Walcott Injury

[craig 5,199]

TBH You lost me early doors. No way you can compare Walcott now, to Rooney now. Even starting at Everton, he was a better player. Ronaldo is the same, cannot be compared to Walcott

 

Now I have more time let me explain better - in a manner that perhaps, JUST perhaps, an eejit like you could understand

 

IF Man U have 4 world class strikers (regardless of WHO they are, they are 4 world class forwards) - or Liverpool, or Chelsea etc etc - but Arsenal have just 2 world class forwards...... if Arsenal lost one of those to injury then their loss is bigger than that of the other teams because they now only have one quality choice and need to replace the injured player with someone of inferior quality.

 

What I am saying is it is not just a Walcott vs Gerrard (or Ferdinand or Lampard or whoever) - it is as much about the effect on the club team and squad of losing that said player at that time.

 

So whilst we all know that Gerrard is a better player, Lampard too - if an injury to them means they have another quality replacement then the loss isnt as severe as it would be if they had to delve into lesser players (which is what Arsenal might have to do given their injury situation).

 

You, Jon, are looking at it from a simple "who is a better player" scenario and suggesting that the loss of Walcott cannot be as big as losing a Gerrard.

 

I, though, am saying it doesnt just depend on the qualities of the player himself but what the loss of him does to the squad.

 

I am sure you STILL wont get what I am saying though

[Jon 0]

Would it not also be a case of looking at the whole squad of the afformentioned teams? Arsenal are weaker, simple as! The reasons, I dont know, my own opinion is stuborness. The other teams you mention have a greater depth to accomadate injuries. Please not let this turn into another Jonc hates Arsenal debate. I think I have put my views across accordingy to the relevance of the subject.......I could be wrong

[craig 5,199]

Would it not also be a case of looking at the whole squad of the afformentioned teams? Arsenal are weaker, simple as! The reasons, I dont know, my own opinion is stuborness. The other teams you mention have a greater depth to accomadate injuries. Please not let this turn into another Jonc hates Arsenal debate. I think I have put my views across accordingy to the relevance of the subject.......I could be wrong

 

I havent turned it into a Jon hates Arsenal thread. You are confirming above exactly what I am trying to say.

 

You say that the loss of Walcott isnt as important as the loss of Gerrard or Lampard - but if Walcott is lost from a weaker squad then his loss IS, at least, as important.

[Jon 0]

Who's fault is it they have a weaker squad?

[Jon 0]

This will almost definitely turn into a tit for tat thread btw

[craig 5,199]

Who's fault is it they have a weaker squad?

 

Now you are responding in an irrelevant manner. You said previously your responses were relevant to the thread - this response isnt :fish:

 

This will almost definitely turn into a tit for tat thread btw

 

Nope.

 

Originally you suggested that Walcott's loss isnt as important - my statement is that you have to look at MORE than just player vs player in terms of quality.

 

You confirmed that.

 

Debate over - I win :devil:

[Jon 0]

Sorry, I don't see that Craig. Walcott is not the be all and endd all of Arsenall, Adebayor is far more important and crucial to them.

 

Also, whay is it irrellevant? Strong sqauds will prevail. Chelsea IMO will win it, but look at the top 4, Manure, Chelea (certainly) and now even Liverpool ahve a stronger squad and depth.

 

Any of the other 3 lose a player they have cover, simple. Arsenal don't abd are now whining cos they have lost one player?

[craig 5,199]

Sorry, I don't see that Craig. Walcott is not the be all and endd all of Arsenall, Adebayor is far more important and crucial to them.

 

Also, whay is it irrellevant? Strong sqauds will prevail. Chelsea IMO will win it, but look at the top 4, Manure, Chelea (certainly) and now even Liverpool ahve a stronger squad and depth.

 

Any of the other 3 lose a player they have cover, simple. Arsenal don't abd are now whining cos they have lost one player?

 

It is irrelevant because the discussion was about the importance of one player vs another being injured - so questioning who is at fault for the strength of a squad is absolutely irrelevant to that question.

 

I didnt at any point say that Walcott was the be all and end all - I think you just dont understand the point I was making.

 

If Liverpool and Arsenal both had 4 forwards and Arsenal already had three injured and then lost Walcott too whilst Liverpool lost just one of theirs (even their best one) then it can be argued that the loss of Walcott is bigger because his team now have NO recognised strikers whilst Liverpool still have 3 available). Just try to see this without players names and you may see what I mean.

 

Failing that..... I give up trying !

[Jon 0]

OK give up

 

All my point was is that Walcott seemed to be coming across as the be all and end all when he isn't I digressed I'll admit to the size and quality of their sqaud, I do however think it's relevant when talking about one player missing from a team and hence why I made the comparisons.....

 

Now I give up

[craig 5,199]

OK give up

 

All my point was is that Walcott seemed to be coming across as the be all and end all when he isn't I digressed I'll admit to the size and quality of their sqaud, I do however think it's relevant when talking about one player missing from a team and hence why I made the comparisons.....

 

Now I give up

 

Aye, give up. I win, as per usual