Another interesting statto site joins the fray: Squawka

I only just started looking at it, but I like it immediately for showing the location of each player's passes on the pitch and displaying them as a vector. I've really missed that visualization since The Guardian stopped doing their chalkboards.

The entire Aston Villa team is an enigma. They keep putting the youngest team in the league out there on the field, while still paying all those better-known players who many will be surprised to learn are still on the team. They've played 21 league games. Agbonlahor has started 9, Bent has started 6, Ireland has started 9.

Remember Richard Dunne? He's still around. So is Shay Given. Remember when they had hot young talents Fabian Delph and Marc Albrighton? They don't play anymore because of other, seemingly less good young talents. Remember when they signed Charles N'Zogbia? He doesn't play. Alan Hutton started most of their games last year, he was sent out on loan so they could bring in Matthew Lowton from Sheffield United. Nathan Delfounso continues to go on loan after loan. Houllier paid 6 million for a 28-year-old Jean Makoun, then sent him out on loan to Greece, now he's on loan in France. What is this organization doing? Are all these players injured? Are they going to sell 10 people this month? If not, why not?

Agbonlahor has looked useless for a couple years now. He is kind of fast but he doesn't seem to have the skill level to play wing (which is where they've played him the last two seasons or so) and he was never that good of a goal scorer, which is moot because he's not beating out Benteke. They have N'Zogbia, Agbonlahor, Bent (dubious), Vlaar, Dunne and Petrov out which limits their options. Plus Lerner stopped giving out blank checks to the manager after O'Neill wasted all that money.

Arsenal could probably use another central defender. They could also try and unload a bunch of dead weight - Chamakh, Squillaci and Arshavin. Santos, Djourou, Gervinho and Ramsey are useful players but I don't think they are good enough for Arsenal.

That Twitter exchange was gold.

I could totally see United buying another striker. Although I still think they should get a good central midfielder and another defender. I'm guessing any potential Baines move wouldn't happen until after the season.

If not, why not?

Because they don't have 10 players anyone else wants?

Naw, I kid. They do seem a bit dysfunctional, though. Who is in charge at Villa?

Arsenal could probably use another central defender. They could also try and unload a bunch of dead weight - Chamakh, Squillaci and Arshavin. Santos, Djourou, Gervinho and Ramsey are useful players but I don't think they are good enough for Arsenal.

I think Arsenal could technically use an upgrade almost everywhere. They've assembled the premier league equivalent of every fantasy baseball team I've ever put together: a bunch of decent to very good players, that, in a vacuum, are perfectly fine pieces of a larger puzzle. Unfortunately none of them are great, so they're not winning anything anytime soon. Theo and Giroud aren't the problem, sure, but they're also not exactly world-beaters. Ditto Vermaelen.

Every time I see Albrighton come in, I'm reminded "why isn't he starting?" I'm not as taken by Benteke as some, and wonder what, if anything, Agbonlahor will bring with his return. And I'd forgotten all about Darren Bent. Maybe Fulham will bring him back to our attention.

Strange club, no doubt.

And could Wolves do the double drop? They are quite, quite awful these days.

The makeup of the Villa squad is a reflection of the heavy turnover in the manager's chair that they've had since O'Neill bailed. And say what you will about O'Neill but at least he had a relatively coherent plan and bought players accordingly. They didn't always work out and were often paid too much relative to Villa's revenue, but you could understand the thought process.

The summer window is when most clubs are able to do serious triage and remake their squads. Villa have had three different managers in charge during the two full summer transfer windows since O'Neill was last at the helm. If you want to count Kevin MacDonald's short stint as caretaker, it's four managers in two windows plus the last little bit of a third. In any case, the squad is a mess because the managers who followed O'Neill shared neither his vision for how to construct a team nor much in common with each other's visions for same, and nobody's been in charge long enough to establish a new identity and reshape the squad to fit it. Lambert has certainly been ruthless in his initial efforts at doing just that, but if realizing his vision continues to come at the expense of short-term safety then he'd better hope Randy Lerner is willing to sweat it out with him or Villa will be looking at starting over for the fourth time in three years.

The makeup of the Villa squad is a reflection of the heavy turnover in the manager's chair that they've had since O'Neill bailed.

I get that, but at the end of the day someone has to be in charge. Spurs went so a similar churn with Jol to Ramos to Redknapp without the same kind of chaos as Villa because, ultimately, Levy was in charge and wasn't going to let a manager do bad business. For example... So...who's in charge there? I know they have that General guy who pops up with tough talk now and then, but does Lerner have a "football" man in charge of the operation the way Ellis Short had Niall Quinn?

I think Arsenal could technically use an upgrade almost everywhere.

I don't disagree but pretty much any upgrade would cost around 30M pounds, which we all know Wegner will never spend. I think the owners are content with third or fourth and hope that FFP will slow down Man City and Chelsea and bring a more even/rational playing field. Obviously fans aren't going to like that. Until that happens, players will keep leaving Arsenal and the books will continue to be balanced. I still do like watching them play.

As for Villa, Lerner is the type of owner who seems to hire people and let them do their jobs. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to hire the right people and that's for both the Browns and Villa. I think Lambert is probably a good choice, but nowadays managers don't have very long especially if you get relegated.

Alan "8-year contract" Pardew still isn't going to play Cisse as a #9, electing instead to go with Ameobi up top and Cisse on the wing.

That's ridiculous. I assume its Shola, you know what it doesn't even matter. Cisse is so much better than any Ameobi and should be played up front.

That's ridiculous. I assume its Shola, you know what it doesn't even matter. Cisse is so much better than any Ameobi and should be played up front.

Yeah, Shola Ameobi. Cisse is a really great #9 so I am puzzled.

Alan Pardew says he's "pleased" that Demba Ba has gone because "it ends the uncertainty" ... but admits he prepared for the Everton game with Ba in the side. That's why Cisse starts on the right, with Ameobi in the centre ...

From The Guardian's MBM. Does. Not. Compute.

Spurs went so a similar churn with Jol to Ramos to Redknapp without the same kind of chaos as Villa because, ultimately, Levy was in charge and wasn't going to let a manager do bad business.

Tottenham's league performance (and the associated managerial churn before briefly settling on Jol) in the first few seasons after Levy took over was pretty ropey too. Not quite as poor as Villa's been the last couple years, but poor nonetheless. I hope for Villa's sake that Lambert can keep them up and eventually stabilize the club over the next couple years.

So...who's in charge there? I know they have that General guy who pops up with tough talk now and then, but does Lerner have a "football" man in charge of the operation the way Ellis Short had Niall Quinn?

Not to my knowledge, no. They have a DoF type guy (Gary Karsa), in name at least, but he's a Lambert guy who's been with him for ages. Lerner himself is the chairman, correct? I don't think there's much of a buffer level on the Villa org chart between the owner and the manager. The closest thing they had to a Daniel Levy figure was Doug Ellis.

Alan Pardew says he's "pleased" that Demba Ba has gone because "it ends the uncertainty" ... but admits he prepared for the Everton game with Ba in the side. That's why Cisse starts on the right, with Ameobi in the centre ...

That is peculiar. I guess he thinks the downgrade from Cisse to Ameobi up top is less severe than the downgrade from [the sweet fuhqall he's got on the bench for midfielders] to Cisse on the right. But Newcastle are at home. Why not just play 4-4-2 with Cisse and Ameobi up front, Obertan and Marveaux on the wings, Tiote and Anita in the middle and have a go at Everton?

Cisse scores in the second minute.

Raheem Sterling with a cool chip!

Cisse scores in the second minute.

Of course he does! Was he really out on the wing to start?

I understand why FSC is showing the QPR-Chelsea game, but it would be nice to watch a potential close game versus an a$$ whooping.

Wow, that Squawka site does all their stats and visualizations live.

For example: Chelsea vs QPR - click on the Full Stats button and you can pull up heat maps, passes, the whole lot...as it's all coming in.

As an aside, I guess Benitez believed 'Arry's 'ype because he's gone with a bit of a house money lineup tonight. Hazard, Mata, Ramires, and Cole all on the bench. Bertrand, Moses, and Marin start. Cech must still be banged up because Turnbull is between the sticks again.

Liverpool are running riot. Suarez makes it 2-0.

Cisse scores in the second minute.

Alan Pardew, Super Genius.

As an aside, I guess Benitez believed 'Arry's 'ype because he's gone with a bit of a house money lineup tonight. Hazard, Mata, Ramires, and Cole all on the bench. Bertrand, Moses, and Marin start. Cech must still be banged up because Turnbull is between the sticks again.

'Arry's 'ype is killing my fantasy team! I need 'Azard out there!

(OT: The Soccer Thread: 'Ome of the Dropped Aitch)

Sunderland are in no way cut out for playing such a high line. Atypical for an O'Neill team too; he usually likes to defend deep and in numbers.

'Arry's 'ype is killing my fantasy team! I need 'Azard out there!

I captained Mata instead of Van Persie. That was a mistake.

Funny...I wasn't thinking of taking a nap this afternoon, but that Chelsea/QPR first half changed my mind.

Funny...I wasn't thinking of taking a nap this afternoon, but that Chelsea/QPR first half changed my mind.

Hey, Frank said he wanted a potential close game. Blame him.

Yup - was half watching Liverpool in the first half. Was expecting QPR to be down 2 goals by now.

Remember Richard Dunne? He's still around. So is Shay Given. Remember when they had hot young talents Fabian Delph and Marc Albrighton? They don't play anymore because of other, seemingly less good young talents. Remember when they signed Charles N'Zogbia? He doesn't play. Alan Hutton started most of their games last year, he was sent out on loan so they could bring in Matthew Lowton from Sheffield United. Nathan Delfounso continues to go on loan after loan. Houllier paid 6 million for a 28-year-old Jean Makoun, then sent him out on loan to Greece, now he's on loan in France. What is this organization doing? Are all these players injured? Are they going to sell 10 people this month? If not, why not?

- Richard Dunne has been injured all season.
- Shay Given isn't as good a goalie as Brad Guzan, who has been the team's best player so far this year by a country mile.
- Fabian Delph and Marc Albrighton do play, and haven't generally impressed. Albrighton is a defensive liability and doesn't provide good service consistently enough, Delph simply isn't as good as hoped for.
- N'Zogbia is injured currently, and has utterly failed to live up to his talents when played.
- Hutton sucked. Lowton is still climbing the learning curve and making mistakes along the way, but is already a better fullback than Hutton ever could be.
- Delfouneso isn't a Premier League player.
- Makoun would have been useful, but there were problems with his work permit and/or contract, and so he was loaned out this season instead.
- Darren Bent, when healthy, is still useless at Villa because he remains what he always has been, a pure poacher, and the team's midfield has absolutely no ability to provide service to him. He needs to go somewhere else where they can feed him good balls in the box, and he'll be scoring in buckets again. Villa just don't have the luxury.

I think Lambert will do fine in the long run, but the tragi-comical series of problems that have followed O'Neill's petulant and catastrophically-timed departure have put the club in a very bad spot, and Lambert might not get that time. Anyone who watched the Swansea game on Tuesday can grasp the state of the squad: a good goalie, a decent strike partnership with Benteke and Weimann, and precious little else. Villa desperately need Vlaar back from his minor injury, and to get a decent defensive midfielder or two this month to settle things down in the center of the park.

I'm not as taken by Benteke as some

Watch more closely. He's still learning some of the important mental parts of the game (staying onside, where's the best passing option, picking spots for confrontations, etc.), but his physical gifts are superb and he has the right nose for the net. If he doesn't end up matching Didier Drogba, he'll be a reasonable facsimile.

QPR goes up. Ferguson could be managing from a rocking chair in his wine cellar and have United in the championship race.

'Triffic.

Here comes QPR!

Remember Richard Dunne? He's still around. So is Shay Given. Remember when they had hot young talents Fabian Delph and Marc Albrighton? They don't play anymore because of other, seemingly less good young talents. Remember when they signed Charles N'Zogbia? He doesn't play. Alan Hutton started most of their games last year, he was sent out on loan so they could bring in Matthew Lowton from Sheffield United. Nathan Delfounso continues to go on loan after loan. Houllier paid 6 million for a 28-year-old Jean Makoun, then sent him out on loan to Greece, now he's on loan in France. What is this organization doing? Are all these players injured? Are they going to sell 10 people this month? If not, why not?

A number of these players aren't nearly as good as you remember them (Delph, Albrighton [aside: I've been really disappointed with how he turned out. I always thought that he could be a good version of Seamus Coleman or something similar to Matt Jarvis, but he's had major issues with covering opposing fullbacks and defence in general. Pretty much all he's good for are crosses into the box], Hutton, Delfounso, Given to some extent, though his not being in the squad is a function of Guzan's incredible form) and the remainder are either injured or have been injured for long periods of time (Dunne, N'Zogbia, Bent) or are Jean Makoun (he's had major work permit issues). Lambert, in my opinion, has done a very good job with very few resources in terms of players, and a few of Villa's youngsters have really impressed (Benteke, Ashley Westwood, Andreas Weimann), and I really hope they stay up, just so that we can see the fruit of Lambert's labours.

EDIT: Or...I could just read the thread. #79 has what I was saying in more depth/better writing, so beverages to him and I'm not sure I add much to the discussion, hah.

Obviously this is with the benefit of hindsight, but I swear I thought of posting this when the team sheets were announced. That was a weird set of rotations by Benitez. He had his first-choice striker, his first-choice defensive midfielder, three of his four best defenders, and he subbed out nearly his entire first-choice midfield. I still would expect more from Lampard, Moses, and Oscar than they showed (I don't know Marin, but he was really quite terrible, and I assume he isn't that), but Benitez certainly set himself up for criticism.

Reflecting the game tactically, I think 'Arry played it very well, and Benitez played it poorly. Benitez started two true wingers in Marin and Moses, but he was facing a 4-5-1 in which the fullbacks barely came forward at all and the wide midfielders carried significant defensive responsibilities too. The Chelsea wingers don't have a lot of creativity in their games and were mostly neutralized, and QPR still had three men in midfield to defend Oscar and Lampard through the middle. Luiz got free a bunch because QPR sat so deep, but he didn't do too much with the space.

The choice to make Taarabt a lone striker worked out way better than I'd have expected. He worked very hard, looked to create more than to score, working more throughballs to his midfielders than launching 40-yd shots, and he used his significant rear avoirdupois to hold the ball up and give the defense a rest. That seems like a classic players-love-'Arry kind of success.

So many, many things to be said about Chelsea-QPR...I was going to watch some It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia on Netflix tonight, but I think I'll watch the replay to get my fix of absurdist comedy. I declare that the most hilarious result of the year. Well played Rangers! I don't know the particulars of the game yet, but if Harry and Taarabt team up to save QPR the irony will probably kill me. Maybe Harry can also buy Gio Dos Santos this month? Anyway, I did not expect Spurs to still be in third at the end of the day, but I'll take it.

Just to add to 79 and 83, with which I agree, I also think lots of people don't realize just how big a disaster McLeish was.

The way to defeat the "Disallowed Key Characters" error is apparently to delete the last slash in the URL. Of course, the ones who need that help can't see this.

79 and 83 sound about right. But my point was, all those players are still there! Paul Lambert wants them to go away, but they are still there. The team simultaneously has its future and its past on the books, and no present. Someone this is the case, two and a half years into the post-O'Neill era, after losing James Milner and Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker and John Carew and Luke Young and Brad Friedel and James Collins and Emile Heskey and Carlos Cuellar and Stewart Downing and Ashley Young. How do they still have so many players they have no use for?

In short, just about everyone acquired under the Houiller and McLeish regimes has been mishandled (at best) or found wanting.

Stephen Ireland: His acquisition in part exchange for Milner was right at the breaking point for O'Neill. Has continued to play as he did in his last couple of years at Citeh: very good on occasion, invisible most of the time.
Shay Given: Not a stupid guy to buy, but obviously previous managers were not appreciating Guzan's abilities properly.
Alan Hutton: Takes away way more than he gives.
Darren Bent: Needs a good team behind him to thrive.
Charles N'Zogbia: McLeish had no idea how to use him or get the best out of him. Hasn't been able to overcome the resulting funk under Lambert.
Jean II Makoun: Was acuired to play Houiller's kind of game, did not suit McLeish at all, is now unable to play in England.
Michael Bradley: Clearly, not giving him much of a chance and then getting rid of him ASAP was poor business... Chievo and now Roma are obviously very happy about it.

Add in Dunne getting old, Agbonlahor's niggling injuries cutting into his only asset (speed), and the failure of any of Villa's academy products to step up beyond "decent filler" and make it to "solid EPL starter", and there you have it: a team with future and past but no present.

Most of the burdensome past is now embodied in five players (Dunne, Given, Ireland, N'Zogbia, Agbonlahor), and if all were healthy and acting as supporting cast to a good spine, they would be OK. But you listed all the departures. There is no spine left. This is what Chelski and Citeh have wrought. Watching the Manchester derby last month, I was boggled by the number of players contained within those two teams that were A) purchased from other PL clubs, B) who didn't particularly want to sell, but C) couldn't hold onto the player because of the draw of massive wages and guaranteed CL play. Rooney, RvP, Young, Ferdinand, Nasri, Clichy, Milner, Barry, Kolo Toure... you could almost field a full squad from that game just using former Arsenal and Villa players.

Randy Lerner has, as was noted above, a history of hiring mediocre management and giving them free rein. He's not blameless here. But the team has been whipsawed this way and that by different managerial styles and a treacherous market. Lerner has been trying to avoid pulling a Leeds/Portsmouth in the wake of O'Neill's overspending without tightening the taps so much that the team pulls a QPR instead. It ain't esay.

Transfer news!

Pretty quiet, actually, but JOE COLE is heading home to WEST HAM! I actually enjoy watching him play when he's in good form so I like this deal.
A lot of reputable news outlets now reporting Spurs are about to sign Lewis Holtby to a pre-contract. Grain of salt, etc.
Arsene Wenger has finally decided to get rid of Squillaci and Djourou if he can find takers.

Kind of a fascinating West Ham video from back in the day.

It's some kind of shareholders or supporters meeting with Harry Redknapp defending the quality of a young Frank Lampard with a very young Lampard sitting there looking very uncomfortable. Why they would have subjected such a young kid to that is beyond me but...Harry was right.

He'll never play for Man City again!

Until no other club meets their valuation and Mancini takes it all back.

A gift for Spurs fans.

No, it's not David Villa, but it's still pretty great.

He'll never play for Man City again!

Between Balotelli, and Tevez and everything else, City are like the Bronx Zoo Yankees.

#89--specfically the bit about how "what Chelski and Citeh have wrought"--got me thinking. How many EPL teams are run, more or less, as a patronage? Off the top my head, there's City and Chelsea (of course), West Ham (where the Davids might yet make their money back on a sale, but not before), with Fulham, QPR and Norwich as the maybes.

Then there's clubs which, I think, are clearly run with money-in/money-out in mind: United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Villa. There's also bunch of clubs where I don't know how to classify them: Spurs, Everton, Newcastle. And this is leaving out the majority of teams--Reading, West Brom, Stoke, etc. etc.--where I could not tell you anything about ownership for love nor money. I don't really know that I have a point here, but I do wonder if we're getting to the point where all the top division clubs will someday be done as either hobbies or--like United--bank accounts.

Off the top my head, there's City and Chelsea (of course), West Ham (where the Davids might yet make their money back on a sale, but not before), with Fulham, QPR and Norwich as the maybes.

Then there's clubs which, I think, are clearly run with money-in/money-out in mind: United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Villa.

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. One of the main ways in which owning a sports team is good for a common ultra-rich person is the constant appreciation of the asset. If you cut "make their money back on a sale" out of the equation, you could easily consider the Yankees to be a "patronage" when in fact they're a massively successful business because of the appreciation of team prices.

I don't know enough about the finances of clubs to classify them, but my initial hypothesis would be that only the obvious - Chelsea and City - are run in ways that fall significantly outside the bounds of normal-ish business practices.

If I recall the swiss ramble correctly, Peter Coates gave Stoke a big "loan" (with no expectation of return) to get Stoke stabilized in the Premier League and debt free, but otherwise they pay for themselves now.

Reading is owned by a Russian Oligarch but he seems to be a "responsible" one. I think Fulham is close to self-sufficient, but they were a huge patronage team just a couple years ago. Newcastle was Ashley's plaything when he first bought it then he realized that he didn't know what he was doing, hired Pardew who bought a bunch of French league players, got them decent again and then promptly gave him a 20-year contract (ok only 8.5 years).

The problem with European soccer is that while generally teams do appreciate in value, one bad season and relegation can ruin it. If the team comes back up without significant investment then you're ok, but if you're stuck in the Championship or even worse get relegated again your team is going to be worth a lot less then what you paid for.

Finally you have the LBO guys. Liverpool was obviously an utter abject failure but ManU would have to be considered a great success. Of course United prints so much money that almost any idiot could have figured it out - but it takes someone smart enough to initially identify the right team.

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. One of the main ways in which owning a sports team is good for a common ultra-rich person is the constant appreciation of the asset. If you cut "make their money back on a sale" out of the equation, you could easily consider the Yankees to be a "patronage" when in fact they're a massively successful business because of the appreciation of team prices.

I think this is true, but I'm not sure EPL clubs carry the same value appreciation that American teams do, because they aren't the same cash cow. Remembering this from our "Matt Jarvis is worth XX% Reading discussion!" that RFC was valued at (give or take) £25 milion. Now obviously West Ham safely in the EPL in the Olympic Stadium would be worth more than Reading freshly up in the Madejski, but given the numbers the Davids have thrown around as having lost* I don't know that they will be cashing out big.

*If you take them at their word, it was somewhere in the range of £15-17 million at the start of last season EDIT: last year, sorry

Of course, I do think you're right that Chelsea and City are exceptions to a scale that no one else is, but I'm not sure other clubs aren't in the ballpark.

The problem with European soccer is that while generally teams do appreciate in value, one bad season and relegation can ruin it. If the team comes back up without significant investment then you're ok, but if you're stuck in the Championship or even worse get relegated again your team is going to be worth a lot less then what you paid for.

This is a good point. You're going to have a reasonably large set of clubs with legitimate risk of relegation, which ruins both revenue streams and franchise value. On the other hand, this probably means that safe clubs should appreciate in value even more because they're relatively rare.

I believe Spurs are run close to even with small losses or gains from year to year. There's always a lot of speculation about what the endgame for the ownership is but they seem to be making a lot of infrastructure and long term investments in the club--stadium, training ground, academy, etc. I doubt anyone really has a handle of what ENIC are up to but I'm happy with they way they run the club. I don't expect them to throw cash at it like drunken sailors but they invest everything the club makes back into it and the debt is relatively small and related to infrastructure investments rather than for chasing rainbows which gets clubs into trouble.