I am obviously not being clear. The point I was making on recruitment was that the only conceivable way you can judge a player properly is watching a lot of matches. If the first team coach is doing his job properly he doesn't have time to do that. But I've got no idea whether our current recruitment team have any skill at all. And I didn't say that 5 clubs had a better team. I said they had better players. Over the whole season teamwork wins which is why our League finishes were so good. But in one off matches better players can easily win. I think that's why Poch tried different tactics in some big matches as he recognised that the standard ones were likely to lose.
Yes that clarifies your position a lot more. Some interesting points as always. Can't say i fully agree with your argument that you can only judge a player properly by watching them a lot. I believe there are some people - and they exist in every industry - who have a real 'eye' for talent. Conversely there are many more people who can stare at something for a lifetime and never be able to tell you what it is they're looking at. My fear in a Big Data world is that it is probably tempting to give executive positions to candidates who have watched the most players and amassed the largest database, when in reality all that tells you about the candidate is that they like football a lot more than the average person and may well be better employed helping the programmers on the latest Football Manager computer game. I do broadly agree with your point about the role of the coach and would add that at the highest level, the gap in quality between the two sides is often so negligible that many times tactics and selection aren't nearly as important as motivation and simple avoidance of unforced errors (most commonly: injuries, suspensions, stupid ref decisions and bizarre substitutions). Re Poch in big games, here's the thing: There's a world of difference between trying 'something different' which holds water and makes sense, and something that looks insane from the outset. Examples of the former are using playing Llorente with Kane in a front two, using a defence-minded DM to drop into a back 3, or deploying Kane in a deeper more creative role. None of these were/are an outrageous idea and may well throw the opposition enough to make victory more likely. Then you have things like playing someone in a role for the first time in their entire career in a semi final, or dropping your best GK just because the other keeper has been used in previous rounds, benching the player who scored a hat trick in the previous round etc. Those look more like a manager trying far too hard in high octane situations, overthinking and over tweaking things tactically so that it ended up backfiring.
I think we will end up with Nuno, take away last season he did really well with Wolves. They played open attacking football with 3 at the back which Paratic apparently wants. He has more premier league experience than Potter and did well with Wolves in the Europa League. He has also managed higher profile players and Levy wouldn't have to pay to get him. I wouldn't be surprised if he came in on a 2 year deal with Levy trying to get Poch as he comes to the end of his contract with PSG.
I don't agree on the eye for talent thing. It's much more likely to be random success than an actual skill. And even if it existed how would you tell that anyone had it before you spent money?
With players surely they have to pass the ‘eye test’ as well as having certain metrics statistically that make them a fit for what you want in a position. The eye test (watching them) has to be important because data can be misleading - the Chris Brunt/Xavi meme being a classic, if slightly flawed, example. How many fans of PL clubs didn’t rate Modric when he was with us, and look at him now. I do think the whole ‘eye for a talent’ thing tends to apply more to scouts/coaches spotting young players and bringing them into the academy off the back of a good game for their local/parks team. Even then though, a scout is going to look at the player’s return over a longer period of time than one game. But bringing a player into an academy is low risk vs spending millions of pounds on them so you can justify taking a punt on signing a 15 year old vs signing a 25 year old which has to demand more due diligence in terms of statistical analysis, fitness issues etc.
Teams like Brentford use statistical analysis to guide their scouting, but that's not the end of it. They still have people watch those players to see if these things hold up. Someone like Modric probably sits outside of the realms of statistical analysis, in my opinion. How do you measure the ability to find space or dictate the pace of the game? There are other players that will receive the ball as often as he does without being effective.
As in any industry: you start small and humble, develop a knack for it, build a reputation and move up the ranks. Your record defines your success. I like to use Jimmy Tindall as a great example of someone with an eye for talent. He set up the famous Senrab FC in Wanstead and gave the opportunity to kids many of whom came from deprived areas to nurture their talent and ability. 32 premier league players came through the ranks there at an average rate of 2 PL products per year at one point (far better than our £250m "state of the art" academy it should be noted). London's biggest clubs would and still do send scouts to Senrab matches, simply because they trust that Tindall has done half the work for them on a fraction of the budget and a microscopic fraction of the qualitative experience and background support. Now of course, chance plays a huge role in Tindall's success but logic would suggest that he is someone who from an extremely young age and with zero prior experience had a knack for spotting and developing talent. He was barely 20 years old when he recruited Ray Wilkins. In recent years, problems have arisen but not necessarily with Tindall's eye for talent, rather the knock on effect of there being so little money in the game at grassroots level and - more importantly - the fact that modern day academies are gargantuan production lines hoovering up anyone who can so much as volley a ball then spitting them out again at the other end of an impersonal, relentlessly pressurised and unforgiving system that values quantity over quality and makes decisions based on Big Data over instinct.
Everyone can see the difference between the best few players and the rest. I don't think anyone can tell whether the 99th best player is going to improve relative to the 100th best player (or vice versa) which is the skill you need to have an edge in the transfer market. You'd actually struggle to tell which was the 100th best player and the 200th best player in practice.
The trouble is that there are probably a 1000 clubs like Senrab. If they all had no skill at all in spotting talent then half would perform well each season. After ten seasons, one of them would have done well in every season simply by chance. I only believe in an edge when I can see how it is done. I simply can't see that in this case.
At least they've been competing for them. Grealish might well come good but I'd bet against the other two. Do you keep a list of the ones you recommend who never get heard of again......
Grealish might come good? Just about every team in the country would love him at their club - including us. Watkins and Eze would also be good additions. Find the ones I’ve recommended that haven’t come good and we can see
Tottenham Hotspur. The gift that keeps giving. Being rejected by managers that aren’t even all that good.
Tbf Sevilla are in the CL. There is also the possibility of the expulsion of two of those above them. Would you leave for Thursday nights in Vladivostok or similar places
So, even counting Levy's claim that many of the names mentioned haven't ever been spoken to, here's what we know to be fact: 1) Conte - rejected us. 2) Pochettino - rejected by club 3) Fonseca - rejected by spurs 4) Gattuso - rejected by fans 5) Lopetegui - rejected us It isn't pretty.