Richarlison has hardly justified his wage for the whole of this season,and has not been the same player since he returned from his scoring trip with Brazil. Its very rarely possible to 'justify' what pro footballers are paid,for example not many of them could do what you or I do, and we probably do what we do for considerably less money. Its all relative.In my profession I know people who because of their great natural talent and skill at delivering that talent, are worth what they sometimes get paid, but sometimes people with less ability are on more or the same money !!
All very true.
But if Walcott and Richarlison are on roughly the same wage, then one of them has been better value for money so far in their Everton careers...
Since arriving at Everton (stats from transfermarkt):
Richarlison - 98 appearances, 7,774 minutes, 35 goals, 8 assists (16 yellows, 2 reds)
Walcott - 85 appearances, 4,872 minutes, 11 goals, 9 assists (4 yellows, 0 reds)
I don't see how you're reaching a conclusion that Walcott is somehow unfairly maligned. If he was on half the money Richarlison was on then he'd be in the squad, but sadly he is one of our highest earners. The fact is he doesn't deliver anything like enough to justify his wage and he's too old to warrant being given any leeway in the name of player development. That's why he's been loaned out and that's why we've turned to Josh King, who is younger, reported to be on a lower wage and will (based on his career to date) probably score five goals and make five assists in the next 20 games.
