Anderson fee is proof of ‘crazy’ inflation – how is he £70m more expensive than Phillips? | OneFootball

Man City signed Kalvin Phillips in similar circumstances to those surrounding Elliot Anderson this summer; the difference in fees is ‘crazy’.

We also have plenty more World Cup fallout for Scotland, who are hanging on to one of the final places.

Send your thoughts to theeditor@football365.com.

People talk about transfer fees going crazy, and I think the example of Elliot Anderson is one of the clearest I’ve ever seen.

Nearly exactly four years ago, Man City wanted a 5‑foot‑10 holding midfielder who had enjoyed a couple of good seasons at a large but underperforming Premier League club and had recently become an established England international. As his current club (a historically big English side with their glory days in the 1970s and a creaking but historic thirty‑thousand‑plus stadium) couldn’t offer him European football and needed the money, everyone knew Man City could get the player, especially as he probably didn’t fancy another relegation battle. The price of the transfer was reported as being in the region of £40m–£45m.

Now, four years later, Man City want a 5‑foot‑10 holding midfielder who has had a couple of good seasons at a large but underperforming Premier League club and has recently become an established England international. As his current club (again, a historically big English side with their glory days in the 1970s and a creaking but historic thirty‑thousand‑plus stadium) can’t offer him European football and need the money, everyone knows Man City can get the player, especially as he probably doesn’t fancy another relegation battle. The price of the transfer is reported as being in the region of £116m–£130m.

Can someone explain why, in four years, the cost of the player has risen by somewhere between £70m and £90m?

Sure, they’re not the same player. People will say, with hindsight, that Kalvin Phillips wasn’t that good, or was injury‑prone, and was a couple of years older than Anderson, meaning Anderson has more potential. But for reference, Phillips probably had a higher profile, no doubt helped by being one of England’s best players as they reached the final of the Euros, as well as being England’s Player of the Year.

As always, prices are dictated by numerous factors, but in the cold light of day, if at the date of their transfers, you asked 1,000 fans to rate these players relative to others in their position in the Premier League, I think most would have put them in a similar bracket: maybe top 5 their position in the Prem, good English holding midfielders, not world‑beaters, but probably worthy of a move to a Champions League club.

Am I saying they should cost the same price? Of course not. But you’d think the difference would be within £10m–£20m.

Cheers, Paul K, London

The weight of history

I totally understand Mike’s (LFC,Dubai) frustration. I grew up in an age when Scotland had some fabulous players – the Celtic team that won the European Cup (Champions League for the young ones) – with most players born within a few miles of Celtic Park – Law, Baxter, Johnstone, McNeill, Bremner, Dalglish – just way too many to mention.

Scottish Players who became the stalwarts of the top English club sides.

Scottish Managers who drove Liverpool and Manchester Untied on to greatness.

In fact, when reading Inverting the Pyramid – a history of football tactics – it became clear that it was Scots who drive innovations that created the game we know today from that originally played in the late 1800’s and then Scots who travelled around the world and brought those same ideas to Eastern Europe and South America.

Wonderful players, wonderful managers.

So it is strange that Scotland has never made its mark on the international stage the way it does through individuals at the club level.

And even sadder  that the assembly line of grear Scottish players seems be dwindling. One could say it’s a result of the money in the current era reducing the importance of the domestic league, but that doesn’t seem to be constricting great players from other smaller nations, many with even ‘smaller’ domestic leagues.

It does appear that there is some hoodoo that negate affects Scotland in tournaments. Perhaps it’s that heavy history and the immense fan following that creates too great a pressure. Paul McDevitt

Sports psychology is what Scotland need badly, along with more talent.

Proud they got to the world cup. But were obviously frightened from these yellow jerseys. You can’t pass it around at the back if you’re not good enough. Boot it away . These other guys are world class ,fast and skilful, everything we weren’t. One of the first times actually felt ashamed of Scotland. So nervous, so undecided to pass, you could see it a mile away, and Brazil knew it too, so let us think we were playing our way out, they just knew we didn’t have the quality at the back not to make mistakes. And howlers they were.

Watch them, they don’t hold on to the ball struggling to know where to kick it. Someone always moves to accept a pass, pass always goes quickly to a player, we had fear setting in every time a player was on the ball.

Must need better psychology . Can’t blame players because we don’t have many better, just men against boys, not good enough for the world stage, why tell them to hold onto the ball in their own half, inviting constant pressure and problems.

Clark done well to get them there, but think it needs a new manager, along with better talent, but how we get that i have no idea. Robert

Ignoring lessons again

Scotland’s latest World Cup disappointment wasn’t simply about bad luck. It was about failing to learn the lessons of history.

Take 1974. Scotland led Zaire 2-0 in Dortmund but eased off in the second half instead of chasing the goals that would have transformed their goal difference. They paid for it when Brazil edged them out of the group. This time, against Haiti, Scotland again failed to show the ruthlessness required at World Cup level. It wasn’t enough merely to win; they needed to put their foot down and build a commanding scoreline. History was there to be learned from, but it was ignored.

The second lesson concerns midfield. In 1978 Ally MacLeod made one of Scottish football’s great selection blunders by leaving Graeme Souness, fresh from winning the European Cup with Liverpool, on the bench against Iran. Scotland’s most influential midfielder was watching when he should have been dictating the game. Nearly half a century later, Scotland again travelled with recognisable names in midfield but in terms of technique precious little creativity or penetration. Possession without purpose wins nothing at World Cups.

Finally, successful international sides are built on technically sound defenders. In 1978 Stuart Kennedy was selected despite being utterly out of his depth, and Scotland paid the price. Decades later, Scotland still struggles to produce defenders comfortable enough on the ball and assured enough under pressure to compete consistently at the highest level.

As for this being the worst World Cup. I disagree. The competitions of 1962 and 2002 were every bit as poor, if not worse. Ashley

Bigger is better

I don’t understand these people who complain about the World Cup being too big. I hate everything about FIFA and all the off-the-pitch stuff but having more teams at the tournament has been fantastic. New players, managers, fans, even kits (DR Congo’s is a belter) to marvel at. More people involved, more joy to behold. How can that be a bad thing in any way?

In Thursday’s mailbox, Dan, London said Scotland’s slim hope of qualifying ‘Makes a mockery of World Cup that there’s even a chance’. A mockery of what exactly? The World Cup is a made-up thing. There’s no blessed formula to which it must adhere. It’s been tweaked every four years, sometimes for worse but usually for the better (evident by its growing popularity). And the more people that get to have fun, the better.

Also, keeping the tournament small doesn’t guarantee high quality matches. By that logic, every final would be amazing because it’s been whittled down to the two ‘best’ teams. And we all know, finals are usually pretty s**t (Ars vs PSG should be fresh in everyone’s mind).

The good thing is, Dan and others like him don’t have to watch the games they deem to be unworthy but the fans of those nations can hope and cheer and scream and swear and cry with tears of joy at their TV screens for weeks. Isn’t that what we’re all in it for? Nilesh, Harrow

And this is definitely better than 2010

Matt Pitt didn’t watch South Africa…. games were stinker after stinker, star after star putting their boots on the wrong feet, jabulani sucking ass, low-blocks as standard, winners barely scoring a goal all tournament, every game 1-0, sh*ttest final ever…..

What can anyone actually even remember? the final having more fouls than forward passes, everyone ballooning the beach ball over the bar, the North Korean guy crying all the time, suarez/Ghana, the sh*t choreography for the first goal celebration done by the guy who coined ‘unbelieveable tekkers’ sponsored by Coca-Cola (f**ks sake) and f**king vuvuzelas…..

The expectation+hype > reality gap was just way too big but I guess we had 3 minutes of Shakira though

This might be the worst world cup in the ‘everyone qualifies’ era (so far lol)… but nothing can be worse than SA. Moses

The World Cup format

I’m generally positive about things where I can be (except Scotland right now) and there has certainly been plenty to enjoy in the World Cup. Some great matches and good stories of plucky underdogs (not Scotland) but there is no doubt that the 3rd place finish rule, combined with the head-to-head record change has ensured less exciting finishes to the group stage.

Australia and Paraguay have just played out a draw that happily sees both teams through. In a normal setting, Paraguay would have had to throw everything forward to win. The same for Sweden and Japan. Iran and Belgium play Egypt and New Zealand respectively. A draw for either, pretty much sees them through.

That said, there is the counterpoint to that argument. Bosnia beat Qatar in the last game, and qualified as a result. Ecuador secured a famous win against Germany, that would have been meaningless if only the top 2 went through. If Senegal beat Iraq by a few goals, they could well qualify. Normally they would be out.

Overall however, the 3rd place qualifiers mean less drama. It also brings in a degree of unfairness, Not only because say Senegal’s results against France and Norway are compared to Bosnia’s against Canada and Switzerland. But the timing of your game makes a huge difference. Austria play Algeria in the last group match. If Austria lose 1-0, they will have 3 points and a -1 goal difference. They will know for certain if that will be enough. Other teams don’t have that luxury.

It’s almost been forgotten now that this was never the plan. When the 48-team World Cup was announced, it was to be 16 groups of 3. That format has a lot of upsides. Every game matters. With only 3 games per group, it would be impossible for a dead rubber. The final match would always determine who qualified, or who topped the group. A single bad result could have a disastrous effect on a team.

There are of course downsides. Firstly, everyone only gets 2 games in the group stage. So your teams that get eliminated (Scotland) only get to ‘enjoy’ 2 World Cup matches instead of 3, More than that, the issue of fairness crops up again. If Argentina beat Ghana 3-0, then Ghana draw with Austria, then Austria go into their final game knowing a 2-0 loss would put them through. Arguable though, its still a better format than what we have now, with more drama guaranteed.

That’s never going to happen though. It would mean 24 fewer group stage games, which is a lot less money for FIFA. No chance. What would not shock me though, is if they expanded again to a 64-team World Cup. It’s already been discussed a ‘one off’ expanded tournament for the 100th anniversary that I am sure will “go so well” that they just have to do it again. The question though, is would it be better or worse?

I had a look at world rankings, and the plausible split of confederations, and perhaps confederation playoffs and came up these following additional qualifiers. This is who I came up with:

Italy, Denmark, Ukraine, Poland, Wales, Nigeria, Cameroon, Mali, Burkina Faso, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Syria, Costa Rica, Honduras, Chile, Venezuela

Some good teams in there, and many who would bring a lot to the table. Of course, it diminishes the quality of each group. Doing a simulated draw (thank you AI) you’d still get some interesting groups such as:

Portugal, Nigeria, Chile, Jordan

And then some duds like:

Croatia, Turkey, Panama, Syria

The question is, what is better: A slightly lower quality pool with more jeopardy? Or a slight higher quality group with less. Interested to see what others think, but with all the money on the table, it wouldn’t shock me if this is what FIFA goes with. Mike, LFC, Dubai

Curious US football descriptions

So, I was reading a report earlier in The Guardian about the US being beaten by Turkey, written by Alexander Abnos, who I believe is from the US.

It included this line: ‘In midfield, the otherwise excellent McKennie was beaten in the air, with Turkey putting together a nice third-man pattern play in response that left Joe Scally stranded’.

I have been following football for the majority of my 40 years, mainly in England, latterly in Canada and have never heard the phrase ‘third-man pattern play’, and to be honest I can’t work out what it means. I have seen the highlights of the game, and could not identify anything from them which could fit this description (OK, the highlights might not have included this ‘play’).

Could any of your kind readers explain to me WTF this means and where it originated? I don’t think this is a football related phrase, so I guess it has been borrowed from one of the other shitty sports that are so popular here in North American.