I really think you need to start claiming the signings haven't improved "last season's team", in order to be crystal-clear. That team did include Livermore; "the team" (ie whatever we could field if there were a match today) did not include him from the Cup final until he signed up. So signing him did improve "the team".
Apologies for the "class" mixed you up with Jenks Shuffle. He had two assists last season & averaged 2-4 crosses / game. Where's the evidence of his creativity? Livermore was in the last team we fielded, he'll be in the next we'll field. The team has not improved.
We haven't fielded a team since the cup final. Livermore was in the last team we fielded, he'll be in the next we'll field. The team has not improved.
Livermore was in the last team we fielded, he'll be in the next we'll field. The team has not improved.
But why on Earth would you look at the last team we fielded as a comparison. Surely it's now that matters? If you're going to do that you might as well say we shouldn't sign X forward because he's no improvement on Wagstaff; it's irrelevant. What if someone had signed Davies after the cup final. Would signing Dawson be no improvement since Davies played in our last match?
If you really want to be pedantic and keep saying the team hasn't improved - then feel free. But two things have happened: Livermore was never ours, so purchasing him has stopped the decline that happened when he returned to Tottenham at the end of the season. It's freed up a second loan spot - so now we can loan in a player to take the spot that was Livermore's. So, yes technically the team is the same as it was last season, but that would be a really pesimistic view to take.
So I'm right, thank you. Although I'm not being pedantic or pessimistic & I've always been free to say anything I feel. I definitely don't need the permission of a red arsed monkey to do so.
Yeah, the Livermore thing is just a mis-understanding that depends on where you're standing if you know what i mean. I see where you're coming from and i'm sure you see our point. From last season it hasn't improved. From what we would have started with this season (the one that matters) he's improved our team immensley. According to a stats specialist website (Squaka) in 30 games Snodgrass scored 6 goals and created 67 goalscoring chances. In 38 games elmo scored 2 and created 42 goal scoring chances. They are they bits that are solely down to the respective players. The assists count on the other players being able to put them in the back of the net.
You are right only in the most basic of ways, in that Livermore was there last season and will be next season. What kind of point is that? The point you are missing is that Livermore now will be a different player to the one we signed a year ago, because of his experience. Him being our player also frees up a loan spot, giving us further room to improve.
The point I initially made has been lost in the waffle of others. I merely pointed out that we'd spent, in the case of Livermore, £8m & the team hasn't improved because of it. Comparing buying a player now to Waggy would be silly. But that's not what was said or being discussed. It's a simple point, we've maintained the standard of the team from last year at a cost of £8m.
I'm not missing those points at all, those point were not relevant to the point I was making. We've spent £8m to maintain the standard of the team that we had last season. All our players will be different in the most basic of ways, won't they? If the team have improved equally then Livermore still being in the team does not improve it. Unless you believe only Livermore has improved. The point I was making, quite clearly, is that we've spent £8m (a lot of money) & not improved the team (from last season).
Hey - you are free to look like a ding if you want - I'm not trying to stop you at all - you can talk as much rubbish as you want to on here... Generally I like to think about things before I say them, but hey you just say what you feel like saying, go for it dude!
Are you saying that in the context of it being a bad thing? If so then the only thing to blame is our previous reliance on the loan system, I don't see anything wrong with signing him now just because he was here last year without paying for him. Obviously it isn't an option now.
I'm glad he's signed. The point was to do with the money paid. I'm guessing we paid a loan fee for last season & therefore an additional £8m to maintain the standard of the team appears, to me, excessive.
