Liverpool’s transfer window may have been frustrating for supporters, but there was clearly more thought behind it than simply deciding not to strengthen certain positions.
According to James Pearce, the expected returns of Conor Bradley, Giovanni Leoni and Hugo Ekitike from long-term injuries influenced Liverpool’s transfer strategy.
The club apparently didn’t want to commit significant resources to positions where players they rate highly were expected to return in the coming months.
And when you look at it that way, Liverpool’s decisions start to make a little more sense.
But I still have my doubts.
Liverpool were planning for the players coming back
The key point from Pearce is that Liverpool weren’t necessarily ignoring certain positions.
They were looking at the bigger picture.
If Conor Bradley is expected back, then spending heavily on another right-back could have been viewed as unnecessary.
If Giovanni Leoni is returning from a serious injury, Liverpool may have felt they already had another highly-rated defensive option coming into the squad.
And then there’s Hugo Ekitike.
Liverpool signed Ekitike last summer, and although his long-term injury leaves a significant hole in the attack, the club clearly still rates him highly.
From Liverpool’s perspective, spending a huge amount on another player who could become surplus to requirements once Ekitike returns may not have been seen as good squad planning.
That is understandable.
But this is where I disagree
There is a difference between not wanting to waste money and not addressing an obvious short-term problem.
And this is where I still believe Liverpool could have done more.
Conor Bradley returning doesn’t necessarily mean Liverpool didn’t need another right-back.
Bradley has suffered serious injury problems, and Liverpool are competing across multiple competitions.
Having another specialist right-back would have given Iraola greater flexibility while also protecting Bradley from being rushed back into action.
The same applies to Leoni.
Having a highly-rated young defender returning from a long-term injury is fantastic.
But you cannot simply assume that he will immediately be ready to play every three days at Premier League and Champions League level.
And Ekitike’s situation is even more complicated
This one concerns me the most.
Ekitike is expected to be out for a significant period, leaving Alexander Isak as Liverpool’s main senior No.9 option.
I absolutely understand why Liverpool didn’t want to spend another £50m or £60m on a striker who might struggle for minutes once Ekitike returns.
But there are other solutions.
Liverpool could have looked for an experienced short-term option.
A loan.
A versatile forward.
Someone capable of giving Isak a rest without demanding a massive long-term investment.
Because the reality is that Liverpool have a huge number of matches to play.
If Isak gets injured, suspended or simply needs a rest, the situation suddenly becomes very uncomfortable.
It explains the strategy — but doesn’t completely excuse it
This is probably the most important distinction.
Pearce’s comments help explain why Liverpool made the decisions they did.
It wasn’t necessarily a case of the club forgetting about squad depth.
They were factoring in players returning from injury and trying to avoid spending large sums in positions that would become overcrowded.
That is actually sensible squad management.
Liverpool have also spent heavily this summer.
Bradley Barcola arrived for a huge fee, while Victor Muñoz, Ronald Araújo and Jérémy Jacquet were among the other additions, with further investment committed for the future.
So Liverpool couldn’t simply buy another player for every position supporters felt needed strengthening.
There had to be a strategy.
But football doesn’t wait for injured players
This is where I think Liverpool have taken a risk.
You can plan for Bradley’s return.
You can plan for Leoni’s return.
You can plan for Ekitike’s return.
But you cannot guarantee exactly when they will return, how quickly they will regain their fitness or whether they will immediately perform at the level expected.
Long-term injuries are unpredictable.
And Liverpool are trying to compete for the Premier League, Champions League and domestic cups.
That’s a lot of football.
Sometimes you have to strengthen for the situation you have right now, rather than the squad you hope to have in three or four months.
It also changes how I view the transfer window
I still stand by my 4/10 rating for Liverpool’s summer window.
But Pearce’s explanation makes me more understanding of some of the decisions.
The club clearly had reasons for not making certain additions.
And those reasons weren’t necessarily financial or a lack of ambition.
Liverpool were looking at players already within their squad and asking:
“What happens when these players come back?”
That’s a perfectly reasonable question.
The problem is that there are still risks between now and then.
Liverpool are gambling on their injury recoveries
Ultimately, that’s what this strategy feels like to me.
Liverpool are gambling that Bradley returns and stays fit.
They’re gambling that Leoni comes back and quickly becomes an important option.
They’re gambling that Ekitike returns without further problems.
And they’re gambling that the existing squad can cope until those players are available.
Maybe it will work.
If it does, Liverpool could look back at this window and say they were right not to waste money.
But if injuries continue or another key player goes down, supporters will understandably ask why the club didn’t do more.
I understand the strategy — but I still wanted more
James Pearce’s comments give us important context.
Liverpool didn’t simply decide they didn’t need strengthening.
They were thinking about the players they already have and the ones expected to return.
That makes sense.
But for me, squad building isn’t just about planning for the perfect scenario.
It’s about preparing for what could go wrong.
And Liverpool have already seen how quickly injuries can change the picture.
So yes, I understand why the club didn’t want to commit huge resources in areas where Bradley, Leoni and Ekitike are expected to return.
But I still think Liverpool could have found cleverer short-term solutions.
A right-back.
Another midfielder.
A versatile attacker.
None of those necessarily required another £100m signing.
Liverpool have built an exciting squad.
But they have also taken some risks.
And now we have to hope those risks pay off.
Jamie (The Kopite View)
Leave a Reply