A guest post from Alex Goodchild

It has been one sporting feast of a weekend, filled with drama and excitement. Despite the Rugby World Cup having just kicked off in London, the Premier League refused to be overshadowed, offering such spectacles as the next instalment in Wenger’s rivalry with Mourinho and Manchester City’s home clash against a West Ham team that had already defeated both the Gunners and Liverpool on the road. Sadly, it was also a weekend marred by controversy, with much media focus on unpleasant scenes erupting from the 17^th hole of the Solheim Cup and ugly Diego’s ugly behaviour spoiling Arsenal’s London derby. With the World Cup in full swing, it’s time football learned from rugby’s refereeing example.

In recent years, the sense of enmity between London’s leading clubs has been so vitriolic as to result in a regrettable number of unsavoury incidents, exceeding what can be deemed acceptable sporting conduct. Two seasons ago it was a disgraceful personal barb from Chelsea’s manager, last year it was a reckless tackle from Gary Cahill, which prompted in a touchline row between ‘Le Prof’ and the Portuguese One. This year, the flashpoint centred on Diego Costa. A game where both sides were short of confidence and both very even as half time approached was plunged into chaos after the violent conduct of Costa sparked the dismissal of Laurent Koscielny’s team mate Gabriel.It was an incident that drastically affected the course of the game and almost inevitably consigned Arsenal to defeat.

It should be clear that one can have no complaints with Gabriel’s sending off itself; though the manner in which he raced to defend his teammate, who was struck on the face a number of times before being head-butted, was admirable, the Brazilian’s subsequent behaviour was petulant and deserving of the red card. Yet where one suspects that Arsenal fans feel truly aggrieved is how Costa was allowed to stay on the pitch in the first place. His actions were those of a forward frustrated at being tamed by an imperious partnership and who clearly has a history of violent conduct. It is excruciatingly unjust that the Spaniard was not sent off in a match that was won ultimately by Chelsea’s superior numbers and surprising that not one official caught sight of such conspicuously violent behaviour. Perhaps this is where football needs to change, where it ought to take a leaf out of rugby’s book on reviewing play.

The concept of live video technology is almost as polarising in rugby as it is in football. Some herald it, whereas other more traditional commentators, such as former England internationals, Brian Moore and Stuart Barnes see issues with it. For those of the conviction that consulting a video referee in football to review play would slow the sport to the speed of cricket, there was good ammunition from Friday night’s opener between England and Fiji. Officials deliberated incessantly over replays that were already conclusive, pondering over every different angle, such as whether or not the Fijian scrum half had grounded the ball properly to score a try. In fact, by Telegraph Sport estimates, the game was delayed by as much as ten minutes as a result of such indecisiveness. Yet crucially no pundit would contest the need for video technology. Each decision taken by the referee, however long it took, was the correct one, whether it was sending a Fijian player to the stands for ten minutes for foul play or the decision to award England a vital bonus point-sealing try at the death. The best use of the referee’s most useful tool was by Wayne Barnes in the fixture between Argentina and New Zealand, where he was able to seamlessly integrate the video referee into the game’s proceedings, which allowed for the correct decisions to be made within a highly efficient timescale.

Contrary to Garth Crooks’ claim that Mike Dean seeks to be the centre of attention, he is in reality a rather proficient referee. Granted, he has made some real blunders when arbitrating Arsenal, but he has improved greatly and is nowhere near as confounding or contentious as Anthony Taylor. Dean was unable to spot Costa’s viciousness and acted only according to what he could see. Rather, it is exasperating that he was not afforded the technology to simply consult the footage and make the right call in a sport where even goal line technology exists. It is damning of the sport’s risibly archaic method of officiating when a fan watching a pixelated stream on his computer has the insight of a television replay when the game’s man in the middle, with the most power to influence, is left blind. If video technology were introduced to the game, there were be no hiding for so-called wind up merchants like Diego Costa and the foul play he embodies and no more frustrating ‘I didn’t see it’ protestations from referees.Arsène Wenger, one of the game’s great visionaries, recently commented that he was ‘convinced that video technology will soon come into football.’ Let us hope, in the interest of fairness in our beloved game, that he is right.

According to the BBC, close to £1 billion was spent on player acquisition in the just closed transfer window, a new record, up 4% on last year at £870 million.  Factor in new salaries and the £1 billion figure may prove a tad conservative, all in. 

Some of these players come from other Premier League clubs but a huge number came from abroad. It’s hard to get accurate numbers but something approaching 160 players joined PL clubs and close to a staggering 300 were moved on, being sold, loaned or otherwise released. Getting a handle on exactly how many have joined and left, and how much money has been spent or accrued from sales, is a tricky business as ‘sources’ all suggest slightly different numbers depending upon which flavour you choose to consult. All the numbers in this article should therefore be treated with some caution and are offered up only as rough guides.

Whilst wholesale squad upgrades might be expected from newly promoted sides and last season’s strugglers (looking at you, Sunderland), the sight of Chelsea moving on around 34 players and Liverpool shifting 22 is something of a surprise. 

Man U have parted with around 14 but arguably with the greatest single collection of well known names saying farewell (Di Maria, Cleverly, Nani, RvP, Evans, Januzaj, Hernandez), their departure board is ostensibly the more shocking.  It’s been reported that to the man, the Manc side that so memorably lost 4-0 at Milton Keynes has now all been shipped out with the exception of De Gea whose registration remains at Man U after this year’s window only thanks, we are led to believe, to Windows ’95 and a corrupt file.  First time for everything, so they say. 

Eighteen are out of Spurs, mostly sold and 4 on loan, according to the Daily Mirror, at least. Watford brought in around 16 players, Villa 13. A bigger surprise here is how few Newcastle – described by some as a ‘zombie’ club – have brought in, around 5 new players.  Most clubs appear to have brought in between 6 and 10 players with Everton and Palace bringing in 6 and 5 respectively.

All well and good, the sheer volume of players – as expertly demonstrated by both Spurs and Liverpool in recent times – is no guarantee of quality.  But aside from the headline numbers, in many ways this has been a remarkable summer of transfers – and non-transfers.

At one time this summer, Man United were ‘associated’ with pretty much every player capable of lacing a pair of boots, both in the EPL and further afield.  That they ended up with just seven new players was more by accident than design and de farce of De Gea’s ‘transfer’ left them with more than egg on their faces. Whilst failing to reluctantly sell their best player from last season, they plunged in with a highly speculative £57.5 million (according to Monaco) splurge on a 19 year old with zero Premier League experience and few goals anywhere. The two biggest elephants in the red half of Manchester squat firmly on questions surrounding the manager:

Why can’t LvG can’t get on with anyone and why do so few players want to move to Man U?  

I just can’t work it out at all.  At the time of writing there are no accurate estimates available for the numbers of players in or out of the club that LvG has not, so far, fallen out with. 

That Angel di Maria features in the list of the vanquished is surely the single most telling factor in assessing LvG’s man-management performance to date with rumours of player tears at tea-time by no means uncommon.  And LvG appears to have left himself short at the front having retained from the old guard only Rooney and a strikingly rebranded Fellaini to perform the scoring honours; given the disastrous goal-keeping situation, this seems a little careless and it means much must ride on the immediate success of young Mr Martial as well as the hope that De Gea can be simultaneously rehabilitated for his final season in the North.

But Man u are by no means alone, at least when it comes to player retention.  

Brendan has now jettisoned something like half the players he (or his ‘committee’) has signed since he joined Liverpool a mere three years ago.  This season alone 15 have gone on loan and 7 sold. Players on loan are not necessarily a negative but in the context of The ‘Suarez Money’ which, like the ‘Bale Money’ before it, is largely a distant fiscal memory, one has to wonder about Rodgers’ ability to target the players the club actually needs.  And the trend, nay stampede, of departing players making their escape from Merseyside is hardly a source of celebration for anyone connected with the club. Yes, Arsenal have player turnover but the big difference lies in the significantly larger amount of cash spent on ‘duds’ by Liverpool in the process.

Chelsea have shipped out a staggering 26 players on loan (Daily Mirror) leaving one to wonder why would anyone bother to sign for Chelsea?

The defending champions have had an appalling start to the season both on and off the pitch and one wonders how much time and energy they must waste dealing with players they don’t really want. Is it simply Jose’s appalling nature that means they require a gigantic pool of players for him to dip in and out of depending on who or what he is blaming for any given setback at any one time.

So who DID have a good window? Man City have done themselves little harm in restricting themselves to around 7 new players but they have spent over £150 million, including daft sums on Sterling (£49 million) and Kevin De Bryne (£51 million). And these are in positions they arguably, and especially in De Bruyne’s case, did not need to fill. Only ten players left the club but Nasri will get his own name plate added to the bench …

And what of Arsenal who have sold six and loaned or released about eleven. It’s still a fair number, but it’s offset by the singular, towering figure of Petr Cech’s arrival in goal.  The release of the news of Welbeck’s surgery mere hours after the closure of the window emphasises still further how few viable strikers there appear to be available to buy, and it puts United and City’s excessive expenditures in this area into some kind of perspective.  

The point at which demand becomes desperation is moot but few would be surprised at Arsenal’s reticence to join in and, in any case, as the John Stones example (not to mention, supposedly, Karim Benzema’s) clearly demonstrates, sometimes it’s not all about the money. Add in complicating factors such as diminished sell-on values for the more elderly buying opportunities (Cavani) and the fog starts to clear a little when it comes to understanding Arsenal’s absence of action at this end of the pitch.

Swansea have added Andrew Ayew at no cost, without doubt, one of the buys of the summer. Pedro and Begovic are the stand out buys for Chelsea and silly money was not required to acquire either. For Liverpool only Nathaniel Clyne really stands out although there are great hopes resting on the shoulders of Benteke and they will have Sturridge to one day return. James Milner, on a free but presumably with hefty wages was also a decent addition and Gomiz has made a promising start to the season.

Although they bought no-one of great note, Everton seem to have missed a trick in retaining the much sought after John Stones. One admires their principles and determination to hang on to the lad but at what cost?

And it is surely a sign of the monied times that Stoke have managed to bring in players from Barcelona, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, Chelsea and even Liverpool.  Get that lot performing and they may spring a surprise or two. Who knows, they may even develop a more palatable style of football, unlikely as that presently seems.

So exactly what can be surmised from this summer’s wheelings and dealings? 

For me, the stand out factor was the scarcity of genuine ‘star’ names signed, given the huge sums spent.  Yes, plenty of names we know and a few we with whom we will become re-acquainted.

Pedro, Cech and an ageing Schweinsteiger seem to be the exceptions that prove some kind of rule.

Few of us are sufficiently familiar with all the new players joining the league so the jury remains out but, I think, it is safe to assume an overall increase in the playing standard of the league.  If there were no easy games last season and last season every game seemed to be ‘must win’ then it’s going to be at least 4% harder this year.

Given that all this may come to pass, Arsenal’s solitary signing of Cech may yet prove to be one of the most significant. He joins Kos, Per, Monreal, Bellerin, and Gabriel in forming what may yet prove to be the meanest defence in the league and certainly our best since the Tony Adams’ era.

The value of conceding ever fewer numbers of goals rises exponentially in a league where the ability of most teams to score more has become a reality. That we have lost Welbeck until Xmas becomes more problematical in the event of injury to Giroud, Theo. Alexis or Campbell.  It’s not ideal but it is what it is.

The remaining strikers and the uber attacking nature of our midfield is such that our success in securing Cech may yet outweigh our inability to supplement and strengthen our forward line.

Time will, of course, tell.

It appears the transfer window is going to close with Arsenal making just the one signing, that of Petr Cech.

The disappointment of the majority of fans is clear. They wanted more.

They see what they think are weaknesses and can’t understand why these weaknesses have not be addressed. Which is fair enough really because every fan wants to see the team getting stronger and more competitive. Every fan, all of us. To dismiss this feeling of being let down is stupidity. It exists and as such it can’t be ignored.

I read things like this all the time:

“You are not telling me with £70 million we can’t buy someone better than Flamini.”

Well actually no one is telling them that – because we could.

Then you get:

“If you can’t get world class, you strengthen the squad.”

Now this is when it gets tricky, because this is logic that is undeniable.

It’s a fact that if you replace any player in the squad with a better player, then the chances of winning are increased. The only possible argument against this is that squad harmony could be upset and the famous “cohesion” might be weakened. But that’s a very flimsy argument to say the least. So why not give ourselves the best possible chance of winning?

It’s simple right?

Unfortunately, it’s anything but simple. It never is.

Let’s run with the £70 million figure that seems to be doing the rounds.

If we had used that to buy – let’s say Benzema – that might have given us a 25% (ok, I know I’m pulling figures out of thin air, but bear with me) better chance of winning the league. That’s decent value and money that might be well spent. However, we couldn’t get him. Or Lewandowski or Cavani or Aguero. In fact no one who would increase the chances of winning by that sort of margin.

So let’s say instead we bought Schneiderlin, he is better than Flamini.

Right?

But he is not a DM and so would he be better than Coquelin?

So would he play? Yes he would have been cover, but he might have increased our chances of winning by 1% or 2%. So the outlay must be compared to how much of a better chance it gives us.

Whether we like it or not, football is a business and has to adhere to the basic rules of business and ‘value for money’ is one of those rules.

Someone, be that Arsene, Stan, Ivan or anyone, has to decide how the money is best used.

With transfer inflation it might just be that we can only buy one world class player every other year.

The only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know all the facts and so I can’t really draw any worthwhle conclusions as to why we have not spent more in this particular window.

It looks like we were willing to, but couldn’t find the player or players that would meaningfully increase our chances.

We march on as we are.