But that would be ignoring quite a lot of occasions when he did have players to pass to, only to hold on to the ball too long and lose that opportunity.
Adam banana
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Don't worry. It deserves to be in upper case.
That can be said of anyone. You only have to watch him play to know that he is very creative and is capable of going past anyone. Important abilities in breaking down stubborn defences.
I wonder what the opinions of the naysayers would be if we had only paid say 15M for him ? Probably much more positive and sympathetic at his year of injuries. Which would likely prove the point that the negatively on here is almost solely based around his fee and not his actual ability or performances on the pitch.
How can you argue with the fact that after Sturridge (not including SG and his penalties) he requires less minutes than anyone else to score goals (almost 100 mins per goal less than Sterling and almost 200 mins per goal less than either Henderson or Coutinho. How can you argue with the fact that he is one of our best performing players (according to the fans, and again our MoM, even in a poor team performance, on Saturday) and yet he gets slaughtered on here by some whilst players such as Henderson and Sterling (our favourite sons it seems) have barely a poor word said about them ? It's all about the fee and people really need to let that go because it is isn't the first or the last time LFC will overpay for a player and it certainly isn't the player's fault.
Hopefully after a rest and then a full pre-season this Summer, he'll stay relatively injury free next season and we'll see the best of him.
How can you argue with the fact that after Sturridge (not including SG and his penalties) he requires less minutes than anyone else to score goals (almost 100 mins per goal less than Sterling and almost 200 mins per goal less than either Henderson or Coutinho. How can you argue with the fact that he is one of our best performing players (according to the fans, and again our MoM, even in a poor team performance, on Saturday) and yet he gets slaughtered on here by some whilst players such as Henderson and Sterling (our favourite sons it seems) have barely a poor word said about them ? It's all about the fee and people really need to let that go because it is isn't the first or the last time LFC will overpay for a player and it certainly isn't the player's fault.
Hopefully after a rest and then a full pre-season this Summer, he'll stay relatively injury free next season and we'll see the best of him.
Hahaha - best name ever.
I don't know about anyone else, but yeah, I'd feel much better about his signing if we'd paid 15M. I haven't observed Lallana being "slaughtered", at least no more than anyone else (Sterling has come under a huge amount of fire recently for example)... it's just that these sorts of things get polarized very quickly.
I actually quite enjoy watching Lallana play a lot of the time, he's a good player. I just think that at 25M he was a luxury signing. Interestingly, I read Ryan's post and understood him to be saying the same thing more or less - that we paid over the odds to get a player that would add a little bit extra to a side that was ready to kick on. To me that equals luxury signing and one that we probably shouldn't have made. It is possible to separate the player and the transfer... and in this debate it's a requirement.
The fact that we've made other bad decisions and several other players have performed markedly worse is neither here nor there. Lallana can be judged on his own merits and not the failings of others.
From my perspective- I think £25m is about right for an attacking midfielder - give or take a little bit each way.
Lallana's previous season justified Southampton seeking that price - we were never going to get him on the cheap - so we had to pay.
He got injured, several times, which impacted his performance this season - so it depends what way you want to look at it :
I choose to think yes a good player, that will do very well in our team, with the right players around him and an injury-free season.
Lallana's previous season justified Southampton seeking that price - we were never going to get him on the cheap - so we had to pay.
He got injured, several times, which impacted his performance this season - so it depends what way you want to look at it :
I choose to think yes a good player, that will do very well in our team, with the right players around him and an injury-free season.
I cant put into words just how much I disagree with you.
Your post is probably the way our club thinks about transfers.
1. You can't simply look at last season and say. That's what he's worth. You have to differentiate between ability or skill and form. When you look overall at his.career you see Lallana is a bog standard average player, who just so happens to have had a career year. Buying him after the career year is what stupid clubs do, his potential is at its lowest and his value is at its highest.
2. Injuries - some are writing it off as bad luck, and I'd agree if they were injuries picked up in tackles or collisions but they weren't. He had Hip, groin and thigh problems - which point to an underlying weakness in him - and let's face it he isn't a great athlete or it means he doesn't work hard enough to rectify those underlying weaknesses. Being fit to play every week is a skill, it's one Lallana is lacking at the moment.
I think Southampton robbed us. Lallana has had his peak and we're stuck with a nice looking ineffective player .
Of course it'd be different if we paid less for him. He'd have been a great signing for 8m, a good one for 15m, and is a pretty poor one for 25m.
Well, this is where we disagree then.
Point 1. It's not just about last year - but you look at it and think - is he on an upward curve? Which he was. I don't think he's "bog standard", he's as good as Sterling & Coutinho right now - though both of them have a higher skill ceiling.
Point 2 - why does this surface all of a sudden at Liverpool - are these constant issues - if they're not, then why are they an "underlying problem".
Yep, and the addons would likely be us winning shit. And at the moment there's no chance of them getting their money.
At least I'm not salty, Clogs.
Some on here just need to take the L regarding Lanada They'll feel much better afterwards.
What if we bought Tadic or that Brazilian in Hoffenheim. Or maybe put that money together with the Balotelli money and bought a decent striker.
Southampton are 2 points behind us, can you believe that shit?
"Some on here just need to take the L regarding Lanada They'll feel much better afterwards." Dope.
Do you want Lallana to do well for us? Serious question like. Do you support him when he plays for us and cheer on his efforts are you still supporting individual players and people before the club?
I think the majority are in agreement that we over paid but Lallana is a good player and his commitment when fit and playing cannot be questioned.
Do you want Lallana to do well for us? Serious question like. Do you support him when he plays for us and cheer on his efforts are you still supporting individual players and people before the club?
I think the majority are in agreement that we over paid but Lallana is a good player and his commitment when fit and playing cannot be questioned.
Going back to the curve, a player like Lallana's career is a bell curve. And I always guess that players of this type have a three year span at the height of that bell curve. We bought him right at the peak of it is insane. To ignore tye future is insane
Well his injuries didn't surface at Liverpool - after playing a lot in his first two seasons in the Premiership his body failed him. Most player's can't cope with the physical demands of the Premiership well enough to be effective for long stretches.
I think Lallana is a decent player but when Coutinho and Sterling are on their game, they're on a different planet to Lallana, from what he's produced in a Liverpool shirt so far. This discussion wouldn't be happening if Lallana was on the same level.
I'm not sure it's really fair to say Lallana cost £18m when it's widely stated to be £23m. Prices are relevant in comparison to each other, not absolutely. And unless we know that Lallana's add-ons were significantly bigger than those of other transfers, you have to take the headline figure just like we do when discussing signings in general. You've got to be consistent.
Sorry Gerry but that's where you are dead wrong. The amount we paid is the club's issue, or our accountants, or FSG's. It doesn't affect how he performs on the pitch and that should be the criteria on which we judge him. Classing him as a poor or a great signing based purely on his fee is incredibly narrow-minded.
The media always like to inflate the figure so I've no doubt Sky took the base figure and then included all the potential add-ons if he hit the targets. That's assuming they even know what they are of course. If the Bournemouth figure is based on published accounts then that is surely the true base figure.
25m is a much more attractive sound-bite than 16m plus add-ons. Sky etc. can use that figure to claim LFC spent 120M or 100M or whatever, when the actual fees paid (prior to add-ons) is probably 70-80% of that.
No, I'm not.
It might not be the fans issue if we had an umlimited amount of money to spend, but while we do, every time we overspend, it means we can't buy someone else.
If we had paid closer to his real value of 12m(I don't for a second think Southampton would have sold him for that), it could have meant we had 25m to spend on a striker instead of the 16m that bought Balotelli.
So it most obviously does matter how much we spend/waste on players.
And yet again ... none of that has ANYTHING to do with how good a player Lallana is. Which if you hadn't noticed is what this debate is all about.
People are basing their valuation of him as a player purely on the 25m .. or should I be saying 16m + add-ons, maybe the naysayers will suddenly change their tune if that's the actual figure.
I've been talking about whether he was a good signing or not. He is a good player, but he was a bad signing.
Skullflower started the thread by saying he was a shit signing. How good a signing he's been has been the main topic of the thread. The debate is about how good a signing he is. The fee simply can't be separated from that discussion.
I'm happy to talk about Lallana costing £16m so long as we deduct a third of all fees we are discussing that fee in light of. So Markovic was £14m, Moreno £8m, Sturridge £8m, Tadic £5m etc etc.
Either prove Lallana's add-ons were exceptionally high or be consistent.
I'm happy to talk about Lallana costing £16m so long as we deduct a third of all fees we are discussing that fee in light of. So Markovic was £14m, Moreno £8m, Sturridge £8m, Tadic £5m etc etc.
Either prove Lallana's add-ons were exceptionally high or be consistent.
- Status
Similar threads
