Godwin1
Very well-known
I see so your posts mainly consist of historic appreciation thenAll in all, I still think he should have left in May. But the more you study his reign, the more remarkable it appears.
I see so your posts mainly consist of historic appreciation thenAll in all, I still think he should have left in May. But the more you study his reign, the more remarkable it appears.
So far we're a selling club again this year. Sold £95m, bought £50m.
The more I look into Wenger's reign the more it amazes me. We've been a selling club in 9 of Wenger's seasons here. Compare that to the other clubs in the same time.
Arsenal 9
Sp**s 4
Liverpool 4
Chelsea 3
City 2
United 2
Yet check out the number of years in the top 4 over that time.
Arsenal 20
United 18
Chelsea 16
City 12
Liverpool 12
Sp**s 3
He's a ****ing genius.
Spot on bro.I see so your posts mainly consist of historic appreciation then
****, nobody's getting angry anymore. What's wrong with this place.The number of different ways you keep dressing up the same underlying fact (number of seasons Wenger has got us top 4) ..... I think you’re the freaking genius dude
We're gonna need a massive investment if we're gonna get back to regularly getting into the top 4. Seems like we're about to take Sp**s and Liverpools roles of being in the outskirts of the CL places and we don't have a £100 mil player to sell like those 2 teams.
It's as if people don't watch any football.
That doesn't debunk squad cost.KDB/Aguero combo>Pogba/Lukaku. Cost less too. #SquadCostDebunked
People on here genuinely believe that players are better than others simply by virtue of their transfer fee.That doesn't debunk squad cost.
People on here genuinely believe that players are better than others simply by virtue of their transfer fee.
Nope he uses it for individual results as well.Also squadcost theory as Makingtrax stated it is just comparing squadcost vs final position.
Nope he uses it for individual results as well.
It's about the only thing in football I'm absolutely sure of.People on here genuinely believe that players are better than others simply by virtue of their transfer fee.
I don't. There are bargains to be had and certain players fit styles of play better than others. But to think that squad cost doesn't play an important factor at the same time is rather ridiculous. And the example you gave is just an exception - and exceptions do exist. I could turn around and do the same thing though: KDB/Aguero > Ayoze/Gayle. The former costs more than the latter... And they're far ****ing better as indicated by the table and personal statistics.People on here genuinely believe that players are better than others simply by virtue of their transfer fee.
Why do those caveats only apply to teams outside Arsenal? You could easily say that Alexis was cheaper than normal because Barca needed to shift him for Suarez, Cazorla was cheap because of Malaga's financial problems etc. Those circumstances artificially lowered the value of the squad, when in reality the disparity in talent between Arsenal and the 3 richest clubs isn't as great as you make it out to be.Your mistake is that this is constantly in a state of flux. How much would KDB and Aguerro cost now, and how much would Pogba and Lukaku cost if you wanted to buy them.
But it doesn't always tell the whole story. In the Arsenal-United match at the end of last season, they had the higher squad cost in terms of the players that started despite the fact that it was clearly full of 2nd choice players while they prioritised the Europa League. You'd think beating United that day was some great achievement just based on the respective squad costs, even though the teamsheet tells a different story.But to think that squad cost doesn't play an important factor at the same time is rather ridiculous.
Comparing City to United is more apt though, considering they're generally competing for the same level of talent in the market.I could turn around and do the same thing though: KDB/Aguero > Ayoze/Gayle. The former costs more than the latter... And they're far ****ing better as indicated by the table and personal statistics.
I'm not saying it does tell the whole story, as I said, there are exceptions. But it doesn't overturn the general rule, which is that the more money you spend on your squad, i.e. the better players you're acquiring, will more than likely lead to you finishing higher in the table.But it doesn't always tell the whole story. In the Arsenal-United match at the end of last season, they had the higher squad cost in terms of the players that started despite the fact that it was clearly full of 2nd choice players while they prioritised the Europa League. You'd think beating United that day was some great achievement just based on the respective squad costs, even though the teamsheet tells a different story.
Comparing City to United is more apt though, considering they're generally competing for the same level of talent in the market.
Consider any team. They all have players that are under priced like Hazard because he was bought some years ago or Ramsey because he was bought for a small fee. And most EPL teams are over paying for players these days too e.g. Lukaku, Lacazette, etc.Why do those caveats only apply to teams outside Arsenal? You could easily say that Alexis was cheaper than normal because Barca needed to shift him for Suarez, Cazorla was cheap because of Malaga's financial problems etc. Those circumstances artificially lowered the value of the squad, when in reality the disparity in talent between Arsenal and the 3 richest clubs isn't as great as you make it out to be.