The Guardian’s Richard Williams was the first to flinch. Not much more than an hour after Arsenal sealed a 5-2 victory at the league’s worst side, one of the more cerebral sports hacks was christening Theo Walcott as a striker.

Walcott was good against the Royals, using his mobility to stretch their defence and create space for the midfielders who were, to a man, excellent. He capped his performance with the type of goal that has become a trademark – make room with the first touch and finish with a placed effort.

So does that mean his transition is complete? You’ll excuse me if I want to see him play against a defence that’s worthy of Premier League status before I change my mind.

Media agenda

But I doubt many in the press and on TV will be similarly cautious if they are presented with an opportunity to knock Arsene Wenger.

The media have torn chunks out of Walcott when it has suited, but now that they have new, bigger, prey in their sights they’ll portray him as Thierry Henry if needs be.

Yesterday’s result, and Walcott’s part in it, will come as a relief to all connected to the club but if Walcott leaves this January or at the end of his contract, it’s flashes like yesterday’s – and so far they have only been flashes – that will be used to unfairly paint the former Professeur as the class dunce.

What would you have done?

If he goes, and his performances continue to improve as they have done in the last 18 months, journalists and pundits will criticise Wenger for not having tied him down. But the boss has acted correctly thus far.

If you were manager, would you pay him £100,000 a week and commit to playing him up front? Any sort of promise to a player would dent the manager’s authority and, up until this season, people would have thought you mad to consider Walcott a six-figure player.

Now that the Emirates money is in the pipeline it could be that Wenger feels the contract is one he can handle but the manager can’t be criticised for not paying money he couldn’t be sure he had and which many fans still consider too steep.

Walcott and his people have over-valued his contract worth and have added the question of where he plays to the mix in order to manufacture the mess that Wenger now has to deal with. They fancy a big signing-on bonus and the fat contracts that free agency brings. Perhaps Walcott believes he could sign for a club with more immediate title aspirations than us. We’ll see.

RvP mk II?

The platitudes Walcott has muttered about the contract bring to mind the stone walling that Robin van Persie employed last season. Likewise, any attempt by Walcott to force the issue of where he is played are likely to go down as well as the Dutchman’s demands for squad investment.

But there is a key difference, namely the importance of the player. Last summer, Arsenal lost the league’s outstanding striker. This winter, or next summer, Arsenal stand to lose a player that can occasionally be unplayable but far more often is a frustratingly delayed work in progress.

Transfer activity

And there is another reason not to treat this as Groundhog Day: Arsenal will be better placed to respond.

We were caught flat footed when Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri left and our hands were tied financially when looking for a like-for-like replacement for arguably the world’s top striker last summer. But neither need apply to Walcott.

The club will compete for Wilfried Zaha, a short-term backward step from Walcott but with the potential to become an outstanding winger, Stephen El Shaarawy is being talked up by the manager and Klaas Jan Huntelaar or Demba Ba’s goals could well also be sought. There’s good reason to believe we will strengthen in the summer, even if Bacary Sagna is lost.

Let’s be honest here, as much as we all love it when Walcott excels in an Arsenal shirt, his importance to the club is as much a sign of the squad’s decline in quality as it is his ability.

The caveat “if he spends it” has long been applied to any statement regarding Wenger and money but, with the funds that will soon be at his disposal, the squad should be sufficiently strong that an occasionally brilliant, occasionally terrible but mostly just good player and his representatives won’t feel able to treat the club so poorly.

Latest: