Player prices
mili...@gmail.com
higher than defensive players' ones? E.g. the 10 highest transfer fees
according to Wikipedia are for 4 strikers (Crespo, Vieri, Schevchenko,
Ronaldo) and 2 offensive midfielders (Zidane, Figo); there are only 2
midfielder (Mendieta, Veron) and 1 defender (Rio Ferdinand) (there is
also 1 goalkeeper, Buffon).
An answer I have in mind could start noting that, in a standard
football formation of the last 40 years, there are only 2 strikers
against 4 defenders. So, in some sense, a striker's value is double.
But this answer is not acceptable, if we don't know why we have 2
against 4. Maybe the cause is the fact that strikers need only some
space to move to the goal, while the defenders must control all the
space, to leave not room for strikers? (If so, does this explain the
striker's higher fees?)
encor...@yahoo.com
mili...@gmail.com wrote:
> A simple question: why attacking players' transfer fees are generally
> higher than defensive players' ones? E.g. the 10 highest transfer fees
> according to Wikipedia are for 4 strikers (Crespo, Vieri, Schevchenko,
> Ronaldo) and 2 offensive midfielders (Zidane, Figo); there are only 2
> midfielder (Mendieta,
now theres a name that could win all sorts of competitions
of the nature "whatever happened to XXX after he left YYY for ZZZ )
> Veron) and 1 defender (Rio Ferdinand) (there is
> also 1 goalkeeper, Buffon).
>
> An answer I have in mind could start noting that, in a standard
> football formation of the last 40 years, there are only 2 strikers
> against 4 defenders. So, in some sense, a striker's value is double.
Afaik, its because goals win games, so strikers have always
been the most sought after players. Demand and supply, thats all.
Whether its right or wrong is irrelevant, its a market phenomenon.
After all, no football player should be worth more than a mil a year.
mili...@gmail.com
> > (Mendieta,
> now theres a name that could win all sorts of competitions
> of the nature "whatever happened to XXX after he left YYY for ZZZ )
Where ZZZ is anything that is not XXX... ;)
> Afaik, its because goals win games, so strikers have always
> been the most sought after players. Demand and supply, thats all.
> Whether its right or wrong is irrelevant, its a market phenomenon.
Maybe I don't fully understand your answer: do you mean that fans
prefer strikers?
In every case: assume that every position has top players of the same
strength. If a club buys the 7 top defenders and midfielders instead of
using the same money for the 3 top attacking players, it would win
against all other teams (and attract fans!). So, this would be a
winning strategy, and other clubs would follow it. But the real
situation is not this: why?
mili...@gmail.com
> Where ZZZ is anything that is not XXX... ;)
(Obviously) replace "XXX" with "YYY"...
Victoria Barrett
Precisely. It's so evident, as to be moot.
> so strikers have always
>> been the most sought after players. Demand and supply, thats all.
>> Whether its right or wrong is irrelevant, its a market phenomenon.
>
>Maybe I don't fully understand your answer: do you mean that fans
>prefer strikers?
I think so. Certainly most of the best players named by most fans, in
a top 10 type of list, will always be attacking players.
Pele, Maradona, Cruyff.
The list is endless.
There have been some ABSOLUTELY stellar defenders, like Nilton Santos,
Bobby Moore, and Franco Baresi, but mostly, the strikers get the glory
-- the defenders get a pat on the back.
mili...@gmail.com
> Precisely. It's so evident, as to be moot.
And goals conceded lose games, and without game construction you can't
score goals...
> > Maybe I don't fully understand your answer: do you mean that fans
> > prefer strikers?
> I think so. Certainly most of the best players named by most fans, in
> a top 10 type of list, will always be attacking players.
So you (encore22000 and Victoria Barrett) are saying that football
clubs make choices more to obtain more fans than to win? Yes, I know at
least one club doing so (Real Madrid 2000-2006...), but...
...Well, it's possibile. We can say that club managers want to (a) win
and (b) please fans (winning pleases fans, but winning with more goals
pleases more). To obtain a, they should pay all the players the same.
To obtain b, they should pay attacking players more than defensive
ones; but they can't buy only strikers, because they would not obtain
a.
So, strikers and offensive midfielders are not more important for a
team's play?
Post scriptum: according to the data from
http://www.footballtransfers.net/transfers/historical.html
It has always been so: the highest fee in every moment of football
history always was for "strikers", "forwards", "attacking midfielders"
or "wingers" (offensive ones: Lentini and Figo).
And: I had never noticed that the "highest fee in the history award"
remained in Italy from 1952 to 1996 (the only exceptions being Cruyff
and Maradona to Barcelona). I knew that almost all world top players
played in Italy in the decade 1982-1992, but I didn't think Italian
clubs paid so much money before.
--
milivella
bringing you a funny Serie A Fantasy Soccer tournament:
http://fantadomenica.altervista.org
Mike Hall
>A simple question: why attacking players' transfer fees are generally
> higher than defensive players' ones? E.g. the 10 highest transfer fees
> according to Wikipedia are for 4 strikers (Crespo, Vieri, Schevchenko,
> Ronaldo) and 2 offensive midfielders (Zidane, Figo); there are only 2
> midfielder (Mendieta, Veron) and 1 defender (Rio Ferdinand) (there is
> also 1 goalkeeper, Buffon).
1. Many defenders are individually unskilled players in comparison to
midfielders and attackers.
2. Most goalkeepers have pretty diabolical skills, although I've noticed
that the quality has improved over the last few years.
3. Attacking flair is more fan-pleasing than defensive flair. Since most
chairmen are fans this drives up attacking players' prices.
Mike Hall
wany...@gmail.com
mili...@gmail.com wrote:
> So, strikers and offensive midfielders are not more important for a
> team's play?
You're making the wrong argument.
When you buy a player your buying a "name" as much as just the player.
You'll notice the disparity in prices is only at the higher levels
really. If you go down in price to the single digits, then defenders
and DMs are not really that cheaper than the strikers at the same
level.
Your buying a name, advertising, image for your club, increased gate
receipts, buzz, exposure on TV highlights, psychologial edge, etc etc.
For the most part, defenders won't give you that, attacking midfielders
and strikers will.
Not that big of a deal IMO.
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong when it comes to wages, there isn't
much of a difference.
pb4u...@yahoo.com
> In every case: assume that every position has top players of the same
> strength. If a club buys the 7 top defenders and midfielders instead of
> using the same money for the 3 top attacking players, it would win
> against all other teams (and attract fans!). So, this would be a
> winning strategy, and other clubs would follow it. But the real
> situation is not this: why?
I think it's important to remember that attacking and defending are not
symmetric ...
-- When you're attacking, *you* control the path of the ball, which
means that you have primary control over which players are most
involved. As a result, either you provide your star attacker a lot of
touches, or else your opponent keys on him and leaves you openings
elsewhere. In either case, your star attacker has a big influence.
-- By contrast, when you're defending, your opponent controls the path
of the ball, and your opponent will prefer to attack your weakest area,
not your strongest. As a result, a defensive star has less influence,
except perhaps a goalkeeper.
There are plenty of other factors involved, marketing (as others have
mentioned), as well as the special nature of high transfer fees.
Generally, they're paid by powerful teams who do a lot attacking than
defending. As a result, offense is more important to those teams. All
the same, I think it's clear that star attackers are very valuable.
Last year, Arsenal were a vastly weaker team while Henry was out ...
and for a historical reference point, see Maradona at Napoli.
P
mili...@gmail.com
> Many defenders are individually unskilled
Why? Maybe you don't need much skill to play in defense?
> Attacking flair is more fan-pleasing
So you're accepting both the theories exposed until now: the higher fee
of strikers is caused bith by skill and fan-pleasing.
--
To wanyikuli:
> the disparity in prices is only at the higher levels
I don't really know. And to find data about "little" clubs is somehow
difficult. Does someone have useful informations?
> Your buying a name
Interesting. But how do you explain that (top) strikers were paid more
than other players in the early football years, when the marketing
aspect was very low?
> when it comes to wages, there isn't much of a difference.
...I think that, if you're still talking og top players, you're wrong.
The best paid players are always Beckham, Zidane, Ronaldo,
Ronalidnho... See
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/03/28/cz_06soccer_highestpaidslide.html
--
A practical aspect: do you think is better a fantasy soccer where you
should pay more attacking players (i.e. these players gain more
points), or a game where all positions have the same weight?
wany...@gmail.com
mili...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Many defenders are individually unskilled
>
> Why? Maybe you don't need much skill to play in defense?
O dosagree with defenders being individually unskilled.
Interesting thing is at college, during soccer PE class, i'ts a mixure
of different skill levels. We self select our teams. The best players
(i.e. those that play extra-curriculur or on the team) would always put
themselves in defense. They'd let the scrubs play on the wing, or as
strikers.
>From a classic Steve d, match report:
"A tackle? Yes a tackle. A thing of beauty. A wondrous athletic,
balletic feat.
Our Swiss rock found himself 2 yards behind Marlet after a Saha flick
on.
Marlet lifted his foot back, cocked the trigger and prepared to fire
home.
Henchoz launched himself horizontally through the air, hyper-extended
his leg,
stretched his toe, grew his toenail, and curled it around Marlet to
nick the
ball away. Marlet shot and hit thin air. An absolutely brilliant tackle
and the
highlight of a faultless display by Stephane. "
> > Attacking flair is more fan-pleasing
>
> So you're accepting both the theories exposed until now: the higher fee
> of strikers is caused bith by skill and fan-pleasing.
Yes, fan pleasing adds to their prize.
Nothing wrong with it, it makes perfect economic sense.
If most people get more pleasure and memories to remember from
watching Ronaldinho than they do Gallas, why shouldn't Ronaldinho be
more expensive?
Victoria Barrett
>O dosagree with defenders being individually unskilled.
>
>Interesting thing is at college, during soccer PE class, i'ts a mixure
>of different skill levels. We self select our teams. The best players
>(i.e. those that play extra-curriculur or on the team) would always put
>themselves in defense. They'd let the scrubs play on the wing, or as
>strikers.
That is generally the case with non-professionals.
As an example, Renato plays defence in his Sunday league in Toronto.
He is a very skilled player, whose natural position is attacking mid.
But where do they put him, because he's skilled? As CB.
>Nothing wrong with it, it makes perfect economic sense.
>
>If most people get more pleasure and memories to remember from
>watching Ronaldinho than they do Gallas, why shouldn't Ronaldinho be
>more expensive?
Yes.
Let me say that a good piece of defending is a joy to watch, and there
are many people who are fans of the game, who look out for defenders.
They track them with their eyes during a match, and see which one
strips the ball from a player, with such effortless grace, as to be
undazzling.
But fans like action, and action is almost by default, attack.
Victoria Barrett
>So you (encore22000 and Victoria Barrett) are saying that football
>clubs make choices more to obtain more fans than to win? Yes, I know at
>least one club doing so (Real Madrid 2000-2006...), but...
But this argument at heart is a bit silly, don't you think,
millivella?
There is no club that will sacrifice talent all the time, over
popularity -- even Real Madrid.
My words were in reply to your specific question about fans -- not
about clubs. The two are not always synonymous.
Basically, I said that forwards/attacking players are what fans want,
and they are the ones who win games.
The inference is there that clubs will pay more for those players,
because their whole job is to win games, rather than defenders who try
to keep the score down -- but at best, without goals, they can only
manage draws.
OF COURSE attackers are worth more.
Not for the wow factor, but because of productivity.
mili...@gmail.com
Original question: why attacking players's transfer fee are higher?
Answers:
a. Asymmetry between attack and defense: a star defender may not be
fundamental (P).
m. Marketing: attacking players are more loved by fans (encore2200,
Victoria Barrett, wanyikuli, Mike Hall, P); and club managers - who
often (Mike Hall), but not ever (Victoria Barrett), are fans themselves
- must "sell their product" to fans.
p. Productivity: an attacker can win a match, a defender can only draw
(Victoria Barrett).
s. Skill: attacking players are more skilled (Mike Hall; wanyikuli and
Victoria Barrett disagree).
z. The question is not entirely correct: it's valid only for the
highest levels (wanyikuli, P).
--
IMHO:
a is clever (and you can add p to it).
m is "sad but true".
s is maybe a bad perception based on a.
z is doubt, I'd like to see some data.
Mike Hall
> Maybe we can make the point.
>
> Original question: why attacking players's transfer fee are higher?
>
> Answers:
>
> a. Asymmetry between attack and defense: a star defender may not be
> fundamental (P).
A star defender (especially full-backs) can be avoided, a star attacker can
be man-marked. This balances out.
> m. Marketing: attacking players are more loved by fans (encore2200,
> Victoria Barrett, wanyikuli, Mike Hall, P); and club managers - who
> often (Mike Hall), but not ever (Victoria Barrett), are fans themselves
> - must "sell their product" to fans.
I said club chairmen, not club managers (trainers). All managers hate
football. They'd rather play golf.
> p. Productivity: an attacker can win a match, a defender can only draw
> (Victoria Barrett).
A defender with attacking flair and win matches and a striker who doesn't
give the ball away easily can draw matches.
> s. Skill: attacking players are more skilled (Mike Hall; wanyikuli and
> Victoria Barrett disagree).
You misquoted me again:
I said "Many defenders are individually unskilled players in comparison to
midfielders and attackers."
A central defender who can't pass, head, or tackle can be effective simply
by walking forward with the rest of the defence and raising his hand every
so often for offside decisions. No attacking player can get away with
simply relying on the system. The defender who can head, tackle and pass,
plus work with the team system is called a superstar, especially if he has
pace. This is not true in the case of defensive midfielders as Real Madrid
notoriously found out to their cost.
Mike Hall
mili...@gmail.com
> > m. Marketing: attacking players are more loved by fans (encore2200,
> > Victoria Barrett, wanyikuli, Mike Hall, P); and club managers - who
> > often (Mike Hall), but not ever (Victoria Barrett), are fans themselves
> > - must "sell their product" to fans.
> I said club chairmen, not club managers (trainers).
Excuse me for my ignorance of the right terms. I mean chairmen too.
> All managers hate
> football. They'd rather play golf.
:)
> > s. Skill: attacking players are more skilled (Mike Hall
> You misquoted me again:
Excuse me again. I only wanted to resume your assertion:
Victoria Barrett
>Excuse me again. I only wanted to resume your assertion:
Nevertheless, your premise was fun in the end. And I really liked your
conclusions, which bordered on the epistemological.
Thanks, millivella.
Bob
As already mentioned attacking play is valued more for the spectacle of it
but football has in fact become very defensive especially at the top level
of the game (as can be seen by the formations routinely used nowadays). Thus
not only are defenses for the top teams absolutely formidable, but they
often play with most players behind the ball. Great forwards capable of
being successful in such adverse conditions are very few and come at a
premium.
mili...@gmail.com
> football has in fact become very defensive
> being successful in such adverse conditions are very few and come at a
> premium.
Another interesting theory, but, just like the marketing one, it seems
to me that it doesn't explain why forwards were paid most in the first
years of soccer, when the game was not defensive.
The only answer I have in mind is: before 19xx, football was attacking,
so forwards were more important; after 19xx, football became defensive,
so forwards play a difficult role, so they are important. But it
doesn't sound good, does it?