Here’s a question for you. What is the fastest animal on the planet?

Interestingly, the answer isn’t a cheetah, a bird or even a quick silver fish. It is in fact (according to the humourist Dave Barry) a cow…..that has been dropped out of a helicopter!

In the animal world where survival is everything there is no substitute for pace and the same could be said of the Premier League, at least, that’s what most managers and TV pundits will tell you.

So, who has the quickest feet in the EPL? The best pick-up and the fastest flat-out speed?

It perhaps shouldn’t come as too much of a suprise to learn that the man in question is Arsenal and England star Theo Walcott.

Walcott fastest footballer

Theo Walcott on the blocks in a pair of Nike Mercurial Vapor IV football boots.

Using data captured over the last two seasons, Castrol have calculated the top speeds of every Premier League player and Walcott came out on top reaching 22.72 mph.

And taking a shock second place, and proving that there’s life in the old dog yet, was Portsmouth defender Sol Campbell who recorded a hugely impressive 22.50mph top speed.

Two big-name strikers came home in joint third place with Chelsea and Ivory Coast front man Didier Drogba reaching 22.27mph, the same as Liverpool and Spain forward Fernando Torres.

didier drogba 3rd fastest player in EPL

Not too shabby in the pace stakes – Chelsea’s Didier Drogba

The results also mean that Nike have three of the fastest players out of the top four with Walcott, Drogba and Torres all in the American brand’s footwear.

Football’s fliers hit incredible speeds and Walcott’s bursts mean he would run 9.9secs for 100m – if he could sustain his top speed of 10.1m per second. To put that in context, using data from the recent 100m final at the World Championships in Berlin, Walcott would have finished fourth behind Asaf Powell, Tyson Gay and the sprint sensation that is Usain Bolt. Bolt won the race in a new world record of 9.58 seconds.

Campbell’s top speed could see him run 10.1secs for 100m – just a tenth of a second slower than Brit Dwain Chambers who reached the final in Berlin where he finished sixth.

(Just to satisfy your curiosity, the fastest animal on earth is the Peregrine Falcon which can dive at speeds of 200mph).

Written By
More from Felipe

Metatarsal Football Boots for Agger

Daniel Agger’s football boots have aided his return from injury. Daniel Agger...
Read More
Join the Conversation


  1. says: paul smith

    i dont believe the boots make you quicker it dont make a diffrents i just like what they look like not what there ment to do. for example it is ment to give you more power or more accuracy it is realy the player not the boot

    1. says: Robbo

      The blades would make a difference but Torres uses an Intertract sole plate which is from previous version vapors. and you’ll notice vapor stud configs have not changed much

  2. says: keil

    In conjuction to Paul Smith, I believe that the boots DO infact have little to play on the players speed. The grip been the only subject there that will have something to play, so in theory paul, your wrong

  3. says: Derek

    Just to settle my curiosity, it did say if he could sustain his top speed he would run a 9.9, Olympic sprinters do at some point have to start off at 0 and reach their top speed in less than 10 seconds, are they taking into account his acceleration from a dead stop?

  4. says: Hugh

    derek: no they are not, walcott probably could just about run sub 10 because his muscles are not worked enough soley on sprinting so the article is bending the truth a bit.
    All of you who think the Nike Superflys make a difference are wrong. they dont. However Puma V1.08s may enhance a players speed slightly due to the shape that they are, they are the same shape as a sprinting spike whereas superflys arent! obviously the fact that they are very light will have an impact but the V1.08s are the “faster” boot.

  5. says: Hugh

    oh and in a 100 metre race i dont think sol would come second because it is his stride that gets him top speed but someone like lennon or defoe will accelerate much quicker and still run very fast so again i think this article is a bit misleading, the only way to tell who is the fastest player is by timing them.

    Liverpool fan: ROnaldo wont be that fast because of his running style, he does not run properly so if he learnt how to run well then he would be very fast over 100metres but at the moment he wont be but his acceleration is good.

  6. says: David

    The data means nothing really. Ok, Sol Campbell is fast but as others have said, thats his top speed. Thats no use if it takes you twice aslong to get to that speed than other players. He might be faster at the top end than Torres but Fernando would whip him on the pitch racing for a ball.
    I’d also say that boots make a slight difference…very slight.

  7. says: rbarsenal

    Lennon would beat them all in a race . . . His stride length for his height, matched with his stride frequency, gives him incredible acceleration. Not sure about his top speed, but in football, top speed doesn’t matter; how often do you run 100m in the game?

    The 40m dash is more applicable, and you’d be hard pressed to find someone capable of beating Aaron Lennon over that distance.

  8. says: Adalberto

    Agbonglhor? (not sure if spelled right)
    Lennon? Ronaldo?
    But by the way the walcott thing is crazy that he would finish fourth in the berlin thing

  9. says: Roman

    This is absolutely fascinating that so many experts of speed use the same forum to post on. Please tell me more, all of you, on which boot is the fastest, or who is the fastest, since it’s apparent that you all know for a fact. The fact is, Gary Neville is the fastest man in the UNIVERSE because he wears a mustache and his nose is long. I mean, his running style and fashion sense make all the difference in the world… I marvel in brilliance of all of you, experts.

  10. says: andy

    id imagine either some lanky defender or agbonglahor (sp?) would be the quickest over 100.
    but as someone said 100 meters times dont really mean anything in football.

    i would have thought walcott would run the 100 in a time around 11 secs. just cause he isnt trained to run

  11. says: Chris

    Walcott would NEVER run under 11secs no footballer could. It takes the likes of bolt and gay a lifetime to become as fast over the distance as they are! A footballer would tie up and not be able to hold their top speed! Even if they reached it!

  12. says: Jordan

    This Is Really Interesting I would have thought ronaldo is the fastest but clearly not well he cant be now hes at madrid and the last comment i read it said we were talking about fraizer campbell its not its sol and to put this arguement to bed ryan had the best comment sol campbell wears copas its clearly the players ability bot the boots.

  13. says: Patrick

    bit misleading calculations I think. Walcott can’t run 9.9 secs for 100m even if he can sustain 10.1m/s top speed, unless he can accelerate to it in no time at all.

    The top sprinters will run in excess of 25mph going full pelt – Bolt above 27mph if I recall correctly.

  14. says: calum

    i support arsenal, and i know walcott is fast, but 9.9. 100m???… youve got to be joking.. he would be the fastest british man alive and plus the 100m runners train every day for this.. i would say at the most 10. 4 5 and that is a very fast time

  15. says: toh

    this list is ridiculous

    could you imagine lennon and fabregas chasing down a ball with the arsenal captain overtaking him?

    top speed or not, this list is so wrong its untrue

  16. says: Helge

    This assumption is rubbish. You can not measure top speed and estimate the 100m time based on that. Footballers do normally not accelerate as good as 100m runners in normal track races. Footballers do normally not sustain the speed over the same distance as 100m runners.

    I have challenged footballers myself, and even if they where the fastest footballers, they had no chance competing with mediocre sprinters.

    Would be interesting to see Walcott in a track race.

  17. says: Fez

    10.1 m/s is pretty decent for a footballer, but that as a top speed would equate to 10.9/11.0 in a 100m race, assuming he could start from blocks.

    They need to have an invitational meeting where they get the 8 fastest footballers to race each other, and then it’ll be settled once and for all.

    Oh and 4th at the world champs, what stupid *** writes this?

    1. says: God-Like

      that would be stupid to watch, like kids trying to sprint. 

      * the ALF ├é┬áin australias fastest ran an 11.0 ├é┬á– they maintain a focus on sprinting and speed.├é┬á
      Footballers will├é┬ámost-likely├é┬ánever get a runner at 9.9 why? ├é┬áyou have to run for years to get that speed, that degree of├é┬áspecialization is what a footballer can’t afford to do, as it would cost time from football, which in itself needs hundreds/thousands of hours to get to the top (and stay there).├é┬á

      1. says: derpdawerp

        Walcott was a track runner when he was younger and was even offered to be taken and trained to be a professional sprinter, but he turned it down. It is settled and calculate that he runs 10.35 – 100m

  18. says: flash daniels

    oh please, this analysis is just ridiculous, no-one in the world can maintain their top speed if they could usain bolt and other athletes would be running at least sub 9 sec times. this doesn’t show whos fastest, what shows whos fastest is who can cover the distance the quickest. sol campbell may have a hih top speed but im sure that if he were up against lennon or agbonhalor he would be beaten. to be the top-speed into context with elite sprinters is just foolish and ridiculous

  19. says: flash daniels

    also the boots can make a very slight difference in terms of just a standard race. but all the boots these days are reasonably light but vapors are just the lightestg so far

  20. says: jonnie

    you guys are idiots!! for a 100m time u need to take into account things like reaction time and his acceleration… usain bolts top speed is somewhere near the 30mph mark not 22 and all of the top sprinters have a higher top speed then wallcot… wallcot is more likely to run an 11 second and maby go under if hes lucky… he wouldnt even make it past the heats, do your research before you go saying he could run 9.9… maby with years of training but he couldnt do that now his top speed isnt even of a world class standard, i run 11.6 and my top speed is close to the 23mph…

    1. says: Clark

      the problem is dat yo da stupid one y dnt u just accept dat he is fast btw i run for 9.52s but since i cant prove it,i have to bear so follow suite

      1. says: Dashmightb

        Carl Lewis had a top speed of 12.1 metres per second, approximately 27.1 mph, back in 1988. Do some reading. Bolt runs a lot faster. Don’t get average speed confused with top speeds.

  21. says: Kmechen

    Love how no ones mentioned Gareth bale who runs the 100m in 10.2 seconds, which is amazingly fast for a White man ­čÖé

  22. says: GodLike

    Most bullshitass article I have ever read. ├é┬áIDIOT. whoever wrote this article needs a brain. ├é┬áso what he ran 10.1mp/s??..and then the –> in context – thats just idiotic to even say he would have come FOURTH!!! LOL he wouldn’t even have qualified in the olympics or even world championships – perhaps not EVEN the British national championships or even be considered for the relay team! ├é┬á* in context; this article is useless and nonsense.

    * acceleration factors
    * sprint mechanics recovery phase through to land.
    * block clearance and reaction time

    …. this really is a joke to even try and compare. its like ├é┬ásaying Habana from Rugby try’s per game would be how many goals he would score at the Football World Cup Final – in context.├é┬áRidiculous.├é┬á* Jonnie hit the nail on the head.

  23. says: Viatosd09

    Walcott runs the 100m in 10.35 to clear that up…
    A lot of mitigating factors you have got to take into account, has walcott actually got to his top speed in his max 50 yd dashes?

  24. says: waterboys

    The fastest speeds ever attained by a person running are 27-28 MPH, These sprinters are running 100 meter times in the 9.6 – 9.6 second range. The idea that Sol Campbell could run 10.1 for 100 meters is laughable.

  25. says: LongDogMcDagg

    In a 100m ronaldo would beat walcott (imo). I cant believe the editor approved this load of rubbish, That top speed calculation is taken from a flying start. Walcott wouldnt even break 11 secs from the blocks. Anyone who cant break 11secs is slow as an athlete.

  26. says: Luke0101

    People saying this is rubbish need to get real, You don’t need to be an “Olympic sprinter” to be fast, Theo walcott is naturally fast, I’ve just turned 16 and can do the 100m in 12.09 seconds, I’ve done a few Athletics in my time, But im a footballer.. Im 100% sure Walcott could do the 100m in atleast 10.30 because the 100m is mostly more about acceleration and most people may just only get to there top speed by the end of it,

  27. says: real deal

    Walcott cannot run 10.35even if he took 4years off football. In fact he wouldn’t beat any of the female world class sprinters. Being quick on a football field is nowhere near as quick as sprinting on a track. I’ve run 10.4, trust me you are disrespecting what it takes to run those kind of levels.only 60 or so sprinters in this country have ever run that fast. And all us could be world class footballers. Can we?no we can ‘t

Leave a comment
Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *