What is an acceptable transfer success rate?

Genuinely interested in what the prevailing view is on here. We've had to ship in a lot of players over the summer and until an Arab sheikh takes over at Oakwell we are probably always going to be in a position where we're going to be taking a few risks on players (what club isn't?).

I sometimes get the impression that some people think every transfer should be a hit. But is this really realistic - not even the money clubs achieve that? If not, what proportion should be successful? 50%? 75%?

My personal view is that a 50% hit should be about the average and anything above that would be an over performance. With that in mind I think 2-3 transfer windows are required to build a proper squad.

And before it descends into a debate about how many transfer windows Danny has had I'm firmly of the opinion that last January doesn't count here. I'm talking here about squad building, and I don't think anyone can argue that we were doing anything other than firefighting last January.

So come on, what's the required success rate?

 

40% to 50% would represent a reasonable success rate given funding limitations anything above that is outstanding.

 

When you start talking 50% rates you are in the toss of a coin region. I would expect more research and science in choosing players to achieve much higher than 50%

 

That's right but I have been under the impression we are not on a very limited budget.

 

I wouldn't be investing in something with 50% success rate.

I would expect 1 in 4 to perhaps not make it. There are many factors, players lifestyle, family being settled as well as footballing reasons, fitting into a team. However one of the primary jobs of someone (maybe not even the first team coach / manager) is to establish who these target players are and have a clear view of what is expected of them in the team. Some might be bought for cover, playing maybe 10 games a season, others week in week out mainstays.This may be different for premiership where some signings are done as chess moves to get someone further down the transfer chain or for political reasons. I do think a lower budget may make teams take bigger chances but calculated chances are what the coaching staff are paid to do. At 50% i could make a living as a scout.

With the scouting system and knowledge of the game teams have if we have 50% success rate then we haven't got the right staff in charge of recruitment.

 

You'd hope for a success rate of over half something around 60% would be good. What we need is a thread with every single person Wilson has brought in second time around so we can work out what his success rate has been.

 

Thus far, you have to say DW's succes rate is <50%.......but I suppose you could argue they need more time.

 

Would be good, but who's good and who's bad would just be the opinions of individuals who as we have seen day in day out differ dramatically on here. Having said that i think its clear listening to Danny and watching his team selections Brown and Treacy aren't seen in the + category.

 

That has to be limited to squad players. The success rate for the kids is low because it takes time as judgments are made over long periods of time.

 

Tbh scouting then the application aint easy, scouts can suggest all they like but decisions are made higher up, it would make u r head bleed if we knew all the players who were told they were not good enough only for them to go on to be internationals etc and adversely players who come with excellent reputations fail for one reason or another.
Id say 50% was a good return (my dad's been a scout for 50 years)

 

Put Hemmings and Berry in the fail category, cos I don't see any glimpse of potential in these players......my opinion, like.

 

I see what you mean with that but not sure i would liken it to the toss of a coin. That implies that we are picking from a pool of players that is equally split between good and bad...but because of our financial position we are probably looking ro recruit from a pool that is probably more bad than good.

Not disagreeing per se though. 75 per cent might be the right number. But i guess our scouting network would have to be substantially better than the teams around us for that to be feasible.

 

Chief scout at Barnsley has a very good reputation and a good man

 

By and large I dont think the players hes brought in have been too bad. However Wilson has let himself, and those players, down by failing to bring in anyone in other key areas and thrn forcing them all to play a formation and tactic that they are not suited to.

Lita on his own, hemmings in midfield, trotta out wide, cole in midfield, hourriane wide left then wide right, berry being asked to do a million things at once (defensive midfield, attack, cover the full back, get down the wing, help bailey, support hourriane in attack) bailey with nobody to pass to because there is nobody wide, berry behind him and everyone else scratching their arses trying to decide if they should be adopting their attacking position, defensive position or their proper position at that moment in time)

Its a shambles

 

Yeah we wouldn't list kids like Holgate, Smith etc as they aren't Wilson signings. Just his permanent and loan players.

 

Absolutely it would. But we are talking about what constitutes success not failure or even average performance. The top performing teams in L1 i am convinced will have a success rate of transfers in greater than 50%. This is a sport where you have to be better than the opposition, in games, training, tactics, and recruitment.

 

You obviously know him better than me and i don't doubt that he is. This isn't a personal view on the chief scout though as he is one link in the chain. BTW i think we haven't don't too bad.

 

Picking up on some comments it is the manager who when recruited has to make them succeed.

Vas Te comes to mind. From zero to hero.

 

If he brought them into the squad he counts them. Have they been given squad numbers?