Walcott vs Sinclair

Looks like there will be a few that don't rate either but I'd rather have had Walcott than Sinclair.

Arsenal won't pay him more than £75K per week which we could easily afford. Or could have if Bobby ever got us through the group stage of the champions league!

TBF - I really haven't seen enough of Sinclair at City to say one way or the other. At Swansea he did really well and looked the part - on the other hand, Theo can look incredible on his day - and can you imagine him on a through ball from Silva?

He wants to play through the middle - and that ain't going to happen with Tevez and Aguero in the team - so it'd be another wing role - and his crossing is up there with Maicon's!!

I wouldn't want him crossing. he has enough pace to blitz past defenders and take a shot or pass it to someone in a goal scoring position.

If Sinclair can't get a game with Dzeko or Balotelli up top, when will he get a game?

Walcott is very similar to SWP and that ain't good enough......so no thanks.

RM should never have bought Sinclair, but now he's here we have to give him a chance to prove his worth.

I think you need to look at the system Mancini uses, at Swansea, Sinclair proved his worth down the wing, so the question is, why did we buy him if not to use him down the wing where he would prove most useful, instead of Kolarov, ? Seeing as Kolarov is injured, we need width, and Dzeko, and everybody else for that matter, would benefit from balls in from behind, instead of trying to fit a camel thu a needle going down the middle each time?
Mancini seems to persist with Mario and other less effectual players, most notably playing Dzeko from the start instead of pairing Tevez and Aguero, purely to give us height in the box, yet what's the point of having a tall centre forward if you aren't going to service him?
Surely Sinclair deserves more match time to boost his confidence, especially as Kolarov and Milner are both injured?