yuv wrote:

My view is that he is already better than Theo, though consistency taken to account, he may not be preferred.

Walcott is inconsistent too.

Chambo's the better player, but we can't afford him in any lineup where Giroud and Welbeck are at point.

Without end product at the sharp end, he's still more part of the problem than the solution. He doesn't defend much, create much, or score much. For all his nice play, he tends to lose his his head when he gets into dangerous positions. This problem is compounded by the fact he's a predominantly attacking player who tends to leave his fullback quite exposed.

I think it's something that will probably come with him (because it doesn't come with everyone), but until it does I think it's far, far too premature to heap on the plaudits.

Klaus wrote:

yuv wrote:

My view is that he is already better than Theo, though consistency taken to account, he may not be preferred.

Walcott is inconsistent too.

Chambo's the better player, but we can't afford him in any lineup where Giroud and Welbeck are at point.

Wellbecks decision making is worse than OC's.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Walcott is better than Chamberlain, who is far too inconsistent and lacks end product, but both should start. Welbeck is the one that should be dropped.

yes. Even if it means Theo as CF.

asajoseph wrote:

Without end product at the sharp end, he's still more part of the problem than the solution. He doesn't defend much, create much, or score much. For all his nice play, he tends to lose his his head when he gets into dangerous positions. This problem is compounded by the fact he's a predominantly attacking player who tends to leave his fullback quite exposed.

I think it's something that will probably come with him (because it doesn't come with everyone), but until it does I think it's far, far too premature to heap on the plaudits.

I agree with the defense bit, and that it may be premature. The "end product" is also a bit hard to argue with, but it should be taken in context, as the rest of the above, which to me is very harsh. Ox' improvement of late is very evident, his direct play is improving, and he was very unlucky not to see some "end product" yesterday. He takes on defenders for fun and drills down his side at will, contributing nicely to our offense. We've been crying for such play/er for ages - him and Alexis on both sides is almost too good to be true.

We should not be too stringent with the statistics, but read what is really happening: if Ox continues what we've been witnessing in the last games, it would be criminal to hold him back.

As for Theo or Welbeck up top - that's another issue (let's see how Theo is, depends on opposition, etc.).

What kind of world does a guy who can nearly break double figures for goals and assist outweigh Walcott? The oz is Aaron Lennon in disguise, totally over-rated player who has failed to live up to the hype.

Pure athlete, minor footballer.

Pure athlete, minor footballer? That sums up Theo's career.

Ox is the superior player.

This Theo chap is a myth.

Goal record doesn't lie. I must have missed the wenger memo that you must have that football is somehow not related to the number of goals scored, Ox's record is pathetic in that respect. He has 100 Ganesh for arsenal and where is he really? I don't rate any of his game outside running at pace at a player, the rest is totally shit or erratic. He is the Gael clichy of wingers.

Alfonso wrote:

Pure athlete, minor footballer? That sums up Theo's career.

This old nonsense again.

Wow, that's harsh. Chamberlain's beginning to show his potential now, and will probably be a better player than Walcott one day. He's not there yet, though. Walcott's end product alone puts him ahead of the Ox.

theo is still the more polished and efficient player compared to oxlade. theo has become a clever footballer in the last few seasons (when fit). the timing of his runs, pace, and finishing is something no-one else in the squad offers.

It would be a talk about arsenal if we weren't talking about how much better something will be in the future I've the current. For me the ox is barely showing anything outside conditioning. Talk of better than Walcott is a callacy as theo ahs got there and even on the basis of your opinion that he could be bette he has still failed to get there. That alone massively discounts any talk of him being a better player.

Your mobile's auto-correct is working.
It has ganeshed at least 3 of your posts.

Theo is by far the most overrated Arsenal player prob ever.

Apart from all his other negatives how can you rate someone who is so unreliable injury wise?

I know the Ox has been injured a few fair times as well but he is far more robust and reliable.

The reason why he has never produced it consistently is because he has never had a proper run of games together since he joined us.

Theo, Diaby, Gibbs, Wilshere. All good players but you can't count on them for shit.

Ox will only get better and better.

I prefer goal threats to general contributors. Theo has been scoring and assisting regularly for 3 seasons now, injuries included he has still added far more to our game than Ox.

evoh wrote:

It would be a talk about arsenal if we weren't talking about how much better something will be in the future I've the current. For me the ox is barely showing anything outside conditioning. Talk of better than Walcott is a callacy as theo ahs got there and even on the basis of your opinion that he could be bette he has still failed to get there. That alone massively discounts any talk of him being a better player.

I think Walcott is the better player, but you simply do not describe a 21-year-old not being as good as Walcott with "he has failed to get there". Has Neymar failed to get as good as Ribery? Maybe Varane has failed to get as good as Ramos too? It doesn't make sense at all to say things like that. Ox hasn't failed to do anything, he's progressing every match he stays fit.

Personally, I'm happy to have both in the squad. They bring different qualities and potentials, as well as different limitations and risks. Both can add a lot to the team now and in the future.

I don't understand why this discussion has turned into Walcott or Chambo. It is a wonderful thing that Chambo is coming of age! Which top club only has 1 class player for each position?!

The comparison doesn't make much sense to me either; Chambo is a midfielder while Walcott is a forward. The only thing they have in common is that they both can play on the right wing, but even there they play the position in very different ways. However, Walcott can play as a striker as well, while Chambo can play both on the left and through the middle. Personally, I'd have both of them in the team when they are on form. We can even do that without any of them being on the right wing!