The current situation at Liverpool and the transfer window is another example of this. Stemming from a different sport the example has different characteristics: the ways of thinking are not necessarily unfounded or flawed as they are concerning ‘value’ in horse racing. Opinions on how to strengthen the playing performance of a team are endless and can be supported. So here the interesting thing is not that it is Liverpool but just how strongly that default setting kicks in, leading to a repetitive cycle of analysis that does not appear to progress.
The explosion of opinion, dissent, concern - whatever - when Liverpool were unable to sign another striker during the transfer window bordered on the bizarre. As a functional opinion the reaction had merit, a club should hold a certain number of playing staff covering certain positions and so on. What was bizarre was how that was expressed and magnified, be it by supporters or media commentators, not least because of the three individuals that were involved: none of them were particularly important.
The first was Andy Carroll. Not a first choice striker at any stage, he was around third choice striker at the club and has never been viewed by a manager of the club to be central to the team’s plans. That much was obvious but it was cemented by Carroll lasting 70 minutes on debut before getting injured. For some reason, however, once he had left it then became essential he stayed at the club. Repeated like a mantra, but never really explained why.
The second was the suggested replacement, Clint Dempsey. The 29yo who had point blank refused to play for his team was deemed an essential purchase at any price (and wages). What wasn’t said so often, was that his fee and wages would lead to him sitting on the bench. Amid the clamour to sign him - well, anyone, really - it never really emerged that to utilise him would mean dropping the £24m Uruguayan striker Luis Suarez, who had just signed a lucrative contract extension and was the confirmed number one striker at the club. So ingrained was the mantra to sign a replacement for Carroll, that all sense was mislaid as such a replacement would be sat on the bench, like Carroll was, unless the manager ditched his whole approach to the game and played a version of 4-4-2. Fortunately (to inject a personal opinion on players) the owners stepped in and said the Dempsey deal was only good as a squad addition, not a pension plan for the player. Dempsey went to Spurs, where he will likely struggle.
The third was the £15m-rated Daniel Sturridge. He essentially plays the same kind of role as Suarez and Borini and it could be argued the jury is out on his overall ability. His appearances for Chelsea in wide positions became increasingly predictable: cutting inside from whichever flank he was on and then passing inside or shooting (usually the latter, but often with less accuracy than the already low accuracy of the current Liverpool team).
When no deal for a player was done, the world had all but ended. Default thinking kicked in that said without a third choice striker, the season was over. No-one told Chelsea that before they won the Champions League, nor Arsenal this season before they dismantled Liverpool albeit with some considerable help. Many teams utilise only one key striker throughout a season, the Manchester clubs excepted.
There was even further confusion. The word that got dropped from the discussion was ‘proven’. Liverpool had already signed the prolific young striker Samed Yesil from Leverkusen - striker. And the club already employed Suso, a young striker with a blossoming reputation. So the club has four strikers to call upon but the key to everything and everyone showing ‘wellness’ was signing a striker who would not start in the first XI - the only place with some interchangeability is Borini’s, but he was signed for £11m to play in a particular system. Raheem Sterling, however, has been the best attacker in the opening games, and cost nothing.
Confused or confusing? Both. Particularly with Liverpool, the default setting has for some considerable time been that ‘one player’, yet to be signed, will make all the difference. If signed, that player will solve the multitude of tactical, technical and mentality issues throughout the team, leading to heightened success, or at least higher levels than if he were not to be signed. One individual. This was the repetitive thinking that mushroomed around the Clint Dempsey deal.
The answer lies within. The stats show that, as with the game against Manchester City, Arsenal had to work exceptionally hard for their superiority which even then was ultimately handed to them. Liverpool’s success or lack of it has virtually nothing to do with backup strikers: with the transfer window shut, the club can get on with the task of building a structure that outlasts individuals. A coaching method and playing style stamp that is the hallmark of good teams. Maybe then the patterns of thinking will change too.
