?% Villa. Martinez, MON and the pie eaters

[Concrete John]

Some of the number crunchers have looked at this "utilisation rate" issue.

"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. "

Transfer Price Index -  Clicky

It's an intersting piece, but how is the 'average utilization rate' calculated and what exactly does it mean?  My argument was, and this is coming from a MON fan, that we spent a lot on virtually unused players, so that saving that money wouldn't have impacted on results.  Yet this, plus we know we had a rather static first 11, doesn't tie in to these percentages, if I'm reading them correctly.     

[Percy McCarthy]

MON made press comments about how milner was going to leave ages before he left upsetting milner in the process. Whether you believe that was intended to burn Milnerr's bridges so he could get the money or he was just resigned to him leaving is up to personal viewpoint, but i think its pretty clear MON was okay with him being sold.

In answer to my simple question, does that mean 'yes, I'm admitting MON didn't sell him'?

*sigh* please for love of god tell me what you want to hear. Do i think MON had agreed to sell Milner? Yes. Do i think it was all done by the time he left? no

That'll do. You used to say he sold him, now you've changed your mind. A simple 'Yes, I was wrong about him selling him', pages ago, would have done.

If what i typed above means "yes, i was wrong about him selling him" in your world Percy, then i'm happy for you. Obviously, Milner would still be here if MON had stayed because the nasty man Lerner would have backed down instead of sacking the poor cherub, which we all know is what happened really.



I love conspiracy theories me.....

Yes, we know greg. We remember your 'Ellis is still running the club' one, and your even more ridiculous 'MON is still selling our players even though he's left' one.

This reminds me of your ten-page argument about zonal marking, which only ended when it was finally established that you didn't actually know what zonal marking is. According to you, our problems at set-peices were caused by MON phoning Collins and Dunne befrore games and telling them to fuck it up on purpose. Comedy gold, if only you meant to be so laughable.

[LeeB]

Talking of speculating on the past, what would have been interesting is if Randy had bought the club in May 2006 and either had to keep Dolly on or replace him without the input of Doug/ Stride who would have been our manager?

That's a really intriguing question.

I think given that he was highly rated, unemployed and clearly interested in the job, the outcome would have been the same.

Given that that description applied to a few managers this summer and we still ended up with McLeish, I'd say the outcome would have been very different.

Well I'd say that a few years back we had a bigger pot of cash to piss up the wall, which is always enticing for managers, or are you suggesting the Master Businessman could/would have lured the likes of Ancelloti to the club?

[Villa'Zawg]

Some of the number crunchers have looked at this "utilisation rate" issue.

"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. "

Transfer Price Index -  Clicky

It's an intersting piece, but how is the 'average utilization rate' calculated and what exactly does it mean?  My argument was, and this is coming from a MON fan, that we spent a lot on virtually unused players, so that saving that money wouldn't have impacted on results.  Yet this, plus we know we had a rather static first 11, doesn't tie in to these percentages, if I'm reading them correctly.     

The utilisation rate is the value of the players in the starting 11 for each PL game as a percentage of the value of the entire squad. It equates to the amount of a clubs transfer spending that is on the pitch.

I think when you do the analysis it shows that very few of our players were bought and almost never played (Beye, Harewood, ??). Most of his signings had a significant run as regular 1st team players before becoming squad players, usually because they were replaced by better.

I don't know but it could be masking a problem if we were "overplaying" our more expensive signings.

[Concrete John]

The utilisation rate is the value of the players in the starting 11 for each PL game as a percentage of the value of the entire squad. It equates to the amount of a clubs transfer spending that is on the pitch.

I think when you do the analysis it shows that very few of our players were bought and almost never played (Beye, Harewood, ??). Most of his signings had a significant run as regular 1st team players before becoming squad players, usually because they were replaced by better.

I don't know but it could be masking a problem if we were "overplaying" our more expensive signings.

I think that's what it's doing.  If that's the untilization rate then it does not reflect whether or not the players playing were more constant than other clubs, so that the unused percentage were also the same players each game, as opposed to mixing it around in more of a rotation system.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

I don't know but it could be masking a problem if we were "overplaying" our more expensive signings.

From the said report:

Clearly, for O’Neill, the key to outperforming £XI expectations was the consistency of the starting XI. [Although it can lead to fatigue later in the campaign – a regular criticism of the club's performance under the Ulsterman.]

[Greg N'Ash]

MON made press comments about how milner was going to leave ages before he left upsetting milner in the process. Whether you believe that was intended to burn Milnerr's bridges so he could get the money or he was just resigned to him leaving is up to personal viewpoint, but i think its pretty clear MON was okay with him being sold.

In answer to my simple question, does that mean 'yes, I'm admitting MON didn't sell him'?

*sigh* please for love of god tell me what you want to hear. Do i think MON had agreed to sell Milner? Yes. Do i think it was all done by the time he left? no

That'll do. You used to say he sold him, now you've changed your mind. A simple 'Yes, I was wrong about him selling him', pages ago, would have done.

If what i typed above means "yes, i was wrong about him selling him" in your world Percy, then i'm happy for you. Obviously, Milner would still be here if MON had stayed because the nasty man Lerner would have backed down instead of sacking the poor cherub, which we all know is what happened really.



I love conspiracy theories me.....

Yes, we know greg. We remember your 'Ellis is still running the club' one, and your even more ridiculous 'MON is still selling our players even though he's left' one.

This reminds me of your ten-page argument about zonal marking, which only ended when it was finally established that you didn't actually know what zonal marking is. According to you, our problems at set-peices were caused by MON phoning Collins and Dunne befrore games and telling them to fuck it up on purpose. Comedy gold, if only you meant to be so laughable.

MON made press comments about how milner was going to leave ages before he left upsetting milner in the process. Whether you believe that was intended to burn Milnerr's bridges so he could get the money or he was just resigned to him leaving is up to personal viewpoint, but i think its pretty clear MON was okay with him being sold.

In answer to my simple question, does that mean 'yes, I'm admitting MON didn't sell him'?

*sigh* please for love of god tell me what you want to hear. Do i think MON had agreed to sell Milner? Yes. Do i think it was all done by the time he left? no

That'll do. You used to say he sold him, now you've changed your mind. A simple 'Yes, I was wrong about him selling him', pages ago, would have done.

If what i typed above means "yes, i was wrong about him selling him" in your world Percy, then i'm happy for you. Obviously, Milner would still be here if MON had stayed because the nasty man Lerner would have backed down instead of sacking the poor cherub, which we all know is what happened really.



I love conspiracy theories me.....

Yes, we know greg. We remember your 'Ellis is still running the club' one, and your even more ridiculous 'MON is still selling our players even though he's left' one.

This reminds me of your ten-page argument about zonal marking, which only ended when it was finally established that you didn't actually know what zonal marking is. According to you, our problems at set-peices were caused by MON phoning Collins and Dunne befrore games and telling them to fuck it up on purpose. Comedy gold, if only you meant to be so laughable.

And there you have it. Only took you about 15 hours and 6 pages to revert to type and start lying. Look if you're convinced MON left because he wouldn't sell milner despite all public comments to the contrary then come out and say it rather than arguing pointlessly on the technicality that he wasn't actually there when the transfer was finally concluded.. What next? GH was sacked because he wouldn't let Young go? man alive.........

[Villa'Zawg]

I don't know but it could be masking a problem if we were "overplaying" our more expensive signings.

From the said report:

Clearly, for O’Neill, the key to outperforming £XI expectations was the consistency of the starting XI. [Although it can lead to fatigue later in the campaign – a regular criticism of the club's performance under the Ulsterman.]

It did appear to be a problem up until his final season (when we strengthened with the Dunne, Collins etc. influx), where we averaged 2 points a game in the league from the end of Dec to end of April along with the cup runs.

[Percy McCarthy]

MON made press comments about how milner was going to leave ages before he left upsetting milner in the process. Whether you believe that was intended to burn Milnerr's bridges so he could get the money or he was just resigned to him leaving is up to personal viewpoint, but i think its pretty clear MON was okay with him being sold.

In answer to my simple question, does that mean 'yes, I'm admitting MON didn't sell him'?

*sigh* please for love of god tell me what you want to hear. Do i think MON had agreed to sell Milner? Yes. Do i think it was all done by the time he left? no

That'll do. You used to say he sold him, now you've changed your mind. A simple 'Yes, I was wrong about him selling him', pages ago, would have done.

If what i typed above means "yes, i was wrong about him selling him" in your world Percy, then i'm happy for you. Obviously, Milner would still be here if MON had stayed because the nasty man Lerner would have backed down instead of sacking the poor cherub, which we all know is what happened really.



I love conspiracy theories me.....

Yes, we know greg. We remember your 'Ellis is still running the club' one, and your even more ridiculous 'MON is still selling our players even though he's left' one.

This reminds me of your ten-page argument about zonal marking, which only ended when it was finally established that you didn't actually know what zonal marking is. According to you, our problems at set-peices were caused by MON phoning Collins and Dunne befrore games and telling them to fuck it up on purpose. Comedy gold, if only you meant to be so laughable.

MON made press comments about how milner was going to leave ages before he left upsetting milner in the process. Whether you believe that was intended to burn Milnerr's bridges so he could get the money or he was just resigned to him leaving is up to personal viewpoint, but i think its pretty clear MON was okay with him being sold.

In answer to my simple question, does that mean 'yes, I'm admitting MON didn't sell him'?

*sigh* please for love of god tell me what you want to hear. Do i think MON had agreed to sell Milner? Yes. Do i think it was all done by the time he left? no

That'll do. You used to say he sold him, now you've changed your mind. A simple 'Yes, I was wrong about him selling him', pages ago, would have done.

If what i typed above means "yes, i was wrong about him selling him" in your world Percy, then i'm happy for you. Obviously, Milner would still be here if MON had stayed because the nasty man Lerner would have backed down instead of sacking the poor cherub, which we all know is what happened really.



I love conspiracy theories me.....

Yes, we know greg. We remember your 'Ellis is still running the club' one, and your even more ridiculous 'MON is still selling our players even though he's left' one.

This reminds me of your ten-page argument about zonal marking, which only ended when it was finally established that you didn't actually know what zonal marking is. According to you, our problems at set-peices were caused by MON phoning Collins and Dunne befrore games and telling them to fuck it up on purpose. Comedy gold, if only you meant to be so laughable.

And there you have it. Only took you about 15 hours and 6 pages to revert to type and start lying. Look if you're convinced MON left because he wouldn't sell milner

1)Yours is the only lie there mate, and you know it. Unless of course, you've forgotten what you said about Ellis, the Milner sale and MON contacting Dunne and Collins. In which case, you have my sympathy. The whole argument (this time) was re: you lying about MON's net spend because it suits your 5-years-and-counting obsession.

2) I don't think MON left because he wouldn't sell Milner. I don't know why he left, same as you.

Imagine! Called a liar by H&V's Walter Mitty! Larf!

[Concrete John]

I don't know but it could be masking a problem if we were "overplaying" our more expensive signings.

From the said report:

Clearly, for O’Neill, the key to outperforming £XI expectations was the consistency of the starting XI. [Although it can lead to fatigue later in the campaign – a regular criticism of the club's performance under the Ulsterman.]

It did appear to be a problem up until his final season (when we strengthened with the Dunne, Collins etc. influx), where we averaged 2 points a game in the league from the end of Dec to end of April along with the cup runs.

We had a better season in MON's final tear than in any other under him, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there was still players that hardly got a look in collecting high salaries.  Players we effectively didn't need as we wouldn't have even noticed them not being here.  When it came to orgainising a football side and getting them to win games then MON is right up there, but when it comes to balancing the budget and larger squads of modern football he was found wanting.         

[Merv]

Yeah. In that final season under MON we effectively had a squad that could field two separate X1s... his first choice X1, which barely changed in terms of starting line-up, and then a second X1 which, if played every week, could probably have secured a mid-table place in the PL. Then there were a handful of senior players not in the picture altogether, and then some emerging young players who barely got a sniff (European competition aside).

[Villa'Zawg]

I don't know but it could be masking a problem if we were "overplaying" our more expensive signings.

From the said report:

Clearly, for O’Neill, the key to outperforming £XI expectations was the consistency of the starting XI. [Although it can lead to fatigue later in the campaign – a regular criticism of the club's performance under the Ulsterman.]

It did appear to be a problem up until his final season (when we strengthened with the Dunne, Collins etc. influx), where we averaged 2 points a game in the league from the end of Dec to end of April along with the cup runs.

We had a better season in MON's final tear than in any other under him, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there was still players that hardly got a look in collecting high salaries.  Players we effectively didn't need as we wouldn't have even noticed them not being here.  When it came to orgainising a football side and getting them to win games then MON is right up there, but when it comes to balancing the budget and larger squads of modern football he was found wanting.         

I understand the point, I'm just not sure that the evidence stacks up.

Villa squad stats 2009/10 - Clicky

Only Beye, Davies (loan?) and NRC underplayed of the senior players available.

[Merv]

Really?

Reading that, it's plain to see a core of players with 30-plus league starts and then more than a dozen playing very little.

Players MON signed:
Luke Young 14 (slightly more than starting a third of games)
Sidwell 12 (so he started less than a third of games)
Beye 5
Davies 2
Guzan 0
NRC 6
Salifou 0
Shorey 3
Delph 4

Then there were several young players who had been involved the season before (and extensively in pre-season) but largely overlooked: Albrighton (0), Clark (1), Delfouneso (0), Gardner (0).

[Concrete John]

I understand the point, I'm just not sure that the evidence stacks up.

Villa squad stats 2009/10 - Clicky

Only Beye, Davies (loan?) and NRC underplayed of the senior players available.

Can't get into that site at work, but checked the official PL site and found out the following for 09/10:-
Freidle - 38 appearances
Dunne, Petrov and Ash - 37
Gabby, Cuellar and Milner - 36
Collins - 33
Warnock and Heskey - 31
Carew - 30
Downing and Sidwell - 25

Next on the list is Luke Young at 16. 

So that doesn't leave a huge amount of games for the likes of NRC, Shorey, Beye and Davies, all of whom therefore barely contributed despite large salaries and transfer outlays.

EDIT: just so it doesn't get confused with Merv's post above, the figures I used are appearances, so including being subbed on.  Hence he's got Luke Young at 14 starts and I have him at 16 appearances.

[Merv]

That's right. I think the soccerbase stats, for example, break down Heskey's starts as 16 and subs appearances on at 15. So you get the idea of his true role too.

Funnily enough, I was pondering this the other day - the squad for O'Neill's last season. And the two X1s I came up with, based on his first choice and his reserves, were:

Friedel
Cuellar Dunne Collins Warnock

Downing Milner Petrov A Young

             Gabby Carew


Guzan
L Young Davies Clark Shorey

Albrighton NRC Sidwell Delph

            Heskey Delfouneso

And that doesn't feature senior professionals such as Harewood, Beye, Andy Marshall, Gardner, Salifou, Osbourne.

When I looked at it like that, I realised what a large squad O'Neill had built up. He signed 21 of those players himself.