R4 vs Melbourne Victory | Mon 31 Oct | 9:50pm | SS2

Last AWs team included Kip Colvey, Deklan Wynne and Liam Graham, yet none have ever been linked with the Phoenix.  Litfin - surely some of the kids coming through our own system must be as promising as this random punter?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704407...

In the EPL: No Money, No Chance

Updated Aug. 13, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

Though the NFL and soccer's English Premier League, which starts its 2010-11 season Saturday, both have massive television ratings and high-salaried players, their differences are vast (as their respective fans would be quick to point out).

But one of the most defined distinctions between the leagues is something only economists would find interesting: the massive difference in their correlations between players' paychecks and team success.

Between the 05-06 and 08-09 seasons in the EPL, the average correlation between the per-player salary on each team and that team's propensity to win was .85, according to data from SportingIntelligence.com. That's extremely high on this scale where "0" mean's there's no relationship between two subjects and "1" means there's a direct relationship. In three of those four seasons, the three teams that spent the most per player also had the best records in the league. During the same time in the NFL, the correlation was .14, meaning the relationship between players' salaries and winning percentage was weak.

But this doesn't necessarily mean sports execs across the pond are smarter, according to Stefan Szymanski, an economics professor at London's City University and co-author of the sports book "Soccernomics." Mr. Szymanski attributes a large part of the discrepancy to the fact that the EPL doesn't have a salary cap, player drafts and other spending constraints that prevent NFL teams from freely allocating their money. "Those with market power can outbid weaker rivals," Mr. Szymanski says. "Hence, player salaries reflect their relative quality."

Even Major League Baseball, which has some salary constraints like the NFL but doesn't have a salary cap, can't touch the EPL's pay-for-success model. The 2009 MLB correlation between salaries and winning percentage was .31. Take that, Yankees haters.

So you sign worse players on the basis that they are available during the international windows, but when you have to play them due to injuries they are no good anyway.  Not sure I follow that line of thinking

Okay, cool. Let's go straight to ad-hominems. A bit of a shame, I thought we were having a good discussion.

If Team A spends more money than Team B and Team B finishes ahead of Team A, that would indicate to me that the coaching staff/management/players of Team A have made significant errors throughout the season. Those could be errors in how that extra money was spent or it could be errors in the tactics used on the squad. 

I never said that spending more money entitles you to finish above a team that spends less money. We aren't entitled to finish above either Newcastle or the CCM. What I said was, we (as fans) are entitled to expect the Phoenix to finish ahead of teams with lower resources. I don't see how you can argue the opposite. If Bill Gates bought the club and signed Messi and Ronaldo then wouldn't we be entitled to expect to win the league? Or would you still say in that case that we shouldn't expect to beat Newcastle/CCM? There is a big difference between entitled and being entitled to expect something. 

I'm just saying that as fans we are entitled to expect that coming 9th would be unacceptable. That seems a very uncontroversial statement.

Does the money thing really carry over to the A league though,would have thought Sydney have spent more than most recently and hasnt done them to well wouldnt have thought Adelaide had spent as much as some others for their success last season.

but Sydney have a decent chance to win the league, so do both Melbournes. 

Litfin has a great record in the NPL. What local kiwi has banged in 19 goals in 24 games as an attacking midfielder? I understand ASB Premiership is a higher standard than the NPL but still.

One of the things that frustrates me a little is how we let players go. Brindell-South, Hicks, Adams, Danaskos and Caira. None of those players are greats but it seems like each season we bring in some inexperienced back up players. Then we give them little chance and get rid of them after one of two seasons. I think some of those guys were decent squad players. Nothing fantastic but perhaps if we kept them they would have had the experience to be a better fill-in than Parkhouse at left back. We need to pick some squaddies and keep them around as long as they are happy to stay on league minimum.

The correlation will be lower than in the EPL but as the salary cap loosens then the correlation will start to strengthen. 

I also think that teams that compete in the ACL do poorly in the HAL, so though successful teams spend more they have to deal with travelling and mid week games in Asia which hampers their performance in the HAL. SFC and MV top 2 in 14/15 in the HAL and participating the ACL in 2016 saw them finish 6 and 7 in the 15/16 season. 

It has an impact but that impact is never linear. You just have to look at Manchester United. Sydney have had Brosque and Janko and then Brosque and Holosko as marquees. Before that they had ADP who was fantastic but papered over cracks in the rest of their team. Sydney have changed this season and have Holosko and Bobo as their marquees which looks like a potent attack force. 

Adelaide still do possess two marquee players although they haven't spent what other clubs do. I think you can put their success down to having a style of play which suits their squad.

Our whole recruitment strategy is strange to me. Signing a winger/forward as our 2nd choice LB for instance

Last I looked, the other team didn't have injuries to key players and as shallow a squad as us last night.  We had injuries where it hurt us most. Pointing out that was a factor while half the forum is going off the deep end isn't "going on" about it.  It's just a bit of balance to the discussion.

We are particlularly vulnerable at CB, FB and DM. (and it must be difficult for Ernie to cover the AWs being away and not have vulnerabilities elsewhere). 

Jeez. Hopefully last night is a worst case. We've done the same to other teams before. But if you get hit with key injuries, get some bad calls that contribute to going down to ten men and get towled when you try to play positive with ten to get a result; well, that's just the way it goes sometimes.

It's been said before.  We've played pretty competitively with the AWs away.  We've been competitive against good sides.  We had a 'mare last night. 

But I'm not going to judge the merits of the whole season on that and ignore injuries so I can go off the deep end with angst.  Injuries will largely determine whether we can get up to mid table or we are a mess over the season.

We don't have a deep squad and particularly against the Sydeny and Melbourne sides we need to be at full strength to expect a result.  I kinda like the bottle of the guys that they risked it all to try and get even with only ten men.  Didn't work out, to say the least, but at least they gave it a crack.

Christ, what an awful bit of logic that is. Messi and Ronaldo are two of the greatest players not only of the modern era, but all time in football history. That is such an extreme example to use that it is barely worth responding to, but i've got a bit of time before summer footy so i decided i would.

If Bill Gates bought the club and signed two completely awful footballers (let's say yourself and I) for more money than the combined salary of Newcastle, it does not mean we are going to beat them, nor win the league. 

I really don't think we were having a good discussion as you pretty much ignored what i was saying completely (as did Bullion it seems). Of course spending money in professional sport (or amateur for that matter) plays it's part in the success of a club or franchise. But there are so many other factors to take in to consideration that for a supporter to either expect or feel entitled to where they should finish in a league table, or how far they go in a particular competition is a nonsense.

I get in extreme cases where spending is massively lopsided (think La Liga) it can have a bigger effect, but i don't think in a league where a salary cap exists this is the case at all. We should look more at our manager, backroom staff, and players as to where we should finish and who we should be beating. Not us having a marquee whilst a couple other clubs don't.

I agree with your logic, exemplified by the Parkhouse-for-Danaskos off-season swap. And I do miss Jason Hicks.

The only thing I can think of is that we cut players to have clean books to splurge on marquees and then had to patch holes with cheap NPL players lured here on the strength of our marquees and hoping the marquees will carry the rest of the team. I may be completely wrong.

2) it's not just 4 games, it's the last season and a half

3) isn't a lack of squad depth indicative of a poor recruitment strategy(especially as kiwis aren't visa players for us but are for the other 9 teams)

You said "Spending money is not the definitive barometer of success" to which I showed evidence on the very high correlation that it does. 

Yes, the more methods of reducing the disparity of spend per player between teams weakens the correlation it is still there.

Also, if you are look at the manager, backroom staff and players that can also be looked at the total investment of the club on football operations and I assume that better managers get paid more, as do better staff. These non player costs are not capped and can probably also correlate to improved performance of the team. 

enough of the quotes !

See- no one is saying- this is really well played by the FFA if they are trying to keep the Kiwi team out of the top 4 (as we were threatening a year or so back). Just little tweaks of rule changes and scheduling that don't help.

I mean no international break + a trip to Perth + another 10pm -12am game on a Monday is some farked scheduling, plus taking away temporary signings which mitigated it.  

And then we turn on ourselves. 

Real question is: how injured is A-Rod and have he and Ernie had a falling out because he's much better in that box-to-box or collecting the ball deep role than Roly is I believe.

Roly needs to operate on the sides or further forward.

Oxford Dictionary

• A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular person or thing.

  ‘football fans’

Fail - Interest is gaining momentum 

I don't hhhhhmmmm rrrraaaa rrrrr don't want this to come out the wrong way as its a concern for me its not meant to incite ....more to analysis..... 

Hate to bring up the "M" word in the early doors of the 4 year extension... what effect does the teams current performance effect if at all, NZ ratings, in particular given the next media deal is in play ?.... second what long term effect if any does it have on general community support from the Windy capital?.. 

An interesting site looking at all codes is http://www.footyindustry.com heaps of stuff on this site.

The same site, crowds and ratings for the FFA Cup, Socceroos,  A-League and EPL matches shown in Australia. http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2576

If our form, especially at ho e does not improve immediately, the other 9 teams will be begging to play us every game at Westpac as they know it is three points for certain. Great for us to get 27 home games per season but not great for our results.

NOt sure if I said that with tongue in cheek or with a slight hint of factual evidence.

Sure I'm not saying it's all due to injuries, but I think it's definately a factor with a weaker squad.  We don't have Berisha or Fornaroli or Del Piero level match changing marquees.  We don't have the money.  Our "marquees" manage to look OK relative to the average import in the Sydney and Melbourne sides.  And the rest of our imports manage to be mid range at best relative to Kalfallah, etc.  So there is no way we have the squad depth of those top clubs.

1.  We always have an excuse?  So against the Sydney and the Melbourne sides, yes, we are always going to be relatively short of squad depth.  We have a shot if we're fit.  If we are missing key players it'll always be tough.  And we have the additional headache of trying to cover for the AWs windows and cover every other injury possibility as well.

So yes, we always have an excuse - if we come up against those sides with significant injuries.  You either accept that or you find someone with another $2m to give us a year.  For me that says we are aiming for around 4th in a good year.  And from 4th down it's generally very competitive.  So cop a few longstanding injuries to key squad members and we're going to head down towards 8th pretty quickly.

2.  It's been a problem for a season and a half. Agree.  But see above.  We will always do poorly in seasons where we have a lot of key injuries.  We had Sig out much of last year.  We had Krishna out much of last year.  We had Riera out for several games iirc.  Correct?  The season before we had a great run because we were pretty injury free.  Burns was a factor.  But we had him fit all season.

3.  Is it recruitment strategy?  Yes, I think to an extent.  But money is clearly a factor relative to the big sides. I'd have sacked Lia earlier, or at least got in an accomplished import DM as a new starter - an A Rod upgrade.  I'd have signed a Berisha styled striker.  I doubt Ernie's not trying. 

Getting beaten because Berisha cynically worked over a couple of youngsters is just how it's going to be if we have a starting CB, starting FB and starting/back-up DM out vs MV.

Man I'd love to see Rossi vs Berisha.  Reckon Berisha might get the red.

My point about the injuries wasn't to make excuses.  For me it's just a reality.  And if we get Rossi and Doyle back on the park and get a good run going, I've seen enough to hope for better.  If Rufer, Ridenton or A-Rod can step up and knock Lia out of the starting squad over the season, and Tratt continues to develop, we may get on a very good roll.  But we'll struggle if Rossi, Dura, Doyle go down long term, because that's where we've got the least squad cover.  Mind you, I don't know if Fox could have as demented a game again.  And hopefully Parkhouse can also develop.

I tend to agree with whoever was saying we tend to turn over the kids.  I'd like to see our coaching really address Parkhouse's defensive weaknesses.  I think that may be coachable.  I'd like to think some of our midfield play can be improved through coaching, but that just doesn't seem to be happening, we see the same old issues.  So I have questions about Greenacre, if that's the right direction to point.  I don't see any chance of Lia improving.  His weakness is straight pace, so you need to see the Rufers, Ridentons or A-Rods coached up to take his spot.  I'm concerned we don't see big progress and opportunity going to those development players.  Is that coaching or that they just don't have it in them?  Don't know. 

It's funny that we both think each other are missing each other's points so i will be far more careful to respond directly to everything you have said. 

You said in your last post that "Spending money is not the definitive barometer of success. I think you're pretty naive if you think just because Team A spends more (or buys marquee players in this case) than Team B, that entitles them to finish above them, or the fans to immediately expect that without question." As it was I never argued either point. I said that spending more money should help a team be more successful and fans of a team with more money should expect their team to be more successful. I never said spending money is success in itself or said it entitles a team to finish above another. 

The Messi and Ronaldo case is just an example. Yes, it is an extreme one. Finkler and Barbarouses are not as good so the results will not be as extreme. That shouldn't mean the result disappears entirely. 

As to your point about Gates signing you and I, this is why I said 'entitled to expect.' You seem to be missing this point. As fans we should expect the management of the club to use the club's finances wisely. My whole point is that we have signed two marquees and CCM/Newcastle have none so, all else being equal, we should be expected to finish higher than them. If despite having two marquees, Newcastle and CCM have a better squad that doesn't prove our expectation wrong. That would just show that the people who assembled our squad are incompetent. Personally, I have been critical of the Finkler signing because I think we should have used that money in other parts of the squad. If Bill Gates signed me and you and we came last then we still would have been right to assume we would finish decently because we would assume that the people in charge would sign good marquees.

Where did I say there weren't other factors to be taken into consideration? I'm arguing that a team with more resources should be expected to finish higher than a team with less resources. Marquee players are just an example of that. If you think that marquee players are poor investment then you should be critical of the fact that that money wasn't used elsewhere to improve coaching or sign some back room staff. 

Part of your rebuttal is actually backing up my point, really. I'm saying we have more resources than CCM/Newcastle so should finish higher than them. You are saying that other factors are more important in where we finish. I'm then saying that if we can't finish ahead of CCM/Newcastle that shows there are problems with our manager/backroom staff and they should be sacked. Shouldn't we, as fans, expect Merrick, the most successful A-league coach, to get more out of his more expensive team than Paul Okon and Mark Jones can get out of their cheaper teams in the first seasons in charge? If Merrick cannot do that then he has to be fired because he won't have met our expectations. 

TLDR: My whole argument is that we, as Phoenix fans, should expect our team to finish at least 8th on the table this season, given the resources (specifically marquees) available to them. If our team does not, we should blame the management. That's all I'm arguing here.

Nothing like a good loss to get the forum going. 

"Together in success, together in adversity"... etc

Our team is always going to have bad periods. We will probably miss the top 6 every couple of seasons anyway as Victory, Sydney, City, WSW, Brisbane and Adelaide seem to make it 75% of the time. If a four game losing run doom the club, then we are in a poor position. I think expansion will probably help us out a lot. It will spread the Aussie talent thinner whereas we still get first dibs on the kiwis.

We get em first.

They pay more and get 'em second.

Ideally we've contracted them for three years though, if they are looking good. So they need to wait.

I concur!

Why should we blame the management? Players are just as liable, if not more.

Lets just blame it on the boogie

squad has changed year in year out, yet the results have been fairly similar and consistent. I would say theres a correlation more to do with management than players.

For me I wonder why players that come to us are playing fantastic football and then very shortly are pretty average.

Wee Mac,Kosta, Roly. The exception was Roy who was average and has improved. Obviously not all the players have gone backwards, but a few have.  Of course there is Smeltz, Ifill, and Burns to name a few who were superb.

It's an 8 game losing run which is part of a bigger run stretching back 12 months where we've won 3 games in 22. Ridiculously bad and if we continue this way I can't even see us being around next season, let alone in 4 years.

All that happens is we play  a bunch of Ausis and get spanked, so what's the difference? 

Yeah, considering we can't outspend another team our strategy has to be to challenge every three years, spend three years building the team from our academy system, then challenge for the title and get our young talent raided, spend three years rebuilding.

We have one advantage though and that's that our young players are foreigners for another club so they have to be spectacular to be picked up so we have an advantage over any other team like CCM that tries the same strategy, and theoretically our young players will be cheaper as we're the only job in town.

Having the entire NZ football system being a feeder just for our club is the biggest advantage that we have and one that no other team can emulate. We can't outspend but our catchment for players is not spread amongst 9+ teams.  We have 4.5 million people per team, the Australian teams have 2.5 million. AND the best Australian players are going to be picked up from the small teams by the big teams, whereas the best NZ players aren't necessarily going to be in such demand. This is what we need to leverage to be championship material.

Roly was a defensive mid fielder and signed as cover for DM and CB, it was just lucky that he showed himself to be good at beating a man and shooting in training therefore Ernie converted him, I think you could say that he is very much the product of Ernie's coaching and improved drastically. If Roy is an exception then Riera is too.

So the list of players that have improved under Merick includes Roy, Riera, Burns, and Roly. The players that have worsened are Wee Mac and Fenton - both of whom play outside of their preferred positions. I think it's too early to say anything about Kosta.