Arsenal west brom home on sat 3 after a mince pie : Page 25 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Arsenal west brom home on sat 3 after a mince pie

Patters

I thought Giroud was very good. Fantastic hold up play and key to our attacks. I think it was the first game I've seen Wilshere and Cazorla both step it up - particularly in the second half. That little exchange with the keepy-ups that nearly lead to a goal was the sort of thing we had in mind a couple of months ago before Jack made his return.

Clrnc

He doesn't need to be good on the ball. He just needs to create havoc and runs at defenders. We create many chances from that.

His movement between lines are brilliant, so are his runs

goon

Agree with Wanker too. Gervinho's knows what to do in the wide position, just doesn't know how to do it.

tazmania

Nine unbeaten in a row for Norwich. What the heck

est

Flat Cap Wanker wrote:
est wrote:
Walcott is much better.

Walcott is a terrible wideman.

The fact that he is our top scorer and has played from the wing every time suggests that's not true.

He's a much better crosser, finisher and makes better runs. Not to mention he's much faster.

TomasCR

General Mirth wrote:
est wrote:
Walcott is much better.

I know what that wanker means, Gervinho stays in the game more than Walcott, Podolski or AOC. He's just really bad on the ball.

Well put. A combination of Gervinho and Walcott would be good enough.

Happy for Chamberlain today, about time he had a good game.

Captain

est wrote:
Flat Cap Wanker wrote:
Walcott is a terrible wideman.

The fact that he is our top scorer and has played from the wing every time suggests you're wrong.

He's a much better crosser, finisher and makes better runs. Not to mention he's much faster.

Big, big weaknesses in his game.

Massive one is the way that he gives the ball to Sagna and runs into the box no matter what is happening in the given moment. Isolates Sagna, slows our momentum and narrows the pitch.

He's got goals in him but he isn't an accomplished wide player.

Captain

Also, a secondary result of that manoeuvre is that he isn't coming onto the ball regularly enough and is instead trying to take it with awkward body shape and his head down.

Mirth

Clrnc wrote:
He doesn't need to be good on the ball. He just needs to create havoc and runs at defenders. We create many chances from that.

Not true, it's fine when we're winning but there have been plenty of games over the past year when his lack of ability has cost us. In a game when chances don't fall as freely Gervinho is pretty much the last player in the squad I'd want to see through on goal.

est

And Gervinho hasn't got weaknesses in his game?

Both are obviously flawed, but Walcott doesn't break down moves any more than Gervais does and he's much more productive.

Mirth

est wrote:
Flat Cap Wanker wrote:
Walcott is a terrible wideman.

The fact that he is our top scorer and has played from the wing every time suggests that's not true.

He's a much better crosser, finisher and makes better runs. Not to mention he's much faster.

Walcott operates in the space behind defences but useless in front of them. Gervinho is the other way around.

Clrnc

My point is, we are much more likely to create chances with him on the pitch than someone like Podolski.

Gervinho doesn't need to be the best finisher, our other players can score from those mess, rebounds or whatever. Its much better than sideway passes and not creating chance at all as evident from last match

Captain

est wrote:
And Gervinho hasn't got weaknesses in his game?

Both are obviously flawed, but Walcott doesn't break down moves any more than Gervais does and he's much more productive.

Gervinho has technical weaknesses, Walcott has tactical weaknesses. The latter is generally a far bigger problem within a team framework.

Patters

est wrote:
And Gervinho hasn't got weaknesses in his game?

Both are obviously flawed, but Walcott doesn't break down moves any more than Gervais does and he's much more productive.

Walcott's also not a complete pussy any more, so that's another plus in his column. Walcott's just a better player all-round. Gervinho is an utter waste of space.

Mirth

Clrnc wrote:
My point is, we are much more likely to create chances with him on the pitch than someone like Podolski.

Gervinho doesn't need to be the best finisher, our other players can score from those mess, rebounds or whatever. Its much better than sideway passes and not creating chance at all as evident from last match

But they haven't in the past and it has cost us. And we created chances collectively as a team, Gervinho's the first one to go missing when things get difficult.

tazmania

They both have weaknesses and strengths. Walcott is suited for a forward position more than a wide position IMO. Same with podolski. Gervinho is more of a wide player than those two. Still we can definitely do better and gervinho should be competing for a first team position and not BE the first choice.

goon

Ultimately the point is if we had to go out and buy a wide player tomorrow I'd rather a better version of Gervinho than a better version of Walcott.

asajoseph

There are few wide-forwards with more end-product than Walcott, and he creates well for our strikers. Gervinho is nowhere close.

Coombs

General Mirth wrote:
Clrnc wrote:
He doesn't need to be good on the ball. He just needs to create havoc and runs at defenders. We create many chances from that.

Not true, it's fine when we're winning but there have been plenty of games over the past year when his lack of ability has cost us. In a game when chances don't fall as freely Gervinho is pretty much the last player in the squad I'd want to see through on goal.

Very few of our players actually get through on goal, though. It's not like he does at someone else's expense.

est

Flat Cap Wanker wrote:
est wrote:
And Gervinho hasn't got weaknesses in his game?

Both are obviously flawed, but Walcott doesn't break down moves any more than Gervais does and he's much more productive.

Gervinho has technical weaknesses, Walcott has tactical weaknesses. The latter is generally a far bigger problem within a team framework.

Gervinho is hardly the tactical mastermind. He doesn't make the runs that he should and he can't use an overlapping fullback if his life depended on it.

I would even say Walcott is the more creative of the pair, but he's seriously hampered by his lack of technique. Have you ever seen Gervinho slip someone in with a through ball or switch the wing with a long diagonal? He plays with his head down more than Theo does.

As long as we're more dangerous going forward, I'd take the problems Theo brings over the problems Gervais brings every day of the week.

A club like Arsenal really should have at least one wide player who's not as flawed as the aforementioned pair though.

« Previous Page Next Page »