It's Quiet - a new dawn

[aguero93:20]

Can you not read? Not a few million, They were offering over £10m.

That's 20x what we put down for Sancho.

Do you have a link to that? I doubt it was over £10m straight up.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Paid them off or sat them in the stands.

In an ideal world where upsetting the dressing room and balancing the books isnt a factor,maybe.

I'm don't think the blame can lie at Pep's door for that scenario.

 

[aguero93:20]

Depends what you regard as Prime, Benzema was 21 when they signed him, Isco 20, both pretty young. If the talent is obvious I suspect Real would bite.

Benzema wasn't the marquee signing that window -Tranny and Kaká were, same goes for Isco and Bale.

 

[dave_blue12]

I think the Sheikh should get his cheque book out for this kid, meaning whatever it takes.

Massive talent, massive statement. Show the world who's the daddy !

 

[aguero93:20]

Example: Zidane wanted Pogba last summer. Perez said no. Turns out Madrid dodged a bullet because he's been shite since leaving the bubble of Juventus in the Serie A. Regardless, that's their policy: acquire talent when it's hit it's prime.

To be fair, I think the price just got too high for even Madrid on that one and it's looked like a good call so far.

 

[Captain Apollo]

By 'eck, Going for Sanchez, and Mbappe or Griezmann? Can we keep Aguero though just for a laugh......and because he scores in nearly every game.

 

[aguero93:20]

In an ideal world where upsetting the dressing room and balancing the books isnt a factor,maybe.

I'm don't think the blame can lie at Pep's door for that scenario.

Tbf we could have signed another left back and told Clichy he was free to do all the DJing he wanted and I don't think he would have complained...

 

[Stoned Rose]

Price not hugely relevant imo.

The £ from Aguero to Madrid will go a fair way to covering it.

 

[Andrew___K]

To be fair, I think the price just got too high for even Madrid on that one and it's looked like a good call so far.

This, and buying Pogba would have meant selling Kroos, one of Perez's favourites.

 

[OB1]

The problem here is that you only watch our games judiciously. But none of the others around us. So to understand whether it is easy to get at us, you'd have compare it to how easy it is to get at the other 5 teams in the top six. It is this gap in the average fan's knowledge that stats help with.

If on average teams create less chances against us than most in the top five, and our possession stats are similar, then we are doing things ok defensively. Even if you can point to problematic instances you remember. What the stats is saying is that other teams have those instances too, and not necessar

No modes individually gives us the whole picture. So stating one mode doesn't only serves to attempt to undermine it.

By stating what the stats say, I'm not suggesting it tells us everything. So a retort that it doesn't tell us everything is redundant. Unless the purpose of the retort is to undermine the point being highlighted by reference to the stats.

For the most part almost no one has a full picture of what every team in the league is doing at the same time. So to judge more accurately in comparison to each other, using curated stats is a by far better approach than guesing. Which frankly is what we do when we say our defense is bad and Chelsea's is good. We conclude this by noting what we've seen of our defense, and compare that to our guess about Chelsea based on conceding fewer goals.

Now if a curated stat shows that over the season we've conceded fewer chances than say Chelsea, or even similar chances, but yet conceded disproportionately higher number of goals. Someone responding with "stats doesn't show everything" is simply using that line to discredit a curated fact you could only have deduced from either watching both teams judiciously (not just one) or examining their stats side by side.

Since almost no one here watches all the teams judiciously and if you or @simon23 do then I apologize. But if my assumption is right that like me you watch more City games judiciously and the other teams for entertainment. Then a statistical comparison is a way better barometer of the truth than either of our opinions drawn from just watching our team and making educated guesses about the others.

Thus, the fact that stats doesn't show us everything is irrelevant if it shows us more than our guesses and assumptions.

Not read the whole conversation or thread but saw this quoted and had to comment as it drives me mad that some people dismiss stats as easily as they often do. Actually, replace easily with deludedly (which may not be a word but hey ho).

I like your point that most supporters only see a limited amount of other teams and so stats give people like that, which more than ever includes me, a way to objectively compare the performance of multiple teams. It doesn't mean losing sight of the fact that no one thing tells you everything. Relying on your own eyes is a sure way to miss loads and fail to appreciate a range of things. Time after time you see people make comments that have been hugely influenced by a few notable moments that have skewed their perception of a performance - an obvious classic is so and so kept giving the ball away when their passing stats have been in the high 80%'s.

On City's defence, the team does allow the fewest shots on goal. Not got time to go through why too many of those end up in the back of the net but it is a combination of things, which actually starts with not taking enough chances upfront and works its way back through the team. Part of the solution does to my mind require personnel changes and I am in the group that wants more of those than are likely to be practicable but I also think we can do a lot better with a fairly small number of improvements. Two new full backs and a defensive midfielder would make a huge difference; that was "true" last season.