[Albion] Attacking players, value and the algorithm

[BrickTamland]

Anyone else feel like our stacking of attack minded players is as much a ‘value creation’ tactic as much as something purely tactical for the aim of winning football games?

Whilst rumours by no means equals truth, the fact is 90% of the players we are linked with, and often sign, are either wingers or attacking midfielders.

Coppola and Boscagli stick out this window as rare defensive acquisitions (and both were, or will be, very cheap)

I can’t help but feel we have a very bloated squad in certain attacking areas (including youth players and the loan army).

Is this to do with the added value prescribed to ‘flair’ attacking players? Is it easier to make a large profit on a South American winger than a CB? Half these players won’t ever have anything close to a meaningful career here, and will be sold on (hopefully) for a profit.

This isn’t a complaint, I trust TH inherently and no one can argue with his track record, but is the algorithm more concerned with value than what we need on the pitch at any given moment?

I can’t see any other reason why we have 5000 wingers at the club (with more rumoured to be on the way) yet we spent multiple games last year with our best CM playing centre back

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I thought the thread would be about slagging off Dunk and JP.

What a relief!

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Anyone else feel like our stacking of attack minded players is as much a ‘value creation’ tactic as much as something purely tactical for the aim of winning football games?

Whilst rumours by no means equals truth, the fact is 90% of the players we are linked with, and often sign, are either wingers or attacking midfielders.

Coppola and Boscagli stick out this window as rare defensive acquisitions (and both were, or will be, very cheap)

I can’t help but feel we have a very bloated squad in certain attacking areas (including youth players and the loan army).

Is this to do with the added value prescribed to ‘flair’ attacking players? Is it easier to make a large profit on a South American winger than a CB? Half these players won’t ever have anything close to a meaningful career here, and will be sold on (hopefully) for a profit.

This isn’t a complaint, I trust TH inherently and no one can argue with his track record, but is the algorithm more concerned with value than what we need on the pitch at any given moment?

I can’t see any other reason why we have 5000 wingers at the club (with more rumoured to be on the way) yet we spent multiple games last year with our best CM playing centre back

I agree with you. And when I saw we might be in for that Moroccan lad in midfield, despite the masses of options we have in that position, it did make me think, that we might just be signing players for them to develop on loan and turn over for a profit without ever playing for us.

On the other hand, I don't discount the idea that we sign players in anticipation of a future sale of one of our current stars. And I think there's also something in the idea that we throw mud at a wall to a degree, for example the number of young keepers we have.

I don't complain about it either, but I admit there's something about it which I don't like

 

[BrickTamland]

I agree with you. And when I saw we might be in for that Moroccan lad in midfield, despite the masses of options we have in that position, it did make me think, that we might just be signing players for them to develop on loan and turn over for a profit without ever playing for us.

On the other hand, I don't discount the idea that we sign players in anticipation of a future sale of one of our current stars. And I think there's also something in the idea that we throw mud at a wall to a degree, for example the number of young keepers we have.

I don't complain about it either, but I admit there's something about it which I don't like

For me it’s not really about liking it or not. More about adjusting to it as the new way football
works.

As much as we dislike them, it’s essentially what Chelsea do on a smaller scale.

Very different to the days of Gary Hart and some training shirts!

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think there is an element of money making in order to re-invest in the squad, but if you look at who we have currently 22 and under

Yalcouye, Tzimas, Buonanotte, Cozer-Duberry, Minteh, Osman, Ferguson, Ayari, Gruda, Enciso, Sarmiento, Gomez

You would hope a few of those make top Premier League players (some already some way there) and replace the next couple of seasons sales and retirements (Welbeck, Joao Pedro, Mitoma, Adingra, Rutter) and with others coming through to take their places it suddenly doesn't look that many.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Anyone else feel like our stacking of attack minded players is as much a ‘value creation’ tactic as much as something purely tactical for the aim of winning football games?

Whilst rumours by no means equals truth, the fact is 90% of the players we are linked with, and often sign, are either wingers or attacking midfielders.

Coppola and Boscagli stick out this window as rare defensive acquisitions (and both were, or will be, very cheap)

I can’t help but feel we have a very bloated squad in certain attacking areas (including youth players and the loan army).

Is this to do with the added value prescribed to ‘flair’ attacking players? Is it easier to make a large profit on a South American winger than a CB? Half these players won’t ever have anything close to a meaningful career here, and will be sold on (hopefully) for a profit.

This isn’t a complaint, I trust TH inherently and no one can argue with his track record, but is the algorithm more concerned with value than what we need on the pitch at any given moment?

I can’t see any other reason why we have 5000 wingers at the club (with more rumoured to be on the way) yet we spent multiple games last year with our best CM playing centre back

We used to often hear the suggestion that our penchant for stockpiling young goalkeepers, was down to a similar financial opportunity.

However, I'm not convinced we have ever sold one for a profit of any kind. Possibly a nominal one on Walton, if any fee we got from Ipswich outweighed the compensation we'd paid Plymouth? Obviously we sold academy product Sanchez for big money, but I'm not counting him, as he arrived as a 15 year old, rather than being brought in for money, to turn a profit.

 

[BrickTamland]

We used to often hear the suggestion that our penchant for stockpiling young goalkeepers, was down to a similar financial opportunity.

However, I'm not convinced we have ever sold one for a profit of any kind. Possibly a nominal one on Walton, if any fee we got from Ipswich outweighed the compensation we'd paid Plymouth? Obviously we sold academy product Sanchez for big money, but I'm not counting him, as he arrived as a 15 year old, rather than being brought in for money, to turn a profit.

True. Although just because the plan didn’t work doesn’t mean it wasn’t a plan

 

[Stato]

We generally try to sort the ins before the outs so it often looks this way in the early part of the summer. The perception of a bloated squad is a newish thing over the last couple of years, but I get the impression that 1) Tony doesn't want to get get caught out again like he did at the end of 23/24. We coped with injuries much better this year because we had more options; and 2) the approach to succession planning has always been about acting in advance of need. This perhaps creates other problems to solve in squad management in the meantime, but it's a factor we have to deal with if we want to avoid being caught short.

 

[A1X]

I said exactly this last year when we loaded up on wingers and #10s and didn't sign any defenders, it's clearly the area of the pitch where we're weakest but there's less value to be had so we seem to ignore it

 

[BevBHA]

When we lost to Middlesbrough and then the retrospective play offs, Tony Bloom continued to invest money into the squad, despite them clearly being good enough to challenge for automatic promotion again. He said “strengthening from a position of strength makes complete sense to me”. This seems the same principle as present to me. If the club using the algorithm spot a player with potential (ability and resale), then whatever the position they will do the business and get it done.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It all feeds into a difficult question of what is the right size of squad.

If we generally are having 8+ players injured at any time and we consider this likely to continue and we want a team and bench of first team players, then I guess 28 is the right number, which by historic standards is massive.

The trouble is then if you have a situation where you only have 3 or 4 players injured, (which hasn't happened to us for at least 18 months, but if it did), then you're leaving 5 senior players out of a matchday squad, things get tricky.

The biggest problem is that the argument for joining that we are a pathway to regular PL football and a euro challenge becomes harder to make

 

[GingerBeerMan]

It's probably easier for the algorithm to define a promising attacking player rather than a promising defender. We haven't bought many young defenders, nor had much luck with the ones we have bought (Cucu aside). I think the fact attackers are more individual is probably what makes it easier for statistics to define their ability.

 

[BevBHA]

It's probably easier for the algorithm to define a promising attacking player rather than a promising defender. We haven't bought many young defenders, nor had much luck with the ones we have bought (Cucu aside). I think the fact attackers are more individual is probably what makes it easier for statistics to define their ability.

We signed JPVH from Breda for £2million. Whilst I agree there are more attackers, we must give the club huge credit for spotting him at 19/20 years old.

Ben white on a free from Southampton also springs to mind

 

[singing4seagulls]

Absolutely this is what's happening.

But I think it's about PSR.

Sign a player, the cost is spread. Sell a player and you bank it in one go.

That means you want to be signing lots of players and selling lots.

• Ideally they meet criteria such as "homegrown" - much easier with young kids.
• Ideally you're not taking a big risk - low fees where even if you make back what you paid, because money is spread you feel ok.

But importantly, where we've made loads of money on Caicedo etc. we've got a limited time period to spend that cash before it falls outside of the PSR assesment window.

So spend on lots now, to keep us laughing for years to come.

That's my take anyway.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Absolutely this is what's happening.

But I think it's about PSR.

Sign a player, the cost is spread. Sell a player and you bank it in one go.

That means you want to be signing lots of players and selling lots.

• Ideally they meet criteria such as "homegrown" - much easier with young kids.
• Ideally you're not taking a big risk - low fees where even if you make back what you paid, because money is spread you feel ok.

But importantly, where we've made loads of money on Caicedo etc. we've got a limited time period to spend that cash before it falls outside of the PSR assesment window.

So spend on lots now, to keep us laughing for years to come.

That's my take anyway.

I reckon what you've said is spot on. It's about steadily being able to sell, even if just £5m here, £10m there, when the PSR effect of the one off PSR bonanza is no longer there

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Absolutely this is what's happening.

But I think it's about PSR.

Sign a player, the cost is spread. Sell a player and you bank it in one go.

That means you want to be signing lots of players and selling lots.

• Ideally they meet criteria such as "homegrown" - much easier with young kids.
• Ideally you're not taking a big risk - low fees where even if you make back what you paid, because money is spread you feel ok.

But importantly, where we've made loads of money on Caicedo etc. we've got a limited time period to spend that cash before it falls outside of the PSR assesment window.

So spend on lots now, to keep us laughing for years to come.

That's my take anyway.

Anyone else yearn for those innocent days before wholesale horse trading of players, when the fanbase could and would be thrilled by, say, the marquee signing of CMS who was unveiled (if memory serves) at the pre-season friendly v Burgess Hill and was only too happy to pose for photos for anybody who asked. How far we've come etc

 

[JBizzle]

It's probably easier for the algorithm to define a promising attacking player rather than a promising defender. We haven't bought many young defenders, nor had much luck with the ones we have bought (Cucu aside). I think the fact attackers are more individual is probably what makes it easier for statistics to define their ability.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'd also say that defenders generally peak a little later. When we signed them Webster was 24, Kadioglu 24, Pervis 24, Igor 25, Boscagli 27, Cashin 23 (has anyone mentioned if he's any good on this forum yet?). Coppola, Lamptey and JPvH are very much the exceptions age-wise.

 

[The Fits]

Of course. Chelsea have done it for years. We both copy each other

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Absolutely this is what's happening.

But I think it's about PSR.

Sign a player, the cost is spread. Sell a player and you bank it in one go.

That means you want to be signing lots of players and selling lots.

• Ideally they meet criteria such as "homegrown" - much easier with young kids.
• Ideally you're not taking a big risk - low fees where even if you make back what you paid, because money is spread you feel ok.

But importantly, where we've made loads of money on Caicedo etc. we've got a limited time period to spend that cash before it falls outside of the PSR assesment window.

So spend on lots now, to keep us laughing for years to come.

That's my take anyway.

It isn't about PSR for us.

It's a way of generating revenue to be competitive.
PSR has just created greater opportunities for our model to be successful.

 

[Machiavelli]

Anyone else feel like our stacking of attack minded players is as much a ‘value creation’ tactic as much as something purely tactical for the aim of winning football games?

Whilst rumours by no means equals truth, the fact is 90% of the players we are linked with, and often sign, are either wingers or attacking midfielders.

Coppola and Boscagli stick out this window as rare defensive acquisitions (and both were, or will be, very cheap)

I can’t help but feel we have a very bloated squad in certain attacking areas (including youth players and the loan army).

Is this to do with the added value prescribed to ‘flair’ attacking players? Is it easier to make a large profit on a South American winger than a CB? Half these players won’t ever have anything close to a meaningful career here, and will be sold on (hopefully) for a profit.

The point @Stato made about succession planning has something in it for me. I'd also say that we actually need more attacking players under FH who likes to make all five substitutions (generally attacking players) to crank up the fabled 'intensity'. There's no doubt other issues to do with finance too which others are better placed than me.
I'll just add that our success and consolidation in the PL is a factor that enables us to do this. If you go back to our early years, we really didn't have many forward players in our squad, and were lucky on the injury front, factor in that CH favoured defensive solidity too.