UKC

Leicester - no big deal...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Rob Exile Ward 03 May 2016
Of course it is, and bl**dy well done.

HOWEVER, it does demonstrate a theory of mine, which is that in the realm of Premier football, the law of diminishing returns kicks in big time. A £50 million player is NOT 10 times better that a £5 million player - the difference is in fact pretty marginal, and influenced as much by luck and an agent's negotiating skills as it is in intrinsic ability.

So we can expect minnows/Davids to win occasionally, as we have seen with Cloughie, and now Ranieri. Which does nothing to detract from them, just emphasises that money isn't everything, can't solve every problem; a good manager can make the difference.
 Babika 03 May 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Loved the Robbie Savage fact from last night that Man Utd spent more on players in the last two years than Leicester have their 132 year history.
 Dave the Rave 03 May 2016
In reply to Babika:

> Loved the Robbie Savage fact from last night that Man Utd spent more on players in the last two years than Leicester have their 132 year history.

But had far more success? Robbie Savage is a kbobhead.
6
 Robert Durran 03 May 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> HOWEVER, it does demonstrate a theory of mine, which is that in the realm of Premier football, the law of diminishing returns kicks in big time. A £50 million player is NOT 10 times better that a £5 million player - the difference is in fact pretty marginal.

I think it is meaningless to say "player A is 10 times better than player B" (there is no way of actually quantifying these things). Yes, you pay a huge premium for marginally better players because having only slightly better players means you will win almost all the time (and a Leicester wins just very occasionally).
 balmybaldwin 03 May 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think it lends weight to the argument that it's more important to have a team working as a unit than individual "stars" in football, which calls into question the way most teams and fans seem to focus on star players a striker is nothing without the team getting the ball to him
 Chris the Tall 03 May 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The nature of the game is that upsets are always possible- far more than in Rugby for example - but these normally get levelled out over a season. You might get a small team doing well in a cup - tranmere in 2000 - but less likely in the league. And yes having a team of "galaticos" doesn't ensure success, it brings with it its own problems, big egos, high expectations. But nonetheless it did seem that it would require the sort of money spent by Chelsea and Man city to into the top four.

Something else which has changed is patience, or rather the lack of it. Fans expect changes to be made, new players brought in, managers sacked unless they bring the required level of success - look at Mouriniiho. Great for agents, but no way to build a good team. Which is why it's great to see Leicester (and Spurs) succeeding - in both cases the team are greater than the sum of the parts.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
An interesting point made by someone today was to pay tribute to the physio team that kept a small squad fit throughout the season. A second point was that perhaps some of the players who had minor issues with fitness were prepared to play despite their niggles for the good of the team.
Donald82 03 May 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it is meaningless to say "player A is 10 times better than player B" (there is no way of actually quantifying these things). Yes, you pay a huge premium for marginally better players because having only slightly better players means you will win almost all the time (and a Leicester wins just very occasionally).

Spot on.

A related point, Leicester winning is a result of lots of unlikely things happening.
1
Donald82 03 May 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> But had far more success?

Er... No they didn't!
2
Donald82 03 May 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> The nature of the game is that upsets are always possible- far more than in Rugby for example

This seems intuitive but I wonder if the stats bear it out?

1
 GrahamD 04 May 2016
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Keeping fit is obviously part of it. No distractions from other competitions when it mattered must have helped. Crap performance from the likes of Arsenal helped. Just a whole load of things coming together at one time
 Dave the Rave 04 May 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Er... No they didn't!

Utd have always spent and mainly always won something, so Savage quoting what he did is rubbish. He's just a bitter bloke who crashed his car after Fergie told him he wasn't good enough for utd. He's won the total of jack squat and played like a headless chicken.
2
 Roguevfr 04 May 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

..and Robbie Savage is a prime example of a player who's made a fortune from the game despite being arguably less than averagely talented.
Pocketed millions in his cut from transfer fees which probably says more about his agent's ability than his.
 Andy Hardy 04 May 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Keeping fit is obviously part of it. No distractions from other competitions when it mattered must have helped. [...]

It'll be interesting to see what happens next year, especially if they go out of the CL into the Europa and start playing locomotive Moscow on a Thursday night.

Donald82 04 May 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Not in the last two years they haven't. Perfectly interesting and reasonable stat to quote in the circumstances.

Agree with you generally on Savage's merits as a player and pundit. Great hair though.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...