The other games today 2019/20

[David Edgar]

 

Great seeing OGS fanboy Nev getting put in his place. 

[Paully]

Better ‘version’ of it! Class run by Sergio btw

 

[Dinho lad]

The 14 players Man Utd used yesterday were more expensive than the 14 Man City used, yet we’re supposed to view Man Utd as the plucky underdog against their oil rich rivals.

 

Clearly City are more talented, ffs.

[Guest]

Without question but I hate it when they deem it a David v Goliath type match when it’s self inflicted. Was the same when Chelsea won the CL, they were the plucky outsiders even though they had one of the most expensive squads in the competition.

[Dinho lad]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

[leffe186]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

 

Well we know that . The point is that Team X and Team Y both had 300M or whatever to spend, you can't then say Team Y are plucky underdogs because they fucked up how to spend it.

[Dinho lad]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

 

Well we know that . The point is that Team X and Team Y both had 300M or whatever to spend, you can't then say Team Y are plucky underdogs because they fucked up how to spend it.

 

You say they're plucky underdogs because the players are not as good, not because the transfers were fucked up.

 

 

[leffe186]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

 

Well we know that . The point is that Team X and Team Y both had 300M or whatever to spend, you can't then say Team Y are plucky underdogs because they fucked up how to spend it.

 

You say they're plucky underdogs because the players are not as good, not because the transfers were fucked up.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Smalling is a plucky underdog every time he walks on a pitch. Manchester United are not though.

[Dinho lad]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

 

Well we know that . The point is that Team X and Team Y both had 300M or whatever to spend, you can't then say Team Y are plucky underdogs because they fucked up how to spend it.

 

You say they're plucky underdogs because the players are not as good, not because the transfers were fucked up.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Smalling is a plucky underdog every time he walks on a pitch. Manchester United are not though.

 

The team is.

[Guest]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

[jdckelly]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

Mahrez last summer cost them £60m

[leffe186]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

 

Well we know that . The point is that Team X and Team Y both had 300M or whatever to spend, you can't then say Team Y are plucky underdogs because they fucked up how to spend it.

 

You say they're plucky underdogs because the players are not as good, not because the transfers were fucked up.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Smalling is a plucky underdog every time he walks on a pitch. Manchester United are not though.

 

The team is.

 

The point we're making is just that it's a bit rich (ahem) to call Man U plucky underdogs. It undermines the really plucky underdogs who have relatively miniscule resources - including those available for transfer fees - such as Burnley, say. Better to just call Man U incompetent twats. And nobody uses transfer fees to measure a team's abilities, they use transfer fees to highlight what a team's abilities should be in relation to others.

[Guest]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

Mahrez last summer cost them £60m

 

Aye just looked, 3 between £50-60m. The players yesterday though, Man Utd’s 5 most expensive players cost £70m more than City’s 5 most expensive. That £70m is at least a world class centre-back which they’ve been crying for.

[Dinho lad]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

 

Once again you're using transfer fees as an indicator to a player's ability. As I mentioned, this is overrated way to gauge a good measure of their ability.

 

 

[Dinho lad]

Transfer values these days are too overused and frankly it's boring and not as good measure of a player's or team's ability like so many people think. Not least because a player's strengths and weakness interact, for example with the manager's instructions/ability to coach (plus whatever else), to influence the outcome.

 

Transfers these days are also over inflated for reasons such as agent fees, economical forces (?) and even value of x player to the club. (which doesn't make a good indicator of a player's ability in relation to the fee; i.e, Sigurdsson.)

 

Well we know that . The point is that Team X and Team Y both had 300M or whatever to spend, you can't then say Team Y are plucky underdogs because they fucked up how to spend it.

 

You say they're plucky underdogs because the players are not as good, not because the transfers were fucked up.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Smalling is a plucky underdog every time he walks on a pitch. Manchester United are not though.

 

The team is.

 

The point we're making is just that it's a bit rich (ahem) to call Man U plucky underdogs. It undermines the really plucky underdogs who have relatively miniscule resources - including those available for transfer fees - such as Burnley, say. Better to just call Man U incompetent twats. And nobody uses transfer fees to measure a team's abilities, they use transfer fees to highlight what a team's abilities should be in relation to others.

 

ffs, don't give a shit about other contexts. I was responding to NO's suggestion that transfer fees matter that much. If those comments on Sky last night (i didn't see it) was 'club v club', then I understand NO's view. But if it was '11v11', then no.

 

 

[leffe186]

OK. I agree with ON in that I don't think you can call Man U plucky underdogs precisely because they had a similar amount available for transfer fees to Man City and fucked it up. If you are happy to call Man U plucky underdogs simply because they're not as good then fair enough.

[Guest]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

 

Once again you're using transfer fees as an indicator to a player's ability. As I mentioned, this is overrated way to gauge a good measure of their ability.

 

 

 

It’s about the club rather than the players ffs man.

 

There was nothing stopping Man Utd going for a Laporte or a Walker or Van Dijk or Mane etc over the last 3 years or so. They’ve blown massively and yet are miles away from the clubs that got those players. They shouldn’t be starting a big derby match with Ashley fucking Young right-back and Smalling centre-back, but their inept spending has lead to it.

[Dinho lad]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

 

Once again you're using transfer fees as an indicator to a player's ability. As I mentioned, this is overrated way to gauge a good measure of their ability.

 

 

 

It’s about the club rather than the players ffs man.

 

There was nothing stopping Man Utd going for a Laporte or a Walker or Van Dijk or Mane etc over the last 3 years or so. They’ve blown massively and yet are miles away from the clubs that got those players. They shouldn’t be starting a big derby match with Ashley fucking Young right-back and Smalling centre-back, but their inept spending has lead to it.

 

Yeah.... erm, that's not what I was getting at. You're basically addressing their failings in the transfer market - that's nothing to do with the actual footballing abilities. (And as I mentioned, transfer fees are not a reliable measure)

 

I didn't see the comment on Sky, but I would bet that when they labelled Man Utd as the underdogs, they meant it in terms of football ability, not resources of the club overall.

 

That was certainly the angle I was approaching it from.

[ponsaelius]

First leg of Atalanta vs Fiorentina was great, 2nd leg has started in the same way.

[Guest neesy111]

Getafe vs Real on ITV4.

[Wullie]

Getafe vs Real on ITV4.

 

Cheers neesy, hadn't realised.

[Froggy]

If Man Utd are spunking £250m on Sanchez, Lukaku & Pogba then it’s their fault. City seem to shop in the £25-45m market...have they ever spent over £50m? Rare for the elite clubs these days. Man Utd should be a lot closer than what they are but bad transfer policy has cost them.

 

Sanchez, Lukaku and Pogba cost £164m.

[Guest]

Pogba & Lukaku cost that alone. You can’t call Alexis Sanchez a free just because he was part of a swap, closer to £200m then but point still stands. You could have simply sold Mkhitaryan and signed a right-back with that cash.

[Guest neesy111]

Good to see the ox is back tonight.

[Wilson]

christ