Theo Theo, get yourself together

Yesterday Theo Walcott publicly stated that the reason he has not yet agreed a new contract with Arsenal is that he wants assurances that he will play in his favourite position - as a striker. I won't quote him, but you can read his full statement right here. Whether this explanation is a cover for "I want more money and Arsenal won't give it to me" remains to be seen, but for argument's sake I'll take it at face value.

This isn't the first time Walcott has expressed a preference for playing as a striker. Expressing a preference is fine. Demanding to play any position, especially one you are quite clearly not suited to, is patently ridiculous.

I've always likened Theo to a Pokemon - briefly dazzling when chosen, but ultimately fucking pointless. Let me explain why Walcott is not suited to being a modern striker.  Arsenal play with one centre forward, as do all the best teams in Europe. 4-4-2 is used sparingly by some clubs, but overall some variation of 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 is the most commonly used set-up. Playing up front on their own, the striker needs to do more than just put the ball in the back of the net. The lone striker needs to be able to drop deep, link the play, hold the ball up, lay it off to supporting midfielders and have some heading ability. The lone striker needs good technique, a great first touch and nuanced tactical intelligence. Robin Van Persie could do all of those things, and had all of those qualities. Olivier Giroud can do most of those things and has most of those qualities. Theo Walcott on the other hand...

His plus points: He can finish. His technique has improved somewhat over the last couple of seasons, as has his run-making. He's obviously as quick as a rabbit being chased by anything hungry. Nevertheless he cannot claim to have the qualities necessary to play up front on his own. Look at the top forwards in Europe right now, in no particular order: Ibrahimovic, Van Persie, Ronaldo,* Torres, Aguero, Benzema, Messi, Lewandowski, Gomez etc. All of them either have a big physical presence, superior technique, or both. Walcott has neither.

I think my point is made. I'll now move on to why it was such a terrible bloody idea for Theo to say what did in public. Can a top, well-respected manager such as Arsene Wenger really be seen to submit to an ultimatum from an over-paid, inconsistent player? Can Theo Walcott really hold Arsenal to ransom? No. And that's why he isn't starting games at the moment (though he likely will in the Capital One Cup, tomorrow). He is being shown that he needs Arsenal far more than Arsenal need him. His public stand means that even if Wenger had been planning on giving the kid a chance up front, he might now re-think it  for fear of the public perception problem.

Ultimately, if his manager gives him the chance up front and he does alright, fair enough. If AW doesn't give him the chance and tells him to sling his hook, also fair enough. Walcott is a decent bloke and a dangerous player at times. He'll be snapped up if he becomes a free transfer. But he should know his place. He isn't that good. He isn't a natural striker. He isn't consistent. He is in no position to be telling his manager where he will and will not play.

*It would be suitable to point out that Cristiano Ronaldo has scored a goal-a-game for Real Madrid since he joined them, and has done so playing mostly from a wing-forward rather than central striking position. Take note, Theo.