Theo Walcott v juan Mata?

Juan Mata

mata best in the league for me

walcott v mata 

Can't believe its even open for debate.Mata is the better player

who's walcott?

oh that small time player for arsenal.. Mata is 10x him

Mata, by miles

To be fair Walcott is getting better very quickly his stats this season are showing that.

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

dont compare a striker/winger with mata who does everything in midfield its not fair on mata.

His stats will be worse when you include todays game.

^^**without

But he does have pace. Is that how we compare players by saying imagine them if they didnt have their main asset?

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.

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

Feb 9, 2013 -- 8:26PM, 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.

Well it is, and its to do with one having a brain and the other not

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.

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.

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.

But it is kinda pointless as they are completely different players.

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?

I think that the days of a footballer without athletic ability are long gone.

Feb 9, 2013 -- 8:36PM, 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.

  My point was very basic, one has a football brain, one doesnt, Mata wins. You seem to like to twist everything ffs JamDiv

Mata for sure, coming from an Arsenal fan!

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.

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 !

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

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.

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.

Mata is much better.

Walcott isn't even the best winger at Arsenal. The Ox, Gervinho, Podolski & Arshavin all still way ahead...

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.

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.

Walcott will become a much better player in time, don't think mata will improve much,hes already very good.

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

No contest theo world class mata average prem player

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

Mata is that good that it makes it much harder work to maintain my massive hatred for Chelsea - I manage it, but its exhausting

Silva has been awful all season for me.

Last season he was unplayable.