What’s wrong with the following equation?
81 goals in 230 appearances + an average rating of 6.87 = £100k+ p/w
Show your working out in the space provided:
For some time now something just hasn’t added up. Here we are ten years after his debut in August 2006; a decade after he won BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year, Theo Walcott stands as an experienced England international and one of Arsenal’s highest earners. And yet he’s shit.
The same question marks once tempered by youth still hang over Walcott to this day like a bad awning; such familiar sentiments as “he doesn’t have a footballing brain,” and, “he’s a middle class fast spastic.” And it’s hard to argue against either. For Theo is a player fast in body but not in mind. He’s often caught in two minds or no mind at all; frequently dispossessed while thinking of the politest way to say something.
 |
| Walcott misses a chance. |
It’s easy to argue that without his pace he would be the worst player to put on an Arsenal shirt. Which would be true, aside from the inconvenient truth that he does have his pace. That’s like saying without his limbs he would be a snake. Obviously he would be, but he isn’t. The point is he must have something.
So what is it? Believe it or not Theo is Arsenal’s longest serving player. And his overall goal tally is more than any other current player, a total that includes four hat-tricks: the most recent being against West Brom in the final game of last season.
And that’s it: Theo has longevity. A trait of circumstance but one that denotes a certain level of service and loyalty that should surely be rewarded. But is mans loyal? Telling everyone who’d listen he was unhappy and wanted to play as a lone striker. And don’t forget this pay rise wasn’t prompted by an outstanding season or significant outside interest, Walcott threatened to run his contract down. In the end Wenger decided his side was better with than without the posh sod.
Theo offered Wenger a directness at a time when his side were so tediously criticised for trying to “walk it in the net.” Here was someone who would rather run at you (then past you, then off the pitch) much in the blistering fashion reminiscent of the Invincibles. Walcott’s play is nostalgic but lacking; a reminder of once was but isn’t quite: paying a player £100k+ doesn’t make him exceptional, nor does the no. 14 make him Thierry Henry. At every turn Theo’s value is forced.
Even his banter seems disingenuous: in the utterly hilarious ArsenalTV skits Walcott has the look of someone perpetually worried about their GCSEs.
 |
| Walcott scores! Only joking. Walcott misses another chance. |
So what’s next? Walcott had the chance to make an impact when he came on as a sub during his sides’ title-ambition-denting 0-0 draw with Southampton the other week, but managed only to hit a couple tame balls straight at an outstanding Forster. Walcott is not a striker. If at 26 you have to tell a manager like Arsene Wenger that you’re a striker, then you’re not a striker. “I AM A STRIKER MUMMY PAY ME LOTS OF MONEY MUMMY.”
Fittingly the Open Dictionary definition of longevity has the following example:
If Walcott was on £50k he would have every chance of a big club coming in and taking a chance on him with the promise of doubled wages. Liverpool would have been the perfect fit for Theo, a club with hospice-like ambition for overrated and overpriced English talent (and if they’re any good they go on to bigger and better things, like Raheem Stirling or Neil Mellor.) Instead he’s done himself in. At League 1 or possibly Championship level Walcott would have every chance of becoming a leading goalscorer, or at best an eyebrow raising but hit-and-miss striker for a newly promoted Premier League side. Instead he’s going to sit on the bench as an impact sub, burning a hole in Arsenal’s pocket until he’s 29 and gets shipped to the MLS. Trust.
I'll answer the question at the top of the article, 'is Theo Walcott worth £100k+p/w?’ in the only way one can really:
Jamie Vardy is on £40k.
GITG
