- Aug 5, 2006
- 3,360
- 3,340
The Carragher/Neville argument is so funny to watch because it seems to echo a bunch of the arguments that happen on this forum.
What stands out is that Carragher is saying that Spurs aren't trying to win the league because we have only spent 29m net under Poch. He is equating ambition to spending which certainly has merit, but isn't it bizarre that football has reached the point where unless you're spending far beyond your earnings you are deemed to be unambitious.
Interestingly enough, it was the end of last season when Klopp was receiving huge praise (deservedly so) for getting Liverpool into the top 4 and CL final whilst Liverpool's net spend since 2004 was just £18m.... lower than Spurs. Article link here. I think Carragher had already been dropped by Sky for the spitting thing back then (classy) but if he was on air I'm sure he would have lauded that run without a net spend. Fast forward six months and apparently it's impossible to do anything without a high net spend.
It is a tricky one because obviously there is a huge amount of money in the game now and it would appear impossible to achieve anything without spending. But saying stuff like "Stoke spent 60m and are in the Championship" should surely only prove that money does not guarantee success.
Carragher's notion that "this is all going to fall away soon" has been levelled at us for the past 10 years because we don't spend the same as the other top six. But we haven't fallen away - we've kept on improving. It's not sexy at all so perhaps that's why it's such an easy target for the media and fans alike.
But if Liverpool can make the CL final with a four-year net spend of £18m, and if Leicester can win the league with a £60m squad and a £60m wage bill, then wouldn't it be nice for a few of the pundits to say football is about more than just money.
What stands out is that Carragher is saying that Spurs aren't trying to win the league because we have only spent 29m net under Poch. He is equating ambition to spending which certainly has merit, but isn't it bizarre that football has reached the point where unless you're spending far beyond your earnings you are deemed to be unambitious.
Interestingly enough, it was the end of last season when Klopp was receiving huge praise (deservedly so) for getting Liverpool into the top 4 and CL final whilst Liverpool's net spend since 2004 was just £18m.... lower than Spurs. Article link here. I think Carragher had already been dropped by Sky for the spitting thing back then (classy) but if he was on air I'm sure he would have lauded that run without a net spend. Fast forward six months and apparently it's impossible to do anything without a high net spend.
It is a tricky one because obviously there is a huge amount of money in the game now and it would appear impossible to achieve anything without spending. But saying stuff like "Stoke spent 60m and are in the Championship" should surely only prove that money does not guarantee success.
Carragher's notion that "this is all going to fall away soon" has been levelled at us for the past 10 years because we don't spend the same as the other top six. But we haven't fallen away - we've kept on improving. It's not sexy at all so perhaps that's why it's such an easy target for the media and fans alike.
But if Liverpool can make the CL final with a four-year net spend of £18m, and if Leicester can win the league with a £60m squad and a £60m wage bill, then wouldn't it be nice for a few of the pundits to say football is about more than just money.