Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
Have you read The Numbers Game?
The chapter on substitutions makes a strong argument for early changes having a greater effect.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Mauricio Pochettino - Sacked
- Thread starter DubaiSpur
- Start date
Have you read The Numbers Game?
The chapter on substitutions makes a strong argument for early changes having a greater effect.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Its ironic that our transfer policy of young and cheap has probably been a larger financial burden than if we wanted to pay more in fees and wages. We can't get rid of the rubbish and if you add up their wages and fees you could have gone out and got a top quality player who even if he flopped has stock enough to be moved on (look at Morata).
Junior19
Øyvind Leonhardsen
I'm not saying it has no effect. The "myth" part of it is that it is the _only_ way to make an impact on the game is to make that substitution, and in fact, if you don't, you will concede a goal within the next 10 minutes. Basically because that was what happened on some earlier versions of that game...
I'm actually an advocate for making changes when neccessary, not when the clock dictates it. If something is not right, you fix it. Even if that means making an early substitute. Also, if things are going well, and the clock shows 59:30, leave it. No need to make the sub just for the sake of it. It might be neccessary at 70, or 75, or maybe not at all. But we do it when it is neccessary. Not before.
Mosquito_Coasting
Jonathan Woodgate
Can't believe the money they are supposedly getting for Morata. From Atletico as well!
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Because he scored goals in Spain and Italy and despite looking pony here he has scored goals.
Shame no one wants VJ
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
If youre going to look at the young/cheap policy you need to do it in totality.
Jansen might have cost us £25m all in all.
Which will be peanuts compared to the £150m+ we make on Alli if he leaves. Or Eriksen.
If it was a net loss game, if it did ultimately burden the club, we wouldnt be doing it.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
But Alli, Kane and Eriksen are still at the club (thankfully) The problem is as we sit today we have a number of players that are on wages and are doing nothing, not contributing and no one wants them. When you add up the cost and their wages you could have a very decent ready made player, thats my point.
Thats why the club has said we need to sell before we buy, add to that the likes of Wanyama on 70k a week and broken.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
If you are going to set an arbritary timeframe on it, you can spin it any way you like.
Fact is, if you take our policy of taking punts on young players with potential, it has been overwhelmingly profitable - in both a sporting and financial way.
Yes, Jansen is a net cost. Yes, we havent yet realised profit on Alli. But, what about all the profit that preceeds us?
Bale, Walker, Modric, Carrick, Keane, Wimmer, Chadli, Lennon... all profitable as memory serves. Some incredibly so.
Same with home growns, Mason, Bentaleb, O'Hara, Caulker, Pritchard...
Jansen is a cost at this time, but that doesnt negate the policy we operate, and I dont think the idea of "we could have got another player" really stacks up.
Fact is, if you take our policy of taking punts on young players with potential, it has been overwhelmingly profitable - in both a sporting and financial way.
Yes, Jansen is a net cost. Yes, we havent yet realised profit on Alli. But, what about all the profit that preceeds us?
Bale, Walker, Modric, Carrick, Keane, Wimmer, Chadli, Lennon... all profitable as memory serves. Some incredibly so.
Same with home growns, Mason, Bentaleb, O'Hara, Caulker, Pritchard...
Jansen is a cost at this time, but that doesnt negate the policy we operate, and I dont think the idea of "we could have got another player" really stacks up.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
I am not trying to spin anyting, you talk like there is an agenda.
I know what you are saying and that has been a faily decent stratagy over the years, some of who you have mentioned we paid for and were not good enough and we shifted and some came to the end of their time frame rather than being sign young - shine and sell.
There is room for both though, there would be nothing wrong with signing a finished article based on the fact the current stratagy is not full proof.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
By honing in on Jansen in isolation you are setting parameters to suit your point - conscious or not - thats spin.
I dont agree that he can be taken in isolation, because he is part of a much bigger policy.
Jansen was a punt in exactly the same way many of our buys are. On balance its fair to say on these buys we are up WAY more than we are down.
We dont have the money to run several strategies at once.
The one we do run is born out of necessity, IMO, not a "yeah this is the one we like the sound of" only to be later dismissed in favour of buying more ready made players.
So I dont really see how you can argue "well if we didnt take a punt on this player, who might not work, and we might not be able to sell, and so might cost us a lot of money - instead of doing that over a 3 year period we could just invest all that money now in someone we know is good!"
I think our approach is adapting, if you look at Moura, Sanchez, Aurier, Son... These are still punts to a fair degree, but more expensive, more "sure thing" type punts. An evolution of what we were doing anyway.
The last ready made, and expensive, player we bought was Sissoko, and he hardly supports your point.
Or Llorente, not expensive but ready made (and at the time a smart move I thought).
imcallingbullsh*t
Steven Caulker
The finished article though is far higher risk and where we obviously have to be clever and punch above our weight in the transfer market, is more likely to cause issues rather than success
Good scouting and taking advantage of situations is where our opportunity lies, in the last 3 years there have been waaaay more high profile failures than successes
Morata, Lukaku, O.Dembele, Jorginho (poss), Keita, Coutinho, Higuain to name a few
We need to be looking for the next Son, who was well rated but not a name, rather than chasing a Zaha who if they fail could cause massive issues.
Good scouting and taking advantage of situations is where our opportunity lies, in the last 3 years there have been waaaay more high profile failures than successes
Morata, Lukaku, O.Dembele, Jorginho (poss), Keita, Coutinho, Higuain to name a few
We need to be looking for the next Son, who was well rated but not a name, rather than chasing a Zaha who if they fail could cause massive issues.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Ey? He was an example not isolation and Spin? Jesus this isnt the commons and I dont have an agenda to drive so why would I spin it? Stone me saying there are ways for us to operate on both sides of the coin because the way we go now is not a full gone success (N'jie, Nkoudou, Llorente..etc etc etc) is hardly spin.
Wowzers
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Anything is a risk though, you could have 3/4 players who are percieved to be a lower risk based on lower wages and fees but collectively the cost his high and they clog up your system and your quota unless they progress which some unfortunately don't. There is nothing to stop the two working in tandem in my opinion.
Theres a difference too between prospects, established and world class, there is a middle ground like when we signed Berbatov, played in the CL final and was 150+ games into Germany. Eriksen was linked with Arsenal for years before joining us, one of Ajax hottest prospect, thats naming two from where I am coming from. I'm not asking for Messi.
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Top post. Also I'd argue we have already realised a huge profit on the likes Dele and all those we got for peanuts. Even if they were to end up going on a free, their value to the club has been immense.
imcallingbullsh*t
Steven Caulker
Yeah fair enough, but we are doing both, its just the middle ground players havent come off recently
Aurier, Janssen, Soldado, Llorente (bit different)
Foyth, Dele, Winks, Skipp (bit different) have
Issue i think we will always have is that we are a mid-table team in european terms. So the prospects are going to aim higher than us, and we are aiming higher than those who are aiming for us. Its the age old argument but its why we have to wait until 31st of the month to make a move as we are trying to see if the prospects will give up on the top table and come to us.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
While I agree this is the reality, I think when you follow it through it also shows just how small a pool of players we have to target.
And, really, why we are clearly struggling to get deals done.
I think youve taken this in a very odd way. Maybe Ive used a term thats a bit of a trigger for you, I dont know - but its not my intent. Apologies if so.
You posted this:
Its ironic that our transfer policy of young and cheap has probably been a larger financial burden than if we wanted to pay more in fees and wages. We can't get rid of the rubbish and if you add up their wages and fees you could have gone out and got a top quality player who even if he flopped has stock enough to be moved on (look at Morata).
To which my response was that that very same policy on the whole has been really profitable for us, so I think you are wrong, with examples.
Simply trying to flesh out the wins vs loses.
Your reply:
The problem is as we sit today we have a number of players that are on wages and are doing nothing, not contributing and no one wants them. When you add up the cost and their wages you could have a very decent ready made player, thats my point.
Says to me you are looking at one failed buy, in reality costing money over a number of years, as an example of what we should have done. Which would be to spend significantly on a guaranteed "win" (no such thing).
I read it as you are working a specific small example to negate the policy, hence my saying it seems like spin.
Ive then expanded on how I think the policy has evolved/is evolving too, which is more of the same but at a higher level/price.
Im not sure what is so objectionable there.
the biggest deals we have done are missing here - £11.5m for Eriksen was and still is insanely cheap, Trippier @ £3.5m (I know he's off the boil atm but he's played for two years straight - some can't do that) Verts and Toby were about 12m each as well and represent amazing value for money.
MKSpur
Christian Ziege
Which ones?
It’s in euros which might show discrepancies.
Can’t believe you forgot Alli we have a song about his fee!!
Dier was about 4m I think. Dembele 15, victor 11