da brdice： [ad_pod ]
da esoccer bet： Everton’s failure to secure victory over their local-rivals since 2010 will naturally sit at the core of the pre-match narrative ahead of the 108th Merseyside derby. It’s a peculiar aberration which is difficult to explain given the circumstances at both clubs.
It’s seldom if ever a David vs Goliath clash when the two sides engage in a cold-blooded battle within the walls of a North West cauldron, but results have falsely depicted a hefty gulf in class.
Everton’s subordination to Liverpool both in head-to-head battles and in the Premier League table would suggest a tangible disparity between their respective power in the transfer market. Financial muscles on Merseyside, though, have been flexed in the last five years with equal ferocity.
The Toffees are not the underdog which their torrid record in derby-day fixtures suggests either on or off the field. Sizeable wads of cash have been pumped into the club at regular intervals in the last five years, with their net spend currently standing at – £224.2 million since the 2014 summer transfer window.
Liverpool’s net spend, by comparison, is only – £188.3 million. Whenever the Reds have been criticised for their extravagance in the transfer market, they have beat their critics with the net spend stick. It’s not sexy and it’s typically greeted with rolling eyes and tuts of disapproval; surely not again? But the logic is crystal clear and impossible to dispute.
Over the past five years of transfer activity the difference between the rivals stands at £35.9 million. Within the context of the modern climate that’s an almost indifferent sum, especially when you consider that figure would not have sufficed to cover the transfer fee of either Gylfi Sigurdsson or Virgil van Dijk – Everton’s and Liverpool’s respective record signings.
But if we’re inclined to accept that there is little to separate the two clubs in the transfer market, why are Liverpool so dominant in Merseyside derbies and streets ahead in the league table? There are complex historic and psychological reasons behind this truism, but there is a self-inflicted dark truth for the Toffees faithful to confront: they have splurged unfathomable figures on bang-average players and their strategy has lacked the direction and nous of their local-rivals.
The arrival of Marcel Brands was clearly designed to end the scatter-gun culture which has defined much of Everton’s recent transfer history. Correlation between signings has been non-existent in the absence of a meticulously structured, long-term and progressive transfer strategy, and Brands’ job will surely be to end this unwanted trend.
No more pace-merchant headless chickens, no more signings based purely on the fact they play for a top-four team, no more strikers from the Turkish Super Lig, no more Cuco Martina’s, no more Eredivisie flops.
Despite the doom and gloom there are positives for Everton to draw: their record-signing is one of the best playmakers in the division, Jordan Pickford is England’s number one, Nikola Vlasic is threatening to be a surprise package when he returns from CSKA Moscow and Richarlison’s stock is bound to increase at an exponential rate in the coming years.
There is plenty for Marco Silva to work with. The squad is stacked with talent and Everton have not always been wasteful in the transfer market but, in a sport in which success is intrinsically linked with financial power, the Merseyside derby hoodoo simply does not add up.
It’s about time results mirrored financial expenditure at Goodison.