Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terrible transfer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Terrible transfer?

    From the Guardian's Joy of Six doodad on terrible transfers:

    6) Ian Rush (£2.8m, Juventus to Liverpool, 1988)

    Coming back to Liverpool after that spell at Juventus – which wasn't the total disaster it's usually painted as, but that's an argument for another time – Ian Rush would win a league championship, two FA Cups (scoring four goals in two finals) and a League Cup. Scoring 90 times during his eight-year second stint at Anfield, he became the club's leading goalscorer; you can hardly finger the man as a waste of space.

    But context is everything. And the wider picture tarnishes this transfer. The season Rush spent in Italy, 1987-88, coincided with the emergence of Liverpool's greatest-ever footballing side. Yet coincidence it most assuredly wasn't. Rush's replacement, John Aldridge, was a different sort of player: a poacher too, but better at bringing others into the attack. In a much more fluid, attacking side, this was a crucial difference. The return of Rush unbalanced the famous and wildly successful triumvirate of Aldo, John Barnes and Peter Beardsley. It didn't happen immediately, as Aldridge and Rush took turns to spearhead the side – but something had to give eventually, and with Rush the younger man by nearly three years, he was always going to win that particular battle.

    Aldridge had no option but to move, leaving for Real Sociedad, where he would score 33 goals in 63 games. An impressive stat, but not quite as impressive as the one he'd totted up at Anfield, where he scored 50 times in 83 matches (0.60 goals per game). By comparison, Rush's legendary first stint at the club – unquestionably his peak – had produced 139 in 224 (0.62 goals per game). It's an instructive comparison, and a startling insight into what Liverpool lost – no, threw away.

    It's worth reiterating: poor Rushie didn't do much wrong after his return – check that CV again – but Liverpool were never quite the same, Rush's transfer symbolic of the management's penchant for looking backwards rather than forwards. If anything else, it was this transfer, rather than anything your Grahams or Fergusons did, which began to make Liverpool look a tad unsteady up there on that old perch.
    "The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
    -- William Blake

    #2
    I agree to some extent. I thought we played better the year we had Aldo and Beardsley up front. Perhaps the best partnership I have seen at the club.

    I think Aldo was also a better finisher. But, Thats like comparing a Ferrari to a lamboughini. And the age thing was a big decider. Rushs record is unlikely to be broken, and he will remain as most peoples no 1 (or number 9)....
    In the beginning, Fowler created the Heaven and the Earth.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Charly View Post
      I agree to some extent. I thought we played better the year we had Aldo and Beardsley up front. Perhaps the best partnership I have seen at the club.

      I think Aldo was also a better finisher. But, Thats like comparing a Ferrari to a lamboughini. And the age thing was a big decider. Rushs record is unlikely to be broken, and he will remain as most peoples no 1 (or number 9)....
      Given how long Rush delivered for us (compared to Aldo), that's a very bold statement.

      Comment


        #4
        Rush was the better finisher of the two, and the better player overall. I don't agree that Aldo's build-up play was better.

        However, with hindsight, maybe that £2.8m could have been better spent. Given how good Aldo was, and how Jocky was approaching the latter stages of his career, maybe another striker wasn't the priority.
        Never knowingly optimistic

        Comment


          #5
          One of our biggest mistakes was buying an aging Hysen and not the young and up coming Pallister.
          James Philip Milner Fanclub #1

          Curtis Julian Jones Fanclub #1

          Comment


            #6
            And we bought Speedie if I'm not mistaken.

            Comment


              #7
              I think probably 80% of our buys between 1990 and 2003 culd have been better
              _____________________________________

              Weak willed, Wank or do they have a masterplan?

              Think we have the answer..Slot!!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by dww View Post
                From the Guardian's Joy of Six doodad on terrible transfers:

                6) Ian Rush (£2.8m, Juventus to Liverpool, 1988)

                Coming back to Liverpool after that spell at Juventus – which wasn't the total disaster it's usually painted as, but that's an argument for another time – Ian Rush would win a league championship, two FA Cups (scoring four goals in two finals) and a League Cup. Scoring 90 times during his eight-year second stint at Anfield, he became the club's leading goalscorer; you can hardly finger the man as a waste of space.

                But context is everything. And the wider picture tarnishes this transfer. The season Rush spent in Italy, 1987-88, coincided with the emergence of Liverpool's greatest-ever footballing side. Yet coincidence it most assuredly wasn't. Rush's replacement, John Aldridge, was a different sort of player: a poacher too, but better at bringing others into the attack. In a much more fluid, attacking side, this was a crucial difference. The return of Rush unbalanced the famous and wildly successful triumvirate of Aldo, John Barnes and Peter Beardsley. It didn't happen immediately, as Aldridge and Rush took turns to spearhead the side – but something had to give eventually, and with Rush the younger man by nearly three years, he was always going to win that particular battle.

                Aldridge had no option but to move, leaving for Real Sociedad, where he would score 33 goals in 63 games. An impressive stat, but not quite as impressive as the one he'd totted up at Anfield, where he scored 50 times in 83 matches (0.60 goals per game). By comparison, Rush's legendary first stint at the club – unquestionably his peak – had produced 139 in 224 (0.62 goals per game). It's an instructive comparison, and a startling insight into what Liverpool lost – no, threw away.

                It's worth reiterating: poor Rushie didn't do much wrong after his return – check that CV again – but Liverpool were never quite the same, Rush's transfer symbolic of the management's penchant for looking backwards rather than forwards. If anything else, it was this transfer, rather than anything your Grahams or Fergusons did, which began to make Liverpool look a tad unsteady up there on that old perch.
                That really is a bold statement, The problem was an ageing team, for me there were alot of other players that were coming to the end of their careers and needed replacing but the replacements weren't up to it.
                The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.

                Comment


                  #9
                  There is always what if ....

                  2 years ago Rafa spent 17 million on Babel and Benayoun. What if he had bought Ribery with the same price? (he left for Bayern approx. 15-18 mil.)

                  I'm not saying that Babel will not be a good player and that Benayoun's contribution was not good. But perhaps Ribery would have made a differnce,

                  In football it's always like that. I remember in 1995 we bought Collymore and Utd bought A.Cole 7 months before. Talent wise Collymore was 2 times better but eventually we all know what happened to the spice boys.

                  There is a thin line btw failure and success.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Bollocks article

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Anyway, Fowler was better than the both of 'em

                      In the beginning, Fowler created the Heaven and the Earth.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Charly View Post
                        Anyway, Fowler was better than the both of 'em

                        Debateable. Robbie had more to his game but Rushie was the best finisher. His timing was just incredible. If anyone was ever a natural born goal-scorer it was Rushie. When he was through one-on-one with the keeper you would bet your life on him scoring.
                        Never knowingly optimistic

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Bryncoch View Post
                          Debateable. Robbie had more to his game but Rushie was the best finisher. His timing was just incredible. If anyone was ever a natural born goal-scorer it was Rushie. When he was through one-on-one with the keeper you would bet your life on him scoring.
                          Made it all look so easy too, almost effortless at times.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Charly View Post
                            Anyway, Fowler was better than the both of 'em

                            Originally posted by Bryncoch View Post
                            Debateable. Robbie had more to his game but Rushie was the best finisher. His timing was just incredible. If anyone was ever a natural born goal-scorer it was Rushie. When he was through one-on-one with the keeper you would bet your life on him scoring.
                            It's not debateable. It's just incorrect.
                            Screaming from beneath the waves...

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by zimbo View Post
                              It's not debateable. It's just incorrect.
                              I could not dig, I dared not rob:
                              Therefore I lied to please the mob.
                              Now all my lies are proved untrue
                              And I must face the men I slew.
                              What tale shall serve me here among
                              Mine angry and defrauded young?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X