Yes for me. In the last 12-18 months he has started to mature as footballer (understanding his role/positions etc). I think he will continue to improve, perhaps even at a faster rate at United. Also, Walcott and van Persie have a good understanding.
No thanks, he stands out a few times in an awful Arsenal team. If we end up replacing Nani it needs to be some better than Walcott. He hardly wants to play as a wide forward let alone as deep as our wingers play.
I'd prefer keep Nani to be honest. I'm not convinced that Walcott is an out and out winger and feel he will end up playing through the middle. There's still room for him to improve ability wise but I'm not sure he has it mentally to really make it as a top player. There are better options out there, maybe not for that price, but we shouldn't be looking at it that way. As has been said a left footed or left sided winger should be more of a priority.
He should stay at Arsenal. I don't think he'll fare better anywhere else, not up front anyway. I can't think of anyone who'd be interested in him as a striker either really. Liverpool? Probably will be looking for someone different, someone who's good in the air. We don't need a striker, wouldn't be a bad squad player as a winger. Chelsea are short on strikers but are likely to be looking for someone better e.g. Falcao. Spurs, not a chance that'll happen. City? no. Don't think anyone else has got the money to get him and pay his wages.
I'm unsure about him, if he came to Manchester United there would be no chance of him playing down the middle (his preferred position) it's also the position he has been playing for Arsenal recently and that is probably the reason behind his good form. I also think he is better on the right than he is on the left (like Valencia). But if we could get him for 10 million or less there is real potential for it to be a great buy if he can link up with RVP like he did at Arsenal. He looks like he will be signing on the dotted line for Arsenal now anyway so it's very unlikely we will be seeing him in a United kit next season.
This contract represents the lowering of standards at Arsenal.
Walcott now is marginally better than Walcott 2 seasons ago if you told an Arsenal fan 2 years ago that Walcott would be the top earner at the club they would've p*ssed themselves laughing. 2 years ago in the squad that had Fabregas, Nasri, RVP & Arshavin (before he gave up on life) Walcott was the equivalent of what Gervinho is now. A player who makes poor choices and frustrates the hell out of you who every now and then has a half decent run of form.
I actually think Walcott is a alright player but he is not £100k a week footballer if you believe what you read in the press he now earns more than any player in the league outside of the top 3 and at Utd only RVP, Rooney & Rio earn more than him!
Arsenal were in a no win situation if they rejected his terms and let him walk it's further regression and if they accept them they're breaking their philosophy and over paying for players. If they're giving him £100k a week why not offer RVP £200k a week to stay?
I think £100k is reasonable for an important player. Walcott's record over the last three years is more than adequate for a young player. I think people can forget his age. I disagree that he has marginally improved from two years. His decision making has improved and he's a better finisher now.
I think van Persie left to win trophies. If money was his motive he could have joined City for £300k per week.