Supporters Trust & Purslow

[SoccerHQ]

I think the Buendia signing was excellent, and probably as close to replacing Grealish's flair as we could have hoped.  Bailey was a bit of a punt that on papaer looked very exciting.  In reality it looked like we massively overpaid for him.

Ings was clearly a panic buy.  On the face of it it was exciting, we definitely needed more firepower up front and the excitiment on here and elsewhere was tangible that we'd signed him.  Ultimately though he was signed with no plan.  Trying to appease him and Watkins cost Smith his job and Gerrard hasn't made it work either.  We needed a striker to compete with Watkins, not necessarily to play along side him, although in theory I would have expected Watkins to make a better fist of playing wide whereas instead if felt like he just sulked.  Missing out on Tammy was the huge mistake that summer.   

I don't think we massively overpaid for Bailey. He was hitting double figures in Bundesliga for top 6 club and had decent stats in europa league aswell so given his age I'd actually say under 30m in these times is actually a bargain, Buendia cost more and he had far less top level experience.

Ings was the signing that made little sense, age and totally the wrong profile for forward we needed. We were tentatively linked with Alvarez who went to Man. City so that was type we needed, someone who could play out left or also CF if required. Most of the top teams have that sort of versatile forward.

I agree, I was saying all along that summer (even when the hope was that Grealish was staying) that I wanted someone who could primarily play out wide but would be an option upfront if needed (Amine Gouiri and Marcus Thuram were my 2 picks at the time).

Gone off the Donall Malen hype train I see (wink).

Bemuses me we never signed Bowen in summer 2019 given our transfer policy that summer. Although I suspect DS would've just looked at his goal record and constantly played him at CF so he may not have been as effective for us as he has been for West Ham.

That's exactly the type of final third forward we need in the squad eventually.

[Risso]

Buendia is nowhere near as good as Grealish. He’s great at through balls and he’s got quick feet in terms of getting a shot off, but he has no pace at all and struggles to impose himself on games when he starts.

[pauliewalnuts]

TBF that's probably why Grealish cost 3 times as much as Buendia did.

[paul_e]

I think the Buendia signing was excellent, and probably as close to replacing Grealish's flair as we could have hoped.  Bailey was a bit of a punt that on papaer looked very exciting.  In reality it looked like we massively overpaid for him.

Ings was clearly a panic buy.  On the face of it it was exciting, we definitely needed more firepower up front and the excitiment on here and elsewhere was tangible that we'd signed him.  Ultimately though he was signed with no plan.  Trying to appease him and Watkins cost Smith his job and Gerrard hasn't made it work either.  We needed a striker to compete with Watkins, not necessarily to play along side him, although in theory I would have expected Watkins to make a better fist of playing wide whereas instead if felt like he just sulked.  Missing out on Tammy was the huge mistake that summer.   

I don't think we massively overpaid for Bailey. He was hitting double figures in Bundesliga for top 6 club and had decent stats in europa league aswell so given his age I'd actually say under 30m in these times is actually a bargain, Buendia cost more and he had far less top level experience.

Ings was the signing that made little sense, age and totally the wrong profile for forward we needed. We were tentatively linked with Alvarez who went to Man. City so that was type we needed, someone who could play out left or also CF if required. Most of the top teams have that sort of versatile forward.

I agree, I was saying all along that summer (even when the hope was that Grealish was staying) that I wanted someone who could primarily play out wide but would be an option upfront if needed (Amine Gouiri and Marcus Thuram were my 2 picks at the time).

Gone off the Donall Malen hype train I see (wink).

Bemuses me we never signed Bowen in summer 2019 given our transfer policy that summer. Although I suspect DS would've just looked at his goal record and constantly played him at CF so he may not have been as effective for us as he has been for West Ham.

That's exactly the type of final third forward we need in the squad eventually.

I couldn't remember his name if I'm honest, I did know there was another one at the time though.

[eamonn]

The basic principle is creating Grealish in the aggregate.

Yes, and as was pointed out at the time you can't play 13 men.

You don't create the aggregate with 13 players.

Can you explain your point dumbed-down, without using the word aggregate?

[PeterWithesShin]

It's a principle used in baseball, it's mentioned in Moneyball. I think it's a shit one when applied to football and doesn't work but it's what Purslow was talking about.
The basic idea is you don't replace just Grealish, you try and replicate his goals and assists across, in this case, 3 players. Player 1 replacing Grealish will obviously be a downgrade, players 2 and 3 replace two players that were starting the previous season, and are upgrades on those 2 players. Thus creating the aggregate. The 3 new players give you the same, or more, goals and assists than Grealish and the 2 previous players did.

[Toronto Villa]

It’s something Southampton did quite well for a bit, as did Leicester. Really well. You buy smartly and sell for a fortune and build from there. The money from Maguire, Kante, Mahrez etc for the most part has been really well spent. But in the PL you have to keep investing. It has to be a mix of real established talent and the aforementioned approach. That’s what I think he wants for us to achieve. We are certainly not there yet.

[paul_e]

It's a principle used in baseball, it's mentioned in Moneyball. I think it's a shit one when applied to football and doesn't work but it's what Purslow was talking about.
The basic idea is you don't replace just Grealish, you try and replicate his goals and assists across, in this case, 3 players. Player 1 replacing Grealish will obviously be a downgrade, players 2 and 3 replace two players that were starting the previous season, and are upgrades on those 2 players. Thus creating the aggregate. The 3 new players give you the same, or more, goals and assists than Grealish and the 2 previous players did.

I don't think it's a shit idea, at it's core you get a big fee in for a player and then use the money to make 3-4 improvements to the team that make you better overall. The problem is that it's a really difficult thing to get right, particularly if you haven't planned for it well in advance. With 4-5 months of scouting and talking to agents, etc maybe you can work out all the weaknesses in the squad and get half a dozen players that you've looked at as options to fill those gaps but because we were still hoping he'd stay right up until the last week or 2 we ended up rushing things and making a mess of it.

[PeterWithesShin]

The reason I think it's a shit idea, maybe a strong term, is that you get definites in baseball, every single game. 27 outs, a minimum of 27 at bats, it never changes, 162 games a season. The idea was to recreate Giambi by taking the aggregate OBP of him and 2 other players that left. You don't get those definites in football. The improving the team thing is just what every club does anyway, or at least tries to do. I think trying to recreate Grealish in the aggregate is a 'shit' idea because of that, and because Grealish gave us much more than just the number of goals/assists.

[paul_e]

The reason I think it's a shit idea, maybe a strong term, is that you get definites in baseball, every single game. 27 outs, a minimum of 27 at bats, it never changes, 162 games a season. The idea was to recreate Giambi by taking the aggregate OBP of him and 2 other players that left. You don't get those definites in football. The improving the team thing is just what every club does anyway, or at least tries to do. I think trying to recreate Grealish in the aggregate is a 'shit' idea because of that, and because Grealish gave us much more than just the number of goals/assists.

His explanation was shit but the idea of using a big incoming fee to improve the squad overall despite losing your best player is, as you say, what every club tries to do, it's pretty much the only thing you can do unless your model is to make profit on player trading.

[Clark W Griswold]

Going off 'stats' is bollocks though. You sell your best player for a fortune, replace him and then strengthen the team in the areas that you most need it with the rest of the money.

A great example for us was in 1991. We sold David Platt for £5m, and bought in Garry Parker to replace him and also bought Atkinson, Staunton, Richardson, Teale, Kubicki and Paul Mortimer with the proceeds. 7 new players and only 1 was shit, some of them were 90's icons for us. We added a few freebies as well and then spent a bit more over the following 12 months and had a team challenging for the league a year or so later. I suspect our scouting network was a bit better then!

[eamonn]

It's a principle used in baseball, it's mentioned in Moneyball. I think it's a shit one when applied to football and doesn't work but it's what Purslow was talking about.
The basic idea is you don't replace just Grealish, you try and replicate his goals and assists across, in this case, 3 players. Player 1 replacing Grealish will obviously be a downgrade, players 2 and 3 replace two players that were starting the previous season, and are upgrades on those 2 players. Thus creating the aggregate. The 3 new players give you the same, or more, goals and assists than Grealish and the 2 previous players did.

Gotcha, ta.

[Risso]

I agree with PWS, a lot of what made Grealish so valuable to us wasn’t just measured in goals and assists, it was how he seemingly made everyone around him look better. Even in just getting three players in who could slot in and improve the team without replacing Grealish the recruitment team did a woeful job and we haven’t recovered from it yet.

[Mister E]

I agree with PWS, a lot of what made Grealish so valuable to us wasn’t just measured in goals and assists, it was how he seemingly made everyone around him look better. Even in just getting three players in who could slot in and improve the team without replacing Grealish the recruitment team did a woeful job and we haven’t recovered from it yet.

Grealish's best attribute for us was in his role as the out-ball - our defenders (yes, Mings, I'm looking at you) could hack the ball away knowing that JG would hold, then turn, pass or continue to hold. This gave everyone the time to provide support and the confidence of knowing that they might still retain possession of the ball.
Last night was a masterclass in what happens without a player like that.

[PaulTheVillan]

Rename the thread to Supporters lack of trust in Purslow