Daniel Levy and Spurs Guilty of Two Major Transfer Blunders?

EPLIn August 2013, Tottenham completed the signing of Erik Lamela from Italian side AS Roma for a club record £30m fee. His debut season for Spurs saw just 17 appearances in all competitions as the Argentine failed to live up to the big price-tag.
After two seasons at the club since joining in 2012 and with few chances in the first team, Tottenham allowed Gylfi Sigurdsson move to Swansea City in an exchange deal for left-back Ben Davies, each player’s valuation believed to be approximately £10m.
Jump forward seven months and Lamela, who celebrates his 23rd birthday today, continues to struggle at Tottenham while Sigurdsson has enjoyed an excellent return to his former club.
With a big gulf in valuations and performances are Spurs and Daniel Levy guilty of two major transfer blunders when they brought in Lamela and allowed Sigurdsson to leave? Opta-powered fantasy football game Oulala checked out the stats of both players this season as Sigurdsson returns to his former club tonight.
On studying the data it is very clear which player is outperforming the other this season. With a better strike-rate per 90 minutes in the Premier League (0.20 to 0.05) and a higher shot accuracy (50% to 44%) it is the Swansea man that leads the way for finishing.
Creatively it is Sigurdsson that excels further. With more chances created (2.71 to 2.07), more key passes (2.31 to 1.80) and more assists (0.39 to 0.27) the Icelander is showing Spurs exactly what they’re missing.
The 25-year-old also leads Lamela for pass completion with 85% of all passes made successful to the Argentine’s 83%, The Spurs player does however peg Sigurdsson back for dribbles with 54.7% of his attempted take-ons successful to the Icelander’s 47.7%.
Of the seven key criteria studied it is Gylfi Sigurdsson that leads for six. Daniel Levy is considered one of the best in the business when it comes to transfers, however is he guilty of making a huge error here?
Follow FFStrategist on Twitter

(Visited 111 times, 1 visits today)


Dusko Cakovic

No Responses

  1. Borgie says:

    How many times do I have to say it, Daniel Levy might be a good business man but when it comes to football hasn’t got a clue, leave the footballing decisions to MP and back him in the transfer market.

  2. SP says:

    No. I like Sigurdsson, and spoke out for him when we first signed him, and after, when some Spurs slated him. But, he was being played out of position quite simply because Spurs had better options in the central role behind the striker. Eriksen, for one, and a lot of folk don’t realise that that has always been Harry Kane’s best position while coming through the youth set-up, and he was expected to play there rather than as lone striker. I like Sigs, but he didn’t deserve to be being constantly played out of position, and for a team that wants to play a high tempo, high energy pressing game that he just flat-out plum isn’t suited for. Letting him go was the right decision for everyone involved. Anyone who doesn’t know this shouldn’t be commenting until they do!
    @ Borgie: How many times do I have to say this? Daniel Levy has put a structure in place where there are several inputs on transfers. The media follow a preferred narrative – and with Spurs the preferred narrative is that Spurs, and particularly Levy, make ‘transfer blunders’. They have followed this preferred narrative ever since Levy chose to go with a Continental set-up which offends them because it is un-British. For a start, in this instance letting Sigurdsson go wasn’t a transfer blunder at all – as explained above. Secondly, Levy wasn’t ‘solely’ responsible for the decision to let him go. And thirdly, if he is ‘solely’ responsible, why do we never hear about how Levy made an astoundingly successful transfer coup in buying Gareth Bale or Luka Modric? It is because the media have agendas my friend. And finally, if Levy is such a useless twat making a massive string of blunders, how come Spurs, who are the sixth best financed club in the EPL, have mostly finished 5th or 4th in the ten years since Levy made these changes – which is de facto and de jure punching above their weight? Liverpool have finished below Spurs in four of the last five years and it is nip and tuck again this, but they are better financed – so how come the media hasn’t been filled over the last six years with a stream of articles about them making massive blunders? Agendas!
    Sigurdsson wouldn’t have got much game time in his preferred position, and probably not much on the left as Chadli is a better all round option, and he isn’t suited to Pochettino’s high energy, high tempo pressing game* and yet based on values given, Spurs made a profit selling him. How is selling him at a profit under these circumstances a transfer blunder?
    *In any case, it was probably Pochettino’s decision to let him go as he doesn’t have the energy, pace and mobility for that type of system. And I still think he is a good player – ideal for a team like Swansea to build around.

  3. Derek Herschman says:

    Levi / Baldini & Owner OUT: We MUST get New Owner A.S.A.P

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *