Over the last year, a series of disturbing stories have linked perpetually injured England attacker Theo Walcott with a transfer to Anfield. I've argued many times that a deal for Walcott makes no sense whatsoever, and is tantamount to transfer negligence, and Roberto Firmino is an infinitely preferable option. Thankfully, though, there appears to be no chance of a deal as Walcott has now committed his (almost certain to be) injury-ravaged future to Arsenal. Hoorah!
According to The Mirror today:
"Theo Walcott has agreed a new contract at Arsenal until 2019. Talks between the player and his representatives ended successfully, and the deal will put his salary [at] £100,000 a week [£21m over 4-years]".
Liverpool were last linked with 'exceptional' Walcott in March, and at the time, Reds legend Jamie Carragher told Sky Sports:
“Liverpool have looked at signing Walcott in the past. If he was available then I’m sure any Liverpool fan, player or manager would love to see him at the club. He's an ideal signing for the club."
Carra is entitled to his opinion, but he's totally wrong with the contention that 'any Liverpool fan would love to see him at the club. I recently conducted a poll on the site asking if Liverpool should sign Walcott, and the results were emphatic:
As the polls shows, there are lots of Liverpool fans who have serious reservations about Walcott, mainly due to his absolutely horrific injury history, which is worth highlighting once again:
* 15 separate injuries since 2008.
* 646 days on the sidelines as a result.
* 128 games missed as a result of injury. 128 games!
* Misses an average of 21 games every single season.
* 2014: Spent 10 months of the year out injured.
Walcott is one of the most injured players in Europe (!) His record makes Daniel Sturridge look indestructible, to it's mystifying why Carra ignores the injury history in his assessment of the England man's suitability for Anfield.
Walcott is a good player, but what difference does it make if he's constantly injured?
Granted, there's every possibility that me may now stay fit for the rest of his career, but is worth taking that kind of risk? No chance. History suggests that Walcott will almost certainly pick up more injuries in the future, and luckily, it'll be Arsenal suffering the consequences, and not Liverpool.
Bullet dodged, though it's sobering to think that Rodgers - if given the slightest encouragement from Arsenal or Walcott - probably would've jumped at the chance to complete the deal, irrespective of the injury history.
Armour-piercing bullet-dodged (IMO).
Author: Jaimie K
According to The Mirror today:
"Theo Walcott has agreed a new contract at Arsenal until 2019. Talks between the player and his representatives ended successfully, and the deal will put his salary [at] £100,000 a week [£21m over 4-years]".
Liverpool were last linked with 'exceptional' Walcott in March, and at the time, Reds legend Jamie Carragher told Sky Sports:
“Liverpool have looked at signing Walcott in the past. If he was available then I’m sure any Liverpool fan, player or manager would love to see him at the club. He's an ideal signing for the club."
Carra is entitled to his opinion, but he's totally wrong with the contention that 'any Liverpool fan would love to see him at the club. I recently conducted a poll on the site asking if Liverpool should sign Walcott, and the results were emphatic:
As the polls shows, there are lots of Liverpool fans who have serious reservations about Walcott, mainly due to his absolutely horrific injury history, which is worth highlighting once again:
* 15 separate injuries since 2008.
* 646 days on the sidelines as a result.
* 128 games missed as a result of injury. 128 games!
* Misses an average of 21 games every single season.
* 2014: Spent 10 months of the year out injured.
Walcott is one of the most injured players in Europe (!) His record makes Daniel Sturridge look indestructible, to it's mystifying why Carra ignores the injury history in his assessment of the England man's suitability for Anfield.
Walcott is a good player, but what difference does it make if he's constantly injured?
Granted, there's every possibility that me may now stay fit for the rest of his career, but is worth taking that kind of risk? No chance. History suggests that Walcott will almost certainly pick up more injuries in the future, and luckily, it'll be Arsenal suffering the consequences, and not Liverpool.
Bullet dodged, though it's sobering to think that Rodgers - if given the slightest encouragement from Arsenal or Walcott - probably would've jumped at the chance to complete the deal, irrespective of the injury history.
Armour-piercing bullet-dodged (IMO).
Author: Jaimie K
0 Comments:
Post a Comment