The Great Squad Cost Thread

Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by Toast, May 4, 2017.

?

Squad cost?

  1. Yay

    27.3%
  2. Nay

    72.7%
  1. Toast

    Toast Well-Known Member

    Squad cost - does it mean we can't compete for the title? Does anyone really care about it? Does discussion about it keep derailing other threads?

    No, no and yes. Hence this thread.

    Mods, if by your grace you allow this thread, please move this post of mine here (and all the related posts, obviously). I regret bringing it up in the other thread, since it's bound to lead to 10 more pages of off-topic nonsense.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  2. GDeep™

    GDeep™ Wrong, But Rarely

    Squad costs means we at Arsenal need managers who can punch above their weight.

    Until recently that's what Wenger has done.
     
  3. Toast

    Toast Well-Known Member

    Agreed. I don't think anyone will complain about his achievements in the austerity era.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
    Mark Tobias and Gooner Zig like this.
  4. Preacher

    Preacher Anti-Ornstein

    I remember, that somebody created thread with squad cost topic couple months back, but mods quickly pull out a lock from their pockets.

    I guess, it's less interesting to discuss it in other threads than Wenger's. According to some people Wenger is king of squad cost phenomenon.
     
  5. Deathstroke

    Deathstroke The Terminator

    This theory is a work of fiction. Names, characters, graphs and data are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or teams or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental, and any harm resulting to readers from giving it credence is completely of their own making.
     
  6. American_Gooner

    American_Gooner Not actually American. Unless Di Marzio says so. Moderator

  7. Preacher

    Preacher Anti-Ornstein

  8. 4R5Emaniac

    4R5Emaniac Always fresh from Bangladesh

  9. {reed}

    {reed} Poundland GDeep

    [​IMG]
     
    BBF and Gooner Zig like this.
  10. Deathstroke

    Deathstroke The Terminator

    Shame you were a little bit lacking in sharpness. That thread went the way of Park Chu-young.
     
    4R5Emaniac and American_Gooner like this.
  11. notafan

    notafan Active Member

    [I posted this in the Wenger thread, and copy it here, where perhaps it should have been. Please excuse my long-windedness]

    On squad spend.

    On browsing the papers at a local supermarket, I find that The Sun - that fine bastion of truth, decency, honesty, fair play, rationality, common sense, patriotism, kindness etc., in fact all the virtues - (please, please don't quote me on that!) - has gone for squad spend per point as an indicator of achievement.

    My problem with squad spend as an indicator is that it is all too often misleading, as it tells a half truth, which is sometimes worse than a downright lie.

    Of course, if you compare ManU's squad spend with that of Burnley, let alone those of such as Fleetwood, Accrington etc.etc., you are going to get the correct impression that at this scale of difference, squad spend is all important.

    Comparing however the squad spends of, say, the top 6 clubs in the EPL is a much more tricky business. Even more the squad spending of successive managers at the same club.

    The problem with raw squad spend statistics is that they tell you nothing about the state/quality of the squad when the spend was done. Even looking at the cost of the squad taken over by a new manager won't necessarily clear the matter up. The previous manager might have been an incompetent who spent large sums on mediocre players - or he might have been an astute manager who picked up some real bargains.

    But I don't suppose The Sun cares about that in a post-truth, alternative "facts" world.
     
  12. 4R5Emaniac

    4R5Emaniac Always fresh from Bangladesh

    Squad cost is a load of bullshit for many reasons. The reason that is enough to analyze not much further is this- https://www.transfermarkt.com/

    Visit the site and see the transfers. Absolute poverty players like Livermore going for stupid money and that is just one example of a move where the player can't never live up to the price amongst a giant number of examples. And not just of that criteria- players costing less than their value or more,their performances, productivity, age, medical history and all of that to what extent or how much. On top of that you have different opinions and point of views.

    Its impossible for the Squad Cost theory to stand up strong. There are other very strong arguments against it too that I'm sure others will present.
     
  13. American_Gooner

    American_Gooner Not actually American. Unless Di Marzio says so. Moderator

    The only problem with the squad cost argument is that finishing above City, United and Chelsea last season was considered a success, but finishing 10 points behind Leicester wasn't a failure; just a freak occurrence that we can't read too much into. You can't have it both ways. Either the first part is true or they're both freak occurrences and we shouldn't praise the club for finishing above richer clubs.
     
    zanwalk, Godwin1, say yes and 10 others like this.
  14. 4R5Emaniac

    4R5Emaniac Always fresh from Bangladesh

    More than little bit. Was bored and couldn't control the impulse.
     
  15. Deathstroke

    Deathstroke The Terminator

    Oh come on, you could've said this yourself...


    ...Should've posted a little bit with your handbrake on.
     
  16. 4R5Emaniac

    4R5Emaniac Always fresh from Bangladesh

    I have dropped physically and mentally little bit after taking care of little bro.
     
    Deathstroke likes this.
  17. hydrofluoric acid

    hydrofluoric acid Prefers To Be Called Dennis

    I dont think its coincidence that majority of the winners of last 12 years are the 3 biggest spenders in the league. Money does buy a good players and managers.

    With that said we took different route to build a squad capable of winning the league. Focusing on bringing youth talents trough and add star players slowly to the team.

    Our squad should have won it last year. It was the best squad on paper and compared to other teams we had it easy. No manager leaving or players. Everything solid.

    Shows maybe how good Wenger actually is at building squads.

    So where are we losing out? I would say Wenger in game tactics and him declining in ability to bring the best out of players are costing us the most.
     
    Godwin1 and bingobob like this.
  18. mm76

    mm76 Yer Da

    can you adjust the poll to create a third option - something like

    'squad cost of course can have a bearing on how a team does but only under a good manager will it be a reliable winning factor, and good managers can exceed expectations which are based purely on squad cost'

    or to put it another way

    'it can be a factor but it's not the whole picture'

    :)
     
    Mark Tobias and bingobob like this.
  19. 4R5Emaniac

    4R5Emaniac Always fresh from Bangladesh

    You know Mitchy Batshuayi? That move pretty much nearly covers that 37m difference. You could just about write off his value to Chelsea.
     
    Mark Tobias likes this.
  20. Deathstroke

    Deathstroke The Terminator

    Squad Cost Correlation Theory put to the test with the Premier League, 2016-17

    Results (short version):
    The squad costs and the respective positions of the clubs in the table this season do not correlate at all, except in one instance out of 20.

    Key:

    Green: Clubs whose current position in the table is higher than their rank in terms of spending;
    Blue: Clubs whose current position in the table is the same as their rank in terms of spending;
    Scarlet: Clubs whose current position in the table is lower than their rank in terms of spending;

    Rank(spending)-----Club ---------Amount(euros)--CurrentPosition

    1)--------------------------Man City-----------213m------------------#4
    2)--------------------------Man Utd-----------185m------------------#5

    3)--------------------------Chelsea-------------133m------------------#1
    4)--------------------------Arsenal-------------113m------------------#6
    5)--------------------------Crystal Palace------100m----------------#16
    6)--------------------------Leicester City--------91m----------------#11

    7)--------------------------Everton---------------86m-----------------#7
    8)--------------------------West Ham Utd-------84m---------------#15
    9)--------------------------Tottenham-----------83m-----------------#2
    10)-------------------------Liverpool-------------80m----------------#3

    11)-------------------------Watford---------------70m---------------#13
    12)-------------------------Southampton--------69m-----------------#9
    13)-------------------------Swansea--------------58m---------------#18
    14)-------------------------Middlesbrough------53m---------------#19

    15)-------------------------Burnley---------------46m---------------#14
    16)-------------------------Bournemouth--------41m---------------#10

    17)-------------------------Sunderland-----------40m--------------#20
    18)-------------------------Hull City--------------40m--------------#17
    19)-------------------------Stoke City-------------39m--------------#12
    20)------------------------West Brom------------38m---------------#8


    Considering this season's data, the squad cost theory fails in 19 out of 20 instances; i.e. the theory is proven right in only 5% of the cases; only Everton's position is on par with their spending, with Burnley and Hull nearly par (both doing one place better relative to their spending). Even if Burnley and Hull were to be included, the theory would be proven approximately right in only 15% of the instances [and I would argue that Hull (18th-highest spenders, expected to be relegated according to the theory, but out of the relegation zone in reality) should not be included at all.]

    Half the clubs have underperformed, the biggest ones being Palace (5th-highest spenders, 16th in table), West Ham (8th-highest, 15th in table), champions Leicester (6th-highest, 11th in table), Swansea (13th-highest, 18th in table) & Boro (14th-highest, 19th in table).

    As far as the top 6 are concerned, Arsenal have performed worse in spite of spending ~100m (4th-highest, 6th in table), along with Man City (highest, 4th in table) & Man Utd (2nd-highest, 5th in table).

    The importance of managerial competence in comparison to money spent is clearly seen in the case of teams like Tottenham, Liverpool, West Brom, Stoke & Bournemouth, with Tottenham under Pochettino mounting a title challenge (for the 2nd year running) despite being only the 9th-highest spenders, Liverpool in 3rd place and in a strong position to qualify for Champions League football with the 10th-highest spend, while Pulis has WBA in 8th despite spending the least amount of money this season.

    Data source: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?saison_id=2016&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
    Godwin1, Kingslayer, BBF and 4 others like this.

Share This Page

Watch Arsenal Live Streams With StreamFootball.tv

Do Not Sell My Personal Information