Jump to content
ThomThomDrum

Football 18/19

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

why not?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, thetime said:

All teams apart from City generate there own cash don’t they? 

lol @ the changed tune from you!

Share this post


Link to post
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

. Purely in terms of cold, hard, facts they have been better over a season than anyone else has. 

They have undoubtedly accumulated more points over a season, whether they have been better is debatable. Maybe they have, maybe others have just got worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy with an away draw against Liverpool as I don't manage to catch many Chelsea games anymore, what with living in Liverpool. Should be good!

Some cracking Champions League ties there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

Edited by vintagelaureate

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some tasty looking groups there. City shouldn't have too many issues but the other three PL teams all have tough tasks. At least one will fail to qualify IMO (United look vulnerable as Valencia are decent these days).

Atletico, Dortmund & Monaco in he same group is a hipster's dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea have gone from Madrid and Rome in the CL groups last year to Greece, Belarus and Hungary in the EL groups this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair few names in this year's EL that I've never seen before in European comps, good to see. 

Arsenal have got a nice long journey thrown in there I see with qarabag. 

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...