The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Makingtrax]

I'd say that's a definition of an agenda.

In modern parlance an agenda means a ‘hidden motive‘, on discussion forums, like for example twisting facts to say a manager is declining because you’re bored with continuous top 4.

 

[Beksl]

In modern parlance an agenda means a ‘hidden motive‘, on discussion forums, like for example twisting facts to say a manager is declining because you’re bored with continuous top 4.

On AM agendas are transparent as far as I'm concern. It's one of many paradoxes on here.

 

[Lidl_Reed]

Do people really misunderstand probability that much? Leicester, Inter, Atletico and even Liverpool winning one or two times in the last 10 years with City/Chelsea, Juventus, Barca/Madrid nabbing the rest of the league titles just shows that squad cost theory is correct.

 

[Lidl_Reed]

Anyone who doubts squad cost theory just look at Bayern, outspend the league by a mile, win every year. Juventus, barring the idiotic Pirlo year, have won every year. Rangers only one who could topple Celtic because they were the only one who could get near that spending. Some exceptions occur but mostly it bears out and that just shows it's right

 

[krengon]

A club like Newcastle gets taken over by someone like City's owners and within a few years they will be winning trophies and be competing for the league. There will always be outliers here and there, but trend over time it's undeniable.

 

[Beksl]

A club like Newcastle gets taken over by someone like City's owners and within a few years they will be winning trophies and be competing for the league. There will always be outliers here and there, but trend over time it's undeniable.

The point is, there is very low predictive power i.e. statistical significance (which is one of the main reasons we use statistics) in squad cost theory apart from a very general observation "a club will get better with money." I don't need squad cost "theory" to affirm this statement.

 

[Makingtrax]

The point is, there is very low predictive power i.e. statistical significance (which is one of the main reasons we use statistics) in squad cost theory apart from a very general observation "a club will get better with money." I don't need squad cost "theory" to affirm this statement.

The predictive power is far from low. The top 4 spending teams City, Chelsea, United and Liverpool will very likely finish in the top 4.

Something you couldn’t have predicted when Wenger was around.

 

[BobP]

Wait, are we doing this again?

Real throwback.

 

[bingobob]

Do people really misunderstand probability that much? Leicester, Inter, Atletico and even Liverpool winning one or two times in the last 10 years with City/Chelsea, Juventus, Barca/Madrid nabbing the rest of the league titles just shows that squad cost theory is correct.

Not misunderstanding probability at all. Just generally annoyed at this whole argument. Teams that are better financed will do better because they have access to better players. But like all teams they eventually hit a ceiling.

I'm literally tired of writing this Man City example. Going from Vassell, to Bellamy, to Adebayor to Aguero. The level of growth eventually reaches an optimum state whereby improvement is near impossible. Essentially improving upon Vassell easy improving upon Aguero not so easy no matter how much cash you throw at it.

Some could argue go buy a player below Aguero as a back up. And that could be a good idea but also a terrible idea. You end up with a Laporte or Bernardo situation. Very good players unhappy because they aren't playing and potentially when called upon not match fit. So you've got a big squad cost without an optimum state. Contrast with Liverpool, lower cost without the depth but a very strong XI that can beat anyone on the day.

There is also a very limited supply of top level players compared to top level teams. Ordinarily most players won't go compete like for like and also most teams are sensible not to sign like for like. Ie its unlikely Chelsea go out and buy Harry Kane as they've Lukaku and its unlikely Kane would go there because he isn't guaranteed to start every week. Top players move to other perecived top teams and we end up with a concentration of top players in a handful of teams. Regardless of the cost these teams compete against each other because the talent pool is there to do so. Nobody says United, City, Chelsea and Liverpool are favourites because of what they've spent its because the team and manager they have. It's why Leicester are viewed as likely to break in as opposed to us even though we've a bigger squad cost and a higher wage bill

Squad cost is a distraction from proper analysis. Its been used to over state what Wenger done and let him off the hook for what he failed to do.

 

[Notorious Big]

Money made all big leagues uncompetitive as ****. Even EPL became less competitive with big spending from City and Pep made them even better.

 

[Makingtrax]

Squad cost is a distraction from proper analysis. Its been used to over state what Wenger done and let him off the hook for what he failed to do.

All those who thought like that are getting what they deserve.

 

[bingobob]

All those who thought like that are getting what they deserve.

What's that? A squad not performing to its cost?

 

[Makingtrax]

What's that? A squad not performing to its cost?

No, not many managers can over perform on their investment in the tough EPL. And certainly not as consistently as Arsène did over so many years, even if you can’t see it.

We’ve had two try so far, and the list is likely to be longer.

 

[bingobob]

No, not many managers can over perform on their investment in the tough EPL. And certainly not as consistently as Arsène did over so many years, even if you can’t see it.

We’ve had two try so far, and the list is likely to be longer.

Lucky for Arsène the league wasn't as tough when he was doing it and he had a fantastic talent base of top class players to choose from. None of which factors into your spreadsheet analysis.

 

[Atlas]

Lucky for Arsène the league wasn't as tough when he was doing it and he had a fantastic talent base of top class players to choose from. None of which factors into your spreadsheet analysis.

No doubt the league wasn’t as tough as it is but the consistency Wenger achieved is unmatched. Tough as it may be 8th place twice in a row is a disgrace. Wenger never let the club slide the way it has over the last few seasons.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Probability, statistics, probability, statistics, probability statistics, probatitics. Statability.

 

[AberGooner]

Don't really see the argument that the league is tougher now. We've fallen along with the likes of Newcastle and Everton whilst City, Leicester and Sp**s have taken our places.

United and Chelsea for example, aren't anywhere near the sides they where in the mid to late 2000's. The lower half of the table has always been capable of taking points off the top sides as well.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

No statistical model is perfect. We dont use them to predict future. We take past data and analyze it. There is a correlation between how much spent is on squad and where team finish. But reality is much more complicated than correlation between two factors.

All models are wrong.

 

[Tom Mix]

A club like Newcastle gets taken over by someone like City's owners and within a few years they will be winning trophies and be competing for the league. There will always be outliers here and there, but trend over time it's undeniable.

I'd go further. City's owners take over Rochdale or Scarborough and they will win the league eventually.

 

[Makingtrax]

Lucky for Arsène the league wasn't as tough when he was doing it and he had a fantastic talent base of top class players to choose from. None of which factors into your spreadsheet analysis.

Not the old league is getting harder excuse. Wenger made continuous top 4 spending like Sunderland ffs. No other manager could have done that. Rogers at Liverpool couldn't maintain top 4 for more than 1 year when the league was 'easier' .