- Apr 17, 2004
- 2,368
- 1,487
And it drives me nuts too. I’m not defending it, but there is very little we can do sadly. I do hope we’ve learned lessons in the market and in particular scouting as we’re suffering from so many mistakes.
I am interested in this whole line of thinking.
The implication is that our transfer activity is the reason that things are the way they are. Is it possible you've assumed a paradigm that is not correct?
Consider this: We are almost always unhappy with our transfer activity. We almost always have holes in the squad and we always 'miss out' on exciting signings (as is the case for almost all clubs). And yet in that time we have seen massive improvement and hosted some of the best players in the world - none of whom were signed as superstars and almost none of whom hit the ground running. (maybe Berbatov, Van der Vaart and Lloris were exceptions)
What we also find is that many of the big signings that made a lot of sense, like Ndombele, Lo Celso, Soldado etc. were actually not right. And those times we thought we'd had great windows proved to be anything but.
And now... consider this!: It's been long noted that most fans enjoy transfers more than football matches. Which makes a lot of sense. A transfer is a less passive experience than watching a match, in the sense that we could all sign players if necessary and we can all imagine we could do it better. It promises something ongoing, as opposed to a match and it gives you the opportunity to get something over your rivals. Plus, unlike a match, the potential upsides can be limitless - we can keep signing players for ever, better and better ones.
In short, a transfer feels like a victory - one that is bought rather than earned (which probably explains a lot of its appeal) but a victory nonetheless. And yet history surely tells us that it isn't. Players can flop, sink into mediocrity and become indistinguishable from those they replaced, or require development. And yet we still consider apparently insufficent (or more accurately, unsatisfying) transfer activity to be a loss - one that sticks in the memory and is irretrievable.
I'm not saying that transfers are not important or a good source of fun. But their success is usually contingent on the qualities of the manager and our initial reaction is seldom correct. So we need to be more sanguine about it. First we need the right manager, playing the right kind of football, and then we can start to look at transfers as victories - or as steps to actual victories.
Giving Ndombele to a mentally checked out Pochettino means nothing. Giving Perisic and Porro to the mentally ravaged Conte was not going to achieve anything. But if Postecoglou has good half/full season we might be able to see how a £100m striker is going to yield big results. So i'm really saying that we've been terrible on the pitch for four+ years and that's not been solely down to transfer activity, nor was transfer activity to means to rectify it. So we shouldn't get so worked up about it.