You are reading a single comment by @croft and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
In retrospect, I don't see how you cant accept that Liverpool paid relatively ok money for VVD. The upturn in their defensive displays and stats towards the end of the season and his relative youth.
croft-
I'd seen Van Dijk put in repeatedly average performances for Southampton before his move to Liverpool, and I don't think he's been that great since. Improved defensive displays are relative, Liverpool were laughably bad at the back, so the bar was pretty low.
Even if he turns out to be good, at £75M he was massively overpriced at the time they bought him. However, Liverpool were desperate and paid accordingly, Man City weren't desperate for Mahrez and the price reflects that.
Markyboy
Well, let me get things back on track.
Mixed feelings about Mahrez going to Man City, not that everyone hasn't been expecting it since the last day of the season. I've never seen a player like him at my club in 50 years and he was astonishingly good in the 15/16 season. But he's also incredibly frustrating and inconsistent, and sulks like a cunt. £60M is a good deal for a player with little sell-on value (although it highlights how low Liverpool had their pants pulled down for Van Dijk) and is a tidy £59.5M profit.
I'm not sure Man City is such a good move for him (apparently they were the only ones seriously interested) given their squad, but maybe the drug cheat will find a way to keep him happy in rotation. It might depend on how Rita-from-Gravesend settles in the grim industrial north.
I'm more concerned about the offers that will come in for our 'Arry, which will highlight how low Liverpool had their pants pulled down for Van Dijk...