The Liverpool way

[Red Nick]

EXACTLY!! And then ask yourself why so many supporters have lost the faith? If gerrard made that comment tonight, rafa would come out and tell the press that it's not about winning trophies and that you have to think about the "added value" that the squad now has.

 

The rafa of 2005 would not have made those ridiculous, self-serving, embarrassing comments that he's now made TWICE within the last week.

 

I want the old rafa back. The one who genuinely thought he could make a difference at Liverpool, who seemed fully motivated and seemed to have sense of direction. The last 2 years - especially in the transfer market - have just been an exercise in running in ever-decreasing circles.

 

You wont get the old Rafa back IMO because to my mind he has decided to leave as soon as the right opportunity comes along and wont be here next season.

[zigackly]

It's not about not winning things, it's about the same old shit.

 

To paraphrase, it's about "progress".

 

I wouldn't have a problem watching someone come third, second, third in a marathon year after year as long as I thought they were trying their best with the hand that fate had dealt them. What would piss me off, would be watching someone run a marathon, figure out how to win, but then watch them go for a 20 minute shit just as they were reaching the home straight.

 

Everytime I see a player brought off, rested, or the wrong player bought and shipped out quickly, or the reins put back on an attacking style of footy, or a run ending with a whimper, I get that little bit more pissed off.

 

People are also angry with the ownership situation and have been keeping their frustrations with other aspects of the club's situation bottled up for too long, so it's exploded at times - this is certainly the case with me.

 

Unfortunately I can't rep you again so soon.

[Carra_is_legend]

If we sold Torres for £75m & distributed it on wages over 5 years (normal contract length) our annual bill would increase by just £15m pa

 

So we would move upo just 1 poistion to 4th & still be £15m behind the Mancs.

 

Which is a nice example of why even the highest fees pale into insignificance in the total budget compared to an amount that is repeated every year.

 

Why 5 years?

 

Just give away the £75m to the squad in 1 year. When we win the number 19 (we should because our wage would have increased by £75m for next season), we can reduce the wages of the fuckers for the season after.

 

We should just do this everytime we need to win the PL. We should in fact release this as Wage Manager 2009.

[Red Nick]

The owner situation is far worse because whilst we may be pissed off at Rafa if he finishes 4th he has done what the owners asked him to do.

 

Its not Rafa who took 20m from the transfer budget at the last minute to clear debt.

 

Whlst I am fucking livid at what Rafa did on saturday(I am still really angry about it two days later) the reality is if we finish 4th no damage is really done however the damage that these two cunts could do to the club in the summer including selling Torres is far far worse and people need to focus on that.

[Catch22]

I caught out Catch yesterday by pointing out that you cant take the wage budget in isolation you also have look at the players your getting for that budget ie Barry being on more money than Mascherano or even Gerrard. Tevez on more money than Torres. Ballack on more money than Gerrard etc etc

 

 

The market for footballers is incredibly efficient due to all their value being so highly visible. (In no other industry can you actually see what a person is doing at work live on the international media)

 

There are exceptions (Ballack is overpaid as you say) but the new pay scales offered to Tevez or Barry meant that we had to renegotiate Torres & Gerrard which we did (both of whom correctly went onto higher scales than the City players), which meant that we lost Xabi

 

Whether people here like it or not the econometric evidence is completely out there (& summarised in Kuper's recent book) that wage ranking alone explains over 90% of the final finishing position.

 

Everything else, which is largely luck & the manager (tactics & motivation) explains the remaining 10%

 

You can therefore judge any manager's performance by seeing how he has affected the 10% which isn't explained by the wage rank.

 

The managers that come out well in that (be it Rafa, GinSoak recently or Moyes are the good ones); the ones that don't (ie/ anyone at Newc, 'Arry) are not.

[Red Nick]

The market for footballers is incredibly efficient due to all their value being so highly visible. (In no other industry can you actually see what a person is doing at work live on the international media)

 

There are exceptions (Ballack is overpaid as you say) but the new pay scales offered to Tevez or Barry meant that we had to renegotiate Torres & Gerrard which we did (both of whom correctly went onto higher scales than the City players), which meant that we lost Xabi

 

Whether people here like it or not the econometric evidence is completely out there (& summarised in Kuper's recent book) that wage ranking alone explains over 90% of the final finishing position.

 

Everything else, which is largely luck & the manager (tactics & motivation) explains the remaining 10%

 

You can therefore judge any manager's performance by seeing how he has affected the 10% which isn't explained by the wage rank.

 

The managers that come out well in that (be it Rafa, GinSoak recently or Moyes are the good ones); the ones that don't (ie/ anyone at Newc, 'Arry) are not.

 

[zigackly]

Whether people here like it or not the econometric evidence is completely out there (& summarised in Kuper's recent book) that wage ranking alone explains over 90% of the final finishing position.

 

Everything else, which is largely luck & the manager (tactics & motivation) explains the remaining 10%

 

Where I take issue with this argument is that it's chicken v egg.

 

I can accept a 90% correlation, but I do not believe it is the sole cause of success. If you have a good team you will pay good wages, and sometimes that's because you paid up front to attract the best players (Chelsea, City) but sometimes it will be because you built a good squad and are now having to remunerate them accordingly.

 

I think the reason a lot of people treat your posts on this subject with levity, apart from the obsessive frequency of them, is that you seem to have such a narrow view of cause and effect.

 

To argue that a manager can only have at best a 10% effect on the fortunes of a club is clearly ludicrous. What you should say is that with 90% of appointments, managers find their level in the market.

 

I bet you could take certain managers and track them at 20% or greater and others at 5% or less, if you wanted to take the path of least laziness.

 

Statistics are useful to a point, but they can only demonstrate trends, not predict individual events.

[Red Nick]

Where I take issue with this argument is that it's chicken v egg.

 

I can accept a 90% correlation, but I do not believe it is the sole cause of success. If you have a good team you will pay good wages, and sometimes that's because you paid up front to attract the best players (Chelsea, City) but sometimes it will be because you built a good squad and are now having to remunerate them accordingly.

 

I think the reason a lot of people treat your posts on this subject with levity, apart from the obsessive frequency of them, is that you seem to have such a narrow view of cause and effect.

 

To argue that a manager can only have at best a 10% effect on the fortunes of a club is clearly ludicrous. What you should say is that with 90% of appointments, managers find their level in the market.

 

I bet you could take certain managers and track them at 20% or greater and others at 5% or less, if you wanted to take the path of least laziness.

 

Statistics are useful to a point, but they can only demonstrate trends, not predict individual events.

 

Very good points put another way not just in this business but others in Human effect.

 

Mourinho is a classic example he leaves after winning back to back title because Roman chooses to back Terry over him and other factors and they have basically won Fuck all since.

 

You could argue if Mourinho replaced Rafa he would improve the team more than 10% because he would get back the lost part of the dressing room etc etc.

 

This on top of my original point and you might be getting closer to a balanced view about it.

 

Wages obviously have a huge impact but its also how you spend those wages.

[sir roger]

We'll still win the league. You heard it here first.

 

Believe.

 

In a fit of pique ( and lager ) over the weekend watching & reading every no-mark in the country pitching in to Rafa & Liverpool & how we were sliding into mediocrity , I thought F*** You & lashed out a tenner on us winning the league & a tenner on us winning the CL , both at 20/1.

 

So I hope you are right.

[Drewas]

We have these mini crisis every year and every year the team goes on a winning streak and end up exceeding the previous years points and or goals haul.

 

Ok so at the moment its accentuated by having 10 players injured and a poor run of form, but given what youve seen in the last 5 years, can anyone say we cant improve on last year!

[zigackly]

We have these mini crisis every year and every year the team goes on a winning streak and end up exceeding the previous years points and or goals haul.

 

Ok so at the moment its accentuated by having 10 players injured and a poor run of form, but given what youve seen in the last 5 years, can anyone say we cant improve on last year!

 

We've lost one league game less this season than the last two seasons combined already, and some of them were before any injury crisis. I am not feeling anywhere near as confident as you, but I would be very pleased if you were right.

[Code]

Mini crisis?

 

I guess there are diferent ways at looking at things but that is some understatement right there?

[Torvald Utne]

haha.

 

genius!

 

Except it's not is it, it's ever so slightly 'Retarted'.

 

The wages thing works on the basis that generally a better player is able to command a higher wage.

[Catch22]

Where I take issue with this argument is that it's chicken v egg.

 

I can accept a 90% correlation, but I do not believe it is the sole cause of success. If you have a good team you will pay good wages, and sometimes that's because you paid up front to attract the best players (Chelsea, City) but sometimes it will be because you built a good squad and are now having to remunerate them accordingly.

 

I think the reason a lot of people treat your posts on this subject with levity, apart from the obsessive frequency of them, is that you seem to have such a narrow view of cause and effect.

 

To argue that a manager can only have at best a 10% effect on the fortunes of a club is clearly ludicrous. What you should say is that with 90% of appointments, managers find their level in the market.

 

I bet you could take certain managers and track them at 20% or greater and others at 5% or less, if you wanted to take the path of least laziness.

 

Statistics are useful to a point, but they can only demonstrate trends, not predict individual events.

 

 

There's some interesting criticism in there.

 

"but sometimes it will be because you built a good squad and are now having to remunerate them accordingly."

Unfortunately this is 1 of the key mechanisms working to always rebalance the equation.

For instance it happened to us in the summer: Last year we over-achieved (No one in the modern era has ever beaten our 2nd place from 4th or below).

That meant that certain of our players were (relatively not on a social level) "underpaid".

Which led to richer clubs targeting them

We paid Torres & Gerrard. However that meant we had less to spend on the rest of the squad which is now much weaker.

We couldn't pay Xabi so he left.

Both approaches left us much weaker.

Our over-achievement sowed the seeds for our mean reversion into 5th this year.

 

"To argue that a manager can only have at best a 10% effect on the fortunes of a club is clearly ludicrous."

10% is still an awful lot in top level sport.

For instance, in most Olmypic finals, if the last placed finisher improved their performance by 10%, they would win Gold.

Clive Woodward used to regularly talk when he was England Rugby boss of trying to improve players by 1-2%, which would make all the difference as the margins are so tight.

 

90% of the variation in a PL club's finishing position is explained by total wages (You could get the names "blind" ie/team A, team B with their wage rank & use that to guess the final finishing position & you would be 90% right, which would probably win Hermes' prediction competition).

10% is explained by everything else.

 

If you are interested, read the 1st chapter of Kuper's recent football as it summarises a lot of the work which has previously only been in Economic Journals.

[Tom R]

Except it's not is it, it's ever so slightly 'Retarted'.

 

The wages thing works on the basis that generally a better player is able to command a higher wage.

 

Oh really?

 

Explain Deggen, Dossenna, Kygriakos and Voronin then.

 

All shit. All on massive wages.

[JohnnyH]

haha.

 

genius!

 

I was an amazingly stupid comment.

 

Seriously. It was astonishingly stupid in its complete and utter missing of a point. He may as well have shouted “raindrops are skittles” for all the sense he made to a point. I’m sure I’ll suffer the wrath of the patented TomR rant of “virgin” and “prick” and what not, but calling that genius really couldn’t be more the opposite of genius. You could spend the rest of the day looking for mind numbingly stupid comments that miss a point so spectacularly, but I don’t think you’d find one anywhere in the world.

 

Just to clarify. I disagree with your assessment of that comment.

[Drewas]

Mini crisis?

 

I guess there are diferent ways at looking at things but that is some understatement right there?

 

Is it an understatement weve lost a few games, we can still go through to the next round of the CL and can quite easily finish in the CL spots for next season. We MAY not win the league this season but then if thats a measure of a mini crisis weve been in one for two decades.

 

A proper crisis is losing our manager, being in a relagation fight and having owners unable to meet their financial requirements for the club.

[Unrighteous]

Is it an understatement weve lost a few games, we can still go through to the next round of the CL and can quite easily finish in the CL spots for next season. We MAY not win the league this season but then if thats a measure of a mini crisis weve been in one for two decades.

 

A proper crisis is losing our manager, being in a relagation fight and having owners unable to meet their financial requirements for the club.

 

So you mean, like right now?

[Drewas]

So you mean, like right now?

 

Ha yeah well they can at the moment. My point is that if you think this is a crisis you should have a chat with a Leeds or Southampton fan.

[Dirk]

[YOUTUBE]Kcy3gwwxat4&autoplay=1[/YOUTUBE]

[Unrighteous]

Negged for Autoplay.

[Dirk]

Negged for Autoplay.

 

Oridnarily I wouldn't be bother but I am going to returned the neg because you negged the Anfield Rap, what sort of Red are you?

[Unrighteous]

Oridnarily I wouldn't be bother but I am going to returned the neg because you negged the Anfield Rap, what sort of Red are you?

 

Autoplay is negworthy no matter what's being played.

[Faustus]

Back up a bit, who were the two players Rafa wanted ahead of Torres?

[Tom R]

Back up a bit, who were the two players Rafa wanted ahead of Torres?

 

Tevez and Eto'o.