I know what you mean, but the point being made is whether they were necessary. The very fact that we keep dropping Klaassen tells me it wasn't necessary to buy him, because if it was, he'd be in the team every week wouldn't he? We're dropping him because the manager is thinking maybe Tom Davies, a player we already had, can do a better job. If that's the case, he was not a necessary signing. Same with Sandro, it's only high reward if he's any good isn't it. He's got time to get better, but we signed him as a striker and 16 games in he hasn't scored. Meanwhile Niasse has got 3 in about 100 minutes of football, so did we need him?I disagree to a certain extent. The issue we had with the summer was not who we signed individually but as a collective.
Said it the other day but take klassen, in and out the team, how us he meant to settle and claim a place if 4 days later he is dropped again? Klassen would have been a good signing if we didn't then make him 4th choice within 2 months! In fact individually
Sandro - good young cheap striker. Low risk high reward. No system in mind to fit him in
Klassen - every attribute on paper we wanted for a player, replaced him 3 times in 2 months
Siggurson- brilliant player for a centre forward, failed to sign centre forward
Rooney- pretty much not given anything to work with attacking wise
Pickford - crap defence in front of him
Keane- has Williams as a partner
Vlasic - the one player who has actually stood out for me so far despite the team
Martina - terrible footballer, never should have signed him.
This isn't to say these are bad players or anything like that, simply to refute the argument that the amount of new players are 'mitigating circumstances'. That may be the case if we'd had to go out and buy them all, but we didn't, so it's not.