The positive effects of new signings on the performance of other players

[Winchester Red]

Having been a supporter of my beloved saints for 40 years now (christ, where did that go) I've witnessed many signings that have had direct effects on the performance of other players.

 

One example was Chris Marsden. Never a big name and for me always a solid performer but never a superstar, but, bloody hell, he made Wayne Bridge look good and actually be good. (Not sure if he was signed before Wayne broke through or after).

 

Dejan Lovren appears now to be another. We spent £8m on him and he looks great, but the effect he has had on Jose Fonte has been stunning. Fonte's turned from bring a 6/10 prem defender into 8/10 (my opinion obviously).

 

These 2 examples are where a player supports another to make him better, but can a transfer be judged a success if the signing himself doesn't achieve what was expected himself, but spurs on another? It could be that the player that directly benefits is the player that keeps the new signing out of the side.

 

An example might be, say, if Lallana's form could be directly linked (I know, impossible) to the signing of a very expensive foreign player. Lallana then fears for his place, puts his foot on the gas and goes on to fulfil his undoubted potential, but keeps the said player out of the team and he then never makes his mark.

 

Is that still money well spent on the player that was signed?

 

Also, is it worth retaining the said player purely to keep the performing player on his toes?

 

The examples I've used aren't the best but I'm sure get the gist of what I'm asking. Should the indirect benefits of a new signing be considered when judging if it has been successful?

[ozzmeister]

I can't think of a recent signing which has seemed to have more impact on the pitch than Lovren. Maybe Ricky when we first signed him?

[Winchester Red]

If we signed a new holding midfielder in January and that signing directly pushed big vic onto another level, but the signing himself failed to make an impact, would it be viewed as a good signing and worth the money?

 

There are so many potential indirect benefits.

 

If (stupid example) the signing of Tadanari Lee means we sell 200,000 shirts in Japan, but he never plays another game, would he have been a good signing?

 

Some signings are clearly disasters, like Forren, but there are plenty of others that didn't perform on the pitch but could be argued to have gained the club indirect benefits. Charlie George? Delgado? Kerry Dixon (no, probably no benefit there!)

Edited 27 October, 2013 by Winchester Red

[Globetrotter]

Ormerod. Got more out of Pahars and then Phillips, whilst being pretty darn handy himself.

[Saint Martini]

Michael Svensson had pretty much the same impact on Lundekvam as Lovren on Fonte.

[Hamilton Saint]

Michael Svensson had pretty much the same impact on Lundekvam as Lovren on Fonte.

 

Yes!

[Winchester Red]

Ormerod. Got more out of Pahars and then Phillips, whilst being pretty darn handy himself.

 

Yep, although his costs were so low he probably covered them with his own performances and goals

Edited 27 October, 2013 by Winchester Red

[Winchester Red]

Michael Svensson had pretty much the same impact on Lundekvam as Lovren on Fonte.

 

Another one that made another player better, but also performed beyond expectation himself.

 

Are there any that failed individually on the pitch but paid back in other ways?

[Right sider]

Brett got Beattie into the England squad

[Winchester Red]

Imants Bleidelis for Marian Pahars? Or did Marian achieve everything he could of regardless?

[saintadjg]

Kevin Davis improved dramatically after we signed David Hurst