S
Sir Calumn
Guest
13/10/12 :: On the Essentiality of Signing Winners
The past decade has seen professional football change perhaps more rapidly than any other, and one of the greatest driving forces behind that change has been the exponential growth of the amount of money in the world game. Whilst the spending antics of the likes of Brian Clough were regarded in their time as extravagant, and whilst the 90s saw their share of eye-watering transfer fees and rock-star salaries, the rise of the billionaire clubs backed by super rich owners, the sugar-daddies if you like, really is a 21st century phenomenon. The fans of those clubs lucky enough to be swimming in American, Russian or Middle Eastern money rub their hands with glee as their clubs improve leaps and bounds without the annoying handicap of having to win their way to the top, and the fans of those clubs either left in the dust or seeing fresh competition for the first time in their memories bitterly complain about clubs "buying the title". Yet that phrase is not strictly true. On examination, the on-pitch fortunes of these nouveau riche clubs are not always consistent, not always predictable. Sometimes their money does indeed buy them a title, other times they come up short-changed.
The two clubs currently most synonymous with this 21st century fast-track to financial Elysium are of course Chelsea and Manchester City. The likes of Malaga, PSG, Anzhi and Zenit have now joined them on this increasingly crowded podium, and doubtless others will follow, but at present these two old English clubs represent the summit of fat wallet football. Both teams are in the English Premier League, both have received similar levels of sudden investment and spend similarly lavishly each and every year. Yet the results of this spending cannot be said to be identical. Chelsea, in their first year of high spending, before the fans had even come to terms with the surroundings this new high dollar country club to which they had become overnight members, finished Premier League runners up and Champions League semi-finalists. This was followed by two phenomenal title wins and two more trips deep into the Champions League knockout stages. The return on the huge investment was swift and significant. Manchester City, in contrast, cannot be said to have come anywhere close to reaping the full fruit of their billion dollar overhaul. It took four years for the millions to "buy" the first title, and this was won in the weakest field for a decade and circumstances which were in the least fortuitous. They are yet to play a single Champions League knock-out game, and after the first few games of this season they once again look very shakey in Europe and far from dominant in the league.
There are of course many reasons which can be pointed to in trying to explain this disparity in fortunes. Chelsea consistently finished far higher in the league than City before their billionaire, though of course the impact of this should be minimal when you are talking about an entire change of on and off pitch personnel. City may have appointed a very good manager in Roberto Mancini, but Chelsea appointed a genius in Mourinho. City's owners may be wealthier, but Abramovich is clearly more of a football fan. However, in this article I want to bring forward another explanation which I have not much heard yet consider to be perhaps the most significant, one which could be very educational from the next generation of super rich clubs who four years down the line would much rather have a trophy cabinet resembling the one down south. That reason is the importance of signing proven winners.
That some excellent talent was signed by both the dark and the light blues is undeniable, as is the fact that some real value was acquired and also some real rip-offs. For Chelsea, the likes of Lampard, Drogba, Essien, Makelele and Arjen Robben lit up the premier league, for Manchester City the likes of Silva, Aguero, Tevez, Yaya Toure and Vincent Kompany can easily be said to rank among the worlds best. However, there are two types of players for which big money is spent - those who command a premium price for what they have achieved, and those who command it for what they might achieve.
With some players, you can see very early on that they are destined for greatness. To own such players is the most burning desire of any club, to keep them away from their rivals, to benefit from their abilities for the next ten years. Long before anyone had even considered the possibility of Russian Oligarchs and Arab Oil Men crash diving into European Football, Manchester United had no qualms at all over shelling out £30m for a spud-faced 18 year old without a single trophy to his name. It turned out to be a great investment. Manchester City have almost exlusively bought such players. They have not always bought so young, of course, but they have focused entirely on the players with their winning years ahead of them. David Silva may have been an established star, Valencia may have been a great club, but they were not a trophy winning club. Vincent Kompany is solid as a rock, but he did not learn much about winning trophies at Anderlecht and Hamburg. Samir Nasri has been a top player for a while, but has been extensively documented his time as a Gunner was completely devoid of silverware. Aguero was on everyones radar for a long time, whilst his club struggled for Champions League qualification. Kolo Toure's year as an "invincible" was a long, long time ago, Dzeko was hardly a champion at Wolfsburg, Balotelli spent the majority of Inter's treble on the bench, Barry, Milner and Lescott were big fish in small, mid-table ponds. Mancini had a whole squad to build, ten years ahead to plan for, he wanted the stars of the future and the perennial nearly men. Of all the teams Manchester City have put out, only Yaya Toure and Carlos Tevez have played regularly in title winning sides, and since joining City, Carlos has spent more time chasing stardom on the golf course than on the pitch.
When Wayne Rooney joined Manchester United, he was surrounded by proven winners. He saw what a winner looked like, how they talked, more importantly how they played. It rubbed off on him. Potential stars become actual stars so much quicker when they are surrounded by other actual stars. It is the balance between proven quality and exciting potential which has continually taken clubs to the top and kept them there. Of course, history is littered with examples of teams of unproven talent taking big trophies, for example the Porto Champions League winners, but these teams grew up together, developed together, proved themselves together. They were assembled organically over time, not suddenly over an Arab business lunch.
When Chelsea signed Claude Makelele, he had a a hatful of medals won in galactico white. Drogba, Crespo, Essien, Carvalho, Ferreira and Robben all arrived with domestic and continental honours. All knew exactly what it was like to get over that finish line, because all had done it before. The likes of Ballack and Deco were later added. Chelsea had a core of proven winners, they came out of the blocks fast as all teams of newly bought world class talent do, but they KEPT their foot on the gas, they didnt falter, each and every one of them did it when it mattered.
This is to my mind the biggest lesson which Manchester City failed to learn when, as they undoubtably must have done, they looked at Chelsea and plotted a similar ascension. Watching Manchester City, they look like a club who are superb at winning games do not know how to win trophies, to get most of the results they need, but not all of them. When they finally did take a league title, much later than the the fans had a right to expect considering the money which was spent, they not so much roared over the finish line as fell over backwards. Notably, the only man who did not choke in some way was the only proven winner, Mr Toure. Admittedly, they have faced two very diffcult champions league groups, but a team of that calibre, with that level of investment, should be able to hold its own against the best in Europe. Man for man, of course, they can. But they have choked. Every time. Now that they are a team of winners, now they do all know what it feels like to win a major trophy having stumbled to that title last season, they should have got over their indecisiveness bourne of inexperience. But what as Roberto Mancini done? He has diluted the squad again with a whole new raft of "potential talent" in Garcia, Nastasic, Sinclair and Rodwell. The one winner he has signed, Maicon, looks unlikely to feature. His team finally knows how to win and some weeks more than half of it will once again be green.
If Manchester City really want their massive array of potential talent to become the world class players they could so easily be, to take that club over the finish line time and time again and create a footballing dynasty which should be the minimum expectation of such a huge amout of investment, they are going to need some proven players with nerves of steel to show the boys how to get there, to prop the side up through the tough times, to make sure that no matter how far ahead they get, they remain that far ahead right up until the fat lady is singing. The next generation of billionaire clubs need also take note - as alluring as the dynamic 21 year olds, the "next big things" all look, these players if all plucked out of their natural environments and thown together blind are not going to get to the top by themselves. Footballers never have. The old and experienced, the winners, have always held the hands and brought through the next generations of stars in football. Roberto Mancini needs to be reminded of that fact.
The past decade has seen professional football change perhaps more rapidly than any other, and one of the greatest driving forces behind that change has been the exponential growth of the amount of money in the world game. Whilst the spending antics of the likes of Brian Clough were regarded in their time as extravagant, and whilst the 90s saw their share of eye-watering transfer fees and rock-star salaries, the rise of the billionaire clubs backed by super rich owners, the sugar-daddies if you like, really is a 21st century phenomenon. The fans of those clubs lucky enough to be swimming in American, Russian or Middle Eastern money rub their hands with glee as their clubs improve leaps and bounds without the annoying handicap of having to win their way to the top, and the fans of those clubs either left in the dust or seeing fresh competition for the first time in their memories bitterly complain about clubs "buying the title". Yet that phrase is not strictly true. On examination, the on-pitch fortunes of these nouveau riche clubs are not always consistent, not always predictable. Sometimes their money does indeed buy them a title, other times they come up short-changed.
The two clubs currently most synonymous with this 21st century fast-track to financial Elysium are of course Chelsea and Manchester City. The likes of Malaga, PSG, Anzhi and Zenit have now joined them on this increasingly crowded podium, and doubtless others will follow, but at present these two old English clubs represent the summit of fat wallet football. Both teams are in the English Premier League, both have received similar levels of sudden investment and spend similarly lavishly each and every year. Yet the results of this spending cannot be said to be identical. Chelsea, in their first year of high spending, before the fans had even come to terms with the surroundings this new high dollar country club to which they had become overnight members, finished Premier League runners up and Champions League semi-finalists. This was followed by two phenomenal title wins and two more trips deep into the Champions League knockout stages. The return on the huge investment was swift and significant. Manchester City, in contrast, cannot be said to have come anywhere close to reaping the full fruit of their billion dollar overhaul. It took four years for the millions to "buy" the first title, and this was won in the weakest field for a decade and circumstances which were in the least fortuitous. They are yet to play a single Champions League knock-out game, and after the first few games of this season they once again look very shakey in Europe and far from dominant in the league.
There are of course many reasons which can be pointed to in trying to explain this disparity in fortunes. Chelsea consistently finished far higher in the league than City before their billionaire, though of course the impact of this should be minimal when you are talking about an entire change of on and off pitch personnel. City may have appointed a very good manager in Roberto Mancini, but Chelsea appointed a genius in Mourinho. City's owners may be wealthier, but Abramovich is clearly more of a football fan. However, in this article I want to bring forward another explanation which I have not much heard yet consider to be perhaps the most significant, one which could be very educational from the next generation of super rich clubs who four years down the line would much rather have a trophy cabinet resembling the one down south. That reason is the importance of signing proven winners.
That some excellent talent was signed by both the dark and the light blues is undeniable, as is the fact that some real value was acquired and also some real rip-offs. For Chelsea, the likes of Lampard, Drogba, Essien, Makelele and Arjen Robben lit up the premier league, for Manchester City the likes of Silva, Aguero, Tevez, Yaya Toure and Vincent Kompany can easily be said to rank among the worlds best. However, there are two types of players for which big money is spent - those who command a premium price for what they have achieved, and those who command it for what they might achieve.
With some players, you can see very early on that they are destined for greatness. To own such players is the most burning desire of any club, to keep them away from their rivals, to benefit from their abilities for the next ten years. Long before anyone had even considered the possibility of Russian Oligarchs and Arab Oil Men crash diving into European Football, Manchester United had no qualms at all over shelling out £30m for a spud-faced 18 year old without a single trophy to his name. It turned out to be a great investment. Manchester City have almost exlusively bought such players. They have not always bought so young, of course, but they have focused entirely on the players with their winning years ahead of them. David Silva may have been an established star, Valencia may have been a great club, but they were not a trophy winning club. Vincent Kompany is solid as a rock, but he did not learn much about winning trophies at Anderlecht and Hamburg. Samir Nasri has been a top player for a while, but has been extensively documented his time as a Gunner was completely devoid of silverware. Aguero was on everyones radar for a long time, whilst his club struggled for Champions League qualification. Kolo Toure's year as an "invincible" was a long, long time ago, Dzeko was hardly a champion at Wolfsburg, Balotelli spent the majority of Inter's treble on the bench, Barry, Milner and Lescott were big fish in small, mid-table ponds. Mancini had a whole squad to build, ten years ahead to plan for, he wanted the stars of the future and the perennial nearly men. Of all the teams Manchester City have put out, only Yaya Toure and Carlos Tevez have played regularly in title winning sides, and since joining City, Carlos has spent more time chasing stardom on the golf course than on the pitch.
When Wayne Rooney joined Manchester United, he was surrounded by proven winners. He saw what a winner looked like, how they talked, more importantly how they played. It rubbed off on him. Potential stars become actual stars so much quicker when they are surrounded by other actual stars. It is the balance between proven quality and exciting potential which has continually taken clubs to the top and kept them there. Of course, history is littered with examples of teams of unproven talent taking big trophies, for example the Porto Champions League winners, but these teams grew up together, developed together, proved themselves together. They were assembled organically over time, not suddenly over an Arab business lunch.
When Chelsea signed Claude Makelele, he had a a hatful of medals won in galactico white. Drogba, Crespo, Essien, Carvalho, Ferreira and Robben all arrived with domestic and continental honours. All knew exactly what it was like to get over that finish line, because all had done it before. The likes of Ballack and Deco were later added. Chelsea had a core of proven winners, they came out of the blocks fast as all teams of newly bought world class talent do, but they KEPT their foot on the gas, they didnt falter, each and every one of them did it when it mattered.
This is to my mind the biggest lesson which Manchester City failed to learn when, as they undoubtably must have done, they looked at Chelsea and plotted a similar ascension. Watching Manchester City, they look like a club who are superb at winning games do not know how to win trophies, to get most of the results they need, but not all of them. When they finally did take a league title, much later than the the fans had a right to expect considering the money which was spent, they not so much roared over the finish line as fell over backwards. Notably, the only man who did not choke in some way was the only proven winner, Mr Toure. Admittedly, they have faced two very diffcult champions league groups, but a team of that calibre, with that level of investment, should be able to hold its own against the best in Europe. Man for man, of course, they can. But they have choked. Every time. Now that they are a team of winners, now they do all know what it feels like to win a major trophy having stumbled to that title last season, they should have got over their indecisiveness bourne of inexperience. But what as Roberto Mancini done? He has diluted the squad again with a whole new raft of "potential talent" in Garcia, Nastasic, Sinclair and Rodwell. The one winner he has signed, Maicon, looks unlikely to feature. His team finally knows how to win and some weeks more than half of it will once again be green.
If Manchester City really want their massive array of potential talent to become the world class players they could so easily be, to take that club over the finish line time and time again and create a footballing dynasty which should be the minimum expectation of such a huge amout of investment, they are going to need some proven players with nerves of steel to show the boys how to get there, to prop the side up through the tough times, to make sure that no matter how far ahead they get, they remain that far ahead right up until the fat lady is singing. The next generation of billionaire clubs need also take note - as alluring as the dynamic 21 year olds, the "next big things" all look, these players if all plucked out of their natural environments and thown together blind are not going to get to the top by themselves. Footballers never have. The old and experienced, the winners, have always held the hands and brought through the next generations of stars in football. Roberto Mancini needs to be reminded of that fact.
