PL | Manchester City v Arsenal | 5th November 2017 | 14:15 GMT | Sky Sports

[STATS]

I am afraid your knowledge about the squad cost argument is incorrect. You are saying that the squad cost theory is only about the final positions in the table, not about particular results, but I often see Makingtrax, the creator of the doctrine, blaming the squad costs for specific loses.

I guess I am not that well versed then.

 

[tcahill]

I am afraid your knowledge about the squad cost argument is incorrect. You are saying that the squad cost theory is only about the final positions in the table, not about particular results, but I often see Makingtrax, the creator of the doctrine, blaming the squad costs for specific loses.

Sorry man what I said has always been the 'squad cost theory'. All the 'theory' is, is essentially how much you spend is a pretty good guide to where you'll end up on the table (Trax can correct me later if I'm wrong).

As for blaming squad costs for losses, I can't put words in Trax's mouth, but I'd simply go the basic argument (more common sense then an argument tbh) of saying that money gives you a better chance of winning obviously, but doesn't guarantee it. Hence why City were always going to be favorites, with their frankly superior squad.

 

[Zyrth]

Sorry man what I said has always been the 'squad cost theory'. All the 'theory' is, is essentially how much you spend is a pretty good guide to where you'll end up on the table (Trax can correct me later if I'm wrong).

As for blaming squad costs for losses, I can't put words in Trax's mouth, but I'd simply go the basic argument (more common sense then an argument tbh) of saying that money gives you a better chance of winning obviously, but doesn't guarantee it. Hence why City were always going to be favorites, with their frankly superior squad.

It's gonna be especially worse for us especially since we are an attacking outfit, with attacking minded players who are used to playing in opponents half and are drilled as such, and are similar to our opponents, who happen to be better quality than us in almost all positions (squad costs comes into play now)

Unlike say Stoke and Watford, who are used to playing on the defense, we will ultimately fail to cope with their waves of attacks but yet we won't be able to impose and play our game.

 

[tcahill]

Lets start with the squad cost argument. The poster that I quoted said, and I quote:

"The truth is, that 800m euro team were always going to out gun us"

Which is simply to be put bullshit. Over the course of a season, yes the probability might be higher that city finish over us, but taking into account an individual game, tactics can play a massive role. And thats the reason I bought in watford and stoke into it. IF watford had gone into the game with the simple thinking of "The truth is, that a 400m euro team were always going to out gun us", we would have walked over them. We did not, and they beat us. Hence trying to draw the parallels between those things. Also the difference in class between us and the likes of watford/stoke (with all due respect) is much higher than the difference between us and city.

I dont know what game you were watching, but even when we were on the front foot (those 10mins), Coq played as a CB not a CDM. We DID play a 3-4-3. As for a 3 man mid, we could have played the same 3 midfielders that actually started but could have played a 4-3-3. I think our difference of opinion is basically on the formation we actually did play.
I doubt any team can play a 4 man defence and have their 2 Cbs as far apart as Kos and Nacho were all game long. Simply not possible. Coq did play as a CB.

For the record, I disagree they were always going to outgun us, but you can't deny they were heavy favourites. Of course tactics play a role, but they'll be less important when you've got player quality on your side too. Ideally you'll have quality players, with a good system to back them up, which is a formula than City seem to have gotten right this season. But saying that an individual game is won purely down to tactics is probably even sillier than saying its purely down to squad cost (I know that's not what you're saying I'm just using it an example).

Watford actually did go into the game with that mentality, they were barely playing football until they got that penalty. I know they won, but you're implying that they turned up and took the fight to Arsenal all game, which frankly isn't true. I'd argue that we put more fight to City than Stoke or Watford put up to us to be honest.

As for Coq, he was playing as a CDM. I watched the same match as you. We were on the back foot a good portion of the game so I understand the confusion though. I don't think we're gonna agree on this anyway so let's just leave out Coq for the moment.

 

[STATS]

Sorry man what I said has always been the 'squad cost theory'. All the 'theory' is, is essentially how much you spend is a pretty good guide to where you'll end up on the table (Trax can correct me later if I'm wrong).

As for blaming squad costs for losses, I can't put words in Trax's mouth, but I'd simply go the basic argument (more common sense then an argument tbh) of saying that money gives you a better chance of winning obviously, but doesn't guarantee it. Hence why City were always going to be favorites, with their frankly superior squad.

Odds can be defied though. They have been defied twice by teams like watford and stoke in individual events.

We had odds of 3.3 to win against Liverpool. Which means we had 30% probability to win the game.
We had odds of 7.5 to win against City. Which means we had 13.3% probability to win the game.

Since the 2014-15 season, we have played 18 big away games, won 1, drew 7, and lost 10 games. The probability of winning is a whopping 5.5%.

No squad cost theory can even try to explain why the 4th richest club in the PL (last season we had a squad cost of 30mil less than chelsea, so I would say very similar squad costs), has such an abysmal record. That record is outright embarassing.

(Including your next post too)
Stoke definitely did a number on us. They deserved to win the game, and they did. Anyways, my point remains, we were heavy favourites, yet lost. The fact that we have a much poorer win rate compared to 30% or even 13.3% is not solely because of "squad cost". There are way more factors at play such as tactics, team selection, player performance etc etc.

 

[A Lighter Shade of Blue]

This was a beaut. They guy's a master of his craft.

You can quite clearly see he gets a nudge off the other player's arm there.

Please try again.

 

[Mark Tobias]

You can quite clearly see he gets a nudge off the other player's arm there.

Please try again.

Did you only start watching football recently? No way was that a foul 20 years ago. Cheats like this are ruining the game. I won;t pretend we don;t have players who don't do this though. They are a dime a dozen.

 

[A Lighter Shade of Blue]

Did you only start watching football recently? No way was that a foul 20 years ago. Cheats like this are ruining the game. I won;t pretend we don;t have players who don't do this though. They are a dime a dozen.

It's not 2o years ago, though.

20 years ago, we had the likes of Vinny Jones playing in the Premier League.

First game attended was around 82, not that it is important.

Oh, and we got spanked 4-0, as per usual

 

[say yes]

Coq was deployed as a CDM, we just sat so deep he was pretty much forced into the CB role.

Nah Coq was a CB. Clear from watching and Wenger also admitted he played him there with the advantage being that we didn’t need to change formations.

 

[Gooner n Proud]

Odds can be defied though. They have been defied twice by teams like watford and stoke in individual events.

We had odds of 3.3 to win against Liverpool. Which means we had 30% probability to win the game.
We had odds of 7.5 to win against City. Which means we had 13.3% probability to win the game.

Since the 2014-15 season, we have played 18 big away games, won 1, drew 7, and lost 10 games. The probability of winning is a whopping 5.5%.

No squad cost theory can even try to explain why the 4th richest club in the PL (last season we had a squad cost of 30mil less than chelsea, so I would say very similar squad costs), has such an abysmal record. That record is outright embarassing.

(Including your next post too)
Stoke definitely did a number on us. They deserved to win the game, and they did. Anyways, my point remains, we were heavy favourites, yet lost. The fact that we have a much poorer win rate compared to 30% or even 13.3% is not solely because of "squad cost". There are way more factors at play such as tactics, team selection, player performance etc etc.

City's record since that period has been worse and we've won two big away games not one, it isn't easy in this league as every true football supporter knows.

At home we have had the joint second with best win rate after Man United in the big games between the top six within those seasons

 

[A Lighter Shade of Blue]

City's record since that period has been worse and we've won two big away games not one, it isn't easy in this league as every true football supporter knows.

At home we have had the joint second with best win rate after Man United in the big games between the top six within those seasons

Has it?

 

[Gooner n Proud]

Has it?

Yes

 

[tcahill]

Odds can be defied though. They have been defied twice by teams like watford and stoke in individual events.

We had odds of 3.3 to win against Liverpool. Which means we had 30% probability to win the game.
We had odds of 7.5 to win against City. Which means we had 13.3% probability to win the game.

Since the 2014-15 season, we have played 18 big away games, won 1, drew 7, and lost 10 games. The probability of winning is a whopping 5.5%.

No squad cost theory can even try to explain why the 4th richest club in the PL (last season we had a squad cost of 30mil less than chelsea, so I would say very similar squad costs), has such an abysmal record. That record is outright embarassing.

(Including your next post too)
Stoke definitely did a number on us. They deserved to win the game, and they did. Anyways, my point remains, we were heavy favourites, yet lost. The fact that we have a much poorer win rate compared to 30% or even 13.3% is not solely because of "squad cost". There are way more factors at play such as tactics, team selection, player performance etc etc.

Of course odds can be defied, squad cost only improves your winning chance. Nobody has claimed that it guarantees a victory. Our away record against big teams is irrelevant to this debate, considering we always finish something between 5th and 2nd, so we must be doing something right to make up for those away games we lose. Also I don't have the stats to back it up but I'm pretty sure Chelsea have spent a lot more than us in the past few seasons, even if our squad costs last season are similar. Players stick around longer than a season.

Against Stoke, you're implying that they were the better team on the day. They weren't. We created plenty more chances and looked far more threatening all game, while they got one lucky counter with a good finish by Jese (who's been garbage in every other match he's played in). They won, and deserve credit, but implying that they were the better team is simply untrue.

Nobody is claiming that squad cost is going to guarantee you a victory on the day. Other factors obviously come into play (manager, mental state, sheer dumb luck etc). But the quality of the players in your team (of which squad cost is the best way we have of measuring as far as I know) is the most important factor. That's why the big teams, even with average managers, still do well in the league.

 

[STATS]

Of course odds can be defied, squad cost only improves your winning chance. Nobody has claimed that it guarantees a victory. Our away record against big teams is irrelevant to this debate, considering we always finish something between 5th and 2nd, so we must be doing something right to make up for those away games we lose. Also I don't have the stats to back it up but I'm pretty sure Chelsea have spent a lot more than us in the past few seasons, even if our squad costs last season are similar. Players stick around longer than a season.

Against Stoke, you're implying that they were the better team on the day. They weren't. We created plenty more chances and looked far more threatening all game, while they got one lucky counter with a good finish by Jese (who's been garbage in every other match he's played in). They won, and deserve credit, but implying that they were the better team is simply untrue.

Nobody is claiming that squad cost is going to guarantee you a victory on the day. Other factors obviously come into play (manager, mental state, sheer dumb luck etc). But the quality of the players in your team (of which squad cost is the best way we have of measuring as far as I know) is the most important factor. That's why the big teams, even with average managers, still do well in the league.

Agree with most of it.
Infact I dont know why you are quoting ME on this. If you go back and see what started this debate, it was the insinuation of another poster, that given city's higher squad cost, they were bound to run over us, or something to like this.
You can go to the wenger thread too, and I maintain that there are a lot more factors than "squad cost".

As for Chelsea, I just love how the narrative is still that we dont "spend" and thus we should expect anything. Lets look at the last 5 season's transfer:

Arsenal (all figures in euros and based from transfermarkt)
2017-18: Spent 53, Sold 68.7
2016-17: Spent 107, Sold 10.35
2015-16: Spent 26.5, Sold 2.5
2014-15: Spent 118.98, Sold 27.8
2013-14: Spent 49.25, Sold 12.15

Total Spent: 354.73, Total Sold: 121.5
Net Spend: 233.23

Chelsea (all figures in euros and based from transfermarkt)
2017-18: Spent 199.9, Sold 196.6
2016-17: Spent 132.8, Sold 108.4
2015-16: Spent 90.5, Sold 87.49
2014-15: Spent 137.7, Sold 144.85
2013-14: Spent 130.35, Sold 77.43

Total Spent: 691.25, Total Sold: 614.77
Net Spend: 76.48

We have 3 times the bloody net spend than a team who has won 2 PL leagues in that time frame. So please, lets seriously stop this narrative that we dont spend. We do, just not as wisely or our manager is ****. Look at Paulista. Great before he joined and having a great season now, but absolutely crap with us. WHY? And its not just one player, several players and mainly defenders have had a same story. The problem in a lot of ways is on wenger.