Arsenal & Strikers

The first issue or rather predicament is Theo playing as a Striker,where he is desperate to play and is sure of his success.So,what do you think are the pros and cons of playing Theo as a striker?

My points are:

PROS

• Good finishing.
  
• Extraordinary Pace.
  
• Big game player(has scored goals vs. Che,Barce et al).
  

CONS

• Lack of Striker/Killer instinct.
  
• Can't score with this head at all.
  
• Poor physique,can be brushed aside by burly defenders.

From my point of view,the cons are nullified by the pros and so I wouldn't actually mind him playing as a striker at least in COC games.

The second issue which seems to be snowballing is the arrival of another striker during the January transfer window,which I don't think will actually happen due to AW's prudent financial sensibilities.But with a humongous war chest of money and Giroud not hitting his Montpellier peak,the situation seems to be a perfect cocktail for Arsenal to sign another striker.

But,the foremost point is how are Arsenal going to accommodate two strikers,who need game time into a formation that has ONLY one striker in it?If Arsenal do sign someone like Llorente,Lewandowski or someone of that ilk who is the form of his life/hit his peak and needs constant time,How would AW be able satiate both Giroud's and the new striker's need for game time?

Supposing Giroud isn't able to hit his peak by the Winter transfer window,it would be sensible of AW to sign some veteran striker,who wouldn't crave for game time(I would have loved ADP) or some striker should be brought on loan and NOT someone like Llorente,despite him looking AW during his teens.


P.S.I do hope that JY Park had stayed back Would have been an ideal back-up to Giroud,IMO.

To me the combination of pace and finishing he possesses is something that can be nurtured into a very special sort of goal scoring ability particularly with the range of incisive passers Arsenal has.

He has the pace ( and could learn the timing) to make 50/50 through balls basically automatic.

He doesn't necessarily need to be a striker , but his role needs to change. Too often I see him 50 metres away from goal playing 1-2's with fullbacks...to me that's just setting him up to fail.

The con's as you outlined are he will likely get bullied by centre backs initially, and the propensity for injuries increases slightly.

Giroud looks terrible ATM but once he hits form he should be fine.

Think we'll see more of Theo at CF in winter with Gervinho going to the Africa Cup of Nations and Chamakh possibly leaving due to lack of playing time.

That is, if Walcott himself isn't sold.

He should just sign that damn contract.

BTW,I forgot his biggest con:Inconsistency,though he has become a little more consistent in the last two years,he definitely needs to be more consistent to start as a striker against reputed teams

But,Some of Walcott's strikes do simply ooze of "Striker"class while sometimes his finishing is pedestrian.His strike against Donetsk(Shakthar?) comes to mind.The combination of Instinct,pace and good finishing,as Le Samourai put it,at its best.

Le Samourai wrote:Giroud looks terrible ATM but once he hits form he should be fine.

BTW,I wouldn't Giroud has been terrible but he has been bad.Such a perspective about Giroud is more due to the following reasons:

1.RvP goal-scoring glut last season,will make almost all strikers look mediocre.

2.Secondly,the instant success of players who were signed along with him{GODolski and Cazorla}.

3.Thirdly and IMO the most important reason as to why Giroud is considered terrible has been the huge success of the new influx of strikers,who were brought into the EPL from the other leagues(Cisse,Ba,Jelavic et al).

But,I do agree he has been bad but I would say that the playing style of Arsenal(ball to feet) is the system in which Giroud can't flourish.The fullbacks need to cross more and cross more accurately into the box and Giroud will do the rest(as he did against the Hammers).

Walcott doesn't have the technique or the brains needed for the main striker position. When going down the center, he tends to be shut off my any half decent defender. If the opposing defense plays deep, say goodbye to his speed advantage. He's not the type of guy to dribble out of danger or make dangerous runs to get rid of defenders. Just look at his goals: they're like 90% made down the flank after a nice through ball during a counter attack, or cutting in from the flank after some good build up.

Not to say he couldn't pull it off every now and then. I mean, with the amount of creativity he has behind him he's bound to get several goals. But as a main striker against big sides and the like... I don't see it yet.

Never mind him being a bitch about the contract, and as Quinten said, he can be inconsistent as frack. I dunno, but all that "old" team from a few years ago when Fabregas was captain should be all sold... they've got bitch DNA or something, I just cannot seem to trust those guys now considering how many have left after declaring their loyalty for the club and yadda yadda.

I'd honestly sell him if a good bid comes. New Thierry, he ain't.

Buy Ba and be done with it.

I have accepted our little club is not big enough for 2 Senegalese outlaws

You have my blessing

The point about a low defensive lines is an important one..as it does somewhat nullify him. But there's something to be said for the space creation you have...Cazorla,Wilshere etc would all create the necessary separation more often than not by drawing defenders out of position.

I would take him at Liverpool in a heartbeat.

I don't want him to sign the contract and honestly he shouldn't because the role he's given sets him up to fail.

He's not the new Henry but I could envision him as a dominant primary or secondary goalscorer on a great team.

If we play him as a striker we need to change our formation. Is it worth doing that for walcott? i dont think so. He cannot play as a lone striker, he cant play with his back to goal. For us i think he is best played on the wing making runs in behind the opponents left back and centre back

Arsenal got striker problem?

I agree with Sushi Master..
The only qualities i see in Walcott are his pace and finishing.. But pace has little to do with a centre forward.. We can see that most of the top premier league strikers are not so quick..
Cons are predominant in his case.. He will struggle to hold the ball.. No aerial threat.. Poor technique and passing will result in poor interlink play.. Cant dribble.. And he will be totally of no use against teams if they play a low line and PTB..
But if he is so adamant that he wants the cf position.. i hope he gets some chances to prove himself..
And i dont agree that Oliver Giroud is a failure.. He is new to the PL.. 2 goals and 4 assists in 9 matches of which most were as subs is pretty good.. Only reason we are talking this is because he wasted few chances.. Dont expect him to be like RIP at the 8th year in Arsenal.. I put my trust on him and i am sure he will come good.. And i think he should be our first choice this season and in the future.. I would always welcome another top quality striker.. But i dont want the club to spend a huge amount of money on a striker now..

Theo just doesn't have the technique, movement and intelligence to play up front for us. Gervinho can get away with it because he has good movement and he can dribble. Theo can't even get past defenders from Moldova . Playing as a striker for Arsenal just doesn't require you to score goals, you also have to drop deep and link up with the midfield. Now Theo has never showed these type of qualities which makes me question if he is really good enough to play upfront for us.

Good then it's settled

Theo to Liverpool for 10 million

Le Samourai wrote:Good then it's settled

Theo to Liverpool for 10 million

15 million and he is yours, you paid 20 million for downing ffs

gunnerlistick wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:Good then it's settled

Theo to Liverpool for 10 million

15 million and he is yours, you paid 20 million for downing ffs

You guys clearly consider him a supersub and he has 6 months on his contract.Pool can easily get him for 10.

We don't consider him as a supersub, he is our best option on the right wing and he is a starter when fit. Wenger seems to think his attributes are best suited to playing on the Wing and almost everyone agree with him.

Walcott would obviously disagree, but I think his current role in the side is actually the best he could play in our current system. In his current role, he can still play on the shoulder of the defenders and get into goalscoring positions and, more often than not, be up against a full back who either wouldn't be able to keep up with him or bully him.

Pretty much anything Walcott has produced has come when he has made runs in between a centre back and a full back, and playing as a right forward allows him to do that.

The only issue is, of course, is that the role requires him to do things he's not necessarily good at, like taking on defenders. But it would be no different if he were playing centrally. Playing centrally would actually expose more his weaknesses.

For one thing, playing a lone striking role requires hard work and intelligent movement. Walcott isn't that much of a hard worker - not surprising, since he has to conserve energy for his short bursts of speed - and his movement isn't too great if he's not playing off the shoulder.

Then you get to the issues with his technical skills. Is his first touch good enough? Can he keep the ball under pressure from defenders? His inability to actually go round players with the ball suggests the answer is no.

Gervinho's touch may be even more horrid, but his ball control is excellent, he works hard and he moves everywhere. It's hard to see Walcott doing the same thing.

In this system, a striker who can't hold the ball up, can't bring others to play and can't create space for others is going to fail. Giroud hasn't been too successful in front of goal, but he has all the required attributes and is improving.

The only way I can see Walcott thriving up front is he has a partner that can do everything he can't; a target man, or a creative striker, or someone who just runs around a lot. He won't ever have a partner at Arsenal, nor would he have one at Liverpool or at any other top club except Man United and maybe City - the issue there being, of course, that they already have several strikers that are better.

Right Forward? That's fine.

That would be an ideal role for him.

But in the few games I've watched this year he's been on the bench and when he has come on he's been played as an out and out right midfielder.

I dont think Walcott would work as an out and out striker. He relies on his pace alot and if defenders play deep, hed have a hard time. I thinm trying Podolski on the right with Walcott on the left shoulf be tried though. Play them like inside forwards like Ronaldo and Robbery.

Le Samourai wrote:Right Forward? That's fine.

That would be an ideal role for him.

But in the few games I've watched this year he's been on the bench and when he has come on he's been played as an out and out right midfielder.

Walcott hasn't played right midfield this year and has not once looked like a right midfielder. It's still the same role he's been playing the last couple of seasons now.

Maybe what you're seeing is Walcott having to come a bit deeper because Jenkinson isn't as adventurous going forward as Sagna as. Sagna plays a big part in Walcott's positioning, since he holds the width on the right and allows Walcott to drift inside. He doesn't have the same understanding with Jenkinson, which may be making him play in a way that's different than normal.

Enough with the likes of Bendtner ( i like him tough) , chamack, P chu young and even with girourd ..

I know who we are and what is our philosophy but if we get a WC striker we'd be real contender for title , i mean REAL CONTENDER. If we have RVP atm that would have been just fantastic. But we don't. The team is almost complete and i believe we could cash on arshavin, chamack and djourou ( let's say 20 millions)O
Let's try that guy Falcao for 50 m or even Dzeko or Pipitta. i like Girourd but we are so close to be favorites for the titles and i don't want us to miss this chance. Stronger team we have since 2006 ( even if we are lacking experience somehow)

Bénin wrote:Enough with the likes of Bendtner ( i like him tough) , chamack, P chu young and even with girourd ..

I know who we are and what is our philosophy but if we get a WC striker we'd be real contender for title , i mean REAL CONTENDER. If we have RVP atm that would have been just fantastic. But we don't. The team is almost complete and i believe we could cash on arshavin, chamack and djourou ( let's say 20 millions)O
Let's try that guy Falcao for 50 m or even Dzeko or Pipitta. i like Girourd but we are so close to be favorites for the titles and i don't want us to miss this chance. Stronger team we have since 2006 ( even if we are lacking experience somehow)

no team is complete.. there are always better players...
Even City and Chelsea keep hunting for new players...

Le Samourai wrote:

gunnerlistick wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:Good then it's settled

Theo to Liverpool for 10 million

15 million and he is yours, you paid 20 million for downing ffs

You guys clearly consider him a supersub and he has 6 months on his contract.Pool can easily get him for 10.

Not sure that I see anyone paying even 10 for him when they will be able to wait a few more months and have him for free.

Agree^

It's either we sign or sell him in January, no sense letting him go for nothing. Would really prefer him to stay though.