The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Makingtrax]

This seems like the most logical perspective on the debate.

Money can turn you into a league contender, but it can't guarantee you the league.

You're right, it never could mate. That's not how it works. Just gives you a better probability.

You can see that with Chelsea, United and City. They've almost shared the titles between them since 2004. Each one having a chance and other factors like managers etc deciding it.

But Sp**s, Liverpool and Arsenal have been shut out, and Liverpool and Sp**s have had many different managers. And that's because they have a lower probability spending so much less.

 

[tcahill]

You're right, it never could mate. That's not how it works. Just gives you a better probability.

You can see that with Chelsea, United and City. They've almost shared the titles between them since 2004. Each one having a chance and other factors like managers etc deciding it.

But Sp**s, Liverpool and Arsenal have been shut out, and Liverpool and Sp**s have had many different managers. And that's because they have a lower probability spending so much less.

That makes perfect sense, how is this thread so controversial?

 

[Makingtrax]

That makes perfect sense, how is this thread so controversial?

You may well ask mate.

But if someone's got an agenda logic goes out of the window.

 

[Mark Tobias]

You may well ask mate.

But if someone's got an agenda logic goes out of the window.

Careful, some may throw that right back at you.

 

[BBF]

That makes perfect sense, how is this thread so controversial?

Because he originally claimed through statements that the money you spend on transfer fees equates to your league position and claimed there was a "70% percent correlation". He's trying to reinvent a new argument.

 

[Crocrodile]

That makes perfect sense, how is this thread so controversial?

Because football as a game we've fallen in love with was never a game where a team couldn't outplay the sum of its parts.

Anyone who ever played any kind of football has to believe that in order to motivate himself/herself to play an on-paper better team. It's what has made football so popular all over the world. That, and that men in general like to chase balls and watch men chase balls.

Anyways, football has changed dramatically with the enormous influx of money into the sport that parity level we loved has been IMO lost, so squad cost thread definitely has merit. One could also point out that after the initial big investments the clubs who have invested the most also gained the ability to attract top talents, WC players, because players team up to win trophies and earn more money at clubs that have established themselves as top destinations.

I hate squad cost though, because I believe development of young players who are loyal to the club can lead you to having a team, which fights for every inch on the pitch, has a wonderful relationship with the fans, never backs down from a fight.

I 'd like to believe that, but people believe in a lot of things.

 

[Bergkamp a Dutch Master]

He's trying to reinvent a new argument.

Reinvent cannot be new.

 

[BBF]

Reinvent cannot be new.

reinvent
[ree-in-vent]
to invent again or anew, especially without knowing that the inventionalready exists.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reinvention

 

[YeahBee]

This seems like the most logical perspective on the debate.

Money can turn you into a league contender, but it can't guarantee you the league. Once you've got a good squad, its variables such as the manager, tactics, team cohesion that have much more of an effect.

So show me a team that has spent ****ty, Chelski, PSG etc money and not won the league..

 

[tcahill]

So show me a team that has spent ****ty, Chelski, PSG etc money and not won the league..

Just looking at last season alone;
-PSG
-Manchester City
-Manchester United

 

[YeahBee]

Just looking at last season alone;
-PSG
-Manchester City
-Manchester United

All of'em have titles in the last couple of years

 

[tcahill]

All of'em have titles in the last couple of years

My original point was that money doesn't guarantee you the league, but it certainly turns you into a frequent league contender. A frequent league contender is someone who challenges for the league on a regular basis. We're arguing for the same thing

 

[Makingtrax]

My original point was that money doesn't guarantee you the league, but it certainly turns you into a frequent league contender. A frequent league contender is someone who challenges for the league on a regular basis. We're arguing for the same thing

Doesn't matter what you argue, someone will try and prove you wrong . . . even when they're saying the same thing. It's a thing called testosterone.

 

[Makingtrax]

Because he originally claimed through statements that the money you spend on transfer fees equates to your league position and claimed there was a "70% percent correlation". He's trying to reinvent a new argument.

Think you'll find I showed the graph for one season showed a correlation of 70%. You made a massive fuss the data was bollocks and then the graph was rubbish.

But when Hydro repeated the exact same analysis you said nothing and then when Fallout repeated the exact graph again. You said 'Nice analysis'.

And when the same source of data was shown in this thread by James Bond for this year's squad cost a week or two ago you said nothing about the source being rubbish.

It's pretty clear what your agenda is.

 

[BBF]

Think you'll find I showed the graph for one season showed a correlation of 70%. You made a massive fuss the data was bollocks and then the graph was rubbish.

But when Hydro repeated the exact same analysis you said nothing and then when Fallout repeated the exact graph again. You said 'Nice analysis'.

And when the same source of data was shown in this thread by James Bond for this year's squad cost a week or two ago you said nothing about the source being rubbish.

It's pretty clear what your agenda is.

I'm just repeating myself now. I said @Fallout's graph was good because he sourced it correctly, something you failed to do. Your graph didn't even match up with your alleged "sources" or "70% correlation". When I analysed it properly it was less than 50% in the season Leicester won the league and your only response was "well Leicester was an anomaly" and rejected they even won the league . Also, his argument was different to yours e.g wages, and I didn't say anything about agreeing with it. You can appreciate something without necessarily agreeing with it.

Lastly, I'm not bothered about what Hydro has to say.

 

[YeahBee]

My original point was that money doesn't guarantee you the league, but it certainly turns you into a frequent league contender. A frequent league contender is someone who challenges for the league on a regular basis. We're arguing for the same thing

but it does guarantee you it, not directly in the following season perhaps but they all did it eventually

 

[BobP]

The team which wins the league is more often than not the team which comfortably dispatches those teams which it should.

IMO, the 'big' games are over-hyped, they're more indicative of the general mood within the camp if anything. In other words, if you're swatting away mid to lower table clubs consistently, you'll be riding high and therefore more likely to do well when you come up against your fellow competitors.

 

[Makingtrax]

The team which wins the league is more often than not the team which comfortably dispatches those teams which it should.

No sh*t? You live and learn on AM.

 

[The_Playmaker]

The team which wins the league is more often than not the team which comfortably dispatches those teams which it should.

IMO, the 'big' games are over-hyped, they're more indicative of the general mood within the camp if anything. In other words, if you're swatting away mid to lower table clubs consistently, you'll be riding high and therefore more likely to do well when you come up against your fellow competitors.

The problem is you have at least 5 teams who are going to be dispatching the teams they should rather easily. Therefore it is going to come down to the difficult games and how teams recover after set backs in those big games.

Win against West Brom and we are 1 point behind Liverpool and Sp**s, 3 behind Chelsea and 6 behind United and City:

Chelsea vs City
Liverpool vs United
Sp**s vs Liverpool
Man United vs Sp**s


All the above fixtures occur before we have our next big fixture. IF we do what we should which is get maximum points from our easy run and those teams only drop points in the above games, then it is highly likely we could sneak up the table. The likleyhood is that we will be in 4th place before the fixtures below.

City vs Arsenal
Chelsea vs United
Arsenal vs Sp**s

Those are the big games up until the 18th November. Our lack of preparation means we have to beat City and Sp**s to certify top four and even be close to the top 2.

 

[Tir Na Nog]

The team which wins the league is more often than not the team which comfortably dispatches those teams which it should.

IMO, the 'big' games are over-hyped, they're more indicative of the general mood within the camp if anything. In other words, if you're swatting away mid to lower table clubs consistently, you'll be riding high and therefore more likely to do well when you come up against your fellow competitors.

Agree with this. Thinking back to City in 13/14 lost twice to Chelsea, lost away to Liverpool and drew away at our ground but pretty much destroyed all the teams lower than the top 4.

In general I'd say winning the home "big games" and nicking a point maybe away from home is probably good enough for the 4/5 big games you play.

I think City are probably the best equipped for dispatching all the smaller teams, tho Chelsea and United aren't too far behind. It'll be interesting to see if teams can adapt and frustrate City and then capitalise on their suspect defence. I still wouldn't write Chelsea off just yet, once Hazard is up and motoring you could easily see them going on a winning run similar to last season. So far this season both Manchester clubs haven't been truly tested all that much and haven't suffered a defeat so it's unknown how they'll respond to it.

Sp**s and Liverpool aren't in this title race for me, already they're dropping points at home to teams they should easily beat, just aren't at the level of the other 3. For us, we're not in it either but I feel we do have more quality than Sp**s/Liverpool so I think we still have a relatively decent shot at 4th, it's gonna be about the consistency for us.