Debates involving the North London rivalry often tend to acquire a kind of rabid intensity and in almost all cases cease to appeal to any kind of objectivity, but hopefully this is a question that will inspire a fair amount of thoughtful discussion. Who, as things stand, is the better player: Arsenal’s Theo Walcott or Tottenham’s Aaron Lennon?
There are certain similarities between the two. They are both wingers, they are both English, they are both pacey and they are both young. What’s more they have both been accused in the past of not being as effective as they might well have been. Chris Waddle once suggested that Walcott lacks a ‘footballing brain’ and that he’s too prone to making the wrong decision. Lennon on the other hand loses the ball too often and has a tendency towards running up blind alleys.
Both players have matured over the course of the last couple of seasons. Last year saw Walcott be remarkable efficient, especially considering that he spent much of his time sidelined thanks to injuries. In just 19 starts he racked up 9 goals and 7 assists.
Lennon on the other hand faced his own injury problems and is reported to have fallen out with Harry Redknapp, but had begun to show flashes of his best form towards the end of the season. There’s certainly evidence that he’s improving and if he can avoid fitness problems next season then it may well turn out to be his best year yet in English football.
So who’s better? The likelihood is, if you’re an Arsenal fan you’ll pick Theo and if you’re a Spurs fan you’ll opt for Aaron. It would be interesting, however, to get a few neutral takes on the topic.
In my opinion, Theo Walcott is the more effective of the two players. He’s a better finisher and he often utilises his pace to astonishing effect. Both players are developing well, but as things stand I would posit that Walcott is slightly ahead of the curve. He may not have as ‘tricky’ feet as Lennon, but I’d argue that he makes up for this with his positioning and his turn of pace.
So what’s your take? Who’s the better player?
[poll id=”11″]
Follow @ThePerfectPass on Twitter for details on all the latest updates and various football-related musings.
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
To have a peak at the top SEVEN available FREE TRANSFERS this summer, click here.
Or to have a look at 10 ways a football lover can spend this summer, click here!
Statistically Theo is far far better. Simple.
Lennon is much better. Now let that be the end of this debate.
I used to think Lennon was better. But wallcott had a good season scored about 14 goals and sum assist.
They both aint good enough, Lennon has better close control, Walcott has a better finish, Lennon is better at tracking back and has better stamina, Walcott gets more assists (due to Van Persie I argue) and is slightly quicker.
Both aint as good as Adam Johnsen or Ashley Young though and aint worth considering as both aint guaranteed starters for there clubs with VanDerVaart and Nasri being played in there position more often than not
Verdict both Crap Lennon wins as Spurs paid 1 million for him whilst Walcott cost 12 times as much
walcott didn;t cost 12 mil in the end, saints settled ealry for 8mil.
Ps. @ Aicher, lets comment form a nutral point of view or dont comment at all.
No point arsenal fans saying walcott and spurs saying lennon…pleb
LENNON BY AN ABSOLUTE COUNTRY MILE
IS IT ANY WONDER PLAYERS BY THE LORRY LOAD ARE DESPERATE THE LEAVE ARSENAL, BECAUSE THEY ARE PLAYING WITH SUBSTANDARD PLAYERS LIKE WALCOTT.
THE REACTION OF THE REST OF HIS TEAM MATES SAYS IT ALL WHEN HE MISPLACES PASSES AND BAD CROSSES WILL TELL YOU THEY DONT THINK HE IS GOOD ENOUGH. WENGER ONLY KEEPS PICKING HIM BECAUSE OF HIS HISTORY OF BAD BUYS IN THE TRANFER MARKET. HE COST A LOT OF MONEY (£15 MILL). HE IS WORST THAN JEFFERS
There is no answer, simple. They are both unplayable on their day, but both big time confidence players. Last year I’d say Theo, the year before Azza. You could ask this question every 6 months and get a different answer.
walcott didn’t cost 15 million u Jew.
Right, for a start, Lennon is the quicker player and both are considerably better than Young and Johnson. However, Walcot is the better goal scorer and forward player whereas Lennon is the better winger, crosser and goal creator.
Whereas Lennon will continue to become a top winger, Walcot will more likely become a forward player who scores more than creates due to his poor vision and terrible short range passing. Also, in one on one situations, Lennon is much better at getting past his man and to the touchline when Walcot will usually lose control.
As a yid i hate to say it but walcott. Lennon is a one trick pony
you’re not a yid you havent a fucking clue wot ur talking about.
nice one for letting the side down Gremilo. Firstly sod off with your fascist views, and then take a maths lesson. 1 x 12 = 15? no mate, even i can work out thats 12.
They’re both players playing in a system that doesn’t suit their game. I’m happy to have Theo at Arsenal and wouldn’t swap for Lennon despite his qualities.
difficult who the better impact player is. lennon is by far, a better midfielder and crosser of the ball. theo is by far, a better striker and finisher/goal scorer. all said, both can be frustrating to watch sometimes, but on their good days, they are both simply unplayable.
lennon is better by far..BUT…although they both scare the shit outta full backs they both only do it about a dozen games a year,so they are both a waste of raw talent
Lennon for me 9 times out of 10 he beats his man. He has better close control, better with the ball at his feet. Tracks back better. Has a pretty good shot on him and has improved his overall end product. Unfortunately Lennon has had crouch as his target most of the season and crouch is useless so when you look at assists Walcott will have better stats as he has the class of van persie upfront. However Lennon has created more chances. But as we know they ONLY become an assist if the striker your passing to scores. Walcott for me has terrible close control. He tends to hit it 10 yards in front of him and run after it which normally results in a defender getting there. Walcott doesn’t have the skill, dribbling ability and trickery of lennon, he rarely beats his man and his end product is about level. The only thing walcott has over lennon is that he seems to score more. Walcott however has a slow football brain and gets it wrong so many times which effects arsenals attacking qualities. Lennon on the other hand reads the game so much better. So for me its Lennon over Walcott.
Dom your wife is fat
Walcott better than lennon ???? HAHAHHAHAAHAHAH. Lennon hardly ever losses the ball, can destroy any fullback on his game and puts it on a plate for spurs misfiring strikers. Walcott is hopeless. Cant beat a man, cant cross, no sense of awareness and cant pass. I dont know how anyone can even have this debate.
Walcott has more goals and assist than lenny boy… So how in Jesus name is lenny better than theo????? Stupid yidd
Gremilo, even your fellow Arsenal supporters are arguing with you and probably hate you, why don’t you go and support Chelsea or something, all their fans are hated??
I think they’re both playing well below their best but I think Walcott is slightly better only because he can finish.
Gremilio, Rory Delap claimed more assists and goals than Luka Modric last season, so does that make Delap a better player than Modders. Stupid Gooner.
England wins here… Although on his day Theo is the better player.
Lennon is still the more mature player, but he just doesn’t have the natural ability of theo to create and particularly to score goals. Theo will continue to improve while I think lennon has really hit the peak of his talents. This debate will probably only be completely decided in the next 2 or 3 years.