Theo Walcott: Page 110 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Theo Walcott

Gunner89

Nasri would have been a significant upgrade on Gervinho on the wing for sure and would have left us a multitude of options with him, Jack and Cazorla in the creative roles.

Timbob

How many games has Gervinho played on the wing this season? Can't be many. Nasri would be depth at the moment for us, no more. He wouldn't get in to our best team.

ludovicvanzis

qs! wrote:
He is a better footballer. He might not be as fancy a footballer but he's more effective and therefore better.

Iniesta, Bergkamp etc.

Also, you're confusing fancy with not tripping over the ball or leaving it behind.

I wonder what's taking lagos so long.

Ray

Yeah except nasri isn't an iniesta or bergkamp, once you reach to such levels and are capable of having moments of brilliance like those two or alike then you can understand that having someone capable of doing these magical moments excuses their lack of goals.

Nasri has decent ball control and is good at keeping possession with the odd goal or dribble now and then, would be backup for wilshere or cazorla if he was here, which should never happen anyway.

Captain

Is Gervinho back?

y va marquer

Yes, he's back but was given time off.

Qwiss

ludovic van zis wrote:
qs! wrote:
He is a better footballer. He might not be as fancy a footballer but he's more effective and therefore better.

Iniesta, Bergkamp etc.

Also, you're confusing fancy with not tripping over the ball or leaving it behind.

I wonder what's taking lagos so long.

Why are you listing random players names?

You clearly fail to understand what "effective" means.

ludovicvanzis

What?

Macca

He's pointing out that effective doesn't mean prolific, closer to influential. Bergkamp, Iniesta and Walcott definitely did/do influence/effect matches regularly unlike Nasri.

Burnwinter

Neither Cazorla nor Walcott would be dropped for Nasri. The former is just as good on the ball with more end product. The latter is our form striker.

If anyone got dropped for Nasri (doubtful) it would be Podolski or Giroud with a consequent changeup of the front six. I can't see that really helping though, since both of those are effective players at the moment with a good niche in our side carved out.

If Nasri wants his career back he should find himself a second tier club that will start him in midfield.

Rex

Nasri is such a Wenger player. No doubt in my mind Wenger would find a place for him either on the wing or in midfield most weeks.

Timbob

For who?

Burnwinter

For Nasri Tim. Keep up!

ludovicvanzis

Macca wrote:
He's pointing out that effective doesn't mean prolific, closer to influential. Bergkamp, Iniesta and Walcott definitely did/do influence/effect matches regularly unlike Nasri.

I wasn't comparing Nasri to Iniesta though. Merely pointing out that 'support' players aren't necessarily worse than more prolific players.

And in the context of the two players we're discussing (Walcott & Nasri ) i do think that effective means prolific. Because otherwise what he's saying makes no sense. He's arguing that Walcott is better because he's more effective, but the only thing he's more effective at is getting into dangerous positions. Nasri is a far, far superior midfielder. He's even a better finisher, imo.

Timbob

Burnwinter wrote:
For Nasri Tim. Keep up!

😆

est

ludovic van zis wrote:
Nasri is a far, far superior midfielder. He's even a better finisher, imo.

Nasri a better finisher than Theo? Not a chance.

Timbob

Nasri and Walcott are just completely different players who bring completely different things to the table. Right now, imo, Walcott is proving to be far better at what he does than Nasri is at what he does.

That said, no denying Nasri's talent. Pretty simple with Nasri if you ask me; when he is properly fit he can be brilliant, but he spends a lot of his time slightly unfit and slightly overweight.

Burnwinter

Wenger's one of the few managers under whom Nasri and Walcott would be in competition for a place even given close form.

goon

ludovic van zis wrote:
Macca wrote:
He's pointing out that effective doesn't mean prolific, closer to influential. Bergkamp, Iniesta and Walcott definitely did/do influence/effect matches regularly unlike Nasri.

I wasn't comparing Nasri to Iniesta though. Merely pointing out that 'support' players aren't necessarily worse than more prolific players.

And in the context of the two players we're discussing (Walcott & Nasri ) i do think that effective means prolific. Because otherwise what he's saying makes no sense. He's arguing that Walcott is better because he's more effective, but the only thing he's more effective at is getting into dangerous positions. Nasri is a far, far superior midfielder. He's even a better finisher, imo.

Nasri is a crap support player. He's absolutely pointless when he's not in a more direct frame of mind. At his best his job is exactly the same as Walcott, to set up and score goals.

kamikaze

talent is not the question with nasri - he simply does not consistently deliver performances. talent without performances is worth nothing. i never rated nasri and haven't missed him even an iota.

as for nasri being a better midfielder than walcott, that's meaningless. walcott is a far better forward than nasri.

« Previous Page Next Page »