Prior to signing a new four-year contract with Barcelona, Argentine star Javier Mascherano was linked with a summer return to Liverpool, a move that seemed improbable given the acrimony surrounding his 2010 Anfield exit. Mascherano holds no ill-feeling towards the Reds, though, and after signing his new deal, he paid tribute to his old club.
In an interview with The Guardian over the weekend, €15m-rated Mascherano admitted that he feels 'sorry' about the way he left, and wishes it had 'played out differently', but seemed positive about LFC overall. He enthused:
“I lived three unforgettable years with Liverpool,I will always be grateful for everything to the club, and especially the fans. From day one they behaved impeccably and were amazing.”
In 2010, Mascherano allegedly refused to play for Liverpool in a league game against Manchester City, a decision that inexorably led to his exit. Whether he actually refused to play cannot be factually established, and Liverpool's manager at the time, Roy Hodgson, claimed it was his decision not to leave Masch out of the City game. He told reporters:
"He [Mascherano] is not here tonight because there is some speculation about his future and his mind is not right, so it was not correct to select him"
If Mascherano actually refused to turn out for the club, I doubt Roy Hodgson - or any manager - would admit to this in public. It would make him seem weak, and it's possible he chose to be diplomatic in an attempt to project managerial strength. Hodgson's version of events didn't fly with some of LFC's legends, though, including Phil Thompson, who raged:
"He [Mascherano] let the club down. Big time. To refuse to play while he remains a Liverpool player is totally unacceptable and frankly sickening".
So, what is the truth of the matter? Speaking to ESPN last year Mascherano strongly refuted the accusation that he went on strike to secure a move, claiming he didn’t want to say anything at the time because of his 'respect for Liverpool'. He explained:
“I did not refuse to play. Why would I do that and risk getting injured when I knew that Barcelona were close to signing me and then refuse to play in another game? That doesn’t make any sense."
Mascherano also accused the club lying about 'a lot of things', and deliberately making things 'difficult' for him:
"They [Liverpool] didn't keep their word. We had been talking about the transfer [to Barca] for 20 days, and they started to make things difficult. I wanted to leave in another way, but they didn’t give me the chance to. It left me with a bad feeling"
There's no credible evidence to prove that Mascherano refused to play for LFC, so it's basically a case of choosing who to believe. If what the Argentine states is true, however, then it's understandable why he feels so aggrieved.
Additionally, if Masch did refuse to play for the club, why would LFC entertain the idea of re-signing him? In August 2013, Sky Sports reported that the Reds were considering the possibility of a move, and this year again, Mascherano was linked with LFC, all of which seems strange in light of the alleged refusal.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I was glad Mascherano left. I'd argued several times that Liverpool didn't need him, and that £17m transfer fee should've been spent on a top class attacking player.
Like Fernando Torres, though, Mascherano simply abandoned an obviously sinking ship, and given what happened next at Anfield, it's hard to argue that either of those two - both of whom went on to win the Champions League - made the wrong decision.
Author: Jaimie K
In an interview with The Guardian over the weekend, €15m-rated Mascherano admitted that he feels 'sorry' about the way he left, and wishes it had 'played out differently', but seemed positive about LFC overall. He enthused:
“I lived three unforgettable years with Liverpool,I will always be grateful for everything to the club, and especially the fans. From day one they behaved impeccably and were amazing.”
In 2010, Mascherano allegedly refused to play for Liverpool in a league game against Manchester City, a decision that inexorably led to his exit. Whether he actually refused to play cannot be factually established, and Liverpool's manager at the time, Roy Hodgson, claimed it was his decision not to leave Masch out of the City game. He told reporters:
"He [Mascherano] is not here tonight because there is some speculation about his future and his mind is not right, so it was not correct to select him"
If Mascherano actually refused to turn out for the club, I doubt Roy Hodgson - or any manager - would admit to this in public. It would make him seem weak, and it's possible he chose to be diplomatic in an attempt to project managerial strength. Hodgson's version of events didn't fly with some of LFC's legends, though, including Phil Thompson, who raged:
"He [Mascherano] let the club down. Big time. To refuse to play while he remains a Liverpool player is totally unacceptable and frankly sickening".
So, what is the truth of the matter? Speaking to ESPN last year Mascherano strongly refuted the accusation that he went on strike to secure a move, claiming he didn’t want to say anything at the time because of his 'respect for Liverpool'. He explained:
“I did not refuse to play. Why would I do that and risk getting injured when I knew that Barcelona were close to signing me and then refuse to play in another game? That doesn’t make any sense."
Mascherano also accused the club lying about 'a lot of things', and deliberately making things 'difficult' for him:
"They [Liverpool] didn't keep their word. We had been talking about the transfer [to Barca] for 20 days, and they started to make things difficult. I wanted to leave in another way, but they didn’t give me the chance to. It left me with a bad feeling"
There's no credible evidence to prove that Mascherano refused to play for LFC, so it's basically a case of choosing who to believe. If what the Argentine states is true, however, then it's understandable why he feels so aggrieved.
Additionally, if Masch did refuse to play for the club, why would LFC entertain the idea of re-signing him? In August 2013, Sky Sports reported that the Reds were considering the possibility of a move, and this year again, Mascherano was linked with LFC, all of which seems strange in light of the alleged refusal.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I was glad Mascherano left. I'd argued several times that Liverpool didn't need him, and that £17m transfer fee should've been spent on a top class attacking player.
Like Fernando Torres, though, Mascherano simply abandoned an obviously sinking ship, and given what happened next at Anfield, it's hard to argue that either of those two - both of whom went on to win the Champions League - made the wrong decision.
Author: Jaimie K
Can't believe we used to have the best midfield in europe at one point....Mascherano and Alonso, Gerrard behind Torres! Sigh!!!
ReplyDeleteHe is EXACTLY the defensive midfield WARRIOR what our team needs. He smells danger, and snuffs it out quick.
ReplyDeleteThe day Mascherano went on strike (while he was being paid his wages) to force his way out of LFC was the day I lost all respect for him. Now that he has signed a new contract at Barcelona at least rubbishes all future rumours of him returning to Anfield. Good riddance.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the proof that Mascherano went on strike?
ReplyDeleteHe is a dick
ReplyDeleteHis last match for us was on the 15/08/201 vs Arsenal.
ReplyDeleteWe had more 3 matches after that. 1 EPL and 2 Europa matches before he left the club and he did not play in one of them and was not even on the bench. Was it the manager who did not want to pick him or was it the player who refused to play?
That is not proof of anything.
ReplyDeleteWell based on the player being completely missing from the squad and almost ever news outlet breaking the news that he went on strike at the time, I will go with my gut feeling that he showed the club the finger to force his way out.
ReplyDeleteSinking ship ? If those two traitor b@stards hadn't left, it might not of got so bad.. With regards to champions league qualification.. Let the pair of them rot.. Torres is a shadow of the player he was and masch is just a bench warmer.. Players like those do not belong at liverpool..
ReplyDeleteI think your post will be deleted shortly;-)
ReplyDeleteIf this story tells me one thing it is that you cannot trust football news reports.
ReplyDeleteClearly Masch was never likely to sign for us this time round and yet some journalist started the story running and loads copied it.
On that basis why would you necessarily believe stories about him going on strike when no one who matters said so, just journalists?
I am not only referring to the stories.
ReplyDeleteI also based it on the fact that he was completely missing from our squad for 3 matches.
True. Even I accept the news reports that he did not play.
ReplyDeleteI just don't necessarily accept the more sensational press explanation without some corroborative evidence from anyone actually involved.
He might well have gone on strike I just don't know that for sure and I would suggest neither do you.
Like i asked Jaimie, was it the manager who did not want to pick him or was it the player who refused to play?
ReplyDelete“I did not wake up one day and refuse to play,” he said in a newspaper interview ahead of Barcelona's Champions League clash with Manchester City tomorrow.
“In the game before City we played against Arsenal and I gave everything because I was wearing the Liverpool shirt.
“Why would I do that and risk getting injured when I knew that Barcelona were close to signing me and then refused to play in another game.
“That doesn't make sense.”
Now let's put this into perspective. Mascherano played vs Arsenal and gave it his all even by risking as he says getting injured.
So why did he not play in any of the other three matches before he left if he was not worried about getting injured vs Arsenal?
Hodgson already explained why he didn't play. Why do you ignore this? RH said 'his mind wasn't right' due to transfer speculation. That carries more weight than the striker theory.
ReplyDeleteYou have no persuasive evidence that Mascherano allegedly went on strike.
"The danger of those questions is that I could give you an answer and if my answer is not 100% correct then all of a sudden I'm creating headlines. I have no wish to create headlines over the Mascherano situation. Roy Hodgson.
ReplyDeleteI replied to you but it has gone for moderation.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, this does not prove anything. In literally the same sentence, Hodgson gave his reason for Mascherano not playing, i.e. 'his head wasn't right'.
ReplyDeleteWell I see it differently.
ReplyDeleteId have to agree with Logan. Perception is key. He was a key starter and never played in 3 matches. My perception is that he went on strike. Obviously no proof but reading between the lines and knowing how liverpool dont air dirty laundry in public i speculate a refusal to play. I also lost total respect in him and am glad he warms the bench nowadays. Glad he never came back too.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt Masch;s agent had done the rounds trying to push Barca for the new contract. It tends to be the way of things. Liverpool is a popular club and a lot of press will run these stories. That is why we are linked with so many players.
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me how some people always follow the Establishment line. Liverpool FC were a shambles at this time and the players with relatively short careers could not wait around for things to change. v
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to count up the medal haul I am sure both players will realise the error of their ways.
ReplyDeleteWould you take Torres back now :-o
ReplyDeleteOf course not things have moved on. Fortunately Liverpool are looking like a force once again without him or Masch.
ReplyDeleteHaving Torres on the bench is as good as having Aspas on the bench. You unfortunately do not know when they might score.
ReplyDeleteNow we have oneof the best attacks in Europe. Roll on next season
ReplyDeleteSpot on let's just move on what's galling is that we sold him for 17 mill I would have said his value was more than that.
ReplyDeleteIf it was suarez tho it would be enough proof to you jamie
ReplyDeleteNonsense.
ReplyDeleteThis is simple. BR has spent more than 100M pounds and can only show two as outstanding and we all know those two. We shouldnt think that UCL qualification now guarantees we will continue to make UCL in subsequent seasons if we dont but top players. Huge price tag for players puts spotlights on them and I, like many others, watch Lallana more closely now. He is hugely overpriced and Barkley did more in the last game imo. I would target Firmino, Kono, Greizmann, Shaqiri, while going after Lallana and let us fail going after them then just going for Lallana. No one is wondering why MU, CFC, Arsenal and Spurs are not going after Lallana. Not saying he isnt a good buy. If Athletico Madrid or Udinese had 60M to spend on players, you will see talented and skillful players come in for reasonable amounts.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that if Mascherano had gone on strike, it is very likely that Hodgson would plainly state that, because it would further the idea that he was working under terrible circumstances (...and I do acknowledge they were bad, but he didn't miss an opportunity to make himself seem put upon) and that anything success he had (was having) with us was a big achievement and something we should be happy with.
ReplyDeleteagree with most of those players youve mentioned. quality players. We just cannot close a bi money deal for god sake. i mean Moreno's transfer is taking forever!! we're simply waiting to get hijacked.
ReplyDeleteItanje, Cavelieri, Degen, Insua, Nunez, Riera, Pennant, Sissoko, Keane, Morientes, Josemi, Kromkamp, Crouch, El Zhar, Babel and Jovanovic (signed on a pre-contract prior to Rafa leaving), just to add to the aforementioned extensive list of mediocre, under performing or downright abysmal 'talent' that Rafa brought into the club.
ReplyDeleteTrue he's so ineffective now
ReplyDeleteYou have no evidence that he didn't, dont you think its in Mascheranos best interest to make people believe he didn't go on strike?
ReplyDeleteHe might not have gone on strike Per Se but he basically went to the manager and said i am not going to give my all as i want the move to Barcelona so dont play me, this is equally as bad in my eyes, he was a Liverpool player and until a transfer had been finalised then he should have played and done his best for the shirt.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know he 'went to the manager' and said he's not going to give his all,
ReplyDeleteSent from Samsung Mobile
Innocent till proven guilty, no? I personally don't think it's fair to spread a damaging rumour like this without some credible evidence.
ReplyDeleteSent from Samsung Mobile
jaimie you've used the tabloid press reports before for your arguments that Suarez wants to leave Liverpool, even when he never clearly said he wanted to leave, it's looks bad for Hodgson and the club if one of his players go on strike and it also looks bad for the player to go on stike, who wants a player that goes on strike, so thats why they both say he did'nt go on strike ..imo
ReplyDeleteI really do wish people would stop the inaccurate restatement of my views on LFC. Every single day, someone claims I said X, Y and Z, and in most cases, it's totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI have never used 'tabloid press reports' to support an argument that Suarez might leave. I've only ever used actual, factual comments, from either Suarez, his Agent, or LFC (i.e. Rodgers). Example:
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2014/03/luis-suarez-claims-he-will-stay-at-liverpool-without-champions-league-football.html
Please do not twist my words. Thanks.
Matuidi, carvalho or song are all very good holding midfielders and I'd be pleased to see anyone of those in a liverpool shirt. I've been looking at other players we've been linked with also and my favs are Lovren , Iturbe and Sanchez
ReplyDeleteHe said "Against Manchester City I was not right to play. I spoke with the coach and he understood my position."
ReplyDeleteWas he injured? No. Therefore it means that he was not focused on Liverpool (his employer) and wouldn't have played to his best therefore he would not be giving his all.
No use crying over spilt milk
ReplyDeleteWhen a player which I believe he did tell his manager that he is not in the right frame of mind to play (which many players do to push through a move e.g gallas) Then they are basically going on strike.
Like it or not
Shows lack of commitment
BLackmail
And forced the manager to drop them
They know what they are doing (with their agents and new club to be)
Not really important for me
He went on strike !!