Why Liverpool Ne ver Winthe League

[Paul Marin]

For those of you who have been paying attention, I have said for years that football is now a money thing. City and Chelsea were nowhere before rich oil money came to their rescue; and I have also said that if LFC fans want to get vex about our fortunes, to blame Moores and Parry, who had the opportunity to sell the club to Dubai Investment Capital but balked when they heard that DIC had an "exit strategy"...so the eedyats sold to G&H

Anyway, you may also know that I keep telling City Fan#1 X that he should stop listening to eedyat LFC bloggers, but I read something sent to me by Blogger in Chief Paul Tomkins that underscores my belief as to why berating the manager is just plain stupidity. While I don't think much of Tomkins emotional opinions, he does a decent job with data. Here are some excerpts (not Xcerpts) from his article "Why Liverpool Never Win the League" and guess what heX, it's not because of the manager:

• ...over the past decade it has been clear to me that Liverpool won’t win the league with any manager...
  
• Until FFP really bites, and until Liverpool have a bigger stadium, then the money the club spends on transfers will never be enough...
  
• for the first eleven Premier League seasons the differences in squad and £XI (the £XI is the 38-game average cost of the starting line ups, after inflation is applied) costs were fairly minimal; it was an era when there was no clear financial heavyweight miles ahead of the rest...
  
• When Arsene Wenger won his first title in 1998, Arsenal also had the costliest £XI. But it was close. Back then, everything was close.
  
• If you do not have £XI in the Title Zone [a level of squad cost and utilization high enough to win the title], or a squad cost (again, after inflation is applied) in the Title Zone, you won’t win the title. That may sound simple, but that’s how it works. Or at least, how it’s worked for the past 10 seasons, and how it appears to be working again this season.
  
• No team with a £XI lower than £210m has won the Premier League in over a decade. Liverpool’s current £XI is £138.9m, over £70m short of the minimum. (And indeed, it was £95m short of City’s last season.)
  
• No team with a squad that cost less than £397m (after inflation) has won the title in over a decade. Liverpool’s current squad cost (Sq£) is £293m, over £100m short of that minimum. (And indeed, was a whopping £140m short of City’s last season.)
  
• The Premier League ‘rich three’ are so tightly grouped that the title will come from one of them; but it ultimately comes down to whose manager gets the most out of their talented collections, and who has to overcome less bad luck.

Full Article: http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/11/why-...in-the-league/

[Sir X]

How does that equate to the champions league win under Rafa , the 2nd place follow up in the C.L and Prem , FA cup under Rafa and the League cup under KD, i wont mention the 2nd place finish under the yute coach because we were on a holiday schedule.


Fits your mentality.

[Peter R]

X, The article is titled: Why Liverpool Never Win The League. And the league should be the main focus of any club. But, given what Tomkins says, financially-challenged (relatively) clubs might focus on, or will have a better chance of, winning a Cup or other competition (which is a better probability given that some are knockout and anything can happen), in order to garner some silverware.

I just thought I'd point out the title of the article

[Sir X]

So thats why the youth coach came close last season.

[Assasin]

i don't agree with ll what is posted about money up top. I didn't read the whole thing. Part of the reason Manu and Arsenal have high wage bills is because when you win even mediocre players in your locker room have to get paid higher as they seem better.

It is harder to win but you have to be able to do some team building and real good scouting. Liverpool almost won last year, they just came up short.

[Paul Marin]

So thats why the youth coach came close last season.

LOL!!!! Now you ago argue wid fi u messiah!!!! Wooooooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee............. .......eeeedybooo, the article is entitled "Why liverpool never win the league", not "Why liverpool never come close"...tan deh...the facts are there and the premise well thought out. He is careful to point out that the data "shows that the bigger the squad you have, the more you can “put on the pitch”. It is happening in Spain with Barcelona and Real Madrid, whose squads get bigger, and in Germany Jurgen Klopp’s Dortmund have been scavenged by Bayern Munich." It is clear from his data that unless you are in what he calls the Title Zone, odds are that you won't win the title. That's not to say that it "can't" happen, but rather that it is highly unlikely. Pretty simple...but hey, far from you to let the facts get in your way?

[Paul Marin]

i don't agree with ll what is posted about money up top. I didn't read the whole thing. Part of the reason Manu and Arsenal have high wage bills is because when you win even mediocre players in your locker room have to get paid higher as they seem better.

It is harder to win but you have to be able to do some team building and real good scouting. Liverpool almost won last year, they just came up short.

Saas, you are conflating arguments. You can't bring Arsenal's high wage bill into this as it is not even close to the wage bill of the top three...and his point is that unless it is (and they have a big enough squad)...then they won't win the league. So before you say "you don't agree" you should maybe read the whole thing. It is the same thing I have been saying for donkey's years. To expect any team to win without the money is lottery thinking...which is why for me, LFC's objective first has to be placing top 4, not winning the league. I have said it on here before that until we get a new stadium, (and possibly new owners), we are in a holding pattern. (And so, to continue blaming the coach is sheer stupidity - my post below pointed out that even heX's god Rafa would struggle without the $).

The excerpt below is what I told eedyboo heX the other day, when him shub him tims eena him own mout' (full post here: http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...ium#post501347 )

When Rafa was at Pool, City was in the 2nd division, Chelsea was the only team spending big money. Now Manu**, Arsenal, City and Chelsea are dropping millions like is qwati. FSG are not on that level...and until they are, Jesus himself can come and it would be a rahnaught up hill fight. Rafa will start to get frustrated, start to fight the owners, and blah blah blah...Inter all over again. In case you haven't been paying attention, money rules football these days. Without it...well...good luck. Simply put, we are not rich enough. Our fortunes (not yours, you are a Sh!tty fan) may change when we get a bigger stadium, but to compete in this day and age, we need much richer owners.

[Sir X]

Is it also true for not being in the top 4 ?

[Assasin]

Paul Liverpool almost won last year. If not for a ManCity finishing strong and Gerrard terrible slip up they would have been winners.

To say you can't win it consistently I can understand but the way the Premier League is today there is a small chance you can upset the big team. It is not possible on a regular basis, but it mean constant building. I talk about Arsenal because they have found themselves paying some ordinary players high prices because of their recent history. When you win everybody wants higher wages and benefits.

Dormond was able to win the German league and they are not a big club but to be able to do it year after year is not possible. I still believe a smaller club can win the EPL, it happen in England before and can happen again but it is not easy to do.

[Paul Marin]

Is it also true for not being in the top 4 ?

I haven't seen any data for the top 4, but I would guess that the overall performance of a club in the league is tied to their wage bill, so if you were to draw that same graph across all clubs in the league, I would venture to bet that the relegation zone is typically comprised of the poorest clubs. Because you are a man of limited capacity, I will be CLEAR - IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ANOMALY. There will always be extenuating circumstances, (injuries, match day bad calls, mishaps, bad luck etc.) that have an impact on results and where a team lands in the table, but in general, money rules across the entire table. I would submit that there are 4 zones to the table:

1. Title Zone
2. Top 4-7
3. 8-15
4. Relegation zone

LFC, Arsenal, Spurs are in the #2 bracket, your team is in the #1 bracket. Unless they spend big in January, WHU and Southampton will not finish in the top 4, but should flirt with top 7.

[Paul Marin]

How does that equate to the champions league win under Rafa , the 2nd place follow up in the C.L and Prem , FA cup under Rafa and the League cup under KD, i wont mention the 2nd place finish under the yute coach because we were on a holiday schedule.


Fits your mentality.

Me neva si dis. So time fi level di Atom Bomb pon yu raht!

1. Rafa won the UCL in 2005 - the point Tomkins is making applies to the last 10 years, not one year.
2. The league is the focus of the article, not the cups - wigan won a cup under your ideal manager and got relegated, so stay focused before you get a nex "F"
3. Second place in 2009 under Rafa was before City came with fi dem check book and took RA's spending madness to a new level
4. Anomalies will happen - it is a generalist viewpoint supported by facts.

Of course, your viewpoints are never supported but anything other than your delusional thinking. So I understand why facts are difficult for you to accept as it means proving to you that you are mentally challenged. Mi know. It bun u. But if you tek di wax outta u ea's, u wi learn summting. Tap harrass di yout' coach an' focus pon finding new (UBER RICH) owners.

[Sir X]

Anomaly normally have mitigating factors like midtable coaches, Moyes and BR ?

[Sir X]

What was Valencia wage bill when Rafa broke that syndicate or Athletico which did it recently, you focus on city as if Rafa wasn't competing against a special one with billions behind him.Is your theory only reserved for the Prem

[Paul Marin]

Anomaly normally have mitigating factors like midtable coaches, Moyes and BR ?

[Paul Marin]

What was Valencia wage bill when Rafa broke that syndicate or Athletico which did it recently, you focus on city as if Rafa wasn't competing against a special one with billions behind him.Is your theory only reserved for the Prem

It is not my theory first of all, but if you read the article, it can be extrapolated across other leagues but he did not show any data for other leagues, just hypothesized. I know you have a hard time reading and comprehending, but the point of Tomkins' article is that the probability of winning is based on the two key factors he pointed out (wage bill and average wage of starting 11). It is NOT (for the 100th time) an absolute. And also, the Valencia comparison is without merit as La Liga has not seen an infusion of spending comparable to the prem when RA and City came along.