PDA

View Full Version : Should Theo Walcott play?


Pages : [1] 2

Agent Red
11 Jun 2006, 02:06 PM
England have four strikers and only two of them are fit. If England are struggling with the heat should Walcott be playing now while we wait for Owen and Rooney to be fit?

mixmastermatt
11 Jun 2006, 02:10 PM
If we are winning 2-0 with 20 mins to go on Thursday then we will see Walcott.

I think Sven should of bought him on with 10 mins to go as he is more of a striker then Crouch. Crouch holds up the ball and makes flick ons, Walcott makes runs and strikes.

Stretch Armstrong
11 Jun 2006, 02:10 PM
England have four strikers and only two of them are fit. If England are struggling with the heat should Walcott be playing now while we wait for Owen and Rooney to be fit?


Very difficult to say given that so little has been seen of him. Even Sven has barely seen him play

Pace running off of and supporting Crouch would have been useful in yesterdays second half however

jcsd
11 Jun 2006, 02:12 PM
Yes he should, if Sven had major doubts about playing him he shouldn't of picked him.

sendorange
11 Jun 2006, 02:17 PM
An FA spokesman has confirmed reports that Theo Walcott suffered a break during a training ground accident.

"I can confirm that Theo Walcott's voice has broken" said the spokesman. "The boy is obviously devastated".

The teenage sensation's voice apparently broke following a clash with goalkeeper Paul Robinson. His balls are believed to have dropped in the penalty box and an alert Robinson cleared them over the fence.

redtyre
11 Jun 2006, 02:39 PM
Yes he should, if Sven had major doubts about playing him he shouldn't of picked him.

It is just a reflection, that Lennon did not come in yesterday, this was a resepectable Paraguay team, not like McNulty at the BBC said a poor Paraguay team, but still; one wonders how we might do against some other teams.

Say, Germany, they have become a more attacking team and suffered on defence against Costa Rica;

Now, maybe Germany, we could still take care of; but I'm wondering, keep Beckham in, put in Lennon too, something might have gotten us an insurance goal yesterday.

As said, if Walcott was picked, man, he could have been put in.

Still, one can see, how Iran suffers greatly, from a goal keeping mistake and then a collapse allowing two goals in; vs. having a draw which seemed obtainable.

Course Gerrard said in the papers, attack was what England needed, killer instinct (before the game yesterday, for the record).

Owen Gohl
11 Jun 2006, 03:48 PM
Walcott should play because:

1. Rooney hasn't played since April. Even if he's fully recovered he can't be fully fit.

2. Owen, who didn't last an hour yesterday, won't be effective as a lone striker.

3. Crouch is carrying a card. If he picks up another one he won't play in the next match. Better to hold him back for Sweden, which could still win the group if they beat both Paraguay and England.

4. It's about time Sven saw him in a competitive match.

In all seriousness, if Sven had enough confidence to select Walcott he should have enough confidence to play him.

When Hell Unfreezes
11 Jun 2006, 04:04 PM
Walcott should have come on when Joey went off, or even before, when Mikey went off, if not, why the fcuk is he there - I am absolutely positive that had Jermaine Defoe been on the bench he would have been called upon.........

If as suggested by many, we get a couple up against T & T, then he should withdraw Mikey (to protect him) and bring on Nappy Rash, there is no point in taking Crouchino off, as at the moment, he is our only effectual front runner.

That said, he will revert to supersub (where we all love his bollox off) as soon as the Loon is fit, if fit??? :rolleyes:

Agent Red
11 Jun 2006, 04:29 PM
It's a good point that Defoe would have been brought on had he been here. But given how crucial a win was in the first game maybe the pressure is too much to ask of a 17 year old on what would effectively be his top class debut for club or country.

I agree with those saying bring him on against T&T second half but I think he might be more effective playing behind the front two and switch to a three man defence, A.Cole to come off after maybe an hour.

Lancashire Lad
11 Jun 2006, 04:45 PM
Walcott should play because:

1. Rooney hasn't played since April. Even if he's fully recovered he can't be fully fit.

And how many competive games has Walcott played this year? Or even since Rooneys injury? 1?

Walcott can only play after his nappies have been changed and he has had his rusks. :-)

Seems to me Sven may have realised that Wegner has tricked him and he knows Walcott isnt ready.

Rooney was the bigger talent at the same age.

MJ-inBRITAIN
11 Jun 2006, 04:57 PM
Until he show us he can't - he should play the last 30min of every single game where England are ahead. If he's as quick as they say, he's the perfect counter weapon.

Otherwise ...wait for it... ...you know it's coming... why did he bring him??

BridgeMonkee
11 Jun 2006, 05:00 PM
1. Rooney hasn't played since April. Even if he's fully recovered he can't be fully fit..

They say Rooneh is fit (recovered). So if he is fit he should play. He's 20 years old and in the World Cup so he doesnt have to worry to much about being match fit. He should have enough enthusiasm and energy to see him through.

sendorange
11 Jun 2006, 05:02 PM
Quite possibly because he believed Wenger that Walcott was ready, only to see him firsthand and realise that he isn't.

If he does not feature against Trinidad then I can only see this as being what has happened.

Colm
11 Jun 2006, 05:09 PM
Walcott should of come on for Owen, strange that Sven didn't use Lennon or Walcott against Paraguay. I wonder if we'll see them against Trinidad or Sweden.

BridgeMonkee
11 Jun 2006, 05:12 PM
We have Downing and Walcott, when really we should have had SWP and Defoe in the squad. BUT Downing and Walcott are the players we have. We can play Lennon instead of Downing. Walcott who knows? He could be the greatest player of all time and ready to play in the World Cup - we just dont know and there is only one way to find out.

musicl
11 Jun 2006, 05:16 PM
We have Downing and Walcott, when really we should have had SWP and Defoe in the squad.Well said, completely agree. SWP is way better than Downing. And Defoe has got the experience over the zero Walcott experience.

The Jitty Slitter
11 Jun 2006, 05:33 PM
Well said, completely agree. SWP is way better than Downing. And Defoe has got the experience over the zero Walcott experience.

yeah but both swp and lennon play on the right - so that's why downing i guess

downing is crap if you ask me.

schafer
11 Jun 2006, 07:32 PM
yeah but both swp and lennon play on the right - so that's why downing i guess

downing is crap if you ask me.

I think he could be a very good, if somewhat limited, winger. Maybe somewhat in the Beckham mold, except with more pace. He's a great crosser/passer, but he cannot beat a player for the life of him. He's so predictable when he gets the ball, its unbelievable. He needs to learn his limitations.

Stud83
11 Jun 2006, 11:54 PM
Yeah, I hope we see him in the second half of the game against T&T.

redtyre
12 Jun 2006, 12:12 AM
Roo's who we might see vs. T and T!!! (BBC) You could tell from the shots from the touchline of the English bench, Rooney was itching to play.