Paulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.
Quote from: Villadawg on July 01, 2011, 10:28:16 AMPaulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.It's not as simple as "we shouldn't have spent so much money on defenders".My argument was that we bought these defenders:07-08: Knight08-09: Davies, Shorey, Luke Young, Cuellar09-10: Beye, Warnock, Collins, DunneI understand the need to have a decent defence, but two entire defences in two seasons? Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.
Quote from: Villadawg on July 01, 2011, 10:28:16 AMPaulie's view appears to be that we shouldn't have spent as much on the defence, even though we lost arguably our 3 best defenders for nothing and still ended up with the 4th tightest defence in the league, conceding fewer goals than every team other than Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool.Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.
07-08: Knight08-09: Davies, Shorey, Luke Young, Cuellar09-10: Beye, Warnock, Collins, DunneI understand the need to have a decent defence, but two entire defences in two seasons? Even if you accept the argument that the players he wanted weren't available in 08/09 but were a year later, it begs the question of whether it was sound to spend 25 million pounds on "stop gaps" only to buy new defenders a year later.If we're now living in more cash strapped times, maybe one of the reasons why is the above.
You have a curious grasp of facts villadawg.What is presented in the 'achievement' table is not 'fact'. The numbers are derived from estimated base data (does the author really know every transfer fee paid?), they are a selective view as to what represents a team's potential (as has been pointed out, this should at least include wages in addition to transfers) and have been massaged by a subjective factor 'transfer price inflation'.That isn't fact, it is a particular subjective view expressed in numbers.
It isn't a soap opera and it isn't about characters. It's a football club and it's about results. "Save for Martin O’Neill’s first season at the club when he was cleaning up the mess from an overpriced side that had finished 16th the year before, Aston Villa has outperformed table position expectations their transfer expenditures should have set. If Villa’s ownership was indeed upset about the return-on-investment that they were getting under O’Neill, they need to take a look at the table above and realize how well he did given modern English football economics. Their squad and starting XI expenditures were in line with 9th to 11th place finishes, and O’Neill’s utilization rate was right at the average for the seasons in which he managed. O’Neill did just about as good as anyone could have asked of him, and the only man to do better with such meagre transfer expenditures is Arsene Wenger at Arsenal. The replacement of O’Neill with Houllier, who saw a lower utilization rate and average £XI, saw Villa regress this season but still outperform transfer expenditure expectations."I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people rail against fact. I would have thought that the people who have been blathering on about Villa leaving expensive squad players on the bench would be interested to learn that it's a load of old bollocks.
...Are you aware of a better/more accurate set of transfer data/information or would you prefer we didn't talk about it at all?
Perhaps Genting will raise our profile in Asia...
Quote from: Villadawg on July 01, 2011, 01:35:35 PM...Are you aware of a better/more accurate set of transfer data/information or would you prefer we didn't talk about it at all?No, I don't know of a more rleiable set of transfer fees, nor do I know of an alternative way of putting a number on a managers 'acheivement'. I would also defy anyone to define a realistic factor that represents transfer inflation, which would be even more futile than for the other two.I am more than happy to discuss the study, it may be unique but that does not mean it should be taken as gospel. It is some way short.I was also surprised at (O'Leary's) 'everpriced squad'. (O'Neil's) 'meagre transfer expenditures' made me blink too.In the table, the notional transfer cost of the squad actually fell during O'Neil's reign. We would have had more chance of success if he'd have stayed away from the transfer market completely, according to the way 'expected position' is derived.If we'd have hung onto Collymore and Curcic we'd have been unbeatable.