The Price of Success

[not3bad]

I go down for one game a season and I chose that one.

It says a lot about a match when Emile Heskey is the most skillful player on show.

The worst thing was it was three days after that excellent performance at Stamford Bridge.

Like going out on the Saturday night and shagging a super model, then going out again to the same place on the Wednesday, buoyed by your recent success, and waking up next to that fat cruise ship singer out of Loose Women.

Ah yes, but you would have got a result though, wouldn't you? *winky*

[Lucky Eddie]

Just a quick scan through that article tells you everything you need to know about the passion and loyalty being driven out of football!

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

The only thing that could render football more boring than an O'Neill team - lots of statistics about an O'Neill team.

Yes, but they are a really tremendous set of statictics.

[Villa'Zawg]

One of the interesting posts I found when looking at those site is a comparison of PL transfer fees paid taking transfer fee inflation into account - Current Transfer Purchase Price (CTPP)

–    Signed By–    Year—-    Player——    Original £m– age CTPP £m

1    Chelsea    05-06    Wright-Phillips    21.00    23    48.8
2    Man Utd    06-07    Carrick    18.60    25    41.2
3    Liverpool    10-11    Carroll    35.00    22    35.0
4    Man Utd    94-95    Andy Cole    7.00    23    33.8
5    Liverpool    99-00    Heskey    11.00    22    32.9
6    Villa    97-98    Collymore    7.00    26    30.1
7    Chelsea    99-00    Sutton    10.00    26    29.9
8    Liverpool    95-96    Collymore    8.50    24    28.5
9    Man City    09-10    Lescott    22.00    27    28.3
10    Man City    10-11    Milner    26.00    24    26.0
11    Spurs    97-98    L Ferdinand    6.00    30    25.8
12    Chelsea    03-04    S Parker    10.00    23    25.7
13    Man Utd    07-08    Hargreaves    17.00    26    24.6
14    Blackburn    94-95    Sutton    5.00    21    24.1
15    Villa    10-11    D Bent    24.00    27    24.0
16    Liverpool    09-10    G Johnson    18.00    24    23.1
17    Blackburn    98-99    K Davies    7.25    21    22.6
18    Spurs    07-08    D Bent    15.50    23    22.4
19    Chelsea    97-98    Le Saux    5.00    28    21.5
20    Villa    06-07    A Young    9.65    21    21.4
21    Villa    98-99    Merson    6.75    30    21.0
22    Newcastle    95-96    L Ferdinand    6.00    28    20.1

TPI - Clicky

[dave.woodhall]

Five out of that top six were absolute bargains.

[KevinGage]

I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat.

And when you left Villa Park after one of our many depressing draws or defeats (as our home form wasn't one of the plus points of the MON regime, lets face it) how did you feel then?

Taken as a whole - and with numbers and the bottom line being of paramount importance to you- do you think out home form over the four years MON was in the job provided good value (or even exceeded expectations) in regard to:

(a)  The increasing price of season tickets during that time
(b)  The amount of money spent on the side

This is specific to your Villa Park experience remember. I'm sure even the most ardent MON critic would acknowledge that out away form was generally excellent.

[Villa'Zawg]

I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat.

And when you left Villa Park after one of our many depressing draws or defeats (as our home form wasn't one of the plus points of the MON regime, lets face it) how did you feel then?

Taken as a whole - and with numbers and the bottom line being of paramount importance to you- do you think out home form over the four years MON was in the job provided good value (or even exceeded expectations) in regard to:

(a)  The increasing price of season tickets during that time
(b)  The amount of money spent on the side

This is specific to your Villa Park experience remember. I'm sure even the most ardent MON critic would acknowledge that out away form was generally excellent.

On the whole it felt like it should and could be better and I thought it was close to being better.. It felt as good as it had done for the vast majority of the modern era with one or two exceptional seasons.

I'm OK when we draw, its the defeats I can't stomach, so that maybe accounts for the difference in my perspective compare to some others. I've probably felt better after our direst draw than our most exciting defeat.

I don't correlate ticket prices and what I expect from the team, so that doesn't move me much.

I do absolutely correlate the amount spent on the side with what I expect from the team and I thought we were doing as well as could be expected. I felt we were making progress, particularly in the season before last. I understand that we could have finished 4th if we had been able to turn 3 of those draws into wins. Naturally I would have loved that to have happened along with the Wembley trips but I never felt that we had spent enough to demand it.

[pauliewalnuts]

I do absolutely correlate the amount spent on the side with what I expect from the team and I thought we were doing as well as could be expected.

It was pretty hard to suggest MON "should" have been doing better than he was, or that the finishes weren't good enough, and those (few) people who reckoned he should have been sacked were wide of the mark.

I felt we were making progress, particularly in the season before last. I understand that we could have finished 4th if we had been able to turn 3 of those draws into wins. 

That's where I differ.

It was hard to imagine an MON side finishing in the top four, so formulaic was the football. What would have happened had we reached the CL, and tried to play the way he usually had us playing? It wouldn't have lasted very long in any case.

I'd put money on O'Neill being able to get almost any top flight side into the top 8 or so. He's that type of manager - motivates, gets super human efforts from (some) players, galvanises a club when he arrives. If you're going to get into the top four, though, that's just not enough.

You need tactical nous, flexibility, and - if you don't have endless money to spend, and this is in response to your point about had we spent more - you need to know your way around the transfer market and be able to spot a deal - which was, in my opinion, his other great failing.

Had he stayed on this summer and been given more money, do you think he'd have bought in the sort of player who would have made the difference in terms of top four? Or would it have been more of the same?

We often hear people on here say he'd have bought Keane and McGeady, or maybe Doyle, and with good reason, because his purchases, if far from always bad, were always predictable and of a certain type of player.

[pauliewalnuts]

Incidentally, what if, rather than buying a defence one summer, and then the next summer, an entirely new defence, he'd have spent that money where it really needed to be spent?

Maybe those two or three draws to wins you mention might have happened.

[Villa'Zawg]

Incidentally, what if, rather than buying a defence one summer, and then the next summer, an entirely new defence, he'd have spent that money where it really needed to be spent?

Maybe those two or three draws to wins you mention might have happened.

Well I guess it might but the second defence he bought conceded fewer goals than Arsenal and those particular players probably weren't available when he was buying the 1st group of defenders. He also had 2 of the top 10/15 strikers in the league and 3 England internationals in midfield so may have felt defence was more important with the budget he had available.

[Villa'Zawg]

I do absolutely correlate the amount spent on the side with what I expect from the team and I thought we were doing as well as could be expected.

It was pretty hard to suggest MON "should" have been doing better than he was, or that the finishes weren't good enough, and those (few) people who reckoned he should have been sacked were wide of the mark.

I felt we were making progress, particularly in the season before last. I understand that we could have finished 4th if we had been able to turn 3 of those draws into wins. 

That's where I differ.

It was hard to imagine an MON side finishing in the top four, so formulaic was the football. What would have happened had we reached the CL, and tried to play the way he usually had us playing? It wouldn't have lasted very long in any case.

I'd put money on O'Neill being able to get almost any top flight side into the top 8 or so. He's that type of manager - motivates, gets super human efforts from (some) players, galvanises a club when he arrives. If you're going to get into the top four, though, that's just not enough.

You need tactical nous, flexibility, and - if you don't have endless money to spend, and this is in response to your point about had we spent more - you need to know your way around the transfer market and be able to spot a deal - which was, in my opinion, his other great failing.

Had he stayed on this summer and been given more money, do you think he'd have bought in the sort of player who would have made the difference in terms of top four? Or would it have been more of the same?

We often hear people on here say he'd have bought Keane and McGeady, or maybe Doyle, and with good reason, because his purchases, if far from always bad, were always predictable and of a certain type of player.

I do think we could have made top 4 if we had refused to sell Milner, had put £20m in the transfer kitty and O'Neill had stayed. That's based on the improvement we had made in his final season and an understanding that the improvement we needed was 5 or 6 points.

It's all well and good you insisting that we would have bought Keane (it never happened all the other years it was suggested), McGeady or Doyle but what if we had bought Bent? He did mention that we had been after him for some time didn't he?

[KevinGage]

I can assure you that I have left VP happier after the direst of our wins than our most exciting defeat.

And when you left Villa Park after one of our many depressing draws or defeats (as our home form wasn't one of the plus points of the MON regime, lets face it) how did you feel then?

Taken as a whole - and with numbers and the bottom line being of paramount importance to you- do you think out home form over the four years MON was in the job provided good value (or even exceeded expectations) in regard to:

(a)  The increasing price of season tickets during that time
(b)  The amount of money spent on the side

This is specific to your Villa Park experience remember. I'm sure even the most ardent MON critic would acknowledge that out away form was generally excellent.

On the whole it felt like it should and could be better and I thought it was close to being better.. It felt as good as it had done for the vast majority of the modern era with one or two exceptional seasons.

You see, that's where you and I would fundamentally differ, I think.

I didn't think we were getting closer to making any kind of breakthrough based on our home form. Even in the games that we actually won, there were far too many occurrences of blind panic in the last 10 minutes. Men behind the ball, hacking it away like some brave FA Cup minnow. Even against pretty modest sides.

You'll get games like that, of course. Even in a good/ successful season. And even if your form and performances have largely been good.  But when too many follow that pattern, you get the sense that you're effectively 'getting away with it' on the occasions that you do actually win, and that doesn't inspire confidence that progression is a near certainty.

If we had converted 2/3 of those draws into wins (I assume you're only referring to 2009/10 there, as it would have required 5 more the year previous) would that have made the drudgery of a good bit of our home form more palatable?  I'm not sure, is the honest answer. If it had secured CL football I think in all likelihood there might have been similar arguments, but the ratios on either side of the divide would be different. More in favour of MON (or more specifically his approach) obv.

The 19 home games make up a substantial chunk of any season, if too many of those games are unsatisfactory (wins, draws or losses) it will always cloud the perception of a large chunk of the fanbase.

[eamonn]

I just don't see how any Villa season ticket holder for 2008/09 and 2009/10 could have felt they had their money's worth.

In '09/10 at Villa Park we won eight, drew eight and lost three. Goals for 29, against 16. Six of the seven teams directly below us all had superior home records many having scored far more goals. Needless to say the top five's home record blew ours away.

In '08/09 our home record was even worse (the season that 4th seemed very likely until the comedown post-Moscow and Arsenal's resurgence). Seven wins, nine fucking draws and three defeats. Goals for 27, against 17. Five of the six teams below us again posted better results.

There's no denying that our away record that season was top-notch, and pretty impressive in 09/10 aswell. But from all those draws and the lack of goals at home, it doesn't take a genius to work-out that we struggled badly when taking the game to the opponent, attempting to create something from nothing. Not like the choreographed to perfection break-away brilliant goals away from home after being under the cosh for long spells. Take out those and set-pieces and MON's attacking tactics more often than not floundered.

[pauliewalnuts]

Also, eamonn, in each of those years mentioned we won two home games 5 nil  leaving 18 or so goals over the remaining 17 games  so  a goal a game, nowhere near enough.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's all well and good you insisting that we would have bought Keane (it never happened all the other years it was suggested), McGeady or Doyle but what if we had bought Bent? He did mention that we had been after him for some time didn't he?

In that summer I mentioned when MON was spending another 25 odd million to replace the defence he'd paid a similar amount for just twelve months before, Bent went to sunderland for ten million.

If anything sums up the short term  scatter gun nature of his transfer policy  it is that.