nickkonI've been impressed by the following runs:
(2/11/10) Tottenham - Inter 3-1 (88' Bale's run before crossing for the 3rd goal)
(3/11/10) Shakhtar - Arsenal 2-1 (9' Walcott's run before scoring in counter attack)
So I made a short clip to compare their velocities.
Kinematic analysis from the video showed that Walcott's top speed is faster than Bale's (10,42 m/s compared to 9,92 m/s). Both are fast though...
http://www.ask4sports.com/2010/11/gareth-bale-vs-theo-walcott-champions.html
20.12.2010
ZolaDoesn't matter who's the fastest. Bale is a much more mature player at the moment. Walcott doesn't seem to improve and looks like he's very injury prone.
20.12.2010
KonanXAgree with the comments above and Bale has much better end product than Walcott does.
21.12.2010
El_BeatleThe biggest difference betweent the two players is that Bale can create room for himself and Walcott needs other players to create this room for him.
Everytime a teams shape is wide open a player like Walcott will be devastating but if someone like Stoke or Chelsea gives you no room a speed merchant like Walcott will be useless.
Bales repertoire is so much bigger in this case. He can make awesome crosses, is a better dribbler and kicks a decent freekick.
21.12.2010
larsenalblogThey're two completely different players.
Bale is a winger, Walcott may play on the right, but he's really a striker cutting in. That's why he doesn't play well for England
30.12.2010
nickkonthe link changed to http://www.ask4sports.blogspot.com/
01.02.2013
