How much stock do you place in a player being "PL proven"?

[sullydnl]

Just saw the phrase used in the Maguire thread and it struck me that I don't really have an opinion either way on whether a player allegedly being PL proven means anything. It sort of makes sense but then we've also seen a lot of "PL proven" players flop terribly at other clubs anyway so I dunno.

What say ye?

 

[Random Task]

Generally speaking, games in the PL are played at a higher tempo and more physically demanding compared to other leagues around Europe. Plus you need to be adaptable given the highly changeable weather conditions.

I think there is much to be said for a player who has proven himself in the PL, especially when moving from one English club to another, whether or not that should add a considerable amount to the resulting transfer fee is debatable.

 

[Gambit]

Zero.

 

[RooneyLegend]

None what so ever. I put more value in a player being elite level proven. I.e a player that has put in great performances vs the likes of City, Pool, Barca, Bayern etc.

 

[adexkola]

Zero.

This

Comes from the same wretched place as doubts about Messi being able to do it at the Brittania on a cold, wet and windy Wednesday night

 

[Crashoutcassius]

This

Comes from the same wretched place as doubts about Messi being able to do it at the Brittania on a cold, wet and windy Wednesday night

im not sure taking the most extreme outlier of all time is the best way to prove a rule

my view is that the league has different characteristics than others and there is good evidence that some players do well elsewhere and struggle here (and also vice versa, although less common)

 

[Tiber]

This

Comes from the same wretched place as doubts about Messi being able to do it at the Brittania on a cold, wet and windy Wednesday night

I have no doubts about Messi at Stoke - But I have plenty about Fred

I do believe the league suits some players much better than others, there about always exceptions.(schneiderlin comes to mind) but seeing players produce in England is always helpful

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Schneiderlin, Shaw, Lukaku, Matic...

 

[Apokalips]

I don't take much stock in it. There are all kinds of variables as to why certain players succeed at certain clubs. We have seen many "Premier league proven" players change clubs and fail and we've seen many players that weren't good enough for us go on to become good Prem players, who would in turn be labelled a "prem proven" option, at lower clubs.

Some people would have rather seen us sign a guy like Lukaku (before he joined) over someone like Zlatan or Neymar.

 

[Luke1995]

Generally speaking, games in the PL are played at a higher tempo and more physically demanding compared to other leagues around Europe. Plus you need to be adaptable given the highly changeable weather conditions.

I think there is much to be said for a player who has proven himself in the PL, especially when moving from one English club to another, whether or not that should add a considerable amount to the resulting transfer fee is debatable.

Why do you think weather conditions can influence a player's performance ?

 

[VorZakone]

Alexis was PL proven.

 

[Johan07]

I think it is definitely a thing. Especially at a position as CB and because of the tempo and intensity also central midfield.
I dont think it hurt Van Dijk a bit to get used to a similar type of football in Scotland before he came to the PL for example.
Not so much when it comes to wingers, fullbacks and strikers.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

I believe it's relevant but probably not for the usual reasons.

If a player is 'pl proven' it means he's settled in the country and happy enough to do his work on the pitch. It's relatively rare but with signing a player from abroad, there's always the chance that player will simply not enjoy the lifestyle, may feel depressed/unhappy, the wife or family don't enjoy it etc and that can impact their game.

It's not because I think the PL is so super duper special that it's the only league you can prove yourself in. Although yes, I do believe it is (generally speaking) more physical and fast paced than some other European leagues, and some players may not fancy that every single week. That doesn't mean I'm on board with the whole 'rainy night in stoke' shite because Messi would destroy any league, but I believe there's a big stretch between that line of thinking and the belief that a player being settled in a country/style of league is a positive.

 

[Tomuś]

Why do you think weather conditions can influence a player's performance ?

Maybe because it does. Ever played at least semi-pro match when it was raining cats and dogs? Or in a scorching heat?

 

[Snow]

You have to look at the reasons why a player flops when moving between clubs. Generally speaking its not because of the PL proven aspect, namely handling the physical nature of the English football. In order to play in the PL you generally have to be a bit fitter because the game is played at a higher tempo and players are also generally physically stronger. At least that used to be the case some years ago.

Vidic is our most famous case. Purchased in January and he was shit because he wasn't ready for the league but SAF didn't purchase a nonce and he knew exactly where to improve to cut it and settled in quickly.

With a good pre-season you shouldn't really put that much stock into "PL proven" but if he's bought late August or in January that's certainly a factor.

 

[Luke1995]

Maybe because it does. Ever played at least semi-pro match when it was raining cats and dogs? Or in a scorching heat?

For some players like Peter Crouch the rain helps. Perhaps players who are pace merchants will slow down in the sun, but most of them have the technique to do well in either conditions.

 

[Tomuś]

For some players like Peter Crouch the rain helps. Perhaps players who are pace merchants will slow down in the sun, but most of them have the technique to do well in either conditions.

There are players (or their skillset) who prefer different weathers so their performance will vary a bit. It's true that the best of them adapt but you can't just say that weather is irrelevant. First touch is influenced by heavy rain for starters, poor stamina exposed by heat etc.

 

[Man of Leisure]

Schneiderlin, Lukaku, Sanchez, Matic, Shaw were all premier league proven. Minus Shaw who can still come good, the others didn't work out for whatever reason despite being PL proven.

 

[Alex99]

Given that Sanchez and Schneiderlin, and to a lesser extent Fellaini, Lukaku and Matic, were all PL proven I'd say it's not that important at all.

 

[Luke1995]

There are players (or their skillset) who prefer different weathers so their performance will vary a bit. It's true that the best of them adapt but you can't just say that weather is irrelevant. First touch is influenced by heavy rain for starters, poor stamina exposed by heat etc.

Fair points, some can't really do it in a cold rainy wednesday night at Stoke

But in all seriousness, I understood it now, cheers

 

[Spielmacher]

A lot, but the team's playstyle is more important and should be considered too.

 

[ManUArfa]

Well they're generally more expensive. Read in to that what you will....

 

[Jezpeza]

In my opinion a lot but not without considerations.

The bigger thing is signing a good player who fits your style of play.

E.g., signing a proven player who relied on pace as they start to lose it will result in them probably flopping if they dont adapt their game. (No names)

Signing jamie vardy then using him as a target man will make him look poor.

Signing a striker with no touch who is lethal being played in behind or running at defenders but not great at link up play or holding up the ball and trying to get them to play like that will make them look lesser. (No names)

Theres also the trap of signing an average player who has had a good season or two - schneiderlin and drinkwater jump to mind.

I think if a player fits your system and are already playing well in the league you can take a lot from that.

 

[RedSky]

What say ye?

It's a big load of shite.

 

[NoPace]

I'd say the 2 kinds of "proven" that actually matter are:

1. Having played well at a high level (Prem, La Liga, Champions League knockouts or for one of the top sides in France, Italy or Germany)

2. Having played well in a system or role of which there will be some continuity.

And even then, there's always transfers and careers that come good that are surprising and ones that appear to make perfect sense and then everything goes wrong or the player regresses.

 

[eire-red]

In the context of the Maguire thread, I think it's more down to the fact that we need a CB who can slot in seamlessly and not need a season to adjust, as Lindelof needed, and many other CB's (Vidic and Koscielny are two that spring straight to mind, but I'm sure there are countless others that this applies to).

In a more general context, of course being used to the physicality and pace of the league is a plus. Every squad needs a blend of quality proven league players, and top quality players who can perform regardless of conditions or opposition. For truly world class players, it shouldn't make a difference. What's more important is that the player coming in is a right fit for the club and the style of football being implemented. Often when players flop, they can be just branded as "not able for the league" or something along those lines, where in fact they were never a fit for the club in the first place.

Of course then there are players who genuinely seem to struggle with the pace and intensity of the league. Take Mhkitaryan for example, bags of ability, but doesn't seem to be able to play at the level of intensity required for Premier League football.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

Very very little. Almost ALL of the very best players came from outside the Prem. Henry, aguero, Ronaldo, nistelrooy, vidic, VVD, Drogba. Of course some english players are world class to like Ferdinand, Rooney Shearer Lampard gerard Scholes etc. I still say premier league proven means Jack sh*t. I see PL proven meaning he's least likely to move to a different country. That's why theres little amount of English players abroad, especially ones that are already in the top 6 clubs in the prem.

 

[Skills]

None

 

[predator]

It's a very broad term - you could say Aguero and Vardy are PL proven but one is much much the better striker and overall footballer.


In the current state we are in I would be in favour of going for PL proven players because we aren't a PL proven team and we need to get a foothold in the league before anything. Being a cup team is great but the real barometer of dominance is shaped by the 38 games we play in the league.

Back in the good old days when we were a PL proven team we could sign talent from other leagues and nurture them into PL proven players without a detrimental effect on the teams performance. The same applies now with city and even liverpool (I expect). They have players which have shown they can dominate Pl games. City or Liverpool can afford to sign a Portuguese wonderkid and still dominate the league.

Every signing is risky but I do think established PL players is a safer bet for us currently.

 

[SambaBoy]

There's some weight behind it.

Firstly, the player comes in with the confidence that he knows he can perform at that level. When you sign a player from foreign leagues or the lower leagues, some will question whether they can make the step up and perform to the same level as their other clubs. Mentally weak or low confidence players may struggle if they start of badly.

There's some transition between the leagues as well, in terms of play style, more so for attacking players to get used to. And finally, obviously settling into a new country can be difficult for some especially if they don't know the language and can't communicate with their team-mates.

 

[DoomSlayer]

It very clearly exists as a phenomenon. People who deny it are just trying to act like obtuse football elitists. Many non-British players have struggled to adapt to the PL, went abroad and had successful careers.

Some can't cope with the language barrier, others don't settle into the culture or location, weather is always a problem whether people would like to admit it or not, especially to players that have grown up in countries with very warm climates. The style of football is also clearly different in the league, even managers like Klopp and Guardiola have admitted as much.

The fans may not be as fanatical as some ultras around Europe, but that's also due to how well UK laws have been implemented after the very difficult periods during the previous decade. Still, the history and legacy of the game can be ver tough to handle, expectations from supporters and media is always high.

I'm not saying that some of those factors don't exist elsewhere, but it's all combined in a very specific manner in England - there is absolutely no wonder that the PL is the most famous and watched division in the world. Stuff like that don't happen by mere coincidence and it's also why most of the best managers want to work in it, especially in recent times. I can bet that next in line to try their chances would be the likes of Allegri, Simeone, Tuchel, maybe even Luis Enrique.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

Not much. It's not a good tool to tell sign of success.

It's just a very small "assurance".
What they do after they join are what matters.

PL-proven supposedly meant they have no problems adjusting/adapting to the league, ready-made. Some foreign players take time to adjust to the quicker pace and harder physical challenges, while others fit in quickly. Even if they're PL-proven, after joining they can prove to be so bad after all, like this is their first time playing in this league eg. struggling with the high pace/tempo/physical challenges of the league like they're not used to it, so bizarre. Case: Sanchez, Matic and Lukaku. Matic is more of a case of a player declining near 30s, it's quite common. Difficult to predict. Veron and Falcao I think couldn't adapt at all to EPL, european competitions a lot easy for 'em.

TLDR, PL-proven shouldn't be the main/secondary (or whatever came close after that) justification.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Almost all the stock. It helped us win quite a few titles and should be the core of our recruitment policy.

 

[Raoul]

None whatsoever. It's all about the individual player attributes. If they have them they will succeed.

 

[In Rainbows]

Zero. We've had "PL proven players" in Schneiderlin, Fellaini, Lukaku, Matic, etc...

Really means nothing. It's not a guarantee for success

 

[Hawks2008]

None, especially if it's a player who has never played in CL.

 

[Finn MacCool]

If there was any real worth in it then most would prefer Maguire over De Ligt or Koulibaly. But I doubt you will find anyone, outside of Broadmoor, who would make that choice.

 

[Chipper]

A little. It's a small bonus in terms of how confident I'd be whether a new signing might fit or not. Of course it doesn't trump ability but is a thing in itself.

Would be more assured if signing Harry Maguire based off his Leicester and England performances than I would if he was exactly the same person/player but had been playing for Torino and England the past couple of seasons due to that factor.

Leaving aside that he'd probably cost even more if we'd have got him, I'd be even more confident that De Ligt would fit in if we'd have taken him from Spurs rather than Ajax. With him I'd be highly confident he'd be good either way because of his talent that is there for everyone to see, but it would be a tiny little extra positive on top.

I'd have to filter out familiarity bias too as I'm also more likely to know about the players if signing from other PL clubs. Still, even after that it remains as a small factor.

 

[giorno]

Signing a player from within the league generally carries less risk than signing someone from outside the country. Still, not a very big factor. Most of the league's best players were signed from abroad and didn't require a long adaptation period before they imposed themselves as the best in the league...

 

[Gehrman]

Hazard, Aguero, Silva and Toure all came here and ripped up the league. Mata was brilliant most of his time in Chelsea. For me it does not really matter just like I don't think United should go after english players instead of foreigners. Bar a few the english just aren't the best in the world.