Jamo Martinez
Player Valuation: £70m
A similar but more flattering comment in an article a while back used the analogy of 'the best pound for pound boxer' in the premier
- Status
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
So to be a team that doesnt punch above their weight we have to spend £50million on players and pay £90k wages? And what...end up in the same position we are now?
What happened to a team getting where they are through the basics of running a football club...tactics, management, team work ethic, skill etc?
And punched above our weight for 7 years?
Its also like saying a club like Newcastle are a "Big club"....because they spend (or did do) ridiculous amounts of money.
Doesnt make sense. So no, its not a spot on statement.
Where did Motson write this article mate, i would love to read the full SP because what i have read on this thread alone, Motty is talking pure garbage.
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
It wasnt a article, Ray Stubbs just asked him at the end of the games "as for clubs punching above their weight, John Motson watched Fulham v Everton". Motty was all like "yeah, both teams have this season etc"
Its was just a rant by me, not just at Motty but most media outlets that basically say the same [Poor language removed].
I dont mind us being the plucky underdogs...but a bit of credit would be nice rather than making us out that we're a team that dont belong in the top 6 teams in the league.
Think of it this way: if any other club in that has spent about 3 million per year on transfers each year had finished fifth wouldn't you say they were punching above their height. On top of that, how many teams have higher turnover, pay higher wages, have bigger squads etc? If this isn't "punching above our height" then what is?
What does "big club" have to do with this?
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
Again, what has how much a teams spends got to do with being a consistantly good side?
Because Spurs, Citeh, Villa even Fulham this year (who spent more in the window) spend more and finish below us, that means they underacheived. We spend less and finish higher - for nearly 10 years I might add - we overacheive?
In terms of strengthening a squad, which is what a transfer budget is meant to do, we've spent well and improved year in year out. So in terms of whether Spurs for eg pay £50mill in the summer and finish 7th, and we spend £3mill (net) and finish 5th and a FA Cup final, who has been better managed and more shrewd in the market?
1 or 2 seasons, call that a flash in the pan "punching above their weight". But 7 years (minus one blip) and its still punching above weight? Still as flash in the pan?
As for the "big club" reference. The term "big club" is branded about due to how much the club has in the kitty - Citeh, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, by that definition are bigger clubs that Everton. The term "punching above their weight" directed at Everton has the same meaning - ie Because they don’t have money they don’t belong in the top half of the table or to finish 5th, they are not a big club because of their financial situation.
All I'm saying is…what happened to good old fashioned football dictating what a club does and where they finish?
I'd rather go along with Garth Crooks said weeks ago - Everton are exception to the rule than say the club has punched above its weight for 7 years.
Because Spurs, Citeh, Villa even Fulham this year (who spent more in the window) spend more and finish below us, that means they underacheived. We spend less and finish higher - for nearly 10 years I might add - we overacheive?
In terms of strengthening a squad, which is what a transfer budget is meant to do, we've spent well and improved year in year out. So in terms of whether Spurs for eg pay £50mill in the summer and finish 7th, and we spend £3mill (net) and finish 5th and a FA Cup final, who has been better managed and more shrewd in the market?
1 or 2 seasons, call that a flash in the pan "punching above their weight". But 7 years (minus one blip) and its still punching above weight? Still as flash in the pan?
As for the "big club" reference. The term "big club" is branded about due to how much the club has in the kitty - Citeh, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, by that definition are bigger clubs that Everton. The term "punching above their weight" directed at Everton has the same meaning - ie Because they don’t have money they don’t belong in the top half of the table or to finish 5th, they are not a big club because of their financial situation.
All I'm saying is…what happened to good old fashioned football dictating what a club does and where they finish?
I'd rather go along with Garth Crooks said weeks ago - Everton are exception to the rule than say the club has punched above its weight for 7 years.
There is a reason why the top four always consists of the same four teams. Care to guess what that is? You would have a point if that was not the case, but now it "top four" and "and the best of the rest".
Yes, because it is pretty much down to one man: David Moyes. He has bought players like Arteta, Cahill, Jagielka and Lescott for peanuts.
This has nothing to do with whether we are punching above our weight or not. By your logic, no-one can "punch above their weight", because if a team finishes higher than expected, it has to be down to those things (no-one can be that lucky over the entire season).
The manager has been the same over that period. What was our average finish in the Premier before Moyes?
That went out of fashion with the invention of the Premier League.
bobbyrob
Player Valuation: £10m
Top post mate!
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
But we're not a top 4 side so why compare to them? So by what you're saying, compared to how the top 4 spends, everyone punches above their weight? The top 4 sides already have good teams. They pay over the odds to improve that team over seasons. Apart from Chelsea (who never this year btw), the rest of the top 4 bring in 1 or 2 players per season for the in and around the same transfer fee's as a Spurs or Citeh can afford. They have good management and a good squad (as United and Arsenal show with their youth teams) before you even think about how much they spend per year.
Again, isnt that shrewd buys and great management? Moyes reflects the club, Moyes has shaped the club. You tell me, do you think Moyes feels we are a club who punches above its weight because we've bought bargins? Or does he thing we are a team that works hard, plan, manage, graft, utlise tactics, do what a good football clubs do to get a result?
I think it does. Like I said, 1 or 2 seasons, then yes. But for 7 years? West Ham, Fulham, Stoke - punched above their weight this season due to form of last season and behind the scenes troubles. We finish 5th again, 6th the previous year….and shouldn’t be there because we don’t have the funds?
What has that got to do with anything? Boro had Southgate as a manger for around 4 years or something, had more funds than us, and where are they? Because we've had the same manager for 7 years we should finish 5th? Doesn’t make sense.
I don’t understand that. You're saying money dictates how well a club does and not how the club is ran and managed? Ask Newcastle the same thing. What have Spurs done apart from the Carling Cup? Havent Citeh spent £60million? Villa ended up exactly where they were last year.
So by you're definition - to be a club that doesn’t punch above its weight we should be able to spend £40million in a summer, just to jump out of that bracket?
I don’t agree. IMO Saying we punch above our weight now is a derogatory and undermining term to use in context of the club and what Moyes has done for 7 years.
To be honest, the whole thing comes out of the fact that most journalists don't watch much football. The selection process for a journalist is mainly on the quality of the writing, not the quality of the analysis, and hence their actual football knowledge is significantly lower than, say, the top 10% of football fans (and lets face it, there are a lot of totally clueless football fans out there).
The average journalist lives in London, watches the big 4 games, with half an eye on whatever live game is on Sky and the highlights on MOTD, plus occasionally whatever game they get forced to attend, plus England games. Hence their opinion of players at the smaller clubs isn't based on actually watching them for 90, but rather from:
(1) Statistics
(2) Highlights
(3) Transfer fee
(4) Which club they play at.
This is why any club that actually uses decent tactics (shock! horror!) confuses the hell out of journalists. If a manager happens to win a few games on the trot by selecting a balanced team, he's a "miracle worker", as if only Jesus himself could work out how exploit Newcastle's defence. If you asked a journalist exactly how Fulham have managed to get results, they'll mumble something about hard work and organisation (which are true), Bobby Zamora's ability to hold up the ball (which is total bull), Hangeland being quite tall, and Schwarzer being good. That's their maximum level of tactical sophistication.
This is why Gravesen was considered a ball winning midfielder by the London press.
This is why players who go on brief scoring runs are considered great players/prospects, when anybody who watches them play for 90 minutes can see how little they do (see Lita, Ricketts, Benni McCarthey).
This is why defensive full backs never get any credit at all, while Gareth Bale and Glenn Johnson were considered great full backs when they were kids (based entirely on their attacking ability - neither could defend at that stage. Bale still can't.). Defensive full backs don't show up in a 3 minute MOTD summary.
This is why Lee Carsley never any respect at all from the national press, while Gravesen was hailed.
This why Geovani Dos Santos must be good. He cost money and used to play for Barcelona - he couldn't possibly be one footed.
This is why the skill of being positionally aware gets zero appreciation. I mean, doesn't Micah Richards look great when he starts out 10 yards out of position, but uses his pace to make the tackle? Looks great on highlight reels, doesn't it? And if, say, a Croatian winger gets off countless long range shots as a result, you can safely get away without any blame because you were 10 yards away.
This is why managers like Moyes and Hodgeson get credit for organising the team, but no credit goes to the players. In the eyes of a journalist, any player can learn to be organised, it's just that other managers forget to tell them (or something). They don't seem to notice that Moyes and Hodgeson simply bin players who don't fit their system.
This is why any formation that ends with a "1" is considered more defensive that any formation that ends with a "2".
This is why goalkeepers who are "great shot stoppers" (i.e. make spectacular saves) get all the praise, while those who are positionally aware don't. I'm sorry, but if somebody shoots from 30 yards and the ball goes more than a yard inside the post, it's not a shot "that no keeper in the world could save", it's a shot that "no keeper with [Poor language removed] positional sense and crap reaction times could save", which is why Paul Robinson keeps conceeding all these goals which he had "no chance" over, and David James doesn't.
Similarly, this is why a keeper who makes the occasion blunder is considered terrible. Give me an otherwise brilliant keeper who makes the occasion blunder over a keeper who is always average anyday (obviously give me a great keeper first, but if that isn't an option).
This is why journalists get really confused whenever a player gets transfered and doesn't play to exactly the same level at his new club. I mean, if you totally ignore tactics, there's no reason why David Bentley should struggle in a team with no ball winners in midfield and no genuine target man in the middle, is there? How did it work at Blackburn? How the hell should they know, they never actually watched Blackburn - they just saw Santa Cruz scoring from his crosses on MOTD.
This is why players who spend a lot of time at one club outside the big 4 are considered to be average. Transfer fees are a status symbol, and if you stay at one club you can't be very good.
This is why, on the flip side, any team with player who was expensive must be good. This is why Sunderland have "underachieved" - in the media's eyes, they have a £8m centre back. In my eyes, their centre back is Anton Ferdinand.
This is why Villa are considered a better team than us. They have spent more money in a short span of time. Players who we signed years ago, like Yobo, can't possibly be that good, whereas Villa have - recently - spent a load of money. Their logic really is that lazy - because Villa have spent £8m on Cuella, they must be a better team than us (this is still the general long term attitude, even as we finish the season above them with half a team injured all season, and their best defender retires and their best midfielder likely to be off in the summer). Yes, Villa have money to spend, but unless they spend it on players a lot better than Shorey, Young and Cuella, we are still going to have a much better defence than them. But that's one level of thinking too deep for the papers - Villa will spend money, therefore Villa will improve - just like Spurs, Newcastle and Sunderland do every year.
Can you tell that these guys really, really piss me off?
The average journalist lives in London, watches the big 4 games, with half an eye on whatever live game is on Sky and the highlights on MOTD, plus occasionally whatever game they get forced to attend, plus England games. Hence their opinion of players at the smaller clubs isn't based on actually watching them for 90, but rather from:
(1) Statistics
(2) Highlights
(3) Transfer fee
(4) Which club they play at.
This is why any club that actually uses decent tactics (shock! horror!) confuses the hell out of journalists. If a manager happens to win a few games on the trot by selecting a balanced team, he's a "miracle worker", as if only Jesus himself could work out how exploit Newcastle's defence. If you asked a journalist exactly how Fulham have managed to get results, they'll mumble something about hard work and organisation (which are true), Bobby Zamora's ability to hold up the ball (which is total bull), Hangeland being quite tall, and Schwarzer being good. That's their maximum level of tactical sophistication.
This is why Gravesen was considered a ball winning midfielder by the London press.
This is why players who go on brief scoring runs are considered great players/prospects, when anybody who watches them play for 90 minutes can see how little they do (see Lita, Ricketts, Benni McCarthey).
This is why defensive full backs never get any credit at all, while Gareth Bale and Glenn Johnson were considered great full backs when they were kids (based entirely on their attacking ability - neither could defend at that stage. Bale still can't.). Defensive full backs don't show up in a 3 minute MOTD summary.
This is why Lee Carsley never any respect at all from the national press, while Gravesen was hailed.
This why Geovani Dos Santos must be good. He cost money and used to play for Barcelona - he couldn't possibly be one footed.
This is why the skill of being positionally aware gets zero appreciation. I mean, doesn't Micah Richards look great when he starts out 10 yards out of position, but uses his pace to make the tackle? Looks great on highlight reels, doesn't it? And if, say, a Croatian winger gets off countless long range shots as a result, you can safely get away without any blame because you were 10 yards away.
This is why managers like Moyes and Hodgeson get credit for organising the team, but no credit goes to the players. In the eyes of a journalist, any player can learn to be organised, it's just that other managers forget to tell them (or something). They don't seem to notice that Moyes and Hodgeson simply bin players who don't fit their system.
This is why any formation that ends with a "1" is considered more defensive that any formation that ends with a "2".
This is why goalkeepers who are "great shot stoppers" (i.e. make spectacular saves) get all the praise, while those who are positionally aware don't. I'm sorry, but if somebody shoots from 30 yards and the ball goes more than a yard inside the post, it's not a shot "that no keeper in the world could save", it's a shot that "no keeper with [Poor language removed] positional sense and crap reaction times could save", which is why Paul Robinson keeps conceeding all these goals which he had "no chance" over, and David James doesn't.
Similarly, this is why a keeper who makes the occasion blunder is considered terrible. Give me an otherwise brilliant keeper who makes the occasion blunder over a keeper who is always average anyday (obviously give me a great keeper first, but if that isn't an option).
This is why journalists get really confused whenever a player gets transfered and doesn't play to exactly the same level at his new club. I mean, if you totally ignore tactics, there's no reason why David Bentley should struggle in a team with no ball winners in midfield and no genuine target man in the middle, is there? How did it work at Blackburn? How the hell should they know, they never actually watched Blackburn - they just saw Santa Cruz scoring from his crosses on MOTD.
This is why players who spend a lot of time at one club outside the big 4 are considered to be average. Transfer fees are a status symbol, and if you stay at one club you can't be very good.
This is why, on the flip side, any team with player who was expensive must be good. This is why Sunderland have "underachieved" - in the media's eyes, they have a £8m centre back. In my eyes, their centre back is Anton Ferdinand.
This is why Villa are considered a better team than us. They have spent more money in a short span of time. Players who we signed years ago, like Yobo, can't possibly be that good, whereas Villa have - recently - spent a load of money. Their logic really is that lazy - because Villa have spent £8m on Cuella, they must be a better team than us (this is still the general long term attitude, even as we finish the season above them with half a team injured all season, and their best defender retires and their best midfielder likely to be off in the summer). Yes, Villa have money to spend, but unless they spend it on players a lot better than Shorey, Young and Cuella, we are still going to have a much better defence than them. But that's one level of thinking too deep for the papers - Villa will spend money, therefore Villa will improve - just like Spurs, Newcastle and Sunderland do every year.
Can you tell that these guys really, really piss me off?
- Status
