Post
by Long Time Lurker » Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:12 pm
The problem with age is that no amount of sports science can successfully hold the ravages of time back. It can help with the monitoring of players, improving their injury recovery time and managing stress on the body, but if a body is in the process of failing then it fails.
Delph has had his fair share of injuries over the course of his career, but he has done pretty well over the last two years. However, he has had the benefit of playing a lot less. One thing is for certain he isn't going to get fitter and more resilient to injuries the longer he players and that should be a concern.
30 isn't the new 25, it is 30. When people talk about older players being fitter they sometimes forget to consider that the younger players have also got fitter. That is why the overall physical demands in the top league have sky rocketed and why the pace of play has become a lot faster. Our players may be fit, but I wouldn't say that any of them are quick. Advancements in sports science mean that players can expect to have longer careers, but if they can't keep up with the youngsters it might mean dropping down a level or two for those final years.
Experience can be a good substitute to counter pure speed, but when a players legs go or they spend more time on the injury roster their experience and the sports science department can do nothing to counter it. Sadly, it isn't a case of will a player fade, but when.
Putting aside any fitness concerns about Delph I'm not keen because of the financial implications. If we assume he is on 90K a week ( with two years remaining on his contract ) he isn't going to move to us for less money. He is still playing a bit for Everton, and playing a bit probably suits him in terms of eking out as many playing years as he can.
So we would have to cover the difference in his wages at least. That could be a 1-5 -2m shortfall per year. Now, if he comes here he will probably want a better arrangement than he is on at Everton. It could be a healthy sign on fee or it could be the expectation of more game time. The former would bump up his price and the latter would put at least one big wage earner on our bench. I doubt that he will go through the inconvenience of upping sticks and moving to gain an equal or lesser deal.
For me, the bigger problem is our overall finances. We only managed to post a small profit last year because of the outstanding money owed to us from past transfers. With the recent departure of a few relatively big earners ( but nobody, except maybe Hart, in the earning range of Delph ) we have some money to play with.
However, if we allocate all of those wages to new in-comings we will be back in the same position, but without the positive transfer income. Covid will have hit us, although not as bad as it could, and the collapse of the Chinese TV deal could lower our revenue. The net result is that we will probably post a loss for the coming season.
Now, if we are optimistic and say that we have 30m in spare cash floating around a big chunk of that could be spent on players in this window. Fantastic, everything is sorted, except it isn't or at least it shouldn't be. Adding more older players to the squad might help us out in the next couple of years, but it could be the death of a thousand cuts.
Two years down the line we might find ourselves in a position that will require us to replace three midfielders, possibly two strikers, two defenders, two right backs, one left back and one winger. If we are still in the EPL what exactly will we use to fund the buying of 11 new players. Should Brady not sign a new contract this season we can bump that figure up to 12.
We don't need any more players in the latter part of their careers, swelling the same age range, we need players to carry the club forward into the future with potential resale value.
If we keep adding more older players to the squad the only short term outcome that I can envision is the sale of Tarks, Pope and McNeil in order to fund a massive squad overhaul. In addition to the cash we would also have the problem of finding players. At the moment we seem to be struggling to find and sign two or three new players, what would it be like if we needed eleven or twelve?
Has anybody seen the massive squad overhaul that Riggy masterminded for QPR, and the two that he oversaw at Fulham, along with the devastating impact they had on those clubs ?
Or what about the consistently poor recruitment that swallowed up all of the parachute payments Middlesbrough received after relegation from the top table. Their revolving door policy of signing average players for excessively large sums, who rarely lasted more than a season before they were moved on, is one of the reasons they now have a poor lower tier Championship squad and no cash.
I'm mentioning Middlesbrough because the majority of our new statistical scouting personnel used to be with their failed Rockliffe recruitment team.
I'm sorry to come across as being negative again, but if we want to make steady forward progress then we need to bring in quality younger players. If we can't afford domestic talent then that means we need to look abroad. The mention of Santamaria actually got me a bit excited, but Delph would be another treading water until we drown type of signing.
A team is only as strong as its weakest link and at the moment our weakest link is our recruitment.
I'm tempted to think that the other clubs have worked that one out. Burnley are a very tough nut to crack, they have an excellent manager, excellent playing staff, a framework that makes them difficult to break down, a united squad that give everything, committed fans that back the club and an under achieving recruitment team.
If we want to break them all we have to do is put their recruitment team under pressure.
They build out from a strong defence, so if we sign that Tarks bloke it will really hurt them and their recruitment team won't be able to replace a player like him in four weeks. Given they are currently struggling to fill the gaps they have just created in their squad that should be more than enough to tip the fine margins against them and push them towards relegation.
They added Peters to their squad last season. In their first run of matches they conceded a goal a game more than they do with Taylor on average. All the talk was how their stalwart defence no longer seemed like Burnley for the first 20 games. Adding a couple of extra assists to their output counted for very little and if he has to play with a weakened central defence their primary strength will become a major weakness.
I wouldn't be surprised to see us bring in one or two depreciating assets on high wages just so we can spunk a huge amount on a single headline grabbing young player. For my money, I would prefer us to spread our money around on three sub 10m young players with a bit of proven quality instead of throwing everything at one player.
If that is the case then Hopefully, it isn't a flair player for the right wing, because it would lead to us becoming soft in the middle ( like we were against Brighton ) and combined with a weaker defence we would be cannon fodder.
As for the 4-3-3 idea, it would mean three of our strikers sitting on the bench soaking up money and getting grumpy because they aren't playing.
And if someone can explain to me how it is good business to let a 10m asset walk out of the club for nothing, because an attractive contract offer and midfield playing assurances weren't put on the table until it was too late, and then pay a big wedge of cash to replace him with depreciating asset is good business then I'm all ears.
Nixon laughing at an Everton fans reply, pull the other one ( that was damage limitation ), he was laughing at us and rightly so.
These 2 users liked this post: Vegas Claret claretfern