Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pulis' Transfers - Success or Failure
#1
Taking a point someone made in another thread about Pulis wasting millions on transfers I thought I'd have a look at who we've signed  and see whether that money has been wasted or not:

Success:

Evans - £8m
Rondon - £12m
McClean - £1.5m (Dons tin hat)
Fletcher - Free but on huge wages

Failure:

Mcmanaman - £4.5m
Lambert - £3m
Chester - £8m - although made most of it back
Lindegaard - Free - not really a flop, was bought in a short term cover, wasn't really needed.

That makes £21.5m (plus wages) of money well spent verses £15.5m wasted. Or a 58% success rate, that's about par for most managers.
Reply
#2
But it isn't just money is it?

Pulis wanted wingers but we've only just filled one hole there with Phillips and there is still work to do to avoid McClean being a regular starter - which whether you like him or not has to be done to make us better.

We've also still got a gaping hole at LB, an old CB partnership with little cover and no cover at RB.

We've also still got Lambert as our reserve striker and an player who wants away as our second choice.

So in terms of pure money he's at 58%, in terms of doing what is needed he is well below that...
Reply
#3
(08-18-2016, 01:13 PM)Duffmon Wrote: Taking a point someone made in another thread about Pulis wasting millions on transfers I thought I'd have a look at who we've signed  and see whether that money has been wasted or not:

Success:

Evans - £8m
Rondon - £12m
McClean - £1.5m (Dons tin hat)
Fletcher - Free but on huge wages

Failure:

Mcmanaman - £4.5m
Lambert - £3m
Chester - £8m - although made most of it back
Lindegaard - Free - not really a flop, was bought in a short term cover, wasn't really needed.

That makes £21.5m (plus wages) of money well spent verses £15.5m wasted. Or a 58% success rate, that's about par for most managers.

Let's ignore transfer fees and compute the success % by heads. Let's also add Gnabry and Pritchard in the shit category.
Good - 4
Shit- 6

That's a 40% success rate, very, very poor IMO.
Reply
#4
(08-18-2016, 01:53 PM)Foo Fighters Wrote:
(08-18-2016, 01:13 PM)Duffmon Wrote: Taking a point someone made in another thread about Pulis wasting millions on transfers I thought I'd have a look at who we've signed  and see whether that money has been wasted or not:

Success:

Evans - £8m
Rondon - £12m
McClean - £1.5m (Dons tin hat)
Fletcher - Free but on huge wages

Failure:

Mcmanaman - £4.5m
Lambert - £3m
Chester - £8m - although made most of it back
Lindegaard - Free - not really a flop, was bought in a short term cover, wasn't really needed.

That makes £21.5m (plus wages) of money well spent verses £15.5m wasted. Or a 58% success rate, that's about par for most managers.

Let's ignore transfer fees and compute the success % by heads. Let's also add Gnabry and Pritchard in the shit category.
Good - 4
Shit- 6

That's a 40% success rate, very, very poor IMO.

If you counted every single player Ferguson or Wenger ever signed the ratio would probably be similar.

(I'm not comparing Ferguson/Wenger to Pulis before anyone starts)
Reply
#5
A player bought for backup that isn't required turns out to be shit? How was Lindegaard or Pritchard shit? By this logic only the players who play every week are in the non shit category. Sandro also did a job if you wanna throw the loanees into the mix.

A couple of very good signings is all it takes for success in the transfer market. Look at the percentage of Ashworths signings that were under the above criteria "flops" and it's approximately the same. Villa stayed up for years because of one (maybe two) good signings and Liverpool nearly won the league based almost exclusively on one signing.

The "success" rate above considering how much the successes have contributed is actually very good. It's delusional to suggest otherwise. In recent years there will only be a couple of clubs that have better (Southampton comes to mind, Leicester also although they've bought quite a few players that got next to no game time (aka flops apparently)).

If we are sitting here in another year and a half with 3 more first teamer that have contributed to our 11 as much as Evans, Fletcher and Rondon then we will be happy.
Reply
#6
(08-18-2016, 02:09 PM)ASOGF Wrote: A player bought for backup that isn't required turns out to be shit? How was Lindegaard or Pritchard shit? By this logic only the players who play every week are in the non shit category. Sandro also did a job if you wanna throw the loanees into the mix.

A couple of very good signings is all it takes for success in the transfer market. Look at the percentage of Ashworths signings that were under the above criteria "flops" and it's approximately the same. Villa stayed up for years because of one (maybe two) good signings and Liverpool nearly won the league based almost exclusively on one signing.

The "success" rate above considering how much the successes have contributed is actually very good. It's delusional to suggest otherwise. In recent years there will only be a couple of clubs that have better (Southampton comes to mind, Leicester also although they've bought quite a few players that got next to no game time (aka flops apparently)).

If we are sitting here in another year and a half with 3 more first teamer that have contributed to our 11 as much as Evans, Fletcher and Rondon then we will be happy.

Excellent post again Slice, but fear some of our fellow posters have been lobotomised over the summer.
Reply
#7
(08-18-2016, 02:45 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Excellent t post again Slice, but fear some of our posters have been lobotomised over the summer.

Have we adequately filled the positions we were short in when Pulis arrived yet?
Reply
#8
Players are a success on how YOU see a player it's all about opinions and what YOU expect from his personally and how you expect your team to play
Reply
#9
(08-18-2016, 02:46 PM)Baggie_Shrek Wrote:
(08-18-2016, 02:45 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Excellent t post again Slice, but fear some of our posters have been lobotomised over the summer.

Have we adequately filled the positions we were short in when Pulis arrived yet?

Have we been able to shift some of the crap we brought under the super dooper DoF system we had in place under Irvine and Clarke? Do you really think any manager would want to carry so many players he doesn't want if he had a choice? Do you think TP is blind to our obvious weaknesses? You sound like Athers
Reply
#10
(08-18-2016, 03:01 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(08-18-2016, 02:46 PM)Baggie_Shrek Wrote:
(08-18-2016, 02:45 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Excellent t post again Slice, but fear some of our posters have been lobotomised over the summer.

Have we adequately filled the positions we were short in when Pulis arrived yet?

Have we been able to shift some of the crap we brought under the super dooper DoF system we had in place under Irvine and Clarke? Do you really think any manager would want to carry so many players he doesn't want if he had a choice? Do you think TP is blind to our obvious weaknesses? You sound like Athers

If that's the case cut your losses and fuck them off and then there are no excuses further down the road
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)