Jump to content

Football 18/19


ThomThomDrum
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Isn't that the very essence of knock out football though? You could make a compelling argument that Real Madrid haven't been the best team in Europe for the last three years. Hell, they haven't been the best team in Spain for that period.

yep, it is ... tho it's quite unlikely to get to the final without having faced either of RM or Barca, and when British teams do face them they tend to lose.

Like I say, i'm not knocking Liverpool, i just think zahid's 'massive achievement' was stretching things a bit far all things considered (including how the final went).

Winning the final would have definitely been that 'massive achievement'; losing is a bit less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

The net spend argument is one that has no interest to me. 

why not? Surely any leaving players is a loss to the team's potential, just as much as a buy is (hopefully) an improvement?

Essentially your take ends up saying that Liverpool are (with nothing else changed) as good a team without Coutinho as they were with him - which is a bit nuts when his price says he's the 4th* best player in the world.
(* he might not be that, but he's up there somewhere).

Or that Liverpool should have performed as well without Suarez as they did with him.

These show that not taking sales into account is a bit silly, i think. 

It's perhaps the case that the money-in from fringe/kid players (and there's been a fair number of those from Liverpool) shouldn't count as the full amount within the sell/buy calculation, but the loss of major players such as Suarez or Coutinho can't really be ignored for its effect onto a team's strength and into a sell/buy calculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Essentially your take ends up saying that Liverpool are (with nothing else changed) as good a team without Coutinho as they were with him - which is a bit nuts when his price says he's the 4th* best player in the world.
(* he might not be that, but he's up there somewhere)

That argument is flawed when pogba is in the top 5 player going by price. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thetime said:

That argument is flawed when pogba is in the top 5 player going by price. :)

6th, at least. There's skippy at a bigger price. :P

But anyway, my point was more about the loss of a definite quality player from the team. I don't think the impact of that can be ignored to then think that a spend-only number is anything meaningful for what a manager is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

6th, at least. There's skippy at a bigger price. :P

But anyway, my point was more about the loss of a definite quality player from the team. I don't think the impact of that can be ignored to then think that a spend-only number is anything meaningful for what a manager is doing.

I would say net spend is pretty important to the majority of teams, I would include Liverpool who  need to generate cash to spend big.

not so much City, Chelsea and united who can spend without selling prized assets.

 

Edited by thetime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Because I understand how it works.

I just didn’t realise Liverpool had spent that much in the last few years. Obviously they’ve gone big this summer and Coutinho pulled in a fair whack but it always felt to me that United had spent more.

but spending by itself is meaningless for its effect on the team - and so what a manager can achieve with that team. It's just a number, that means fuck all towards the team.

Utd fans - including thetime - used to post here how it meant so much more that Utd's spending was self-generated rather than from a sugar daddy, but if you throw out the money from sales there's no meaningful self-generated money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thetime said:

I would say net spend is pretty important to the majority of teams, I would include Liverpool who  need to generate cash to spend big.

not so much City, Chelsea and united who can spend without selling prized assets.

 

ha! Now Liverpool are doing self-generated better than most, you've thrown that out. :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thetime said:

Are they doing better than most? They are still winning fuck all. :cheese:

true, they're still winning fuck all, and I'm not really thinking that'll change this season.

But they do seem to be elevating themselves with self-generated cash - which you used to claim as the true definition of a decent team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

true, they're still winning fuck all, and I'm not really thinking that'll change this season.

But they do seem to be elevating themselves with self-generated cash - which you used to claim as the true definition of a decent team.

All teams apart from City generate there own cash don’t they? You could make an argument for wolves though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not a United fan but do they have to worry about making sure they get as much in transfer fees in as they spend out? Probably not because they're Manchester United and they're part of an elite group. The brand, the business is far greater than balancing books by transfers. So whilst net spend is interesting if you're into finance etc, what's the point here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Again, not a United fan but do they have to worry about making sure they get as much in transfer fees in as they spend out? Probably not because they're Manchester United and they're part of an elite group. The brand, the business is far greater than balancing books by transfers. So whilst net spend is interesting if you're into finance etc, what's the point here?

Net spend is relevant for measuring how a team is improving (on paper, anyway*), or not - and so what the manager is managing to do against a baseline.

Having said that, I'm not claiming that the net spend number is everything - there's many different circumstances where it doesn't say everything*, but I'd still say it always says more than gross spend does.

(* for example(s): when non-playing players are sold; when a cheaply-bought 'kid' comes good; when players lose value by aging; etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vintagelaureate said:

Good test of Liverpool's 'depth' and resolve in the next few weeks now...

Leicester (a), Spurs (a), PSG (h), Southampton (h), Chelsea (h - cup), Chelsea (a), City (h). 

The league cup game will be a chance for both team's fringe / youth players I'd imagine. Napoli in and around those games too though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...