Author Topic: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy  (Read 78060 times)

Online Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,475
  • JFT 97
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #680 on: February 24, 2012, 01:49:14 pm »
I'm a bit confused about the 24 players vs 25 debate.
i see the point that you should be able to afford 25, but still.  Money is finite, even for City, and I'd far rather have 24 players of a higher quality than 25 of a lower one.
In fact, I'd much rather have 22 of higher quality, and if you're ever down to picking #23 just cycle one of the reserves or youth team in.
I think one of Benitez's downfalls was his aim to have as large a squad as possible, and he'd have been far better served just caring about the first 18.
Right now, I think if you numbered the players in order of importance, we've got lots that would be in the double figures, and not enough worth of being in the 1-9.

It wasn't Benitez who wanted a big squad we ended up with a big squad because when Benitez gave Parry a list with seven names on it instead of Parry bringing in the two at the top of the list he brought in the five at the bottom. When Benitez finally wrestled control of transfers away from Parry we offloaded 15 players and only brought in 6, 3 of which we actually paid a fee for.

I think you are spot about quality being more important than quantity, a squad of 22 and using the reserves and youth team as back up would be pretty ideal for me.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Haemoglobin

  • The Phantom Drive-By Dunker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,513
  • Nunca Caminarás Solo
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #681 on: February 24, 2012, 01:54:24 pm »
I'm just not smart enough to understand most of what is being said in here.  But please don't stop.  It's pretty interesting.
Nothing posted in here recently should really be beyond most people's comprehension, I think it's just probably that the same points being repeated ad nauseum have simply led you to believe that you are perhaps failing to understand something important.

I'm a bit confused about the 24 players vs 25 debate.
i see the point that you should be able to afford 25, but still.  Money is finite, even for City, and I'd far rather have 24 players of a higher quality than 25 of a lower one.
In fact, I'd much rather have 22 of higher quality, and if you're ever down to picking #23 just cycle one of the reserves or youth team in.
I think one of Benitez's downfalls was his aim to have as large a squad as possible, and he'd have been far better served just caring about the first 18.
Right now, I think if you numbered the players in order of importance, we've got lots that would be in the double figures, and not enough worth of being in the 1-9.
Nothing to be confused about mate, you've got it right.

You can fairly say that the owners' primary role is to write the cheques, and if teams are allowed a squad of 25 senior players plus as many under-21s as you like, then they should simply finance the full 25 senior players to make up the squad. But among other factors we have promising youngsters coming through, so our owners will realise that it's pretty pointless filling all senior squad places for the sake of it, if in a season or so's time (or even less) those young guns'll potentially be knocking on the door of the first team and find themselves further from a shot in the side than was ever necessary in a league season. We don't really work like that, nor should we.
"under-promise and over-deliver"

Offline DanA

  • misses the Eurovision Glory Days.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,127
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #682 on: February 24, 2012, 02:55:26 pm »
Abrak's argument is that if all else remains constant then 25 is better then 24 which is absolutely true. It's completely irrelevant in application to Liverpool fc but you can't argue the fact that Abrak is correct in his statement. The bit I find annoying and the reason I gave up on it was because he clings to this like it has meaning, it doesn't. I didn't wish to argue that 25 is better than 24 or anything pertaining to that statement. I wish to argue that the most efficient use of capital when building a team capable of winning the league is with far less than 25 senior listed players and therefore the HG rule isn't all that relevant.
 
Quote from: hinesy
He hadn't played as if he was on fire, more the slight breeze cutting across New Brighton on a summer's day than El Nino, the force of nature.

Offline Gnurglan

  • The Swedish Savaloy
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,517
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #683 on: February 24, 2012, 03:06:15 pm »
On our strategy, I don't like it and it's not just because i don't trust it.
We needed instant quality otherwise the gravy train pulls out of the station.
We're now fighting for one place out of 4, when we should have been right in the mix, and more quality now would have improved our chances of that.
Henderson is a nice tidy player, but who very rarely influences a result.
For £16m I'd have rather have had an effective midfielder for now and the next 5 years, than one that will be effective in a year or so, and then remain effective for more like the next 8 years.
We had nowhere near a good enough squad to be planning instantly for the future.  Fix the here and now and then start planning for the future -  because years out of the top 4 will kill us.

Agree with that.

Management is about both the here and now AND the future. We don't have the luxuary of thinking about the future only. No team does.

I'll admit I don't understand the logic behind our spendings. IMO we have bought players for 100M+ (I know it's not net) and we have two first picks. The rest of the cash has been used for bench players. In short we have overspent and we believe our players will, with time, reach their potential. Then they'll be worth as much or more than we paid. To me, that doesn't make sense. It's simply risk taking.

What we needed was solid performers. Certainly when our plan was to reduce playing time for previously solid performers. Henderson is a good example. He's a good player, but he's not one to be a game changer for us now. We bet on him coming good. He might, but we can't really expect to rely on him at this stage. So for the here and now, the money could definitely have been better spent. We need to look to the future with him. And we can continue like that with each player. Find an excuse or a valid reason. Now take a step back - we still need quite a few players to do the business here and now for us. This is the problem. Who do we expect to deliver here and now?

Not Henderson, not Carroll, not Coates and Downing hasn't been able to. We have decided to reduce the roles for Maxi and Kuyt, while Gerrard and Suarez have both been out for a while. So who is left? At the end of it - there are way too many players who don't provide enough.

        * * * * * *


"The key isn't the system itself, but how the players adapt on the pitch. It doesn't matter if it's 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's the role of the players that counts." Rafa Benitez

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #684 on: February 24, 2012, 05:17:06 pm »
That the thing, Barcalona are owned by the fans but are heaped with lots of debt..... how does that work, did the fans decide to heap debt on the club?

Serious question...

TYes and no.

The barca model as I understand it allows for the fans to elect a president and the president to present a business plan as part of his election campaign about how they want to go about their future business. However once elected the strategy and decision making appears to rest almost entirely with the president. There may be specific when he has to refer back for a mandate but I'm not sure.

The recent proposal for LFC fan ownership was a more democratic governance process.

The Bayern model is different again with a minimum 51% fan ownership having representation on the board along with an impressive selection of sponsors and key stakeholders who also happen to represent many of the leading firms in german industry.  It appears a far more cooperative and sensible approach but ultimately somebody makes the decisions I dont think fan ownershp is carte blanche to kneejerk and overspend.


The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #685 on: February 24, 2012, 05:32:01 pm »
Abrak's argument is that if all else remains constant then 25 is better then 24 which is absolutely true. It's completely irrelevant in application to Liverpool fc but you can't argue the fact that Abrak is correct in his statement. The bit I find annoying and the reason I gave up on it was because he clings to this like it has meaning, it doesn't. I didn't wish to argue that 25 is better than 24 or anything pertaining to that statement. I wish to argue that the most efficient use of capital when building a team capable of winning the league is with far less than 25 senior listed players and therefore the HG rule isn't all that relevant.
 

25 is bigger than 24 it does not mean its more effective. More players can bring in more problems - disagreements, players unhappy on the bench , disruptive. Its the difference between real world and numbers. I thought Mourinho said he wanted 23 when he was at Chelseas just to throw in another number for exactly those man management type of reasons.

He also intimated that you'd need a core of 17/18 and then squad players that were either growing into or out of the team because again that allows you to manage them appropriately.
22 players all demanding first team football, all of a similar quality is only ideal on paper - not forgetting murphy's law that all your injuries and suspensions come in one position never spread across the team.

As opposed to the respected posts above I can see exactly why we bought who we bought and why and with due respect although the players were not my choices I think its simply a case of underperforming - win our home games as we should have (on our actual performances not expectationr) and we'd be exactly were most people would have expected us to be around Spurs.

Some of our buys have not performed to expectation but in my mind at least we have 11 first picks and 12 or 13 squad players. We need to upgrade some of those players clearly but from a strategic perspective I think we are where I'd have expected us to be just 10 points short becuse we have not got the points are performances have deserved and no before somebody chimes in other clubs can't say the same infact United and Newcastle should be worse off than they are.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #686 on: February 24, 2012, 06:46:25 pm »
25 is bigger than 24 it does not mean its more effective. More players can bring in more problems - disagreements, players unhappy on the bench , disruptive. Its the difference between real world and numbers. I thought Mourinho said he wanted 23 when he was at Chelseas just to throw in another number for exactly those man management type of reasons.

I'd agree with that. It could be that for a certain club, a certain manager a certain squad, that it would make sense to have 25 players over 21 on the books. I just don't accept that it is automatically true of all clubs simply because there is a rule that says that is the maximum.

For similar reasons, it may be better to have less than 8 homegrown players if that means you can bring in a non homegrown player of greater quality.

Quote
He also intimated that you'd need a core of 17/18 and then squad players that were either growing into or out of the team because again that allows you to manage them appropriately.
22 players all demanding first team football, all of a similar quality is only ideal on paper - not forgetting murphy's law that all your injuries and suspensions come in one position never spread across the team.

As opposed to the respected posts above I can see exactly why we bought who we bought and why and with due respect although the players were not my choices I think its simply a case of underperforming - win our home games as we should have (on our actual performances not expectationr) and we'd be exactly were most people would have expected us to be around Spurs.

Some of our buys have not performed to expectation but in my mind at least we have 11 first picks and 12 or 13 squad players. We need to upgrade some of those players clearly but from a strategic perspective I think we are where I'd have expected us to be just 10 points short becuse we have not got the points are performances have deserved and no before somebody chimes in other clubs can't say the same infact United and Newcastle should be worse off than they are.

I'd agree. Overall, I still think we did pretty good business last summer. What we overpaid on Downing, we made back on Enrique and Bellamy, £26M for those 3 is not a bad bit of business at all. Some of the players haven't gelled as quickly as we would have liked, Carroll has taken longer to settle, but is showing now what we were all hoping for when we bought him. Downing's poor form is a bit of a mystery. These things happen, any time you buy a player there is a chance it won't work out. Our problem was buying so many at once. From now on the team should be more settled, we should only need to bring in two or three players each year and the improvements can be swift and dramatic.

It means the hard work is yet to come, but the right people are in place to do that work. People have said our squad isn't as good value as Spurs'. The funny thing is the man who signed most of those players at Spurs is now working for LFC!

As for "moneyball" - it really means nothing here. The basic principles of buying good players as young as you can and selling players when they've peaked is as old as the game itself. The idea of "undervalued metrics" is kind of meaningless in football - a global game where different territories expect different styles of play and different skill-sets from players.

The main difference we should expect from FSG is that money will be put into buying and paying players, not into meeting the interest payments of the owners.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline megabomberman

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • YNWA to all who wear the red.
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #687 on: February 24, 2012, 07:30:36 pm »
Have to laugh when I hear that we went out and spent £100m + on bench players...

Other than Coates who are these new signings that are wasting away on our bench?

Kenny obviously had a large hand in signing these players and it is him who decides to play them frequently instead of Maxi and Kuyt* (Kuyt plays in most games btw)

so why is it that some assume that it is John Henry who has decided to bring about this philosophy?

And as for the signing of Andy Caroll, does anyone else not remember a young English lad who had scored a grand total of 9 league goals in his previous season with Everton signing for United when he was a young lad for an absolute fortune at the time, bit of a risk you would think eventhough the lad was only 18, turned out terrible too.

As for Jordan, he could easily be the next Lampard, reminds me of him and all.

Offline DanA

  • misses the Eurovision Glory Days.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,127
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #688 on: February 24, 2012, 10:00:46 pm »
25 is bigger than 24 it does not mean its more effective. More players can bring in more problems - disagreements, players unhappy on the bench , disruptive. Its the difference between real world and numbers. I thought Mourinho said he wanted 23 when he was at Chelseas just to throw in another number for exactly those man management type of reasons.

He also intimated that you'd need a core of 17/18 and then squad players that were either growing into or out of the team because again that allows you to manage them appropriately.
22 players all demanding first team football, all of a similar quality is only ideal on paper - not forgetting murphy's law that all your injuries and suspensions come in one position never spread across the team.

As opposed to the respected posts above I can see exactly why we bought who we bought and why and with due respect although the players were not my choices I think its simply a case of underperforming - win our home games as we should have (on our actual performances not expectationr) and we'd be exactly were most people would have expected us to be around Spurs.

Some of our buys have not performed to expectation but in my mind at least we have 11 first picks and 12 or 13 squad players. We need to upgrade some of those players clearly but from a strategic perspective I think we are where I'd have expected us to be just 10 points short becuse we have not got the points are performances have deserved and no before somebody chimes in other clubs can't say the same infact United and Newcastle should be worse off than they are.

You are making my argument from a few pages ago. Clearly I stated that "if all else is constant" was a requirement for Abrak's statement to be true so if players are not happy or disruptive then all else is not remaining constant. As I said it's irrelevant in the real world because the idea that all else remains constant is ludicrously unrealistic.
Quote from: hinesy
He hadn't played as if he was on fire, more the slight breeze cutting across New Brighton on a summer's day than El Nino, the force of nature.

Offline Gnurglan

  • The Swedish Savaloy
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,517
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #689 on: February 24, 2012, 10:29:15 pm »
Have to laugh when I hear that we went out and spent £100m + on bench players...

Other than Coates who are these new signings that are wasting away on our bench?

Kenny obviously had a large hand in signing these players and it is him who decides to play them frequently instead of Maxi and Kuyt* (Kuyt plays in most games btw)

so why is it that some assume that it is John Henry who has decided to bring about this philosophy?

And as for the signing of Andy Caroll, does anyone else not remember a young English lad who had scored a grand total of 9 league goals in his previous season with Everton signing for United when he was a young lad for an absolute fortune at the time, bit of a risk you would think eventhough the lad was only 18, turned out terrible too.

As for Jordan, he could easily be the next Lampard, reminds me of him and all.

Nothing wrong with being positive. But how realistic? Carroll vs Rooney? Henderson vs Lampard? This is what we hope for, but they are not even close yet. I fear we need to see that greatness in them to justify our buys.

Let's look at our situation. We have scored 29 goals in 25 games. Last season Maxi, Kuyt and Torres, playing for half a season, got more than that for us. Improvement? We have deliberately decided to play Downing over Maxi. SD's contribution is similar to Jova's and Cole's, nothing more. Maxi's is better, even this season. Kuyt's role has also decreased. Replaced with what improvement? What has Henderson really done that Spearing couldn't have done? With Lucas out, it can be argued that Spearing has the more important role of the two. Is Adam such an improvement on Meireles? None of Suarez and Carroll have reached Torres goalscoring level from last season. His half season, under a really bad period. Those two are our record buys. Certainly key players. Contribution? As a team, we are in a similar league position to last year. Everything points to us being less of an attacking threat and this is where we have spent the most. We have not climbed up the table, despite having that dreadful start last year. to be honest, it is very hard to measure the progress.

Take just a slightly harsher look at things, forget all that great promise for the future (that we take for granted) for a minute and review where we are now. None of Downing, Coates, Henderson and Carroll have taken up a leading role. They have played, but not been leaders. Of those attacking players, none has a record good enough for a starter at a top four club. Adam? He's not even safe to be in the team with Gerrard back and even less so with Lucas fit. Improvement?

Are they the players to lead us up the table? If so, they need to show a whole lot more than they have so far. If they are not, what does that make them? Players we need to improve on. Backups. Bench options.

We really could do with our Rooney and our Lampard.

        * * * * * *


"The key isn't the system itself, but how the players adapt on the pitch. It doesn't matter if it's 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's the role of the players that counts." Rafa Benitez

Offline TSC

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,312
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #690 on: February 24, 2012, 11:20:14 pm »
Nothing wrong with being positive. But how realistic? Carroll vs Rooney? Henderson vs Lampard? This is what we hope for, but they are not even close yet. I fear we need to see that greatness in them to justify our buys.

Let's look at our situation. We have scored 29 goals in 25 games. Last season Maxi, Kuyt and Torres, playing for half a season, got more than that for us. Improvement? We have deliberately decided to play Downing over Maxi. SD's contribution is similar to Jova's and Cole's, nothing more. Maxi's is better, even this season. Kuyt's role has also decreased. Replaced with what improvement? What has Henderson really done that Spearing couldn't have done? With Lucas out, it can be argued that Spearing has the more important role of the two. Is Adam such an improvement on Meireles? None of Suarez and Carroll have reached Torres goalscoring level from last season. His half season, under a really bad period. Those two are our record buys. Certainly key players. Contribution? As a team, we are in a similar league position to last year. Everything points to us being less of an attacking threat and this is where we have spent the most. We have not climbed up the table, despite having that dreadful start last year. to be honest, it is very hard to measure the progress.

Take just a slightly harsher look at things, forget all that great promise for the future (that we take for granted) for a minute and review where we are now. None of Downing, Coates, Henderson and Carroll have taken up a leading role. They have played, but not been leaders. Of those attacking players, none has a record good enough for a starter at a top four club. Adam? He's not even safe to be in the team with Gerrard back and even less so with Lucas fit. Improvement?

Are they the players to lead us up the table? If so, they need to show a whole lot more than they have so far. If they are not, what does that make them? Players we need to improve on. Backups. Bench options.

We really could do with our Rooney and our Lampard.

And yet we're in a cup final, with potentially another one to come.  Not to mention that CL isn't exactly a world away either given Arsenal and Chelsea form.  We're fucked I tell ya

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #691 on: February 25, 2012, 12:04:22 am »
TYes and no.

The barca model as I understand it allows for the fans to elect a president and the president to present a business plan as part of his election campaign about how they want to go about their future business. However once elected the strategy and decision making appears to rest almost entirely with the president. There may be specific when he has to refer back for a mandate but I'm not sure.

The recent proposal for LFC fan ownership was a more democratic governance process.

The Bayern model is different again with a minimum 51% fan ownership having representation on the board along with an impressive selection of sponsors and key stakeholders who also happen to represent many of the leading firms in german industry.  It appears a far more cooperative and sensible approach but ultimately somebody makes the decisions I dont think fan ownershp is carte blanche to kneejerk and overspend.
You are spot on Vulmea. The Bayern Munich model is excellent. They dont have the huge broadcasting revenues in Germany and matchday ticket prices are half of what they are in England. The key is commercial income. Bayern's commercial income is over double Liverpool's and 40% higher than Manchester United. And altogether Bayern's revenues are now almost equal to ManU's without the sort of broadcast income they have or charging the massive ticket prices. And the question is why are ticket prices half the price in Germany and why can Bayern earn double the commercial income of Liverpool? Because there is a reason. And if you do not know it that is part of the reason.

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #692 on: February 25, 2012, 12:40:50 am »
Nothing wrong with being positive. But how realistic? Carroll vs Rooney? Henderson vs Lampard? This is what we hope for, but they are not even close yet. I fear we need to see that greatness in them to justify our buys.

Let's look at our situation. We have scored 29 goals in 25 games. Last season Maxi, Kuyt and Torres, playing for half a season, got more than that for us. Improvement? We have deliberately decided to play Downing over Maxi. SD's contribution is similar to Jova's and Cole's, nothing more. Maxi's is better, even this season. Kuyt's role has also decreased. Replaced with what improvement? What has Henderson really done that Spearing couldn't have done? With Lucas out, it can be argued that Spearing has the more important role of the two. Is Adam such an improvement on Meireles? None of Suarez and Carroll have reached Torres goalscoring level from last season. His half season, under a really bad period. Those two are our record buys. Certainly key players. Contribution? As a team, we are in a similar league position to last year. Everything points to us being less of an attacking threat and this is where we have spent the most. We have not climbed up the table, despite having that dreadful start last year. to be honest, it is very hard to measure the progress.

Take just a slightly harsher look at things, forget all that great promise for the future (that we take for granted) for a minute and review where we are now. None of Downing, Coates, Henderson and Carroll have taken up a leading role. They have played, but not been leaders. Of those attacking players, none has a record good enough for a starter at a top four club. Adam? He's not even safe to be in the team with Gerrard back and even less so with Lucas fit. Improvement?

Are they the players to lead us up the table? If so, they need to show a whole lot more than they have so far. If they are not, what does that make them? Players we need to improve on. Backups. Bench options.

We really could do with our Rooney and our Lampard.

maybe a handful of games where we've played poorly. a lot more were we've created but not finished and some were we've played well and won - we are certainly in a better place than we were

we have a superb defence - thats a nailed on back 5 with Carra, Kelly  and Aurelio able to step in without any qualms and Coates, Flanagan, Robinson as further cover - its an almost ideal squad defensively.

In midfield - nailed on starters Lucas and Gerrard ... with Adam, Henderson, Spearing, Shelvey  all as cover - 3 of them young and improving with plenty of potential , one with the wit to control the game - maybe not such a perfect blend as the defence but not to be sniffed at.

Up front - 2 nailed on starters - Suarez and Bellamy - with Carroll in the mix offering a different dimension and with possibly more potential than any of the others. For me we are missing a player here though especially with none of the youngsters banging on the door although its easy to forget just how young Carroll is - Kuyt is ok as a 4th option and Gerrard is a great option off the striker but for me we are one short.

out wide is basically the only place were we dont really have any nailed on certainties - personally I'd put Kuyt in that category but appreciate others don't -  Downing, Rodriguez neither commands a place for me - again with the youngsters not showing they are ready this area of the team probably needs the most work especially given the ages of Maxi and Dirk.

- thats 9 first teamers ( 3 bought in by FSG) most if not everybody would want to start - with another 13-14 squad players of which half a dozen (again 3 brought in by FSG) could be first teamers sooner rather than later - I'm not sure thats 'a lot of work'
- the proverbial one or two players away from an excellent team.

then throw into the mix Skrtel and Johnson have both looked better players this season, an optimistic person would say that's down to the coaching staff and the same coaching staff should be able to work their magic on others in the squad.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 12:44:27 am by Vulmea »
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline Bobinhood

  • RAWK's Pam Ayres. Man without a hat.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,874
  • Hand over the Trophy
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #693 on: February 25, 2012, 12:42:37 am »
Have to laugh when I hear that we went out and spent £100m + on bench players...



I agree, everyone quickly forgets just how bad off the liars left us. What we have done at this point (in bloody short order too) is dig a strong foundation, tear out most of the rotten wood and put in a good solid hardwood floor, a  base from which to build. When we are quite finished with the basic frame we can bring Michelangelo in to paint the ceiling. Its all upwards and onwards from here. Henderson this and Henderson that....If hes the basis from which you start and it used to be Poulson its the right direction lads.

Also lets not ignore that the younger, under 30 players like  Pepe, Lucas, Agger, Johnson, Enrique, Carroll, Suarez, Henderson, Downing, and Adam are signed and sealed all on long term contracts ( plus Cara and Gerrard are lifers.) The only key ones im not sure of are Kelly and Skrtl and they could well be on long terms as well. Thats very, very  tidy as far as the floor goes.
Amplification does not equal truth. 

"Put these seeds in your pocket. At least sunflowers will grow where you lie!"
A Ukrainian housewife to a young Russian soldier, Feb 24,2022.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #694 on: February 25, 2012, 03:57:27 am »
I'm just not smart enough to understand most of what is being said in here.  But please don't stop.  It's pretty interesting.
Dont worry. Supporters think they are smart and have to pay 50 quid a ticket. Premier Leaque shareholders think they are smart owning the business and lose 500m quid a year. Everyone thinks Wayne Rooney is stupid but he earns 200k a week. I know who has the business model here.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #695 on: February 25, 2012, 07:12:40 am »
You are making my argument from a few pages ago. Clearly I stated that "if all else is constant" was a requirement for Abrak's statement to be true so if players are not happy or disruptive then all else is not remaining constant. As I said it's irrelevant in the real world because the idea that all else remains constant is ludicrously unrealistic.
Look DanA before you you think your argument that having 18 players to win the league is a good strategy because it is the best way to get a return on your capital, please accept that City already know that they have 25 players in their squad because they have far more capital and they are trying to win not trying to be efficient. And your assumption that you can actually win the League by being efficient in your use of capital is not very good. Look if City lost 200m last year how can you have a strategy to win the league by making the best return on your capital. The best return on your capital will be by not winning the league. And the fact that you are trying to win the league with 18 players to get the best return on capital just shows you dont have enough capital and enough players and are hoping to generate a return.

And honestly before you tell me I am ludicrous you are trying to win the League without enough capital by maximizing your returns on capital and without enough players. And you think that is actually what is happening at this club? Because it is not.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 07:44:36 am by Abrak »

Offline BobbyDavro

  • can't skate
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,628
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #696 on: February 25, 2012, 07:40:08 am »
Have to laugh when I hear that we went out and spent £100m + on bench players...

Other than Coates who are these new signings that are wasting away on our bench?

Kenny obviously had a large hand in signing these players and it is him who decides to play them frequently instead of Maxi and Kuyt* (Kuyt plays in most games btw)

so why is it that some assume that it is John Henry who has decided to bring about this philosophy?

And as for the signing of Andy Caroll, does anyone else not remember a young English lad who had scored a grand total of 9 league goals in his previous season with Everton signing for United when he was a young lad for an absolute fortune at the time, bit of a risk you would think eventhough the lad was only 18, turned out terrible too.

As for Jordan, he could easily be the next Lampard, reminds me of him and all.

The point is reinforced by the fact they're not on our bench, when judging by their contribution (or lack of) they're currently only at level of bench players.

Rooney was as clear a world class player in the making as I've ever seen: mad comparison to Carroll. Newcastle were also rival bidders at a higher price than Utd paid.
I forgot what Spurs were supposed to have bid for Carroll, but I think it was mid 20s, so £10m less than we paid.
It's clear where our problems are: goals, from midfield particularly, but the strikers are also a long way away from the top of the goal scoring charts.
Change that and the draws turn into wins.

In moneyball terms: get players that might be unfancied but are effective in putting the ball in the net. We didn't buy those in Carroll, Henderson, Adam and Downing.

Offline MolbyLovesGravlax

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,402
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #697 on: February 25, 2012, 07:43:05 am »
Look 25 is not better than 24. 24 had Jack Bauer.
"This is Anfield, this is what they do." Thomas Tuchel

@dgljones

Offline DanA

  • misses the Eurovision Glory Days.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,127
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #698 on: February 25, 2012, 07:54:21 am »
Look DanA before you you think your argument that having 18 players to win the league is a good strategy because it is the best way to get a return on your capital, please accept that City already know that they have 25 players in their squad because they have far more capital and they are trying to win not trying to be efficient. And your assumption that you can actually win the League by being efficient in your use of capital is not very good. Look if City lost 200m last year how can you have a strategy to win the league by making the best return on your capital. The best return on your capital will be by not winning the league. And the fact that you are trying to win the league with 18 players to get the best return on capital just shows you dont have enough capital and enough players and are hoping to generate a return.

I really don't know what is going through your head.

1) City no longer have 25 registered players they have 23 (as per the link you yourself posted) so that blows that argument out of the water. In fact the only title contender that has 25 players is Tottenham and that's due to dead weight that they are having trouble offloading. Man City even with ridiculous levels of funding don't feel the need to have 25 players.

2) I make no such assumption that we will win the league with 18 players. I recognise the difficulty faced when put up against teams likes Chelsea and City. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be anything other then the best we can be.  Aim for the sky and you'll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you'll stay on the floor.

We have a budget, we should live within our means, get the most bang for buck we can but aim for the sky. That's all you can ask.

3) Why can't we have a strategy to win the league on less money. It can happen, look at Napoli, look at Borussia Dortmund. Look at the Red Socks. Do the Red Socks each year develop a plan to finish 2nd because they know they can never match the Yankee's level of spending?
Quote from: hinesy
He hadn't played as if he was on fire, more the slight breeze cutting across New Brighton on a summer's day than El Nino, the force of nature.

Offline Gnurglan

  • The Swedish Savaloy
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,517
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #699 on: February 25, 2012, 10:49:45 am »
 
maybe a handful of games where we've played poorly. a lot more were we've created but not finished and some were we've played well and won - we are certainly in a better place than we were

we have a superb defence - thats a nailed on back 5 with Carra, Kelly  and Aurelio able to step in without any qualms and Coates, Flanagan, Robinson as further cover - its an almost ideal squad defensively.

In midfield - nailed on starters Lucas and Gerrard ... with Adam, Henderson, Spearing, Shelvey  all as cover - 3 of them young and improving with plenty of potential , one with the wit to control the game - maybe not such a perfect blend as the defence but not to be sniffed at.

Up front - 2 nailed on starters - Suarez and Bellamy - with Carroll in the mix offering a different dimension and with possibly more potential than any of the others. For me we are missing a player here though especially with none of the youngsters banging on the door although its easy to forget just how young Carroll is - Kuyt is ok as a 4th option and Gerrard is a great option off the striker but for me we are one short.

out wide is basically the only place were we dont really have any nailed on certainties - personally I'd put Kuyt in that category but appreciate others don't -  Downing, Rodriguez neither commands a place for me - again with the youngsters not showing they are ready this area of the team probably needs the most work especially given the ages of Maxi and Dirk.

- thats 9 first teamers ( 3 bought in by FSG) most if not everybody would want to start - with another 13-14 squad players of which half a dozen (again 3 brought in by FSG) could be first teamers sooner rather than later - I'm not sure thats 'a lot of work'
- the proverbial one or two players away from an excellent team.

then throw into the mix Skrtel and Johnson have both looked better players this season, an optimistic person would say that's down to the coaching staff and the same coaching staff should be able to work their magic on others in the squad.



Our defence is a very good platform - agree.
Our league position is no better than last season. Could still be when it counts in May, but right now it's not. We don't score lots of goals, so we need to go with chances created and shots that hit the woodwork. It's true, but with that, we are drifting away from the stuff that really counts.

You have included Bellamy, which is fair. For an approach, I still think Enrique, Suarez and Bellamy, for the money we have spent, is a questionable return. Let's not forget LS and CB are both some way behind the best goalscorers. They are the best signings and we still need more from them.

We need to borrow some success from the future with the rest. We typically don't do that with players like Alonso, Mascherano, Torres, Suarez etc, but we did it with for example Babel and Gonzalez and now with Henderson and Carroll. I wouldn't count too much on the future greatness to actually happen. Could be, but I would not bet everything on it if I was to build a team. We need the here and now too.

My concern with the signings we have made is not so much if they can fill a squad role, it's that it has cost us so much to get squad players. To challenge the best we still need to add 3-4 real quality players. Gerrard, Maxi and Kuyt need to be replaced shortly and we could do with a 15-20 goals/season man, plus IMO we lack a Mascherano type of player in midfield. If we have about 40M net to spend (which normally is a lot for us) it's clear we need to be very, very clever in the transfer market. Or the coaching staff will have to get the current group to up their performances quite a bit. That is no easy task. But I think it says what we need - a real improvement from everyone on the pitch up to those who make the decisions.

        * * * * * *


"The key isn't the system itself, but how the players adapt on the pitch. It doesn't matter if it's 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's the role of the players that counts." Rafa Benitez

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #700 on: February 25, 2012, 12:40:11 pm »
Look DanA before you you think your argument that having 18 players to win the league is a good strategy because it is the best way to get a return on your capital, please accept that City already know that they have 25 players in their squad because they have far more capital and they are trying to win not trying to be efficient. And your assumption that you can actually win the League by being efficient in your use of capital is not very good. Look if City lost 200m last year how can you have a strategy to win the league by making the best return on your capital. The best return on your capital will be by not winning the league. And the fact that you are trying to win the league with 18 players to get the best return on capital just shows you dont have enough capital and enough players and are hoping to generate a return.

City's bloated squad is not the result of a well planned strategy. They bought more players than they needed to because they had to turn a mid-table side into Champions League contenders over a very short period.

That has meant a high turnover of players and they haven't been able to clear the decks of players who are no longer part of the plan. Spurs are in a similar situation.

The "not enough capital" argument has also been blown out of the water. You could always spend more on players, whatever club you're at. There isn't some cut-off point where you have spent enough to win the league and the CL that's that. It's not some financial dick-measuring contest, either.

Whatever your list of 25 players, it is a simple matter on paper to cross out four names and find one new player who will make a greater contribution. Having more players than you think you need isn't adding value, it's wasting money and risking disharmony.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline kaz1983

  • "Bloody Memory Wavers" Currently in debt with RAWK.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,505
  • Well dunno what to say, honest
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #701 on: February 25, 2012, 12:54:45 pm »
TYes and no.

The barca model as I understand it allows for the fans to elect a president and the president to present a business plan as part of his election campaign about how they want to go about their future business. However once elected the strategy and decision making appears to rest almost entirely with the president. There may be specific when he has to refer back for a mandate but I'm not sure.

The recent proposal for LFC fan ownership was a more democratic governance process.

The Bayern model is different again with a minimum 51% fan ownership having representation on the board along with an impressive selection of sponsors and key stakeholders who also happen to represent many of the leading firms in german industry.  It appears a far more cooperative and sensible approach but ultimately somebody makes the decisions I dont think fan ownershp is carte blanche to kneejerk and overspend.

Thanks for the info there... I see why you favour the Bayen model now.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #702 on: February 25, 2012, 12:55:14 pm »
City's bloated squad is not the result of a well planned strategy. They bought more players than they needed to because they had to turn a mid-table side into Champions League contenders over a very short period.

That has meant a high turnover of players and they haven't been able to clear the decks of players who are no longer part of the plan. Spurs are in a similar situation.

The "not enough capital" argument has also been blown out of the water. You could always spend more on players, whatever club you're at. There isn't some cut-off point where you have spent enough to win the league and the CL that's that. It's not some financial dick-measuring contest, either.

Whatever your list of 25 players, it is a simple matter on paper to cross out four names and find one new player who will make a greater contribution. Having more players than you think you need isn't adding value, it's wasting money and risking disharmony.
Of course it is. But who claims City are trying to add value. Quite the opposite. The fact that other teams have less shows that it doesnt add value. But they are not trying to add value but trying to destroy it by having the most capital. And being creative destructive.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #703 on: February 25, 2012, 01:46:01 pm »
I really don't know what is going through your head.

1) City no longer have 25 registered players they have 23 (as per the link you yourself posted) so that blows that argument out of the water. In fact the only title contender that has 25 players is Tottenham and that's due to dead weight that they are having trouble offloading. Man City even with ridiculous levels of funding don't feel the need to have 25 players.

2) I make no such assumption that we will win the league with 18 players. I recognise the difficulty faced when put up against teams likes Chelsea and City. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be anything other then the best we can be.  Aim for the sky and you'll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you'll stay on the floor.

We have a budget, we should live within our means, get the most bang for buck we can but aim for the sky. That's all you can ask.

3) Why can't we have a strategy to win the league on less money. It can happen, look at Napoli, look at Borussia Dortmund. Look at the Red Socks. Do the Red Socks each year develop a plan to finish 2nd because they know they can never match the Yankee's level of spending?
My problem is slightly to do with a player with the maximum amount of capital choosing to compete on the fact that he he is maximumly efficient rather than the maximum number of players. Which did give me a bit of a brainstorm because I thought I might have been being an idiot. Here is the revised list which adds up to 25. And 25 being higher than 24 is just a better assumption than you can be more economically efficient than me. Because one thing we know and one thing we dont.

And I dont go around counting players squads so I assume this one adds up to 25 even if the last one didnt. But a maximum capital player must be an idiot to go around without the maximum number of players. Because DanA you are only talking price here, so you are just saying players are overvalued or the marginal value of a player is zero. So you dont realize how incredibly simple the logic is that 25 is better than 24 that you can argue that you can beat me by being more intelligent at doing something. And the problem in logic you have is the more simple my theory, the more difficult it is for you to answer it because I already know it. Because I DO absolutely know that 25 is more than 24 and absolutely nothing will ever, ever change that in my life. The fact that City have 12 players in their squad or you believe the world is square will never change my belief that 25 is worth 1 more than 24.

Look I totally understand the concept that football players are so loved  that they become so expensive until the end game is that supporters stop supporting them and shareholders stop supporting them and there are far few players left in the Premiership. In theory the end game is that players become so expensive because you can afford less for marginal revenue relative to reward that only one club can afford the maximum number of players in the league because every player has lost the most amount of money most efficiently without realizing it. But City is not going to go around with less than 25 and if they do I can count.


2. Micah Richards
4. Vincent Kompany
5. Pablo Zabaleta
6. Joleon Lescott
7. James Milner
8. David Pizarro
10. Edin Dzeko
11. Adam Johnson
12. Stuart Taylor
13. Aleksandar Kolarov
16. Sergio Aguero
18. Gareth Barry
19. Samir Nasri
20. Owen Hargreaves
21. David Silva
22. Gael Clichy
25. Joe Hart
28. Kolo Toure
30. Costel Pantilimon
32. Carlos Tevez
34. Nigel De Jong
36. Denis Suarez
42. Gnegneri Toure Yaya
44. Karim Rekik
63. Eirik Holmen Johansen

Offline B.Red

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Pray to God but row away from the rocks!
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #704 on: February 25, 2012, 02:06:47 pm »
Agree with that.

Management is about both the here and now AND the future. We don't have the luxuary of thinking about the future only. No team does.

I'll admit I don't understand the logic behind our spendings. IMO we have bought players for 100M+ (I know it's not net) and we have two first picks. The rest of the cash has been used for bench players. In short we have overspent and we believe our players will, with time, reach their potential. Then they'll be worth as much or more than we paid. To me, that doesn't make sense. It's simply risk taking.

What we needed was solid performers. Certainly when our plan was to reduce playing time for previously solid performers. Henderson is a good example. He's a good player, but he's not one to be a game changer for us now. We bet on him coming good. He might, but we can't really expect to rely on him at this stage. So for the here and now, the money could definitely have been better spent. We need to look to the future with him. And we can continue like that with each player. Find an excuse or a valid reason. Now take a step back - we still need quite a few players to do the business here and now for us. This is the problem. Who do we expect to deliver here and now?

Not Henderson, not Carroll, not Coates and Downing hasn't been able to. We have decided to reduce the roles for Maxi and Kuyt, while Gerrard and Suarez have both been out for a while. So who is left? At the end of it - there are way too many players who don't provide enough.

IMO we can't fail with Henderson. He's so young and has potential to become a regular England international. He's already doing well for us and inflation in football is such that in five years he would be worth 30-40m. If he stays with us then great but so long as we keep him in contract we'll make a profit on any sale.

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #705 on: February 25, 2012, 02:09:53 pm »
City had a seemingly unlimited supply of money, but little to attract players with other than that- therefore they bought whoever they could for however much it cost I'm sure they actually had more than 25 senior players at one time because they could - it has undoubtedly raised the cost for everybody else which was presumably part of their plan - create disatisfaction for the very best players so they are either disruptive or unsettled for their own teams or come to City for the money - the fact the game allows them to do this is a major failing in the 'sport' taking it away from a contest towards a plutocracy but as things stand they can do this with impunity. Effectively buying 'success'. It is sustainable for as long as they can afford to 'lose' money and for however long they value 'kudos' above £.  That is assuming that the prestige of success does not provide ££'s back via  other routes in terms of status, PR etc.

But I do think you are deliberately missing the point on numbers - 25 is not inherently better than 24, it presents its own problems and not problems that ££'s can cure - the nonsense with Tevez is a case in point - he left United for similar reasons, the number of instances of disruptive players when out of the first XI is legion. The optimum squad size and ability levels of those players is much more down to management than mathematics. I think Evertons most successful prem season was when they had just 19 registered players, the following season they had 20+ and performed much worse. Only on paper is 25 preferable, the reality is down to the individuals involved. You could in fact argue even on paper 25 is more likely to cause problems because dissatisfaction increases exponentially the more players there are who aren't in the running for a first team slot.

And however much City are trying to disrupt they are also trying to be successful because otherwise the whole exercise backfires and they are seen as reckless fools so even for City there needs to be a trade off between size and effectiveness. They would therefore be better served by simply spending more on a smaller group of players and increasing the wage gap for the very best players even more.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #706 on: February 25, 2012, 02:34:35 pm »

Our defence is a very good platform - agree.
Our league position is no better than last season. Could still be when it counts in May, but right now it's not. We don't score lots of goals, so we need to go with chances created and shots that hit the woodwork. It's true, but with that, we are drifting away from the stuff that really counts.

You have included Bellamy, which is fair. For an approach, I still think Enrique, Suarez and Bellamy, for the money we have spent, is a questionable return. Let's not forget LS and CB are both some way behind the best goalscorers. They are the best signings and we still need more from them.

We need to borrow some success from the future with the rest. We typically don't do that with players like Alonso, Mascherano, Torres, Suarez etc, but we did it with for example Babel and Gonzalez and now with Henderson and Carroll. I wouldn't count too much on the future greatness to actually happen. Could be, but I would not bet everything on it if I was to build a team. We need the here and now too.

My concern with the signings we have made is not so much if they can fill a squad role, it's that it has cost us so much to get squad players. To challenge the best we still need to add 3-4 real quality players. Gerrard, Maxi and Kuyt need to be replaced shortly and we could do with a 15-20 goals/season man, plus IMO we lack a Mascherano type of player in midfield. If we have about 40M net to spend (which normally is a lot for us) it's clear we need to be very, very clever in the transfer market. Or the coaching staff will have to get the current group to up their performances quite a bit. That is no easy task. But I think it says what we need - a real improvement from everyone on the pitch up to those who make the decisions.

as always you give pause for thought

27mil for Suarez, Bellamy and Enrique not good vfm? come on you are pushing it now.

you seem to be basing your judgement entirely on results not performances I'm not sure that is legit - you are making no allowance for us being a new team, for luck or for injury - those three players would walk into any squad in the prem and would sell for probably 40mil  - I think they are better tests of 'success' than simply looking at their scoring records or results over less than 12 months.

its interesting you quote recent 'successes' - Alonso came as a young man on the fringe of success not a proven talent, Mascherano came off the back of failing to appear for west ham, Torres again a young man but who others had looked at and not gone for
but in our most successful years, Reina would be another - they did deliver straight away but should that be the norm - where and how old was Hansen, Keegan, Whelan, Rush, Redknapp, Staunton, Nicol,..... where these guys proven talents when we signed them and instant successes?

Gerrard I hope will be around for many years he's a couple of years younger than Lampard, Maxi is younger than Stevie, Kuyt still has a couple of years at the top level - no need to throw the baby out with the bath water

if anything I'd say that some of the 'proven' players we've bought expecting instant results Downing and Adam have more to prove than the kids - you are obviously being deliberately negative which is fair enough as it drives out a number of 'issues' but its not so much cup half empty as what cup........

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline steveeastend

  • Learnt to play them drums
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,853
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #707 on: February 25, 2012, 02:42:05 pm »
The truth is always on the pitch. If we win one Cup the people in charge made more right then wrong. If we win both Cups it will outshine all the things which didn´t turn out to be working this year. If we won´t the glass will be definitely half empty, that´s the way football works. As there is always some positive to consider in a season like this it will be washed away with a season missing all goals, the big and the minor ones.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline DanA

  • misses the Eurovision Glory Days.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,127
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #708 on: February 25, 2012, 02:56:06 pm »

Our defence is a very good platform - agree.
Our league position is no better than last season. Could still be when it counts in May, but right now it's not. We don't score lots of goals, so we need to go with chances created and shots that hit the woodwork. It's true, but with that, we are drifting away from the stuff that really counts.

You have included Bellamy, which is fair. For an approach, I still think Enrique, Suarez and Bellamy, for the money we have spent, is a questionable return. Let's not forget LS and CB are both some way behind the best goalscorers. They are the best signings and we still need more from them.

We need to borrow some success from the future with the rest. We typically don't do that with players like Alonso, Mascherano, Torres, Suarez etc, but we did it with for example Babel and Gonzalez and now with Henderson and Carroll. I wouldn't count too much on the future greatness to actually happen. Could be, but I would not bet everything on it if I was to build a team. We need the here and now too.

My concern with the signings we have made is not so much if they can fill a squad role, it's that it has cost us so much to get squad players. To challenge the best we still need to add 3-4 real quality players. Gerrard, Maxi and Kuyt need to be replaced shortly and we could do with a 15-20 goals/season man, plus IMO we lack a Mascherano type of player in midfield. If we have about 40M net to spend (which normally is a lot for us) it's clear we need to be very, very clever in the transfer market. Or the coaching staff will have to get the current group to up their performances quite a bit. That is no easy task. But I think it says what we need - a real improvement from everyone on the pitch up to those who make the decisions.

I agree with your assessment overall but I think we are not that far from making it click and with 40m I think we could be a hell of a lot better. I get what you are saying we didn't do as well as we would have liked in the last transfer window and we are definitely not getting the results we were after (cups aside). I can't help but think having watched us this season though that we are a lot closer than the table would have us believe.

A 40m net spend after sales is a lot of money. That could leave us with as much as 55-60m. Obviously we can't have mistakes like Robbie Keane but spent smartly I reckon that could easily plug the holes in the team at the moment.

As an example:
Loic Remy (20m)
Ezequiel Lavezzi (30m)
A cheap DM (8m)

That could completely transform the team
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 02:59:15 pm by DanA »
Quote from: hinesy
He hadn't played as if he was on fire, more the slight breeze cutting across New Brighton on a summer's day than El Nino, the force of nature.

Offline Gnurglan

  • The Swedish Savaloy
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,517
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #709 on: February 25, 2012, 07:52:35 pm »
as always you give pause for thought

27mil for Suarez, Bellamy and Enrique not good vfm? come on you are pushing it now.

you seem to be basing your judgement entirely on results not performances I'm not sure that is legit - you are making no allowance for us being a new team, for luck or for injury - those three players would walk into any squad in the prem and would sell for probably 40mil  - I think they are better tests of 'success' than simply looking at their scoring records or results over less than 12 months.

its interesting you quote recent 'successes' - Alonso came as a young man on the fringe of success not a proven talent, Mascherano came off the back of failing to appear for west ham, Torres again a young man but who others had looked at and not gone for
but in our most successful years, Reina would be another - they did deliver straight away but should that be the norm - where and how old was Hansen, Keegan, Whelan, Rush, Redknapp, Staunton, Nicol,..... where these guys proven talents when we signed them and instant successes?

Gerrard I hope will be around for many years he's a couple of years younger than Lampard, Maxi is younger than Stevie, Kuyt still has a couple of years at the top level - no need to throw the baby out with the bath water

if anything I'd say that some of the 'proven' players we've bought expecting instant results Downing and Adam have more to prove than the kids - you are obviously being deliberately negative which is fair enough as it drives out a number of 'issues' but its not so much cup half empty as what cup........



Enrique, Suarez and Bellamy are good buys. No doubt. But perhaps we also build them up to have done better than they have? Will we get a top scorer on 10 league goals?

You are right that I have gone for results. Reason is that we have a habit of talking about progress and how great players will be, but do we actually see it? Can we measure the progress we talk about? And here I'd have to say the answer is no. We need to go by performances and our opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Numbers don't tell the whole truth. Our case gets weaker though, if we can't measure the progress. It won't hold in the long run.

Alonso, Mascherano, Torres etc came here and did the business. We did not have to talk about their promise for the future. They were good here and now and we had good reason to believe they'd have more successful years ahead of them, based on their age.

Agree that Maxi, Kuyt and Gerrard (and Bellamy) has a couple of years left in them still. We have been without them for various reasons this season and no-one has really replaced them. Our (IMO likely) response to that is to sell at least two of them and keep faith in our new recruitments. In other words, we will bet on that future potential, or we will have to open the wallet. I seriously doubt that Kenny will change his mind and start with Kuyt, Maxi and Bellamy when the new season kicks off in August. Then it will no longer be about patience and potential. Players will have to deliver at a higher level than we have seen so far. I doubt we will see all of Downing, Adam, Henderson, Coates and Carroll perform like the best in the league all of a sudden.

I have deliberately taken a harsher look at our situation. When you do that, things get exposed. And I see lots of questionmarks in midfield and attack. The one real positive thing I can spot is our defence. It is very good. Not sure we appreciate just how good. I hope tomorrow can be a changing factor for us. Maybe, hopefully, a trophy could give everyone a lift. Could be all that is needed for us to step up a level.

        * * * * * *


"The key isn't the system itself, but how the players adapt on the pitch. It doesn't matter if it's 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's the role of the players that counts." Rafa Benitez

Offline Doc Red

  • Chills before posting and wishes others had too
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,876
  • The eye cannot see what the mind does not know.
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #710 on: February 25, 2012, 08:41:23 pm »
I'm a bit confused about the 24 players vs 25 debate.
i see the point that you should be able to afford 25, but still.  Money is finite, even for City, and I'd far rather have 24 players of a higher quality than 25 of a lower one.

Why do you assume that either it's a squad of 24 players with high quality versus a squad of 25 players with lower qualities? I think Abrak's point is that 25 highly skilled players in a squad are in theory better than 24 highly skilled players in the squad. Or, if I give another example, a squad with 24 highly skilled players + 1 skilled player is stronger than a squad with 24 highly skilled players, at least in theory.

Or maybe I just didn't understand his point well enough! :wave
The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.
There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.

Offline Ecuared

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,183
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #711 on: February 25, 2012, 09:06:28 pm »
This 25 v 24 debate is like pulling teeth. Isn´t this supposed to be a transfer fantasy thread?
“He was a very good customer. He was just the three bottles of semi-skimmed. They didn’t have to be placed zonally on his step or anything. He was happy to have a chat and he would always look after you at Christmas.”

Offline TSC

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,312
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #712 on: February 25, 2012, 09:11:49 pm »
I hope tomorrow can be a changing factor for us. Maybe, hopefully, a trophy could give everyone a lift. Could be all that is needed for us to step up a level.

I agree with this statement.  To be fair we've not been 'dire' too often this season, maybe two or three games. If we'd won even half of our drawn home games, which we should have, we'd have CL spot sewn up.  But tomorrow is a massive game in terms of where we are and are going.  Always say the first trophy is the hardest.  And I know obviously Dalglish has delivered trophies previously, but in this spell, if he can deliver a trophy in his first season, notwithstanding the FA Cup which is potentially still to come, then it instils a winning mentality and can only be a positive for the future.

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #713 on: February 25, 2012, 09:13:14 pm »
I have deliberately taken a harsher look at our situation. When you do that, things get exposed. And I see lots of questionmarks in midfield and attack. The one real positive thing I can spot is our defence. It is very good. Not sure we appreciate just how good. I hope tomorrow can be a changing factor for us. Maybe, hopefully, a trophy could give everyone a lift. Could be all that is needed for us to step up a level.

one other transfer to throw into the mix - Lucas - bought on potential, bought young- it took him more than a year to settle, more than two to be appreciated, now for me he should start when fit - so clearly the idea of buying some players with potential, who can grow into the team and their role, is sound. Maybe emotion gets in the way because it feels like the club develop players to higher potential but that  type of signing seems to be looked on more favourably.

clearly we have not just bought potential though under fsg  (other than every player is signed in the hope of them doing well)  enrique, bellamy, suarez, downing, adam are all players that were established before we signed them - so I dont think thats a strategic error of just looking to the future - with any transfer there is as much as a 50% chance that they wont work out - for a variety of reasons - we needed  a first choice left back we bought one, we needed a first choice left mid, we bought one. One seems to have worked , one not so but who knows by this time next year our opinions may have changed completely.

Coates looks like a Lucas style signing to me - allowing for football inflation its probably directly comparable- not saying that it will work out as well but if the Lucas deal is regarded as a good deal then the Coates one must be as well - the end result could not have been known for either when they were made and you can't just judge after the event the deal has to be valued at the time its made.



The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #714 on: February 26, 2012, 12:23:35 am »
Why do you assume that either it's a squad of 24 players with high quality versus a squad of 25 players with lower qualities? I think Abrak's point is that 25 highly skilled players in a squad are in theory better than 24 highly skilled players in the squad. Or, if I give another example, a squad with 24 highly skilled players + 1 skilled player is stronger than a squad with 24 highly skilled players, at least in theory.

Or maybe I just didn't understand his point well enough! :wave

The point he is refusing to engage with (there are, as usual, several, but this one is what stands out as most obvious to me) is that of any 25 man squad, you could always in principle drop the five weakest players and bring in one stronger player.

Having 25 players over 21 simply because you are allowed to makes no sense if you don't need 25 players in the first place, (which obviously you don't) it's just a waste of money and is potentially disruptive to the team. By his logic having 1000 players all competing for first team places would have been the best way to try and win the league two years ago or more. Because 1000 will always be a bigger number than 24 as well.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Gene

  • Severe Tropical Cyclone (RSMC Nadi designation:12F JTWC designation:15P)
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 974
  • YNWA
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #715 on: February 27, 2012, 09:23:12 am »
You are spot on Vulmea. The Bayern Munich model is excellent. They dont have the huge broadcasting revenues in Germany and matchday ticket prices are half of what they are in England. The key is commercial income. Bayern's commercial income is over double Liverpool's and 40% higher than Manchester United. And altogether Bayern's revenues are now almost equal to ManU's without the sort of broadcast income they have or charging the massive ticket prices. And the question is why are ticket prices half the price in Germany and why can Bayern earn double the commercial income of Liverpool? Because there is a reason. And if you do not know it that is part of the reason.

Actually it's not commercial income so much as it's player wages. Lets be real here, outside of Bayern, Schalke, and HSV, the vast majority of German clubs aren't generating massive commericial income. (This coming from a former Kaiserslautern resident and 1FCK supporter) Those 3 clubs generate massive amounts of commercial income through sponsorship deals. Clubs like Frieburg, Mainz, and Nuremberg, aren't so fortunate.

The Bundesliga is one of the most profitable leagues in the world as a result of restrictive wages and low ticket prices. The wages to revenue ratio in the Premiership was 67%, it was only 51% in the Bundesliga. Meanwhile only 2 other sports leagues in the world average higher average attendance numbers than the Bundesliga.  The Bundesliga averages over 40k fans for every match, that's a lot of matchday revenue. Revenue that since the fans own the clubs, is put right back into the club.
'Liverpool was made for me and I was made for Liverpool.'

Offline steveeastend

  • Learnt to play them drums
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,853
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #716 on: February 27, 2012, 10:07:10 am »
The success of Bayern Munich in terms of commercial income can best explained with patience and being at the right time and the right place. When all the other clubs had to rebuild their stadiums in 1972/73/74, right before the world cup finding place in Germany, they were the only ones who could generate regular income with the probably biggest stadium in the country. The "Olympiastadium" was for years the biggest stadium around and gave them a massive advantage especially as their successful run in europe around the same time created the reputation fo being THE successful club in germany.

The next big reason is the fact that they are the ONLY big club in Bavaria, the richest part of germany with the biggest industry around. BMW, Mercedes etc. So their income trough sponsoring is about as high as the amount the likes of Schalke, Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Köln, Gladbach etc. have to share as all those club are to find within the same area, NRW.

Within this competition in germany, Bayern Munichs advantage is that big that even if they have been very caution in international transfers they still make it easily top 4. The signing of Ribery and Robben were the starting point for spending big money but before that they could effort to refuse to pay big wages compared to the UK as the competition within Germany wasn´t near as big as it is in the PL for making it top 4.

One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Gene

  • Severe Tropical Cyclone (RSMC Nadi designation:12F JTWC designation:15P)
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 974
  • YNWA
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #717 on: February 27, 2012, 10:30:38 am »
The next big reason is the fact that they are the ONLY big club in Bavaria, the richest part of germany with the biggest industry around. BMW, Mercedes etc. So their income trough sponsoring is about as high as the amount the likes of Schalke, Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Köln, Gladbach etc. have to share as all those club are to find within the same area, NRW.

Actually Schalke's commercial revenue as a percentage of total revenue was higher than that of Bayern's just as recently as 2010. Mercedes has nothing to do with Bayern, Mercedes is based out of Stuttgart and sponsor Stuttgart. BMW is centered in Munich but doesn't sponsor Bayern, Audi does... in fact Audi owns Bayern shares. They're reason Bayern paid off their stadium bill so quickly.

Bayern is a completely different animal than other clubs in Germany. They're only about 84% owned by the club itself. Adidas owns almost 10%, and Audi owns about 6%.
'Liverpool was made for me and I was made for Liverpool.'

Offline steveeastend

  • Learnt to play them drums
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,853
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #718 on: February 27, 2012, 12:37:57 pm »
Actually Schalke's commercial revenue as a percentage of total revenue was higher than that of Bayern's just as recently as 2010. Mercedes has nothing to do with Bayern, Mercedes is based out of Stuttgart and sponsor Stuttgart. BMW is centered in Munich but doesn't sponsor Bayern, Audi does... in fact Audi owns Bayern shares. They're reason Bayern paid off their stadium bill so quickly.

Bayern is a completely different animal than other clubs in Germany. They're only about 84% owned by the club itself. Adidas owns almost 10%, and Audi owns about 6%.

Stuttgart never was, and never will be a serious competition for them as Audi is as well, just as, Mercedes located in Baden Würtenberg, next to Bavaria.

The point is that they are without competition when it comes to getting huge amount of sponsorship from big global players located in the south of Germany whereas all those clubs in the NRW such as Schalke or Dortmund still have to compete, also due to the their chaotic past which made them less attractive for big german companies anyway. Schalke f.e. would have been bankrupcy a couple of times without Clemes Tönnies, a sugardaddy, Schalke die hard fan and owner of a big sausage manufactury.

Dortmund is on a good way though and could join Bayern being as the second big german club again after they fucked it up a couple of years ago.

But Schalke will have to pay for their depts in the next ten years at least, 250m, it´s said. For that, they will always have to sell, rather then plan ahead with a big squad.

But they will never reach Bayern as their savings, as Uli Hoeness pointed out, are so big that they could do for years without making any profit at all. And that´s what makes them so attractive for big german companies, reliability and stability.

By the way.. I hope Dortmund wins the title again this year... can´t stand Bayern at all ;)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 12:43:16 pm by steveeastend »
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Gene

  • Severe Tropical Cyclone (RSMC Nadi designation:12F JTWC designation:15P)
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 974
  • YNWA
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #719 on: February 27, 2012, 01:42:16 pm »
Stuttgart never was, and never will be a serious competition for them as Audi is as well, just as, Mercedes located in Baden Würtenberg, next to Bavaria.

I'm not saying that Stuttgart will be competition for Bayern. Just stating that Mercerdes doesn't sponsor Bayern, they are located in Stuttgart and are sponsors of Stuttgart. I just didn't know why you brought them up when discussing Bayern's sponsors as it's not really relevant. Rhineland-Palatinate where I lived and where FC Kaiserslautern play is next to Baden Würtenberg but they don't benefit from that proximity.

Quote
The point is that they are without competition when it comes to getting huge amount of sponsorship from big global players located in the south of Germany whereas all those clubs in the NRW such as Schalke or Dortmund still have to compete, also due to the their chaotic past which made them less attractive for big german companies anyway. Schalke f.e. would have been bankrupcy a couple of times without Clemes Tönnies, a sugardaddy, Schalke die hard fan and owner of a big sausage manufactury.

Dortmund is on a good way though and could join Bayern being as the second big german club again after they fucked it up a couple of years ago.

But Schalke will have to pay for their depts in the next ten years at least, 250m, it´s said. For that, they will always have to sell, rather then plan ahead with a big squad.

But they will never reach Bayern as their savings, as Uli Hoeness pointed out, are so big that they could do for years without making any profit at all. And that´s what makes them so attractive for big german companies, reliability and stability.

By the way.. I hope Dortmund wins the title again this year... can´t stand Bayern at all ;)

Where Bayern is located doesn't drive the amount of sponsorship money they bring in, winning does. Bayern's biggest sponsor comes from North Rhine-Westphalia, Deutsche Telekom. Schalke isn't sharing any sort of sponsorship money with the rest of NRW, their largest sponsor isn't even German. So their location within Germany doesn't drive that at all. And we all know the massive amount of cash Gazprom is pumping into the club, which I was under the impression had wiped out most of the debt the club aquired.

I can buy your argument that Bayern are more stable thus they gain more money from sponsors, but that I would think, is a direct result of sustained winning. Not their location within Germany. Frankfurt is the richest city in Europe (per capita GDP values), followed by Karlsruhe as number two, but their clubs aren't benefiting from that when it comes to sponsors.

I don't mind Dortmund winning the title again, I'd rather see Borussia M'gladbach win it though. (I think they may have missed their chance) I'm just hoping my 1FCK can save themselves from relegation.
'Liverpool was made for me and I was made for Liverpool.'