Thursday, July 31, 2014

By Paul Tomkins - Are Liverpool Buying Wisely?

http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/07/are-liverpool-buying-wisely/

By Paul Tomkins
A lot has been made of Liverpool signing unremarkable players from unremarkable clubs this summer, having sold their most remarkable player to the world’s most remarkable club (of recent years). There’s no doubt that Liverpool’s squad is stronger (on paper), but is the first XI?
Buying exceptional players also improves the squad, as previous first-choicers get demoted to the bench. But it’s not easy to procure such outstanding talents; we can all identify them, but fees and wages are often prohibitive to Liverpool, who, based on turnover, can’t afford to be amongst the country’s top three payers. And many of the best players are at clubs strong enough to hold onto them.
Remember, when Luis Suarez signed it was on around c.£70k per week. Heearned new contracts that pushed him above the others in terms of take-home, topping out at around £200k a week (still well short of what United, Chelsea and City pay). If you parachute someone in on £300,000-a-week, then that player is being rewarded for his past career, not what he’s done at your club, and that can present a danger; not least if all your hitherto hard-working stars get pissed off. It can ruin unity, and it can kill a pay structure. It can have the extra cost of having to up everyone else’s wages too.
So far the confirmed signings are: Emre Can, 20 (£10m); Adam Lallana, 26 (£16m-£23m); Lazar Markovic, 20 (£20m); Rickie Lambert, 32 (£4m); and Dejan Lovren, 25 (£20m), with, I suspect, none of them on as much as £100,000-a-week. Divock Origi, 19 (£10m) has finally been confirmed, but will go back on loan to Lille for a year. With the deal for Loic Remy falling through, there’s time, and room, for more additions.
lazar-markovic-
None of those purchased in 2014 are superstars. Lambert aside, they are all at a good age, although Lallana, at 26, is on the cusp of what I’d pay big money for in positions other than goalkeeper or centre-back (where players are often regulars even after the age of 33). That said, you can’t fill your team with youngsters and expect it to flourish; there has to be a handful of older heads to guide them.
Liverpool now have Gerrard, Lambert and squad-man Kolo Toure as 30-somethings, with only Gerrard likely to be in the strongest XI, and a lot of outstanding youngsters, so buying one 26-year-old is hardly reckless.
I also don’t see why the club someone previously played for should define their potential. Southampton may not be fashionable, but you sense that if the exact same players were purchased from Udinese they’d instantly have more cachet. Although it’s true that you rarely find gems in lower divisions anymore, during Liverpool’s most successful period – 1977-1984 – they bought players from Coventry, Brighton (twice), Shamrock Rovers, Ayr United, Luton, Vancouver Whitecaps, Middlesbrough (three times), Chester, Home Farm, Hereford, Partick Thistle and St Mirren.
Was Graeme Souness limited to being a “Boro player”? Was Hansen a mere Partick Thistle player? It was a different era, obviously, but Bob Paisley, who bought better than any Liverpool manager, didn’t look to add “European Cup” players to his European Cup-winning sides. He added players who could improve the team even if they weren’t playing for big rivals or top continental clubs.Qualities were identified, not CVs. Prior big-club experience is probably helpful, but it’s all about the individual in question.
Southampton had an excellent season, based on a very good manager and five or six “top four” players surrounded by unremarkable journeymen and raw kids with a lot of potential. If they’d had eleven ‘top four’ players (plus ‘top four’ back-ups) then they would probably have ended up in the top four; but such a collection of players was never going to be possible at a club on such low resources. Based on last season’s performances, Lallana, Schneiderlin, Shaw, Lambert and Lovren were all doing as well as plenty of the better players at Champions League clubs, with Rodriguez and Wanyama arguably up there too, and Calum Chambers, just signed by Arsenal, another promising youngster. Like Jordan Henderson at Sunderland, they were doing well in a team that didn’t contain enough talent to get beyond a certain point in the league, but that’s nottheir fault. Based on the logic that a player is only as good as the team he plays for, Henderson would have been avoided at all costs. Crucially, Southampton’s players are used to playing in a hard-pressing, fast-passing style.
I do feel a little uneasy seeing Liverpool taking so many players from one relatively small club that, almost as the price of their success, immediately sold off pretty much all of its stars. But they didn’t have to be asset-stripped, and they aren’t exactly giving any of these players away, are they? They now have a lot of money to spend, and have already added a couple of potential future stars. (You just worry that they’ll be starting the season with just four players.
Atletico Madrid have been similarly plundered by Chelsea, yet they too seem to have already reinvested wisely; every time they sell a top striker – dating back to 2007 – they seem to find another, as they build success very much on the Lyon model of Soccernomics. Torres moved to Liverpool, Aguero stepped up. Aguero went to City, Falcao stole the show. Falcao moved to France, Diego Costa scored for fun – and now he too has been sold for a big profit. Costa is nowhere near as good as Torres (at his best), or Aguero, or Falcao before his holiday at Monaco, but the Atleti had their best season in decades with the Brazilian-cum-Spaniard.
On top of these, they’ve had high-value years from older pros in Diego Forlan and David Villa. This surely isn’t an accident. They are the one team to really break out of the wages/transfer fees straightjacket in recent years to significantly overachieve both domestically and in Europe in the same season (this is very rare, and the sign of true quality). They did it by being smart. Their luck may run out with future purchases, as happened at Lyon, but both clubs punched above their weight by scouting well and not being afraid to sell their stars.
Right now, Liverpool are caught in between two stools: fans want marquee signings with big fees for big names, but the approach is more prudent. It’s easy to forget that tomorrow’s marquee players aren’t always marquee signings.
After all, not even the mercurial Luis Suarez was a marquee signing when he arrived. Nor was Xabi Alonso, or even Fernando Torres. They were very promising players aged 23 or under, with, as I noted recently, clear question marks against their names. (Was Alonso quick enough? Was Torres prolific enough? Would Suarez eat someone?) Most neutrals didn’t even notice when Raheem Sterling was signed for £5m four years ago. Now that was good business. You need players for the here-and-now, but you have to take a holistic approach.
Indeed, as I pointed out on Twitter the other day, have Liverpool ever signed a world-class player who was considered world-class at the time?
Think of all the greats, and none arrived as a proven world-class talent. It almosthappened with Michael Laudrup in 1983, but then again, his reputation as a world-class attacker came mostly in subsequent years. Jari Litmanen was onceconsidered world-class, but was on the wane by the time he got to Anfield. (As was Ian Rush when he re-signed in 1988.) Maybe I’ve overlooked someone, but Liverpool’s best players only became recognised as greats after joining, never before.
Chelsea have once again gone big in the market with players like Fabregas and Costa, but Liverpool need to find these types at the same stage that Arsenal and Atletico originally unearthed them; when fees were low and wages could be paid at a sensible starting point, with increases to be earned. In other words, like when they found Sterling, and like they’ve hopefully done with Origi, who has already played well at a World Cup at the age of 19. Some say Origi reminds them of Thierry Henry, and while that may be fanciful, but why wait until he’s 23 and costing £50m?
Liverpool appear to have done things slightly differently from last summer, when the business ultimately proved a bit of a washout; longer term, perhaps only Sakho from that crop will endure, and even then he’s not yet settled into the commanding, confident player seen for France at the World Cup.
I honestly can’t see a clear reason to buy Premier League players ahead of overseas ones; at least in terms of how both categories performed during their full durations at a club following a transfer. I suspect it’s a myth that prior experience of our football is necessary; this certainly seemed the case when superficially judging the success and failure of around 3,000 transfers over the past 22 years (although I’d like to revisit it in more detail regarding this possible myth). But perhaps there is an initial settling-in period, when imports need to get used to the pace of the game over here.
Of course, Coutinho and Suarez, as just two recent examples of players who were thrown straight in after January arrivals (no pre-season to gel, no warm August games), didn’t need time to adjust, but it must add a layer of difficulty – or thepossibility of that difficulty – if a player is moving country and doesn’t speak the language. In theory it shouldn’t take too long to realise you don’t get as much time on the ball as in Italy or Spain, but perhaps, depending on each individual’s style, they have to adapt the way they approach the game. Even so, the best players usually learn to cope, and for every import that took time there’s an import that settled immediately, and for every Brit who settled immediately there’s one who looked lost.
On paper, Can, Origi and Markovic look much better value than Lallana and Lovren (with Lambert a low-risk potential bargain), but we don’t yet know how any will perform. Lovren was certainly better value at £8m last summer (he’s another that didn’t seem to need time to adapt to English football), but it could also be argued that as he’s a year older, with a World Cup under his belt, he arrives as an even better player. It’s in his hands to make £20m look like a snip, just as Jordan Henderson has made a mockery of those mocking his fee.
Right to Buy
I certainly believe that Brendan Rodgers has earned the right to buy the players he truly wants, whether or not we, as fans, are excited by them. Results last season far outstripped expectations, and that will afford him more trust from within the club. Rodgers’ own ‘Premier League’ buys from 2012 have not fared too well, with Borini likely to leave and Joe Allen, although improving as last season worse on, still not yet totally convincing. (Borini was of course signed from Roma, but had been at Chelsea for several years, plus spent time with Swansea in the Championship.)
Yet it would be difficult to refuse Rodgers’ requests – should he be making more demands – after his side won 26 of 38 games, scoring 101 goals in the process. Rodgers had a poor first summer with transfers, but the transfer committee also had a poor window 12 months ago. In between, the committee had a storming January 2013 window, but 12 months later failed to sign anyone. This summer’s deals feel like a good mix of ‘mature’ youth and experience, blending home-grown talents with those from the continent. It looks like the manager might be having more of a say, but that the committee-style signings are still present.
In contrast with last summer, Liverpool have bought a ton of pace and power, with a much greater physical presence added to the squad. Last summer, Alberto was talented and a good size, but raw and slow, and Aspas, though apparently a terrier in Spain, resembled a mere chihuahua here. So far this window we’ve seen a greater percentage of purchases from within the Premier League (three of six), compared with only three of the eight transfer/loan arrivals in 2013 (Mignolet, Moses and Toure) having prior experience of this country’s football.
That said, Victor Moses was arguably the worst performer – at least in terms of effort – and his years of Premier League football didn’t seem to help. Had Kolo Toure never played in England before he would have been labelled as someone who struggled to adjust to the pace of the game, in the way that Mauricio Pellegrino did in 2005.
Of last summer’s purchases, Tiago Ilori remains an exciting prospect, but probably needs further loan time, as top-four clubs rarely throw relative youngsters into the centre of the defence. Both he and Sakho are very quick, although Ilori remains a mere prospect at 21. Even if Agger ends up being sold, the British-born Portuguese will still be behind Skrtel, Lovren and Sakho (plus possibly Coates, who, in turning 24 in October, is hitting the ‘hot spot’ for centre-halves in terms of make or break).
As well as being quick, Emre Can and Lazar Markovic are big, strong 20-year-olds; Can especially so. This will help with set-pieces at both ends, especially as Sterling, Allen and Coutinho can’t offer much in those situations. (Lucas, who looks likely to be replaced by Can, is also no giant, and Jordan Ibe, if he breaks through, is a small, tricky winger.)
Lambert and Lovren are also big lads, even if Lambert isn’t exactly an athlete. The return of Enrique, who missed almost all of last season, also adds pace and power, two things that the hitherto overachieving Jon Flanagan couldn’t call on. If Martin Kelly finally stays fit, that’s another big, quick player, although with his past record I wouldn’t rely on him in any calculations. Crucially, pretty much all of these bigger guys are technically good, too.
I don’t know enough about Lovren to make any bold claims on his behalf. He’s looked good when I’ve seen him, but unlike many Premier League scouts, I’m not a full-time Southampton observer. I was encouraged by the Monday Night Football analysis from Carragher and Neville, both of whom seemed mightily impressed.
What I would say is this: to my mind, 25 is the magic age for a centre-back. I wouldn’t write off anyone under that age, because too many top players in that position came of age in their mid-20s. You get good 20/21-year-olds, but these seem to be the exceptions to the rule.
Is £20m Still A Big Fee?
In some ways £20m sounds a lot, but at the rate of inflation after the latest TV deal kicked into play, it’s essentially about the same as £14m from a couple of summers ago. It’s not hard to see that the average price of players is rising. You just have to look at how many £30m+ signings have been made by Premier League clubs in the past 13 months.
Before this summer, just eleven Premier League players had cost £30m or more. Go back just over a year to when 2012/13 ended, and only Torres, Carroll and Tevez (whose fee ranged from £25m to £47m in different reports) had cost more than £32.5m. Last season, Hazard, Mata and Ozil joined the +£32.5m club, doubling its size.
And so to this window, which isn’t even halfway done. Alexis Sánchez cost Arsenal circa £35m. Luke Shaw and Ander Herrera each joined Manchester United for around £30m when add-ons are included. Diego Costa cost Chelsea £33m, with Cesc Fabregas setting them back a further £30m. That now makes 16 transfers costing £30m or more, nine of them coming since the end of the 2012/13 season. If this is clear evidence of inflation at the high end of the market, you can bet that it’s having a knock-on effect lower down. The average price of a transfer has increased ten-fold since the Premier League began, and yet that increase does not take this summer’s deals into account.
To put that £20m into further context, based on TPI inflation the fee makes Lovren only the 6th-costliest defender bought by Liverpool since 1991, and not even a third of what Rio Ferdinand cost Manchester United in 2002, when £30m was a monumental fee (a British record, no less).
defend
Conclusion
At the very least, Liverpool’s bench will be so much stronger than last season. While Luis Suarez’s magic will be missed, games can be won with three excellent players entering the game in the second half; we know how substitutions can make the difference, and now Rodgers has the personnel to make more telling contributions in the the final quarter of the match.
Liverpool were all about the first XI last season, but if we assume that Lovren strengthens the defence and Can offers more ‘legs’ in midfield than Lucas, then Markovic may only need to offer 60% of what Suarez gave to (theoretically) leave the first XI on a par with last season – with the added bonus of more height in both boxes on set-pieces. Remember, Sterling only ‘clicked’ halfway through last season, so he should be better in 2014/15.
If the Reds can go into the campaign with an XI comparable to last season, but with more firepower on the bench, that could reap dividends. But as ever with transfer windows, and predictions for the new season, it’s virtually impossible to call everything correctly. Unexpected, crazy shit happens, and that’s why we love the game.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

裸睡

转载 - http://jalong.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post_8.html

 

 人的一生躺在床上睡觉的时光,其实占据了正常作业的半数。一天24小时,据有识者把它列为人生三八制,即工作八小时、休闲八小时,睡眠八小时,才是合乎养生的功能。

现代人生活节奏快,每日的睡眠成为恢复体能、确保健康的重要环节。忙碌了一天,脱衣而眠有利于气血流通,使体内阳气舒展畅达,次日精神饱满,又是一天充满活力的日子。

根据睡眠专家指称,裸睡原来是养生之道的精华。裸睡由于没有衣服束缚,也不存在衣物细小的褶皱对身体的影响,所以身体容易放松,这样就保证了肌体血液更流畅,代谢更活跃。

专家推崇说:生活的压力,工作的繁忙,面对这些没完没了的压力,有人选择运动,有人选择旅游,有人选择裸睡……而裸睡除了能缓解压力,制造一个无束缚的睡眠环境,对治疗常见的妇科疾病也有一定的功效。

现代社会如此开放,喜欢裸睡也不会被人说是有伤大雅。相反,裸睡对人身体是有相当好处的,难怪一些明星们都毫不讳言,喜欢裸睡。

且让令伯抄录以下裸睡的好处,看看你是否同意专家所言,或者也可试试裸睡的爽快:

1.放松身心 - 身心放松面对真实自我,针对裸睡如同开门见山的看法,性学专家则说,裸睡是性感、自在的,与性生活并不矛盾。而且,裸睡可以让人从一天的压力中释放出来,重新感受一种轻松的快乐。

2.促进血液循环经常手脚冰凉的人偶尔尝试一次裸睡,就会感到温暖、舒适,并很快入睡。研究人士指出,裸睡好比泡温泉,在除去衣物后,血液循环加快,皮肤血流量增加,身体产生的热气自然散发出来,包裹在四周,让人体自我保护能力得到提高。

3.改善便秘裸睡还利于改善慢性便秘、慢性腹泻及腰痛、头痛的问题,一些妇女的痛经与颈肩痛等问题也会逐渐减轻。裸睡在日本很受推崇,北海道有个村庄,所有居民都有裸睡的习惯,几乎无人失眠。专家认为这是因为裸睡能减少衣物带来的束缚感,让人从被捆绑一天的感觉中解放出来,利于提高睡眠质量。

很多人一开始觉得裸睡难为情,其实舒适是人类本能的需要,只要是为了舒适健康,穿衣与脱衣都是合理的。

朋友,有胆尝试‘裸睡’的滋味吗?

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Photo Sharing - 0001


小心,给钱有罪

亲爱的官大人,马来西亚已经成为国际的笑柄了,可以停止再侮辱自己了吗?

Just when we thought we cannot be more embarrass, somehow our "Bosses" keep making us look more stupid...please help us, and help yourself....start doing right thing...punish the bad not the good. The good one here sometime is a victim, and punish the victim is just not right....stop this...

可以破裂国的惩罚给钱乞丐的政策国的惩罚给钱乞丐的政策
同情也是种罪
乞丐看招

Friday, July 4, 2014

网络贼笑话 - 转载

http://jalong.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post_4.html

广东一伙劫匪在抢劫銀行时说了一句至理名言:
通通不许动,钱是国家的,命是自己的!
大家都一声不吭躺倒。                                          
■ 这叫观念转换。改变原有固定思维方式。

劫匪望了一眼看着那穿裙子躺在桌上四肢朝天的出纳小姐,说:请你躺文明些!这是劫财,又不是劫色!
■ 这叫坚持职业操守,不该干的不干。

劫匪成功回去后,其中一个新来的劫匪(硕士学位)说:老大,我们赶快数一下抢了多少。
那老劫匪(小学毕业)说:你傻啊?这么多,你要数到什么时候啊?今天晚上看新闻不就知道了吗!
■ 这就叫工作经验,这年头工作经验比学历更重要!

 劫匪走后,行长说,赶紧报案!主任刚要走,行长急忙说:等等!把我们上次私自挪的那五百万也加上去!
■ 这叫危机处理,化不利为有利。

 主任说:要是劫匪每个月都來抢一回就好了。
工作很枯燥,快乐最重要!
第二天新闻联播报道銀行被抢了一亿,劫匪数來数去只有两千万。
老大骂道:妈的,老子拼了一条命才抢了两千万,銀行行长动动手指头就赚了八千万,看來這年头还是要读书啊!
 ■ 这叫知识可以转化金钱的证明。


Thursday, July 3, 2014

Suarez Sale? A Blessing and a Curse

By Paul Tomkins

http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/07/suarez-sale-a-blessing-and-a-curse/

The one thing we’re quick to forget is that the future of football is never written in stone. I too am not immune from using precedents as some kind of proof of future success. You can find handy guides,  it is true, but no-one is ever correct in predicting what will happen until that thing goes ahead and happens.
The truth is that all teams need their best players. The truth is also that many teams have improved after selling their best players (particularly if it’s for a world-class fee). And the truth, as well, is that  sometimes a team’s best players stop being their best players, sometimes for the short-term, and sometimes permanently.
Another truth is that the older players get the more they break down; there is no golden rule, but by 33 or 34, many have lost what it was that made them great, and by 40, none will be left standing. Time is always running out.
Which examples do you want? And how do you know which way it will play out?
The most recent example of what not to do is Spurs, but on paper, at least, they acquired some excellent players last summer. In theory, Érik Lamela perhaps even has the potential to be as good as Gareth Bale, and three or four of the other signings have time, and quality, on their side. Time guarantees nothing, of course. But until the world ends, or football self-combusts, there is always a next game, in which to make an impression.
You can sell at the right time, or sell at the wrong time. You can reinvest the money wisely or you can waste it. Your replacements might start slowly, or they may immediately sparkle. A year later that situation may be the same, or totally reversed.
I guess the key to selling Suarez comes down to one phenomenon I’ve been pondering for years. Is it better to have a world-class player who can win games ‘on his own’ (even though he never takes to the field without another ten players in his colours), or take a near-world-record fee and buy three, four or maybe five players who can improve other areas of your team and help you cope with extra games and injury crises. The right and wrong answer, as ever, can be plucked from the past. You can choose whatever option you want, based on biases or how you judge the level of liquid in a drinking receptacle.
The problem with the über-star is that he’s one single player, and therefore injury, loss of form and suspension (a big factor in Suarez’s case) can remove that magic at a stroke. And of course, you might also become over-reliant on him, or he may be too greedy, doing things for his own glory rather than the good of the team.
A weird thing people say is “without Player X’s goals, Team Y would have finished Zth”. But presumably if he was sold, and the money reinvested, there’d be other players to score the goals, and you wouldn’t be seeing daft calculations on how good teams are with only 10 starters every game. (Without fielding agoalkeeper each week, even Manchester City would get relegated.) You can only look at the games where the star in question didn’t start – where someone else took their place – and in that case, Liverpool have fared really well without Suarez, albeit over a dozen or so games, rather than the 40-60 a season contains (unless you’ve just bitten someone, then it drops by about 20%).
The problem with replacing the über-star with three or four players is that you might end up with some expensive substitutes who offer nothing to the XI. Squad depth can be handy – indeed, most managers swear they need it – but is an £80m player more useful than ten £8m players? As ever, this depends on who the £8m players are; Coutinhos or Aspases?
If only four out of ten £8m players were successful – the rough rule of thumb I work on – then what if the four worked out as well as Coutinho, Azpilicueta, Remy and Schneiderlin (who actually only cost Southampton around £1m)? On top of those four, two or three of the others may be merely mediocre (handy back-ups), and two or three total flops (on whom some money can be recouped), would that represent good business? A downside is that the wages of ten good players (average of £50,000 a week) probably outstrips the weekly pay-packet of one world-class talent (£200,000) by more than two-to-one.
Alternatively, you could spend £40m on a big name like Mesut Ozil, and get a so-so season, and £40m on Robinho (which is what Manchester City paid, converted to 2014 money), and end up with little or no improvement. You can do this with examples good and bad: there are plenty to choose from, even in the £40m bracket. (In 2014 money, this is what Emile Heksey cost. Ditto Djibril Cissé.)
Maybe this season Ozil will prove to be a wise investment. Hopefully, at £25m, Adam Lallana will be able to play as confidently and imaginatively as he did in the lower pressure environment of Southampton, where he carried no big fee on his shoulders. Does he have the character to carry all that? I hope so. Can he replace some of the work-rate and creativity of Luis Suarez? Hopefully so. But until it happens, we can’t say for sure. We can talk about ability, potential, but never definites.
If you want easy answers, look away.
If you study Liverpool’s spending in the wake of the Torres sale, you can say that Andy Carroll, despite some potential, proved a fairly disastrous buy; but Suarez elevated the side and, if he is sold, would generate a massive profit. Then think about the two big buys of the summer of 2011: Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson. Neither convinced initially, and Downing was sold (even if he was never quite as bad as people made out or as good as could have been had he had a bit more self-belief), but now Henderson is a key component of the side. This might be getting back to Tomkins Law (© Dan Kennett) of a 40-50% success rate, but it’s not merely making the case about half the deals working, but that in 2012 or even 2013 most people would have told you that the Henderson fee was wasted. In 2014, it seems a bargain, even at £16m.
That £93m spent on those particular four players in 2011 now equates to two sales, and two improved players; £17m from West Ham for Carroll, £5m from West Ham for Downing, and then £25m (increased value of Henderson) and £80m (increased value of Suarez). Two successes, two ‘flops’, and that’s still “£127m”.
To flip that, transfer fees are now approximately 27% higher than three years ago, as prices rise in keeping with yet another massive TV deal. (Why else would a teenage full-back cost £30m? My view is that people instinctively see transfer fees in terms of what they were two or three earlier, and react without taking inflation into account.)
And yet even at worst, Liverpool could “break even” (adding 27% inflation) on two of the most overpriced purchases of its recent history, and when selling a third, who also happens to have the worst disciplinary record of any Liverpool player I can recall (despite never getting a red card). The investment in 2011 was part of what propelled Liverpool back into the Champions League, with Suarez and Henderson adding a great deal to the campaign.
inflation
TPI Football inflation, 1992-2014. ©Paul Tomkins & Graeme Riley.

Truths
Three truths are that Liverpool improved after selling Kevin Keegan, improved after selling Ian Rush and improved after selling Fernando Torres. Each was seen as key to the Reds’ success, yet each gave way to even better players, or a betterteam. Equally, Liverpool regressed after selling Graeme Souness, Xabi Alonso and Steve McManaman, albeit still with improvement returning within a handful of years, to the point where the Reds were arguably even better than when they had them (with the seasons of 1987, 2001 and 2014 representing some kind of improvement – in some cases a matter of aesthetics – on the best years those stars had at Liverpool).
Luis Suarez turns 28 in January, just a few months after he returns form his third lengthy ban in England, and while he’s clearly at his peak, he maybe has three or four years left at the very top; more if he’s lucky, less if he’s unlucky. His value is at its absolute peak, even taking into account his proclivity for biting. You don’t automatically sell your best players once they are at their peak value, but you must consider the implications. On average, 30-year-olds cost far, far less than 28-year-olds; like a car being driven off a forecourt, their value plummets overnight. Clubs must consider this, if not necessarily panic at the prospect of a key player getting older.
I see no point in panicking about players leaving, full-stop. So long as it’s for a fee commensurate with their ability; so long as it’s not a move to a direct Premier League rival; and so long as the money is reinvested in the team (and not used to pay off loans, as in 2009), then what’s to fear? It’s all part of the cycle of football, and it never changes. You can’t hold onto them forever. They all have to leave, sooner or later, in one way or another. Just as Suarez left Ajax for Liverpool, I can understand him leaving Liverpool for Barcelona.
As I said last year, players are just passing through, albeit at different speeds. They come, they go. The only things you can hold onto are the memories.