The first thought is that it can’t happen. Mohamed Salah, the embodiment of Liverpool’s glorious period, cannot be allowed to leave: the club must give him whatever he desires. Just make sure he stays and continues to score 20-odd goals per season, many of which will be spectacular, and continues to delight both fans and neutrals with his verve and imagination.
However, the first thought may not be entirely useful: no player is ever irreplaceable. Of course, the idea that a player and a club have a special relationship has a sentimental appeal, especially when that player has been instrumental in a club’s rise, as Salah has been for Liverpool under Jürgen Klopp. However, circumstances change.
Liverpool’s history demonstrates the importance of not becoming overly attached to heroes and of moving players on at the appropriate time.
Mohamed Salah reacts during Liverpool’s Champions League match against Internazionale this week at Anfield.
Salah’s contract negotiations with Liverpool have stalled due to wage disagreements.
Bill Shankly admitted that he let his first great Liverpool team grow old together until the FA Cup defeat to Watford in 1970 shocked him into action. Bob Paisley, a quieter but far more ruthless successor, never made the same mistake. When Kevin Keegan decided to avoid the UK’s 83 percent top-rate income tax in 1977, Liverpool signed Kenny Dalglish.
Knowing when to offload players is crucial to long-term management, which is one of the reasons football can be such a brutal, seemingly ungrateful sport.
Similarly, Alex Ferguson never let players outlive their usefulness: he released Mark Hughes, Andrei Kanchelskis, and Paul Ince in 1995, and Roy Keane a decade later. Even the best can overstay their welcome. Despite all the wailing and hand-wringing when Lionel Messi left Barcelona, recent evidence suggests that a reset was long overdue: elite teams cannot operate at the pace of an aging talisman.
A glance at the muck from which Arsenal is emerging should be enough to warn of the dangers of panicking and overpaying aging stars.
That is not to say Liverpool should look to sell Salah; rather, a clinical assessment of whether the cost of keeping him is worth it should be conducted. Liverpool’s squad has recently been run exceptionally well. It’s remarkable that they’ve kept up with Manchester City despite spending a net £220 million less over the last five seasons. They’ve done a good job of keeping the budget under control; does it make sense to jeopardize that now by meeting Salah’s demand to double his salary to £400,000 per week?
Mohamed Salah scores a penalty in the second minute to put Liverpool on the verge of winning the 2019 Champions League final against Tottenham Hotspur.
Mohamed Salah scores a penalty in the second minute to put Liverpool on the verge of winning the 2019 Champions League final against Tottenham Hotspur. Toby Melville/Reuters Photograph
The point isn’t whether he deserves it or not. Salah, of course, has the right to strike the best deal possible. Given that he is one of the best players in the world, he should be one of the highest-paid players in the world. He turns 30 in June; this is likely to be his final major contract; why wouldn’t he try to make it as comfortable as possible for the rest of his life?
There is a romantic answer, which is that Salah may have developed feelings for Liverpool, for Klopp, for his teammates, and for the fans. Wouldn’t he love to win another Premier League title at Anfield, perhaps this time in front of a raucous crowd? Would he not relish another Champions League triumph – perhaps this time with him on the pitch for the equivalent of the 4-0 win over Barcelona? At what point do memories trump another few million pounds in the bank or the domestic league winner’s medal that should come almost as a matter of course with Juventus or Paris Saint-Germain, the two frontrunners to sign him?
Mohamed Salah in action for Liverpool this month against Chelsea.
‘I’m not asking for crazy things,’ Salah says of contract talks with Liverpool.
However, there is a more pragmatic answer to the question of whether Salah made Liverpool great or Liverpool made Salah great. To some extent, it is clearly both. Salah is a fantastic footballer, a brilliant dribbler, and a fantastic finisher.
However, as anyone who witnessed him wandering around listlessly for Egypt at the Africa Cup of Nations knows, he is also unusually well-suited to Liverpool’s style of play; he is not guaranteed to be that good in any lineup. He appeared to be a very good player at Fiorentina and Roma, but it wasn’t until his move to Anfield in 2017 that he became exceptional.
Roberto Firmino and then Diogo Jota have been adept at dropping deep to create space for him to swoop into, and Trent Alexander-surges Arnold’s outside have also contributed. But it’s also a function of the team’s overall style, which includes a hard and high press and a dynamic midfield that wins the ball back quickly.
Without a major reshuffling, it’s safe to assume he wouldn’t have that at PSG (deep-lying midfield to compensate for celebrity forwards) or Juventus (just not Massimiliano Allegri’s style). From Eden Hazard to Romelu Lukaku, Antoine Griezmann to Philippe Coutinho, there are a slew of players whose big moves haven’t quite worked out.
There is a tendency to believe that player quality is absolute when, in fact, it is frequently contingent on circumstance, with their value and form derived in part from the structure of which they are a part.
Sign up for our daily football email, The Fiver.
Salah may move on and thrive, but nothing is guaranteed. While Liverpool would miss him, the form of Luis Daz since his January arrival suggests they can cope. The system appears to be strong enough now to withstand the loss of any individual.
Source: Guardian
