What is an acceptable transfer success rate?

Thats a fair point. Not sure if thats just a symptom of some transfers inevitably being misses though. Leaves the ones that are ok being left to do much more to cover. There have been some managerial decisions i have not been sure about eg. 433 but i think part od the problem has been down to imbalance caused by the misses. If we are still looking imbalanced after jan and summer i will absolutely be making the same point you are now.

 

Absolutely fair point. Id be interested in knowing then success rate of the top sides over a sustained period. Not sure i can be bothered to try and work it out though ...especially as difficult to define success.

I do remember John Dennis saying in his autobiography that Dannys success rate in 96 was 100 percent. Guess just shows how lucky we had to be to get a shot at the big time.

 

The scouts and the chief scout will have a remit to work under given to them by the paymasters and the coach

 

I thoight about that but then I realised it cant be because the transfers are misses. For example Wilson signed no right backs, no left backs and no right wingers. Its fair to say that treacy hasnt performed but its also true that even if he had performed he is a left footed left winger not a right foote right winger.

 

100% by not bringing anyone in at all and tell Cryne junior to put his spreadsheets away until Summer.

 

The economic data in this area suggests an average success rate as being between 38% and 42% depending on what you constitute as success - see Soccernomics for the data (where they studied 1000s of transfer) This includes signing from other teams those broadly defined as youth players.

 

Thats across all transfers. To be successful then you have to be above average. Also does it say what constitutes success?

 

Yes! Was hoping someone would bring some actual data to the table. I love a bit of economics in the morning - must go out of my way to read this. So based on this it would take 3 or 4 tranfer windows to build a successful squad if you performed at the average (again depending on what your success criteria are). Feels like a sensible conclusion to me.

 

See what you mean...but surely Dudgeon and Brown were who he signed for those positions. Id agree they haven't performed to expectations. Right wing..fair point. But i think Berry has been one of our better performers....agree wed be more balanced with an authentic winger.

 

Interestingly in the period they studied Man Us success rate was in the low 30s. The analysis shows transfers, to be, by and large, little more than a gamble far more statistically likely to 'fail' than succeed. You are better to spend any money you have on wages not transfers. So whilst Man Us recruitment strategy underperformed they won things by investing in wages which equates for 92% of all success.

There were various factors they considered in evaluating success from memory if was efficiency cased on appearance/goals in relation to any fees and in younger players an evaluation of development spend v achievement. Other factors were resale value and upturn in league position but it's been a while since I read it to be honest.

 

Interesting stuff. I find it hard to compare perm teams as they often sign players with no intention to integrate them into the team. Man U are a perfect example of developing youth and making in/out signings as part of other deals. I guess you could sign Messi and if he is injured for the season its classed as a fail

 

Interesting. Bit of a geek alert but would have thought quite difficult to say wages caused success....relationship could be other way ie. Successful players can demand higher wages. Must have tried to control for that somehow.

I guess what youre saying is that reallocating the budget might attract a better quality of player...not that if we'd only have paid Manny Frimpong and Brek Shea USA a bit more everything would now all be ok

 

Don't forget some players are also brought in through non scouting networks ie mates of agents etc.....It really is up to the club to do their homework on the player to see if they fit the style etc
I read that Bailey was claiming in the chron the other week he had never played defensive midfield before (or summert). So next question how hard is that for a player to do that? Depends on the player.
Next why isn't Lita bagging em in a guy with an excellent reputation of doing same for other clubs? Could be loads of reasons, he has always been a box man but it could well be anything personal or just cant be arsed! Btw not picking on players here just highlighting a few areas. The biggest confusion I have is Jennings, ask any decent scout and they will tell you playing wise he is a championship player + and has many attributes but something aint quite right with him, wish I knew what coz I think he is and should be the best player in this division

 

The transfers they looked at were all after the player had left the club to try to cut down statistical anomalies like a good player suffering from injury or a long term loss of form.

 

Here's some geek stuff I posted a bit back it explains it a bit better.

 

You are still dealing with humans where soft factors come into play..,