Current Player #17 James Henry

Have to say thought we looked a lot more balanced without trying to fit Henry into our system. Interested to see how we get on again today without him.
 
Yeah was funny actually how against a team who pressed us miles better than teams have recently, we really cried out for someone who could play the right ball at the right time. Normally Kane keeps us ticking over and allows others to get into positions which benefit stretching defences and creating gaps, but he was so off the pace everyone seemed to struggle. Henry still potentially has a use it seems based on yesterday's performance.
 
Bit random, but did you know that in 2007 James Henry was included by the Sun in it's England XI of the future...

Not the finest hour of the prediction team, it's fair to say.

Just goes to show how wrong “top” scouts and managers can be doesn’t it?

Not saying Henry should’ve been an England or premiership player, but there are a lot worse players who were, and Walcott was absolute shite, no football brain and just ran the ball out play half the time, whereas Henry is a genuinely talented, intelligent player, but I suspect these so called “top” scouts and managers were fooled by Walcott's’ pace, and Henry’s perceived lack there of.
 
Just goes to show how wrong “top” scouts and managers can be doesn’t it?

Not saying Henry should’ve been an England or premiership player, but there are a lot worse players who were, and Walcott was absolute shite, no football brain and just ran the ball out play half the time, whereas Henry is a genuinely talented, intelligent player, but I suspect these so called “top” scouts and managers were fooled by Walcott's’ pace, and Henry’s perceived lack there of.

Journalists came up with the list. Not scouts and managers.

Whilst I would agree that Walcott didn't quite reach the levels his initial promise showed, he's made over 500 top flight appearances and counting, won two FA Cups and won 47 caps for England. I would kill for a career that 'shite' and most footballers would too.
 
Just goes to show how wrong “top” scouts and managers can be doesn’t it?

Not saying Henry should’ve been an England or premiership player, but there are a lot worse players who were, and Walcott was absolute shite, no football brain and just ran the ball out play half the time, whereas Henry is a genuinely talented, intelligent player, but I suspect these so called “top” scouts and managers were fooled by Walcott's’ pace, and Henry’s perceived lack there of.
This almost reads as if you're suggesting Henry is a more intelligent and talented footballer than Walcott? I really don't think he is, obviously Walcott had/has a lot of pace to his game, but you can't play so many games at the top level by just being quick, otherwise Gino van Kessel would've been a star.
 
Just goes to show how wrong “top” scouts and managers can be doesn’t it?

Not saying Henry should’ve been an England or premiership player, but there are a lot worse players who were, and Walcott was absolute shite, no football brain and just ran the ball out play half the time, whereas Henry is a genuinely talented, intelligent player, but I suspect these so called “top” scouts and managers were fooled by Walcott's’ pace, and Henry’s perceived lack there of.
Are you saying Henry is/was a better player than Walcott?!

Also, they weren’t wrong at all with Walcott (if you mean the article), as he did play for England. For a brief period when he was at his best for Arsenal and England he was one of the best players in the country - in the 12-13 season he got 21 goals for Arsenal.
 
Are you saying Henry is/was a better player than Walcott?!

Also, they weren’t wrong at all with Walcott (if you mean the article), as he did play for England. For a brief period when he was at his best for Arsenal and England he was one of the best players in the country - in the 12-13 season he got 21 goals for Arsenal.

 
This almost reads as if you're suggesting Henry is a more intelligent and talented footballer than Walcott? I really don't think he is, obviously Walcott had/has a lot of pace to his game, but you can't play so many games at the top level by just being quick, otherwise Gino van Kessel would've been a star.
Trevor Brooking wasn’t fast but he had skill and was sublime in his play, hence why he was selected to represent his country.
James Henry may not be fast but could turn a game and has the skill set to go with it. He probably has another season in him and may not start as regularly as he may want, but could come of the bench and do a job.
 
Walcott was a pretty good finisher when he didn’t have long enough to think about it, I have absolutely no idea how he’s been brought up in a James Henry thread, but even with out his pace I think he would’ve played at a high level for quite a long time without injuries
 
Journalists came up with the list. Not scouts and managers.

Whilst I would agree that Walcott didn't quite reach the levels his initial promise showed, he's made over 500 top flight appearances and counting, won two FA Cups and won 47 caps for England. I would kill for a career that 'shite' and most footballers would too.
Journalists at The Sun came up with the list.

So really, not exactly an authority on journalism, let alone football.
 
Back
Top Bottom