This is ridiculously harsh. The success rate for transfers is always going to be well below 50%. The ones you've quoted are pretty par on average. We just have to face facts that the only way to improve is gradual progress everywhere
Why? Based on what evidence? And yes, if only 2 out of 10 signings came in and actually improved the squad, that is well below what with the greatest respect seems to be a made up figure and simply isn't good enough. I'm confident Moura will increase it to 33% next season. Foyth could too but he's years away from being ready.
I had to chuckle when just prior to yesterday`s game, commentator Martin Tyler was discussing £ity being without Aguero and Fernandinho, and then went on to say that £ity`s `resources were overstretched`
Because to buy a player you both have to pay him more than his current club do and to buy him out of his contract. You have to do this despite only having a limited amount of information about him whereas the selling club see him every day. That's very asymmetrical so the selling club will get the better deal more of the time. I'd be amazed if more than 25% of transfers were successful on average.
Might be worth noting that City become the first team this season that we've played twice in the league and haven't beaten. Liverpool were the only team to manage that in the last campaign, IIRC. West Brom, Watford and Leicester can potentially join them, having all benefited from our crappy run that started in November.
You make a good case for it. I'd be interested if someone with nothing better to do sat down and compiled such a study. There is also the added factor that a manager's style can make a pig's ear out of an otherwise inspired transfer. United being a prime example of this where most of their signings have - at least on paper - seemed eminently sensible, yet Maureen sets them up like an expensive West brom.
Been thinking about this and in a way it is comforting that teams only seem to be able to beat us when we play absolute ****e. It's very rare these days that I sit back after a defeat and think 'well, we gave it our all but the best team won'. Both games against City, the away games against Arsenal, United and Leicester were amongst the worst performances we've seen in recent years. That Leicester performance was as bad as the dregs of the Sherwood era and worse. Simply abysmal. And we still didn't get tanked in any of them other than at the Etihad. The defeat against Chelsea is probably the closest we've had to not playing too badly but still losing. Unless it is so long ago now that I can't remember it well. Bottom line is if we're up for it, we tend to win. The question mark remains though: do we struggle to hit that composure and confidence when it really matters? I'd hoped we'd turned a corner after the chelsea win.
