Method of Rating Manager Transfer Ability (1 Viewer)

I get what it's trying to say but I wouldn't say that just because a player plays a lot, doesn't mean they're a success. I mean, I know that if a player plays lots, it *should* mean they're good/a success but if a team had lots of injuries for example, someone might get more minutes than they would've done otherwise.

Know what I mean?!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Skyblueweeman said:

I get what it's trying to say but I wouldn't say that just because a player plays a lot, doesn't mean they're a success.

Click to expand...

paul telfer

Undisclosed fees?

Skyblueweeman said:

I get what it's trying to say but I wouldn't say that just because a player plays a lot, doesn't mean they're a success. I mean, I know that if a player plays lots, it *should* mean they're good/a success but if a team had lots of injuries for example, someone might get more minutes than they would've done otherwise.

Know what I mean?!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Exactly right, plus the likes of Pep like to rotate a lot.

From that graph, would anybody in the world class Harry Maguire as a bigger success than Sterling or Mané!? :emoji_confused:

Frostie said:

Exactly right, plus the likes of Pep like to rotate a lot.

From that graph, would anybody in the world class Harry Maguire as a bigger success than Sterling or Mané!? :emoji_confused:

Click to expand...

True, but you want to be looking at the overall trend rather than comparing individual players to each other. Man City have a distorting effect on any transfer graph because of how crazy their finances are, so they have the luxury of being able to rotate as you mention - that's their entire strategy. For other teams with (comparatively) finite resources then it's important you get bang for your buck, and the difference between Liverpool and Man Utd is clear as day.

shmmeee said:

But you can say that a big money signing that barely plays is a failure.

Obviously all models are wrong and that but thought it was an interesting way to look at a transfer record. And got me thinking who would be top/bottom of such a table. Coleman? Mowbray? At the bottom I’d guess, maybe a surprise like Presley at the top due to limited funds? Don’t know.

Click to expand...

Atkinson would be bottom by a country mile - I would actually guess Phil Neal would come out pretty well

It takes no account of injuries and would be just another bullshit stat.

shmmeee said:

If you sign a player who is always injured are they a good signing?

You’re looking for perfection which doesn’t exist. Just another lens to look at the game is all.

Click to expand...

By this measure, a player could become a terrible signing because of a freak accident. It says nothing whatsoever about the ability of the manager who signed him.

Samo said:

By this measure, a player could become a terrible signing because of a freak accident. It says nothing whatsoever about the ability of the manager who signed him.

Click to expand...

And assuming a manager makes more than one signing, it could be identified as an outlier. That’s how data works.

Grendel said:

Atkinson would be bottom by a country mile - I would actually guess Phil Neal would come out pretty well

Click to expand...

Interesting one as you’d then have to get into an area of relative spending, accounting for football inflation which is far higher than any other measure of inflation in that timeframe.

Can’t get into all this. Just fucking kick it.
FORWARD
SHOOT

Also what about managers that constantly pick their signings even if they're shit because he can't accept he's made a mistake?

Plus you get different transfer hierarchies at different clubs. At some (esp places like Spain) the chairman/president signs players and the manager just has to get on with it even if they don't want them. Whereas at others the manager has total say over signings?

hill83 said:

Can’t get into all this. Just fucking kick it.
FORWARD
SHOOT

Click to expand...

Didn't even need to look at the Avatar/name to know who'd posted this !
#Don'tdrinkandpost#toomuchtimeonyourhandsinlockdown

Sky Blue Harry H said:

Didn't even need to look at the Avatar/name to know who'd posted this !
#Don'tdrinkandpost#toomuchtimeonyourhandsinlockdown

Click to expand...

It’s true though. Football is painfully overanalysed already.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

Also what about managers that constantly pick their signings even if they're shit because he can't accept he's made a mistake?

Click to expand...

paul telfer

hill83 said:

It’s true though. Football is painfully overanalysed already.

Click to expand...

Like when the missus sits and occasionally comments that all they need to do is kick the ball in the net.

Goalkeepers would either turn out incredible or awful by this measure I'm guessing

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

Also what about managers that constantly pick their signings even if they're shit because he can't accept he's made a mistake?

Plus you get different transfer hierarchies at different clubs. At some (esp places like Spain) the chairman/president signs players and the manager just has to get on with it even if they don't want them. Whereas at others the manager has total say over signings?

Click to expand...

Yup. And managers at lower league clubs are forced to take chances in the transfer market re injury prone players that top managers can afford not to take. Comparing within one division makes a bit more sense but even then pressures and budgets vary.

Agreed with a lot of what I'm reading; this analysis is flawed in many ways.

What we do know is that Robins selects on performance vs. having his own 'signings on the pitch.' If it's not working out then he's pretty ruthless in changing things; Ogogo, Brown and Chaplin for example arrived with big reputations but didn't work in our team - so Robins moved on to players who did.

Robins' ability to always evolve and improve the squad is second to none compared to other CCFC managers I've seen; noting also that he's been limited in transfer funds compared to previous managers (Atkinson and Strachan in the hall of shame for blowing cash on very badly thought out signings).

The best evidence for how good Robins and his recruitment team are at buying players who fit our system and improve the team is simply as follows: Marosi, Dabo, McFaz, Rose, McCallum, Walsh, O'Hare, Godden. That points to a recruitment team doing their homework and getting it right. I included loan signings as well as they are very important for EFL teams in the modern game. I also loved the Duck and Bright as loan signings the season before last.

No manager is going to get it 100% right (for example, Kastaneer has not performed this season) but Robins' quickly moves on and his success rate overall is very very impressive. Can't wait to see what he can do if he has a bigger budget for the Championship.