Liverpool’s Recruitment Myths Under the Microscope
A supporter questions the credit given to Liverpool’s recruitment team in the Klopp era, pointing to squad planning issues, contracts and a few costly misses. The argument is that Klopp masked plenty.
I want to vent about the Michael Edwards and “Data Team Geniuses” agenda, because to me it’s become a bit of a self-congratulating myth. It started grating when Ian Graham seemed to be everywhere, taking a lot of the credit for Jurgen Klopp’s Liverpool and the big signings that followed.
The way it gets framed, you’d think the recruitment side only ever struck gold, and anything that went wrong simply did not count. I’m not buying that, especially when you look back at periods where money went out and the squad still ended up short or unbalanced.
The myths around signings and “compromises”
This is where the PR-driven stories kick in. The first one that always comes up is the Brendan Rodgers row: the club supposedly wanted Firmino, Rodgers wanted Benteke, and the compromise was signing both.
It still feels strange, not least because Firmino was a midfielder when we signed him. It’s presented as if it proves a grand plan, but it never quite lines up as neatly as it’s sold.
How much was Klopp, not the data?
Then there’s the long-running line that Klopp wanted Julian Brandt instead of Mo Salah, which Klopp has since rubbished. For me, the bigger point is that the “genius profiling” era looked so good because 2015-2020 Klopp was a generational manager.
Look at the transformations. Firmino came in as an attacking midfielder and became a striker. Gini arrived as an attacking midfielder/winger and turned into a defence-first box-to-box. Mane switching from the right to the left took him into world-class territory. In my view, you can argue only Salah, Fabinho and Robbo were pure recruitment masterstrokes, and Klopp’s input on Salah was far bigger than the PR machine ever admits.
Squad planning, contracts, and the hangover years
On the flip side, the “pet project” Naby Keita was a disaster, especially after waiting a full year. And I still look back at squad planning and think it cost us badly when we ran out of centre-backs in 20/21.
I’m also convinced 2022 could have been even bigger if we’d simply had a competent, low-cost midfield backup in the Shaqiri or Minamino mould. Instead we ended up stretched thin, trying to drag through periods with players not fully fit and a squad down to the bare bones.
Then there are the long-term deals on wages that felt ridiculous for the role some players ended up having. Nat Phillips, Divock Origi, Ox, Naby, and the fact Rhys Williams is still at the club now. It’s hard not to see it as poor planning when lads leave for nothing after being paid well, because no one else is matching those contracts.
Nunez, Isak, and the way narratives get written
Finally, Darwin Nunez. The script is always that it was a disastrous signing, and that Edwards wanted Alexander Isak instead. At the time, Isak was coming off a six-goal season with Sociedad, so if he was really the priority, the question is why not sign both?
As for Nunez, I do not think it was remotely as daft as it’s made out. He was one of the hottest young strikers in Europe, had the attributes to succeed in the Premier League, and if his finishing had been anywhere near what he showed at Benfica, he’d have been putting up huge numbers. People would have ignored the technical rough edges, the same way they do with other elite finishers.
Nunez did not work out, but it was a gamble worth taking in my eyes, and nowhere near as pointless as some other expensive punts. The wider point remains: with a manager not on Klopp’s level now, the safety blanket is gone, and I think Edwards and Richard Hughes are getting exposed. I do not see Slot being sacked, and it feels like we are stuck with this setup for another year.
Discuss rumours and transfers on our Liverpool rumours web page
