28 May 2013

Transfer Fail: Carra sad that LFC 'missed out' on signing £17m star. Big loss...?

Liverpool have missed out on dozens of top class players over the years, including the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Stevan Jovetic, David Villa and - according to Rafa Benitez - Barcelona star Dani Alves. All four would've made a positive difference to the club, but recently retired Reds legend Jamie Carragher insists that Liverpool's failure to sign Damien Duff is the one missed opportunity he regrets the most.

Speaking asked last week about the one signing from the past he feels Liverpool should've made, Carra told the official Liverpool FC website:

"We missed out on Damien Duff. Houllier should have signed him but instead he went for Diouf and Cheyrou. I think Duff would have given us the pace and width that we needed.

"Duff ended up going to Chelsea and for two or three seasons, was really influential there. Aside from that, Phil Thompson always talks about Cristiano Ronaldo. I'm sure he'd have done great for us".


I remember Liverpool being constantly linked with Duff during the summer 2002 transfer window (and again during the 2003 window) and as I recall, many LFC fans wanted him, and would've been happy with the move.

Duff ended up going to Chelsea for £17m, which probably means the London club outbid the Reds because, at that time, there's no way the club would've splashed out that amount of money on one player.

As for Ronaldo: in 2010, Gerard Houllier claimed that he almost signed the Real Madrid star, and outlined the reasons why he decided against the move:

"We had a wage scale and we weren’t paying the sort of salary he wanted. I thought it would cause problems in our dressing room.

“Maybe we would have won the title with Ronaldo, but we had Harry Kewell, who was outstanding at the time and was very hungry but got a bad injury. After that, he never had the same confidence, the same appetite.”


Kewell over Ronaldo?! Even at his best, Kewell was not in Ronaldo's class. As for Duff vs. Ronaldo - at that time, who would've been the better signing for LFC?



NOTE: Please stick to the Comment Policy (Click to read)


24 comments:

  1. Rubbish. Ronaldo was 18 years old at that time. There is no way he got more than our star players at United. He may have been on higher wages than the rest of our 18 year olds but it's about how influential the player is, not what age. Even after he left Houllier was full of rubbish excuses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes it was gudjohnsen and not duff who missed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Niall O'Reilly3:06 pm, May 28, 2013

    Duff was always a decent player but I think after he left Chelsea he just wasn't the same anymore,Ha soon enough he'll probably retire too....How quickly time flies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Liverpool Rich3:10 pm, May 28, 2013

    Eidur Gudjohnsen not Duff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kewell was a very good player on his day but never ronaldo.
    As an australian myself, i hope Liverpool dont have to deal with a mercenary like him again

    ReplyDelete
  6. liverpool4life5653:26 pm, May 28, 2013

    Toure signing soon, good move from Rodgers brings experience into our back line, so two exerpeince players in Toure,agger, and sign young players in papadopoulous and llori.

    ReplyDelete
  7. HARRY KEWELL played his best football in his early days for LEEDS.When we got him I was very excited but he turned out to be a major disappointment.The style of football we played under GH was boring and the injuries he suffered didn't help.He was capable of magic but hardly showed it in a LFC shirt!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christiano Rolldownjo? No way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Duff was quality in his prime, a real old fashioned winger with a quality left foot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Duff's peak was short but it was a very good one. Never came close to finding the form that he had when it was him and Robben as the first XI wide players. Partially down to (predictably) injuries and of course, going to Newcastle which was at the time a strange club to say the least. Didn't last long but Robben and Duff in the side at the same time were pretty damn good (I prefer that Robben, instead the even more greedier (still pretty damn effective!) Robben that is around these days). Got different kind of attacking midfielders now Chelsea who are very good at what they do as a unit but yet to, imo, better what them two conjured up in that short period, although these new boys have the talent to make it happen sooner or later (don't get me wrong, Mata is better as a individual but in terms of cohesion, penetration and entertaining as a attacking duo/trio/unit, they were better in that short period than anything the new amigos have put up as a trio to date)(to be fair on the new amigos, Robben & Duff had the luxury of playing in a better solid team and of course Mourinho). I think for one or two seasons Duff was simply unplayable and those who remember that will see why Carra rated him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Clearly Ronaldo was a bigger mistake in terms of long term, but at the time Duff would have made a massive if not bigger difference. While comparing the two would show overall Ronaldo is a long way better than Duff, its good to remember Duff was top class for two seasons and would have made a big difference for us, so in that respect I can see why Carra has said what he has.

    ReplyDelete
  12. toure signing confirmed!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Niall O'Reilly7:06 pm, May 28, 2013

    So I hear we've signed Toure....Not sure what to say,I myself think that the lack of playing time hes had since really joining city will have put him back a few pegs but Ill happily eat my words if Im wrong :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Niall O'Reilly7:12 pm, May 28, 2013

    Well for the last 2 years anyways....

    ReplyDelete
  15. As a squad player, content with having Toure here. But I do hope we have another CB coming in for the first XI. Toure of the Arsenal days would have been really good to have as a first choice CB but the Toure of now, not so good.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I may well be wrong here, but I thought that we had bought Kewell instead of Duff, and Diouf as a striker rather than Anelka??


    And tbh, without the benefit of hindsight, I would choose Kewell over Duff too. My brothers always disagreed, but I just thought that Kewell was a much more complete player.

    ReplyDelete
  17. btw, Kewell at his best WAS better than the early, show-boating Ronaldo

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kewell was quality in his prime too - a real, modern day wide-man, with a quality left foot and a decent right foot too!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hope this puts to bed the idea that we don't sign experienced players when it's necessary. I know it's a free but I am certain he is on high wages and a significant signing on fee.

    ReplyDelete
  20. liverpool4life56510:17 pm, May 28, 2013

    I don't think he on massive wages, because he wanted to stay in England, and our wages are on performances bases, FSG wouldn't of rubber stamped it other wise. He might be on 40-50k - week with a signing on fee.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ronaldo V Kewell ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm let me think for a moment !! Ronny Rosenthal or Robbie Fowler ? Yeah that's a tough one as well !!

    ReplyDelete
  22. its been reported he has dropped his 90k wages, not sure what to though

    ReplyDelete
  23. At his best, Kewell was better than a 18/19 year old Ronaldo but after that, it was quite obvious that there was a good strong chance of Ronaldo in the long term surpassing Kewell's best by a long distance. To be fair, it would have taken a gutsy manager to cast aside a peak Kewell for a 18 year old raw Ronaldo. That is a good manager, who can know when to phase out big players, regardless of how good they were/are

    ReplyDelete
  24. Exactly - everybody loves to use the benefit of hindsight to switch their arguments and look infallible.


    Ronaldo was obviously a very talented kid when he arrived in England, but it wasn't obvious that he would continue to develop and go on to become the world-beater that he is today.

    ReplyDelete