The Unreliable Rumours Thread

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,012
By that logic, we should already be having a lot of sponsors from all Muslim nations as the Egypt king is here. I don't see any oil conglomerates lining up to sponsor us though.
Salah isn't the only top level Muslim player in football. That's a silly comparison. And only have to look at City to see an example of how much those cultures are already pouring into the sport. The idea is that Pulisic could be the first, legitimate, top player to come from the states, one of the biggest markets.
 

Richard88

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
160
No guarantee that Pulisic would be cheaper than Insigne but in any event I doubt £80m would put us off if it was the right player. We were willing to spend close to that amount on Lemar.

I would be up for spending big money on Pulisic with perhaps a move for Ismaila Sarr as well.

As for midfield I'd expect the club to retain an interest in Zielinski at the right price. SMS perhaps as an alternative?

Further back I don't think we need to meddle with too much although if Kimpembe became available then I'd hope we'd be in for him. Skriniar, likewise. De Sciglio could cover both full-back positions but I'd be happy to keep what we've got.

As for a number two keeper it's the hardest position to recruit for. I'd keep Mignolet or consider Navas if he was interested in swapping benches.

So if the money was there I'd be Navas; Skriniar/Kimpembe; De Sciglio; Zielinski/SMS; Pulisic; Sarr with my priorities being CB, CM and Pulisic.

I'd sell Lovren, Lallana, Origi.
I really don't understand the desire to sell Lovren, at all.

Granted he might not be a fan-favourite due to how he started his career at the club, but fact is that he was good enough to get his teams to finals in the Europa League, Champions League, and World Cup in recent years, and he remains a solid player for the club - and is so regarded by the manager and club too, so to suggest that the club should get rid seems rather pointless.

That said, I'll offer you three more reasons why Lovren shouldn't be sold:

Firstly, now with Gomez developing nicely next to Van Dijk, it essentially makes Lovren #3 in the CB pecking order. Now tell me, should Lovren leave, what CB is going to be looking at Gomez and Van Dijk and fancying their chances of supplanting either of them as first-choice? Are there any CB's out there better than Lovren who would be happy to be #3 at the club? Probably not.

Secondly, look at the CB options at other top clubs in the PL (listed below). I'd argue that none of the other clubs - bar maybe City, have as good or better 3rd option at CB.
Liverpool: Van Dijk, Gomez, Lovren, Matip, Phillips​
Man City: Laporte, Stones, Kompany, Otamendi​
Chelsea: David Luiz, Rudiger, Cahill, Christensen​
Arsenal: Mustafi, Koscielny, Sokratis, Holding​
Spurs: Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Sanchez​
United: Bailly, Smalling, Lindeloff, Jones​
Thirdly, Lovren is ideally suited for Klopp's system, given his front-foot style and aerial prowess. He's also familiar with the system (and club) already, and is at an age (29) that many consider to be the prime age for a CB. There's no need to make changes for the sake of it.

That said, given that he is contracted until 2021 it would appear that the club agrees with the points above. It's also noteworthy that he signed his contract extension in April 2017 (according to liverpoolfc.com) which suggests that Klopp considers him to be part of his long term plans too.

Needless to say, to suggest that Lovren should be sold flies in the face of logic and reasoning.
 

SithBaare

From Doubters to Believers
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,345
Salah isn't the only top level Muslim player in football. That's a silly comparison. And only have to look at City to see an example of how much those cultures are already pouring into the sport. The idea is that Pulisic could be the first, legitimate, top player to come from the states, one of the biggest markets.
City, PSG and Everton (Moshiri is Iranian) come to mind immediately.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
10,955
I really don't understand the desire to sell Lovren, at all.

Granted he might not be a fan-favourite due to how he started his career at the club, but fact is that he was good enough to get his teams to finals in the Europa League, Champions League, and World Cup in recent years, and he remains a solid player for the club - and is so regarded by the manager and club too, so to suggest that the club should get rid seems rather pointless.

That said, I'll offer you three more reasons why Lovren shouldn't be sold:

Firstly, now with Gomez developing nicely next to Van Dijk, it essentially makes Lovren #3 in the CB pecking order. Now tell me, should Lovren leave, what CB is going to be looking at Gomez and Van Dijk and fancying their chances of supplanting either of them as first-choice? Are there any CB's out there better than Lovren who would be happy to be #3 at the club? Probably not.

Secondly, look at the CB options at other top clubs in the PL (listed below). I'd argue that none of the other clubs - bar maybe City, have as good or better 3rd option at CB.
Liverpool: Van Dijk, Gomez, Lovren, Matip, Phillips​
Man City: Laporte, Stones, Kompany, Otamendi​
Chelsea: David Luiz, Rudiger, Cahill, Christensen​
Arsenal: Mustafi, Koscielny, Sokratis, Holding​
Spurs: Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Sanchez​
United: Bailly, Smalling, Lindeloff, Jones​
Thirdly, Lovren is ideally suited for Klopp's system, given his front-foot style and aerial prowess. He's also familiar with the system (and club) already, and is at an age (29) that many consider to be the prime age for a CB. There's no need to make changes for the sake of it.

That said, given that he is contracted until 2021 it would appear that the club agrees with the points above. It's also noteworthy that he signed his contract extension in April 2017 (according to liverpoolfc.com) which suggests that Klopp considers him to be part of his long term plans too.

Needless to say, to suggest that Lovren should be sold flies in the face of logic and reasoning.
Because keeping Lovren as fourth choice would be not cost effective and would impact on the ability to give games to players coming through the ranks. I'd sell Matip as well....*IF* we bought Kimpembe or Skriniar (or did you just overlook that part?).

Of all the big six's CBs Lovren is, at best, the third best third choice behind those of City and Tottenham.
 

ILLOK

In the Danger Zone.
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
15,371
Because keeping Lovren as fourth choice would be not cost effective and would impact on the ability to give games to players coming through the ranks. I'd sell Matip as well....*IF* we bought Kimpembe or Skriniar (or did you just overlook that part?).

Of all the big six's CBs Lovren is, at best, the third best third choice behind those of City and Tottenham.
Lovren's better than Sanchez, and judging on his last few performances, Alderweireld has fallen off a cliff as well.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,012
Because keeping Lovren as fourth choice would be not cost effective and would impact on the ability to give games to players coming through the ranks. I'd sell Matip as well....*IF* we bought Kimpembe or Skriniar (or did you just overlook that part?).

Of all the big six's CBs Lovren is, at best, the third best third choice behind those of City and Tottenham.
Lovren does better in our system than some of those first choice CBs would let alone the third choice. The problem with Lovren has always been that he does 95% of what we need from him at world class standard and 5% at amateur standard. We have a very unforgiving set up for CBs even some very good players wouldn't fit it well.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
10,955
Lovren's better than Sanchez, and judging on his last few performances, Alderweireld has fallen off a cliff as well.
Disagree with you on Sanchez but your observation re Alderweireld is fair.
 

ILLOK

In the Danger Zone.
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
15,371
Salah isn't the only top level Muslim player in football. That's a silly comparison. And only have to look at City to see an example of how much those cultures are already pouring into the sport. The idea is that Pulisic could be the first, legitimate, top player to come from the states, one of the biggest markets.
Could be, or we could just buy one of the many better players out there. Taking advantage of the US market is somewhat negated if you overpay on the player initially.

Selling some extra shirts should be seen as a bonus, not the primary driver for the signing.
 

Richard88

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
160
Because keeping Lovren as fourth choice would be not cost effective and would impact on the ability to give games to players coming through the ranks. I'd sell Matip as well....*IF* we bought Kimpembe or Skriniar (or did you just overlook that part?).

Of all the big six's CBs Lovren is, at best, the third best third choice behind those of City and Tottenham.
Firstly, exactly what evidence is there that Lovren is fourth choice? It would appear to me that Lovren is ahead of Matip, based on recent starts...

Lovren was injured for a few weeks to start the season, and yet he's been preferred over Matip in the last three PL games (City, Huddersfield, and Cardiff). Matip's only PL start was against Southampton while Lovren was injured. Matip's only other start was in the league cup together with Lovren against Chelsea.

Secondly, what makes you think Kimpembe or Skriniar would move to Liverpool to be 3rd choice (behind the excellent partnership of Gomez and Van Dijk)?

Also on the flip side, what makes you think Klopp would want to spend big money just to rotate his #3, when he clearly seems satisfied with his CB's?

Lastly, as someone above mentioned, Klopp's system is very unforgiving to CB's, and there's no guarantee that a new CB would come in and slot in seamlessly while being better than the option we already have. Seems a bit like "the grass is always greener on the other side"...
 

Iluvatar

Allez Allez Allez
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
6,743
Firstly, exactly what evidence is there that Lovren is fourth choice? It would appear to me that Lovren is ahead of Matip, based on recent starts...

Lovren was injured for a few weeks to start the season, and yet he's been preferred over Matip in the last three PL games (City, Huddersfield, and Cardiff). Matip's only PL start was against Southampton while Lovren was injured. Matip's only other start was in the league cup together with Lovren against Chelsea.

Secondly, what makes you think Kimpembe or Skriniar would move to Liverpool to be 3rd choice (behind the excellent partnership of Gomez and Van Dijk)?

Also on the flip side, what makes you think Klopp would want to spend big money just to rotate his #3, when he clearly seems satisfied with his CB's?

Lastly, as someone above mentioned, Klopp's system is very unforgiving to CB's, and there's no guarantee that a new CB would come in and slot in seamlessly while being better than the option we already have. Seems a bit like "the grass is always greener on the other side"...
Klopp will always make do with what he has at his disposal and trust/back said players but if a player he believes is an improvement over what he has he'll go and get him. Make no mistake he is utterly ruthless in his pursuit of dominance.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
10,955
Firstly, exactly what evidence is there that Lovren is fourth choice? It would appear to me that Lovren is ahead of Matip, based on recent starts...
He's not, nor do I say he is. He would be if we signed Kimpembe or Skriniar though.
 

ILLOK

In the Danger Zone.
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
15,371
Disagree with you on Sanchez but your observation re Alderweireld is fair.
I think Sanchez will be better than him long term, certainly has more natural ability, but at this point I'd rather have Lovren in our defence than Sanchez. Sanchez is quite noticeably more error prone and still has serious issues with positioning. Great talent, though.
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
Unless Lovren relapses into regular brainfarts then I think the centre back position is sorted for now as far as Klopp is concerned.

The left flank is exposed depth-wise both at left back and left wing. He will look at what is coming through our system first. But he simply has to have real options here, particularly at left back.

If Mignolet is prepared to stay then Klopp might even go with that until one of the 2 young-uns is ready.

I think Klopp will be focussing on proper cover for Bobby and quite likely a CM.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
12,615
What has Pulisic done to warrant such an outlay, though? Can't help but feel he's been heavily overrated.

Sancho already has more goals and assists than Pulisic managed in the whole of last season (2500 fewer minutes). He's a good young player but talk of 70-80 million is absolutely bonkers IMO.
Two years ago I would watch Dortmund and think that Dembele was at the time the more advanced player, but that Pulisic was a more complete player and so had a higher ceiling and maybe you could infer from that would also have a longer peak. So to a point Pulisic was being valued based largely on a projection of what he would become, whereas Dembele was at the time a payer who had already ripped England a new one in an international game. There comes a point for Pulisic though where he has to get that level up and realise that extra promise Every year he continues at this level probably knocks ten million off his valuation because you are increasingly thinking that the ceiling isn't as high as you previously thought.
 

The Elusive 19th

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
4,368
Two years ago I would watch Dortmund and think that Dembele was at the time the more advanced player, but that Pulisic was a more complete player and so had a higher ceiling and maybe you could infer from that would also have a longer peak. So to a point Pulisic was being valued based largely on a projection of what he would become, whereas Dembele was at the time a payer who had already ripped England a new one in an international game. There comes a point for Pulisic though where he has to get that level up and realise that extra promise Every year he continues at this level probably knocks ten million off his valuation because you are increasingly thinking that the ceiling isn't as high as you previously thought.
To put is simply - he has stagnated last 2 years? The more he stays at the same level, the ceiling which we thought was high is looking ridiculously distant and impossible to reach?
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
Whenever I look at promising, supposedly highly talented young players its noticeable how often for all the hype and videos of the player’s greatest hits how little end product there is compared with matches played. And I’m not seeing great stats for Pulisic that would support all of the hype.

We have Salah, Shaqiri, Mane and Wilson all of whom can play right wing. If Pulisic hasn’t completely nailed down the right wing position then it is utterly bonkers to even consider him in other playing positions especially for the sums currently being touted.

I can’t remember another case where the hype about a young player was so utterly out of proportion with the reality. No doubt one of you guys will be able to remind me.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
12,615
To put is simply - he has stagnated last 2 years? The more he stays at the same level, the ceiling which we thought was high is looking ridiculously distant and impossible to reach?
I think technically you can say he has stagnated, although I think that implies a degree of criticism I did not intend. I mean, he is still one of the better players on one of the top 15 sides in Europe. Even if he never gets better than this it's still enough to be a damn good player and have a good career, and he's showing enough that he would probably do well here. I just think that he has not yet improved to the point that he would justify a 80-100 million pound transfer it would seemingly take to land him, and every year he doesn't jump to that level makes it less likely that he will.
 

Richard88

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
160
Whenever I look at promising, supposedly highly talented young players its noticeable how often for all the hype and videos of the player’s greatest hits how little end product there is compared with matches played. And I’m not seeing great stats for Pulisic that would support all of the hype.

We have Salah, Shaqiri, Mane and Wilson all of whom can play right wing. If Pulisic hasn’t completely nailed down the right wing position then it is utterly bonkers to even consider him in other playing positions especially for the sums currently being touted.

I can’t remember another case where the hype about a young player was so utterly out of proportion with the reality. No doubt one of you guys will be able to remind me.
I don't have any stats to hand, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that some of the things that made/make Pulisic attractive as a player aren't necessarily his goals and assists, but rather, some of the other underlying statistics relating to pressing actions, sprints, dribbles, touches in the box, penetration, etc.

Needless to say, in a team where gegenpressing IS the playmaker, a player who already exhibits top class pressing at a very young age would be highly attractive to someone like Klopp - more so than a winger who shines individually whilst being a passenger off the ball.

In fact, a player who excels more individually rather than in team-centric aspects would be a huge problem in Klopp's system, as it may leave the team unbalanced out of possession, and uncohesive in attack as a unit. A recent example might be Emre Can, who often looked great individually, but often at the expense of the team (for example when he made his long runs forward and into the box he would look great, but leave the midfield and defense exposed in the process).

That said, I'd be interested to see some statistics or underlying numbers for Pulisic if anyone has them to hand.

Edit: After posting I went to check some articles to try to see if my memory was correct, and I found the article linked below, which highlights exactly what I mentioned above about Pulisic's value in gegenpressing:

Analysing Christian Pulisic and why big clubs covet his potential

http://www.espn.com/soccer/german-bundesliga/10/blog/post/3502030/analysing-christian-pulisic-and-why-big-clubs-covet-his-potential

"But an attacking midfielder's duties go beyond playing the final pass and putting the ball in the net, so where does Pulisic rank when a more complex set of performance indicators is taken into account?
Former Bayer Leverkusen midfielder Stefan Reinartz has created a scouting and player analysis model called Impect which is used by more than a dozen Bundesliga clubs to identify talent.
Its main innovation lies in ascribing value to the number of players -- specifically defenders -- who are bypassed by other players, whether by passing forward, dribbling or receiving the ball. To evaluate performance levels, the data is cross-referenced with other position-specific actions, then compared to others playing the same role in the same league.
The Impect results for Pulisic are somewhat surprising. Reinartz's model had him at 49 percent in 2016-17, meaning that he was better than 49 percent of Bundesliga players with a similar attacking midfielder profile. In other words, he was almost exactly average. However, that overall number hides an interesting difference between attacking and defensive actions.
Going forward, Pulisic was rated at only 43 percent -- slightly below average -- whereas without the ball he came in at 82 percent (both sets of data are not equal but weighted according to profile). From this we can see that, when Thomas Tuchel was in charge and Dortmund were much better going forward, Pulisic's greatest value was in providing defensive interventions high up the pitch.
(...) "His profile is special," says Reinartz. "We usually don't see players scoring this many goals and creating as many assists as he does without being extraordinarily good at bypassing defenders with killer passes, making deep runs to bypass defenders as a receiver or taking up good positions between the lines to bypass players as a receiver. He's merely at a reasonable level in all of these departments." (...)
The data suggests that Pulisic is excellent at creating dangerous moments in the final third, even without beating many defenders, but that he doesn't do much to help his team get there in the first place. Reinartz suggests that these characteristics meant the teenager was particularly negatively impacted by Stoger's unconvincing attacking game."
 

Last edited:

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
10,955
I think technically you can say he has stagnated, although I think that implies a degree of criticism I did not intend. I mean, he is still one of the better players on one of the top 15 sides in Europe. Even if he never gets better than this it's still enough to be a damn good player and have a good career, and he's showing enough that he would probably do well here. I just think that he has not yet improved to the point that he would justify a 80-100 million pound transfer it would seemingly take to land him, and every year he doesn't jump to that level makes it less likely that he will.
Problem with the market these days though is that previously a fee would reflect a player's demonstrated talent and partly the extent of their maximum potential. Now clubs are having to pay for the potential as if it will certainly be fully realised. It's distorting the market to such an extent that the value in investing in players still developing is no longer there.

It's skewing the risk assessments of the top teams when it comes to recruitment particularly as the stability of contracts continues to be further eroded. It can't go on like this.

On what Pulisic has already achieved he's probably a £30m player but because he *could* be a £70/80m player that's often what becomes is value. It's almost backwards.

As for his progression it's not unusual, as you'll be aware, that players at 19-21 seemingly stand still before their development kicks on again. Dortmund will price him as if that's guaranteed to happen. Dembele is a classic example of procuring a fee where people think what he will become has already been factored in to his cost.
 

Jah_Pool

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
566
I wouldn't sign Pulisic at all, too much hype and too little end product. If we were looking to improve this squad. I'd move Lallana on in the summer, send Milner to Leeds if they come up and plop a 150 million quid on Zaha and Neves.. This team lacks a maestro to dictate tempo, thus Neves and Zaha would would be an immediate replacement for the wings. Zaha is a much better player than Pulisic and he would develop even more playing with better players. I would even throw in a few youngsters to Palace on loan or otherwise to sweeten the deal.
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
I don't have any stats to hand, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that some of the things that made/make Pulisic attractive as a player aren't necessarily his goals and assists, but rather, some of the other underlying statistics relating to pressing actions, sprints, dribbles, touches in the box, penetration, etc.

Needless to say, in a team where gegenpressing IS the playmaker, a player who already exhibits top class pressing at a very young age would be highly attractive to someone like Klopp - more so than a winger who shines individually whilst being a passenger off the ball.

In fact, a player who excels more individually rather than in team-centric aspects would be a huge problem in Klopp's system, as it may leave the team unbalanced out of possession, and uncohesive in attack as a unit. A recent example might be Emre Can, who often looked great individually, but often at the expense of the team (for example when he made his long runs forward and into the box he would look great, but leave the midfield and defense exposed in the process).

That said, I'd be interested to see some statistics or underlying numbers for Pulisic if anyone has them to hand.

Edit: After posting I went to check some articles to try to see if my memory was correct, and I found the article linked below, which highlights exactly what I mentioned above about Pulisic's value in gegenpressing:

Analysing Christian Pulisic and why big clubs covet his potential

http://www.espn.com/soccer/german-bundesliga/10/blog/post/3502030/analysing-christian-pulisic-and-why-big-clubs-covet-his-potential

"But an attacking midfielder's duties go beyond playing the final pass and putting the ball in the net, so where does Pulisic rank when a more complex set of performance indicators is taken into account?
Former Bayer Leverkusen midfielder Stefan Reinartz has created a scouting and player analysis model called Impect which is used by more than a dozen Bundesliga clubs to identify talent.
Its main innovation lies in ascribing value to the number of players -- specifically defenders -- who are bypassed by other players, whether by passing forward, dribbling or receiving the ball. To evaluate performance levels, the data is cross-referenced with other position-specific actions, then compared to others playing the same role in the same league.
The Impect results for Pulisic are somewhat surprising. Reinartz's model had him at 49 percent in 2016-17, meaning that he was better than 49 percent of Bundesliga players with a similar attacking midfielder profile. In other words, he was almost exactly average. However, that overall number hides an interesting difference between attacking and defensive actions.
Going forward, Pulisic was rated at only 43 percent -- slightly below average -- whereas without the ball he came in at 82 percent (both sets of data are not equal but weighted according to profile). From this we can see that, when Thomas Tuchel was in charge and Dortmund were much better going forward, Pulisic's greatest value was in providing defensive interventions high up the pitch.
(...) "His profile is special," says Reinartz. "We usually don't see players scoring this many goals and creating as many assists as he does without being extraordinarily good at bypassing defenders with killer passes, making deep runs to bypass defenders as a receiver or taking up good positions between the lines to bypass players as a receiver. He's merely at a reasonable level in all of these departments." (...)
The data suggests that Pulisic is excellent at creating dangerous moments in the final third, even without beating many defenders, but that he doesn't do much to help his team get there in the first place. Reinartz suggests that these characteristics meant the teenager was particularly negatively impacted by Stoger's unconvincing attacking game."

Thanks for going to the trouble of posting that but for me it doesn’t change my opinion. An attacking player is essentially there to create and score goals. I’ve had a quick look around and the consistent message is he’s no great shakes in that department. I’d rather save the money, spend it elsewhere, and give young Wilson an opportunity instead.
 

Red over the water

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
1,232
I wouldn't spend big money on our CB area of the pitch at this time. We are well sorted. VVD is the undisputed kingpin. Gomez is emerging as the second choice, and preferred partner. But we haven't had that many games for that to be fully solidified, so we should leave the situation alone and allow it to develop. As it does we have Lovren and Matip waiting in the wings. They are both first choice quality for many Prem teams and are able to come in and do just fine for us as needed.

If the situation starts to change and one or both of Lovren and Matip get restless because they want to play more, we can look at the situation at that point. As it stands this isn't an area of the pitch I'd spend money on at the moment.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
51,757
Salah isn't the only top level Muslim player in football. That's a silly comparison. And only have to look at City to see an example of how much those cultures are already pouring into the sport. The idea is that Pulisic could be the first, legitimate, top player to come from the states, one of the biggest markets.
City sponsorship has nothing to do with Muslim superstar, and The Arabs isn't the biggest Muslim country in the world or region in the world. Let's not make Abu Dhabi the representative of the Muslims around the world.

If Pulisic is going to pull that many fans and money into the club, Dortmund I'd imagine would have been having bucket loads of cash in their coffers from sponsors.
 



Richard88

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
160
Thanks for going to the trouble of posting that but for me it doesn’t change my opinion. An attacking player is essentially there to create and score goals. I’ve had a quick look around and the consistent message is he’s no great shakes in that department. I’d rather save the money, spend it elsewhere, and give young Wilson an opportunity instead.
Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but I actually wasn't trying to promote the idea of signing him, and I do agree with you that signing someone with more end product would be more ideal.

That said, what I was trying to do was simply present a case of some logical reasons for his name constantly being brought up. He's far from a bad player, and it wouldn't be a bad signing at all, just not the "best" signing, at least based on current form. Again though, presenting some reasoning of the counter-point doesn't mean that I necessarily hold that viewpoint, it's just a mental exercise pretty much. :-)
 

Richard88

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
160
I wouldn't sign Pulisic at all, too much hype and too little end product. If we were looking to improve this squad. I'd move Lallana on in the summer, send Milner to Leeds if they come up and plop a 150 million quid on Zaha and Neves.. This team lacks a maestro to dictate tempo, thus Neves and Zaha would would be an immediate replacement for the wings. Zaha is a much better player than Pulisic and he would develop even more playing with better players. I would even throw in a few youngsters to Palace on loan or otherwise to sweeten the deal.
Lallana and Milner will surely be moved on either next summer or in 2020, and I agree with you there.

That said, £150 on Zaha and Neves??!? That's nonsensical..

First of all, Zaha. Presumably about half of the £150 would be spent on him. Is he really a £75m player? I don't think so, not even close. He's the prototype of a Match of the Day player - looking good for a handful of games, and then going missing. That's fine for a bottom half club, but not at a top club where every game matters and every poor performance scrutinised under a microscope. The argument that players improve playing with better players was thrown around for the likes of Rickie Lambert, Balotelli, Danny Ings, et al, showing painfully that not all players become "better" simply from being surrounded by others who are better - in fact, they may even drag the team down to their level instead.

Secondly, Klopp seems to like to play with a tall aerially strong No.6, dating back to Dortmund when he had Kehl as his No.6. The signings of Fabinho and Keita suggests that he won't be looking for another deep "controller" type, but rather that he is looking for more mobile and dynamic players than Neves. That isn't to say that Neves isn't "dynamic" at all, just that he tends to spread the ball to the wings more than he looks to turn and run with it himself. Moreover, if there was any interest in Neves I'm sure Klopp would have signed him already, surely before he headed to Wolves in the Championship.
 

ILLOK

In the Danger Zone.
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
15,371
First of all, Zaha. Presumably about half of the £150 would be spent on him. Is he really a £75m player? I don't think so, not even close. He's the prototype of a Match of the Day player - looking good for a handful of games, and then going missing. That's fine for a bottom half club, but not at a top club where every game matters and every poor performance scrutinised under a microscope. The argument that players improve playing with better players was thrown around for the likes of Rickie Lambert, Balotelli, Danny Ings, et al, showing painfully that not all players become "better" simply from being surrounded by others who are better - in fact, they may even drag the team down to their level instead.
Some players do better, some do worse. For every Ings and Lambert you have a Robertson or Shaqiri. Zaha is clearly much more influential than Ings and Lambert ever were, so Shaqiri is probably the best comparison.

I wouldn't spunk that much on him either but he's definitely a better player than you're giving him credit for, without him Palace would be playing Championship football for sure.
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
Moreover, if there was any interest in Neves I'm sure Klopp would have signed him already, surely before he headed to Wolves in the Championship.

I really don’t think its that simple. Neves went to Wolves for a reason. And he has made it known that if he leaves Wolves it will be to return to Porto. That’s his long-held dream.

Whether he gets his wish remains to be seen. If he was to move to another EPL club then I think LFC would be an excellent fit for both parties.