Why do so many expensive players don't live up to their expectations?
Thoughts on the myth of A-players, factors that affect fit and a theory about why Bayern signed Mané's best friend
I. Sadio Mané and Desire Segbe — best friends reunited
On June 22, Bayern Munich officially announced the transfer of Sadio Mané for €32 million. It was the start of a new chapter for the 30-year-old Senegalese. Moving to a new city, learning a new language, getting used to new habits, and much more.
On July 31, Bayern announced another transfer — one that's gone largely unnoticed. It was the signing of Desire Segbe. Segbe is a center-forward who has been under contract with French third division club USL Dunkerque until early July. Since Dunkerque was relegated, Bayern was able to sign the 29-year-old on a free transfer.
The interesting part is that Segbe is one of Sadio Mané's closest confidants. The two met during their time in Senegal at the Generation Foot academy and both later moved to the French club FC Metz. Mané played for the first, Segbe for the second team. While Mané became one of the best players in the world, Segbe never made it to the top level while playing for numerous clubs across Europe.
So why did Bayern sign Segbe? We don't know how good he is as a player, but I think Bayern's thought process could have been something like this: If you spend €32 million on an aging 30-year-old player, you want to do anything to help him settle in. You want to minimize risks to get the best out of him on the pitch. In that way, Segbe won't improve Bayern directly but perhaps indirectly by influencing Mané who then performs at his best level.
One might be inclined to say that such an expensive, and successful player should perform at his highest level regardless. Liverpool’s Head of Research Ian Graham showed that this is not necessarily true. He found that over 50% of big transfers (fee of >£10m ) failed, i.e. played less than 50% of available minutes. One can’t just pay a high fee and expect the player to perform well without considering all the factors that might have influenced his previous performances.
II. The Myth of A-players and what contributes to performance
In their book "Numbers Game", Chris Anderson and David Sally talk about that misconception in more detail. They criticize managers who believe that players are just plug-and-play: buy them from one team, put them into another, and off they go.
The authors reference a study out of Boris Groysberg’s book “Chasing Stars”. Groysberg found that while punters in American football don't decline after switching teams, the statistics of receivers drop for a full year. The difference is that punters are standalone players whereas receivers aren't — similar to football players. Put another way, players who depend on their teammates have a harder time transferring their skills and performance from one context to another. Dean Oliver's and Mike Fienan's study about the importance of fit in Frescoball comes to a similar conclusion.
We can find such examples in the corporate world, too. One of the most popular ones is the case of Ron Johnson, former SVP of Retail Operations at Apple. Johnson was responsible for creating the look and feel of the Apple Store which became a huge success despite contrary opinions at the time. After 12 (highly successful) years at Apple, Johnson wanted a new challenge and accepted an offer to be CEO of J.C. Penney. He took all the principles and processes he learned at Apple "not to change Penney, but to transform it." Johnson lasted for only 17 months.
The story of Johnson is one of the hooks of a piece titled "The Myth of A-Players" written by Trevor Hunter, Bud Bhattacharyya, and Jeff Hunter. The notion of A-players goes back to Steve Jobs who claimed that Apple's success boils down to the hire of A-players, employees who 50x the productivity of an average employee. The authors don't reject this thesis but point out what Graham or Anderson and Sally found: A-players are not plug-and-play. Johnson is one example of many who are A-players in one specific context but fail in others.
III. Context, culture and what contributes to performance
Arguing that you can't divorce performance from context is not a new insight. Neither in football nor the corporate world. Especially from a tactical point of view in football, the importance of context has been documented plenty.
While tactics are perhaps the most important component, it doesn't define context as a whole. Google defines it as “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.” Essentially, it's a variety of factors that allow players to perform at their peak on matchdays.
In his piece "The whole is greater than the sum", Ben Falk advocates for that, too. We’re wired to search for one specific reason that caused something like a great performance or a championship. Similarly, when it comes to player evaluation, we attribute performances to cause A and underestimate causes B, C, D, and E. His proposed solution is a concept called nexus causality. It tells you to not just attribute the outcome to cause A but consider the combination of causes A, B, C, D, and E that provided the basis for his performance.
Causality itself is a conceptual tool that simplifies, schematizes, and focuses our representation of situations. This cognitive machinery guides us to think in terms of the cause — of an outcome having a single cause. Yet for enlarged understanding, it is more accurate to represent outcomes as caused by an intersection, or nexus, of factors.
One important aspect of context is culture. According to the authors of Myth of A-players, “culture differences are often a big part of why A-players become bozos, and mediocre performers become stars.” The culture can drive people to peak performance. It can bring out their best selves because it fits with their beliefs, makes them feel comfortable and motivated. However, the culture can also drag people down because it clashes with their beliefs, makes them feel uncomfortable and disillusioned.
Some managers openly talk about how they acquired so-called culture guys to enhance the environment of their locker room. Billy Beane, for example, described how he did it twice with the Oakland A’s at the Sloan conference. AC Milan probably didn't buy 39-year-old Ibrahimovic just for his qualities on the pitch but for how he could influence a culture of talented young players.
IV. What makes a player effective?
In Myth of A players, the authors conclude their piece by stating that "given the right context, almost any person can be an A-player". I think that's true. At least within their boundaries. Scott McTominay will not become Sergio Busquets just because of the right context. But he can become an A-player version of Scott McTominay.1
The question then becomes what actually defines the "right context". That's very much an open question without one correct answer. In 2015, Google published a survey called "What makes a Google team effective". They found that the most important key dynamic that sets successful teams apart from others was psychological safety, defined as team members feeling safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other. On its simplest level, one could define it as a culture of trust.
Placing emphasis on culture and building trust was also what Jürgen Klopp did when he joined Liverpool as his assistant Pepijn Lijnders revealed. Talking about the strong relationship Jürgen Klopp tends to build with his players, Lijnders explained: "Jurgen creates a family. We always say 30 percent tactics, 70 percent team building."
However, even great leaders like Jürgen Klopp don't always get it all right. My favorite example of getting the A-player out of someone is about Henrikh Mkhitaryan who looked completely lost during his first two seasons in Dortmund. In his own words:
So I moved to Germany, and not only was it another new language, but also the culture and the atmosphere was very different than what I was used to. It was a very hard period for me. The first season was O.K., but the second season was a disaster, not only for me, but also for the club. I had been signed for a lot of money, and I put a lot of pressure on myself. I had many hard nights in my apartment in Dortmund, all alone, just thinking and thinking. I didn’t want to go outside, even to have dinner.
Then Thomas Tuchel came. And Mkhitaryan was voted Bundesliga's player of the season in 2015/16.
He changed everything for me. He came to me and said, “Listen, I want to get everything out of you.” I was kind of smiling and laughing, because I thought he was just trying to make me feel better. I was doubting his words. But he looked at me very seriously, and said, “Micki, you are going to be great.” That meant everything to me. After the season I had, I didn’t think I could be a star. But he did it. He got everything out of me that season, and it was because I was happy again.
Mkhitaryan's story shows that you never really know what's going on behind the curtains and what players really need. Is this player actually bad? Or is he just having a rough time personally? Sometimes, it just takes someone in the organization or environment — whether it’s a team manager, teammate or best friend — who believes and drives us to higher ambitions.
While Mkhitaryan maybe needed someone who believed in him, other players may need different things. Maybe Mané is one of those players who need a sense of home which might mean having people around him that he trusts and that take care of him. In isolation, all these things seem of tiny significance. Will Segbe be the main reason Mané performs well in Munich? No. But he might be one piece of the puzzle.
In his book “Gold Mind”, Rasmus Ankersen talks about the concept of a talent quotient derived from James Flynn’s concept of capitalization. Flynn’s concept describes the percentage of human potential in a given community that is successfully unlocked. In that sense, a talent quotient describes how much a of player’s potential is successfully unlocked.