Theo Walcott


I agree with this whole post, minus the bolded. The other (non-bolded) part I quote because I agree totally, and didn’t do the Pires/Ljungberg comparisons/ would certainly not do so, lol (because comparing Pires to Walcott is like comparing Oysters and fine white wine with a ham york and cheddar cheese sandwich and a beer bought from the 24 hr store, even if there is some argument to be had I don’t even want to hear it :smiley: ), which is why I’ve included it in the quote, because I’m not sure why you’re saying no offense to me.


Bravo sir. :clap:t2:


On the posted statistics:

No, posting that Walcott was second in expected goals without context is a misleading defense of the player. Adequate context of the study tells you that Walcott, having played 28 games last season (thus serving as a critical 16/17 attacker/forward for the team), is probably expected to have a higher xG compared to the rest of the team. Of course, credit to him for entering goal scoring positions to elevate that number, but it’s poor reason to say that he can’t be criticized based on the revelations of that statistic.

On context in general:

I don’t think that analogy is living up to your expectations. If I tell you that Burundi is the last happiest country in the world to serve as a reflection of the government without sharing the foundational understanding of historical Belgium colonialism exploiting the nation to the reeks of hell, it leads to an unproductive argument of where we analyze the governments faults of being unable to produce a climate in where citizens’ happiness thrives.

So yeah, statistics are fantastic when we contextualize them.



In other news I just skipped about 8-9 posts in this thread. Fair play to anyone who is gonna write that much about Theo but I’m definitely not gonna read it. :slight_smile:


I think you’ve missed the point. I didn’t say he can’t be criticised. I criticised him myself in my initial response to you. My point was that a simple barometer like this is enough when combating an extreme opinion like you and others are posing, which is: Theo is shit, and a sort of cancer, he must go. You said statistics without contextualization don’t contribute to discussion. I used the Denmark example to point out how statistics without contextualization when contradicting an extreme opinion are useful, and do contribute to such a discussion. This discussion does not have nearly the level of nuance to it as the would-be conversation in the analogy of Burndi so I think it’s rather your analogy that is not fitting in at all here. Throwing more words and ideas at an issue does not equate to making an opinion more nuanced/less radical/more sophisticated, especially when some of those ideas are highly speculative and/or specious/facile.


I think the level of nuance and extremism you’re describing in my point is highly subjective. I don’t believe stating that we deserve better options than Walcott was anywhere far-fetched. Personally, I’ve never referred to Theo as anywhere near “shit” or a “cancer” but rather a mediocre talent that we should upgrade, and hence I struggle with why the uncontextualized statistic is valid in this platform.

Nonetheless, I appreciated the exchange. To avoid cluttering this thread, I’ll refrain from continuing this debate.


There is a fallacy in this if you aren’t confident that the stats really mean something in proper context. I would argue that the stats are more misleading than they are useful in contradicting a criticism of Walcott… of course the “sh*t” and other extreme views notwithstanding.

I stand by my view he is weak - but I fully recognize plenty disagree. Having said that, even if I ignore that aspect, he isn’t that great a player and can’t even be nailed on starter for the 5th place team in the Prem.


I seriously commend the effort required to put forward a compelling argument in favour of Theo. His qualities must just be beyond my lowly perception. Then again I don’t need a bloodhound to tell me my shit stinks.


That’s true. The latter part I agree with in a vacuum and the shit and cancer are really just extrapolations of comments like ‘his attitude is very bad for the club’ and shit an extrapolation of the general tone, and yeah, you’re writing in a sophisticated manner but for a football fan saying that Theo isn’t good enough for the club and we must at all costs not get accustomed to having players like him around is just a fancy way of saying: ‘he’s shit.’

Clutter what? The otherwise terribly interesting memes or trolling or non-existent rumours of a sale from a club that still hasn’t even found a way to get rid of Gibbs, or Jenkinson, or Debuchy? I don’t see any reason to discontinue a debate just because a few make the typical facetious remarks when they see a lot of text (which looks a lot worse when you break posts up into multiple quotes, making a rather short response look like a long one).

They do, though. Theo is good at scoring goals. His goal contribution for a wide player is good. Not to sound too much like a4tt, but this isn’t really debatable.


A) His ‘poacher goals’ come as a result of elite movement/pace and offers an outlet many of our other players Alexis included do not. In the past we’ve had the problem that we’ve had too much passing to feet and stagnation without any movement.

B) Looking at the market his wage is pretty standard for a homegrown player of his ability. Sterling is on far more. Henderson, Milner, Lingard and Young are all on similar. Blame the homegrown rule, you need 8 homegrown players and most homegrown players are poor so you have to pay over the odds for a half decent one.

C) Agreed that squad player is his level ideally. You won’t get better players who want to play as back ups.


Don’t even really need to blame the homegrown rule–though it doesn’t help, that’s for sure–there are plenty of players worse than Theo on something similar to 90,000-100,000 nowadays.


But that is woefully inadequate to measure him as a player, regardless of context… feel like I am arguing with people about why WINS and SAVES are terrible and highly misleading stats and yet are still part of everyone lexicon in American baseball.

Anyway, done with this thread… Theo is increasingly Mr. Irrelevant, despite what people want to say about his awesomeness or stat production.


I think the homegrown need creates an over-inflated market for sure. Which is why we should of brought back homegrown Cesc on his 180k a week wages.

But even before the homegrown rule I suppose clubs paid over the odds for English talent. Rio Ferdinand cost more in terms of percent of club revenue than Pogba did. Retrospectively he was worth it but at the time that wasn’t obvious.


Comparing WINS and SAVES to goals is indeed a terrible analogy, and I don’t think I have to explain why.

Goals will always be an important part of the lexicon in football, and will probably only become more important as statistical analysis grows more and more sophisticated. :slight_smile:

I didn’t say it was a perfect measure of him as a player. That was the whole point of the Denmark analogy. Happiness rating is also not a perfect measure of the quality of a country. I think that was all explained in the post itself.


This thread was quiet until last week, then 2 goals in the fucking Emirates Cup has changed the mood :hipster:


Nah uh i was posting in here before he scored 2 goals in the Emirates cup


Yeah but people use it to make some statement about his quality anyway… otherwise, what is the point?

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways and people who defend WINS and SAVES use the same exact arguments… the only difference is, in baseball we actually have superior stats… in football, we don’t. If you don’t actually watch, you will be left with all sorts of misconceptions about quality, at least as it relates to top footballers (not saying he is Championship level or some nonsense).

People who watch the games, including AW, don’t start him regularly in the 5th place team in the league.


You are a lot more intelligent than this please! Wins and saves are FARRR from the same as goals and assists. Goals and assists are the meat and potato’s statistics. First of all baseball and football statistics are a terrible comparison to begin with. Baseball is largely a 1 v 1 sport in the disguise of a team game. Secondly you are talking about pitching stats, a pitcher is a defensive position, I’d liken it more like to a goalkeeper anyways. Lastly if any comparison is to be made it’s more like RBI’s and Batting Average or On Base Percentage. If a guy is hitting .300 with 100 rbi’s in a season there is absolutely no argument, the guy is a fantastic hitter. Theo is the football equivalent.


Why can’t I? Again, it’s a really simple analogy. In football, goals are good. In life, happiness is good. Do we have perfect metrics for how many goals players add to a team (as scoring a goal obviously is just a part of the goal itself), or for measuring happiness in a country? No. But do high ratings in these ‘good’ things suggest that something is not very bad? Yes.

Man, they don’t. It’s not at all comparable. Actually, WAR, which is the stat which is used so much in baseball which you would no doubt tell me is superior to some of the metrics we have in football (I’m sure it is, I don’t know that much about baseball, but I do tend to find that those arguing for the importance of the new statistics are those who are a bit more open-minded and in tune to thing than those who are arguing for the old ways), comes from runs added, if I’m correct. Runs would be the corollary to goals in football. WINS and SAVES, I don’t know, that would be something like these shit statistics where you post the teams record with that player and without without any other context, and saves would be something like how many goals he scores in added time without any context. Surely you can see the difference…It’s literally nothing like defending Wins and Saves…

This doesn’t contradict anything I’ve–or anyone, really, minus a4tt has-- said from the start, has only re-affirmed and agreed with it.

Btw, football stats are getting better and better, and I think you are underrating them a bit. There are good, and predictive (the most important question of whether their worthwhle or not) stats and statistical models coming out, and to reject them outright is a bit to run the risk to be on the side of those ‘good old days’ baseball fans that I’m guessing you are not a fan of.


But stats are more than rife with error in football for all the reasons people who know football understand. That is the point.

WINS and SAVES are correlated to quality… but proven to be relatively poor correlators… for many of the same reasons as goals and assists - they are symptoms of a TEAM performance and highly subject to opponents, situation, context. Further, those who argue for them argue the same way about goals/assists - they prescribe performance WHEN IT MATTERS MOST - but people who know stats and care about PROJECTIONS and PREDICTIONS realize this is bullshit.

That is precisely why I used those stats because they are inadequate in so many situations and because they are equivalent to the state of the art in football - and basically are useless for 75%+ of every team, even if you think they are really good measures of total quality of “attacking” players. Using stats to make arguments in football while ignoring the data we get from watching or the collective wisdom from experts watching is sophistry.

People continue to contrive ways to statify football, and we are getting marginally better, but there is so much to measure that isn’t captured in stats right now it is a joke.