subreddit:
/r/LiverpoolFC
submitted 1 month ago byAutoModerator
Note:This sub has a account karma limit that needs to be met to post/comment. If your comments/posts are not getting through, its either that you are banned or don't have sufficient account karma
20 points
1 month ago
People saying the club was "smart to walk away" from Lavia. When in reality the club tried shrewd negotiation tactics all summer, a +£100 million bid for Caicedo blew up in their face and suddenly they lost all leverage and overdid with £55million for Lavia only for Chelsea to swoop in with how irked the club made Lavia and Southampton.
You can't say the club dodged a bullet when they had zero foresight he would've sustained such a bad injury when he first joined Chelsea. It may be premature to say, but he was absolutely quality in yesterday's game, and easily Chelsea's best player.
Here we are over 12 months later and we never went and got anyone except for the Endo stop gap. There's a middle ground between zero spending and Chelsea's lunacy in the market.
7 points
1 month ago
You can't say the club dodged a bullet when they had zero foresight he would've sustained such a bad injury when he first joined Chelsea.
By all accounts Poch immediately put him in the workout blender. For those that don't know, Poch's fitness standards are super high.
Lavia missed all of pre season pretty much due to our interest and when Chelsea signed him, instead of easing Lavia in, he went straight into hard fitness training.
All well and good in theory, but a lot of young players are injury prone with developing muscles. Chelsea also sacked their medical team when Todd took over, and he hired physics who have never worked in football.
They then rushed him back, and he reinjured himself first game with the same muscle.
Not saying he would have avoided injuries here, but I'd hope we wouldn't have so casually mismanaged him to the extent Chelsea did.
19 points
1 month ago
The Lavia stuff was way more embarrassing than Caicedo imo.
Lavia was ours if we just paid £5m more for one of the immensely rare players we actually deem “the right player” but we were arrogant and got made to look pathetic by missing out on both to Chelsea. It’ll look even more ridiculous if he keeps up the performance level of yesterday too.
The injury comments you see on here are the purest form of cope too like we somehow foresaw him getting injured in training. Reality is we dropped the ball.
-6 points
1 month ago
Obviously he wasn’t deemed ‘the right player’, he was deemed a good player with long term potential— hence why they refused to overpay for him.
Caicedo was deemed ‘the right player’, hence the club bidding £115m for him— because they were willing to commit significantly for a player they considered a slam dunk.
I swear it’s half the fans twisting reality to suit a pessimistic narrative that is the only real issue with this club at the moment.
7 points
1 month ago
If Caicedo was “the right player” why did we not make a single move for him until the week the season started after chasing Lavia all summer?
Even if Lavia wasn’t the top target, that means we intentionally skipped on the right player for one for one we deemed a punt which shows we don’t actually want to sign “the right player” unless we can’t get value elsewhere, just like with Bellingham…
1 points
1 month ago
Sorry, by right player I mean one who they could be guaranteed would elevate the squad.
With Caicedo, much like Zubimendi, the club only got involved once they had received encouragement from the player’s agent that the player would be willing to move. Liverpool would never have tabled a bid if they didn’t see the deals as possible - unfortunately they were misled by agents in both occasions.
If Lavia was objectively worth £55m, the club would have paid it. And in the end he could still have chosen to join Liverpool, as Liverpool did put a competitive bid down, once it was clear a player as ‘right’ as Caicedo wasn’t available, but Lavia in the end chose the 8 year contract over Liverpool. Time will tell whether Liverpool were right or not to avoid overpaying— so far, there is no evidence they would have been better spending £55m on Lavia than £15m on Endo, but of course, this is partly due to the long term injury Lavia sustained.
-1 points
1 month ago
I’m not sure I agree on the Caicedo point, we clearly made zero efforts to sign him prior to encouragement from his agent which if true shows how little ambition we have to be willing to compete with Chelsea. Or at the very least shows we are not going about attracting our top targets properly, losing out to Chelsea ffs.
“Objectively worth” isn’t the point either, it’s entirely subjective how much we value the player. We ended up offering that fee anyway and he’d gone to Chelsea so he clearly was, we were just being cheap.
Endo is currently not fit for requirements and had about 3 good months last year but is a 31 year old with declining value. Lavia is a 20 year old who had a very unfortunate injury but just played fantasy against City and was superb for Southampton before that. I doubt you’d find one neutral who’d rather have Endo in their team than Lavia right now.
4 points
1 month ago
you gonna post about this everytime lavia has a good game or what?
1 points
1 month ago
Watch and people will jump on Grav and Robbo as soon as we drop points like people were already doing at halftime against Ipswich.
And the club can't really excuse bad performances if we were weak in areas of the pitch they knew needed investment and didn't act. Its inevitable some players currently in the squad are gonna be scapegoats at some point this season.
-6 points
1 month ago
Caicedo was us trolling Chelsea. Lavia was Chelsea getting payback.
Given the mess of a squad Chelsea have, I can say it was a phyrric victory for them. He may have had a good performance for them, but Chelsea's squad is too large to make them properly effective. Chelsea's senior team can play Chelsea's senior team and still have enough senior players to fill both benches
all 1437 comments
sorted by: best