Theo was dog shit for most of his time at Arsenal. He was a huge failure because he gave us moments of genuinely quality but that was literally it.
You can post all the stats you want mate Theo failed the eye test. He was as average a winger as I’ve seen in an Arsenal shirt.
I remember 2015 times (I think) people were happy for Joel Campbell to play ahead of him lol.
He had one excellent season and that was it.
Exactly. He failed your extremely subjective and extremely open to bias eye test and smashed the objective and extremely closed to bias stats test.
I know which I’m going with.
Theo wasn’t my favourite player to watch either—but sometimes you just have to accept that when a final third player is producing like he did in the final third, that they’re doing their job to a very high level.
Nobody in the football world ever used the term world class on Theo.
That’s pretty much everyone eye test.
This aged like milk
What about his technical limitations? Useless in small spaces? Or his lack of football IQ? For every good run he made, he made nine bad ones. Or how about the fact that he was useless if he couldn’t made runs behind the defense?
Whilst I think Sanchez was a little bit overrated it’s out of question that he had more talent and individual quality. The fact that you have to break it down like this to make Walcott more favourable in comparison with Sanchez says enough really.
It was shit to begin with. We cant be mad at AFTV for overall shitness, but then be okay with this.
(I’m referring to the song more than people wishing for us to resign him)
This though 
Then we bought Ozil to make the song irrelevant
Then we bought Ozil and made Arsenal irrelevant.
I felt like Ozil actually give us a little bump in 13/14. But Wenger never managed to really build on that.
They’re obvious, yes, but he’s not the first technically limited player to be extremely effective in the final third.
Aesthetically yes, that is, if you’re looking for him to do some quality dribbling to unlock a low block, or pick a lock with a clever reverse ball, that’s simply not his game. That said, I remember tackling the question of, is Theo really less effective against low blocks/teams that don’t allow space on the counter, and the answer seemed to be: not really, which is consistent with what I’ve seen. Yes, he’d get some joy on the counter against better opposition, but I also remember him especially for where a bit of quick movement in a final third action was the difference to unlock a defence, games against the Boltons and Newcastles and Cardiffs of the world. His dribbling in the final third too, while not aesthetically pleasing, was occasionally useful for unbalancing defences, mainly because of the speed of which it was done. So yeah, this is all to say, I don’t really see the point of the “useless in small spaces” line if it doesn’t really translate into any type of real detriment in terms of production, only in terms of aesthetic factors like fan frustration or pleasure to the eye.
This kind of comment strikes me as particularly useless. For every good run he made, he made nine ones, aside from being a major exaggeration, it seems to be a major contradiction to probably the one thing we know about Theo: his off the ball movement was his strength. Otherwise you’ll have to explain to me how someone as technically and creatively limited as him contributes to goals at such a tremendous rate during that period, because I’d be lost on how to explain how. Same goes for football IQ: I don’t know how you define football IQ, but I’d suggest that a player has some sort of IQ (especially if he’s as technically limited a player as Theo was) to produce at that rate, and I’d suggest that a definition of football IQ that doesn’t include that type of specialists football IQ is pretty useless…ie, you’d have to say Sterling and similar types also have no football IQ, which is something I don’t really want to say.
On the contrary, I think the fact that I can produce the raw numbers, which are quite eye-catching, and compare them to the numbers of players we all accept are quite good or really quite exceptional, and allow them to speak for themselves, whereas you and other Theo haters have to go into a sort of definitionally confusing aesthetic character description of Theo to try and detract from them, says “enough really.”
Yes. He was a very average, limited player, both technically and ‘overall’ as a footballer, yet managed to be effective. Considering all his limitations. Fair play to the lad.
It wasn’t just aesthetics, but if you choose to interpret that way, there is not really a need to respond on the rest?
Agreed, with the one caveat that there was nothing average about his production, which at its peak was stellar, as the statistical comparisons show.
Then what was it? Honestly, I’d love to hear a good, coherent argument for why Theo’s production should be ignored, or significantly qualified, it’s just I don’t see one, and the above certainly isn’t offering it.
He’s not even a player I particularly enjoyed watching or the type of player I typically admire, I’d much rather go to bat for a Hleb type who I felt was undervalued by some at his best for Arsenal, or even Ramsey who is still undervalued by some like yourself.
That was so bad I’m considering deleting your account for posting it
Arsenal had a very average team during those years. Actually Arsenal has always had an average team from the moment they lost Hleb, Flamini, Rosicky too injury etc. Walcott, in my mind, was a utility player who could be useful in addition on a proper team. However if the team around him is shit/average his production doesn’t really matter. As a player he doesn’t make a team better which is why I thought he needed to go. His production can add to a good/great team. For an average team he does nothing.
Not sure if this make sense. But that is how I view him.
Isn’t this true for any player?
I don’t really see how you can score and assist at that rate and not make the team better. Stats like that impact stat which basically measured +/- when the player was on the pitch suggested the very opposite of what you’re saying—that he was one of the players in the world who most made his team better. And while it’s a very imperfect stat it was telling us all the other good players we know are good were good…basically all the objective information is all telling us the same thing about Walcott at that time—he was very good—and while some information is more flawed than other there’s a lot of smoke for there not to be a fire.
Mind, we’re talking about pre ACL Walcott, I wanted post ACL and especially post CF Walcott to go too, like everyone else.
Aside from the fact I’m not sure how much this means because it can easily apply to a lot of other players, or all to some extent (what’s the point of sterling without de Bruyne bernardo David silva fernandinho etc), I think it’s also pretty much contradicted by 12-13, which was certainly an average team and likely one that doesn’t finish in CL places without a largely fit and peak Walcott.
The numbers are very deceptive because Theo was operating as our most advanced player, more advanced than Giroud. Where as Alexis and Hazard come deeper to make something happen. When Alexis was the most advanced player his numbers sky rocketed.
I guess that season is a good example and underlines what I mean. The key player for that team is Cazorla. Not just type-wise, but he is a genuine top player. If Arsenal don’t get Cazorla, Walcott doesn’t get his numbers. If we have Cazorla as the creative hub, but no walcott, that other player who Cazorla does still create for gets the numbers. That is why I think a player like Walcott is very dispensable. A Cazorla is not. A raheem sterling is also better than Walcott imo. He has better off-the-ball movement than Walcott, better first touch, less wasteful.
The influence of a limited player like Walcott on a team is…limited. He goes where the team goes. An actual world class talent can influence where the team goes if that make sense. Walcott is simply not of that level.
Indeed (though I’m not sure it’s true he had a higher average position than Giroud, your observation is in its essence true, he was playing very high up the pitch, as much of a forward as Giroud really), but:
Anyways, yeah, this would be the way to go to make a good argument that the below is false:
The reason I’d tend to still stick by that^ argument though, is that Alexis wasn’t exactly a perfect influence on play, he was fantastic that season and I believe his xG added in terms of ball progression/entries into final third was equally fantastic, but a striker dropping deep and being a focal point creatively has its drawbacks (Özil was bad that season and basically Alexis ate up his creative input), and also it’s natural that a player with a more average central position will affect more the play/generate more stats.
But that’s a good way to argue against that statement and I definitely would accept an argument between Alexis in 16-17 vs Theo in 12-13.
I’ve seen it highlighted of average position in certain games that season he was higher up the pitch. The goals/assists per minute is skewed by the fact Theo was coming off the pitch against tired legs. I know Scholskaer had excellent goals off the bench that probably skewed his average per minutes. His goals per minutes was probably higher than some other players but you wouldn’t rate him as high.
Theo was on fire in 12/13 when he was playing for the big contract. But his form in the league wasn’t matched in the cups/Europe. Where as Alexis in 16/17 had great form in the cups and Europe.
Also if Theo was as capable as Alexis then Wenger wouldn’t have been benching him in 12/13