Summer 2013 Transfer Rumour Thread - Mk4

It is true that we were only a couple of wins away from 10th spot, and how many points did we lose from a winning position. On the other hand if we did not beat Chelsea, Pool and City we would have been in the poo as well. There was a 20 point difference between us and the likes of Everton. The Swans have added some quality, Everton are basically the same team, Pool will be great going forward but still dodgy at the back,Norwich may have sorted thier goal problem, yet lack in other areas, Spurs could really suffer if Bale leaves, Brom may struggle for goals this season, Spam will still beat teams around them which was something we struggled with. If we fail to sign a striker then we may not even improve a single place, yet we were a hard team to beat so if we improve our scoring % then we could be top 10.

 

So how many of our players would get into the first 11 of each of these teams?

Man Utd
Man City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Spurs
Liverpool
Everton


I'll try and work out my own answers this evening but I suspect the numbers won't be very high, at least not for the first 6 of those teams. I don't know Everton's team as well off the top of my head.

 

I don't expect Everton to be a top 7 team this season. The others are easily better than us on paper though.

 

Not many of our players would walk into a top six team, however we are stronger together. A lot of lower PL sides have a few top class players and a lot of journeymen...Saints have talented players who are better together than as individuals.

 

There is no way our starting 11 is top 6.

 

Jesus christ you're deluded!

 

On balance I expect them to keep 7th. That's mainly because their closest challengers last year were Swansea, who'll have Europe as a distraction for the first time, and West Brom who won't have Lukaku this year. It wouldn't surprise me if they dropped back though. Basically I wanted to name more than six teams and they seemed the most obvious seventh.

I also appreciate that a player-for-player comparison doesn't tell the whole story but it's a reasonable indication of how good your players are and I think it's a valid question when someone has said our first eleven is top 6 quality. I could just as easily ask which of those teams have a first 11 that's not as good as ours...?

 

I heard today West Brom want Defoe for 6m

 

If our squad is good enough for top 6 i'm richer then Bill Gates.

 

I'll counter that (as I didn't put an 'argument' up last time) by saying using your 'rules', there are easily 6 better first 11s in the EPL than ours.

United/City/Arsenal/Spurs/Chelsea/Everton are 6 teams who have a better 11 than us and there are more teams.

I agree we could have done better than 14th, but we didn't and our squad wasn't/isn't good enough for top 6, and nor was/is our best 11.

 

Disagree Fran. We think we are stronger together. The only evidence is a league table over 38 games. We can use the "didn't play our best 11" all the time, but nor did other teams.

I'd accept a comment that says we were maybe as good as 9th-13th, but that's all. Our 11 and our squad wasn't any better than that.

 

The thing that has been overlooked by many people is that we had the youngest team (apart from Villa, and look at the stick they got for selecting young players!) in the league, which will naturally improve with age and experience. Apart from the first two months of last season we would've finished in the top ten. I'm not saying that we are top six yet, but possibly over time with a few quality additions we might get there.

 

Some players get better as they get older, some don't, some get worse. Shouldn't assume the whole team will magically go up in quality simply because of the passage of time.

 

It's generally accepted that a player's peak is 25-30, as in most walks of life you get tend to get better at a job with experience (unless you get an injury)

 

Put a hefty bet on it have you?

 

I'm sure there are stats somewhere about the relative ages of players compared to the success of the teams they play in. But I would not be surprised if it debunked the myth that if you fill your team with players at their "peak" you'll get success.

 

Well if half of them can improve as much as Rickie has since he's been at the club i'll be happy.

 

and that is the whole point I raised when Impsaint suggested our best 11 was top 6.

 

I agree with this. There is no saying what will happen.

 

Fair point. Also backs up my feeling that its always down to the individual and age is a bit misleading. Rickie was always good enough to improve with better coaching, diet & teammates. Wasn't just him getting older.

Think its a bit of a red herring when so many fans seem to think buying a 19-23 year old is a much wiser move than going for a 28-31 year old. In fact, some fans get quite sniffy about other clubs buying older players.