Re: Diving Arsenal Players - The Least Shocking Admission Ev
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:01 pm
WengerBWFC_Insane wrote:
Why have they won the league, more than once and Arsenal haven't?
The Wanderer, A Bolton Wanderers (BWFC) Forum. This message board is part of the main site.
https://the-wanderer.co.uk/
WengerBWFC_Insane wrote:
Why have they won the league, more than once and Arsenal haven't?
You can't simply say that the reason they've won stuff is because they've spent money. You may believe that, but it can't be proved.BWFC_Insane wrote:Fine. Explain why then, in your own words Chelsea and Man City, two clubs well below Arsenal in the league table prior to their successes within the last decade have won the league multiple times in the same period that Arsenal haven't managed it?Bruce Rioja wrote: Chinney
Why have they won the league, more than once and Arsenal haven't?
I was asking you to explain why......in your own words those clubs suddenly started winning trophies.....it isn't that hard a question.Bruce Rioja wrote:You can't simply say that the reason they've won stuff is because they've spent money. You may believe that, but it can't be proved.BWFC_Insane wrote:Fine. Explain why then, in your own words Chelsea and Man City, two clubs well below Arsenal in the league table prior to their successes within the last decade have won the league multiple times in the same period that Arsenal haven't managed it?Bruce Rioja wrote: Chinney
Why have they won the league, more than once and Arsenal haven't?
It could be for many reasons, especially superior coaching and better recruitment. I've already given you the team of 92. You're claiming that expenditure = success and I'm saying that it simply isn't the case. Tell you what, you tell me, how did Allardyce's modestly assembled Bolton side's finish in the table when matched against the expensively assembled sides such as Newcastle, Leeds, Villa, Everton etc. A nice and easy one for you.BWFC_Insane wrote: I was asking you to explain why......in your own words those clubs suddenly started winning trophies.....it isn't that hard a question.
Why are you putting words into my mouth? I haven't said that expenditure = guaranteed success. I've said there is a strong enough correlation between the two to suggest that whilst you will always have the odd side that confounds that, it is very hard to compete for the top trophies without similarly competing in the market for the best players. There are always going to be situations like Leicester that come about. But Leicester won't win this year. And probably won't win again in our lifetimes. Man City probably will, as will Chelsea etc...Bruce Rioja wrote:It could be for many reasons, especially superior coaching and better recruitment. I've already given you the team of 92. You're claiming that expenditure = success and I'm saying that it simply isn't the case. Tell you what, you tell me, how did Allardyce's modestly assembled Bolton side's finish in the table when matched against the expensively assembled sides such as Newcastle, Leeds, Villa, Everton etc. A nice and easy one for you.BWFC_Insane wrote: I was asking you to explain why......in your own words those clubs suddenly started winning trophies.....it isn't that hard a question.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Money isn't a guarantee of success but as real academic studies have shown in football there is a correlation of about 70-80% between wage bill size and success, and further a large correlation between size of wage bill and overall spending.
Well if you said to Parkinson that Spearing and Trotter, say are going and there isn't any money to replace them but don't worry we can sign a couple of pay as you play frees would you expect him to be happy with that and still have the same expectations for results?thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:
Money isn't a guarantee of success but as real academic studies have shown in football there is a correlation of about 70-80% between wage bill size and success, and further a large correlation between size of wage bill and overall spending.
sooooooo.... we SHOULDN'T be getting those high wage earners off our books cos science shows us that we will win the league?
I'd missed this. "Real academic studies"? Over to you!BWFC_Insane wrote: Money isn't a guarantee of success but as real academic studies have shown in football there is a correlation of about 70-80% between wage bill size and success, and further a large correlation between size of wage bill and overall spending.
you need to freshen up your spotters-guide to gentle joshery skillz! do I really have to put a winky-emoticon EVERY time???BWFC_Insane wrote:Well if you said to Parkinson that Spearing and Trotter, say are going and there isn't any money to replace them but don't worry we can sign a couple of pay as you play frees would you expect him to be happy with that and still have the same expectations for results?thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:
Money isn't a guarantee of success but as real academic studies have shown in football there is a correlation of about 70-80% between wage bill size and success, and further a large correlation between size of wage bill and overall spending.
sooooooo.... we SHOULDN'T be getting those high wage earners off our books cos science shows us that we will win the league?
Not some binary thing here. Money isn't the only factor otherwise nobody would bother watching.
But it is a big one especially the higher up the ladder you go where the differences become more extreme.
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-man ... s-football" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Bruce Rioja wrote:I'd missed this. "Real academic studies"? Over to you!BWFC_Insane wrote: Money isn't a guarantee of success but as real academic studies have shown in football there is a correlation of about 70-80% between wage bill size and success, and further a large correlation between size of wage bill and overall spending.
Prove what? That there is a 90% correlation between wage spending and success? I've just done that.Bruce Rioja wrote:Doesn't prove anything, as I've mentioned. Prove it. That's what I asked you to do and you can't.
You haven't proved a fecking thing! You support Bolton Wanderers, is that correct? Has it not registered to you you how we've achieved beyond clubs that have spent considerably more on players? There's a pattern which supports you but there's no proof. Where's your proof? You haven't a shred. You haven't proved anything.BWFC_Insane wrote:Prove what? That there is a 90% correlation between wage spending and success? I've just done that.Bruce Rioja wrote:Doesn't prove anything, as I've mentioned. Prove it. That's what I asked you to do and you can't.
And I've never claimed anything else. I've proven exactly what I have claimed.
You haven't. You've got to show me academic evidence that spending is irrelevant to the chance of success in top flight football.
So you've got nothing then?Bruce Rioja wrote:You haven't proved a fecking thing! You support Bolton Wanderers, is that correct? Has it not registered to you you how we've achieved beyond clubs that have spent considerably more on players? There's a pattern which supports you but there's no proof. Where's your proof? You haven't a shred. You haven't proved anything.BWFC_Insane wrote:Prove what? That there is a 90% correlation between wage spending and success? I've just done that.Bruce Rioja wrote:Doesn't prove anything, as I've mentioned. Prove it. That's what I asked you to do and you can't.
And I've never claimed anything else. I've proven exactly what I have claimed.
You haven't. You've got to show me academic evidence that spending is irrelevant to the chance of success in top flight football.
What? The burden lies with you. IAre the questions too difficult for you again? Well, if you're too thick/soft to realise that........... hey ho. What a fecking cop out.BWFC_Insane wrote:So you've got nothing then?Bruce Rioja wrote:You haven't proved a fecking thing! You support Bolton Wanderers, is that correct? Has it not registered to you you how we've achieved beyond clubs that have spent considerably more on players? There's a pattern which supports you but there's no proof. Where's your proof? You haven't a shred. You haven't proved anything.BWFC_Insane wrote:Prove what? That there is a 90% correlation between wage spending and success? I've just done that.Bruce Rioja wrote:Doesn't prove anything, as I've mentioned. Prove it. That's what I asked you to do and you can't.
And I've never claimed anything else. I've proven exactly what I have claimed.
You haven't. You've got to show me academic evidence that spending is irrelevant to the chance of success in top flight football.
Another one bites the dust!
I've proven the statistical correlation exists....which is all I ever needed to.Bruce Rioja wrote:What? The burden lies with you. IAre the questions too difficult for you again? Well, if you're too thick/soft to realise that........... hey ho. What a fecking cop out.BWFC_Insane wrote:So you've got nothing then?Bruce Rioja wrote:You haven't proved a fecking thing! You support Bolton Wanderers, is that correct? Has it not registered to you you how we've achieved beyond clubs that have spent considerably more on players? There's a pattern which supports you but there's no proof. Where's your proof? You haven't a shred. You haven't proved anything.BWFC_Insane wrote:Prove what? That there is a 90% correlation between wage spending and success? I've just done that.Bruce Rioja wrote:Doesn't prove anything, as I've mentioned. Prove it. That's what I asked you to do and you can't.
And I've never claimed anything else. I've proven exactly what I have claimed.
You haven't. You've got to show me academic evidence that spending is irrelevant to the chance of success in top flight football.
Another one bites the dust!
It's you that's bitten the dust.