Clubs with low player turnover are most competitive

[davek]

http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2018/236/en/

I always thought that was the key to the dullard Moyes' ability to stay top half for so long with us. Although he wasn't cash rich (certainly not from 2009 and the fire-sales thereafter) he was time rich. He was given time to ride out rough seasons and retain whatever player he wanted - apart from Rooney up to 2009 - and that had the effect of building a base that even he couldn't screw up.

 

[Toffee in Jandals]

http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2018/236/en/

I always thought that was the key to the dullard Moyes' ability to stay top half for so long with us. Although he wasn't cash rich (certainly not from 2009 and the fire-sales thereafter) he was time rich. He was given time to ride out rough seasons and retain whatever player he wanted - apart from Rooney up to 2009 - and that had the effect of building a base that even he couldn't screw up.

...... Makes sense to me. Seems to be the FIFA generation who get upset if their club doesn't make a half-dozen new signings each summer transfer window. I think also the key to Ferguson's success at Manchester United was that at it's core each season there were always at least 7-8 first-team players who had been with the club 5+ years; and he improved the squad with not huge transformations; normally only 2-3 key signings each year.

And not signing any new players over the summer doesn't seem to have hurt Spurs' so far this season.

 

[Tubey]

Yeah there's a bit of a massive 'but' with that isn't there, given most of the 'stable' clubs will bring in one or two £100m players and have the financial clout to triple an existing players wages to keep hold of them.

 

[brigadier]

Moyes was at his best when we had injuries, the team picked itself, the smaller the squad the better he looked.

 

[davek]

Yeah there's a bit of a massive 'but' with that isn't there, given most of the 'stable' clubs will bring in one or two £100m players and have the financial clout to triple an existing players wages to keep hold of them.

But I also gave the example of Moyes. A good example of what can be done when there's not that much cash but a hell of a lot of time available.

 

[davek]

Moyes was at his best when we had injuries, the team picked itself, the smaller the squad the better he looked.

Exactly: less scope for Sgt Major Hoofball to balls it up.

 

[davek]

...... Makes sense to me. Seems to be the FIFA generation who get upset if their club doesn't make a half-dozen new signings each summer transfer window. I think also the key to Ferguson's success at Manchester United was that at it's core each season there were always at least 7-8 first-team players who had been with the club 5+ years; and he improved the squad with not huge transformations; normally only 2-3 key signings each year.

And not signing any new players over the summer doesn't seem to have hurt Spurs' so far this season.

Ferguson, like Moyes here, got the time to be rubbish first before settling into the job.

There's a lesson to be learned here with our current set up. Retain the manager and ignore the kneejerkers, and maybe cut the young lads a bit more slack who are still coming through - hand them enough time to develop and fulfil their potential.

 

[Nymzee]

Most top teams have a strong base XI and then only need to add a couple more.

Teams like us can’t keep their best - as well as manager hopping - so we’re constantly shipping loads in and out so fit.

 

[Eggs]

..I’m not surprised. It takes time and churn to build a successful team, but when you get there it tends to only need tweaking.

 

[Lanolin]

So if you're good, you don't sell all your best players and replace them in a desperate attempt to get better. This revelation has shaken me to the very core of my being.

 

[Yarrgh]

So if you're good, you don't sell all your best players and replace them in a desperate attempt to get better. This revelation has shaken me to the very core of my being.

Of course it is obvious, but it's still right. Get a squad of good players with a range of ages and replace them as needs be, hopefully with a low amount of new players in every year to not disrupt what is good in the team. 2-3 players in per year, with 1 for a starting role, and the others with a view to bed in over the next couple of seasons and challenge the existing squad for a place. Just a shame that we aren't in that position yet.

I actually think that we might have a decent core of players suited to Silva and Brands and the club's preferred direction. I hope that they get the time and resources to reach this promised land of stability. Add in some star quality and we might actually be in the success business again.

 

[Lanolin]

Of course it is obvious, but it's still right. Get a squad of good players with a range of ages and replace them as needs be, hopefully with a low amount of new players in every year to not disrupt what is good in the team. 2-3 players in per year, with 1 for a starting role, and the others with a view to bed in over the next couple of seasons and challenge the existing squad for a place. Just a shame that we aren't in that position yet.

I actually think that we might have a decent core of players suited to Silva and Brands and the club's preferred direction. I hope that they get the time and resources to reach this promised land of stability. Add in some star quality and we might actually be in the success business again.

Well yes it's right, but that's kind of the point being made isn't it? That everybody knows it's right, logic and experience both tell you it's right, so it's not really a point for discussion because it's so incredibly obvious that nobody can really argue with it.

 

[Yarrgh]

Well yes it's right, but that's kind of the point being made isn't it? That everybody knows it's right, logic and experience both tell you it's right, so it's not really a point for discussion because it's so incredibly obvious that nobody can really argue with it.

But @davek assures me that all his threads are like that!

 

[davek]

Well yes it's right, but that's kind of the point being made isn't it? That everybody knows it's right, logic and experience both tell you it's right, so it's not really a point for discussion because it's so incredibly obvious that nobody can really argue with it.

But it's right for teams that win things and teams that dont win things but do it out of necessity and become stable on the basis of less churn.

 

[Lanolin]

But it's right for teams that win things and teams that dont win things but do it out of necessity and become stable on the basis of less churn.

But it tells us nothing because it's so self explanatory.

The best teams don't have a lot of churn because they don't want or need to get rid of their players. If you're doing well - whether in a real or relative sense - you won't be actively seeking to bring in a load of new players and get rid of the ones you have, whereas if you're failing you'll try to lose your poor performers and replace them with better. Everybody knows that, so it's a fairly pointless table.

Moyes had a generally stable side (although it's worth pointing out that Rooney, Arteta, Pienaar and Lescott would all have had a shout at being our best players at the point we sold them, so it's not like he could retain anyone he wanted as you suggest) because in a relative sense the players he had were performing to a high standard and so we were happy to keep them. They weren't good because they were stable, they were stable because they were good.