Theo Walcott says that Arsenal needed to sign Pedro Neto in the summer window | OneFootball

Pedro Neto’s perfomance for Chelsea in the clash with Arsenal was certainly a transfer lesson for our Gunners transfer department. I’m not sure why they didn’t make every effort to recruit Neto during the summer, given that we’ve consistently been associated with him in recent transfer windows.

Remember back in June our piece: “Surely Arsenal must make Pedro Neto our top target this summer.” Well, our calls weren’t headed It’s clear that Arsenal made a transfer mistake by not signing Neto. Other than Bukayo Saka and Gabriel Martinelli, does Arsenal have anyone better than Neto? Arsenal are short on quality in their attack.

Neto Sunday took his opportunity to prove to Arsenal that they were wrong not to beat Chelsea in his £54 million swoop. No one else bid for him, so the Blues were lucky.

On Sunday, he provided us with a glimpse into his exceptional profile, showcasing a unique blend of elite technical ability and an incredible work rate.

It was like Neto was just waiting for Arsenal to get his first Arsenal goal and prove a point while putting up these numbers:

Pedro Neto’s Game by Numbers vs. Arsenal:

38 touches 4 crosses 4x possession won 3 duels won 3 touches in the opponents’ box 3 shots 2 chances created 2 fouls won 1 goal

On BBC Match of the Day, Walcott certainly expressed the opinions of Gooners regarding the missed Neto transfer, stating, “When you talk about Neto, he’s the sort of player that Arsenal could have [signed] to provide competition for other players.”

“I think that’s what they need right now, a bit of competition.”

Well, at least now the Arsenal scouting and transfer departments have learned their lessons; if Arteta wants a player, they should do everything to get him on board. Arsenal need to massively bolster their attack in 2025, focusing on top targets instead of making last-minute stop-gap signings like they did last summer.

Yes, Neto was considered an injury-prone player, but didn’t the claims that he was that way because of his overdependence at Wolves make sense? Surely, Arsenal’s management of his game time, similar to Chelsea’s, would have made it more difficult for him to sustain injuries. What do you think?