A lot of hate for Walsh in this and other threads, like the idea of signing an established Premier League player with pace and experience of playing in big games, when we are struggling for goals and form and need some instant results is an indication that he is not doing his job properly, like you know what his job role is and how he has actually performed beyond heresay and assumption.
Well, by my own assumptions, I would argue that thus far, since his arrival, he has been lumbered with working with someone who proved himself to be stubborn and egotistical to a point of distraction, and the signings we made reflected this. It seems apparent to me that the majority of signings we made in his time here have been Koeman signings, as would be apparent if you looked at the history of him as a manager and them as players.
Bolasie, Schneiderlin, Sigurdsson, Stekelenburg, Martina, Rooney and Klaassen, on whom the majority of our budget has been spent, where all players that Koeman had either signed, tracked at previous clubs, or in the example of Rooney, openly discussed in interviews long before the signing happened.
Pickford and Keane appear to have been accepted by both, based on reputation and and potential.
Meanwhile Lookman, Vlasic, and Sandro, appeared to be Walsh buys, summits Ed based on the difference in cost/value and age, and the apparent reluctance by Koeman to play them.
Williams and Gueye were signed early on, so hard to say who called the shots on those, but Williams seemed an obvious, experienced like for like replacement for Stones, that at the time, none of us were really complaining about.
All of the younger signings, including DCL, were obviously down to Unsworth/Royal, and I'm sure Walsh would have been consulted on these as well.
And after all of that, we seem to find ourselves, having rightly, at the time at least, backed the manager with the money to sign who he wanted, found ourselves in a bit of a mess, and struggling beyond what anyone would've forseen 18 months ago.
Had we not backed Koeman and kept our word on promises made to him, he would not have accepted the job, and we would be complaining about being "small time" or lacking ambition. But we did back him, and in hindsight, maybe we shouldn't have. But we are where we are.
So back now to present day, and we have a new manager, who will also have been made promises, and equally needs to be backed, both to satisfy his desires and also in attempt to fix the mess we gmfinf ourselves in. And yet still people complain that we are attempting once again to spend money to alleviate our current situation.
Signing any player is always a gamble. He could be young and inexpensive, he might not perform. He could be older and more experienced, he might not fit in. He could be a prospect from abroad, a cheaper more exciting acquisition than the familiar, but might find it more difficult to adapt straight away. He could be a fringe player from a top team, or a star from a lesser team, and both are equally problematic once you throw them into a struggling team short on confidence.
So what exactly, other than suggesting players to his manager, and ensuring deals get done, is he to do? Whether that be the managers picks or bargain type gambles that he himself has scouted and earmarked for the team, there is a risk with any player, unless you are basically signing the absolute top of the pile, players that transform a team instantly. And those players, they are not coming here.
In short, I would just like someone to explain to me what Steve Walsh could've done differently at this point, and why he is getting as much stick as he is.