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!
Modric for a midfield playmaker he’s statistics are very poor, I think he’s overrated. delap gets all he’s assist from throw ins, I’m not saying just because lenny has poor assist and goals means theo is better, but if you play as a winger your role is to cross the ball and make assist and chip in with goals leno does neither
No man. Modric makes things happen all the time. He is proof that stats aren’t everything.
Walcott is the faster player, 100 metres in 10.2 secs thats olympic sprinter times therefore he’s faster. More effective as he gets more goals, Lennon creates more chances but less assists in amount of games played. Walcott is younger aswell end of.
Walcott is the far more effective player, and as such you’d have to choose Theo.
This whole argument re walcott creating more chances is baloney. Lennon created many more chances than walcoot – the spurs strikers just couldnt finish them. Same with modric. Trust me, walcoot couldnt lace lennons boots.