Lennon or Walcott?

[FTY]

Based on recent form im going to have to say Lennon.

 

[heatmeiser]

I'd say Lennon was the fuller package, so I'd defo go with him.

 

[RFUS]

Walcott.

They're both speed merchants with mediocre end product, but Walcott does have more end product and he always seems more dangerous in my opinion.

Neither of them are Kev Mirallas, like.

 

[EFCNIK]

Adam Johnson.

 

[FTY]

I'd say Lennon had a fuller package, so I'd defo go with him.

Bit weird

 

[Kurt.]

Lennon.

 

[Cena]

Both unbelievably underwhelm me

 

[steken1]

I'd say Lennon was the fuller package, so I'd defo go with him.

Michael Dawson agrees. He's the longest in the showers, apparently.

 

[heatmeiser]

Michael Dawson agrees. He's the longest in the showers, apparently.

Indeed Mr Stek. Indeed.

 

[steken1]

Walcott would really hurt sides played through the middle IMO. Wenger is wasting him on the wing.

Lennon doesn't ever do enough to make things happen or get at his man.

I'd take Walcott all day.

 

[Rook]

Lennon is better but always gets injured.

 

[wandyr79]

Both have the same levels of inconsistency but for me Lennon causes more problems when playing well, had a very good game today and looked dangerous every time he ran at Cole & co.

 

[Huyton Layne]

Both unbelievably underwhelm me

Dat Lennon is dead boss

 

[Ian Wilsons hair gel]

I would say Lennon, he seem a little more of an all round player with a bit more end product

 

[Clint Planet]

Lennon has unstoppable days but then he'll go missing the next match. And he has stupid eyebrows.