In his post-match press conference last night, Liverpool boss Brendan Rodgers hailed Mamadou Sakho's 'outstanding' performance, and confirmed that he'll now 'come into contention' for Sunday's home game against Norwich. The Reds are reportedly scrambling to secure Sakho on a new long-term contract, but after ignoring the France international for the first five games of the season, it may be too little, too late.
Earlier this week, Rodgers claimed that Sakho is definitely in his plans:
"Mama is a player we want to keep. We won the first few games so it was difficult for him to get in the team, but after the international break he was always going to be needed. We want to extend his contract".
With the European Championships on the horizon, Sakho needs to be playing regularly, and France boss Didier Deschamps confirmed this last month when he dropped the 23-year old from the national squad.
Now, Deschamps has basically advised Sakho to quit Liverpool for regular game-time elsewhere. During an interview this week for RMC Sport, Deschamps was asked the following question:
"Mamadou Sakho hardly played in Liverpool. Do you advise him to leave?"
To which he responded:
"Sakho is suffering because he is a competitor and it's frustrating for him. It is his choice, but the club [Liverpool] needs to let him go. Apparently, that is not the option that has been chosen because they want him to extend his contract."
In my view, Sakho (who cost Liverpool £18m) should quit Liverpool. Rodgers clearly doesn't rate him, and I submit that Rodgers played him against Bordeaux in a desperate attempt to repair the damage caused by ignoring him for FIVE games in a row.
Rodgers reasons for leaving Sakho out are (IMO) insincere, and make little sense:
* First, Rodgers claims it was 'difficult' for Sakho to get into the team because Liverpool 'won the first few games'. Liverpool won TWO games, not the first 'few'.
* Second, Rodgers had the perfect opportunity to bring Sakho in after the 3-0 home defeat against West Ham, and after such an appalling defeat (defined by yet another bad mistake from Lovren), making a change was the obvious thing to do.
* Rodgers decided to stick with Lovren, and Liverpool lost 3-1 at Old Trafford.
If Sakho signs a new contract, there's nothing to stop Rodgers from dumping him on the bench once again, and I doubt he wants to take that risk with his place in the national team already under threat.
As I've argued from day one, though, this is what happens when you have three international centre-backs in a non-Champions League squad. It's a problem, and it's impossible to keep all three happy. At some point, one of the three will want to leave, especially in a European Championship/World Cup year.
To be fair, Sakho lack of game time is also due to his poor injury record (Last season: 3 separate injuries; 30 games missed), and Rodgers perhaps feels that Lovren is more robust. A settled defensive-duo is vital for solidity, and it's impossible to build a sold defence around a regularly injured centre-back.
As such, if Sakho comes back into the team on a regular basis, it's up to him to maintain his fitness. If he fails to do that, then he can have no complaints if he ends up back on the sidelines.
Author: Jaimie K
Earlier this week, Rodgers claimed that Sakho is definitely in his plans:
"Mama is a player we want to keep. We won the first few games so it was difficult for him to get in the team, but after the international break he was always going to be needed. We want to extend his contract".
With the European Championships on the horizon, Sakho needs to be playing regularly, and France boss Didier Deschamps confirmed this last month when he dropped the 23-year old from the national squad.
Now, Deschamps has basically advised Sakho to quit Liverpool for regular game-time elsewhere. During an interview this week for RMC Sport, Deschamps was asked the following question:
"Mamadou Sakho hardly played in Liverpool. Do you advise him to leave?"
To which he responded:
"Sakho is suffering because he is a competitor and it's frustrating for him. It is his choice, but the club [Liverpool] needs to let him go. Apparently, that is not the option that has been chosen because they want him to extend his contract."
In my view, Sakho (who cost Liverpool £18m) should quit Liverpool. Rodgers clearly doesn't rate him, and I submit that Rodgers played him against Bordeaux in a desperate attempt to repair the damage caused by ignoring him for FIVE games in a row.
Rodgers reasons for leaving Sakho out are (IMO) insincere, and make little sense:
* First, Rodgers claims it was 'difficult' for Sakho to get into the team because Liverpool 'won the first few games'. Liverpool won TWO games, not the first 'few'.
* Second, Rodgers had the perfect opportunity to bring Sakho in after the 3-0 home defeat against West Ham, and after such an appalling defeat (defined by yet another bad mistake from Lovren), making a change was the obvious thing to do.
* Rodgers decided to stick with Lovren, and Liverpool lost 3-1 at Old Trafford.
If Sakho signs a new contract, there's nothing to stop Rodgers from dumping him on the bench once again, and I doubt he wants to take that risk with his place in the national team already under threat.
As I've argued from day one, though, this is what happens when you have three international centre-backs in a non-Champions League squad. It's a problem, and it's impossible to keep all three happy. At some point, one of the three will want to leave, especially in a European Championship/World Cup year.
To be fair, Sakho lack of game time is also due to his poor injury record (Last season: 3 separate injuries; 30 games missed), and Rodgers perhaps feels that Lovren is more robust. A settled defensive-duo is vital for solidity, and it's impossible to build a sold defence around a regularly injured centre-back.
As such, if Sakho comes back into the team on a regular basis, it's up to him to maintain his fitness. If he fails to do that, then he can have no complaints if he ends up back on the sidelines.
Author: Jaimie K
0 Comments:
Post a Comment