Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
george81
09 Feb 13 13:22
Joined:
Date Joined: 28 Oct 05
| Topic/replies: 145 | Blogger: george81's blog
help settle an argument guys,who is the better player?
Pause Switch to Standard View Theo Walcott v juan Mata?
Show More
Loading...
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 2:23 PM GMT
Juan Mata
Report Facts_only_please February 9, 2013 2:25 PM GMT
mata best in the league for me
Report judzis007 February 9, 2013 2:34 PM GMT
walcott v mata  LaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report Why so serious? February 9, 2013 2:34 PM GMT
Can't believe its even open for debate.Mata is the better player
Report MrLay0-0 February 9, 2013 2:42 PM GMT
who's walcott?
Report MrLay0-0 February 9, 2013 2:42 PM GMT
oh that small time player for arsenal.. Mata is 10x him
Report gawdalmighty February 9, 2013 8:16 PM GMT
Mata, by miles
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 8:18 PM GMT
To be fair Walcott is getting better very quickly his stats this season are showing that.
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:22 PM GMT
Theo is going through a purple patch atm but he still lacks a vital component, a brain. In 10 years time you can see Mata being still a great player even without any pace, playing the game in a different approach, just imagine Theo with pace, he would be laying non league footy
Report chelseapremierleaguechamps2010 February 9, 2013 8:22 PM GMT
dont compare a striker/winger with mata who does everything in midfield its not fair on mata.
Report Ell February 9, 2013 8:23 PM GMT
His stats will be worse when you include todays game.
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:24 PM GMT
^^**without
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 8:24 PM GMT
But he does have pace. Is that how we compare players by saying imagine them if they didnt have their main asset?
Report Smiley February 9, 2013 8:25 PM GMT
This season...

Juan Mata

App     Goals   Assists
40    16    18

Theo Walcott

App     Goals   Assists
30    18    12

Completely different players, but the stats do favour Theo...just.
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:26 PM GMT
I am imagining in 10 years time, Walcotts pace will burn away, naturally so will Mata's but which one would be able to sustain it at the top most probably of the two?.....Mata
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 8:27 PM GMT

Feb 9, 2013 -- 2:26PM, Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner wrote:


I am imagining in 10 years time, Walcotts pace will burn away, naturally so will Mata's but which one would be able to sustain it at the top most probably of the two?.....Mata


But thats not the discussion is it.

Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:29 PM GMT
Well it is, and its to do with one having a brain and the other not
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 8:30 PM GMT
Well if he doesnt have a brain why does he have 18 goals and 12 assists this season?

Where they will be in ten years means nothing on this debate.
Report Smiley February 9, 2013 8:32 PM GMT
But which one is improving in leaps and bounds and is a year younger?

Barring injury, Theo will keep improving rapidly over the next few years imo.
Report Marcce February 9, 2013 8:34 PM GMT
Who cares who will improve and what will happen in 10 years time?

The original question was who's the better player.

And the answer is clearly Mata.
Report Smiley February 9, 2013 8:35 PM GMT
But it is kinda pointless as they are completely different players.
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:36 PM GMT
He has come on but he is far from a natural footballer, without his athletic ability he would not have made it. Anyway Jam, should you not be more concerned with defending the Spanish doping accusations than the merits of Theo Walcott?
Report Smiley February 9, 2013 8:37 PM GMT
I think that the days of a footballer without athletic ability are long gone.
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 8:38 PM GMT

Feb 9, 2013 -- 2:36PM, Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner wrote:


He has come on but he is far from a natural footballer, without his athletic ability he would not have made it. Anyway Jam, should you not be more concerned with defending the Spanish doping accusations than the merits of Theo Walcott?


But he has the atheltic ability so that point means nothing.

Good input as usual from you.

Trying to deflect the issue as your points are so poor. Good idea.

Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:40 PM GMT
Laugh  My point was very basic, one has a football brain, one doesnt, Mata wins. You seem to like to twist everything ffs JamDiv
Report Gooner4Life February 9, 2013 8:41 PM GMT
Mata for sure, coming from an Arsenal fan!
Report JamDav1982 February 9, 2013 8:42 PM GMT
Mata clearly has the better football brain and is the better player. You miss the point that you are pointing to Walcotts pace in some way as it cant be counted when it is his main strength.
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner February 9, 2013 8:44 PM GMT
For me a football brain will always win over strength and pace always. Anyway, not getting into an argument which you seem to enjoy dragging people into. good night !
Report ;[p February 9, 2013 8:51 PM GMT
mata is better player atm but its difficult to say that walcot has no football branis. how do you know how he would play without pace? so far his football brain tells him to use his physical abilities as its big advantage,whats wrong with that?mata cant be much better but with wallnut you never know... he may burst into top quality like ronaldo for example all of a sudden,you will never know

walcot overall seems to be intelligent boy,im amazed that people call him brainless just because he has pace
Report the dza February 10, 2013 12:31 AM GMT
They are different players, I don't think the comparison makes a great deal of sense. Both good at what they do and could play in the same side.

If you could only have one? Well it depends on what your team was missing at the time. Arsenal have Cazorla and Wilshere to provide the guile of Mata, so they would be better off with Walcott and his pace.
Report wisewords February 10, 2013 12:54 AM GMT
Mata has the better footballing brain. I don't think he can win you a game on his own. Walcott can do that and when he's on form can be unplayable.
Report Clarky9 February 10, 2013 9:26 AM GMT
Mata is much better.

Walcott isn't even the best winger at Arsenal. The Ox, Gervinho, Podolski & Arshavin all still way ahead...
Report Mr Eboue February 10, 2013 11:50 AM GMT
Clarky that is absolute nonsense.

If you seriously think Arshavin and Gervinho are better than Walcott you should give up now.

I hope you are on the wind up.
Report the dza February 10, 2013 11:53 AM GMT
It's simple -- a lot of people made their mind's up about Walcott a long time ago and they won't change them now, no matter how well he plays.
Report roadrunner46 February 10, 2013 12:09 PM GMT
Walcott will become a much better player in time, don't think mata will improve much,hes already very good.
Report lurka February 10, 2013 12:14 PM GMT
Mata is the better player by a considerable distance currently. Theo might become better as there is potential to improve, particularly if he is played in the centre, his natural position. He is not a natural winger IMO
Report jermaine defonebox February 10, 2013 12:51 PM GMT
No contest theo world class mata average prem player
Report FatherMaguire February 10, 2013 12:52 PM GMT
When they were talking of the best players in the league they mentioned Bale, Van persie and Suarez - Mata and silva both deserve mention in the same argument
Report FatherMaguire February 10, 2013 12:54 PM GMT
Mata is that good that it makes it much harder work to maintain my massive hatred for Chelsea - I manage it, but its exhausting
Report Mr Eboue February 10, 2013 2:49 PM GMT
Silva has been awful all season for me.

Last season he was unplayable.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com