Close the thread. If you can't agree with this then football isn't your game!the truth is somewhere in the middle.
to begin with, of course money matters in football. suggesting otherwise is a denial of reality. the richer you are, the stronger your squad, and the more likely you are to win games. it doesnt matter how you measure the wealth of a team (e.g. wages, squad cost). you'll still get the same relationship between winning and wealth because the wealth measures are extremely correlated with each other.
i think people have severely mischaracterized makingtrax's stance. having the highest squad cost does not mean you will win every football match. it also doesnt mean you will win the league. but it does increase the *probability* that you will win football matches, to such an extent that we can predict where teams will end up in the league based on how rich they are. i'm not sure how this is surprising. just because a few teams defy probability each year, it does not mean that the overall relationship between winning and wealth is a myth.
with that said, there is a key nuance in the data that challenges the predictive power of squad cost for the league's richest teams.
as we can see, for both squad cost and squad wage, teams at the bottom generally stay close to the line, but the league's richest teams are all over the place. there appears to be some threshold level of wealth where the relationship between winning and wealth just disappears.
and this is true for previous seasons as well.
with the exception of the 14/15 season, it's hard to draw any line that relates winning and wealth for the league's richest teams. the lines for 16/17 and 15/16 are going in the wrong direction! and even though the line for 13/14 is in the right direction, teams don't conform to it in a meaningful way.
i think the explanation here is that, once you reach a certain level of wealth, spending additional money to improve the squad yields diminishing returns. think of all the transfers that go on in world football each year. imagine the difference in skill between the *average* player that costs 10 million and the *average* player that costs 30 million. it's probably huge. now imagine the difference in skill between a 30 million player and a 50 million player. it's probably not as big. and the difference between a 50 million player and a 70 million player is even smaller (perhaps close to zero).
the point is, once you have a certain amount of wealth, the money you put into your squad still matters, but much less than normal, because paying more money buys you disproportionately less talent at the highest level. this is where a good tactical system and good coaching can overcome small differences in skill among players who are basically at the top of the profession (think of how poor english teams are in the champions league).
should wenger be excused for not winning the league in however many years it's been because of squad cost? probably not, in my opinion. although he's never had the league's richest squad, i think the data shows we are at a level where money is not as big of a determinant of league position. we are at a level where if the team is properly managed, we should be winning the league every now and then. and we have shown each season that we can go on amazing runs of form where we are outplaying all teams, only to be comically undermined by periods of severe squad mismanagement and disruption. i think a better manager takes us to the next level.
F*** the poll, money wins trophies, end of.
They are the very reason why the correlation isn't 100%. You've hit the nail on the head.
That's another 'troll' related post.Atleast you admit you're a troll.
That's another 'troll' related post.
They say a monkey randomly punching a keyboard will come up with a Shakespeare play given enough time. Hope you for you yet lad
On an internet forum. Accusing Makingtrax to be a troll over and over is high praise as well and not at all personal.Yeah waiting for that play from you or was the whole Squad Cost bs part of the act?
Handing out personal insults on a internet forum. Damn dude, you need some help.
the truth is somewhere in the middle.
to begin with, of course money matters in football. suggesting otherwise is a denial of reality. the richer you are, the stronger your squad, and the more likely you are to win games. it doesnt matter how you measure the wealth of a team (e.g. wages, squad cost). you'll still get the same relationship between winning and wealth because the wealth measures are extremely correlated with each other.
i think people have severely mischaracterized makingtrax's stance. having the highest squad cost does not mean you will win every football match. it also doesnt mean you will win the league. but it does increase the *probability* that you will win football matches, to such an extent that we can predict where teams will end up in the league based on how rich they are. i'm not sure how this is surprising. just because a few teams defy probability each year, it does not mean that the overall relationship between winning and wealth is a myth.
with that said, there is a key nuance in the data that challenges the predictive power of squad cost for the league's richest teams.
as we can see, for both squad cost and squad wage, teams at the bottom generally stay close to the line, but the league's richest teams are all over the place. there appears to be some threshold level of wealth where the relationship between winning and wealth just disappears.
and this is true for previous seasons as well.
with the exception of the 14/15 season, it's hard to draw any line that relates winning and wealth for the league's richest teams. the lines for 16/17 and 15/16 are going in the wrong direction! and even though the line for 13/14 is in the right direction, teams don't conform to it in a meaningful way.
i think the explanation here is that, once you reach a certain level of wealth, spending additional money to improve the squad yields diminishing returns. think of all the transfers that go on in world football each year. imagine the difference in skill between the *average* player that costs 10 million and the *average* player that costs 30 million. it's probably huge. now imagine the difference in skill between a 30 million player and a 50 million player. it's probably not as big. and the difference between a 50 million player and a 70 million player is even smaller (perhaps close to zero).
the point is, once you have a certain amount of wealth, the money you put into your squad still matters, but much less than normal, because paying more money buys you disproportionately less talent at the highest level. this is where a good tactical system and good coaching can overcome small differences in skill among players who are basically at the top of the profession (think of how poor english teams are in the champions league).
should wenger be excused for not winning the league in however many years it's been because of squad cost? probably not, in my opinion. although he's never had the league's richest squad, i think the data shows we are at a level where money is not as big of a determinant of league position. we are at a level where if the team is properly managed, we should be winning the league every now and then. and we have shown each season that we can go on amazing runs of form where we are outplaying all teams, only to be comically undermined by periods of severe squad mismanagement and disruption. i think a better manager takes us to the next level.
He used the same data
You really are an arsehole!
Wait, so half the forum mention this over and over and ****ing over all ****ing season and now suddenly that the season is over and you have no games left to hide behind you admit that there are other factors involved. Jesus, you can't make this **** up!
Always said it was only 70+% from the start.
Yes, that is fair enough. I also think that despite you having said it isn't, your posts have insinuated (at least to those who haven't read it all) that you believe squad cost is the only factor.
But slowly realising now that what people read and how they interpret it depends on who's written it.
part I am highlighting is a gross generalization on how Gibbs or Clichy before him can't cross although they were playing as winger/wing back for decades or various basic mistakes other players do (Theo, Ox...)the truth is somewhere in the middle.
to begin with, of course money matters in football. suggesting otherwise is a denial of reality. the richer you are, the stronger your squad, and the more likely you are to win games. it doesnt matter how you measure the wealth of a team (e.g. wages, squad cost). you'll still get the same relationship between winning and wealth because the wealth measures are extremely correlated with each other.
i think people have severely mischaracterized makingtrax's stance. having the highest squad cost does not mean you will win every football match. it also doesnt mean you will win the league. but it does increase the *probability* that you will win football matches, to such an extent that we can predict where teams will end up in the league based on how rich they are. i'm not sure how this is surprising. just because a few teams defy probability each year, it does not mean that the overall relationship between winning and wealth is a myth.
with that said, there is a key nuance in the data that challenges the predictive power of squad cost for the league's richest teams.
as we can see, for both squad cost and squad wage, teams at the bottom generally stay close to the line, but the league's richest teams are all over the place. there appears to be some threshold level of wealth where the relationship between winning and wealth just disappears.
and this is true for previous seasons as well.
with the exception of the 14/15 season, it's hard to draw any line that relates winning and wealth for the league's richest teams. the lines for 16/17 and 15/16 are going in the wrong direction! and even though the line for 13/14 is in the right direction, teams don't conform to it in a meaningful way.
i think the explanation here is that, once you reach a certain level of wealth, spending additional money to improve the squad yields diminishing returns. think of all the transfers that go on in world football each year. imagine the difference in skill between the *average* player that costs 10 million and the *average* player that costs 30 million. it's probably huge. now imagine the difference in skill between a 30 million player and a 50 million player. it's probably not as big. and the difference between a 50 million player and a 70 million player is even smaller (perhaps close to zero).
the point is, once you have a certain amount of wealth, the money you put into your squad still matters, but much less than normal, because paying more money buys you disproportionately less talent at the highest level. this is where a good tactical system and good coaching can overcome small differences in skill among players who are basically at the top of the profession (think of how poor english teams are in the champions league).
should wenger be excused for not winning the league in however many years it's been because of squad cost? probably not, in my opinion. although he's never had the league's richest squad, i think the data shows we are at a level where money is not as big of a determinant of league position. we are at a level where if the team is properly managed, we should be winning the league every now and then. and we have shown each season that we can go on amazing runs of form where we are outplaying all teams, only to be comically undermined by periods of severe squad mismanagement and disruption. i think a better manager takes us to the next level.
