Great Teams are Built, not Bought.

[Darkpulse]

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.

You are straying from the crux of this argument. If the argument was called: Does building up a team make it a lot better than the sum of its parts, and thus more likely to overachieve, I fully agree, and Southampton and Swansea are great examples of that. Their manager and players have done good jobs, within their constraints (the relative inability to bring in top class players). These clubs had no other choice but to place their focus on a team-building strategy, and they did it right, and did well. But our discussion was about great teams. And I define great teams as those who can win trophies on a consistent basis, as I am sure that is your definition, as a supporter of Manchester United.

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.

I agree, but what you realize is that all teams are "building" themselves most of the time. Of the 12 months in a calender year, 8 months are spent building up the team cohesion and brushing up tactics and strategy, because the transfer window is closed. The other 4 months is when player movement occurs, and teams adjust to the new changes in and out. This is a process that no club avoids, and no club wants to avoid it either. But the ability to buy players, top players at that, is another tool in the box, and to not use it at the appropriate time is to throw away one of the ingredients for success. If we are talking about something along the lines of 80-20 team building to player integration ratio, or 70-30, or 60-40, or vice versa, there is room for discussion. But your original intent seems to suggest that these two are exclusive events, or you seem to put way less focus on the latter, as compared to the former, while some opposing players, in their perhaps overly emotional posts, puts it the other way round (10-90, etc). I do not agree with both extremes, that's all.

 

[Walrus]

You are straying from the crux of this argument. If the argument was called: Does building up a team make it a lot better than the sum of its parts, and thus more likely to overachieve, I fully agree, and Southampton and Swansea are great examples of that. Their manager and players have done good jobs, within their constraints (the relative inability to bring in top class players). These clubs had no other choice but to place their focus on a team-building strategy, and they did it right, and did well. But our discussion was about great teams. And I define great teams as those who can win trophies on a consistent basis, as I am sure that is your definition, as a supporter of Manchester United.

Fair enough. The teams I mentioned were examples of how a team can perform above expectation with a foundation/playing style, and I think logic this is transferable to other teams regardless of size or stature, but I take your point.
I only really expanded the focus to the likes of Swansea and Southampton because we were all sick of debating Barcelona - but they remain the best recent example of a great team, built through a strong core with a distinct playing style.

I agree, but what you realize is that all teams are "building" themselves most of the time. Of the 12 months in a calender year, 8 months are spent building up the team cohesion and brushing up tactics and strategy, because the transfer window is closed. The other 4 months is when player movement occurs, and teams adjust to the new changes in and out. This is a process that no club avoids, and no club wants to avoid it either. But the ability to buy players, top players at that, is another tool in the box, and to not use it at the appropriate time is to throw away one of the ingredients for success. If we are talking about something along the lines of 80-20 team building to player integration ratio, or 70-30, or 60-40, or vice versa, there is room for discussion. But your original intent seems to suggest that these two are exclusive events, or you seem to put way less focus on the latter, as compared to the former, while some opposing players, in their perhaps overly emotional posts, puts it the other way round (10-90, etc). I do not agree with both extremes, that's all.

I have never argued that 'building' and 'buying' are mutually exclusive - I have gone to great lengths during this thread to reaffirm the belief that the team should still be improved by adding 1-2 quality players per year (approximately) in key areas that need strengthening. This is the balance that I want to see, I dont know what ratio you would describe it as however. The thread title says "Great Teams are Built, not Bought" - this does mean that buying players and building a team are mutually exclusive, but rather that I dont think any team can become truly great without building, developing and growing from a strong core - you cannot simply buy a great team. It sounds pretty obvious when I put it in those terms and I suspect that you agree with that notion, but again - look through this thread and you will see plenty of people with other opinions, and I dont think it is fair to simply label all of those as emotional/irrational responses.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Great teams are made up of world class players. If the front 6 doesn't contain at least 3 world class players chances are then the team won't be world class as the load on the stars of the team would be too heavy. How you get these players is plainly up to you, you can purchase them or develop them, what matters is the level of the said players. Sustained success is something that comes from being able to rebuild teams and handle the weaknesses that will obviously develop through time as players that were the main players of the past teams will eventually get old. Obviously It doesn't help that when a club develops a group of players who have world class talent and then fail to develop them to the said standard. A team that has Morrison, Pogba, daehli and Januzaj in the academy should always have it in them to transform such talent to a great side especially if they have the financial muscle that we had, sadly we failed to develop that group into something that could've given us sustained success so have to resort to work in the market.

 

[nick2004]

I have never argued that 'building' and 'buying' are mutually exclusive -

Look at it in a different way.

Can our current squad become a "great team"? Really great, to the level of the current Barca team? If so, who will be our world class players? Perhaps Di Maria and Rooney. And who else? I cannot see anyone else at the world class level.

So, how can this squad become a "great team"? The only way is to buy 3 world class players! But then ... we are already talking about a completely different squad because three world class players will transform this team completely...

 

[darioterios]

Look at it in a different way.

Can our current squad become a "great team"? Really great, to the level of the current Barca team? If so, who will be our world class players? Perhaps Di Maria and Rooney. And who else? I cannot see anyone else at the world class level.

So, how can this squad become a "great team"? The only way is to buy 3 world class players! But then ... we are already talking about a completely different squad because three world class players will transform this team completely...

the only outfield player who can truly play cerebral football is an injured 33-year-old

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Not sure self-righteous condescension and snootily labeling people "armchair general" is the best opening sentence to a thread.

Anway, since the Barcelona example was used - to fully appreciate their success you have to consider the bigger picture and go all the way back to Cruyff's tenure, and his emphasis on totaalvoetbal as a cornerstone for the academy which had a trickle down effect after almost a decade. The likes of Messi, Xavi, Puyol, Iniesta, Cesc, Pique etc are the results of careful planning, and didn't just crop up overnight. We can't arbitrarily pluck this moment in time to further the argument. They produced major talents later on, but in the beginning the most decisive pieces for Cruyff's Barcelona (the spiritual ancestors of the current side) were the likes of Laudrup (one of the greatest #10s of all time - bought from Juventus), Romario (one of the greatest strikers of all time - bought from PSV Eindhoven), Ronald Koeman (one of the best defenders of the past 25 years - bought from PSV Eindhoven), Hristo Stochkov (one of the best strikers of the 90s - bought from Sofia), Miguel Nadal (bought from Espanyol) etc. for large amounts of money. One could argue that United doesn't have players of that caliber to be the building block of things to come.

I agree with you in general, but you arbitrarily pluck a moment in time to further your own line of argument. Why start at Cruyff? You could easily go back to the club's foundation at that rate -- it's an exercise in relativity.

 

[Invictus]

I agree with you in general, but you arbitrarily pluck a moment in time to further your own line of argument. Why start at Cruyff? You could easily go back to the club's foundation at that rate -- it's an exercise in relativity.

I choose to digress.

It's not arbitrary at all if you study their history in detail. Johan Cruyff was a very deliberate choice and he alone is by far and away the biggest influence for what the club has become in the modern era. In a way, Cruyff is to Barcelona what early Fergie was to United, in terms of being an innovator and laying the foundations for future success (we wouldn't attribute a lot of it to Atkinson and co. would we ?). Cruyff's influence can be broken down into 3 distinct phases of his Barcelona career.

1. The inspiration behind La Masia - His first and perhaps greatest contribution for Barcelona.

At first, La Masia was used as a workshop for making models, and a work studio for architects and builders, as well as a starting point for visits from people associated with construction. When the Camp Nou stadium was inaugurated, on September 24th, 1957 La Masia closed it’s doors and awaited it’s destiny. In Enric Llaudet’s presidential term the building was remodeled, and at the same time extended, to house the headquarters of the Club, which left the Via Laietana to move next to the stadium. The new headquarters were inaugurated on September 26th, 1966.The increase and creation of various new club areas meant that La Masia didn’t have enough space as a headquarters, which were again moved by Agustí Montal’s board, next to the ice rink. Thus, La Masia was again available for a new venture.

It was Johan who brought up the idea of converting the premises into a dormitory for youth players in 1979 to Josep Nunez. He knew the importance of having a great youth academy setup at the club, having been the mainstay of one at Ajax. Without La Masia, there would be no Xavi, no Puyol, no Messi, no Guardiola, no Iniesta no Amor, no Barjuan, no Ferrer, no Busquets, no Milla etc etc. Without them there would be no Barcelona as we know it.

2. Cruyff the manager - There is very distinct contrast in Barcelona pre-1990 vs post 1990. Nowadays people have become accustomed to their success, but for almost 30 years till Cruyff's appointment as the manager, they won just 2 league titles and no European Cups, infact they hadn't won even one European Cup before 1992 and Wembley. He gave Guardiola his debut, bought the likes of Romario, Laudrup, Koeman, Stoichkov, Hagi and what followed was a stretch where they won their first European Cup, reached another final vs Milan, won the Liga 4 times after having won it just 2 times in 30 previous seasons, won the Cup Winners' Cup and so forth. The structure that he put into place from his managerial tenure influenced Barcelona under both Rijkaard (who started phase 2 of Barcelona's modern success) and Guardiola (Cruyff's protege).

3. Cruyff the administrator - He was a major influence for what was known as L'Elefant Blau, a group spearheaded by Joan Laporta that was opposed to the presidency of Nunez. Johan was also the advisor to Laporta when he ascended to the post of club president, and Laporta kickstarted the second phase of success with Rijkaard and Ronaldinho and Eto'o and Deco.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I choose to digress.

It's not arbitrary at all if you study their history in detail. Johan Cruyff was a very deliberate choice and he alone is by far and away the biggest influence for what the club has become in the modern era. In a way, Cruyff is to Barcelona what early Fergie was to United, in terms of being an innovator and laying the foundations for future success (we wouldn't attribute a lot of it to Atkinson and co. would we ?). Cruyff's influence can be broken down into 3 distinct phases of his Barcelona career.

1. The inspiration behind La Masia - His first and perhaps greatest contribution for Barcelona.



It was Johan who brought up the idea of converting the premises into a dormitory for youth players in 1979 to Josep Nunez. He knew the importance of having a great youth academy setup at the club, having been the mainstay of one at Ajax. Without La Masia, there would be no Xavi, no Puyol, no Messi, no Guardiola, no Iniesta no Amor, no Barjuan, no Ferrer, no Busquets, no Milla etc etc. Without them there would be no Barcelona as we know it.

2. Cruyff the manager - There is very distinct contrast in Barcelona pre-1990 vs post 1990. Nowadays people have become accustomed to their success, but for almost 30 years till Cruyff's appointment as the manager, they won just 2 league titles and no European Cups, infact they hadn't won even one European Cup before 1992 and Wembley. He gave Guardiola his debut, bought the likes of Romario, Laudrup, Koeman, Stoichkov, Hagi and what followed was a stretch where they won their first European Cup, reached another final vs Milan, won the Liga 4 times after having won it just 2 times in 30 previous seasons, won the Cup Winners' Cup and so forth. The structure that he put into place from his managerial tenure influenced Barcelona under both Rijkaard (who started phase 2 of Barcelona's modern success) and Guardiola (Cruyff's protege).

3. Cruyff the administrator - He was a major influence for what was known as L'Elefant Blau, a group spearheaded by Joan Laporta that was opposed to the presidency of Nunez. Johan was also the advisor to Laporta when he ascended to the post of club president, and Laporta kickstarted the second phase of success with Rijkaard and Ronaldinho and Eto'o and Deco.

I understand the significance of Cruyff, his name is interwoven in the fabric of that club. My point is, much like United had Busby before Feguson, Barcelona also had other great managers before Cruyff. Ferguson may be directly associated with what you see when you look at United, but his legacy is informed by his predecessors. The same is true of Cruyff. Barcelona had won things before Cruyff managed them, or played for them. The likes of Daucik, Herrera, Michels (Cruyff's tutor) all come to mind. If anything, you could start your essay at Michels, without whom Cruyff -- and total football -- would arguably not have existed.

When you pick an arbitrary point in time, and say, "this is where it all started", it is always possible for someone else to say, "it actually started slightly before". It's all relative.

 

[Invictus]

I understand the significance of Cruyff, his name is interwoven in the fabric of that club. My point is, much like United had Busby before Feguson, Barcelona also had other great managers before Cruyff. Ferguson may be directly associated with what you see when you look at United, but his legacy is informed his predecessors. The same is true of Cruyff. Barcelona had won things before Cruyff managed them, or played for them. The likes of Daucik, Herrera, Michels (Cruyff's tutor) all come to mind. If anything, you could start your essay at Michels, without whom Cruyff -- and total football -- would arguably not have existed.

When you pick an arbitrary point in time, and say, "this is where it all started", it is always possible for someone else to say, "it actually started slightly before". It's all relative.

Eh ? Daucik and Herrera had nothing to do with Cruyff or La Masia or other elements of Barcelona's modern success that were influenced by Johan. The club was a totally different entity in Daucik (40 years before Cruyff) and Helenio's time. Sir Matt is linked with Fergie because they had common ideological vision for football, and Sir Matt was an influential presence even in the early 1990s with Fergie incharge.

Cruyff had no common link with either Ferdinand (who totally cut ties with Barcelona when he left in 1954) or Helenio (who defected to Internazionale and was a proponent of Catenaccio - the furthest thing from totaalvoetbal as one can find) and had a barren second spell back in Spain. One can very easily link Xavi and co to Cruyff even today because of the common ideological and historical influence, but you cannot say the same about Guardiola and Daucik or Herrera. As for Michels, total football would've still existed without him because he wasn't the inventor of that form of football - it was played before him under Sebes and Hogan and Reynolds.

The selection of Cruyff is not arbitrary or at the mercy of relative perception. There is distinct evidence linking the majority of Barcelona's modern success and their team of homegrown players to him, so naturally it all coincides with him acting as the source of sorts; and you can directly link him with everything Barcelona now stands for in a footballing sense. One can never ever say the same of Herrera and Daucik and even Michels. It started in earnest with Cruyff, it's an irrefutable fact, not relativism.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Eh ? Daucik and Herrera had nothing to do with Cruyff or La Masia or other elements of Barcelona's modern success that were influenced by Johan. The club was a totally different entity in Daucik (40 years before Cruyff) and Helenio's time.

I'm well aware of that, it wasn't my point.

Sir Matt is linked with Fergie because they had common ideological vision for football, and Sir Matt was an influential presence even in the early 1990s with Fergie incharge. Cruyff had no common link with either Ferdinand (who totally cut ties with Barcelona when he left in 1954) or Helenio (who defected to Internazionale) and had a barren second spell back in Spain. One can very easily link Xavi and co to Cruyff even today because of the common influence, but you cannot say the same about Guardiola and Daucik or Herrera. As for Michels, total football would've still existed without him because he wasn't the inventor of that form of football - it was played before him under Sebes and Hogan and Reynolds.

Michels was the inventor of that form of football insofar as it is possible for any style or an essence to have any definitive inventor. And that's the entire point that I'm making. It's all relative, as you've just pointed out.

The selection of Cruyff is not arbitrary or at the mercy of relative perception. There is distinct evidence linking the majority of Barcelona's modern success and their team of homegrown players to him, so naturally it all coincides with him acting as the source of sorts; and you can directly link him with everything Barcelona now stands for in a footballing sense. One can never ever say the same of Herrera and Daucik and even Michels. It started in earnest with Cruyff, it's an irrefutable fact, not relativism.

I disagree. It's not an irrefutable fact, because it can be refuted. I won't write a 5000 word essay on the matter today, (I have one due as it is), but I'll come back to it during the week.


Edit: Just to note, the point I'm making is fairly abstract -- like I said in my first post, I agree with you generally, just disagree on the nature of using arbitrary dates.

 

[Invictus]

Michels is not the inventor of that form of football. Before Rinus implemented it at Ajax, it was a very successful model for Hungary, influenced by Sebes and Hogan, and before them Reynolds in the Dutch league. Relativity has nothing to do with that, or the discussion of Cruyff and the whole emphasis of the post in being misappropriated by some rather vague notions. Johan was extremely pertinent to the discussion because he is the prime influence behind the Barcelona blueprint of today, and the emphasis on youth, and the points you make are tangents that detract from the primary discussion.

Anyway, this whole concept of 'relativity' is rather baffling, and the quickfire Alt+F4 of the discussion as it pertains to this particular topic. If we want to delve into such discrete things, why stop at Michels and Daucik. Let's trace Barcelona back episkyros and to Gamper, to his ancestors, all the way back to homo sapiens idaltu and even abiogenesis. Because in a sense they indirectly influenced the Barcelona model didn't they ?

 

[Walrus]

@Invictus some very good posts. The thing I will point out, which your posts are effectively agreeing with - is that the point of this thread is not about needing to develop x amount of world class academy players (although it would be welcome), and is more about the need for continuity and growth of players within a system.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Michels is not the inventor of that form of football. Before Rinus implemented it at Ajax, it was a very successful model for Hungary, influenced by Sebes and Hogan, and before them Reynolds in the Dutch league. Relativity has nothing to do with that, or the discussion of Cruyff and the whole emphasis of the post in being misappropriated by some rather vague notions. Johan was extremely pertinent to the discussion because he is the prime influence behind the Barcelona blueprint of today, and the emphasis on youth, and the points you make are tangents that detract from the primary discussion.

Yep, you're right. But, Sebes and Hogan, and Reynolds before them, learned from others. As there are always others who one can say came before someone else, there comes a point where, for the sake of sanity, you have to say, this is where X begins, even if it isn't 100% necessarily so.

Anyway, this whole concept of 'relativity' is rather baffling, and the quickfire Alt+F4 of the discussion as it pertains to this particular topic. If we want to delve into such discrete things, why stop at Michels and Daucik. Let's trace Barcelona back episkyros and to Gamper, to his ancestors, all the way back to homo sapiens idaltu and even abiogenesis. Because in a sense they indirectly influenced the Barcelona model didn't they ?

Again, I agree. That was my point. You choose to discuss Cruyff in order to illuminate on the Barcelona of today, pointing out the OP's fallacy of assuming that the Barca of Xavi and Iniesta just appeared over night, created by Guardiola. You're right, of course, to provide the historical context. But when providing context, you really can go on forever, to the point where it becomes a series of turtlebacks. Cruyff is to Guardiola what Michels was to Cruyff; afterall, La Masia was based on the Ajax academy. And that's my point about arbitrary dates, which I admit, is abstract and perhaps doesn't serve to help the conversation very much. The OP's assumption about Guardiola having created the Barca we see today (well, 3-4 years ago to be exact), the great team that was built, not bought, is (tentatively) valid -- as valid as your point that in order for that team to exist a period of transition had to occur, one which involved buying players.

I do feel this conversation could go on forever without actually achieving much, so maybe we should leave it there. Was nice talking to you though, you do generally make salient points. One of the better posters on these boards.

 

[Walrus]

@Mciahel Goodman you are accusing me (the OP) of making points and assumptions that I did not make. My point is practically the opposite of what you said (about Xavi and Iniesta 'popping up overnight').

I am not going to pretend to know all of the historical developments at Barcelona, but I would not call the brand of football that Guardiola's class played as total football. What is clear is that Guardiola worked with those players from a fairly young age, in Barcelona B, and then in the senior squad. The overall style of play and other elements I am sure can be derived from previous figures at the club, but that is not relevant to the point I am making.

I am advocating the need for continuity in the playing squad, of giving players time to develop and grow within a specific system implemented by a specific manager. I am advocating that a team can be greater than the sum of its parts, when those parts (players) have a strong understanding with each other, which comes from time and consistency in the playing style, and the players themselves, and I maintain that Barcelona are a good example of all of these qualities.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

@Mciahel Goodman you are accusing me (the OP) of making points and assumptions that I did not make. My point is practically the opposite of what you said (about Xavi and Iniesta 'popping up overnight').

I am not going to pretend to know all of the historical developments at Barcelona, but I would not call the brand of football that Guardiola's class played as total football. What is clear is that Guardiola worked with those players from a fairly young age, in Barcelona B, and then in the senior squad. The overall style of play and other elements I am sure can be derived from previous figures at the club, but that is not relevant to the point I am making.

I am advocating the need for continuity in the playing squad, of giving players time to develop and grow within a specific system implemented by a specific manager. I am advocating that a team can be greater than the sum of its parts, when those parts (players) have a strong understanding with each other, which comes from time and consistency in the playing style, and the players themselves, and I maintain that Barcelona are a good example of all of these qualities.

Yep, I did realise that after my last post. My apologies, I was quite distracted with my Alice in Wonderland chain of relativity nonsense.

I partially agree with you. I do think Guardiola's style is total football -- but with modifications and alterations, the tiki taka twist.

 

[Roboc7]

To build a team to be at the level we want we need new players simple as that, we will sign another four players this summer because we have no other option. Not going to win anything with players we have no matter how much LVG works with them and we don't have enough talent either out on loan or in the reserves etc. We have a big gap to bridge to Chelsea let alone the top teams in Europe and that requires improving what we have and buying more players but in a well though out and sensible way not splurging money in a late panic.

 

[Walrus]

I apologise for bumping my thread as I hate it when people do that, but I think it is worth looking back on this season and revisiting it.

The point I was originally trying to make with this thread is that in my opinion, you cannot simply buy your way to consistent success in the PL. A team can be more than the sum of its parts if developed and managed correctly, and as this season has gone by, the likes of Leicester and Tottenham have been proof of this. Similarly, ourselves, City and Chelsea - three teams who have recently had a tendency to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away - have struggled.

My point is not that a top team should not/cannot spend money, or that we need x amount of academy youngsters in the first team this week. The point is simply that success does not come overnight. It is one thing to buy in half a dozen new players, but it is another to get them to actually play and succeed as a team. The best way to do this is by having a crop of players who have played together for years - whether at senior level or youth level. If you have two or three players who have played together since they were 14, by the time they reach 20 they will have a perfect and intuitive understanding of how to play with each other. This sort of understanding very rarely emerges between established, senior pros - Yorke and Cole being one of the examples of what happens when it does.

 

[Adebesi]

I apologise for bumping my thread as I hate it when people do that, but I think it is worth looking back on this season and revisiting it.

The point I was originally trying to make with this thread is that in my opinion, you cannot simply buy your way to consistent success in the PL. A team can be more than the sum of its parts if developed and managed correctly, and as this season has gone by, the likes of Leicester and Tottenham have been proof of this. Similarly, ourselves, City and Chelsea - three teams who have recently had a tendency to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away - have struggled.

My point is not that a top team should not/cannot spend money, or that we need x amount of academy youngsters in the first team this week. The point is simply that success does not come overnight. It is one thing to buy in half a dozen new players, but it is another to get them to actually play and succeed as a team. The best way to do this is by having a crop of players who have played together for years - whether at senior level or youth level. If you have two or three players who have played together since they were 14, by the time they reach 20 they will have a perfect and intuitive understanding of how to play with each other. This sort of understanding very rarely emerges between established, senior pros - Yorke and Cole being one of the examples of what happens when it does.

I missed this the first time around so thanks for bumping it. I agree with the OP (in its revised form, I didnt actually read your original) and the quoted post. We dont want another cull this summer and we dont want to buy 7 or 8 new players, as has been suggested. I never thought we would struggle this much after such a big summer last year, but I did think we would struggle and I still think a part of our problem stems from too much change, too quickly. What we need to do now is build on what we have and sprinkle in some magic dust in the form of a select few top-level players who will strengthen the first team. The likes of Herrera and Schneiderlin can be the foundation for our midfield if they are given time to settle in and play together. They have looked pretty mediocre this season but they have proved before this season they are better than they have looked.

 

[adexkola]

I apologise for bumping my thread as I hate it when people do that, but I think it is worth looking back on this season and revisiting it.

The point I was originally trying to make with this thread is that in my opinion, you cannot simply buy your way to consistent success in the PL. A team can be more than the sum of its parts if developed and managed correctly, and as this season has gone by, the likes of Leicester and Tottenham have been proof of this. Similarly, ourselves, City and Chelsea - three teams who have recently had a tendency to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away - have struggled.

My point is not that a top team should not/cannot spend money, or that we need x amount of academy youngsters in the first team this week. The point is simply that success does not come overnight. It is one thing to buy in half a dozen new players, but it is another to get them to actually play and succeed as a team. The best way to do this is by having a crop of players who have played together for years - whether at senior level or youth level. If you have two or three players who have played together since they were 14, by the time they reach 20 they will have a perfect and intuitive understanding of how to play with each other. This sort of understanding very rarely emerges between established, senior pros - Yorke and Cole being one of the examples of what happens when it does.

I agreed and still agree with you.

 

[Attila]

I think that the current squad of players is adequate for us to compete for the PL and CL with one or two quality additions, and some time to gel together and develop an understanding.

GK - De Gea (hopefully)
RB - Need a new one.
CBs - Smalling, Jones, Rojo, McNair (again, given time to develop, this is a very solid set of defenders)
LB - Shaw (Blind as cover)

CMs - Carrick, Herrera, Fellaini, Blind (I think that given time, Blind can develop his game to become an effective replacement for Carrick, and the combination of holding midfielder - herrera - fellaini has shown itself to have a lot of potential)
Wings - Mata, Di Maria, Young, Depay
ST - Rooney, RVP (with cover from Depay/Fellaini and others, and Wilson/Henriquez coming through).

So in addition to Depay, I think we need a new RB and that is mostly 'it'. We can strengthen other areas depending on circumstances if we want to, but for me that group of players is as good as anyone else in the league, the players just need time to develop their abilities and their understanding.

To think we only needed a RB

 

[Attila]

I apologise for bumping my thread as I hate it when people do that, but I think it is worth looking back on this season and revisiting it.

The point I was originally trying to make with this thread is that in my opinion, you cannot simply buy your way to consistent success in the PL. A team can be more than the sum of its parts if developed and managed correctly, and as this season has gone by, the likes of Leicester and Tottenham have been proof of this. Similarly, ourselves, City and Chelsea - three teams who have recently had a tendency to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away - have struggled.

My point is not that a top team should not/cannot spend money, or that we need x amount of academy youngsters in the first team this week. The point is simply that success does not come overnight. It is one thing to buy in half a dozen new players, but it is another to get them to actually play and succeed as a team. The best way to do this is by having a crop of players who have played together for years - whether at senior level or youth level. If you have two or three players who have played together since they were 14, by the time they reach 20 they will have a perfect and intuitive understanding of how to play with each other. This sort of understanding very rarely emerges between established, senior pros - Yorke and Cole being one of the examples of what happens when it does.

Chelsea

2nd 79 points (Champions league Semi final)
1st 95 points (Semi final)
1st 91 points (Last 16 vs Barcelona)
2nd 83 points (Semi Final)
2nd 85 points (Lose final on penalties)
3rd 83 points (Semi Final)
1st 86 points (Last 16 vs Mourinho Inter)
2nd 71 points (Quarter final vs Us)

What do you call this then? This thread is nonsense as there's proof that you can buy a great team with Chelsea

"It is one thing to buy in half a dozen new players, but it is another to get them to actually play and succeed as a team"

Well we are getting a manager in Mourinho who has achieved this already before and the first Chelsea team he left was almost on auto pilot for the period after he left as managerial changes didn't seem to have much effect on the consistency of the team. They were just unfortunate that we had arguably our greatest ever team during the same period and Ferugson+Ronaldo.

 

[entropy]

I missed this the first time around so thanks for bumping it. I agree with the OP (in its revised form, I didnt actually read your original) and the quoted post. We dont want another cull this summer and we dont want to buy 7 or 8 new players, as has been suggested. I never thought we would struggle this much after such a big summer last year, but I did think we would struggle and I still think a part of our problem stems from too much change, too quickly. What we need to do now is build on what we have and sprinkle in some magic dust in the form of a select few top-level players who will strengthen the first team. The likes of Herrera and Schneiderlin can be the foundation for our midfield if they are given time to settle in and play together. They have looked pretty mediocre this season but they have proved before this season they are better than they have looked.

We lack leadership on and off the pitch. Forget about bringing in new faces during the summer or a new manager. Any team that has ever won this league has had a leader soldiering them on. During a bad spell, during a run of good performances or during the cl. We need someone who epitomises the manager and his plan for the team. Since ferguson's departure this void has been left vacant. None of the players(old and new) have stepped up. Without a leader, we are just left with half arsed talk about philosophy etc etc.

 

[Adebesi]

Chelsea

2nd 79 points (Champions league Semi final)
1st 95 points (Semi final)
1st 91 points (Last 16 vs Barcelona)
2nd 83 points (Semi Final)
2nd 85 points (Lose final on penalties)
3rd 83 points (Semi Final)
1st 86 points (Last 16 vs Mourinho Inter)
2nd 71 points (Quarter final vs Us)

What do you call this then? This thread is nonsense as there's proof that you can buy a great team with Chelsea

Chelsea had a fairly solid foundation to build on when Abramovich arrived with all his money though, hadnt they finished 4th the season before he arrived? They obviously spent a lot of money at that point but that was supplementing a fairly decent squad.

When City started spending huge amounts they were building on weaker foundations and it took them quite a while to reach the top, so again this implies it wasnt bought (overnight) but built (over a number of seasons).

 

[Adebesi]

We lack leadership on and off the pitch. Forget about bringing in new faces during the summer or a new manager. Any team that has ever won this league has had a leader soldiering them on. During a bad spell, during a run of good performances or during the cl. We need someone who epitomises the manager and his plan for the team. Since ferguson's departure this void has been left vacant. None of the players(old and new) have stepped up. Without a leader, we are just left with half arsed talk about philosophy etc etc.

Yeah I hoped Schweinsteiger would fulfill that role but it hasnt quite worked out. But I agree someone needs to step up in that regard, or one of the new arrivals needs to be able to do it.

 

[Cait Sith]

Tottenham have spent over 300 million Euros in the past 4 seasons. Even Leicester have spent more than 70 million Euros in the past 2 seasons. Just saying.

 

[Attila]

Chelsea had a fairly solid foundation to build on when Abramovich arrived with all his money though, hadnt they finished 4th the season before he arrived? They obviously spent a lot of money at that point but that was supplementing a fairly decent squad.

When City started spending huge amounts they were building on weaker foundations and it took them quite a while to reach the top, so again this implies it wasnt bought (overnight) but built (over a number of seasons).

Which pre abramovich players do you think played a part in that title winning team? I think there is 3...Terry, Lampard and Gallas.

Cech
Ferreira
Carvalho
Terry
Gallas/Bridge
Makelele
Tiago
Lampard
Robben
Duff/Cole
Crespo/Drogba

All these players were bought with Abramovich money the season before or the summer Mourinho came

 

[Adebesi]

Which pre abramovich players do you think played a part in that title winning team? I think there is 3...Terry, Lampard and Gallas.

Cech
Ferreira
Carvalho
Terry
Gallas/Bridge
Makelele
Tiago
Lampard
Robben
Duff/Cole
Crespo/Drogba

All these players were bought with Abramovich money the season before or the summer Mourinho came

Fair point. I actually thought some of those players like Duff had arrived earlier.

 

[sunama]

Barcelona - best attack in the World.
Neymar and Suarez were bought (for big money).
Messi was also bought, but as a very young player.
I'm sure that the rest of their team has plenty of expensive bought players.

Money wins you trophies. No doubt about that.

 

[Globule]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Probably the most reliable way is to build a team on the foundations of a strong core of players over time. They'll then have that knowledge of each other's styles, preferences, attitude etc. It's helpful being able to look around a dressing room knowing that you can rely on the players next to you to do their job.

That said, it's not unheard of players to just click right from the off and really buy into the manager's ideas from the off.

Right now we have neither. I doubt many of the United players look to Rooney thinking 'this is a guy I can trust when we're up against it'.

It's not about patient building in the hope that something clicks (Wenger) or wholesale changes in the hope that the new players will perform better than the last (LvG). It's about a manager knowing what his players are capable of, getting them to buy into his message and buying players that fit the system.

Good tactics, strong team spirit and actual ability - these will never not be the most important elements to a successful team, regardless of how you go about bringing players in.

 

[Adebesi]

Barcelona - best attack in the World.
Neymar and Suarez were bought (for big money).
Messi was also bought, but as a very young player.
I'm sure that the rest of their team has plenty of expensive bought players.

Money wins you trophies. No doubt about that.

But again, I think the point @Walrus was making wasnt that buying players is a bad thing, or is incompatible with the concept of building. Its just that you need consistency, which to my mind means doing it over time, and in a targetted way. If Neymar, Messi and Suarez had all been signed in the same summer I doubt they would be as effective as they have been. But Messi has been there all his playing life basically, Neymar was also there for a few years before Suarez. And behind them you have a team that has been playing together for some time. That's the consistency.

But yes, @Globule and @Attila have both shown it isnt the only way. But perhaps it is the safest and most effective way.

 

[Globule]

But again, I think the point @Walrus was making wasnt that buying players is a bad thing, or is incompatible with the concept of building. Its just that you need consistency, which to my mind means doing it over time, and in a targetted way. If Neymar, Messi and Suarez had all been signed in the same summer I doubt they would be as effective as they have been. But Messi has been there all his playing life basically, Neymar was also there for a few years before Suarez. And behind them you have a team that has been playing together for some time. That's the consistency.

But yes, @Globule and @Attila have both shown it isnt the only way. But perhaps it is the safest and most effective way.

It can be the safest way if done right. In an ideal world teams would come through together and work like a machine. There's no doubt that Fergie was able to build on his success because he was bringing players into an already well-run team, where the team spirit and winning mentality was almost self-perpetuating.

On the other hand, I'd say it has almost worked against Wenger. He might actually benefit from ripping up and starting again to an extent. That mental fragility could be as self-perpetuating as the winning mentality cultivated by Sir Alex.

 

[Walrus]

But again, I think the point @Walrus was making wasnt that buying players is a bad thing, or is incompatible with the concept of building. Its just that you need consistency, which to my mind means doing it over time, and in a targetted way. If Neymar, Messi and Suarez had all been signed in the same summer I doubt they would be as effective as they have been. But Messi has been there all his playing life basically, Neymar was also there for a few years before Suarez. And behind them you have a team that has been playing together for some time. That's the consistency.

But yes, @Globule and @Attila have both shown it isnt the only way. But perhaps it is the safest and most effective way.

This is correct. The notion that "building a team" means maintaining a negative net spend is not true. Spurs are currently a good example of this - they have struggled to maintain top four status recently despite spending all the Bale-money (much like Liverpool with Suarez). Now they finally have a manager who - rather than trying to replace half of the squad every summer - is giving the players time to work together, and integrating youth prospects/homegrowns wherever possible, and they are having their best season in a long while.

Barcelona are mentioned and are another good example - they certainly spend money, but they do so in a way that does not overhaul the foundation or core of the team. The Xavi/Iniesta/Messi triumverate were the core of that side for years. Of course all three are world class players, but my belief (as stated in the OP) is that this is made evident and enhanced by the fact that they had grown up playing with each other and had a perfect understanding.
Put simple, if you go back 10 years, stick Xavi at Madrid and Iniesta at United, would they (and Messi) have looked quite as good as they did when playing together at Barca? My answer is no. This isnt a black and white argument, I am not saying they would have been shite players, but simply that the cohesion and understand elevates them a level. From "great" to "potential GOAT". As @Adebasi says, even the subsequent purchases of Neymar and Suarez were done over time, in a way as to supplement the core of the side rather than change it.

Leicester this season are proof that you dont need a team of world beaters in order to be successful. They are very much an example of a team being more than the sum of its parts - with numerous players who you would perhaps barely register as being premiership quality prior to this season. Their success is arguably more down to a tactical and cultural shift brought in by Ranieri this season, but they surely disprove the argument that mass spending is required to compete at the highest level if nothing else.

 

[SirBobbysCombover]

Tottenham have spent over 300 million Euros in the past 4 seasons. Even Leicester have spent more than 70 million Euros in the past 2 seasons. Just saying.

I read somewhere Liverpool have spent just under 900 million since the Premierships inception, thats gone well for them.

 

[entropy]

Barcelona - best attack in the World.
Neymar and Suarez were bought (for big money).
Messi was also bought, but as a very young player.
I'm sure that the rest of their team has plenty of expensive bought players.

Money wins you trophies. No doubt about that.

Full marks for that logic <mindblown>

 

[nick2004]

Wenger is a good example that you win nothing with kids. He has developed so many young players ... that amounted to nothing. At one time, people said that Walcott will be better than Rooney but he never became half of what Rooney is. It is very difficult to predict who will become a world class player. It is easy to guess who is going to become a good player... but between good and world-class there is an abyss. If you want world-class players then you probably have to buy them. You can develop the "good enough" players, but you have to be extremely lucky to produce a single world-class player. So... if we want to compete with Barca and Real, we have to buy big. If we want to compete with WBA and Everton, then we can focus on developing young players.

 

[nick2004]

And let me add... you can't really do both. Either you compete with Barca for trophies and world domination ... so you have to buy the best players available. Or you compete with WBA and develop young players, accepting that you are going to lose a lot of games while they are learning.

Of course, if you are already at the top of the world then you can afford to give chances to a couple of young players with exceptional talent. But this can happen only after you already have a world-class team with world-class players in it. Not while you are trying to get back to your feet after three disastrous trophy-less years. In our situation, if we focus on young people, we are just going to fall further down the table.

 

[Speak]

I find the constant references to Tottenham and Leicester slightly strange.
As if they aren't just overachieving in a crazy league season. As if they've (a) actually won the league and (b) been winning it/challenging for years.

The reality is that they're overachieving, and would almost certainly need to upgrade their players in order to stay right up at the top.

Why do people go on about them as if they've been top for ages without spending money? It might be crazy, but it's not even been one year. They aren't an example of anything, with regard to 'you don't need to spend big to do well'.

 

[diarm]

A lot of good points made here. I definitely don't think building a team and spending money have to be mutually exclusive. The key is having a clear idea of what sort of team you want to have and what sort of football you want them to play. Then every decision, from youth recruitment and development, through training and coaching and onto scouting and transfer business should be made to compliment that idea (or "philosophy" before that word was ruined for us all).

Barcelona and Bayern Munich can spend large amounts of money because they have that structure set in stone. They aren't throwing money at silly targets for the sake of it. Each signing is carefully thought out and made to address a gap they have identified in their set up. They have such a clear and well understood outline of exactly what makes up their squads, that it is immediately obvious to them which areas need improving. This helps with preparing and introducing youngsters, as well as lessening the risk of venturing into the transfer market.

Since Fergie and Gill left (or looking at signings like Berbatov and Kagawa, possibly even a little before), we've had no such idea or direction. It's hard to know what we need because we don't know what sort of team we are. It's entirely possible that players like De Gea, Darmian, Smalling, Blind, Shaw, Schneiderlin, Schweinsteiger, Herrera, Mata, Memphis and Martial could make up a top class side under another coach or system. You could add Rafael, Di Maria, Kagawa and Hernandez to that list above and having seen those players leave, and others come in and struggle, it's hard to have confidence that any top players we bring in won't struggle just as much these days.

Our recent approach seems to mirror that of Real Madrid's. Offer massive amounts of cash for marquee players at their peak. Quite aside from this strategy not having brought Madrid the success they might have expected with the money they've spent, it also ignores the fact that in Madrid; the city, the climate, the cuisine and the language is all more attractive to players from Southern Europe and South America. We can compete for players from the UK, Northern and Central Europe but in recent times, these regions haven't been producing the same level of world class talent.

None of this needs explaining. In fact, I feel a bit silly having typed it all out seeing as it's about as necessary as telling your grandma how to suck eggs, but it beggars belief that the people running the club can't see this.

 

[entropy]

Wenger is a good example that you win nothing with kids. He has developed so many young players ... that amounted to nothing. At one time, people said that Walcott will be better than Rooney but he never became half of what Rooney is. It is very difficult to predict who will become a world class player. It is easy to guess who is going to become a good player... but between good and world-class there is an abyss. If you want world-class players then you probably have to buy them. You can develop the "good enough" players, but you have to be extremely lucky to produce a single world-class player. So... if we want to compete with Barca and Real, we have to buy big. If we want to compete with WBA and Everton, then we can focus on developing young players.

I honestly can't think of any top young player arsene has developed in the last 3-4 years. All of them have been either average or below par or still hasn't played a full season due to injuries. In fact, they have splurged on the likes of Sanchez, Ozil.

 

[adexkola]

I find the constant references to Tottenham and Leicester slightly strange.
As if they aren't just overachieving in a crazy league season. As if they've (a) actually won the league and (b) been winning it/challenging for years.

The reality is that they're overachieving, and would almost certainly need to upgrade their players in order to stay right up at the top.

Why do people go on about them as if they've been top for ages without spending money? It might be crazy, but it's not even been one year. They aren't an example of anything, with regard to 'you don't need to spend big to do well'.

So... if you ignore examples of clubs succeeding with that strategy, there is no proof that the strategy works.

Well done, I'm gonna use this train of thought going forward