Lennon or Walcott?

[Kinky Gerbil]

I cannot believe the results are so in favour of Lennon.He's had his chance in the past and failed.There's a buzz about Walcott and he puts the fear of god into foreign defences (as does Crouch)

In all his 16 caps...... including sub games?

 

[Knotty]

I love the suggestion of cutting Beckham's right leg off and transplanting it on one of the others!

The awesome pace of Lennon or Walcott coupled with that sort of delivery would be ideal.

I'd go for Lennon because his delivery has improved. I'm not sure Walcott has enough of a footballing brain to make the best of his pace.

 

[empire]

Walcott always seems a bit like a headless chicken to me, nowhere near enough end product for the pace he has.

what he said

 

[trancing]

Lennon by a million miles

 

[Dandyman]

Lennon - far more the finished article. Walcott may improve but at the moment there's too much glitter and not enough gold.

 

[saafend_seagull]

Can't remember many games that Lennon has started where he played well, but as a sub late in the game he seems to excel at frightening the life out of defenders.

So for me it would have to be Walcott to start with Lennon coming on late to replace him.

So you didnt watch the home game against Croatia??

 

[Chesney Christ]

apologies I did, not sure how though I stayed in the same hotel as the players the night before and had my pic taken with a few of them. Best day ever at the new Wembley.

John Terry to Steven Gerrard:

"Hey, look, its that guy Brett Mendoza from North Stand Chat. Lets go and get our picture taken with him."

 

[sjamesb3466]

Lennon for me, but its very close

 

[countrygull]

Am I allowed to say that Lennon looks like an arrogant twat with his stupid eyebrow designs. Walcott on the other hand looks like a nice lad you could take home to meet your mum.
Therefore I'm even more gutted that I have to choose Lennon on current form.