It’s not often that Arsenal lose to Spurs, and it’s even rarer for them to lose in the emphatic manner that they did last Tuesday. 5-1 is miserable scoreline to lose by in a derby game, especially if your club usually walks over their (geographically) closest rivals with consummate ease, and the natural reaction in the wake of such a catastrophe is to identify a scapegoat. At White Hart Lane on Tuesday Theo Walcott was that scapegoat.
Walcott has been attracting scathing column inches since he was called up for England’s world cup squad in 2006. The inclusion of a 16 year old who had not played a minute of competitive football infuriated the assembled press, and the fact that Walcott did not appear at all in the tournament antagonised them further. Since then every article about the youngster has been written with a touch of resentment. Walcott crashed the Golden Generation’s party. Germany 2006 had been earmarked for years as the tournament where England would finally reacquaint themselves with success. So when Sven Goran Eriksson decided to use up one of the squad spaces on offering a potentially good player an experience of international competition, it really hurt the English media. By bringing in Walcott, Eriksson suggested that 2006 wasn’t as golden a generation as everyone had hoped, and that it would maybe be wiser to plan for the future. It flew in the face of all the hyperbole tossed about in the build up to the tournament. Walcott, despite not appearing in any of England’s games, became, along with the Swede, the fall guy for their failure.
Since then Walcott has struggled in club football at Arsenal, appearing sporadically and not performing with the precociousness expected of a ‘wonderkid’, and the language adopted by Fleet Street’s finest on the matter suggests that they have lost what little faith they once had in his ability. Kevin McCarra of The Guardian suggested after Arsenal’s capitulation at Spurs last week that, “Anyone unfamiliar with Walcott’s history would have classed him on Tuesday night as an 18-year-old with borderline prospects in the Premier League.” Arsene Wenger admitted that Walcott hadn’t developed as quickly as he had hoped, and the persistent rumblings of a potential loan has been taken by the press as affirmation of the youngster’s mediocrity.
Whilst it is true that Walcott has been underwhelming, some of the bile spouted about his footballing ability has been quite breathtaking. “He can’t shoot, pass, tackle, cross or hold on to the ball, he doesn’t track back or possess the footballing intelligence to make proper use of his pace, is injury prone and, according to his manager, requires a “rest” after playing 150 minutes of football in four days“, was the splenetic view of Football 365’s Peter Gill, an opinion which conveniently ignores Walcott’s better moments in the past 18 months. The two irresistible goals for England’s U-21’s against their German counterparts (apologies for extensive footage of Peter Beardsley’s face in that video) and a fantastic performance against Slavia Prague in the Champions League are evidence against Gill’s exaggerations. Yes, these high points may come infrequently, but Walcott is 18, an age where even making a first team appearance is usually seen as tremendous progress.
The problem for Walcott is that he has found himself bracketed in with the previous incumbent of the ‘wonderkid’ mantle, Wayne Rooney. Rooney was physically, as well as technically, advanced for his age. He couldn’t be bullied by the grizzled old pros. Walcott doesn’t have that luxury. He has a teenager’s physique, and blistering pace can only get you so far in such a physical league. Wenger has thus far played him on the flanks, but believes that he is far better suited to playing in the centre. Until his strength improves it is difficult to imagine him thriving in a central position, and his struggles against Spurs in the second leg of the Carling Cup prove this.
Perhaps Walcott is that rare thing: an English footballer who would be better suited to playing abroad. In Spain, for example, he would have the opportunity to play centrally and against less forceful opponents. Walcott would have more time on the ball, and would come back to England a more confident and technically astute player. Sure, you can argue that he would have to face the rigours of English football at some point but, more than anything else at the moment, Walcott needs a validation of his ability. He is only 18, and has plenty of time to develop into an excellent footballer, but a deficit of confidence can be a terminal problem. Wenger needs to act quickly to rectify this situation.
