Football 2023/24

[thetime]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The research shows the top predictive factor to where a team will finish is wage budget. 

 

 

Eh? Utd have had the biggest wage budget for 10 years and still shite. 

[#1SzigetFan]

1 minute ago, thetime said:

Let's not forget liverpool's European Cup win in 1977. 

 

Crusaders

Trabzonspor

St Etienne

Zurich 

Borussie Monchengladbach 

 

I would take that off them to be fair. 😃

So now I guess you know why Klopp is considered to be one of the best football managers ever.

[thetime]

Just now, #1SzigetFan said:

So now I guess you know why Klopp is considered to be one of the best football managers ever.

He really isn't. 

 

Wouldn't put him in the top 10 to be honest, not even in the top 5 in the last 10-15 years not even close. 

[thetime]

@pink_triangle

 

Just came accross this.

 

[pink_triangle]

19 minutes ago, thetime said:

@pink_triangle

 

Just came accross this.

 

I’m not convinced by that data. It seems strange that Liverpool wage budget would double in 1997.

[thetime]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I’m not convinced by that data. It seems strange that Liverpool wage budget would double in 1997.

The 2nd tv rights from sky doubled that year, from 360m to nearly 700m. So that actually makes sense. 

[charlierc]

43 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Different times though, sadly couldn’t happen today. The research shows the top predictive factor to where a team will finish is wage budget. Fergie had the top wage budget in several occasions. I don’t think Klopp ever has. So I think any comparison has to be considered through that perspective .

I have seen this noted about wage budgets, yes. There will always be variations where teams will underperform or overperform, but the rich 6 in the Premier League having the 6 biggest wage budgets has meant more often than not that they'll be the top 6, with Manchester City's huge wage bill putting them near the top. Although it's more pronounced in places like France, where a PSG team that can just outspend everyone else combined wins the league more often than not, or Scotland, where seemingly the whole league is just Celtic, Rangers and 10.

 

But yeah, there's often variations, like Leicester first breaking into the top 6 with back-to-back 5th places with only a top 10 wage bill, then getting relegated with the league's 7th highest wage bill last season. Or indeed Manchester United's continued modern underperformance, which seems on this year given they seem to be doing their best to finish outside the top 7.

[charlierc]

4 minutes ago, thetime said:

The 2nd tv rights from sky doubled that year, from 360m to nearly 700m. So that actually makes sense. 

Talking of inflation bubbles, with the new UK TV deal actually being a money-per-game cut and half the league seemingly either breaking PSR/FFP or coming close to it, do we think this could actually be a quiet summer by PL standards?

[charlierc]

40 minutes ago, thetime said:

He really isn't. 

 

Wouldn't put him in the top 10 to be honest, not even in the top 5 in the last 10-15 years not even close. 

Name 5 you'd place ahead for the last 10-15 years.

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Name 5 you'd place ahead for the last 10-15 years.

Pep

Ancelotti

Fergie

Jose

Zidane

[pink_triangle]

16 minutes ago, thetime said:

The 2nd tv rights from sky doubled that year, from 360m to nearly 700m. So that actually makes sense. 

Yet the same bloke has Arsenal and Man Utd data and they don’t double. I don’t think we should assume data is correct because it’s online and they quote sources. If I ever come across that football finance bloke I will ask him!

[charlierc]

39 minutes ago, thetime said:

Pep

Ancelotti

Fergie

Jose

Zidane

I'll pre-face this by saying all 5 are very good, but the nerdy sample size person has their own queries.

 

I'd agree with Pep and Ancelotti tbf - both excellent. Fergie is an interesting one - last 10-15 years (so going back to 2009) rules out most of his best work as a sample size, even if a pair of Premier League titles is nothing to be sniffed at. Indeed last week was the anniversary of his last title win and Man Utd in 2012/13 were remarkable.

 

Mourinho has had an exceptional career, but his form since leaving Real Madrid in 2013 has been erratic imo. Still has a decent trophy haul in that time, but I don't think its included his best work either, and he's certainly now in an odd place given Roma have done much better since getting rid.

 

Zidane is an underrated manager imo so he's a great shout for a top ten. Whether I'd place him above Klopp, I don't actually know - La Liga is less competitive than Prem, but equally, you're not a chump if you win 3 Champions League titles. Certainly I feel like we'll get more of a sample when Zidane manages a club not called Real Madrid.

 

But I could just be splitting hairs.

Edited April 28 by charlierc

[thetime]

12 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Fergie is an interesting one - last 10-15 years (so going back to 2009) rules out most of his best work as a sample size, even if a pair of Premier League titles is nothing to be sniffed at. Indeed last week was the anniversary of his last title win and Man Utd in 2012/13 were remarkable.

 

 

 

The last 7 years of fergies reign was perhaps his finest, especially as they were not great teams. 

 

5 league titles, the other 2 seasons finishing 2nd. One of those utd lost on goal difference and the other by 1 point. Also add in 3 Champions league finals and it was in Glazers reign and selling the worlds best player and buying Michael Owen and Valencia to replace him. 

 

Also Chelsea and City getting billionaires and fergie took on the challenge, rather than moaning about the injustice of it all. 

 

Edited April 28 by thetime

[#1SzigetFan]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

Pep

Ancelotti

Fergie

Jose

Zidane

 

Except Mourinho (especially at Porto), none of those proved that they are able to manage a club with limited budgets.

Edited April 28 by #1SzigetFan

[thetime]

13 minutes ago, #1SzigetFan said:

 

Except Mourinho (especially at Porto), none of those proved that they are able to manage a club with limited budgets.

Fergie?

 

Klopp has spent a little bit at liverpool, nearly a billion euros. 

Edited April 28 by thetime

[Crazyfool01]

ive not yet seen anyone explain Anthony Taylors error ? maybe its beyond explanation 

[charlierc]

30 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

ive not yet seen anyone explain Anthony Taylors error ? maybe its beyond explanation 

I'm aware it's been overshadowed by the fact that Klopp and Salah, for whatever reason, felt the need to hold a shouting match a few moments earlier that many seem to feel signifies the very real possibility that both are headed out the door in the summer.

 

But it was a very odd call. A suggestion I've seen made is that the referee was prepared to play advantage for a foul on the goalkeeper but because Areola took too long, it had to be called as a free-kick. But if that's the explanation, it is flimsy and would've been less of a problem to have just given a free-kick in the first place.

[charlierc]

3 hours ago, thetime said:

 

The last 7 years of fergies reign was perhaps his finest, especially as they were not great teams. 

 

5 league titles, the other 2 seasons finishing 2nd. One of those utd lost on goal difference and the other by 1 point. Also add in 3 Champions league finals and it was in Glazers reign and selling the worlds best player and buying Michael Owen and Valencia to replace him. 

 

Also Chelsea and City getting billionaires and fergie took on the challenge, rather than moaning about the injustice of it all. 

 

Well I'm aware about how much the team collapsed when Fergie left and went from being comfortable champions in 2012/13 to not even making the top six the year after, and I don't think you can just count that on Moyes just not being as good, but then again, any manager would've found it difficult to follow up Fergie as MUFC boss.

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Fergie?

 

Klopp has spent a little bit at liverpool, nearly a billion euros. 

They have been better at reclaiming transfer fees than others by the look of it tbf. Though it helps if, for instance, you can get Barcelona to pay an ludicrous fee for Coutinho and immediately use it to buy Alisson and van Dijk.

[charlierc]

On 4/27/2024 at 8:38 AM, Neil said:

How much is it going to hurt spurs to give arsenal the points to win the prem?

Well it's 3-0 to Arsenal at half-time. I can guess they are not impressed.

 

Irony is that Arsenal winning the league might well lead on whether Man City drop points at Tottenham, given that is on paper looking like Man City's trickiest fixture remaining. Unless one of Forest, Wolves, Fulham or West Ham pull off something unexpected that is, although tbf all 4 of those have beaten Arsenal in recent seasons.

[pink_triangle]

Surely winning titles is not just dependent on how your team does. I would have to check, but I think some of Liverpool’s totals under Klopp (when they didn’t win the league) are more than some of Fergie and Wenger (when they did)

[thetime]

15 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Surely winning titles is not just dependent on how your team does. I would have to check, but I think some of Liverpool’s totals under Klopp (when they didn’t win the league) are more than some of Fergie and Wenger (when they did)

 

Extra marks for klopp for not winning the league. 🤣

 

You could argue on the quality of the league also. End of the day klopp has 1 league title at Liverpool in 9 years, which is pretty below average for people to claim he's one of the best ever. 

 

The argument about city doesn't hold up either, last 4 seasons and 1 of those he finishes above 3rd.

Edited April 28 by thetime

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, charlierc said:

Well it's 3-0 to Arsenal at half-time. I can guess they are not impressed.

Well, that would've aged poorly if Arsenal had totally thrown that lead away.

[charlierc]

25 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Surely winning titles is not just dependent on how your team does. I would have to check, but I think some of Liverpool’s totals under Klopp (when they didn’t win the league) are more than some of Fergie and Wenger (when they did)

Liverpool got 97 points in 2018-19 and didn't win the league because Man City literally got just one more point. Literally losing at the Etihad decided the league that campaign. They also got 92 in 2021-22 and again missed out on the title by one point, this time by only drawing both Man City games. So there's a definite sense of Guardiola being their roadblock.

 

Meanwhile, in a 38 game season, Fergie's best points total was 91 and Wenger's was 90. So... there is merit to this argument. But I guess we wouldn't be having these arguments about Klopp if they'd won one of those bare-knuckle fights decided by slender margins.

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

Extra marks for klopp for not winning the league. 🤣

 

You could argue on the quality of the league also. End of the day klopp has 1 league title at Liverpool in 9 years, which is pretty below average for people to claim he's one of the best ever. 

 

The argument about city doesn't hold up either, last 4 seasons and 1 of those he finishes above 3rd.

Surely your not trying to claim the strength of your total challengers doesn’t impact on how likely you are to win the title? If Fergie was against this Man City team he would have won less titles as well. Liverpool have been runner up on 92 and 97 points. Some years Fergie won the title on 80. A lot in sport is about timing.

 

So I would agree that if you are to rank managers you would have to put Fergie above Klopp, I think it can also be argued that the timing meant it was easier for Fergie to win titles than Klopp. That’s why I find it hard to compare managers from different eras.

[thetime]

27 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

 

 

So I would agree that if you are to rank managers you would have to put Fergie above Klopp

 

I would say they don't compare at all, a fairer comparison would be wenger and klopp.