I've always been anti the buying players approach to improve a team's performances. I just see it more often than not as a red herring. I really don't see there being a huge difference in the natural ability of a lot of players (there are obviously exceptions at either end of the scale), so why keep shuffling the pack? Why not get to the root of what the issues are?
As a parallel, look at the England cricket team. The exact same players two years ago were derided for being hopeless. For some reason they're now seeming like world beaters - or at least on the way. It wasn't their natural ability that was lacking obviously, but a feeling of strength and confidence from being a winning team. A winning streak is the only real medicine.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Answers

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? That the answer to everything is to just start winning? Wow - what a genius. I would never have thought of that ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

I agree, if the team had gone 20 odd games without conceding a goal we'd expect them to continue their unbeaten run in London

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Windy
Hope this doesn't come across as patronising cos it's so obvious, but a successful club is never just a set of players. It's always the right set of players with the right manager and the right atmosphere and circumstances at the club. Looking at any in isolation can very easily leave you scratching your head in puzzlement.

Buying to improve a team's performance is a valid method if the other circumstances are satisfacory, IMO. Whether or not any of the buys we've made, or are likely to make, will be the answer to our prayers I think will depend more on how the club is seen, rather than any inate ability of the players we buy. If the club doesn't get something going that changes the way the club is perceived, the best players in the world won't make that much difference, I don't think.

We can condemn the likes of Goma and Domi etc. as mercenary foreign w*****s, but what if they're even just partly right ? There has to be something other than just bad luck to explain, for instance, the number of crocks we've got.

Seems to me our club has an attitude that the football world owes us a living - we've spent all this cash on the infrastructure and players and have the supporters effectively eating out of our hand, so why hasn't it happened yet ? I'd like that attitude to change as soon as possible, to put it mildly.

We should always be up with the likes of MU when world class players become available, and in fact we should be controlling the availability of world class players by the mere fact of letting it be known that we're after them. For me that's one of the measures of how successful a club is. I can't see it happening with the set up we have at the moment, and I think it partly explains why we have ended up with some real dross on the playing side.

And you're spot on, winning is the only real medicine. It's still till death us do part, though.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

I've said this for a long time. IMHO, most players (there are exceptions!!) who make it to the EPL are decent footballers. Clearly there are some journeymen and there are some stars. But fundamentally, all have better footballing skills than Joe Public.

But what makes one player perform while the next doesn't? It's aal in the heed as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps I'm biased, but that bunch of t0$$ers fown the road aren't particularly gifted as individuals, but put them together and the total is greater then the sum of the parts.

To be honest, I'd have thought that with YBR at the helm, we'd have been doing a lot better than we are. Yes, we've had injuries, but a club our size should be able to draft in cover for that, or underexceptional circumstances, buy a stad-in.

I think we've debated a lot of the reasons (training facilities, board's ambition, lack of plan etc etc) for a while on here. But I still maintain that it's mental attitude that has the major part to play. And the non-playing staff have a huge part to play in that.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

We ought to have a serious look at Liverpool. Those same players (mostly) were a joke for the last few seasons. The bottom-line in underachievement. There's never been a queue of people for Carragher, Murphy, Henchoz, Barmby or Hyppia, but any one of them would provoke a flurry of interest on the market now. Even tumbling Emile has begun to show class whilst our one-time hero Hamann looks decidedly second-rate in the company he's keeping.

Granted that Fowler, Owen and Gerrard are a Godsend to any youth system, but that's not just down to luck, is it? What's Houllier but putting in their tea? How come they can play 2 or 3 distinct playing patterns in one game and don't seem to have any problem adapting when they couldn't manage 4-4-2 last season? Gives you some measure of hope for our lot. Largely similar ability to our mob (they've been adding proven quality of late, but that's only because they have had the results to convince them to sign), but the change in attitde and performance built gradually off the back of some outstanding defending last season. Have you seen how quickly their players are getting over knocks now they have all these cup games to be a part of?

Cannot resist comparing Dyer to Gerrard either. One of them has exactly the right attitude and would be the heart of any team he joined. Clever, pacey, sees the right passes, crosses, tackles, shoots, scores and enjoys himself.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

Sorry for taking a while to get back to people - I had to undergo serious non-football therapy from saturday onwards. Subject of another thread I feel.
I have a dread that Screacher is right. I say dread, because it implies that any effort is worthless especially since there's a limit to how much a manager can motivate if the results don't go your way. We're all looking for the answer to our troubles and have our opinions as to how things can be improved, but there's a disturbing lack of consistency in any of these method bearing fruit. I know it's defeatist nonsense, and I'm the last person to believe in fate, but it does underline the mental aspect of the game. I know we shouldn't give up, and desperatly trying to be positive, an adverse situation is often the right conditions for the germination of something good. The intense analysis of each and every possible fault and room for achievement might not in itself make any immediate difference (depressingly), but hopefully when things do make a turn for the better, all that hard work and attention to detail will come into it's own. I suppose what I'm saying is that I can see us sort out all that we think is wrong - improve the training, youth facilities and even the players (I don't have anything against buying as such) but we have to bear in mind that this won't necessarily result in an instant change in fortunes. And because of that we have to be aware that wholesale changes aren't necessarily the answer. I'd even go as far as to say that the pressure to turn things around can actually result in things getting worse, especially the focus on individual players and management often as scapegoats..
Oh I give up...I'm losing the energy to even think about it too much.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001