At one point last season, Olivier Giroud was arguably the most irreplaceable striker in the Premier League.
The Arsenal forward was scoring goals for fun and earned himself the Barclays player of the month award for his efforts. However, after his valiant goal scoring efforts, Giroud predictably succumbed to a goal scoring drought in which he lost his place as the focal point of Arsenal's attack to Theo Walcott.
Walcott made a big statement to be Arsenal's leading striker in the F.A. Cup final scoring the opening goal and playing a crucial role in a mobile Arsenal attack which picked Aston Villa apart. Giroud scored the fourth and final goal that day, but now it seems that question marks are being raised as to who should be the Gunners' forward in the bigger games.
Giroud's hold up play and presence
In bigger games it seems logical that Arsenal should operate with a striker of Giroud's physique and presence. His ability to hold the ball up and win a large percentage of aerial duels allow our creative technicians to push up the pitch putting more pressure on the opposing team.
It was noticeable that during the Community Shield Walcott was struggling to hold the ball up effectively and subsequently Arsene Wenger's men were put under periods of sustained pressure by Chelsea.
A fine example of how Giroud's attributes greatly help Arsenal during games in which they are put under pressure was the 2-0 victory at Manchester City. All throughout the game Giroud was the perfect out ball which meant Arsenal pushed up the pitch and exploited City with pace in attacking areas.
He can be a very effective weapon at times but questions over his finishing and mobility will always crop up, so is Theo the answer?
Theo provides the variety
Walcott brings with him a completely different style of play with his pace and clever runs in behind defences. This style means that teams will often sit deeper to accommodate these factors allowing more space for midfielders in attacking areas, who can be lethal.
He makes teams reconsider their approach to the game, defenders will often be nervous because of the athletic attributes Walcott possesses and this can in term effect their performance.
Giroud's play can often be predictable whereas Walcott can provide a variety of options making the Arsenal front line more fluid and mobile as we saw in the cup final.
So who should start?
Giroud has been a consistent goal scorer from Arsenal and is one of the very few players to come from Ligue 1 in recent years to properly settle in the Premier League.
However, Walcott has finally made a big statement in the centre forward department, which he has been seeking to do for years. He makes Arsenal a more potent attacking force bringing more penetration and sheer pace which team's all across Europe will fear.
Arsenal have formed a crucial defensive spine in the form of Petr Cech, Laurent Koscielny and Francis Coquelin which now gives more freedom to the offensive players, which Walcott should thrive off.
Walcott is more of a game-changer, someone who only needs one chance whereas Giroud far too many times has squandered chances during crucial matches.
His hold-up play and physique is something Arsenal should be introducing later in games to see out victories, not something to start out with.