few reasons.
1. If we win I am not happy. Just because Walcott is scoring goals does not make me happy. Just because we are in Semis of Carling Cup I am not happy. Just because we beat Chelsea I am not happy. I am by no means happy when we do something right because it is short term, my problems lie in the long term.

Wenger's side cause excitement to break out when they meet the other teams in the leading pack. Members of the top five in the table have so far played one another on a dozen occasions this season. Of the 20 goals in those games, 15 have occurred in the matches involving Arsenal. The statistic is slightly influenced by the fact that they have already taken part in six of such encounters but it also reflects their blend of flair and fragility.

You've completely misunderstood my point, which was that NO STRIKER has a 1:1 shot:goal ratio.

Jeez.

Ok, you are consistent. That much is clear.

I'd hate to be your life coach but in many ways that is worse -- can you not just lighten up a bit? I mean being "not happy" when Walcott scores a goal...wtf is that? It's a game. Enjoy it. If you're going to be constantly 'unhappy' when watching us play then you might as well not watch us play.

He is not saying Walcott has a 'goal a game' ratio. He's saying that it's very hard to find a midfielder (and he is a midfielder judging from how much effort he puts into tracking back) who does have a 1:1 ratio. His goalscoring record this season has been good...not exceptional, and it doesn't make him one of the world's best, but it has been good. You would be silly to deny that. But performing for half the season isn't good enough and he needs to do well in these last 16 league games as well. Agreed?

You were criticising Walcott for missing chances and they just said well give them an example of any striker that scores every single shot. There's no statistics to find.

And stop being so pessimistic. I'm sure you were probably saying Chelsea have a strong squad and will comfortably finish ahead of us before the season and they haven't been dominant at all. Man City with all their millions are barely ahead of us and we're still involved in all 4 competitions. It's hardly the most depressing season is it? You say you think long term but would splashing money everywhere just when we moved stadium and had big debts to pay be good for us in the long term? Yes Wenger has made some bad decisions both transfer wise and tactics wise at times and some fans understandably want him gone but I don't think he's done as bad a job as you keep making out.

Walcott has a near 1:2 shots to goals ratio. 33 Shots, 14 goals:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/player/_/id/67507/theo-walcott?cc=5739

To say he hasn't been clinical this season is frankly absurd.

Right now, Walcott has contributed to the team thus far. In the league he has bagged 6 goals and 4 assists. This is an average contribution, not bad, but not great. The trouble is that it is inconsistent. He will score a hat trick against Blackpool and do absolutely nothing for the next 10 games. Much like for England, he scored a hat trick against Croatia and has never scored since. His contribution is more than his quality, and in the long run quality prevails and he will fail. This is why I hate the fact that we now all of a sudden have confidence in him. Wenger appears to have no back up for the wing now because Walcott has "arrived". We have set ourselves up for extreme disappointment. Proof of my argument is Arshavin. We all know he is capable of fantastic performances but right now he is not putting the work in, but yet he has still bagged 4 goals and 9 assists. Better than Walcott, but yet in all of this Walcott is the hero and Arshavin is the villian. Quality always prevails. So yes, I do agree. Walcott must perform for the remaining 16 games but him being our first choice winger for years to come is a very worrying thing for Arsenal football club.

Edit: Any by NO means do I judge a player on the amount of goals they score. But Walcott offers nothing more to the team.

but him being our first choice winger for years to come is a very worrying thing for Arsenal football club.

He's only had 14 league appearances this season.

7 of which were subbed appearances. He struggles to make an impact as a sub because he can't create something out of nothing. He's much better when the game is more open and the number of goals he has got in all competitions (unless we're arrogant enough to assume we're too good for Europe as well?) is impressive considering the number of starts. He needs to keep that going.

It wasn't a worry when Marc Overmars was around -- and all he had was pace and the ability to finish too. The genius of Bergkamp was around and therefore he kept getting chances on goal and ended up scoring his fair share. With the quality in our creative midfield, Walcott will be allowed to do the same. Whether he's got natural talent like Arshavin matters **** all to me -- what matters is what he does, and a major advantage he has over Arshavin is that he tracks back a lot.

Overmars didn't look out of place on a football pitch. Overamars understood the game and knew how to apply himself. Walcott looks out of place, he tries things he knows he can't do and does not understand the game. I don't think it's fair to compare them as a whole.

Overmars didn't look out of place on a football pitch. Overamars understood the game and knew how to apply himself. Walcott looks out of place, he tries things he knows he can't do and does not understand the game. I don't think it's fair to compare them as a whole.

Utter garbage. If all else fails, just cling onto soundbytes like he "looks out of place"...

It's very fair to compare them. You quite simply don't know what you're talking about.

Subjective rubbish. By what criteria do you use to judge who 'looks out of place on a football pitch'?

The facts are he produces (third highest goal scorer this season), has end product (4th top assists this season), tracks back and by his mere presence on the pitch frightens even top defenders.