They both very fast and have a similar style but overall, who's better?
Personally, I think it's Lennon. I think he possesses more football intelligence than Walcott. Walcott is all about speed, nothing more but Lennon has other dimensions to his game.

you already know the answer. Lennon of course! the boy is more intelligent and creative than Walcott is. but think of it Lennon is a natural right winger, Walcott is not. He is actually striker. but all the same on walcott's day, his pace can worry the best defenses,  ask mascherano

Kanimoe:

you already know the answer. Lennon of course! the boy is more intelligent and creative than Walcott is. but think of it Lennon is a natural right winger, Walcott is not. He is actually striker. but all the same on walcott's day, his pace can worry the best defenses,  ask mascherano

Walcott from his Southampton days was used mostly as a winger because of his speed.

you guys thats your opinion but my opinion walcott is beter than lennon . walcott dosen't keep the ball for a long time he passes the ball so fast while lennon tends to stay with ball for sometime and the is chance gone.

Lennon is direct and more dangerous than Theo on the pitch.

Walcott for me. He is faster, more two footed, has more shot power and can play in more positions, not to mention he is younger and has more time improve his deficiencies unlike Lennon who is already pretty set in his ways.

I'm a Spur fan but i think i'll take Walcott over Lennon. Walcott's game has bit more variety unlike Lennon who is more of a one-trick pony like Robben but poorer and easy to mark. His crosses too are not d best.
But overall give me Adam Johnson anyday! Far better than both.

Did someone mention Robben in comparison with these disabled players?

They are both useless. I think Walcott is more useless tho.