Are Wingers moneyball?

[Rosco]

United today tied up a deal for Zaha, anyone who has seen him already knows he's a good player with a lot of potential.

As surprising as this might be to some Moneyball isn't about being cheap, it's about identifying what actually helps you win as opposed to what people think it takes to win. It's about removing bias and looking at cold hard facts. It's about evaluating the stats you use, to see if they correlate with winning - it's not about regurgitating meaningless numbers.

In England, when you look at the teams that have won the league for the past 15 years or so they almost always have top notch wingers. So I'm asking the question, do we need great wingers to win the league?

We've spent so long concentrating on our spine because traditionally that's what you do, yet we have never really come close to winning a league.

Fergie on the other hand has fielded consistently good teams despite having weak spines - uncertainty at goalkeeper, injury prone centre backs, centre midfield combos that leave a lot to be desired. But they've always got excellent wingers.

 

[Halmeister]

It's an interesting point, especially when you refer to Man Utd's spine. I think Man Utd's midfield is often discredited. They're a lot better than people say. I would also say that it doesn't just stop with wingers. The team that has the best forward line usually wins the league, afterall goals win you games.

 

[RedStar]

Way off point but its a credit to Ferguson going for guys like Zaha who will probably only come into their own after he has retired, most managers in his position would have been trying to sign big name ready made players for one last tilt at the champions league

 

[Hyena]

Nonsense.
They've always spent big money on players all over the pitch and especially their spine.
£30 million on Ferdinand
£28 million on Veron
£18 million on Carrick
£16 million on Hargreaves
£27 million on Rooney
£20 million on Anderson
£19 million on David F-ing De Gea

Almost all of Man Utd's most expensive players play in the spine.


Their wing-play is eye-catching because they've chosen to play the game in a certain way and train to play and win that way.

 

[Hyena]

One thing that they do do is get rid of their big names players when they have to, and move on with bigger shinier names.

They've gotten rid of some amazing players over the years but you won't see Man Utd fans pining over Ronaldo, Beckham, Keane, Van Nisteelrooy etc. let alone start silly rumours about they're still best friends with Steven Gerrard.

 

[Mors]

I think it's a bit too much of a simplistic view. Yes, ginsoak may have fielded decent wingers and won the league, but winning teams have also fielded decent strikers, defenders, goalkeepers etc, so is just down to having an ace left fullback etc?
Winning the league for the last 15 years has been all about fielding pretty much the best and most expensive players you can lay your hands on. A full team of great players will more often than not win the league or be there abouts.
Ginsoak on the other hand has also done the incredible - won the league with big groups of utterly fucking average players at times the old bastard.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

They don't pine over the players, as they continue to win, they would very much be pining if it hadn't worked out.

 

[Hyena]

They continue to win because at the very first sign that a player might want to go / be on the decline they've already got their eye on who they want next.
None of this loyalty crap for them.

 

[Markeh]

To be successful you need a team full of good players and I think what constitutes a good winger is largely made up of scoring and creating goals.

Wingers with goals and assists in them consistently are imo more rare. So I reckon they're as key to winning as a lot of other positions on the pitch but they make a big difference with top teams when top top wingers and hard to find and the margins are so fine

 

[Dreambeliever]

Na wingers are important to Utd but not the most important part.

 

[the_khl]

Wingmans are moneyball.

 

[hmmmmm1]

When arsenal were at their best under whinger, they used to have pires/ovemars/lungberg out wide

 

[mark1975]

United today tied up a deal for Zaha, anyone who has seen him already knows he's a good player with a lot of potential.

As surprising as this might be to some Moneyball isn't about being cheap, it's about identifying what actually helps you win as opposed to what people think it takes to win. It's about removing bias and looking at cold hard facts. It's about evaluating the stats you use, to see if they correlate with winning - it's not about regurgitating meaningless numbers.

In England, when you look at the teams that have won the league for the past 15 years or so they almost always have top notch wingers. So I'm asking the question, do we need great wingers to win the league?

We've spent so long concentrating on our spine because traditionally that's what you do, yet we have never really come close to winning a league.

Fergie on the other hand has fielded consistently good teams despite having weak spines - uncertainty at goalkeeper, injury prone centre backs, centre midfield combos that leave a lot to be desired. But they've always got excellent wingers.

I don't think you have to have brilliant wingers. I wouldn't class Nani and Valencia in that bracket, though they are good players. I think we discovered the season we came second that you need a true winger, and we nearly got there with someone as relatively average as Riera, I think it's important to always have someone providing width and stretching teams, just as it's always important to have pace in attack, as we've discovered ourselves when we had Crouch or Kuyt as the main striker with no one around them who could play off them with pace.

I think Rafa and Ged both cost us in this respect, whereas now we seem to have those qualities that were missing, but we lack a true spine. I don't think you can say one is more important than the other, you seem to be picking up on the winger point because it's something we've lacked for a longtime. We've got quality in wide roles now (I think we're alot better off than we've been in a while anyway), but we lack power from front to back through the centre. Both are important.

 

[Insignificance]

United has a strong defensive unit who is hard to break down. In addition they have a very strong will to dig a result out of nothing. They can be average four games in a row and come out with 12 points. I think if you look historical on it Fergie has probably chosen boring defensive widemen for his biggest games (park etc)

 

[HC]

Zaha looks pretty average to me.

his stats are meh too. Signing him for up to 15m based off the facts of the past 12 months surely isn't money all?!

There are players in the championship id much prefer. Also surprised a big club haven't gone in for Hooper, hes too good for the spl and wouldn't cost that much.

 

[Ryan]

United today tied up a deal for Zaha, anyone who has seen him already knows he's a good player with a lot of potential.

As surprising as this might be to some Moneyball isn't about being cheap, it's about identifying what actually helps you win as opposed to what people think it takes to win. It's about removing bias and looking at cold hard facts. It's about evaluating the stats you use, to see if they correlate with winning - it's not about regurgitating meaningless numbers.

In England, when you look at the teams that have won the league for the past 15 years or so they almost always have top notch wingers. So I'm asking the question, do we need great wingers to win the league?

We've spent so long concentrating on our spine because traditionally that's what you do, yet we have never really come close to winning a league.

Fergie on the other hand has fielded consistently good teams despite having weak spines - uncertainty at goalkeeper, injury prone centre backs, centre midfield combos that leave a lot to be desired. But they've always got excellent wingers.

A fairly selective argument.

United are who they are not because they've focused spending on 'spineless' areas (in fact, quite the contrary - Ferdinand 30M, Smalling 11M, Hargreaves 18M, Anderson 18M, Carrick 18M, Kagawa 18M, Rooney 30M, Van Persie 23M, Veron 28M, etc etc) but because they've got a bigger squad - all over the pitch, and a better manager who knows how to rotate them better than anyone else in the game.

 

[dantes]

Way off point but its a credit to Ferguson going for guys like Zaha who will probably only come into their own after he has retired decomposed, most managers in his position would have been trying to sign big name ready made players for one last tilt at the champions league

It's a good point.