Danny Welbeck | Arsenal player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robbie Boy said:
There's still a massive gulf in terms of quality between the two teams. Overall, I don't think he was particularly good last night. His build up play was sloppy at times and I don't think he always picked up a good position when England were in possession. No one is suggesting that he was good last night (I don't think anyway), so I'm probably just pointing out the obvious really.
Click to expand...
It was a terrible game(aesthetically) regardless whether the opposition was lacking in quality or not. And that is my point. The opposing team put 10 men inside their own box, hence no build up play. The most you can do is find the holes and create chances which England did. That's all you can take away from that game.

And the "not picking up good position" bit is not true. all the players made themselves available to receive the ball.
 
Take away the San Marino and Moldova games if you like, it's 3 in 8. That's ok for a fairly young player. Why anyone would think it would be reasonable to scoff at scoring 2 against Switzerland though is beyond me.
 
MUFCpiffgawd said:
It was a terrible game(aesthetically) regardless whether the opposition was lacking in quality or not. And that is my point. The opposing team put 10 men inside their own box, hence no build up play. The most you can do is find the holes and create chances which England did. That's all you can take away from that game.

And the "not picking up good position" bit is not true. all the players made themselves available to receive the ball.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of that but I still feel he was often in poor positions. I don't rate Welbeck as highly as you but it would be doing him a disservice to suggest he was anything other than bang average last night. He's better than that but the opposition were so negative (obviously), that it would have been quite difficult to standout.
 
Some of the goals that make up Rooney's numbers for England

4 goals vs San Marino
2 goals vs Andorra
2 vs Iceland
3 vs Kazakhstan
2 vs Montenegro
2 vs Belarus

To name a few. If we would only count goals scored vs top 20 teams in todays FIFA ranking, Rooney has scored 8 goals for England. Welbeck would have scored 3. Rooney has played like 3 times as many games for England as Welbeck hasn't he? The "scoring vs shit teams" argument is pretty weak in my opinion.
 
People are so keen to bash Rooney and our other strikers in order to build Welbeck up. I can't get my head around this weird behaviour.
 
iBoss said:
And some people look for negatives in everything Welbeck does.
Click to expand...

I would rather those than ones that actively look to criticise our current players than a player that now plays for a rival. Just my personal preference. I have seen far too many in here slate Rooney, RvP and Falcao, all just to big up Welbeck. I personally find it absolutely bizarre.
 
Robbie Boy said:
I would rather those than ones that actively look to criticise our current players than a player that now plays for a rival. Just my personal preference. I have seen far too many in here slate Rooney, RvP and Falcao, all just to big up Welbeck. I personally find it absolutely bizarre.
Click to expand...

All players deserve criticism. Welbeck brings different things to the table when compared to our forwards. Same goes for our forwards being more clinical at present. People who think Welbeck is a good player accept his flaws and agree that he has a lot of potential. Those that think he's shit only look for negatives. It's sad.
 
iBoss said:
All players deserve criticism. Welbeck brings different things to the table when compared to our forwards. Same goes for our forwards being more clinical at present. People who think Welbeck is a good player accept his flaws and agree that he has a lot of potential. Those that think he's shit only look for negatives. It's sad.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll have to disagree. I think it's sad from both sides personally. The ones posting green smileys after his miss against Spurs are no better / worse than the ones saying "yessss get in, Welbeck" when he scores.

At the end of the day, he plays for a rival now. When people go mental now with sheer happiness when he scores can obviously expect others to come in and point out his flaws etc and visa versa. Tis a loop.
 
He was pretty poor from what I saw and a big reason why they were still losing to Hull in the 90th minute. Constantly on a different wavelength to pretty much everyone except Sánchez and when he did get the ball in and around the box he dallied and did very little of use with it. I'm beginning to think we were right to let him move on.
 
Brwned said:
He was pretty poor from what I saw and a big reason why they were still losing to Hull in the 90th minute. Constantly on a different wavelength to pretty much everyone except Sánchez and when he did get the ball in and around the box he dallied and did very little of use with it. I'm beginning to think we were right to let him move on.
Click to expand...

I think the greedy Cazorla and Ox, plus awful CBs, are above Welbeck on that.
 
Welbeck scored a good goal in that it was a good first touch and finish but it required Sanchez running at Hull, he didn't do much in the game otherwise. 3 CBs and a crowded penalty area, it's always tough but you want your striker to bring others into play.

He still needs time to adapt so we shall see what he can do but I think Giroud will be preferred to him in games like these.
 
Brwned said:
He was pretty poor from what I saw and a big reason why they were still losing to Hull in the 90th minute. Constantly on a different wavelength to pretty much everyone except Sánchez and when he did get the ball in and around the box he dallied and did very little of use with it. I'm beginning to think we were right to let him move on.
Click to expand...
No defensive depth and a rubbish DM but it's only on here that Welbeck will be blamed for this result :lol:
 
Needs a strike partner. And probably wont get one under Wenger.
Too lightweight and flimsy to offer a real presence.
 
Mogget said:
No defensive depth and a rubbish DM but it's only on here that Welbeck will be blamed for this result :lol:
Click to expand...

:confused:

You're probably just trying to take some joy out of another frustrating result in whatever way you can, but I'll reply anyway. It wasn't Welbeck's fault because there were very few players that actually played well. Gibbs and Sánchez and that's about it probably. Oxlade-Chamberlain was awful but Wilshere's brainless lunge and inevitable injury unfortunately forced Wenger to keep him on the pitch. I just felt it was worth pointing out that this whole "Welbeck saved the day for Arsenal" narrative isn't entirely true, and I don't think it's unfair to suggest if a top class striker was there instead they would've done a bit more with the (somewhat limited) service.
 
Brwned said:
He was pretty poor from what I saw and a big reason why they were still losing to Hull in the 90th minute. Constantly on a different wavelength to pretty much everyone except Sánchez and when he did get the ball in and around the box he dallied and did very little of use with it. I'm beginning to think we were right to let him move on.
Click to expand...
Arsenal needs to get away from that 4141. They dont have a DM good enough for that formation. And Wilshere takes 1 too many dribbles on the ball before releasing it.
 
Isotope said:
I think the greedy Cazorla and Ox, plus awful CBs, are above Welbeck on that.
Click to expand...

This was definetly the case as some of my arsenal mate did not understand what carzola and ox, in particularily the latter were doing in their attack. Saying Welbeck was the reason they were losing was a very odd comment when we was not as badvas the latter. Perhaps, brwnd meant he could be more influential and selfish?? If that was the case, perhaps if he was more selfish, he could have had much more influence.
 
Brwned said:
:confused:

You're probably just trying to take some joy out of another frustrating result in whatever way you can, but I'll reply anyway. It wasn't Welbeck's fault because there were very few players that actually played well. Gibbs and Sánchez and that's about it probably. I just felt it was worth pointing out that this whole "Welbeck saved the day for Arsenal" narrative isn't entirely true, and I don't think it's unfair to suggest if a top class striker was there instead they would've done a bit more with the (somewhat limited) service.
Click to expand...
You said he was a ''big reason'' for why were we losing at home to Hull. That is so wrong. Having a top class striker is pointless if you give up a 1 goal lead with inept defending and then have to spend the rest of the game trying to break down a 5 man defence with 4 midfielders sitting in front of them.
 
Amadaeus said:
This was definetly the case as some of my arsenal mate did not understand what carzola and ox, in particularily the latter were doing in their attack. Saying Welbeck was the reason they were losing was a very odd comment when we was not as worst as the latter. Perhaps, brawnd meant he could be more influential and selfish?? If that was the case, perhaps if he was more selfish, he could have had much more influence.
Click to expand...
He didn't say he was the reason. He said a big reason.
I wouldn't agree that he's a big reason for them being behind. But he's definitely one of the reasons they look quite easy to contain going forward.

He scored a goal to earn a draw, but with someone else (or a different system) they may not have even needed anyone to bail them out that late on in the game.
Similar to the van Persie effect. He bailed us out, but had we spent that money on a midfielder, would we have needed that bailing out?
 
Thought his link up play was pretty bad today. Seemed to pass it to his teammates wrong foot at best, or at worst just give the ball away.
 
herokiller84 said:
Nah,his movement alone will bag him lots of goals.

He ll only keep getting better and fair play to him.
Click to expand...
He'll score goals, but I think (considering the type of players he has around him) his lack of ability to forcefully keep the ball will hamper their play.
And too often isn't in the danger areas when the cross comes in.

His positioning needs quite a bit of work for a lone striker.
And his flimsiness doesn't help either - though that may just be due to his legs.
 
Last edited:
Mogget said:
You said he was a ''big reason'' for why were we losing at home to Hull. That is so wrong. Having a top class striker is pointless if you give up a 1 goal lead with inept defending and then have to spend the rest of the game trying to break down a 5 man defence with 4 midfielders sitting in front of them.
Click to expand...

We've given up a one goal lead with inept defending and succeeded in turning the game around with goals from top class strikers (and little else) quite a lot over the last 2 and a bit seasons so unsurprisingly I don't agree.

By saying he was a big reason I'm thinking of when Chamberlain put Welbeck through on goal (after Huddlestone gave it away in his own half). Or the numerous times Ramsey, Chamberlain, Cazorla and Wilshere tried to link up with Welbeck in and around the box and ended up losing momentum or losing the ball because he was on a completely different wavelength. I think a top striker would've grabbed you a goal earlier, personally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.