Someone mentioned hindsight earlier, but that was the exact point of this thread. If we were going to only sign three players, would it have been better to sign them in striker and midfielder positions instead, particularly considering the loss of Herrera and the sale of Lukaku? I have extrapolated our results this season against last season and it is not good reading for the current side.
Last Season:
Points - 66
Goals Scored - 65
Goals Conceded - 54
Goal Difference - 11
With our transfer activity in the summer:
Points - 42
Goals Scored - 42
Goals Conceded - 38
Goal Difference - 4
Going by the current transfer window, we have spent £130m on defence to reduce goals conceded by 16. However, the loss of certain players (predominantly, Lukaku and Herrera) may result in a loss of 23 goals scored. This could result in a goal difference of 7 worse than the previous season. We also have to consider that these goals include the 4 scored against Chelsea, which is a result that is turning out to be an aberration; so, the goals scored are potentially inflated.
I will stand by my idea that making signings in midfield and striker would have improved us more than in defence. These signings should have been replacements for Lukaku and Herrera. Had we been able to improve upon them, we likely would have increased our goals scored and probably slightly reduced the amount conceded. I think it was the wrong decision to not build the midfield and attack first - I feel there would have been a net benefit in terms of results/goals scored and conceded etc (at the moment, we are seeing a net loss) and we would have had a greater chance of seeing more entertaining and attacking football, since the attack and midfield is where the majority of entertainment comes from.