£123m and £0m sit Top of the Table
£123m and £0m sit Top of the Table
Chelsea beat Arsenal 3-2 but quite frankly neither side looked anything special. That isn't a surprise given they both have new managers and thus will be getting used to the systems they are playing.
Tottenham and Chelsea have both win 2 games and sit top on 6 points each, Chelsea, who spent £123m in the summer, have scored 6 goals and conceded 2, Spurs have scored 5 goals and also conceded 2.
Down at the other end, West Ham United once again sit at the foot of the table with no points, having spent £94m.
Fulham are one place above them in 19th also with no points and who also spend £100m.
In 18th sit Huddersfield Town who play Manchester City away today, they spent £44m and above them in 17th with no points from two games are Arsenal who spent £71m.
Manchester United play Brighton & Hove Albion away, Burnley play at home against Watford, while on Monday Crystal Palace host Liverpool.
13 comments
I know we have a great training facility and a stadium project but it is still a pittance from the revenues received by the club.
Championship sides invest more.
There has been great investment - but just not in players' transfers. Rather than a conveyor-belt of new players, Spurs have invested in the idea of player improvement and team cohesion. That latter being very difficult to accomplish when new players are coming in too swiftly.
Wages have been increased for those already at the club who've proven to be valuable assets. In a very difficult situation (The new Summer Window dates make it extra difficult for English clubs now.) we've managed to keep hold of our main assets while at the same time not squandering money on players that only almost fit our approach.
Sure, the media and most of the pundits can't see beyond the simplistic assessment criteria of how much money was spent on players, but frankly they're not too bright. Anything more complicated is too much for them. What are the retired managers & coaches saying (As opposed to those pundits who only ever played the beautiful…
It may sound selfish but I'm not that bothered were we are in 30 years time as I'll be 84 if still around. We have never in my lifetime had a team so close to winning the league and 33 million net investment over 4 years I say again is a Pitiful amount and shows absolutely no intent others than let's hope we improve internally.
Ps you can't play the wages card, we have only just started to raise these to an almost acceptable level.
I'm not about to say that money isn't important in the modern game. What I'm saying, and it seems to me that it's the same as Clive and Pochettino have said many times, is actually the reverse. Money is critical. Spending it has to be done with a clear idea of what it's achieving for us.
I understand wages have only recently started to climb and are still not comparable with the clubs we need to compete against. That's fundamentally because we don't have the money they have available. It isn't fair. It's life. What can you do?
Well, what I see the club doing is all sorts of things to remedy that situation. I'm very much of the opinion that attempting to play the big boys at their own game has only one likely result - we lose. We risk vast amounts of money that only they can afford and we end up like Leeds, Aston Villa, ... The list goes on but they're the most famous ones. Building up the club as a viable entity, which by t…
Where does the shoe string budge come from. We are one of the wealthiest football clubs in the world !
I'm not anti Levy and I'm very happy in Poch but I don't see that in 4 seasons being one of the bottom sides to invest in their side and that side came runners up is anything but hoping to get away with it.
Good question and a "true dat!" statement.
Unfortunately for a club of our level of wealth, even if we're in the top x in the world, we're only sixth in the Premier League. In real terms that means we're not wealthy - relatively. Especially when you look at the difference between ourselves and even Liverpool, who are next after (or before) us. They have appreciably more financial resources with which to acquire and pay better-known stars. The others are even further ahead in those terms. Nevertheless these five clubs are who we're gunning for (Sorry). Luckily enough we've done extremely well to get ahead of many of these clubs regularly over recent seasons. Not remotely easy.
Why is our budget even less than you'd expect when we are sixth? Not just proportionately less than the other five but even further down - nearer to the more ord…
Personally I don't see the point in chasing deadlines now rather let's achieve a better finished product and asking our players to switch during the season was never a very good idea...just as they're getting used to Wembley.
Meanwhile here's another interesting analytical blog...
https://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.com/
The current article attempts to give a more balanced picture of a player's passing abilities. Neither Alli or Eriksen come out of it with flying colours. I've often commented that certain players need to improve their ability to retain possession.
Data, my area by the way, is incredibly powerful and, just as in that blog, can be very accurate. What it can't do though, and why it's so open to misinterpretation, is tell humans how best to understand the results. Hence the infamous quote - "Lies; Damn lies & Statistics!".
Not everything about football can be measured and assessed along the line that these data show (quite accurately from what I can see). Goals and defending are about a lot more than how effectively you pass the ball around.
I suspect you're along the right lines when you suggest this aspect of some players' games could be improved. I doubt it's the most important aspect of our play though.
COYS!!
https://www.infogol.net/blog/analysis/passing-chains-and-non-shot-expected-goals
If nothing else it does provide an accurate picture (the same methodology applied to all) of a player's abilities and performance compared to those of his peers.
Yes - as far as what it is they're measuring goes.
No - as far as other abilities that are important for players but outside of the scope of this data.
I suppose what I'm really saying, just with other statistics, is only let it take you where it's qualified to take you. It's an important aspect of the game, but not the be-all and end-all of football.
Does that make sense?
COYS!!
But, historical analysis using data sets, especially in the case of peer comparison, I'm convinced is a valid tool that a coach can use to improve the efficiency of his players.
If there's one common denominator amongst all football players it's the ability to pass the ball to a fellow member of the team.
I believe it can be very helpful.
COYS!!
Coys