EPL v non-EPL signings

[Spurf]

If there is one thing that makes me wonder about Harry it is the signing of Peter Crouch. How was he 'good' for the team. It took them ages to stop hoofing the ball up to him at the expense of our very talented midfield. When they finally did, most of the time Crouch failed to control it. His main asset is arms and legs flapping around in the penalty area causing mayhem and sometimes 'causing' a goal.

A substitute fire cracker but little else, and yes I know he scored against City and was awesome in that game. It was so unusual and that's why we remember it. A bit like John Barnes who built a whole career on one mazy run through a Brazilian defence.

Mind you Defoe is pretty good at getting through a Brazilian defence, or so it would appear.

 

[BazSpurs86]

So following on from something I said in another thread:

I've just been realising how many of our really successful signings in recent years have come from the Prem versus those that have come from outside the Prem:

Successful signings from outside the Prem since 04 (year picked at random):

Dawson
Carrick
Huddlestone
Lennon
Davids
Assou Ekkotto
Berbatov
Bale
Modric
Walker
Sandro
VDV
Parker (alright - bit misleading)


From within the Prem:

Woodgate
Corluka
Crouch
Gallas (but a free so shouldn't really count)
Krancjar
Kaboul
Defoe (maaaybe)

...and I'm being a bit generous to Crouch there.

Couple of things to notice:

- The Portsmouth fire sale provides four out of six (if you don't include Gallas) of our really good signings from the EPL in the last EIGHT years.

- The majority of the EPL ones are Harry signings.

- A lot of our big flops (who are therefore not on the lists above) came from the EPL - Bentley, Bent, Keane, Palacios (for the price)...

Point I'm making is that buying players from the EPL is a mug's game unless you can, like Man Utd or City just fork out £30-40m for the very best and the inflated fees we've paid in the past have only secured comparatively average players for much of the time. I mean - Corluka, as much as I like him, cost £8m! That's a Pappis Cisse right there! Or a VDV!

Oh - and it's a bit of a shame that Harry does love a bit of the old "Prem League experienced" side of things. (I do, however, think that transfers since he got here have improved a lot).

Just thought I'd share...

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those players you quote as successful are either very young talent or first time in England. Maybe more to prove than your other list which refers to players that have already (slightly) impressed in the English game before and are not coming in "fresh".

A trivial explanation, yes but it's mine.

 

[lennypops]

A number of the non EPL signings came from lower league English teams. This seems to happen rarely these days, except for the promoted sides like Blackpool, Hull, Swansea etc, who have much smaller budgets. Are the bigger teams missing a trick overlooking the likes of Lambert?

Well I think the difference between those in the list above and a Ricky Lambert is that they were all very young when they arrived. Carrick probably being the oldest of the bunch. But Huddlestone, Dawson, Lennon, Walker, Bale were all teenagers or thereabouts. Of course signing promising-looking teenagers from lower leagues doesn't always work (hello, John Bostock) but the risk is tiny and potential benefits (five of our first team squad in the names above and all for less than £20m in total) are huge.

 

[Dier Hard]

I take issue with Defoe and Crouch being successes for Harry. Initially, perhaps, but how can you so easily forget the last half of the 2009/10 season and the whole of the 2010/11 season, when both players were utter pants? Defoe was probably the worst striker in the EPL, last season. This season, he has only been marginally better. Our strikers have been our major problem, the cracks in that particular veneer have been only thinly papered over with the (fortunate) acquisition of Adebayor.

Pienaar has only been a flop because Redknapp is tactically inept.

Naughton can hardly be deemed a failure, given his complete and utter lack of chances in the first XI. The most that any one can say about him is that the jury is out.

Last season Defoe had long absences through injury and then admittedly came back and was dire. When he re-joined he was in top form and this season, when he's had the chance, has still found the net on several occasions.

Crouch was a success for two reasons - His goal vs City to get us into the CL and then the majority of his performances in the CL where he got so many vital goals. Though admittedly he never lit up the Lane.

Redknapp cannot be blamed for Pienaars awful performances, he got to play in about 4 different positions and was sh*t everywhere he played. Was touted as a replacement and an upgrade on Krancjar...

Naughton's failure tag maybe harsh but he's not had the reviews like Walker got while on loan at QPR/ Villa last year, or like what Caulker is getting this year to suggest he'd be in with a shout for a starting XI place anytime soon, add that to the fact he's a year older than Walker, there's not much case for argument on his side. He's also been benched (albeit only a few) for Norwich at times. Caulker and Walker started every possible game they were available for selection for.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Crouch and Defoe were poor last season because we largely used a system that suited neither of them.
The same has been true of all of our strikers this season, whenever Adebayor's been absent.

Hopefully we'll look a little more at how any new signings fit into our squad this summer, rather than just buying players because they're good or effective.