Great Teams are Built, not Bought.

[ItsEssexRob]

Why are we so low?

 

[nick2004]

Great teams are bought.

We are not in the 1960s any more...

 

[nick2004]

I agree with the OP that the greatest teams are built as opposed to bought. The great Barca, Milan, Bayern and United sides of the pro era prove that.

The best Barca team is the one they currently have.

Messi was bought (OK at age 14, but still he was bought from a different country / continent).

Neymar was bought for 87.2 million euros.

Suarez was bought for 94 million euros.

Great teams are not cheap any more...

 

[Walrus]

The best Barca team is the one they currently have.

Messi was bought (OK at age 14, but still he was bought from a different country / continent).

Neymar was bought for 87.2 million euros.

Suarez was bought for 94 million euros.

Great teams are not cheap any more...

Barcelona were a great team before they bought Neymar and Suarez.

Regardless you are missing the point of the thread anyway.

 

[Theonas]

Barcelona were a great team before they bought Neymar and Suarez.

Regardless you are missing the point of the thread anyway.

You really should stop wasting your time mate. To most on here it seems like a black and white issue. Everything is neatly categorized into two sections; people who live in the 1960s apparently and romanticize everything and the other "in the real world" section where you buy only buy and buy some more so you can compete. Anything a shade of grey between those two extremes actually requires some thought process and not simply reverting to clichés.

 

[Walrus]

You really should stop wasting your time mate. To most on here it seems like a black and white issue. Everything is neatly categorized into two sections; people who live in the 1960s apparently and romanticize everything and the other "in the real world" section where you buy only buy and buy some more so you can compete. Anything a shade of grey between those two extremes actually requires some thought process and not simply reverting to clichés.

I've said it before, but I am glad that a lot of the fans dont run the club, and that LVG is a bit more pragmatic.

 

[adexkola]

Great teams are bought.

We are not in the 1960s any more...

We might as well start awarding trophies and accolades to clubs based on their financial reports.

 

[nick2004]

Barcelona were a great team before they bought Neymar and Suarez.

Regardless you are missing the point of the thread anyway.

Take away from the current (2015) Barca Messi, Suarez and Neymar. Give them Falcao, RVP and Welbeck instead. What do you get? A great team?

 

[Walrus]

Take away from the current (2015) Barca Messi, Suarez and Neymar. Give them Falcao, RVP and Welbeck instead. What do you get? A great team?

Not only did you miss the point of the thread entirely but this doesn't even make sense.

As I said before, Barcelona were a great team before they bought Suarez and Neymar. Your attempt to class Messi as 'bought' rather than 'built' is frankly embarrassing, since at no point has anyone tried to claim that we shouldn't be purchasing any players whatsoever, and nobody would accuse a club of trying to buy success by snapping up a 15 year old and developing him into one of the GOAT.

I'm going to spell this out for you as I did a half dozen times on the previous page, if you had bothered to read it;
Building a team does not mean spending a maximum of X amount, or having Y amount of academy players. It means sticking with a core group of players over time so that they grow to understand the managers system, and each others games. Barcelona are a fantastic example of this, the reason they were so dominant was not that they simply happened to find a set of world class prospects, but rather those players BECAME world class through the way that they were developed and the fact that they played with each other constantly over the years.

LVG has started to implement his own vision and we have started to see the signs of it working. Rather than replacing half of the squad and starting again from square one, we need continuity in the playing team.

 

[nick2004]

It means sticking with a core group of players over time so that they grow to understand the managers system, and each others games.

No, you miss the point. It doesn't work like you assume. Building a team means finding the best manager and the best players you can buy. If they are top of the top, you win, if not ... you don't win. It is as simple as that. And the best of the best cost a lot of money. That's why Suarez had no problem fitting in the Barca team and did not have to "understand" anything. And Barca changed a few managers without really losing much. And Mourinho wins within a year or two, no matter what and where and with whom. If you buy Messi, Suarez and Neymar you win, it is simple. You can bring them Mourinho as a manager and they would play defense and again they will win. Because these guys are the best in what they do. If you buy the best, you win, it is very simple really... Stay with Welbeck and you are never going to win anything.

 

[stepic]

Building a team does not mean spending a maximum of X amount, or having Y amount of academy players. It means sticking with a core group of players over time so that they grow to understand the managers system, and each others games. Barcelona are a fantastic example of this, the reason they were so dominant was not that they simply happened to find a set of world class prospects, but rather those players BECAME world class through the way that they were developed and the fact that they played with each other constantly over the years.

it's still dependent on the quality of the players though. if the players just aren't good enough, all the time in the world won't make the team great. Barca aren't really applicable -- firstly their youth system attracts the best across all of Spain, which we can't emulate in England; and secondly those players you're referring to -- the Xavi's, the Iniesta's, they were always destined to be world class -- they didn't just become world class because they stuck together in one team. they would have been world class whether they played for Barca, Madrid, Southampton or us. the likes of Fellaini, Young, Valencia and Blind can train and develop all they like, but they're never going to be world class. the way to build a worldclass team is to BUY the best prospects, and then BUILD them into a team. if we can add in a few superstars into the mix, then all the better.

 

[Walrus]

No, you miss the point. It doesn't work like you assume. Building a team means finding the best manager and the best players you can buy. If they are top of the top, you win, if not ... you don't win. It is as simple as that. And the best of the best cost a lot of money. That's why Suarez had no problem fitting in the Barca team and did not have to "understand" anything. And Barca changed a few managers without really losing much. And Mourinho wins within a year or two, no matter what and where and with whom. If you buy Messi, Suarez and Neymar you win, it is simple. You can bring them Mourinho as a manager and they would play defense and again they will win. Because these guys are the best in what they do. If you buy the best, you win, it is very simple really... Stay with Welbeck and you are never going to win anything.

You are quite simply wrong. Im not going to waste too much time trying to change your opinion because it looks pretty set in stone. The simple questions I pose to you is how did Ferguson win the league in his final season? Why has Di Maria not fitted straight into our first XI (as you said for Suarez)?
There are countless examples of why things are not so black and white, I find your viewpoint utterly staggering.

it's still dependent on the quality of the players though. if the players just aren't good enough, all the time in the world won't make the team great. Barca aren't really applicable -- firstly their youth system attracts the best across all of Spain, which we can't emulate in England; and secondly those players you're referring to -- the Xavi's, the Iniesta's, they were always destined to be world class -- they didn't just become world class because they stuck together in one team. they would have been world class whether they played for Barca, Madrid, Southampton or us. the likes of Fellaini, Young, Valencia and Blind can train and develop all they like, but they're never going to be world class. the way to build a worldclass team is to BUY the best prospects, and then BUILD them into a team. if you could add in a few superstars into the mix, then all the better.

Quality of players of course has an impact - but that is another subject which isnt as black and white as it is often made out. A player can look a lot better in one system/team to another. Looking at Barca again - Alves and Mascherano are not what I would regard as fantastic in their respective positions (FB and CB) - but for Barcelona it suited their style perfectly.

The same sort of thing applies to the rest of their players - I think if you believe that their class of '05 (or whenever it was) was purely down to luck, you are deluded. They obviously had a group of talented players, but the thing that took them to the next level was the fact that they had been playing together for years, and playing with a distinct style of play under Guardiola (both in the B team and the senior team). It was their understanding of each other, and of the manager's system, which elevated them from good, to 'one of the best club sides of all time'. It is about players playing to a certain system, having time to learn and understand their role within that system, and learning the roles/games of the other players around them. This comes purely from time and consistency (in the playing side). We will never know just how good Xavi or Iniesta would have been if they had signed for a different club at the age of 21, but I would wager that they wouldnt look as good as in the Barcelona setup.



I am going to change/edit the OP to try to clarify the point I have been trying to make, since there seem to be quite a few people who have misunderstood it.

 

[Jammydodger7]

If you honestly think it's possible to build one of the best teams in Europe from youth products you;re seriously deluded, Britain doesn't produce enough world class players nowadays, even Barcelona aren't producing as many as they used to, football is not what it used to be, teams and managers don't have the time to produce a team full of youth product, they'd simply be left behind. Are you saying that instead of buying the players we have we should still be playing the likes of Cleverly, Evans and Welbeck?

Reading through some of the threads over the past few days I've come to the conclusion that you can't please United fans.

 

[nick2004]

You are quite simply wrong. Im not going to waste too much time trying to change your opinion because it looks pretty set in stone. The simple questions I pose to you is how did Ferguson win the league in his final season? Why has Di Maria not fitted straight into our first XI (as you said for Suarez)?
There are countless examples of why things are not so black and white, I find your viewpoint utterly staggering.

Because SAF was the best manager in England. He also had the best system set up, running for the longest time. And finally, he had the best striker for that year. Lot's of "best of", you see? If you don't already have any of those "best of"... you have to buy them!

My point is actually mundane. Billionaire owners are not stupid to pay 100 million for star athletes if they could avoid it.

Also, nothing is set on stone. You can buy CR7 and for some reason he may not perform for a year or two. People have ups and downs, they are not robots. But no matter what you do, you cannot turn Welbeck to CR7, they are different class of players.

 

[stepic]

Quality of players of course has an impact - but that is another subject which isnt as black and white as it is often made out. A player can look a lot better in one system/team to another. Looking at Barca again - Alves and Mascherano are not what I would regard as fantastic in their respective positions (FB and CB) - but for Barcelona it suited their style perfectly.

yeah, and Alves was signed for £24m or so (in 2008, which was a lot for a FB back then) and Macherano for around £20m too. and whilst the latter has been converted into a CB, they're both fantastic players - - players that were bought and then built into the team.

I think if you believe that their class of '05 (or whenever it was) was purely down to luck, you are deluded. They obviously had a group of talented players, but the thing that took them to the next level was the fact that they had been playing together for years, and playing with a distinct style of play under Guardiola (both in the B team and the senior team). It was their understanding of each other, and of the manager's system, which elevated them from good, to 'one of the best club sides of all time'. It is about players playing to a certain system, having time to learn and understand their role within that system, and learning the roles/games of the other players around them. This comes purely from time and consistency (in the playing side). We will never know just how good Xavi or Iniesta would have been if they had signed for a different club at the age of 21, but I would wager that they wouldnt look as good as in the Barcelona setup.

I don't disagree with the importance of consistency, learning roles, building together -- but in Barca's case, as I've already pointed out, they had those quality youth players to begin with. there's just no comparison between Xaxi and Iniesta, as youth players, and anyone we have in our youth team, or in England generally. if you swapped Xavi for Cleverley, would he have bossed the Spanish league around like Xavi did, just because he trained and developed in their youth setup? no chance. he'd no doubt be a better player than he is now, but he wouldn't be at the same level. that is just a disservice to the natural ability and dedication of certain players.

 

[nick2004]

So, if you want to have CR7 or that class of player, you have to pay.

And that's exactly what Barca did. They were fortunate to find Messi at 14. But if they hadn't and Messi was playing for Liverpool... then Barca would spend the money and buy him from Liverpool. Exactly what they did with Suarez and Neymar. They have bought their success.

 

[nick2004]

Quality of players of course has an impact - but that is another subject which isnt as black and white as it is often made out. A player can look a lot better in one system/team to another. Looking at Barca again - Alves and Mascherano are not what I would regard as fantastic in their respective positions (FB and CB) - but for Barcelona it suited their style perfectly.

Tat's wrong way of thinking. Barca decided to spend a lot on their front line, to give Messi some serious support (or else every team would double-team him). That's why they have spend so much money on Neymar and Souarez.

They cannot spend 100 million for every position. If they could, they would and they would have replaced Mascherano with a better defender. However, Mascherano was also bought and he was already a star when they bought him, and he is not a cheap player. You need A LOT of money to find someone better than Mascherano.

 

[Walrus]

yeah, and Alves was signed for £24m or so (in 2008, which was a lot for a FB back then) and Macherano for around £20m too. and whilst the latter has been converted into a CB, they're both fantastic players - - players that were bought and then built into the team.



I don't disagree with the importance of consistency, learning roles, building together -- but in Barca's case, as I've already pointed out, they had those quality youth players to begin with. there's just no comparison between Xaxi and Iniesta, as youth players, and anyone we have in our youth team, or in England generally. if you swapped Xavi for Cleverley, would he have bossed the Spanish league around like Xavi did, just because he trained and developed in their youth setup? no chance. he'd no doubt be a better player than he is now, but he wouldn't be at the same level. that is just a disservice to the natural ability and dedication of certain players.

It is interesting that you make the Xavi/Cleverley comparison as I had written something about that in my previous post, but deleted it at the last minute because I thought it might be a bit too 'out there'.
In the scenario you gave, 'would Cleverley have been as good as Xavi?' probably not, but like you said he would have been a lot better than he is now, and to be honest probably could/would have fitted into that Barcelona team pretty well during their heyday.

We will probably never know how much of it is down purely to natural talent, and how much comes from the system/experience/understanding, but if you look at Messi's international record, it is clearly not as good as his club record. Now to be fair, it is still pretty damn good, but you would expect that off of arguably the best player of all time. There is however, a clear discrepancy between his stats for club and country, and Argentina are hardly a bad team, so you cant really use that as an argument against it.
Most of the other Barca players are Spanish, and have played with each other a lot at international level in a very similar system to the one they used at club level, so the comparison cannot really be made as easily. Like I said before, there is no denying that Barca had an extremely talented crop of young players come through, but for me the thing that took them to the next level was their understanding - when to press, when to pass, when the other players would make a run...etc, the list goes on.

So, if you want to have CR7 or that class of player, you have to pay.

And that's exactly what Barca did. They were fortunate to find Messi at 14. But if they hadn't and Messi was playing for Liverpool... then Barca would spend the money and buy him from Liverpool. Exactly what they did with Suarez and Neymar. They have bought their success.

This from the same great mind that brought us "We Have to buy the Next Messi".

Once again (this will be the last time I say this) I have not and am not saying that we cant/shouldnt buy players. On the contrary, Barcelona's transfer policy is pretty much the point that I am making - they sign 1-2 quality additions each year for key positions in their team. The core of the team remains unchanged, and the new players can therefore slot in.

We bought Di Maria and loaned Falcao, and neither of them have looked great this year. Is this just because they are actually shite players, or is it because the team was not settled and did not have a core with understanding and experience?
We can buy as many galacticos as you like this summer, and I am willing to bet that they will turn out just like the two I mentioned. The most important thing at the moment is to have a settled team with a core group of players that understand the system, and understand each other. When you have that foundation then you can start adding to it and improving, but the foundation comes first.

 

[nick2004]

This from the same great mind that brought us "We Have to buy the Next Messi".

This is a pathetic effort for an ad hominem attack. My mind is fine, thank you. And yes, I still believe that we have to BUY the top players in the world (call them Messi or CR7 or whoever is the next big thing is) and not just pray that we will "produce them". We should start aiming to get the very best players, as Barca has been doing. The best of the best ... and not just players that are "good enough". Falcao is a "has been". We have bought only one world class player so far: Di Maria. One is not enough.

Producing players and building teams are things of the past. There might be 20-30 world class players in the world today. There are thousands over thousands of football academies. The possibility that our academy will produce 4-5 world class players is exactly zero. If we want to have 4-5 world class players in our squad, we have to buy them.

In the 21st century money talks. If we want to be the best and biggest team in the world we have to buy the best players and bring in the best manager. Today teams are bought, not build. I hope that you now realize that the title of this thread is exactly the opposite of what we have to do to become the best team in the world. We have to focus in buying the very best players. Plural "players", not just one or two. After we have a core of top players (really top players, not Fellaini and Blind) and we are considered the best team in the world (like Barca is today) ... then we can think about maintenance and long term goals and whatever. Right now we are far from that level.

 

[Walrus]

Producing players and building teams are things of the past.

I just cant take you seriously when you come out with things like this, I'm sorry.

 

[LeftyBlaster]

Once again (this will be the last time I say this) I have not and am not saying that we cant/shouldnt buy players. On the contrary, Barcelona's transfer policy is pretty much the point that I am making - they sign 1-2 quality additions each year for key positions in their team. The core of the team remains unchanged, and the new players can therefore slot in.

We bought Di Maria and loaned Falcao, and neither of them have looked great this year. Is this just because they are actually shite players, or is it because the team was not settled and did not have a core with understanding and experience?
We can buy as many galacticos as you like this summer, and I am willing to bet that they will turn out just like the two I mentioned. The most important thing at the moment is to have a settled team with a core group of players that understand the system, and understand each other. When you have that foundation then you can start adding to it and improving, but the foundation comes first.

Absolutely this. The big buys aren't meant to change your team. They are there to augment it and give it the razor edge and the fine difference that separates good teams from champions. Also, you don't just run around buying every big name you see. You buy those that will fit in with an existing set up and strengthen it. Barca have had a system in place for ages, and the buys they made didn't make the team go into a 180 degree change.

We should be looking long term. Let Louis lay down the playstyle and once it's firmly rooted. And while that's happening, I would be happy if we didn't win any trophies so long as he shows signs that our playstyle is one that is attractive and intelligent.

 

[Speak]

Once again (this will be the last time I say this) I have not and am not saying that we cant/shouldnt buy players. On the contrary, Barcelona's transfer policy is pretty much the point that I am making - they sign 1-2 quality additions each year for key positions in their team. The core of the team remains unchanged, and the new players can therefore slot in.

We bought Di Maria and loaned Falcao, and neither of them have looked great this year. Is this just because they are actually shite players, or is it because the team was not settled and did not have a core with understanding and experience?
We can buy as many galacticos as you like this summer, and I am willing to bet that they will turn out just like the two I mentioned. The most important thing at the moment is to have a settled team with a core group of players that understand the system, and understand each other. When you have that foundation then you can start adding to it and improving, but the foundation comes first.

You make some fair points. But what if the foundations aren't there? Surely you need to put the foundations together? And if there aren't youngster coming through of the required quality, why wouldn't you buy the 'best' money can get?

Barcelona were fortunate that their core was in place. We are in a position where people could barely agree on whether we have a core, let alone who it consists of.

 

[Speak]

Absolutely this. The big buys aren't meant to change your team. They are there to augment it and give it the razor edge and the fine difference that separates good teams from champions. Also, you don't just run around buying every big name you see. You buy those that will fit in with an existing set up and strengthen it. Barca have had a system in place for ages, and the buys they made didn't make the team go into a 180 degree change.

We should be looking long term. Let Louis lay down the playstyle and once it's firmly rooted. And while that's happening, I would be happy if we didn't win any trophies so long as he shows signs that our playstyle is one that is attractive and intelligent.

Barcelona are being referred to constantly in this thread. But isn't it a bit pointless referring to Barcelona, when just about everything to do with their situation is/was different from our situation?

 

[Walrus]

You make some fair points. But what if the foundations aren't there? Surely you need to put the foundations together? And if there aren't youngster coming through of the required quality, why wouldn't you buy the 'best' money can get?

Barcelona were fortunate that their core was in place. We are in a position where people could barely agree on whether we have a core, let alone who it consists of.

True, but this is a matter of opinion - I think that looking at United at the moment, the foundation is there.

Secondly, I would also argue that a bad foundation is better than no foundation at all - we have seen plenty of times that 'lesser' teams (Swansea and Southampton are recent PL examples) who enjoyed success from having an effective style of play that the players carried out, despite not having what we would consider a high calibre squad. I think it is more effective for both short and long term success that we get the current team playing well, rather than replacing everyone who is deemed sub-Messi.

Having a team of galacticos is nice, and by all means that can be the end goal, but for me we have to start with what we have got. Like I said before - there were enough positives to take from this season, and enough strong performances against big teams, that that should have established that the current squad is capable of challenging for the PL.

 

[Walrus]

Barcelona are being referred to constantly in this thread. But isn't it a bit pointless referring to Barcelona, when just about everything to do with their situation is/was different from our situation?

Personally I dont really like the constant Barca comparisons - I still think Barca are a good example, but they are certainly not the only one. I mentioned Swansea and Southampton as teams who came into the PL and did well, thanks to having a settled core and a distinct playing style, and similarly there are Liverpool and Spurs who I think are good examples of 'what not to do' - but which is also the exact thing that a lot of fans seem to want us to do (trying to change too much, too quickly, rather than develop the players that you already have).

 

[Brwned]

The best Barca team is the one they currently have.

You can't be serious?

 

[NoLogo]

Not to mention that Barca has spent about 160M € on two of their three world class attackers and concerning Messi it's not like we just need to look hard enough at our youth and find someone who can be similar good. Rakitic, Alves, Alba, Mascherano are also bought players and the rest that came through their youth was a once in a lifetime generation like our class of 92.

But I agree that a team needs time to grow which is why I always advocate us going for younger players that can grow into a great team in 2-3 years time but I'm not sure if our fans or board really have the patience to go that way.

 

[LeftyBlaster]

Barcelona are being referred to constantly in this thread. But isn't it a bit pointless referring to Barcelona, when just about everything to do with their situation is/was different from our situation?

Fair enough. How about Arsenal? They've never really compromised their style of play, but have used the transfer window (the success of which is not what I'm debating at the moment) to bring in players who fit their philosophy. Take Sanchez for example. A top draw player who has fitted flawlessly into their system.

Another example I can think of is Everton. IMO if we continue to watch Martinez, he won't have to bring in a whole bunch of players to take them higher.

 

[Speak]

Fair enough. How about Arsenal? They've never really compromised their style of play, but have used the transfer window (the success of which is not what I'm debating at the moment) to bring in players who fit their philosophy. Take Sanchez for example. A top draw player who has fitted flawlessly into their system.

Another example I can think of is Everton. IMO if we continue to watch Martinez, he won't have to bring in a whole bunch of players to take them higher.

Not great teams. And the bar is only being raised.

 

[Darkpulse]

@Walrus

So it is just a roundabout way of saying that planning is required for a team to come good. I think that is basic. What your title suggests is that building a team and buying a team is mutually exclusive. Yet you don't even define buying a great team. Your very premise has failed from the start. If you say buying individual players is not ideal, that does not mean buying a great team, because you have no idea if those great players will become a great team. You have created an argument that cannot be won, it is basic management to understand that planning and having players play together for a long time to build team chemistry is vital for success, yet you make it sound as if clubs simply draw up a list of names from looking at FM and buy and hope the players will integrate. Even the richest oil clubs do not do this, yes even the Man Citys and the Real Madrids. The assumption of a simplistic model of team building by rich clubs is false, so this argument should not even exist, one of the sides you mentioned is based on fiction.

 

[Walrus]

@Walrus

So it is just a roundabout way of saying that planning is required for a team to come good. I think that is basic. What your title suggests is that building a team and buying a team is mutually exclusive. Yet you don't even define buying a great team. Your very premise has failed from the start. If you say buying individual players is not ideal, that does not mean buying a great team, because you have no idea if those great players will become a great team. You have created an argument that cannot be won, it is basic management to understand that planning and having players play together for a long time to build team chemistry is vital for success, yet you make it sound as if clubs simply draw up a list of names from looking at FM and buy and hope the players will integrate. Even the richest oil clubs do not do this, yes even the Man Citys and the Real Madrids. The assumption of a simplistic model of team building by rich clubs is false, so this argument should not even exist, one of the sides you mentioned is based on fiction.

The premise and definition you speak of is the title of the thread in a very literal sense - that 'great teams' cannot simply be bought. This does not mean that building and buying is mutually exclusive by any means.

You mention City, and I think they are an excellent example of a team who have tried to buy instant success on the field - their lack of consistency and patience (in terms of managers) and the lack of continuity in their playing team has however, prevented them from really attaining the level of success that was arguably expected of them - they have flopped in the CL every season, and 'only' won 2 PLs since the takeover.

Chelsea also adhere to this theory when looking at what happened when Abramovich originally took over - they went through virtually every top manager in Europe it seemed (this in itself causes its own issues, but that is for another discussion), and spent a damn lot of money, but have never really reached the heights that for me would qualify them as a great team alongside the likes of Barca, Madrid and some of the United sides of the past decade.
Ironically in Chelsea's case, Mourinho was the only manager who got round to starting to implement a specific playing style, and it was perhaps this very style that got him sacked the first time round.

The point I am essentially advocating is that the oft-overlooked and [in my opinion] vital ingredients to having a top team, are time and consistency. Consistency in the playing squad and the style of play, and time for the players to fully grasp and understand the system, their role within it, and the players that are alongside them. And I think that this is a valid point to make, because a lot of clubs and a lot of fans nowadays seem to lack patience, either with players or with managers, or both.

You say;

it is basic management to understand that planning and having players play together for a long time to build team chemistry is vital for success

I agree that I think it is basic stuff, but a lot of the comments in this thread suggest that it is not a universally accepted fact by any means. The reason I created the thread originally is because I was sick of seeing a dozen posts a day talking about how we need to sign 6 new first team players as a bare minimum, and that we need to do away with any of Valencia, Jones, Young, Fellaini, Rooney, RVP, Falcao (take your pick), when we have seen in recent years that trying to make wholesale changes to a squad too quickly, usually ends badly.

So again, great teams are built, not bought - and by that I mean that simply going out and spending money on the 'best' players around is not a guarantee of success (Falcao and Di Maria should be convenient proof of this). My argument is for consistency in the playing team;

• We saw large improvements in the playing style over the course of this season.
• We more or less matched any other team in the PL (we dominated Chelsea and City, despite losing against the former).
• With more time for the existing players to integrate and gel as a team, and learn LVG's system, we should see further improvement next season.
• The above does not rule out the acquisition of 1-2 quality signings for key areas (for me, this is Winger and RB).

So with regard to this thread, whilst there is also a longer term and more general discussion to be had on the subject matter, it is also looking at the immediate short term of United's transfer strategy for this summer.

 

[Darkpulse]

The point I am essentially advocating is that the oft-overlooked and [in my opinion] vital ingredients to having a top team, are time and consistency. Consistency in the playing squad and the style of play, and time for the players to fully grasp and understand the system, their role within it, and the players that are alongside them. And I think that this is a valid point to make, because a lot of clubs and a lot of fans nowadays seem to lack patience, either with players or with managers, or both.
I agree that I think it is basic stuff, but a lot of the comments in this thread suggest that it is not a universally accepted fact by any means. The reason I created the thread originally is because I was sick of seeing a dozen posts a day talking about how we need to sign 6 new first team players as a bare minimum, and that we need to do away with any of Valencia, Jones, Young, Fellaini, Rooney, RVP, Falcao (take your pick), when we have seen in recent years that trying to make wholesale changes to a squad too quickly, usually ends badly.

These are all fair points. But turning them into an argument like this is what I am against. Of course time and consistency are required, there is no contest. To simply go out and handpick the best players in the world and expect them to become the best team in the world in a day is stupid. But if you manage to get the very same players to play consistently together for a few years, they would probably be close to unbeatable.

The posts asking to drop 10 players and buy 11 players are either deluded or just emotionally driven (i.e. irrational), it should not be the basis to start an argument against. Although I am against ranting, I can understand some fans' want to rant. But when the serious discussion starts, I believe that those who think with their head rather than their heart will all realise that such wholesale changes on a frequent basis is damaging to the team. But that is only assuming the ideal alternative, which is getting good players to play together consistently, can be achieved. And with the current climate of player power, this is not so easy to achieve all the time, unless all the stars align and all the players are happy to stay for the long term. I am afraid we will not get to see such an environment any time soon, and that is why I understand some posters will say that these ideals need to be scraped as we move on with the current business climate. You talk about the 1-2% probabilities, I guess some prefer to deal with reality and certainty. And change is the only certainty in football at the moment.

 

[LeftyBlaster]

Not great teams. And the bar is only being raised.

One of those "not great teams" is currently above us in the table, consistently outperforming us this season while the other trumped us 3-0 recently. I'm not against spending big, but it shouldn't be knee-jerk and people should not expect mega signings to immediately shine when they come into a team that has made two massive transitions in the last two seasons in terms of expectations and footballing philosophy.

 

[Walrus]

These are all fair points. But turning them into an argument like this is what I am against. Of course time and consistency are required, there is no contest. To simply go out and handpick the best players in the world and expect them to become the best team in the world in a day is stupid. But if you manage to get the very same players to play consistently together for a few years, they would probably be close to unbeatable.

The posts asking to drop 10 players and buy 11 players are either deluded or just emotionally driven (i.e. irrational), it should not be the basis to start an argument against. Although I am against ranting, I can understand some fans' want to rant. But when the serious discussion starts, I believe that those who think with their head rather than their heart will all realise that such wholesale changes on a frequent basis is damaging to the team. But that is only assuming the ideal alternative, which is getting good players to play together consistently, can be achieved. And with the current climate of player power, this is not so easy to achieve all the time, unless all the stars align and all the players are happy to stay for the long term. I am afraid we will not get to see such an environment any time soon, and that is why I understand some posters will say that these ideals need to be scraped as we move on with the current business climate. You talk about the 1-2% probabilities, I guess some prefer to deal with reality and certainty. And change is the only certainty in football at the moment.

I dont think the scenario we are talking about is as unlikely as you say. Whilst reading your post, another point occurred to me which I think is worth making, and that is concerning player loyalty. (Two points actually);

• Players will generally find it easy to be loyal to a successful team. Under Ferguson, the only time we sold a player against our will was Ronaldo. If our team is playing well, players will not want to leave.
• Generally speaking, players who are signed in their prime, for big money, are likely to be less loyal. I say this because the very fact that they signed for us in the first place indicates that they are prepared to move clubs. On the other hand, a player who is bought at a young age, or who at the very least is developed and improved substantially by the club, is arguably going to show more loyalty (then you have players like De Gea who can fit into either category).

It ties to the original point about building rather than buying.

And here is the thing, we have players like Fellaini, Valencia and Young who appear to be very happy with life at Old Trafford, and would in all likelihood see out their careers here if given the chance, yet these are practically the first players who should be shown the door according to a lot of fans. There is a tradeoff between having players who are happy to play for the club, understand the club, understand the system, dont mind being on the bench, and 'superstars'. Which is the correct option? It can vary depending on all sorts of factors, but it certainly isnt as black and white as most would have you believe. There is however, value in having players who stick around - not in an emotional sense but due to the fact that they contribute a lot to the continuity that I am arguing for - they know the system and they know the players, which are two important factors in having a strong core/foundation of a squad to build from.


Edit: Just a quick note on my "turning this into an argument" - it takes two to argue. I made the thread simply to voice an opinion about the club, if others disagree with it then of course we discuss it - but by nature of the very fact that they disagree, then that makes it a point/thread worth making I feel.

 

[LeftyBlaster]

I dont think the scenario we are talking about is as unlikely as you say. Whilst reading your post, another point occurred to me which I think is worth making, and that is concerning player loyalty. (Two points actually);

• Players will generally find it easy to be loyal to a successful team. Under Ferguson, the only time we sold a player against our will was Ronaldo. If our team is playing well, players will not want to leave.
• Generally speaking, players who are signed in their prime, for big money, are likely to be less loyal. I say this because the very fact that they signed for us in the first place indicates that they are prepared to move clubs. On the other hand, a player who is bought at a young age, or who at the very least is developed and improved substantially by the club, is arguably going to show more loyalty (then you have players like De Gea who can fit into either category).

It ties to the original point about building rather than buying.

And here is the thing, we have players like Fellaini, Valencia and Young who appear to be very happy with life at Old Trafford, and would in all likelihood see out their careers here if given the chance, yet these are practically the first players who should be shown the door according to a lot of fans. There is a tradeoff between having players who are happy to play for the club, understand the club, understand the system, dont mind being on the bench, and 'superstars'. Which is the correct option? It can vary depending on all sorts of factors, but it certainly isnt as black and white as most would have you believe. There is however, value in having players who stick around - not in an emotional sense but due to the fact that they contribute a lot to the continuity that I am arguing for - they know the system and they know the players, which are two important factors in having a strong core/foundation of a squad to build from.

Good post. The hard part is finding the balance between the two. IMO though, the strong core/foundation of the squad should not be built on such players like Fellaini, Valencia and Young (yes I do know what you mean when talking about them). We should phase out substandard players and start to build on a younger core of quality. Namely, Herrera, Blind, Jones, Smalling, would love to say Rafael, Rojo and Shaw. The addition of players to fit Louis' philosophy can be brought in during the next transfer window, preferably someone to replaced Carrick. We should also be seriously looking to a younger striker in the next two seasons. Rooney and RVP are on the decline and it was a big blunder by Moyes to make Rooney the main man. Hummels would also be a great addition during this upcoming window as he's young enough to be part of a consistent squad for the next few seasons, over which we can continue to bring in players one or two at a time to shore up our weaknesses / strengthen ourselves.

 

[Darkpulse]

I dont think the scenario we are talking about is as unlikely as you say. Whilst reading your post, another point occurred to me which I think is worth making, and that is concerning player loyalty. (Two points actually);

• Players will generally find it easy to be loyal to a successful team. Under Ferguson, the only time we sold a player against our will was Ronaldo. If our team is playing well, players will not want to leave.
• Generally speaking, players who are signed in their prime, for big money, are likely to be less loyal. I say this because the very fact that they signed for us in the first place indicates that they are prepared to move clubs. On the other hand, a player who is bought at a young age, or who at the very least is developed and improved substantially by the club, is arguably going to show more loyalty (then you have players like De Gea who can fit into either category).

It ties to the original point about building rather than buying.

And here is the thing, we have players like Fellaini, Valencia and Young who appear to be very happy with life at Old Trafford, and would in all likelihood see out their careers here if given the chance, yet these are practically the first players who should be shown the door according to a lot of fans. There is a tradeoff between having players who are happy to play for the club, understand the club, understand the system, dont mind being on the bench, and 'superstars'. Which is the correct option? It can vary depending on all sorts of factors, but it certainly isnt as black and white as most would have you believe. There is however, value in having players who stick around - not in an emotional sense but due to the fact that they contribute a lot to the continuity that I am arguing for - they know the system and they know the players, which are two important factors in having a strong core/foundation of a squad to build from.

And that is exactly what you are going for here. You assume that once we somehow create some family surroundings, all players will cosy up to our club and stay. Player quality definitely does matter. We are definitely not the top team in the world in terms of ensuring player loyalty. The teams whose players are most "loyal" are those where the players who know they probably will be unable to make a step up e.g. lower league teams. Manchester United is not about building a homely club, it is about building the most successful team. And for that to happen, all factors must be considered.

Of course it is awesome for a situation where all the clubs' best players are happily playing with each other and never want to leave in a million years. But we know that does not always happen. You want great loyalty, get a team of schoolboys to play for Manchester United 1st team and pay them first team wages. None will ever think about leaving. But they will also get us relegated. Extreme example of course, but what I am trying to emphasize is that it is hard to find the "perfect" situation where a player is both greatly contributing to our success and loyal to us at the same time. You mention Sir Alex, and some would mention class of 92, but the very fact that these were mentioned so much is a testament of their rarity. To aim for the very same situation to come around to us in the near future is a pipe dream, but to aim for success through a rounded approach (buying players, trying to build a team, BUT having back up plans in case of a few good players having their heads turned, etc etc) is way more viable. And in the process, if we strike gold and manage to get a team of players who are both capable and loyal, great. If not, we have to buy. Acknowledging this is vital, it is part of every team's strategy I am sure.

 

[Walrus]

And that is exactly what you are going for here. You assume that once we somehow create some family surroundings, all players will cosy up to our club and stay. Player quality definitely does matter. We are definitely not the top team in the world in terms of ensuring player loyalty. The teams whose players are most "loyal" are those where the players who know they probably will be unable to make a step up e.g. lower league teams. Manchester United is not about building a homely club, it is about building the most successful team. And for that to happen, all factors must be considered.

Of course it is awesome for a situation where all the clubs' best players are happily playing with each other and never want to leave in a million years. But we know that does not always happen. You want great loyalty, get a team of schoolboys to play for Manchester United 1st team and pay them first team wages. None will ever think about leaving. But they will also get us relegated. Extreme example of course, but what I am trying to emphasize is that it is hard to find the "perfect" situation where a player is both greatly contributing to our success and loyal to us at the same time. You mention Sir Alex, and some would mention class of 92, but the very fact that these were mentioned so much is a testament of their rarity. To aim for the very same situation to come around to us in the near future is a pipe dream, but to aim for success through a rounded approach (buying players, trying to build a team, BUT having back up plans in case of a few good players having their heads turned, etc etc) is way more viable. And in the process, if we strike gold and manage to get a team of players who are both capable and loyal, great. If not, we have to buy. Acknowledging this is vital, it is part of every team's strategy I am sure.

It isnt an assumption, it is simply a case of probability, and playing the percentages.

Again the thing that is being overlooked is that we have seen 'lesser' teams like Swansea and Southampton do well, we have seen United win the league with a relatively poor squad two years ago in Fergie's final season, and we have seen this season that the side dominated Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, and thrashed City, in the second half of the season (once the seeds of LVGs philosophy had started to take root). I am not basing all of this on pure speculation or make-believe.

In the latter point of that - our performances this season - it is worth remembering that this came with the likes of Fellaini and Young (who were arguably two of our best outfield players this season) as regular starters in the team, whilst £60m Di Maria could barely get a look in. Player quality is important, but it isnt like Football Manager where every player simply has an ability rating. Some players look better in some systems than others, some players play better alongside certain other players, or struggle in a particular league...there are lots of factors at play here, and buying so-called 'better' players simply doesnt always work.

Going back to player loyalty, there are obviously no guarantees, but if we can agree that continuity is a positive factor to the overall success of a team (not the only factor of course) then it should be something that the club strives for, in conjunction with other such factors.

 

[Speak]

One of those "not great teams" is currently above us in the table, consistently outperforming us this season while the other trumped us 3-0 recently. I'm not against spending big, but it shouldn't be knee-jerk and people should not expect mega signings to immediately shine when they come into a team that has made two massive transitions in the last two seasons in terms of expectations and footballing philosophy.

I know they're above us, but they still aren't a great team. I wouldn't even label this Chelsea side as great. I wouldn't label either of City's champions as great, nor Sir Alex's final champions. Everton don't deserve a mention in the discussion, unless Pardew's fifth-place 2012 Newcastle are great for beating us 3-0 too?

When we're discussing building a team over years (as is the point of the thread), surely we're talking about teams that seriously achieve?
A team that wins a league title or two can be bought. But that wouldn't qualify as a great team, in my opinion.

This Arsenal side wont go down in history as a great team at this stage, will they?

 

[Darkpulse]

It isnt an assumption, it is simply a case of probability, and playing the percentages.

Again the thing that is being overlooked is that we have seen 'lesser' teams like Swansea and Southampton do well, we have seen United win the league with a relatively poor squad two years ago in Fergie's final season, and we have seen this season that the side dominated Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, and thrashed City, in the second half of the season (once the seeds of LVGs philosophy had started to take root). I am not basing all of this on pure speculation or make-believe.

I have seen them do well. I have seen us dominating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, and thrash city. I have also seen us barely making it into top 4, and Swansea and Southampton continuing to be relatively unsuccessful. If you are saying that a team can do well and perform better than the sum of its parts, I agree. If you are saying that these are the barometers for success, I disagree. Yes, these are examples of good play. But success is always a long term thing. It is not about outplaying another team over a game, or even getting a 50 game unbeaten run. We know what the measure of success for the club is. Not just consistently challenging for honours, but winning them, more often than not.

In the latter point of that - our performances this season - it is worth remembering that this came with the likes of Fellaini and Young (who were arguably two of our best outfield players this season) as regular starters in the team, whilst £60m Di Maria could barely get a look in. Player quality is important, but it isnt like Football Manager where every player simply has an ability rating. Some players look better in some systems than others, some players play better alongside certain other players, or struggle in a particular league...there are lots of factors at play here, and buying so-called 'better' players simply doesnt always work.

Going back to player loyalty, there are obviously no guarantees, but if we can agree that continuity is a positive factor to the overall success of a team (not the only factor of course) then it should be something that the club strives for, in conjunction with other such factors.

I am deliberately avoiding the mention of players for a reason. Di Maria and Falcao turned out to be flops. Too bad. Young and Fellaini turned out well. Good. They should probably stay. But imagine the other way round happened? We have seen scores of examples of good players coming into a team and making an immediate long term impact. See CR7, Sanchez, Suarez. We have also offloaded tons of loyal players who just could not cut it anymore, see Nicky Butt, Fletcher, et al. These are exactly what they seem, probabilities. We all know there is no guarantee how a new signing will work out, but neither do we know whether placing our faith on a player who is currently performing below par will yield the guaranteed results. There is too much uncertainty.

Overall, I agree with your notion that a team, if coached well, can perform better than the sum of its parts. World XI trained by a great manager for 4 years, playing day in, day out, beats World XI playing together for the first time any day of the week. I do not agree that is what the team should solely focus on though, because of the increasing difficulty of achieving such an ideal with the changing business environment. We must be adaptable, to make the correct judgement call about whether to keep or buy certain players, and not shifting to either side based on sentiment. That is the basis of my argument, and why I believe that this debate is probably not very useful.

 

[Walrus]

I have seen them do well. I have seen us dominating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, and thrash city. I have also seen us barely making it into top 4, and Swansea and Southampton continuing to be relatively unsuccessful. If you are saying that a team can do well and perform better than the sum of its parts, I agree. If you are saying that these are the barometers for success, I disagree. Yes, these are examples of good play. But success is always a long term thing. It is not about outplaying another team over a game, or even getting a 50 game unbeaten run. We know what the measure of success for the club is. Not just consistently challenging for honours, but winning them, more often than not.

Tell that to fans of their clubs.
Their barometer and level of expectation is going to be vastly different to a club like United of course - but they have definitely performed above their own expectations since reaching the PL. Regardless, my point was not purely about success but about the team being more than the sum of its parts - if you took Swansea and gave them United's financial muscle, I suspect they would be right up in the European places.

I am deliberately avoiding the mention of players for a reason. Di Maria and Falcao turned out to be flops. Too bad. Young and Fellaini turned out well. Good. They should probably stay. But imagine the other way round happened? We have seen scores of examples of good players coming into a team and making an immediate long term impact. See CR7, Sanchez, Suarez. We have also offloaded tons of loyal players who just could not cut it anymore, see Nicky Butt, Fletcher, et al. These are exactly what they seem, probabilities. We all know there is no guarantee how a new signing will work out, but neither do we know whether placing our faith on a player who is currently performing below par will yield the guaranteed results. There is too much uncertainty.

Overall, I agree with your notion that a team, if coached well, can perform better than the sum of its parts. World XI trained by a great manager for 4 years, playing day in, day out, beats World XI playing together for the first time any day of the week. I do not agree that is what the team should solely focus on though, because of the increasing difficulty of achieving such an ideal with the changing business environment. We must be adaptable, to make the correct judgement call about whether to keep or buy certain players, and not shifting to either side based on sentiment. That is the basis of my argument, and why I believe that this debate is probably not very useful.

I have mostly been trying to avoid specific players as well.
Regarding the bolded bit, my point is not that "building" the team should be the sole focus, but rather it provides the necessary foundation to improve from. I think that getting that core of players and having a distinct style of play should be the first step - whereas going in and buying half a team is akin to trying to run before you can walk. It certainly isnt based on sentimentality, but rather pragmatism - I see building a team as a relatively linear process, and it starts by getting the settled foundation/core and the playing style.