Football 16-17

[CRW5252]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

Unless you win the league every season of course! Maybe I'm wrong but I get the impression fans of the likes of Stoke, wba and palace would quite happily finish mid table forever.

Their situation is very different though because they have all progressed in the last 10 years. As I mentioned before we have gone from one of the best clubs in the world to not even in the top 20. Seeing your club regress is always going to cause frustration. 

[mjsell]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

A relegation scrap is far more exciting than mid table mediocrity

Exactly. My West Ham supporting mum's favourite season since I've been alive/aware of football (mid to late 90s, sue me) is the year they finished 15th with Tevez (2007). Had it all that season, Icelandic takeover (that went well), illegal transfers, record fines, sacking of Pards, some terrible performances, but 7 wins from the last 9 (according to wiki, my memory is not that good). She loved it in the end. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

Their scouts picked him out and saw potential in him. By your logic, Wenger was lucky that Henry, Viera, Pires etc... ended up being so good. (I don't think this is the case but just showing you that what you are saying is ridiculous)

Their scouts also picked out others who didn't amount to shit.  Why does the one success prove skill by the club but the many more failures don't show lack of skill?

And if the lack of skill is 100+ times greater - which it is - why does the one success count for everything and the hundreds of failures count for nothing?

A smart man would recognise that they're playing a numbers game to maximise their luck, and that's all - because via high numbers they'll find some good ones.

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

Their situation is very different though because they have all progressed in the last 10 years. As I mentioned before we have gone from one of the best clubs in the world to not even in the top 20. Seeing your club regress is always going to cause frustration. 

They may have progressed in the last 10, but it's hard to see a route for progression in the next 10. Using your logic they would eventually get bored. I used to think the same, but now believe that to some fans being in the premiership is the be all and end all, therefore would be happy finishing 10-12 every season.

Arsenals league positions have gone down as their position in the premiership wage budget table has gone down. If it wasn't for wealthy owners willing to throw money at City and Chelsea they would still be competing for league titles. The arrival on the scene of these billionaires has cost Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd championships. Whether that's a good or bad thing is debatable. To me the period of man u and arsenal trading titles was not the most interesting.

[zahidf]

De gea dropped by Jose

http://www.football365.com/news/united-boss-mourinho-dropped-de-gea-following-bust-up-reports

[ThomThomDrum]

9 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

 Seeing your club regress is always going to cause frustration. 

Arsenal have not regressed but in the last 10 years, have they? They have been stagnantly consistent, constantly shooting par seasons.

To tilt the field in their favour they first and foremost need to spend more and hope they are lucky in the buys they get in, like they were with the buys they got in prior to all those PL winning years in the late 90s early 00s. Is Wenger the man to do that? I dont know, but if its not him whoever it is will need more money and more luck!  

 

[big__phil]

I know what you are saying about the biggest resources ultimately being the ones who win the title, but that's not always the case. In recent years you've seen Leicester, Montpellier and Athletico Madrid win titles without having the biggest wages. It can be done.

But that's not the point - not winning titles isn't the big issue here - it's far worse than that. This is the worst league run in Arsene's history at the club, the first time we've conceeded 3 goals away from home for 4 games on the trot since the 1920's, and we're not being out-maneuvered by teams who are put together at a fraction of the price, by players who couldn't cut it at top level teams (teams who used to be our rivals).

What other top club wouldn't sack their manager after this sort of run? I can't think of a single example. We've only 4 points out of the last 24 available. Since mid Jan we've lost 3-1, 5-1, 3-1, 5-1, 3-1 and 3-0. The slide is alarming, and shows no sign of improving.

Edited April 13, 2017 by big__phil

[ThomThomDrum]

It would be interesting to hear what an Everton fan thinks of all this. They have bounced around 10th to 5th for the last 10+ years. Are they bored football fans?

[big__phil]

4 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

It would be interesting to hear what an Everton fan thinks of all this. They have bounced around 10th to 5th for the last 10+ years. Are they bored football fans?

Everton sacked their last manager after an awful run of results, and haven't looked back since.

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, big__phil said:

I know what you are saying about the biggest resources ultimately being the ones who win the title, but that's not always the case. In recent years you've seen Leicester, Montpellier and Athletico Madrid win titles without having the biggest wages. It can be done.

But that's not the point - not winning titles isn't the big issue here - it's far worse than that. This is the worst league run in Arsene's history at the club, the first time we've conceeded 3 goals away from home for 4 games on the trot since the 1920's, and we're not being out-maneuvered by teams who are put together at a fraction of the price, by players who couldn't cut it at top level 

What other top club wouldn't sack their manager after this sort of run? I can't think of a single example. We've only 4 points out of the last 24 available. Since mid Jan we've lost 3-1, 5-1, 3-1, 5-1, 3-1 and 3-0. The slide is alarming, and shows no sign of improving.

Leicester doesn't really prove it can be done. It more likely proves that anomalies can happen.

Arsenal are undoubtedly having a poor season. However if a manager stays long enough you would expect predominantly par seasons, with some better and some worse.

Does having a poor season automatically mean there are troubles in a club, or is it just the natural variation that you would expect.I have no doubt it's possible to follow poor seasons with good ones, it's just you rarely get the chance to find out in modern football. Nobody will convince me that the one bad season and your out approach benefits clubs in the long term. Wrexham have had 5 managers in about 7 years. They would probably be in the same position if they had kept the first.

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, big__phil said:

Everton sacked their last manager after an awful run of results, and haven't looked back since.

I'm not sure I would classify Everton as a great success story, I suspect their finish will be in line with budget.

[lost]

12 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

It would be interesting to hear what an Everton fan thinks of all this. They have bounced around 10th to 5th for the last 10+ years. Are they bored football fans?

I wouldn't say bored but the gap does seem to be even harder to bridge recently. I'd go with PT's explanation. We punched above our weight under Moyes with regards to money spent. Before Moyes came in there was a real danger of becoming a Sheffield Wednesday or Coventry City.

Now we may have money but the problem is everyone else has. You've players like Shaqiri at Stoke and Gabbiadini at Southampton which would of been unthinkable even 5 years ago. Mid-table teams in the premiership can now complete against the inter milans and valencia's for players. Hell we've got one of our reserves loaned out to AC Milan and he's looked their best player in a number of matches.

Being a traditionally "big" club doesn't seem to have the advantages it used to in the age of oligarchs.

[big__phil]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Does having a poor season automatically mean there are troubles in a club.

There are troubles at the club, this cannot be denied. We have an owner who doesn't bother to show up, takes money out the club and has said he wouldn't be in it if he wanted to win trophies. And as I said yesterday, we also have problems with our youth teams, coaching and scouting.

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Nobody will convince me that the one bad season and your out approach benefits clubs in the long term.

Chelsea sacking José and winning the league the following year with the same players? Leicester sacking Ranieri and flying back up the league? Palace, Hull and Swansea sacking their managers and seeing an upturn in results? Where as Boro (who eventually did go for change) and Sunderland stayed with their same manager and will both be playing Championship football next year.

I agree that it's not always the answer to sack the manager, but in some cases it can certainly help. Even Klopp, who we all know is a fantastic manager and did great things at Dortmund, knew when it was time to leave.

[pink_triangle]

17 minutes ago, big__phil said:

 

Chelsea sacking José and winning the league the following year with the same players? Leicester sacking Ranieri and flying back up the league? Palace, Hull and Swansea sacking their managers and seeing an upturn in results? Where as Boro (who eventually did go for change) and Sunderland stayed with their same manager and will both be playing Championship football next year.

I

I think the ones where it works are more memorable than the ones where it doesn't, although it's difficult to prove that the improvement couldn't happen without the change. I have no doubt it's possibly for a manager to follow a poor season with a very good one, just as very good can be followed by poor.

My view is if you could create a parallel universe where nobody was allowed to change their manager and made comparisons with the current model 10 years later. The make up and relative positions of both leagues would look pretty similar and generally in line with financial power.

[mjsell]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think the ones where it works are more memorable than the ones where it doesn't, although it's difficult to prove that the improvement couldn't happen without the change. I have no doubt it's possibly for a manager to follow a poor season with a very good one, just as very good can be followed by poor.

My view is if you could create a parallel universe where nobody was allowed to change their manager and made comparisons with the current model 10 years later. The make up and relative positions of both leagues would look pretty similar and generally in line with financial power.

Imagine if your parrallel universe came into being when City had Stuart Pearce as manager. I refuse to beleive he would achieve the the average you talk about.

Edited April 13, 2017 by mjsell

[pink_triangle]

26 minutes ago, big__phil said:

There are troubles at the club, this cannot be denied. We have an owner who doesn't bother to show up, takes money out the club and has said he wouldn't be in it if he wanted to win trophies. And as I said yesterday, we also have problems with our youth teams, coaching and scouting.

 

Yet with all those problems Arsenal continue to finish on par with their budget. They probably won't this season, but one below par season is not evidence of regression.

I have no doubt the biggest factor in Arsenals regression is the owner not spending as much as the owners of city and Chelsea. 

[mjsell]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Yet with all those problems Arsenal continue to finish on par with their budget. They probably won't this season, but one below par season is not evidence of regression.

I have no doubt the biggest factor in Arsenals regression is the owner not spending as much as the owners of city and Chelsea. 

You literally contradict yourself in the space of two paragraphs. Are Arsenal regressing or not?

[pink_triangle]

33 minutes ago, mjsell said:

You literally contradict yourself in the space of two paragraphs. Are Arsenal regressing or not?

Regression in absolute terms yes, regression in relation to budget ( the number one factor in success) no.

[mjsell]

51 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

one below par season is not evidence of regression.

13 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Regression in absolute terms yes

So what are you basing this regression in absolute terms on?

I think people are using this 4th biggest budget to skirt the fact that Wenger is no longer the manager he once was, football changes at a rapid rate and he has become too stubborn to keep pace with it.

He has still only built 1 good defence in his twenty years at the club.

Edited April 13, 2017 by mjsell

[pink_triangle]

43 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Imagine if your parrallel universe came into being when City had Stuart Pearce as manager. I refuse to beleive he would achieve the the average you talk about.

No doubt there would be some variation, but I said in general it would be pretty similar. My view is that the manager has an effect, but it is significantly overestimated by fans. A great manager with a poor budget will generally always lose to a poor manager with a great budget.

[thetime]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

No doubt there would be some variation, but I said in general it would be pretty similar. My view is that the manager has an effect, but it is significantly overestimated by fans. A great manager with a poor budget will generally always lose to a poor manager with a great budget.

Utd fans might disagree with you hear pink.

[TheGayTent]

Surely the important issue you're all missing....

 

....is how w*nky the whole Tottenham handshakes after scoring/winning is? 

[pink_triangle]

18 minutes ago, mjsell said:

So what are you basing this regression in absolute terms on?

I think people are using this 4th biggest budget to skirt the fact that Wenger is no longer the manager he once was, football changes at a rapid rate and he has become too stubborn to keep pace with it.

He has still only built 1 good defence in his twenty years at the club.

I'm basing the absolute regression on the fact that Arsenal have gone from a club finishing 1st or 2nd to a club finishing 3rd or 4th. I believe the main factor for this is 2 clubs outspending them, rather than something Arsenal have done. I believe if City and Chelsea hadn't had huge cash injections they would have challenged and won titles.

[pink_triangle]

21 minutes ago, mjsell said:

, football changes at a rapid rate and he has become too stubborn to keep pace

Yet with all the changes he has still maintained finishes in relation to spending.

[CRW5252]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Their scouts also picked out others who didn't amount to shit.  Why does the one success prove skill by the club but the many more failures don't show lack of skill?

And if the lack of skill is 100+ times greater - which it is - why does the one success count for everything and the hundreds of failures count for nothing?

A smart man would recognise that they're playing a numbers game to maximise their luck, and that's all - because via high numbers they'll find some good ones.

 

1 hour ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Arsenal have not regressed but in the last 10 years, have they? They have been stagnantly consistent, constantly shooting par seasons.

To tilt the field in their favour they first and foremost need to spend more and hope they are lucky in the buys they get in, like they were with the buys they got in prior to all those PL winning years in the late 90s early 00s. Is Wenger the man to do that? I dont know, but if its not him whoever it is will need more money and more luck!  

 

Tottenham have consistently picked out top players in the last few years so there is clearly more to it than luck. I'm baffled that some of you think like that. Is it pure luck that Barcelona always get top players through their youth acedemy? Of fucking course not. 

Going for one of the best clubs in the world to not even in the top 20 is regression.