The rewritting history thread, or how Mikel/Arsenal turned it around. Or didn't. What even IS real?

[samspade]

The minutiae of that stuff is true, but the overall correlations of squad cost or wages v finishing position have been proven over and over. It’s no where near exact but it’s the best reflection of the quality of team there is.

I think you need to identify from whos perspective and for what purpose. Your method of analysis is useless to a manager or sporting director as they have to make assessments about how to beat the market and what skill sets the squad needs to add to achieve its goals.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Think we’re 6th biggest on expenditure over that period in terms of outlay. 2nd on net spend but that is mainly because of a squad packed with depreciating assets.

We’re only slightly ahead on spend over the period than Sp**s and behind Utd, City and Chelsea. Don’t think it’s excessive given the extent of the rebuild.

A lot of people criticising how much has been spent, but refusing to get specific. Was £50m on White bad business? £28m on Saliba? £45m on Jesus? £5m on Martinelli?

You could say Pepe at £72m was overpriced but lots of people at the time were excited to see what he could do (+ not an Arteta deal) and some have criticised Mari/Cedric deals (which were cheap anyway) but I can't really see where specifically money has been spent badly, and certainly nothing like ManUre/Chelski who piss money up the wall on all sorts.

Therefore, the money spent has been invested in worthwhile assets and this will contribute positively to our bank balance in the long run should things continue to improve.

 

[Makingtrax]

I think you need to identify from whos perspective and for what purpose. Your method of analysis is useless to a manager or sporting director as they have to make assessments about how to beat the market and what skill sets the squad needs to add to achieve its goals.

It hold’s true, whether there’s much value in it, is a separate issue. Probably far too general for clubs to use, but it’s the reason the top 6 spending clubs nearly always finish inside the top 8 positions, why City have the best chance of winning the league and why Newcastle supporters celebrated like there was no tomorrow, even though they were being taken over by a regime with human rights issues.

 

[samspade]

It hold’s true, whether there’s much value in it, is a separate issue. Probably far too general for clubs to use, but it’s the reason the top 6 spending clubs nearly always finish inside the top 8 positions, why City have the best chance of winning the league and why Newcastle supporters celebrated like there was no tomorrow, even though they were being taken over by a regime with human rights issues.

Ofc, but it's not the only barrier to success. Have you seen Moneyball?

 

[Makingtrax]

A lot of people criticising how much has been spent, but refusing to get specific.

Don’t think anybody’s criticising how much has been spent. Spending the second most money on player transfers over the last 4 years is clearly the best thing to happen to this club in a long time.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

is squad cost a symptom or a cause of success, though? @Makingtrax and how would you go about proving it?

The problem with using correlation as causation, especially within this sort of sphere, is it often leads you to nonsensical conclusions

Did you know that ice cream sales and murders in New York are positively correlated in a 2009 study?



in 2006, drowning deaths and ice cream sales positively correlated also.



So the question here is do murders and drowning deaths cause ice cream sales or do ice cream sales cause murders and drowning deaths?

The answer, obviously, is that thing C is causing both - in this case, hot weather during summer.

Going back to football, a player is worth x in wages because of his quality, so the player quality comes first and the wages come second - it strikes me as fairly obvious that the squad cost is a symptom and not a cause of successful football clubs. I also think this is why wages are a better general predictor, since you're never throwing 200k per week at the likes of Daniel Podence or Nelson Semedo but you would at guys like Saka/Martinelli/Jesus.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Don’t think anybody’s criticising how much has been spent. Spending the second most money on player transfers over the last 4 years is clearly the best thing to happen to this club in a long time.

You aren't, but a few others are. Fully agree with this post, we most certainly needed a rebuild and we're finally getting one fitting of this great football club.

 

[Macho]

A lot of people criticising how much has been spent, but refusing to get specific. Was £50m on White bad business? £28m on Saliba? £45m on Jesus? £5m on Martinelli?

You could say Pepe at £72m was overpriced but lots of people at the time were excited to see what he could do (+ not an Arteta deal) and some have criticised Mari/Cedric deals (which were cheap anyway) but I can't really see where specifically money has been spent badly, and certainly nothing like ManUre/Chelski who piss money up the wall on all sorts.

Therefore, the money spent has been invested in worthwhile assets and this will contribute positively to our bank balance in the long run should things continue to improve.

Lol Saliba and Martinelli included as Arteta deals but Pepe not an Arteta deal.

This is definitely in the right thread.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Lol Saliba and Martinelli included as Arteta deals but Pepe not an Arteta deal.

This is definitely in the right thread.

I didn't say they were Arteta deals tho, I guess I could have been more specific but honestly nitpicking the smallest detail and ignoring the rest is definitely much more worthy of being in this thread than the small mistake I made.

 

[Makingtrax]

Ofc, but it's not the only barrier to success. Have you seen Moneyball?

Great book, probably one of the most influential book on sports ever written. When Matthew Benham bought Brentford in 2012 he made it very public that it would be the model he’d use to improve the club. And it worked. But only so far. Like Oaklands Athletic, Brentford will never beat the money teams.

 

[Makingtrax]

is squad cost a symptom or a cause of success, though? @Makingtrax and how would you go about proving it?

The problem with using correlation as causation, especially within this sort of sphere, is it often leads you to nonsensical conclusions

Did you know that ice cream sales and murders in New York are positively correlated in a 2009 study?

View attachment 10950

in 2006, drowning deaths and ice cream sales positively correlated also.

View attachment 10951

So the question here is do murders and drowning deaths cause ice cream sales or do ice cream sales cause murders and drowning deaths?

The answer, obviously, is that thing C is causing both - in this case, hot weather during summer.

Going back to football, a player is worth x in wages because of his quality, so the player quality comes first and the wages come second - it strikes me as fairly obvious that the squad cost is a symptom and not a cause of successful football clubs. I also think this is why wages are a better general predictor, since you're never throwing 200k per week at the likes of Daniel Podence or Nelson Semedo but you would at guys like Saka/Martinelli/Jesus.

Wages correlates with finishing position, as does squad cost. Of course there’s anomaly’s like the player who comes through the academy and costs nothing like Saka, Foden, Kane, but most teams have a one or two of those. There’s a reason the 6 most expensive squads nearly always finish in the top 8 positions and it’s got nothing to do with ice creams or people drowning.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Wages correlates with finishing position, as does squad cost. Of course there’s anomaly’s like the player who comes through the academy and costs nothing like Saka, Foden, Kane, but most teams have a one or two of those. There’s a reason the 6 most expensive squads nearly always finish in the top 8 positions and it’s got nothing to do with ice creams or people drowning.

I get that, I'm just saying I think analysis can be a bit too simple and exclude other relevant factors if you simply draw correlations between thing A and thing B and assert that one causes the other. Plus ice cream is delicious no matter what your squad cost is.

 

[Macho]

I didn't say they were Arteta deals tho, I guess I could have been more specific but honestly nitpicking the smallest detail and ignoring the rest is definitely much more worthy of being in this thread than the small mistake I made.

Half arsed wind up attempt ngl. I knew it was sh*t when I pressed post reply.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Half arsed wind up attempt ngl. I knew it was sh*t when I pressed post reply.

I can respect the hustle.

 

[db10_therza]

Wages correlates with finishing position, as does squad cost. Of course there’s anomaly’s like the player who comes through the academy and costs nothing like Saka, Foden, Kane, but most teams have a one or two of those. There’s a reason the 6 most expensive squads nearly always finish in the top 8 positions and it’s got nothing to do with ice creams or people drowning.

To put a finer point on what my brother from another mother @DJ_Markstar (I think) is trying to say - what came first? Organic success (and money) followed by reinvestment in the squad, or vice versa? In the case of city / Chelsea the answer is pretty obvious… less clear cut for some other clubs and I think it’s a bit of both tbh.

Basically, clubs that are successful have more money to further plough into their squads, thus staying successful and staying on top of the “big bollocks spending league”. It’s a cycle. Hype ting.

 

[Makingtrax]

To put a finer point on what my brother from another mother @DJ_Markstar (I think) is trying to say - what came first? Organic success (and money) followed by reinvestment in the squad, or vice versa? In the case of city / Chelsea the answer is pretty obvious… less clear cut for some other clubs and I think it’s a bit of both tbh.

Basically, clubs that are successful have more money to further plough into their squads, thus staying successful and staying on top of the “big bollocks spending league”. It’s a cycle. Hype ting.

If that was the case Leicester should not have dived after winning the league, they’re still not a top 6 club. It’s all about how much the owners are prepared to spend else any success is fleeting.

 

[db10_therza]

If that was the case Leicester should not have dived after winning the league, they’re still not a top 6 club. It’s all about how much the owners are prepared to spend else any success is fleeting.

I was actually thinking of them when I wrote that…

In a parallel universe where Leicester actually managed to keep hold of Mahrez and Kante and co, and continued to reinvest their winnings then yes I think they would have steadily climbed into the upper echelons of football. It’s impossible for a team like them to keep their players though (heck it was hard enough for Arsenal) so it’s a moot point. Football is no longer a meritocracy, the last clubs to climb to the top pulled the ladder up behind them. In that sense you’re right in that now it’s more about the money than ever before.

Wasn’t in the past though (Arsène repeatedly made a mockery of net spend).

 

[DJ_Markstar]

If that was the case Leicester should not have dived after winning the league, they’re still not a top 6 club. It’s all about how much the owners are prepared to spend else any success is fleeting.

Think of it more as a moving average than a single year's success. They went from 14th to champions, but have since stabilised going from 12th and 9th twice upwards to finishing 5th twice when we finished 8th, and then finishing 8th last season when we got 5th. If you define top 6 club by a team's recent (say last 3 years or whatever) finishes then Leicester can be seen as more of a top 6 club than Arsenal.

 

[Makingtrax]

Think of it more as a moving average than a single year's success. They went from 14th to champions, but have since stabilised going from 12th and 9th twice upwards to finishing 5th twice when we finished 8th, and then finishing 8th last season when we got 5th. If you define top 6 club by a team's recent (say last 3 years or whetever) finishes then Leicester can be seen as more of a top 6 club than Arsenal.

Top 6 club is by investment, not position in the league. Arsenal have only dropped into the top for 2 seasons and that was because of Arteta/rebuild or whatever.

 

[GoonerJeeves]

Maybe get a third Arteta type thread going, or a fourth. Does it even matter anymore? One would encourage the erstwhile scribes to adhere to our motto from time to time.