People do surprise me when they STILL say that he has been poor in the market, I just don't get it at all.
Aw come off it mick. I've known you long enough to know you aren't that naive or arrogant mate. There's just
no way you would be daft enough, or arrogant enough, to start a thread (which asks for opinions) and expect everyone to agree with your take on things
just because it's yours...
no way.
He took over a team which was consistently finishing 15-20 points outside the Champions League places ...
... And here we are 18 months later with the team sitting in the top four and having a chance of achieving his objectives when he arrived. Yes we've spent around 65-70 million quid NET in transfer fees in order to achieve that...
... And yet we've improved relative to them, which is surely the only sensible measure by which we can be judged.
Just to be clear: you are saying we are sitting in the top four and that, in keeping with your inference (and thread), can be attributed directly to Brendan's success in the transfer market: is that correct?
I can see exactly where your coming from mick and agree to a certain extent: i.e. the players (all players) really do have a big part to play in the progress. However that [inference] then poses out a new set of questions.
* How much of the progress can be attributed to Brendan's coaching/tactics rather than just his signings? Do we rule the coaching side of things out completely; a little bit or not at all? -
My opinion: we can't sensibly measure our progress without paying, at least, equal tribute to Brendan's skill as a coach.* How many of his signings have actually contributed and to what extent?
My opinion: obviously both Sturridge and Coutinho have brought massive improvement where others haven't.* Is the undoubted (in my opinion) input of Sturridge and Coutinho enough for us to claim the overall dealings have been successful?
My opinion: hmm... tough one; simply because I don't know how people want to measure that. Is it 'money wasted'; 'numbers bought' or success/flop ratio?The thing is; I've been round this game long enough to know that:
i) No manager gets every transfer right every time - some will be an instant success; some will be a 'slow-burner' and some will 'flop' - the hope is they are, at worst, 'slow-burners'.
ii) No manager
ever signs a player knowing that he will fail - each and every signing is done in good faith. They win some, they lose some but always have the best intentions.
With this in mind (excluding poor Roy, much to my shame) I wouldn't use any manager's transfer dealings as a 'weapon' against them and despise, with a passion, when anyone does. Similarly, I never care about a player's cost when looking at their level of 'success'; a player's price is less important than his ability and how he improves the team (to me anyhow).
The truth is that: right here, right now Brendan has bought/loaned way more 'flops' and 'slow-burners' than instant successes but let's not forget...
He
has been severely hamstrung by a policy which dictates that he shops, from the TK Maxx clearance rail, with the small clubs. Hoking and poking about in the hope that he finds the gem that others have missed. Brendan competes, at the lower end of the transfer market, for the sort of player any of the smaller, established, clubs can afford.
That's not his fault.
