Liverpool FC Forum

by **JoeTerp** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:07 am

I don't think it makes any sense to just list out all the players Rafa has brought in and they put plus signs or minus signs next to each name.

If you really wanted to judge Rafa's buying policy, you have to factor in so many things. 1 of them being what budget was available to him during a given transfer window and how many slots had to be filled, both of which we can't really KNOW but can get a rough guess by seeing what our net spending was during that window and how many different players we bought. Then look at the same numbers for United, Chelsea, and Arsenal.

What also needs to be taken into account is the amount we paid for a player and then compare that to the value of performance that the player gave to the club plus what we sold the player for or what the player would be worth if we did sell the player. Obviously this is quite difficult to quantify, but it would be the only way to fairly rate his or any managers individual buys.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:57 am

I don't think how much you sell a player for actually matters that much at a club like Liverpool....... we are not a selling club. What matters when judging the success or failure of a player is what contribution he makes on the pitch. We got nothing when we sold Hamann for example but he was without doubt a huge success at Liverpool . We made money on Bellamy but I would class his purchase as a failure.

I would rather see a player that plays well for the club rather than have 5 players that do poorly for us that we sell on for a profit.

At the end of the day at a club like Liverpool a manager gets judged on the success or failure of the team, not how much money you made in the transfer market. To a club like Crewe that lives by its transfers I would think the opposite is the case.

A players worth to the club can NEVER be judged either by what we paid or what we received for him, only by what he does on the field.

The bench mark between a successful buy and a poor one should always be did he improve the team and for how long he improved it for. i.e. I would say that Hyypia was Houlliers best signing rather than say Kewell, even though Kewell was probably a higher rated player than Hyypia (outside Anfield anyway!)

by **JoeTerp** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:05 am

s@int wrote:I don't think how much you sell a player for actually matters that much at a club like Liverpool....... we are not a selling club. What matters when judging the success or failure of a player is what contribution he makes on the pitch. We got nothing when we sold Hamann for example but he was without doubt a huge success at Liverpool . We made money on Bellamy but I would class his purchase as a failure.

I would rather see a player that plays well for the club rather than have 5 players that do poorly for us that we sell on for a profit.

At the end of the day at a club like Liverpool a manager gets judged on the success or failure of the team, not how much money you made in the transfer market. To a club like Crewe that lives by its transfers I would think the opposite is the case.

A players worth to the club can NEVER be judged either by what we paid or what we received for him, only by what he does on the field.

The bench mark between a successful buy and a poor one should always be did he improve the team and for how long he improved it for. i.e. I would say that Hyypia was Houlliers best signing rather than say Kewell, even though Kewell was probably a higher rated player than Hyypia (outside Anfield anyway!)

thats what I said " compare that to the value of performance that the player gave to the club "

the part about what we sell someone for IS important because although we are not a selling club, we also do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend, and the more we sell, the more money there is to buy other players with (in theory)

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:10 am

What we sell a player for is not important when we are judging the success or otherwise of the player we bought is what I was meaning Joe.

If we bought a player for £5million who plays terrible for us but we manage to sell him at a profit, that player is STILL a poor signing. We buy a player who plays great for us but when we sell him we get little or nothing for him ........ that is still a great signing. i.e. Voronin was still a bad signing even if we managed to get £3million for him, because he took up a place in the squad that could have been used by someone who could have actually improved the team.

I would have little difficulty going through a list of Houlliers or Benitez transfers and giving an opinion on whether they were successful or not without knowing how much we sold them for.

by **JoeTerp** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:10 am

s@int wrote:What we sell a player for is not important when we are judging the success or otherwise of the player we bought is what I was meaning Joe.

If we bought a player for £5million who plays terrible for us but we manage to sell him at a profit, that player is STILL a poor signing. We buy a player who plays great for us but when we sell him we get little or nothing for him ........ that is still a great signing. i.e. Voronin was still a bad signing even if we managed to get £3million for him, because he took up a place in the squad that could have been used by someone who could have actually improved the team.

I would have little difficulty going through a list of Houlliers or Benitez transfers and giving an opinion on whether they were successful or not without knowing how much we sold them for.

if we bought a player for 5 million, and we never played him but he married the daughter of one of the Man City owners and they paid 100 million for him, and then we bought Messi, you would have to say that the signing of the 5 million pound player was a success.

Also if we bought a player for 5 million and played him a lot and he scored own goals all the time, caused us to miss out on the CL and caused 95 million in damages, but he still married the daughter and brought in the 100 million pound fee, it would be a neutral buy.

If we bought a player on a free and he was a legend to the club for 10 years and then left on a free or retired, clearly his value to the club would indicate him being a massive success.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:42 am

Can't say I agree with your options number 1 and 2 Joe.

No 1 because that's just like saying Citeh give us 100million for nothing, they arn't giving us a hundred million because he was a good or successful buy. Not that I would object to Citeh or anyone else giving us a hundred million . I would rather have a club that was successful on the pitch rather than a rich club that won nothing.

No.2 For the same reasons as above plus I get pleasure from watching Liverpool football players play football, I get no pleasure from watching Liverpools bank balance. So the fact that he scored own goals and ruined Liverpools season and my pleasure could never be made up by us making a profit on him. I.E. I would prefer Torres to play for us and win trophies rather than sell him for any amount of money, and see us struggle. If we could buy someone BETTER with the money be it £5 or £500million pounds I would be happy to do the deal. I get more pleasure from watching Liverpool win trophies than I would get knowing they are the richest club. Success to me means trophies....... not having billions in the bank.(Liverpools bank not mine ....... I would actually prefer it in my bank if possible)

No.3 I agree completely.

by **JoeTerp** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:36 pm

I am not talking about prefer. Obviously, I too would prefer that we win the title, and in that sense since the value that a player brings to the club in a title winning team is so high that you could argue its more than 100 million pounds.

Also, I am not saying that we should use the measure of the balance of transfers to judge on how a manager performs. I am saying that this is the fairest way (if it was quantifiable) that I can think of to compare purely on the buying process managers from different clubs

And those examples were obviously made in the extremes. How about we buy two players at the same position. One for 20 million and one for 5. The two players both perform at the level you would expect a 10 million pound player to perform for the length of their contract, which is the same amount of time and leave with no fee. Altogether, the rating would be a neutral Zero pound rating for the manager if those were the only two players he bought.

Now lets say he spends the same 25 mill on 3 players one for 15 and then 2 for 5. And all three players play like 10 million pound players during their term. and all three leave at the same time for no fee. That would be a +5 million pound rating for the manager.

Here is the key: Say that the 15 million pound rated player plays out of his head, and plays like someone worth 30 million for the length of his contract and the other two have injuries their whole career and never see the pitch. Its still a +5 million pound rating even though most would say he had one hit but TWO misses.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:54 pm

JoeTerp wrote:I am not talking about prefer. Obviously, I too would prefer that we win the title, and in that sense since the value that a player brings to the club in a title winning team is so high that you could argue its more than 100 million pounds.

Also, I am not saying that we should use the measure of the balance of transfers to judge on how a manager performs. I am saying that this is the fairest way (if it was quantifiable) that I can think of to compare purely on the buying process managers from different clubs

And those examples were obviously made in the extremes. How about we buy two players at the same position. One for 20 million and one for 5. The two players both perform at the level you would expect a 10 million pound player to perform for the length of their contract, which is the same amount of time and leave with no fee. Altogether, the rating would be a neutral Zero pound rating for the manager if those were the only two players he bought.

Now lets say he spends the same 25 mill on 3 players one for 15 and then 2 for 5. And all three players play like 10 million pound players during their term. and all three leave at the same time for no fee. That would be a +5 million pound rating for the manager.

Here is the key: Say that the 15 million pound rated player plays out of his head, and plays like someone worth 30 million for the length of his contract and the other two have injuries their whole career and never see the pitch. Its still a +5 million pound rating even though most would say he had one hit but TWO misses.

I think its much easier than that Joe, how can you quantify whether a player has given you £10million pounds worth of performances over his career or only £5million pounds worth of performances, maybe he gave £2million pound performances early in his career, a couple of £10million pound performances in his best years before slipping back into £3million pound performances

The only real way to judge a managers success and failure in the transfer market at a top club is by the players success or failure on the field, imo anyway.

Morientes was judged a failure at Liverpool not because we only got a few million for him when we sold him , but because he didn't play well for us. That doesn't mean he wasn't worth £7 million when we bought him, it doesn't mean he is not worth £7million now it means he didn't play well enough while he was with us.

Garcia was judged a reasonably successful buy, not because we only got a few million for him when we sold him, but because he played reasonably well for us.

When people judge how successful Sissoko was for us its his performances for the time he was here that matter, not that we got more for him than we paid for him.

If we sold Dossena tomorrow for £8million, it would not change the fact that he has been a failure at this club.

I think we will have to agree to disagree mate.

by **The_Rock** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:28 pm

Time to lock this thread........we ain't top anymore.... :suspect:

by **tubby** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:31 pm

Lando_Griffin wrote:
bigmick wrote:To me that represents significant progress, and I'm not sure the fact (assuming it is a fact) that we have the same number of points as we did at the same stage last season necessarily means we haven't progressed. Given the fact that we've reached the same number of points as last season without having Torres available for the most part, is really something I think.

Let's put this fairytale that we're on the same points as at this point last season firmly behind us, shall we? (I realise it wasn't you, Mick, who invented this pathetically desperate propaganda.)

After 21 games last season, we had 39 points.

After 21 games this season, we have 46. (Without Torres.)

So the prat who dreamed that one up should get back to licking his wounds after no-doubt being rendered homeless in the current economic crisis.

(That said, I don't suppose it affects the rich... )

You cannot use stats from a previous season as a measure to how good/bad we are doing this season unless you look at points of our rivals around us to see how they have performed on those seasons as well. Otherwise your views will be falsley skewed.

by **SupitsJonF** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:33 pm

How come the talk is just United, Chelsea, and Liverpool. Aston Villa are VERY close, and if they beat the Big four teams, the title could be theirs!

by **Madmax** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:35 pm

top of the table.. not any more!!! Maybe back on monday

by **tubby** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:36 pm

Until next weekend.

by **Effes** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:41 pm

Effes wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Effes wrote:
Ciggy wrote:We could have been 12 points clear if we had won our home games. So the Mancs games in hand would not have mattered.

No, dont you see? People who were comaplining about our draws at home to Stoke et al
were just doom and gloomers apparently.
We had to be happy because we were top according to them.

and the season isnt over yet and the mancs havent played their 2 matches so they havent won it yet and we're still top.

Maypax - I'll re-quote your post 7pm Saturday and we can expand on it then.

Your thoughts Maypax

by **tubby** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:47 pm

Effes wrote:
Effes wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Effes wrote:
Ciggy wrote:We could have been 12 points clear if we had won our home games. So the Mancs games in hand would not have mattered.

No, dont you see? People who were comaplining about our draws at home to Stoke et al
were just doom and gloomers apparently.
We had to be happy because we were top according to them.

and the season isnt over yet and the mancs havent played their 2 matches so they havent won it yet and we're still top.

Maypax - I'll re-quote your post 7pm Saturday and we can expand on it then.

Your thoughts Maypax

....will be no different to any of the happy clappers who were saying the same things before.

It's over this year for me. We had a great chance and we blew it. Sure in theory we can still win it as it is mathematically possible but in reality it's not going to happen.

Liverpool FC Forum

Top of the table - Gap increases

Who is online