Lee Dixon - "We've overacheived" !

[Khilari]

I actually agree with him, in terms of gate receipts, wage structure and historic PL success and position, though his tense is incorrect.

We haven't over'achieved' anything till we end the season in 3rd or better IMO.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

There is an exception to every rule and it appears that we are it in this respect.

The plain fact of the matter is that when you consistently perform to a particular level, then that is your level, it is not an overachievement.

By your reckoning, the goons and bindippers are better than us because they pay their players more money. How many of the either team would you swap for our current personnel?

Yours isn't an assessment of the players' abilities, nor of the coaching or management. It is the assessment of an Accountant looking at a balance book rather than a Football team.

we're over achieveing. we're not an exception to a rule, as far as i can see, we are a short term statistical blip, (romantic isn't it)? without increased investment in the playing squad, - wages - we will over time revert to the norm, unless we are doing something fundamentally different to the rest of the football world, which we are not.

if you think by my reckoning i'm suggesting arsenal and liverpool are better than us, then you haven't understood what i've posted. (worth pointing out that i'm not suggesting you are stupid or whatever, not picking an argument, perhaps i just haven't made my point clear).

our resources are generating a higher return, (in playing terms), than the research on the subject suggests they should. ergo we are overachieving.

i am not looking at the ability of the playing staff or the coaching or the management structure or anything else. i am looking at the performance of the club as a whole which i would suggest is easier to do, more relevant and more important.

 

[leonspurs]

Rubbish, that is why we have a manager and build a team for, what a dumb statement

 

[Bus-Conductor]

we are currently over achieving this season. we over achieved last season and we over achieved the season before that. by far the most influential factor in determining league position is the total amount of wages paid to players. it dwarfs any other factor. we have the 6th highest total wage bill in the league. anything above 6th is over achievement.

You keep asserting this but it is an over simplification of one part of a more complex equation.

As a club we have over achieved in terms of the quality of team we have assembled given the transfer fees and wages we have spent. This is down to various factors, from the board, the DOF's we've had and managers.

But that team, which in terms of collective talent/ability is as good if not better than those of Arsenal, Chelsea and ManU, is not over achieving - in terms of what it is capable of based on talent and ability.

So if the question was have we over achieved in terms of squad building as a company/club in terms of our financial constraints then the answer is yes.

But if the question is are the players we now have as a collective over achieving in terms of what they are capable of performance wise, then the answer is no.

 

[guiltyparty]

You keep asserting this but it is an over simplification of one part of a more complex equation.

As a club we have over achieved in terms of the quality of team we have assembled given the transfer fees and wages we have spent. This is down to various factors, from the board, the DOF's we've had and managers.

But that team, which in terms of collective talent/ability is as good if not better than those of Arsenal, Chelsea and ManU, is not over achieving - in terms of what it is capable of based on talent and ability.

So if the question was have we over achieved in terms of squad building as a company/club in terms of our financial constraints then the answer is yes.

But if the question is are the players we now have as a collective over achieving in terms of what they are capable of performance wise, then the answer is no.

This

 

[Ionman34]

we're over achieveing. we're not an exception to a rule, as far as i can see, we are a short term statistical blip, (romantic isn't it)? without increased investment in the playing squad, - wages - we will over time revert to the norm, unless we are doing something fundamentally different to the rest of the football world, which we are not.

if you think by my reckoning i'm suggesting arsenal and liverpool are better than us, then you haven't understood what i've posted. (worth pointing out that i'm not suggesting you are stupid or whatever, not picking an argument, perhaps i just haven't made my point clear).

our resources are generating a higher return, (in playing terms), than the research on the subject suggests they should. ergo we are overachieving.

i am not looking at the ability of the playing staff or the coaching or the management structure or anything else. i am looking at the performance of the club as a whole which i would suggest is easier to do, more relevant and more important.

Trouble is that it appears that you are not. Your opening gambit was that wages is by far the most relevant factor (or words to that effect) suggesting that you have dismissed other factors (coaching and management, player ability etc) as irrelevant to the question of whether we are overachieving or not.

I can understand where you are coming from, so don't worry about me being all precious and thinking you are labelling me stupid as this is an interesting debate, but I just think your entire approach is that of a bean counter. As BC has said it is rather simplistic.

What you are stating, I think, is correct in relation to our long term sustainability, not our current achievements on the pitch. The playing staff on the pitch are where they are because they have been playing to their abilities and in accordance with the coaching/tactics received from management. Look at the squads around us and you will see that there are, arguably, only two that could better us. Therefore third/second place is about the right level for this squad. Sustaining a 1st to 3rd position, over coming seasons, is a far greater task based on our finances. If we maintain our current position, in the face of the spending power around us, then I will agree with your assessment.

But not now. This squad has earned its current position and, as far as I'm concerned, should finish at or around 2nd/3rd based on squad strength and ability.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

You keep asserting this but it is an over simplification of one part of a more complex equation.

As a club we have over achieved in terms of the quality of team we have assembled given the transfer fees and wages we have spent. This is down to various factors, from the board, the DOF's we've had and managers.

But that team, which in terms of collective talent/ability is as good if not better than those of Arsenal, Chelsea and ManU, is not over achieving - in terms of what it is capable of based on talent and ability.

So if the question was have we over achieved in terms of squad building as a company/club in terms of our financial constraints then the answer is yes.

But if the question is are the players we now have as a collective over achieving in terms of what they are capable of performance wise, then the answer is no.

The question is are we overachieving. The answer is yes.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Trouble is that it appears that you are not. Your opening gambit was that wages is by far the most relevant factor (or words to that effect) suggesting that you have dismissed other factors (coaching and management, player ability etc) as irrelevant to the question of whether we are overachieving or not.

I can understand where you are coming from, so don't worry about me being all precious and thinking you are labelling me stupid as this is an interesting debate, but I just think your entire approach is that of a bean counter. As BC has said it is rather simplistic.

What you are stating, I think, is correct in relation to our long term sustainability, not our current achievements on the pitch. The playing staff on the pitch are where they are because they have been playing to their abilities and in accordance with the coaching/tactics received from management. Look at the squads around us and you will see that there are, arguably, only two that could better us. Therefore third/second place is about the right level for this squad. Sustaining a 1st to 3rd position, over coming seasons, is a far greater task based on our finances. If we maintain our current position, in the face of the spending power around us, then I will agree with your assessment.

But not now. This squad has earned its current position and, as far as I'm concerned, should finish at or around 2nd/3rd based on squad strength and ability.

i think you have a different definition of over achievement to me. i am defining achievement, and therefore over achievement, in terms of the results we get from the resources we invest. a definition used by, amongst others, simon kuper and the team of economists and statisticians that worked on a book called 'why england lose'. it's also quite fundamental to the theory behind 'moneyball'. unless we do something totally different to the rest of the football world in terms of how we invest our resources, (we don't), we are at the mercy of the same regression to the mean as other teams over time. it's not my opinion really, but that of eminent thinkers in the field. one that i happen to agree with.

some teams, (lyon as an example), can over achieve for a number of seasons based on these 'other factors' and can embed them into the club ethos. the goons, for a short time, were also able to over perform based on the strength of the 'other factors'. in the case of lyon it was down to their chairman and in the case of arsenal, down to their manager. we're all happily laughing at the relative demise of our friends from down the road this season, but the wider picture is that they are regressing to the mean. without something fundamental happening at spurs, the same will happen to us. that's all i'm pointing out.

i think the crux of it is that we 100% are over achieving currently - by the definition used by most independent observers, (and have been since redknapp arrived). it's a bit 'cause and effect' i know but his arrival and the subsequent upturn in results has to be linked, in my view.

yes, there is also a link to the way the chairman has acted. levy was also around prior to redknapp's arrival though, so unless he is doing something fundamentally different, then the upturn in results can't really be attributed solely to him.

yes, there is also a link to the playing squad. as part of this, and to 'prove' the regression to the mean, this squad will eventually break up, (unless we invest/increase the amount we pay our players). when that happens, we will, almost certainly, regress to the mean - i.e. finish lower down the table. we might be able to sustain over performance for a few seasons after that, but the evidence suggests we won't.

say we lose adebayor at the end of the season, (not impossible), and modric leaves, (again, not impossible), we will find it hard to replace those players for the same wages. one the one hand some might explain a subsequent drop in league position as a result of those players leaving. others, myself included, would see it as the natural consequence of paying less money in wages than other teams.

a bit long winded but i think that adequately explains my view - or the parts of other people's thinking on the subject that i agree with. i'm not saying we should increase our wage bill necessarily. just pointing out that if we don't, we should expect to see our performance coming back into line with expectations linked to our relative position on a list of highest wage payers.

call it the view of a 'bean counter' if you wish. i call it the view of a realist.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The question is are we overachieving. The answer is yes.

Then you are mis-understanding the "we" in Dixon's statement. The "we" in Dixon's assessment was our team. The answer is therefore no.

We all understand the point you, and indeed I (on numerous occasions), have made re our over achievement in terms of assembling a squad that matches or betters some who have spent more than us doing so.

But Dixon was talking in purely football terms. In purely football terms, this squad is not over achieving. It is achieving pretty much exactly what it should be in terms of points/results. Mostly in performance too but not always.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

'we' to me, means spurs. the club. not the 11 individuals that are the short term representatives of the club on a matchday.

if lee dixon was answering a question phrased: "are spurs over achieving"?, then i think my definition is right. if he was answering a question phrased: "are friedel, walker, assou-ekotto, kaboul... van der vaart and adebayor overachieving"? then yes, perhaps i'm wrong.

 

[Ionman34]

i think you have a different definition of over achievement to me. i am defining achievement, and therefore over achievement, in terms of the results we get from the resources we invest. a definition used by, amongst others, simon kuper and the team of economists and statisticians that worked on a book called 'why england lose'. it's also quite fundamental to the theory behind 'moneyball'. unless we do something totally different to the rest of the football world in terms of how we invest our resources, (we don't), we are at the mercy of the same regression to the mean as other teams over time. it's not my opinion really, but that of eminent thinkers in the field. one that i happen to agree with.

some teams, (lyon as an example), can over achieve for a number of seasons based on these 'other factors' and can embed them into the club ethos. the goons, for a short time, were also able to over perform based on the strength of the 'other factors'. in the case of lyon it was down to their chairman and in the case of arsenal, down to their manager. we're all happily laughing at the relative demise of our friends from down the road this season, but the wider picture is that they are regressing to the mean. without something fundamental happening at spurs, the same will happen to us. that's all i'm pointing out.

i think the crux of it is that we 100% are over achieving currently - by the definition used by most independent observers, (and have been since redknapp arrived). it's a bit 'cause and effect' i know but his arrival and the subsequent upturn in results has to be linked, in my view.

yes, there is also a link to the way the chairman has acted. levy was also around prior to redknapp's arrival though, so unless he is doing something fundamentally different, then the upturn in results can't really be attributed solely to him.

yes, there is also a link to the playing squad. as part of this, and to 'prove' the regression to the mean, this squad will eventually break up, (unless we invest/increase the amount we pay our players). when that happens, we will, almost certainly, regress to the mean - i.e. finish lower down the table. we might be able to sustain over performance for a few seasons after that, but the evidence suggests we won't.

say we lose adebayor at the end of the season, (not impossible), and modric leaves, (again, not impossible), we will find it hard to replace those players for the same wages. one the one hand some might explain a subsequent drop in league position as a result of those players leaving. others, myself included, would see it as the natural consequence of paying less money in wages than other teams.

a bit long winded but i think that adequately explains my view - or the parts of other people's thinking on the subject that i agree with. i'm not saying we should increase our wage bill necessarily. just pointing out that if we don't, we should expect to see our performance coming back into line with expectations linked to our relative position on a list of highest wage payers.

call it the view of a 'bean counter' if you wish. i call it the view of a realist.

A good response and one I agree with in terms of sustainability, although it still remains to be seen whether FFP will create a more level playing field in terms of spending power. Utd owe vast amounts, Cheatski are totally reliant on the Abramovich 'I like it, I buy it' bankroll and Citeh are no different. You have to question their ability to sustain what they have in the face of what, potentially, is coming.

However, as BC has, once again, stated, the question of over achievement, as posed by Dixon, relates to our success on the pitch THIS SEASON. I said it in my earlier post, according to the abilities of the playing and coaching/management staff, we are right where we should be IMO, surely you can see this?

BTW, I hope you weren't offended by the bean counter reference. It wasn't meant as an insult.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

i don't think i have ever said that i thought the players weren't good enough to be in 3rd position at the moment. what i've said is that we, as a club, are over achieving. it's so obvious as to be frankly baffling that anyone would disagree really.

 

[Bingy]

While I am a long time, dragged through the mud, pissed on, SPURS fan, I feel for the first time since the early 70's, that we are as close, as makes no difference, to EPL success. I am not 100% confident (yet) but we CAN DO IT. Lee DickON might not stomach it...but it is a fact. Let's see where we finish...and make them all (MOTD pundits, aside from Lineker) apologise, on air, and NAKED! On second thoughts....keep the gear ON. COYS!

 

[vegassd]

i don't think i have ever said that i thought the players weren't good enough to be in 3rd position at the moment. what i've said is that we, as a club, are over achieving. it's so obvious as to be frankly baffling that anyone would disagree really.

Your point of view implies that you would like to wait until the Summer transfer window is over, total up what everybody has spent on players and then build the league table according to that.

If I buy a car for £500 and you buy one for £50k but they both go 100mph does that mean I have over-achieved or just that I'm better at buying cars than you?

The definition of the word "over-achieving" as most people understand it is to perform better or achieve more than what seems logically possible. The classic case of looking at a team on paper (for example Stoke) and saying that are higher in the Premier League and further in Europe than most would expect, and therefore over-achieving.

Our club has not "over-achieved". We have simply gone about our off the pitch business in a better way than most of our competitors. I don't see how you can disagree with that.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Your point of view implies that you would like to wait until the Summer transfer window is over, total up what everybody has spent on players and then build the league table according to that.

It doesn't imply that at all.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

The definition of the word "over-achieving" as most people understand it is to perform better or achieve more than what seems logically possible. The classic case of looking at a team on paper (for example Stoke) and saying that are higher in the Premier League and further in Europe than most would expect, and therefore over-achieving.

This implies, quite clearly, that you agree with more or less everything I've said.

Also, you should have a look at what Stoke are actually doing. They have spent quite a lot in wages in the past few years. They are not a great example of the point I think you are trying to make.

 

[vegassd]

This implies, quite clearly, that you agree with more or less everything I've said.

Also, you should have a look at what Stoke are actually doing. They have spent quite a lot in wages in the past few years. They are not a great example of the point I think you are trying to make.

My point is that money spent should not really come into when we talk about over/under achieving. It's clearly very important to a club but we shouldn't be saying "Team X spent £100m and team Y spent £50m so team X should be better". We should say "Team X have better players than team Y so they should be better".

We bought Rafa for £8m or whatever and Liverpool bought Carroll for £35m. I don't think anybody in the world expected Liverpool to then score 4 times as many goals as us. The money part of the game is important but only tells a story about how good the owners are, not how good the team is.

On Stoke, I was meaning that if you looked at all the teams on paper at the beginning of the season and tried to predict the league, I don't think many people would place Stoke in 8th. In that way I think they are over achieving.

 

[Spurger King]

Lee Dixon's face has overachieved.

 

[dav3j]

I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread to see if these points have been brought up already, but...

We have one of the most consistent keepers in the League.
Our RB looks to be England's first choice for the foreseeable future.
Our club captain is one of the most exceptional central defenders in the country.
Our LB has gone from being cruelly underrated to being considered one of the most consistent in the league.
One central midfielder won the sports writers player of the year award in the same season his club were (hilariously) relegated, and the other was subject to persistent, £35m+ bids from Chel$ki all summer.
Our right winger, while inconsistent on occasion, is one of the trickiest for defenders to deal with. Our left winger is amongst the hottest property in the world, potentially the best in his position, and has just been included in the FIFA XI.
Our two main forwards have both played for Real Madrid.

We have not overachieved at all, what we have done is exceeded the expectations of some very cynical pundits and opposition fans. As a man whose job it was to stand around waving his arm in the air, I think it's Dixon who has massively overachieved.

 

[vegassd]

Lee Dixon's face has overachieved.

[yt]MpSo1aciPqU[/yt]

Tee hee.