Minority Report 2019-20 Talking Finance 4

That's a little unfair - unless you're 1) limited in ambition 2) going to premier league club, there can;t be many players who go to a club thinking, 'well this is it for me, I've reached my goal' and I doubt that is a desirable attitude - or one which would get you far in football anyway - the funnel through which you have come to get to a "team like Barnsley" would weed out all but the most naturally gifted of unambitious footballers in the first place. Surely we want players here who aren't thinking about seeing out their contract?

 

That’s because you’re only judging him on goals. A player like Moore can win headers, hold the ball up & he also got plenty of assists & was probably the best crosser of the ball we had.

Despite him not scoring many for Wigan he’s popular amongst their fans & starts virtually every game because of his all round game.

We saw last season that once Moore was injured we struggled to score as many goals as we did when he either partnered Woodrow or played up top on his own.

I don’t think anyone honestly believes either Wilks or Chaplin are anywhere near as good in a partnership with Woodrow as Moore was.

 

Didnt the board claim that they were following patrick's plan re loans?
Im sure that was asked at the last q and a.

 

Completely agree.

It feels like we’ve got a scattergun approach with young players & we just keep signing them & paying fees for them & subsequently paying agent fees & carrying a huge squad of more than 2 players for most positions in the hope that enough of them will come good in the short term.

For example I just can’t get my head around why anyone can defend or try to justify signing four 21 year olds for the centre back role, 3 of which are foreign & 1 from the lower leagues with no experience in either the championship or a league of that quality. It makes no sense.

 

I think his performance for Wales the other day was pretty impressive. He may not have been prolific for Wigan but his all round game for Wales, in an international game, was very good.

I still think he would have been a great foil for Cauley, even at this level, in reality we will never know.

 

First time

 

That’s not really my point. The idea of layering is that suitable replacements are either already in place or due to be signed. Unless you consider Schmidt to be the suitable replacement of course.

 

Woodrow has 6 goals from 12 games in the Championship. He's not exactly struggling up there. Getting a few million for Moore was outstanding business.

Wigan have scored 9 goals in Moore's 13 games this season. One was his, a penalty.

I disagree on your point about us not scoring as many without him last season. Granted, we had three goalless games against Pompy, Sunderland and Doncaster, three of the top sides in fairness. But we scored 3 at Southend, 2 against Accrington, 2 against Coventry, 4 against Fleetwood, 2 against Shrewsbury and 3 at Plymouth before he came on. Bit of a myth is that.

 

I don’t think it is. He missed a third of the season & four of our six 0-0 draws came without him, four of the five times we scored 4 goals came with him in the team.

Even if we take out stats & just go on chances created, there were a lot of games without him where we had to scrap for our lives late in the season & didn’t create much, like Walsall away, Burton home & away, Donny away. I still to this day don’t know how we got anything at Donny or came away with 3 points from Walsall.

Where as in the first half of the season there were plenty of games where the winning margin was small but it should’ve been much wider like Bristol, Southend, Gillingham & Wimbledon.

There were posts on here from people saying it was only a matter of time before someone got a proper 7 or 8 goal thrashing when he was fit but not later on in the season without him.

Wigan will score less than us but they’ll also concede a lot less than us. They’re more built to be risk averse, in the mould of a Mark Robins Barnsley side. Their fans are critical that Moore’s often getting the ball hoofed up to him & has no one anywhere near to support him.

Woodrow’s done very well but he’d do even better with Moore or a good striker alongside him, the outside the box goals are brilliant but they won’t keep going in. He needs some proper service. I don’t want to be disrespectful to Chaplin because he’s a likeable lad who gives his all but he’s pretty limited in my opinion.

 

Cleverer people then you or I have done the statistical work on this in the past - between 1978 and 1997 for 40 English clubs and it was found that their net outlay on transfers explained 16 per cent of their total variation in league position. By contrast spending on salaries explained a massive 92% of variation in their league position - these figures were updated by Bastien Drut to cover spending in the Premieship and the Championship from 1991 to 2010. In that period wages still explained 87% of the variation in league position. It seems in the long term high wages help a club much more than do spectacular transfers. In any given season the correlation is weaker, because in such a short term luck plays a big role - injuries, dodgy refs, poor form and any other host of factors can cause significant swings from year to year. But if you track over 15-20 years the correlation between players pay and finishing position rises to about 90%.

 

Jury is out on Schmidt, Chaplin clearly effects games in a positive way - 1 goal 2 assists - I don't see Moore contributing any more then this.

 

You refer to certain games that we didn't score in, but like I say, the standard of opposition has to be accounted for. For example, he played in the 0-0 against Wimbledon at home and missed two sitters. He played in the 1-0 defeat at Coventry. The rest were against top six sides.

Also, I'm not knocking his efforts for us last season. There were a few games where he was quite unplayable and you're right, he played in a few of our highest scoring matches. Rochdale springs to mind. His goal at Fleetwood was huge at the time. I actually enjoyed having him here last season. But in his four months with us in the Championship I thought he was dreadful and missed so many clear chances. I didn't envisage him scoring goals at this level. But I'd have happily seen him be given the chance.
But from what we can gather, of the available info out there, he pushed for a move in the summer (strange that he didn't go to France) and we reportedly made a few million on him. He even stated upon signing for Wigan that it was his choice. He wanted a new challenge, getting promoted was the perfect end to his time here.
And he's done absolutely nothing for them so far. If we'd spent that sort of money on a 27-year-old striker and got the return they have so far, we'd be up in arms. So I don't see that as bad business on our part, and I don't agree that we miss or needed him.

As for Woodrow, we got him on a new deal, he's getting a goal every other game, three worldies, a great header and two tap-ins. All round striker. So whatever we're doing, it's working for him. Chaplin has been underrated for me. Needs to find the net again, was so unlucky on Friday with that one in the first half. But he's been a great addition to me.

All opinions isn't it? Nice to debate without arguing or abusing too.

 

I was agreeing with you.

 

Opinions opinions eh?

 

Interesting thing this cos I was thinking the opposite recently, in that how many players in the last 5 years have we signed that never worked out, I think it adds up to quite a few.
Which makes you question rather than sign loads of unproven and hope for a few gems would money be better spent apportioned elsewhere, which in an ironic twist is exactly what DWLC & RR were asking but in different ways.