Premier League 2020/21 Thread

[Scotch]

I don't understand how England's U21's have done so poorly. That squad is better than our (scotlands) first team. Which is scary. 

[deep blue]

7 hours ago, The Bear said:

Boothroyd is another footballing dinosaur that needs a meteorite. Still plays kick and rush nonsense, and is an advocate of the "it only takes three passes to score a goal" mantra. Also one of those NLP weirdos. 

Don't understand your point here. Vardy's 11th-in-a-row goal took just 2 passes and it's as fine a goal as you'd wish to see.  I think his goal from Mahrez's instant touch pass in the pouring rain v Man City was a three pass goal.  There are many examples and the goals that come from the smallest number of passes are often a joy to watch because of their sheer economy and precision.

 

Of course, a mix of approach is the best, as there are examples of 20-pass goals that are superb too, but there's nothing wrong per se with the minimalist approach.

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[foxes_rule1978]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

I’m shocked that ours isn’t at 100%, some people have high expectations  

[Leicester_Loyal]

9 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

I’m shocked that ours isn’t at 100%, some people have high expectations  

Some of us won't be happy until the family stand is swapped with the KOP.

[Facecloth]

36 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Posted this in another thread.

 

I'm surprised Newcastle is so high 

[Super_horns]

2 hours ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

England under 21 managers have always been abysmal as far as I can remember, at least the fa are consistent now making the senior team equally laughable in terms of management. 

The last manager of them is now the first team manager of course !

 

9 hours ago, The Bear said:

Boothroyd is another footballing dinosaur that needs a meteorite. Still plays kick and rush nonsense, and is an advocate of the "it only takes three passes to score a goal" mantra. Also one of those NLP weirdos. 

TBH I’d rather try to get a goal with a decent pass or two forward than the endless tippy tap stuff teams do - often not very well.

 

This Under 21 lot have had one shot on target in 2 games - never going to win much doing that.

 

Must be told to play out sideways and back wards  rather than be on the front foot .

 

Of course lumping it down the pitch isn’t the answer but do like a winger who can get the ball , run and cross creating a goal rather than trying to pass sideways and doing endless tricks  .

Edited 31 March 2021 by Super_horns

[FOXSE]

1 hour ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

I’m shocked that ours isn’t at 100%, some people have high expectations  

I remember seeing a poll a few years ago that had 4% of UKIP supporters wanting to remain in the EU. So anything over 96% in polls like this is pretty impressive! 😄

[Leicester_Loyal]

I'm surprised Palace is as high as it is as well tbh.

[Leeds Fox]

10 hours ago, The Bear said:

Boothroyd is another footballing dinosaur that needs a meteorite. Still plays kick and rush nonsense, and is an advocate of the "it only takes three passes to score a goal" mantra. Also one of those NLP weirdos. 

NLP? That’s been bugging me all morning and it’s going to annoy me even more when you tell me what it is 

[HighPeakFox]

59 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

NLP? That’s been bugging me all morning and it’s going to annoy me even more when you tell me what it is 

Neuro linguistic programming. 

[ARM1968]

11 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Heartbreaking. 

Life can be tough at the best of times and these long months haven’t been that. 

[Jobyfox]

2 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

NLP? That’s been bugging me all morning and it’s going to annoy me even more when you tell me what it is 

Personally I’m more of an advocate of the methods of NGP 

[ajthefox]

16 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

 

Absolutely pathetic, the talent we have in the u21s besides the stars moved straight to the seniors is great. Just a shit coach looking for an excuse 

 

 

 

The headline is daft but he does make a valid point, in that the purpose of the U21s really is more about improving players and getting them ready for the seniors than it is about winning anything specifically.

 

That in itself does make the job harder. I have no clue on how good Boothroyd is personally though.

Edited 31 March 2021 by ajthefox

[STUHILL]

3 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

The headline is daft but he does make a valid point, in that the purpose of the U21s really is more about improving players and getting them ready for the seniors than it is about winning anything specifically.

 

That in itself does make the job harder. I have no clue on how good Boothroyd is personally though.

Surely all International u21s have the same issue though, but they seem to outperform ours. The players he has at his disposal means he should do better IMO. 

[The Bear]

I'm not sure why he was expecting Mount to be available when he's played the last 7 games for England. The general point is valid but he has plenty of good players to win games. It just comes across as an excuse for shit results. 

[Corky]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

I'm not sure why he was expecting Mount to be available when he's played the last 7 games for England. The general point is valid but he has plenty of good players to win games. It just comes across as an excuse for shit results. 

He had a much better squad in 2019 and managed one point. Mount, Maddison, Calvert-Lewin, Barnes, Abraham, Foden, Wan-Bissaka.

 

Boothroyd is the problem.

[RowlattsFox]

It's definitely excuse making from Boothroyd but I do think the under 21s are hard. All other age groups you tend to be able to pick all the best players in that age group, they've usually played together through the age groups. By the the time they reach under 21 some of them of drifted away, not got enough senior football or if they do breakthrough and are good they'll be fast tracked into the first team. Especially when you're seniors are rubbish 

 

Squads always seem a bit of mis-mash, players get picked because they are are only players in that age group playing in the premier League or out on loan in EFL..

 

But yeah, that doesn't go away from the fact that Boothroyd is a shit manager. Not sure what kind of manager would want it though, either someone to gain managerial experience or someone who has been shit elsewhere.

[davieG]

https://talksport.com/football/858048/

 

 

 

Net total paid to agents/intermediaries

West Brom – £4,222,059

Burnley – £4,458,520

Crystal Palace – £6,760,093

Southampton – £6,804,154

Leeds – £7,034,943

Sheffield United – £7,081,018

Brighton – £7,496,038

Aston Villa – £8,928,343

Fulham – £9,347,927

West Ham – £9,689,567

Newcastle – £11,349,953

Leicester – £12,518,018

Wolves – £12,598,466

Everton – £14,071,886

Arsenal – £16,462,480

Tottenham – £16,520,177

Liverpool – £21,652,589

Manchester United – £29,801,555

Manchester City – £30,174,615

Chelsea – £35,247,822

[FoyleFox]

6 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://talksport.com/football/858048/

 

 

 

Net total paid to agents/intermediaries

West Brom – £4,222,059

Burnley – £4,458,520

Crystal Palace – £6,760,093

Southampton – £6,804,154

Leeds – £7,034,943

Sheffield United – £7,081,018

Brighton – £7,496,038

Aston Villa – £8,928,343

Fulham – £9,347,927

West Ham – £9,689,567

Newcastle – £11,349,953

Leicester – £12,518,018

Wolves – £12,598,466

Everton – £14,071,886

Arsenal – £16,462,480

Tottenham – £16,520,177

Liverpool – £21,652,589

Manchester United – £29,801,555

Manchester City – £30,174,615

Chelsea – £35,247,822

I'm seriously in the wrong job!

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Net total paid to agents/intermediaries

West Brom – £4,222,059

Burnley – £4,458,520

Crystal Palace – £6,760,093

Southampton – £6,804,154

Leeds – £7,034,943

Sheffield United – £7,081,018

Brighton – £7,496,038

Aston Villa – £8,928,343

Fulham – £9,347,927

West Ham – £9,689,567

Newcastle – £11,349,953

Leicester – £12,518,018

Wolves – £12,598,466

Everton – £14,071,886

Arsenal – £16,462,480

Tottenham – £16,520,177

Liverpool – £21,652,589

Manchester United – £29,801,555

Manchester City – £30,174,615

Chelsea – £35,247,822

 

These figures aren’t pretty, any way you slice them.  But I tried to put them into context, by comparing them to the clubs’ actual transfer spending.  I used a five-year span, guessing most fees are amortized across the life of the contract.

 

I would have  assumed the smaller clubs would pay a smaller percentage (since they buy less expensive players and avoid the Raiola-type super agents).  I also guessed Arsenal and Wolves would pay the most, since they are each so tied up with a super agent.

 

And it didn’t turn out that way.  It’s almost random.  Four of the Rich Six are above the PL average; and yet the highest spenders were Sheff United.*  Wolves and Arsenal weren’t particularly high.

 

The only conclusion I could reach, is that from 3 to 5 percent of transfer spending is going to this particular class of parasite.  And that is an unavoidable cost of doing business in the Premier League.

 

 

 

* note: I used year-old data for the 5-year net spend (because it was available, in a table I could import) … so probably understate the spending of recently promoted clubs.

[brucey]

[Aus Fox]

4 hours ago, brucey said:

Do they have the same graph for where teams have scored from?

[Lambert09]

9 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

These figures aren’t pretty, any way you slice them.  But I tried to put them into context, by comparing them to the clubs’ actual transfer spending.  I used a five-year span, guessing most fees are amortized across the life of the contract.

 

I would have  assumed the smaller clubs would pay a smaller percentage (since they buy less expensive players and avoid the Raiola-type super agents).  I also guessed Arsenal and Wolves would pay the most, since they are each so tied up with a super agent.

 

And it didn’t turn out that way.  It’s almost random.  Four of the Rich Six are above the PL average; and yet the highest spenders were Sheff United.*  Wolves and Arsenal weren’t particularly high.

 

The only conclusion I could reach, is that from 3 to 5 percent of transfer spending is going to this particular class of parasite.  And that is an unavoidable cost of doing business in the Premier League.

 

 

 

* note: I used year-old data for the 5-year net spend (because it was available, in a table I could import) … so probably understate the spending of recently promoted clubs.

This is the important part tbh. Good work  

 

However, another thing that is impossible to calculate is how much of this is from new contracts. 

Edited 1 April 2021 by Lambert09

[Les-TA-Jon]

15 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

These figures aren’t pretty, any way you slice them.  But I tried to put them into context, by comparing them to the clubs’ actual transfer spending.  I used a five-year span, guessing most fees are amortized across the life of the contract.

 

I would have  assumed the smaller clubs would pay a smaller percentage (since they buy less expensive players and avoid the Raiola-type super agents).  I also guessed Arsenal and Wolves would pay the most, since they are each so tied up with a super agent.

 

And it didn’t turn out that way.  It’s almost random.  Four of the Rich Six are above the PL average; and yet the highest spenders were Sheff United.*  Wolves and Arsenal weren’t particularly high.

 

The only conclusion I could reach, is that from 3 to 5 percent of transfer spending is going to this particular class of parasite.  And that is an unavoidable cost of doing business in the Premier League.

 

 

 

* note: I used year-old data for the 5-year net spend (because it was available, in a table I could import) … so probably understate the spending of recently promoted clubs.

Wait, we've spent £380m on transfers over the last 5 years? And Man City have 'only' spent £818m? 

 

I would not have guessed ours was so high