Lee Dixon - "We've overacheived" !

[dav3j]

Tee hee.

Nicely done, caught old luscious locks off his line and lobbed it beautifully!

 

[Marty]

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.

There's no doubt whatsoever that the playing staff currently at the club is not overachieving, and should be around 3rd and challenging for honours.

Where we are overachieving is in terms of budget, in particular the wage budget, in that we have amassed a very special group of players while spending nowhere near as much money as the clubs around us.

 

[Locotoro]

There's no doubt whatsoever that the playing staff currently at the club is not overachieving, and should be around 3rd and challenging for honours.

Where we are overachieving is in terms of budget, in particular the wage budget, in that we have amassed a very special group of players while spending nowhere near as much money as the clubs around us.

This.

You have to think logically about this and ask had we been sat in 5th place instead of 3rd nobody would say that we are over achieving regardless of our purchases or wage structure. As we are sitting in 3rd following a lot of good performances Dixon et al are saying we are over achieving. The only difference between the two scenarios is where we sit in the league and by association our performances on the pitch. Therefore I think it's safe to say that Dixon is saying we are over achieving due to how good he thinks we should be doing relative to how good we are doing in the league.

My own opinion is that whilst our players are as good as those around us our financial planning and spending has simply been more efficient. It has enabled us to compete at a better level with better players than others would have because they tend to spend more and get less for their money

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

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.

i really think you have misunderstood more or less all of what i've posted. for the record stoke's current league position is entirely predictable. more or less every club's league position can be predicted to a certain degree based on their total wage spend. that's the point. in the middle and lower reaches of the table it gets harder as the differentials between clubs' total wages are smaller.

the reason it's important to understand this and to accept it is because otherwise you get bellends trying to claim that we should be winning the league because y'know we've got bale and modric and they're brilliant innit. then we get disaffected fans with expectations way above where we could actually, medium to long term, achieve consistently agitating for change. then you get a change somewhere in the organisation, be it the manager, the chairman or whatever and all progress on the pitch is lost.

i think it was mike brearley that said, about cricket captaincy, that it was 90% luck and 10% skill, but don't try it without the 10%. there are parallels with the way football clubs are run. 90% of it is down the players that you can afford, (transfer fees, and wages, the whole cost of players), and 10% down to other factors.

 

[vegassd]

more or less every club's league position can be predicted to a certain degree based on their total wage spend. that's the point. in the middle and lower reaches of the table it gets harder as the differentials between clubs' total wages are smaller.

"More or less" is correct but how can you then say it's over achievement to finish higher than 6th if that is only a "more or less" estimate?

For me, wages are more to do with what a club is prepared to pay rather than the intrinsic value of a particular player to a particular team. If reports are to be believed, Gary Cahill is now earning more money than any of our players. Does that make him better than King, Modric or Bale? No. It simply means that Chelsea feel they can spend that amount of money on him.

So the fact that Chelsea are willing to spend a huge amount on wages does not mean that they have a better squad of players. I honestly believe that we have a better first XI and better squad than Chelsea, so the fact we are above them is not over achieving in my book.

In my opinion, wages give a simplified insight into a much more complicated beast that is a football club, and I don't like them being used to imply that Spurs do not deserve to be near the top of the table, which is the impression I get from the term "over achieving".

But hey, if we all thought like me then we would probably all be in jail by now!

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

"More or less" is correct but how can you then say it's over achievement to finish higher than 6th if that is only a "more or less" estimate?

For me, wages are more to do with what a club is prepared to pay rather than the intrinsic value of a particular player to a particular team. If reports are to be believed, Gary Cahill is now earning more money than any of our players. Does that make him better than King, Modric or Bale? No. It simply means that Chelsea feel they can spend that amount of money on him.

So the fact that Chelsea are willing to spend a huge amount on wages does not mean that they have a better squad of players. I honestly believe that we have a better first XI and better squad than Chelsea, so the fact we are above them is not over achieving in my book.

In my opinion, wages give a simplified insight into a much more complicated beast that is a football club, and I don't like them being used to imply that Spurs do not deserve to be near the top of the table, which is the impression I get from the term "over achieving".

But hey, if we all thought like me then we would probably all be in jail by now!

when i say more or less i think the figure placed on it by the eminent statisticians who have looked into it in great depth is 92%. 92% of variance in league position can be attributed to the total wage bill of a club. 92%.

for a club like spurs it is 'easier' to predict where achievement should lie, (in terms of league position), as the differential between our wages and the clubs around us is, relatively, high.

i suppose it's because i find this sort of stuff quite easy to understand that i feel the need to try to explain it, but it looks very much like it's a losing battle. come the end of the season when we finish 4th i dare say there will be outrage here and across the spectrum of spurs supporters. 4th is over achievement. anything higher than that and we should name a stand after redknapp. [joke].

money motivates players. not much else does, (with a few exceptions). that is why it is important. basically. reports that chelsea are paying more than us are correct. it's why they have finished above us for the past xx seasons.

 

[cusop]

Actually there is one team that is massively over achieving at the moment and that is the scum!! But I expect them to be firmly put in there place this weekend

 

[DogsOfWar]

when i say more or less i think the figure placed on it by the eminent statisticians who have looked into it in great depth is 92%. 92% of variance in league position can be attributed to the total wage bill of a club. 92%.

for a club like spurs it is 'easier' to predict where achievement should lie, (in terms of league position), as the differential between our wages and the clubs around us is, relatively, high.

i suppose it's because i find this sort of stuff quite easy to understand that i feel the need to try to explain it, but it looks very much like it's a losing battle. come the end of the season when we finish 4th i dare say there will be outrage here and across the spectrum of spurs supporters. 4th is over achievement. anything higher than that and we should name a stand after redknapp. [joke].

money motivates players. not much else does, (with a few exceptions). that is why it is important. basically. reports that chelsea are paying more than us are correct. it's why they have finished above us for the past xx seasons.

Whilst I agree with your general point, you also have to factor in the competition 'underacheiving'.
Arsenal have a lot of money but have bought poorly, Chelsea are in transition, and Liverpool allowed Benitez to wreck them and have bought some average players for a lot of money, and even United don't look that great on paper.

In my view this has created the appearance of us 'overacheiving' when we are simply operating within our means.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Whilst I agree with your general point, you also have to factor in the competition 'underacheiving'.
Arsenal have a lot of money but have bought poorly, Chelsea are in transition, and Liverpool allowed Benitez to wreck them and have bought some average players for a lot of money, and even United don't look that great on paper.

In my view this has created the appearance of us 'overacheiving' when we are simply operating within our means.

possibly. i don't disagree although i would suggest that over/under achievment is a zero sum game. if one team over achieves, another has to under achieve. that's the nature of it.

believe me i've seen us under achieving. this is not it.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

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.

over the course of time these 'short term statistical blips' regress to the mean. this is what we're seeing now.

we have to hope that when the music stops this season, (after 38 games), we are sitting in one of the 4 chairs that brings a CL place next season and that the regression to the mean which suggests we should finish in 5th or 6th place roughly, hasn't fully come to pass.

 

[striebs]

over the course of time these 'short term statistical blips' regress to the mean. this is what we're seeing now.

we have to hope that when the music stops this season, (after 38 games), we are sitting in one of the 4 chairs that brings a CL place next season and that the regression to the mean which suggests we should finish in 5th or 6th place roughly, hasn't fully come to pass.

I think we and every one else will know whether we have over achieved and are currently in a false position or if we are the real deal after we play Chelsea away at the end of March.

If we are still in a similar position and still third or higher there will be no question that we are very much worthy of being where we are right now.

If however we drop points against the likes of Man City, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea and fall down the table some what (out of the top four) then those who think we are over achieving will probably be proved right (although by all rights after that Chelsea game we potentially have a very winnnable run in and could catch a second wind even if things go tits up in the next few weeks.)

Spurs mean average would now appear to be 5th place , or will be after Chelsea and Arsenal splash the cash .


To get any further than this we need increased revenue and the authorities to ensure other teams operate as a business . Not holding my breath for the second one .

Perhaps we should treat our exceptional performance against Man City as an anomaly too as we can't do that every week .

What the matches against Man Utd and Arsenal have shown and Chelsea this weekend may also show is that there is a difference between the really big time players and the wannabies .

The big timers know how to make a fist of it even when they are the downwards curve .

Lampard , Scholes , Giggs and our own VDV are examples as he showed again on Wednesday .

We've got some great players but I just can't see how we can establish , and retain , a critical mass of really top players .