London - They could have lost Daniel Sturridge, it would not have been irreparable. Jordan Henderson the same; maybe even Steven Gerrard.
But not him. The moment it became plain that Luis Suarez’s future in English football was untenable, handling life without a player who close to propelled Liverpool to a first league title of the modern era, was going to take all the skill Brendan Rodgers and his boardroom financiers could muster.
The same task has eaten up three managers in a year at Tottenham Hotspur, and they are still no further forward. Managers will say that it is good business to lose one stellar name and rebuild a team. Yes, but there are exceptions. When that player is so far above the rest it makes compensatory dealing close to impossible. That is what Tottenham have found, losing Gareth Bale. Liverpool are now facing the same painful facts post-Suarez.
It is not that their buys have been so bad: they just don’t amount to one Suarez. Tottenham’s aren’t wholesale duds either. They just can’t add up to the match-winning quality of Bale at his best.
Liverpool could have restructured around the loss of, say, Sturridge. He is a good player, among the best strikers in the Premier League, but with £30million to spend, Liverpool could have made the necessary improvements to the team, while retaining the talent that made it all tick. Suarez would have continued winning and defining matches, while the likes of Adam Lallana settled in. That is how it works. Luke Shaw was a fine player for Southampton, but not so influential that he was irreplaceable. And with the inflated fee from Manchester United, Southampton were able to make upgrades throughout the group.
Most Premier League managers endorse this policy of renewal. Most have little choice, really. Swansea City lose Scott Sinclair but can invest in the likes of Chico and Michu and have loose change for the sundries. Sinclair was good but not so good that his loss could not be more than compensated for by the addition of others. Any other Liverpool player, perhaps even the ageing, talismanic Gerrard, would fit into that category, too. Just not Suarez. Manchester United could cover the absence of Jaap Stam, Ruud van Nistelrooy, even David Beckham. But not Cristiano Ronaldo. Too good. Too special. Too unique.
Not that Liverpool had too many options once Suarez had bitten Giorgio Chiellini at the World Cup. Banned from club football until late October - he will play for Barcelona for the first time this weekend and, initially, his suspension was from all form of football activity, so it was thought he would not be back that quickly - his status in the English game made it close to impossible for him to continue.
Liverpool’s mistake was in not learning from Tottenham’s expensive agonies.
Buying in bulk was not the solution. They needed to pick off specific problem areas with individuals of the highest quality. At Anfield on Wednesday they had nobody operating at the level of Ronaldo, James Rodriguez, Isco, Toni Kroos or Karim Benzema. They had the notch down; the wannabes.
Think of how Chelsea improved this summer. Diego Costa. Bang. Cesc Fabregas. Bang. Marquee names. Major players. Liverpool finished above Chelsea last season. They didn’t require a whole new team of good players. They needed better defenders, yes, but also a sprinkling of greatness. Even without Suarez would they be in retreat right now with Costa and Fabregas in the team? Kroos and James? Even Angel di Maria and Radamel Falcao?
Philippe Coutinho played well and Raheem Sterling tried his hardest but Liverpool did not have anyone who looked capable of hurting Real Madrid on Wednesday night. Less could have been more, if spent wisely. And they had more to offer than Tottenham when losing Bale, too.
They had Champions League football and a great name and pedigree. Tottenham without Bale were a hard sell; Liverpool offered the prestige and the stage, even if Suarez would no longer be sharing it.
Some lousy breaks are beyond policy, of course. Sturridge has been injured since September. Having lost Suarez, that is a huge blow, but the late acquisition of Mario Balotelli has compounded the problem. Swapping shirts at half-time was the least of it against Madrid. Balotelli merited early withdrawal even before it became known that he was exchanging memorabilia with the opposition when he should have been snarling in their direction, promising revenge.
Balotelli did not get into scoring positions and his passes lacked care. When one went awry his default reaction was to display his displeasure with an unworthy team-mate, although the numbers in that category are now stacking up alarmingly as Balotelli bounces between a succession of major clubs in Europe. Inter Milan, AC Milan, Manchester City; Jose Mourinho, Roberto Mancini, Cesare Prandelli. All have decided Balotelli’s maintenance was a bill they could no longer afford. What possessed Rodgers to think his methods held the secret to unlocking his genius and setting it loose?
Ego. The comedian Bill Hicks said that if Satan came to earth he would have no trouble finding a partner because women everywhere would think they could change him.
‘But he’s the Prince of Darkness.’
‘You don’t know him like I do.’
It’s the same with managers. Ego makes them think they hold the key. Rodgers got great performances, and behaviour, out of Suarez last season and perhaps he thought he could juggle fire again. Harry Redknapp, who has a reasonable record with difficult characters, fancied his chances with Ravel Morrison. Ultimately, he scraped a Premier League place with Queens Park Rangers in a play-off, as Morrison sat on the sidelines, unusable.
Liverpool have been forced by circumstance to rely on Balotelli and the £16m bargain is looking anything but. Yesterday was three years to the day since Balotelli asked ‘Why always me?’ and it is fair to say the fireworks have fizzled out. A cut-price transfer-market masterstroke he is not. There is too much Moneyball at Liverpool. Too many attempts to marry cute value to the project, when replacing a player of Suarez’s influence and quality required grandly conventional thinking.
Indeed, Suarez’s presence may have been all that would have saved the Balotelli transfer. The new man’s work-rate is an issue yet it would be hard to not put in a shift when the team’s best player is dogging left, right and into his own half to win the ball. Sturridge has never worked harder than in tandem with Suarez. How could he do less, given the phenomenal effort of the Uruguayan?
Balotelli’s posing simply would not have been tolerated with Suarez around. In this, at least, he was a magnificent example. It is not too late for revival this season, Liverpool are fifth after all, level on points with fourth-placed West Ham United who few tip to maintain a Champions League place.
Around this time last year, though, even if the results could still be random - Liverpool lost 3-1 to Hull City in December and were beaten at home by Southampton in September - there were significant signs that Rodgers had the team going in the right direction.
There is little hint of year-on-year improvement now. Liverpool can still make the Champions League last 16, or qualify for it next year through league position, but there are growing fears a return may prove beyond them. Undoubtedly they have not improved and, right now, do not appear title contenders.
Without Suarez this transition was always going to be hard. It did not, however, have to be as tough as this. Tottenham’s struggles should have served as a warning, not a blueprint.
Daily Mail