Mails: Why Mourinho has done a great job with Man United…
You know what to do – mail us at theeditor@football365.com
Why Coutinho could be Liverpool’s Bale
The Tottenham/Liverpool saga is like two people having a fight to the death over who is the tallest dwarf. There is no debate here: the Manchester clubs are #1 & #2 for revenue and attraction for players, Chelsea come a strong third when their manager and owner are interested (which they currently both appear not to be), it is then a largely flat contest (although each side have different strengths and weaknesses) between Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham for the remaining three positions. No one cares what order they come in as it doesn’t matter – they are all roughly the same level.
In fact it is because Tottenham and Liverpool are similar that I decided to write in. Liverpool just sold Coutinho for £145m, Spurs sold Bale for c.£85m back in 2013 when that was a huge sum. What I thought, looking at Liverpool’s squad now, and Tottenham’s squad then, was that the sale of both players could be the point where these teams took a step up.
With roughly the Bale money, Spurs were able to buy: Lamela, Eriksen, Paulinho, Chadli, Saldado and Chiriches. Not all of those players were successes but I would argue they elevated the strength of the squad and starting 11 well above that which had Bale in it.
Liverpool have just sold Coutinho and (although some fans will scream that VVD wasn’t bought with Cout’s money) we have since bought: VVD and Fabinho which are quality additions where the squad had weaknesses (Keita was already incoming). Rumoured incomings include: Oblak/Alisson and Fekir with less focussed rumours mentioning a winger/forward. I don’t think Liverpool are likely to challenge the Manchester clubs regularly in the near future but there’s no doubt we would be a significant prospect were all of the above to come off (admitting the goalkeeper scenario looks the most precarious – the Oblak rumours in particular seem to be a case of journalists putting 2 + 2 together without direct evidence).
The reason I’m writing in is to offer a warning to my fellow Liverpool fans: Lamela and Eriksen took a couple of years to settle. Some didn’t make it at all. Expect the same for our incomings, particularly with so many arrivals in the spine of the team. Richard Keys wrote one of the most wonderful tweets (since deleted, the coward) last summer in which he said ‘Loving Everton’s business this summer. Here’s an early call – they finish above Liverpool this season.’ We all know how that turned out.
Much is made of winning, or doing well in the transfer window. I just wanted to add my tuppence to say that the reality is often much more complicated.
Matt, LFC
Man City’s title win was not ‘entertaining’
I knew someone will take the bait on “When was the last time an entertaining team won anything” and Wayne did not disappoint me. Only problem being, he thinks winning means entertainment (albeit it does but for only one team’s supporters, not the remaining 19). Well, if that was the case, not sure how many will call Mourinho’s league triumphs as entertaining and conversely, ManCity winning the league on a canter is boring at an equal scale if not better. Football is a game of opinions and you can find people that thinks Barca’s tiki-taka under Pep and their domination of matches (in terms of possession) and league/CL in terms of triumphs was entertaining but majority find that boring after a time.
Entertainment is when both sets of fans are kept on the edge of their seat. Goals galore at both ends. It can be due to genius at one end or a brain-fart/mental breakdown at the other. Match pendulum swinging wildly. I am not proud of that with LFC and it takes a toll on your heart too but I would take that over the Mourinho snooze-fest any day, all day long. Keegan’s Newcastle or Rodgers’ LFC are couple of examples of entertainers. They were great going forward but you never knew what will happen at the back. You were never far from a calamity at the back. Not a fun for supporters like us but hell of a ride for others.
And as far as b*stards go, add 2-3 characters like Suarez in this squad and you will see the difference. Only problem being, Klopp fancies only nice guys. Team harmony and bonding is prime for him. That works well when the team is winning but when the team is under the cosh and you need someone to get under the skin of the opponent or draw fouls from them, there is no one to turn around. And precisely why they wilt under the pressure. Lost the count of matches we snatched defeat/draw from the jaws of victory.
Maninder, India
(If Mourinho, Klopp and Co don’t buckle up soon, the so called ‘entertainment’ dished out by Pep and Man City this season might just become a trend for EPL)
Remember, Mourinho needed to overhaul Man United
I am getting a bit sick of the constant comparisons by the media between Pep and Mourinho as a dig to the latter. Pep has done a phenomenal job and this season for City has been beyond any of their wildest dreams. However, let’s not forget when these two managers came to the Premier League, their clubs were in very different stages.
Football365 is just as guilty of this lazy argument as anyone else and I only wish I had a dime for every time they have used this tired comparison. In ‘Five transfers we would love this summer’ Winty brings up the same fallacy stating that ‘while the rest of us point out that Manchester City finished last season 19 points ahead without ever feeling the need to buy a player who costs more than Aymeric Laporte’.
Alright, let’s debunk this once and for all:
– Fact: Of the six most expensive defenders EVER bought, FOUR belong to City. All bought by Pep. Stones, Walker, Mendy cumulatively costing £210 million plus. And that’s not including the investment City made in Mangala and Otamendi just before Pep came in.
In contrast, United do not have a single defender even among the top ten most expensive defenders.
– Fact: Attackers and even midfielders cost a lot more than defenders. The most expensive defender ever cost 75 million whereas the record for an attacker stands at nearly 200. In fact, after goalkeeper, defenders are the least inexpensive players.
While City already had a potent attack and midfield in place, United needed an overhaul of both sections. As these players are more expensive, United should have been the ones spending more whereas it is the other way around.
– Fact: When Pep came in, he had at least four truly elite players already at City; Aguero, Silva, De Bruyne, Fernandinho. In today’s market each of them would cost at least 70 million (with the possible exception of Fernandinho due to his age).
Can anyone name a single outfield player in this class at United before Mourinho? In fact, I challenge anyone to name a single outfield player who Mourinho inherited, that could be sold for more than 30 million today. Rashford and Martial are the only exceptions and they are still developing and far from the finished product.
While City already had an extremely strong spine when Pep came in, United were in need of a total overhaul which is a lot more complex and expensive. Can we please just acknowledge that and stop making inane comparisons. I expect much better from established sites like Football365?
Adeel
Why would you want to see a Bale fail?
So why would we want to see the best British player in the world who’s just lit up a Champions League final with one of its greatest ever goals come back to England? Of course so F365 can laugh at Manchester United!
I was particularly interested in the suggestion that 29-year-old Bale (he’s 28) doesn’t fit United’s system given he is perfectly suited to come in and play on the right hand side of either of the manager’s go to systems – 433/4231. Worry not about Alexis being abandoned, he’s not played in that position for us (or Arsenal as I recall – so four seasons).
Whilst Woodward as at times publicly lost sight of his priorities as a football club CEO there’s been plenty of signings made that were clearly not based on the wow factor. Under Jose you’ve got Zlatan, Pogba and Sanchez for glitz (two were free transfers, the other was a former player) but Bailly, Mkhitaryan, Matic, Lukaku and Lindelof don’t exactly scream glamour buys do they?
As for City the reason they don’t need to buy anyone more expensive than Laporte is they already have the likes of De Bruyne, Sterling, Aguero and Silva who at the time they were signed were hardly bargain bin additions.
It will take time to rediscover a ‘Manchester United way’ after the farcical Moyes and Van Gaal but I’m more cautiously optimistic following the promotions of Michael Carrick and Kieran McKenna, the new contract for the manager and the club’s successes at U18 level last season I am than concerned by the possible addition of a world class player.
Jimmy (when’s Storey back already?) A
Why the anger about net spend?
Every few months in the mailbox we get someone write in, boiling with rage about the curse of net spend (funnily enough it only ever seems to be City, United or Chelsea fans. Wonder why?). I understand if people don’t like net spend, it’s far from perfect, but why so angry?
I don’t feel like anyone is proud of the net spend of their club. No Liverpool fan I know was against signing VVD because it would affect our net spend. However, it is useful for looking at how a manager has performed and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that. Surely we can all agree that if you sell players, don’t spend lots of money and improve the team, that’s more impressive than just spending money?
Dave compares our net spend since ’92, but that’s a bit silly. I don’t think anyone would argue that since 1992 Liverpool have spent poorly at times and have under performed. But let’s look at the net spend over the last two years. Mourinho: -£290 Klopp: +£6.5m (from transfermarkt). Surely we can all agree that for Klopp to make the top four in consecutive seasons and reach the Champions League final, with a positive net spend is impressive? And perhaps Mourinho, having being given a truckoad of cash and no need to sell should perhaps be doing a little better? It is easier to do well as a manager if you can spend money and don’t have to sell players.
Net spend is not perfect. Madrid in that period have a net spend of +£95m, which makes Zidane look like an absolute genius. But of course, he inherited a squad absolutely packed with talent, so didn’t need to buy and could afford to sell. Context is key. But it’s certainly a useful tool for looking at how a manager has performed and it’s far more relevant than money spent.
Most importantly though, even if it’s not your favourite statistic, it’s definitely not worth getting that angry about.
Mike, LFC, Dubai
Soon, £20m will be nothing
Read with interest your feature on players signed for each team for over 20M. It’s only a matter of time before the next feature is for 50M, then 100M, and so on…..until the bubble bursts. And it will. This cannot keep going at the astronomical rate that it’s going.
TX Bill (glad to see my Everton in the mix, too bad most were crap) EFC
Lauding Jack
Oh dear….That mailbox entry re Grealish could come back to bite! As long as he stays injury and Mourinho free – the guy is some player and has it all.
His level of performance since shifting to the number 8 position since January 1st has been absolutely sublime. You might say Championship – but I would say it’s too easy for him at that level and there aren’t many upper premier league players who could utterly dominate games even in the championship the way he has been doing. The fact he almost dragged that bunch of average back in to the premier league speaks volumes.
When Steve Bruce says he can play for ANY team I think anyone who hasn’t been watching him week in week out should accept that perhaps if people who are better placed to judge think that, it may not be so fanciful after all.
Don’t be so negative on him – if he keeps this up he is just the type of player England need. A true playmaker in the middle of the pitch.
Simon, Birmingham
What West Ham need…
Long time reader, first time writing-in-guy,
In reference to Jaymo LCFC’s mail about who we’d most like to see swept under the carpet, as it were, I have some suggestions for my beloved (though it is an oft troubled love-affair) West Ham United.
Firstly, and I know it was covered in the piece by Steady, Cheikhou Kouyate – to be honest I’m not sure most West Ham fans are picky about his replacement.
Secondly, Andy Carroll – the perma-knocked, forearm-smashing, pony-tail-sporting titan is a liability at times but does have the odd important goal in him (see Stoke at home this season and WBA at home also) However, reportedly he makes little effort to look after himself off the pitch and frankly, sometimes that shows. (Also see WBA at home where he was visibly blowing out his arse after goal 2). I think it’d be prudent to thank him for his service and find his replacement.
Thirdly, Cheikhou Kouyate, not sure if it’s been covered already but just anyone with an ounce of effort would be swell.
Fourthly, perhaps addressing the GK situation would be best – Calamity Joe has departed and Honest Adrian is nothing if not a bloody trier capable of brilliance but also some corking howlers.
Finally, Cheikh- ah never mind I think that’s been covered.
Cheers,
Rob, Colchester
The Sterling witch-hunt and more
Is witch-hunt one word? It’s too early in the morning.
Yesterday’s Mediawatch was fantastic. Great that it focused solely on the crap the media give Sterling. I expect you to call out Piers ‘The Cretin’ Morgan for his views on the situation too! I’m glad many called him out on his views, especially as the hypocrite is a fan of Donald Trump.
Is it because he is young and black? The Sun also linked a shooting of two 15-year-olds because of the tattoo Sterling got! If that’s what passes for journalism these days!
On a slightly less depressing note, I can’t decide which goal was better. Zidane vs Leverkusen or Bale this weekend just gone. Technique on both were impeccable.. so which was better?
Happy Wednesday all! Keep up the great work F365.
Zim Zam Zombie (Apparently Arsenal failed in a late bid for Fabinho. Some things never change)
Other people are saying the same things now…
Firstly, congratulations to F365 for calling bullsh*t on the S*n and their repeated hatchet job on Mr. Sterling. Please keep up the good work for the sake of all ‘normal’ fans (I’m a Liverpool Supporter so I’m not sure if I count!).
For a long time F365 was the only place I could find calling bullsh*t on the red tops (and broadsheets occasionally) mainly in Mediawatch but also in some excellent opinion pieces. But recently something has happened. Something Strange.
I checked the Irish Times this morning, and they have an amazing article delving into the hatchet job being done by the S*n and other rags on Sterling. It’s an uncompromising and damming verdict on the British tabloid press and their hounding of a talented young man (who admittedly has made some bad decisions like leaving Liverpool, buying a house for his mum and furnishing it is not one of them). The only surprise with the article is that it was not authored by messrs Winterburn/Storey/Stead et al.
So to all at F365 Towers. Keep up the good work. We see you, we hear you, we appreciate you. YNWA
Kevin (Fabhinous Signing) LFC
The other view on that Sterling Mediawatch
I’m nervous writing this because the current social climate doesn’t allow for dissenting voices against the ‘liberal majority’, regardless of how disgusting one might find the way their views are framed. Your own article, and the comments I’m afraid that you are going to add to my letter to shout me down, contribute to this feeling of fear I have in the pit of my stomach as I write this, but you need to hear this criticism and to reflect on it.
I will say that I absolutely agree with you that The Sun has gone too far in they way they have targeted Raheem Sterling and that it likely does constitute bullying. I applaud you for standing up to it, but I am appalled by the manner in which you are doing it. The vitriolic and dogmatic approach you are taking is distasteful and downright dangerous. It even veers into the tactics employed by tyrants to suppress dissenting voices. I know that’s not how you view yourselves or what you intended but it is what your argument has become. Please bear with me as I explain.
I started off by making a forensic analysis of everything wrong with your article, but there are so many problems with it that this letter would become far too long and likely end up missing the forest for the trees. I will limit myself to the most egregious parts.
In response to the question of whether people think Sterling should lose his England place for having a potentially offensive tattoo you wrote: “Which side are we on? Oooh, now that’s a poser. And takes about as long to answer as when we consider which ‘side’ we are on when a man drives a van into a crowd of people or which ‘side’ we would have been on when Adolf Hitler ratified the Final Solution.” – Read that again and you hopefully see how absurd that is. You have compared people who are offended by Sterling’s tattoo with those who support mass murder and the holocaust. Not only does that reduce horrendous crimes against humanity to a mere punch line, it’s also an incredible insult to anyone who might have a different view to yourselves. It’s offensive and it’s dangerous (as the replies in the mailbox have since proven).
I happen to agree that it would be ridiculous to remove Sterling from the England squad for his tattoo, but I am aware that there is an argument to be made for why he should be and that the people who hold that view aren’t necessarily genocidal racists as you suggest.
“Clue: There are no sides in this argument.” A wholly objectionable statement to make. There are always more than one side to any argument, even if you disagree with opposing views or find them reprehensible. To deny that there are other views is to deny the opportunity for discussion and debate, which are the cornerstones of democracy. It’s the age old tactic of suppression used by tyrants of the past and present and using it for a noble cause makes the tactic no less repugnant and dangerous. You followed that up with a personal attack on Piers Morgan (who I agree is as much of a c**t as you suggest), which is just a poor debate technique and a signal that your own argument isn’t particularly strong: attack the opposing argument, not the person.
You signed off by saying that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, which is not only pathetic but also encourages others to follow suit… which brings me to the mailbox replies. Those replies have reference to “The knuckle dragging idiots who read The Sun” and “less-than-human ‘hacks.’” Dehumanising phrases that dismiss and marginalise people you don’t agree with or don’t like, which suggest that people who are not like you are worth less than you. Does that approach seem familiar? Your approach and attitude in your article was dangerous because it encourages this sort of thing and pits sections of society against each other. If you want to change attitudes and improve the way people treat each other, it’s far better to engage those who have opposing views than it is to shout them down and demonise them.
I hope you take this as constructive criticism and reflect on what I have said. Your hearts are obviously in the right place, but that doesn’t give you free reign to use such objectionable tactics. Please fight the good fight cleanly, otherwise you undermine yourselves and the very causes you hope to defend.
Kirk
