Posting it this thread, but it could be in many:
Was there a player who consistently failed the “eye test” who then turned out great, and didn’t just lurk around the subs bench for a couple of years before having a couple of unsuccessful loans before disappearing?
We have bought so many recently that come on, and immediately anyone who’s watched a bit of footy can see they are crap. But we invent reasons so we can have hope. Why can’t they just be crap?
Example…Beto looked garbage, despite lots of effort, but he just needed to get used to the speed of the PL, we are passing the ball to him wrong, we have no creativity around him. Result: Still crap, and actually worse.
These new young players are putting in some performances that show them to be really ineffective. They are being really bad in ways that aren’t anything to do with experience or “minutes”. At their age, they have played football for hours, 5 days a week under the best coaches for that age-group, for over 10 years. Technically, they aren’t going to show huge leaps in skill and competence. Particularly with a manager like Moyes. They aren’t going to get any faster than they are now, only slower.
When we see Aznou play with verve, directness, put a great cross in, make some mistakes etc, it’s very clear he is actually decent. May work here, may not.
Same way within game or so of having KDH, ah, yes he is a really quality footballer, does the basics superbly and works hard. May work here, may not.
When we see Barry or Rohl’s early and performances and everyone thinks oh, erm…..

, it is very likely that they are just not going to be good enough, same as Beto. It’s often just as bad as it looks.
Random waffle, sorry. Just frustrated with all the “reasons”. Oh he will be better with an overlapping full-back (turns out it’s worse). He should really be an 8, a 6, a false 10.3 (doesn’t matter, still gives the ball away). If we have bought more tat, so be it. Chances are if they look a bit rubbish, it’s very likely they are a bit rubbish.