Defending him has often been trying but I stand by it: I like Theo Walcott

I remember the first time I saw Theo Walcott play live. It was his Arsenal debut in August 2006 against Aston Villa. Not only was it the first game of the season, but it was the first ever competitive match at the Emirates Stadium, so there was a distinct feeling of new beginnings in the north London air.

That sense was reinforced by the introduction of the 17-year-old Walcott as a second-half substitute. Wearing a No 32 shirt that looked about three sizes too big for him, at first glance Walcott resembled less Arsenal's saviour and more a fresh-faced mascot who was getting to play out his dream and line up alongside Thierry Henry.

Nonetheless, Walcott's performance was electrifying. There was a rush of excitement every time the teenager, stationed on the left wing, got the ball. Walcott set up Gilberto's equaliser with a chipped cross and left the pitch to chants of "Theo, Theo".

Twelve years on, Walcott is on the verge of leaving Arsenal for Everton, having exasperated and delighted the Emirates faithful in almost equal measure. On a personal level, the move brings to a close more than a decade of defending Walcott against rabid criticism. Because I have a confession: I like Theo Walcott.

Part of the reason why I find Walcott endearing is because of the criticism he was subjected to very soon after making his Arsenal debut. Everyone loves an underdog, and in those early days Walcott often looked more in need of a hug than the fabled kick up the backside.

Theo Walcott in action against Aston Villa on his Arsenal debut in 2006 Credit: AFP

But Walcott's problem was that he was always held to exceptionally high standards, partly as a result of his unfathomable call-up to England's 2006 World Cup squad.

Even when Walcott was regularly scoring and assisting goals, the accusation was that he lacked footballing intelligence. This was no doubt true in some instances, but it was not always accurate, and besides it always felt a bit like berating David Beckham for a lack of pace. Clearly Walcott was not blessed with a Teddy Sheringham-like intuition for the game, but why hurl abuse at him for that?

Likewise it seemed strange that when other youngsters like Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain ran down blind alleys, the reaction from supporters tended to be along the lines of "he's the only one trying!". Whereas when Walcott did the same, he was met with cries of "useless, get him off Wenger". Bear in mind his most likely replacement at this time would have been Park Chu-young.

Not long after, I remember five years ago defending Walcott in a heated discussion and pointing to his excellent record of 21 goals and 14 assists from the 2012-13 season that had just finished. The response was "yeah, but he's still rubbish."

More recently, Walcott's superior goalscoring record when compared to club and country rivals like Raheem Sterling (until this season), Danny Welbeck and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was similarly dismissed. Last season, Walcott scored 19 goals from a wide forward position and barely played after April. If he had done that for another club, Arsenal fans would have been urging Arsene Wenger to sign him up.

But it was never enough, because in most Arsenal supporters' eyes he lacked the necessary technical ability to be fully accepted as "one of their own". This was despite those same fans bemoaning Arsenal's habit of signing overly technical players who would "try to walk the ball into the net".

Similarly Walcott's thoughtful politeness in interviews and relative lack of ego were not seen as virtues, but rather as evidence that he was "a wetter". And you probably don't need me to tell you how his series of children's books were received on the Emirates terraces.

Walcott's worst offence though in the eyes of many was saying that Crystal Palace had "wanted it more" in a 3-0 win over Arsenal last April. It was certainly a stark admission, but wasn't it refreshing to hear someone actually speak the truth in a post-match interview? In any case, players can normally get away with saying essentially anything in these type of situations as long as they are seen to have "fronted up" by doing the interview.

Getting behind an unpopular player inevitably forces you to take what appears to be an extreme view, and I often felt like Walcott was a family member who I was dutifully defending. The reality of course was somewhere in the middle of the two extremes and ultimately Walcott's Arsenal career suggests he was good but not great.

Theo Walcott celebrates scoring the first goal for Arsenal — Walcott celebrates scoring the first goal of the 2015 FA Cup final Credit: Reuters

Walcott leaves north London with more than 100 club goals and having scored or assisted 108 times in the Premier League - the fifth most of any Arsenal player. Yet at the same time he only twice reached double figures for league goals in a season, and perennially struggled with consistency and injuries.

Take away all the teenage hype around him, and Walcott was in the main a very useful attacking weapon with a better than par output of goals and assists.

But more broadly, Walcott perhaps serves to illustrate that often fans actually love the things they claim to hate. Tippy-tappy Arsenal midfielders who lack end product, arrogant stars who refuse to give interviews, "thick" players who say nothing of interest in interviews.

Walcott was none of those things, and perhaps consequently never quite fitted in. He was also unfortunate in that his perceived failure to reach his potential mirrored the struggles of the late Arsene Wenger era.

Social media and the comments section beneath this article mean this debate can happily carry on, but it will never be quite the same again. So farewell Theo, I still believe in you.