Marduk switched from Chelsea to Arsenal! Give us a new understanding of the Premier League business model

Chelsea winger Noni Marduk joins Arsenal for £52 million (about €60 million). The significance of this transfer is far more profound than it seems on the surface - it even makes people begin to reflect: Is the ridicule of Chelsea's new boss's operating strategy really appropriate?

Looking at the data alone, Marduk's performance is not bad: he contributed 7 goals and 3 assists (goals + assists) in his 2048 minutes of playing time. Although it is not outstanding for top clubs, it is by no means a disaster. But the intuitive feeling is far more negative - last season, as long as you watch all Chelsea games, you will find that Marduk is often the "terminator" of the offense: his propulsion pass data is mediocre, resulting in his own style being extremely predictive; whenever he has the chance, he will always choose to cut in the wing, and the success rate of this cut is only in the middle.

What is more interesting is that Tottenham signed for a similar price (£55 million), Kudus is already one of the top dribble players in Europe. In contrast, Maduk's cost-effectiveness seems embarrassing.

His performance in the penalty area is even more "just looking at the sky": sometimes he can score wonderful goals (such as last season against Leicester City), but sometimes he will waste the most basic opportunities. At the Club World Cup not long ago, his performance of zero goals and zero assists further confirmed this instability - especially in the game against Los Angeles, he not only missed the opportunity, but also succeeded in four incisive attempts.

What makes Chelsea fans even more helpless is that Marduk is always tied to "low-level mistakes": for example, competing with Jackson for Palmer's penalty kick; last season, he directly destroyed a scoring opportunity because of blocking Palmer's shot; even because of a mistake in judgment on the offside line, the opponent took the opportunity to score. All in all, he is more like a "headless fly" player.

There has been news within Chelsea that the club is willing to sell Marduk under a "suitable offer" - this seems generous, but it is actually more like cleaning up redundancy: after all, the team has introduced Estevao, Gittens and Joao Pedro (the latter is competent for many positions, but has recently appeared as a forward), and Marduk's position on the offensive line has been completely marginalized.

If it weren't for Arsenal's intervention, it would be unlikely that a top club would be willing to pay 52 million pounds for Marduk - if he could only go to a mid- and lower-level team like Sunderland, his value would inevitably shrink significantly. As Fabrizio Romano said, Arsenal has a great relationship with Chelsea's management, which paves the way for trading (in recent years, Arsenal signed Kepa, Havertz, Jorginho, etc. from Chelsea, and earlier, William and David Luis, etc.).

But the question is: Why does Arsenal need Marduk? He plays on the right side at Chelsea and has recently made more guest appearances on the left side. Arteta is said to have personally promoted the deal and communicated with the players even before the transfer. But Arsenal has Saka (one of the team's top players) on the right, and it seems outrageous to spend 52 million pounds to buy a substitute on the right; there are already Martinelli, Trosad, and the young Nelson on the left; including Jesus, who is in doubt after the cruciate ligament injury - is Marduk stronger than these people? The answer is probably no.

In the past few years, Chelsea has been regarded as a "negative textbook for club management": frequent changes in coaches and excessive squandering has become the norm. The former regular Champions League and Premier League champions have never really hit the two top events under the new boss - spending 1.5 billion euros to buy people, but making the team weaker. This is undoubtedly a disaster. The so-called "long-term planning" is more like empty talk.

But the sale of Marduk (and Petrovic is about to join Bournemouth for £25 million, and Chelsea spent only £17 million when he bought him), coupled with the unexpected win of the Club World Cup, it has to ask: perhaps from a business perspective, Chelsea's model has its own reasons? Next, it may be more answers to see what price they will sell "redundant players" such as Felix for.