The Bundesliga tax is the idea that the Bundesliga is a worse league than other leagues, particularly the Premier League, and so when comparing stats between leagues you need to apply a “tax” to ones acquired in the Bundesliga
Yeah it's as Tyson says, the idea that Bundesliga has a "tax" in terms of quality. So if a player is so good there, he'll be like 20% or however much worse in a better league.
I think what especially damning about Havertz, Werner, Pulisic and Sancho that leads to extra criticism is, bar possibly Werner, they’re all in the age range where you expect them to improve. So I think the comparison isn’t just with what they did in the Bundesliga, but where people “think” they should be at now following some sort of natural average career progression, even though player performance levels based on age have incredible variance on a case by case basis.
I also wonder if these players who reach such high levels very early in life don’t have much more capacity to improve, because the bar is already so high? Signings on the list like Joao Felix, de Jong and de Ligt feel like they’re all about as good as they were when they got bought, and are still very good players, but that they were so expensive because it was thought they would get even better.
Yeah I agree, though I'd cut them all a little extra slack in that I don't think they've arrived in the best situations to develop, and that's even harder with the disruptions from Covid.
looking at that full list is a nice reminder that *most* transfers are hit or miss. but I'd be curious to find a way to measure, like, how clubs themselves tend to contribute a positive or a negative impact on their signings (other than just being a bad team). looking at Liverpool and Man City, they seem to usually get the most out of their transfers last couple years, and I'm sure that's a) yes, money and competitiveness but also b) a set up conducive to it, with long term stability and trusted managers ... maybe it's just all down to the managers and a front office smart enough to buy them players that fit their plans?
Atalanta is another good case study from recent years ... just musing aloud!
Back in the day there was "Tomkins' law" that said "only 40% of transfers succeed" (https://tomkinstimes.com/2014/06/tomkins-law-only-40-of-transfers-succeed/). I don't know for sure, but my gut instinct is that the disruptions of the Covid era has put that number even lower. I think they did a lot more stuff comparing different sides on the Tomkins Times at one point, but I couldn't find it just googling.
Hi, what is the Bundersliga Tax? I’ve not heard of it before. Thanks.
The Bundesliga tax is the idea that the Bundesliga is a worse league than other leagues, particularly the Premier League, and so when comparing stats between leagues you need to apply a “tax” to ones acquired in the Bundesliga
Yeah it's as Tyson says, the idea that Bundesliga has a "tax" in terms of quality. So if a player is so good there, he'll be like 20% or however much worse in a better league.
I think what especially damning about Havertz, Werner, Pulisic and Sancho that leads to extra criticism is, bar possibly Werner, they’re all in the age range where you expect them to improve. So I think the comparison isn’t just with what they did in the Bundesliga, but where people “think” they should be at now following some sort of natural average career progression, even though player performance levels based on age have incredible variance on a case by case basis.
I also wonder if these players who reach such high levels very early in life don’t have much more capacity to improve, because the bar is already so high? Signings on the list like Joao Felix, de Jong and de Ligt feel like they’re all about as good as they were when they got bought, and are still very good players, but that they were so expensive because it was thought they would get even better.
Yeah I agree, though I'd cut them all a little extra slack in that I don't think they've arrived in the best situations to develop, and that's even harder with the disruptions from Covid.
looking at that full list is a nice reminder that *most* transfers are hit or miss. but I'd be curious to find a way to measure, like, how clubs themselves tend to contribute a positive or a negative impact on their signings (other than just being a bad team). looking at Liverpool and Man City, they seem to usually get the most out of their transfers last couple years, and I'm sure that's a) yes, money and competitiveness but also b) a set up conducive to it, with long term stability and trusted managers ... maybe it's just all down to the managers and a front office smart enough to buy them players that fit their plans?
Atalanta is another good case study from recent years ... just musing aloud!
Back in the day there was "Tomkins' law" that said "only 40% of transfers succeed" (https://tomkinstimes.com/2014/06/tomkins-law-only-40-of-transfers-succeed/). I don't know for sure, but my gut instinct is that the disruptions of the Covid era has put that number even lower. I think they did a lot more stuff comparing different sides on the Tomkins Times at one point, but I couldn't find it just googling.