Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 154 comments are related to the topic:
Why does the market constantly underestimate Spurs?
Why does the market constantly underestimate Spurs?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 154
|
By:
To me a great team in modern football will have 5 great players that will always start of the game matters and then about 15 others that will be much of a muchness and rotate. They will have 0 squad players that can perform to the level of their best 5 and so if 2 or 3 get injured they will be fkd
|
|
By:
Bernardo Silva didn't start much last year, Pep has talked him up a lot this summer, so maybe he will be more of a starter anyway this year and see David Silva's minutes start to be reduced. Obviously De Bruyne can't be replaced to equal level, but it's who you've got coming in.
On Barce, squad is a little deeper than Real Madrid's was, no keys injuries helps. It's hard to totally say as it seems manager dependent as some would see Barce XI as stronger than Madrid's anyway, Barce were flattered quite a bit last year, bailed out a lot by Messi and didn't look that great quite a lot. |
|
By:
Last season Barca had Andre Gomes as one of the first squad options. If they had been bringing in, say, Harry Winks, would they have been any worse off ?
|
|
By:
Andre Gomes one of the worst players to put on a Barcelona shirt in about the last 10 years so no. He was hardly a first squad option though, especially after Coutinho come in Jan.
|
|
By:
Gomes had a great couple of seasons at Valencia and had plenty of offers before joining Barcelona. Was never really a Barcelona type player imho even though Enrique played him pretty much every match when he first joined. Not quick enough and/or attacking enough for Barcelona imo so I was quite surprised when they signed him as a potential Xavi/Iniesta replacement. I still think he's a talented player but he's going to need to get his confidence back somewhere because I think that's been shot to bits during his time at Barca.
|
|
By:
Quite an interesting thread, and having read all of it I'm inclined to agree with dragon - the market doesn't underestimate Spurs, it has them exactly right.
There is a reason Spurs are the price they are compared to Liverpool, and that reason is simple - Spurs historically hardly win anything, and Liverpool win a lot. The culture at the two clubs is vastly different, and must by definition take a while to change. That culture is forged in a century or more, and it creates a different mindset among everyone connected with both clubs - players, officials, and fans. It means that every year Liverpool, despite their recent lack of League success, are expected by their fans to compete for trophies and titles, while Spurs fans are delighted to see the progress that has been made and the football the team is producing without necessarily getting too uptight about silverware. And this is two teams who broadly are at the same level. |
|
By:
All of those points are valid Jed, but Liverpool haven't won the league for nearly 30 years either. They simply cannot be three times more likely to win it than Spurs and four times more likely to win it than a team that won it a little more than 15 months ago and if anything, have a better team now than then.
|
|
By:
Odds and value often spark a great debate
|
|
By:
seems a very tenuous reason to hark back to decades which have very little relevance to the current situation. spurs may not have won anything yet but anyone can see they're a very different club to the mediocrity of the 90s and early 2000s
could have said the same about chelsea and city. they went 25 and 35 years respectively without winning anything before their recent periods of success. sure unlimited money was a huge factor in getting them over the line |
|
By:
Yes, Spurs spent a billion on bricks and mortar and City spent it on players.
|
|
By:
tobermory 28 Aug 18 22:47
Barcelona's squad players are just as bad. None of them would get in the Arsenal team imo change that crack dealer of urs..tobes..no way they can be that bad  |
|
By:
one other point i'd add about spurs being underrated is there are no really prominent pro spurs pundits in the media. jermain jenas is about the only one i can think of who bigs up spurs. the agenda is dominated by former players of arsenal, liverpool and united. they just toe the party line about no signings without looking at the bigger picture or offering an alternative view
there's never any hype about spurs whereas liverpool are constantly talked up often way beyond their capabilities |
|
By:
jed has it ..... no one has yet answered why the bookies - all of them ( the professional odds setters) have Spurs at the price they are . the answer is simple .. they dont believe based on their assessments that spurs can win the prem , they have come to this view based on informed decsion making and years of practice at setting the odds. they are not normally that far out.
dont forget , spurs have a massive defecit to make up on city, spurs have the same team/squad city have strengtheed.. i rest my case m'lord  |
|
By:
shopuld have added liverpool have strengthend also and they were roughly equal last year
|
|
By:
this is aboiut winning .. not improving or being a good team or finishing in the top 4. the price is for winning the prem - thats why they are so big
|
|
By:
no one else is winning the league if city are anywhere close to the levels of last season. clearly it's highly unlikely get close to 100 points again however well they play but the others need them to drop back to below 90 to have a chance. don't think anyone else capable of better than late 80s even if things go their way
|
|
By:
yes thats the? factor - whatwill citeh be like this year?
|
|
By:
Carragher never stops bugging up Spurs tbf mafe. He’s been consistent all season saying he thinks they are every bit as good as Liverpool.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
nothing to do with liverppols price the thread is about the bookies underestimating spurs not overestimating liverpool.
spurs are the price they are coz thats the chance of them winning the title they are not underestimated in my view |
|
By:
12/1 on here its a fair price imvho
|
|
By:
SKing
Not sure if it'll have much of a negative effect. Played all home games last season at Wembley and still managed to finish 3rd and the new stadium is far better suited to Spurs' needs than Wembley was. Didnt spurs play at white heart lane and at Wenbley in the CL games....so they had time to adjust...A luxury they havent got this time round....Anyways there's always a liverpool bias in these types of markets. |
|
By:
nothing to do with liverppols price the thread is about the bookies underestimating spurs not overestimating liverpool.
The main reason I started the thread, was comparing Spurs price to Liverpool's. |
|
By:
trust me players, coaches and fans cannot wait to leave to wembley. it's not like any normal club moving into a new ground. we've already left our revered former ground. we're playing in soulless dump at the moment. the new ground can only give a massive lift to everyone
|
|
By:
Just as long as you haven't got that cr@ppy high angle tv camera shot that you had back in the day at the lane
|
|
By:
For reasons Jed explains earlier, if LFC won the title this year it would not be considered a surprise.
For Spurs to do it would. There's no real logic to that on the pitch but the perceptions of the 2 clubs are so different therefore the prices reflect that. Things could change quite quickly though. The pundits are admitting that if Spurs can regularly win away at the other top 6 clubs, the tide will have turned. |
|
By:
injera, as you say there's no real logic to it. twice in the past 3 seasons spurs have been within 4 or 5 points of the leaders with a handful of games to go and got 86 points 2 years ago which would nearly always have you in the frame. liverpool have been nowhere close yet with these players anyway
it really shouldn't be seen as a massive surprise if they managed to push on and find those extra 2 or 3 results that might make the difference |
|
By:
Spurs points tally for the last 9 seasons :
77, 86, 70, 64, 69, 72, 69, 62, 70 Winners points tally : 100, 93, 81, 87, 86, 89, 89, 80, 86 |
|
By:
In horse racing form (I know it's not the same) but Spurs hammered a champion side on their home course.
Of course it's all about the SP before a ball was kicked, therefore the odds such as they are are reflective. Liverpool circa SP 5s are now 3s. Spurs circa 11 from 20-1, Man City and the Chavs(completely unbacked) are roughly where they started whereas, obviously Arsenil and Manure have gone for a ball of chalk. Huge disparity from the Scousers to Spurs but then that is how it all began. |
|
By:
could easily argue liverpool have beaten absolutely nobody. west ham a complete shambles, palace and brighton away from home have hardly got a goal in them between the 2 of them
as for spurs only the last 2 seasons tallies are really relevant. the other 7 might as well be 70 years ago so little bearing do they have on the current spurs side |
|
By:
Palace away is a very tough fixture imo. Probably the hardest outside of the top six for me.
|
|
By:
my total arguement on this thread realates to the statement " why do the markets constantly underestimate Spurs" and the answere is that they dont for the reasons outlined
the rest of the stuff is interesting but nothing to do with why spurs are priced like they are stick to the point of the thread guys eg Liverpools price has nothing to do with it!!!!!! |
|
By:
great thread by the way and love the differnce and justification for the reasons taht are expressed!!
|
|
By:
oh and by the way liverpool will win it this year
|
|
By:
Dragon. Er, with all due respect, I started the thread. The title isn't the whole story... the opening post was discussing the disparity of the Spurs and Liverpool prices as being wrong.
Liverpool have everything to do with it. |
|
By:
Football form is not collateral there’s too many variables however you can find teams that you think will be harder to beat than the odds suggest
|
|
By:
Dragon-I have a job understanding your pre spell checker musings anyway, but the last missive makes no sense at all.
mafe and I have tried to explain the difference, apparently it fell on deaf ears or English is your second language. |
|
By:
Liverpool finished a couple of points behind Spurs last season and have spent £164 million in the transfer window compared to Spurs spend of zip. Most people, and indeed the odds-compilers, would believe this to be enough to put them above Spurs this season, but not enough to put them above City.
|
|
By:
CCM, i'd have leicester easily the toughest outside the top 6 at the moment although you have the good fortune to play them without vardy. most of the rest of the mid table sides much of a muchness. how many others likely to get over 50 points ? 1 or 2 at most. they're all very average although on their day virtually anyone can be difficult to beat away from home
|
|
By:
mmmm spurs fans seem to have no reasonable objectiveness about spurs chances - but thats understandable i hope youve backed them coz if they win you will make a tidy profit
ccm - my posts relate to your opening statement not your views on the relative values of spurs and chelsea v liverpool so please take that into account in terms of the context of my posts. the dominance of city and the investment and improvement in liverpool( champion League finalists ) make spurs the price they are. By the way they (Spurs) also have had an easy start v **** poor utd,and relegation fodder newcastle and fulham lets see how they do v liverpool and city |
