What 'history' says about the loss of Suarez

A Premiership club losing their own and the league's leading scorer from the previous campaign is nothing new, in fact, it's happened four times prior.  In 95-96, Alan Shearer set a Premier League record by scoring 31 goals for Blackburn.  The Rovers finished 7th that season and Shearer was sold to Newcastle in the summer for a world record transfer fee of £15m.  They were never really able to find a replacement and a downward spiral to relegation was sowed, coming to fruition following the 1998-99 campaign.

In 1997-98, the great Dion Dublin found the back of the net 18 times for Coventry, accounting for 39.1% of the Sky Blues' goals that season.  The total tied him atop the league charts along with Liverpool's own, Michael Owen, and Chris Sutton.  He was then bought by Villa in the summer transfer window for £5.75.

The season after he left, Coventry struggled, scoring 7 less goals overall and finishing 15th.  They tried replacing Dublin with John Aloisi, who at that time was a 22-year-old striker coming off an impressive campaign at First Division (which was the equivalent of the Championship back then) Portsmouth.  The Australian failed to fill Dublin's boots and eventually led to the club being relegated in 2001.

The next season, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink and Mickey Owen both scored 18 to lead the league.  Hasselbaink played for Leeds at that time and unsatisfactory contract offers forced him to put in a transfer request during the summer of 1999.  He was sold to Athletico Madrid where he had a stellar season, scoring 24 goals in 34 La Liga matches.

Leeds didn't miss him though, despite the 27-year-old Dutchman being responsible for 29% of their goals, they actually went up a spot on the table to 3rd.  The remarkable thing is they garnered 69 points, 2 more than they did during Hasselbaink's final season, despite scoring 4 less goals and allowing 9 more.  An Australian lad by the name of Kewell stepped up and filled the gap scoring 10 and (unofficially) assisting on another 13 in league play.

Finally, just two seasons ago, Robin Van Persie betrayed the Arsenal faithful, selling his soul to the Red Devils.  The 30 goals he scored in  his final season at the London club lead the league and accounted for 40.5% of the Gunner's total.  The following season Arsenal finished a spot lower at 4th despite accumulating three more points.  Their goals scored only dropped by 2, while they held their opponents to 12 less.  If Liverpool would do the latter this season, they have a good chance of winning the league, even if they score 20 goals less.

What about non-league leading scorers who were significant contributors to their club the season before leaving:

year	player	prev club	goals	club	pct	place	after
94-95	L. Ferdinand	QPR	24	61	39.34%	8th	19th
	S. Collymore	Nott Forest	22	72	30.56%	3rd	9th
	J. Klinnsman	Tottenham	21	66	31.82%	7th	8th
98-99	N. Anelka	Arsenal	17	59	28.81%	2nd	2nd
05-06	Van Nistelroy	Man U	21	72	29.17%	2nd	1st
06-07	Mark Viduka	Mids'boro	14	44	31.82%	12th	13th
	Darrent Bent	Charlton	13	34	38.24%	19th	11th*
08-09	C. Ronaldo	Man U	18	68	26.47%	1st	2nd
11-12	C. Dempsey	Fulham	18	68	26.47%	9th	12th
	Yakubu	Blackburn	17	48	35.42%	19th	17th*
12-13	Gareth Bale	Tottenham	21	66	31.82%	5th	6th
	R. Lukaku	WBA (loan)	17	53	32.08%	8th	17th
	Demba Ba	Newcastle	15	45	33.33%	16th	10th

*Clubs were relegated the player's final season and this is their finishing place in the Championship the following campaign.

One thing that can be derived is that 'major' clubs take the loss of a significant attacking player much better than 'mid-table' or 'smaller' sides.  That gives hope to Liverpool, though only twice has a club increased their finishing place on the table.  Leeds in 2000-01, as mentioned above, and in 2006-07 when Mangoloid U won the league after the loss of Van Nistelroy. Another thing that should be pointed out is none of the clubs mentioned in this post featured the second leading league scorer from the previous season, whereas Liverpool have Daniel Sturridge.

There is only one reason Gerrard should ever play for England again

To knock Beckham off his perch and become the top capped outfield player in Three Lions history. That's it, two more matches and he should hang up those boots.  Gerrard is 34 and we need him to put his England days behind him and  focus on LFC.

After the World Cup embarassment, he should probably go ahead and retire, but with my disdain for 'pretty foot', I don't mind if he suits up a couple more matches.  I don't think it'll do England any good though, they've clearly got to give Barkley, Henderson, and Wilshere more playing time, if they want to improve.  They also need to get a better manager.

I've heard Gerrard called a failure on the International level and that's why he isn't 'world class'.  Rubbish, one man does not make a team, though there were times when Gerrard carried his country.  His statistical output for England has been impressive so far, especially when you consider he's played nearly every outfield position.

npgp90	gcp90	ccp90	ap90	ccv
0.22	0.46	1.97	0.24	12.3
pass%	bp%	sacc%	shot%	TTI90
80.2	25.9*	46.7	15.3	12.7
gap90	gsp90	gop90	tgop	gopd90
0.81	1.99	1.18	0.99	0.19
tp90	tack%	intp90	clrp90	bsp90
2.52	71.8	1.92	1.3	0.45

Those are solid numbers all around save his turnover rate.  His goals on pitch difference per 90 of 0.19 means he has been worth nearly an extra goal every five matches, +21.66 for his career.  Which isn't surprising when he was actually played a part in a quarter of his side's goals when he plays.

I don't really care if others don't think he's world class, but saying it is because he doesn't perform on the international stage is not valid.  In reality, he's played quite well and if it's because he's never won a Euro or a World Cup, I guess Messi, Ronaldo, Bale, Rooney, Robben, Van Persie, and anybody else who hasn't played for Germany, Spain, Italy, or Brazil in the past 12 years isn't 'world class' either.

Post-Suarez Liverpool will not 'collapse' like post-Bale Spurs

There has been a lot of speculation that what happened to the Spurs last season after Bale left for Real Madrid could be what awaits Liverpool now that Suarez is gone, but that's highly unlikely.  First and foremost, the Spurs 'collapse' was not just due to Bale's exit, but a massive roster changeover that saw seven important players replaced.  Villas-Boas essentially started with a new club and unlike Bale's final season with Spurs, Tottenham started the 2013-14 season on the grace of fortune.

They won their first two matches, at Palace and home against Swans, 1-0, both via penalty converted by Robert Soldado.  Then a loss at Emirates was followed by an unimpressive 2-0 win at White Hart Lane over Norwich City and a 1-0 win at Cardiff that despite 12 shots on goal, required 93' heroics by Paulinho to seal the victory.  They sat 2nd on the table, though undeservedly, when they next welcomed Chelsea, only managing a 1-1 draw despite going ahead in the 19th minute and having a man advantage after Torres was sent off for a second yellow in the 81st.

They still sat 2nd, but the 3-0 thrashing by the Hammers at White Hart Lane that followed revealed their biggest weakness, their inability to convert goal scoring opportunities.  Despite dominating possession, having a passing success rate of 83%, and 14 shots (4 on goal), Spurs could not put the ball in the back of the net.  Last season they were 11th in the league with 9.4% shot conversion rate and a chance created value of 7.5%, 15th in the league.  Roberto Soldado, the player they brought in to make up for Bale's goal-scoring absence, only scored 6 goals the entire campaign and 4 of those were pens.

Though Spurs managed to garner 7 points in the next three matches (@Villa, Hull, & @Everton), they had yet to play City or Liverpool, who handed them 4 decimating losses with a staggering combined -19 goal difference.  Ironically, that same defence which let goals go in against the top two like ghosts trying to stop bullets, saved Tottenham from a disastrous year, only allowing 31 goals against the other 17 clubs in the remaining 34 fixtures.

So how much did Bale's loss play in their attacking downfall? In his last season, Bale scored 21 goals and managed 4 assists.  He was responsible for 31.8% of goals scored and 37.8% goals created.  The Welshman was also responsible for 17.1% of his side's chances created, but his 5.3% chance created value was far below Spurs' average. As a team, Spurs scored 11 more goals, 66 to 55, and allowed 5 less, 46 to 51. Their shot conversion rate of 9.7%, was only 0.3% better, but their chance created value of 8.8% exceeded their following season's effort by 1.3%.  For all his efforts though, Bale had only a goals on pitch difference of 0.06, which means essentially he gave Tottenham a +2 goal edge for the season.

The most indicative sign that it was the unfamiliarity of the group instead of the absence of one player that lead to their lack of productivity was their passing and drop in chances created value.  The Spurs' overall passing rate dropped from 83.1 to 81.8% and ccv fell from 8.8% to 7.5%.  They clearly had trouble breaking down the opposition defence and creating more easily converted chances as they only attempted 5% of their shots inside their opponent's box, 2nd worst in the league.

Suarez, much like Bale, was responsible for a large part of Liverpool's goal-scoring prowess last season.  His 31 goals and 13 assists were 30.7% of goals scored and 43.6% goals created.  His chance created value was 14.2%, second to only Sturridge and 1.3% better than the club rate. His goals on pitch difference was 1.49,  a +0.17 difference compared to Liverpool's average of 1.32.  Suarez was more important to Liverpool's attack than Bale, but Liverpool still has Sturridge, Sterling, and Gerrard, while Spurs also got rid of Defoe and Dempsey along with Bale.  Those three made up 59.1% of Spurs' goals and 75.8% of goals created, that's absurd.

Tottenham struggled through last season because they lost a majority of their attack and had to rely on a large group of players gelling quickly if they were going to improve from the previous campaign.  That rarely happens, but Spurs still only finished a place lower and three points off the previous season.  Liverpool have the luxury of returning most of their players and all of their important ones except Suarez, of course.  As I have written prior, if Liverpool play better defence and make smarter decisions on the ball, they don't need to make up for the absence of Suarez, we could have won the league last season with 20 less goals, had we not played such poor defence. No matter what, finishing a place lower and three points off next season will be disappointing, though unlike Villas-Boas, I doubt it will cost Rodgers his job.

Luke Shaw for £27m? No thanks, we got Flanagan

Rumor has it Luke Shaw is headed to Man U for £27m.  That's a preposterous amount for a player who will definitely not become the next Gareth Bale.  In fact, he'll be lucky if he can become the next Leighton Baines or Aleksandar Kolarov.  Here's a look at stats from last season for Shaw, Flanagan, and a few other top left backs:

	Shaw	Flanagan	Baines	Azpilicueta	Kolarov
age	19*	21	29	24	28
app(subs)	35	23	32	26(3)	21(9)
mins	2990	1890	2838	2325	1977
goals	0	1	5	0	1
assist	1	1	4	0	7
chances	33	13	48	12	34
npgp90	0	0.05	0.06	0	0.05
gcp90	0.03	0.1	0.29	0	0.36
ccp90	0.99	0.62	1.5	0.47	1.6
pass%	79	83.7	85.8	80.6	81.2
bp%	41.6	42.6	41.4	37.1	43.5
sacc%	41.7	42.9	23.8	40	24.5
shot%	0	14.3	23.8	0	1.9
tp90	2.2	3.8	3	3.8	2.3
tack %	58.7	45.7	60.3	52.9	56.2
intp90	1.1	1.9	1.1	1.9	1.4
clrp90	3.7	3.6	2.5	5.3	2.8
dribpp90	0.7	1.9	0.6	1.1	0.8
bsp90	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.1
adwp90	1.8	1.4	0.4	1.3	1.7
adwon%	56.5	46.8	41.2	58.6	71.7
TTI90	11.6	9.2	9.1	10.1	10.9

* Shaw will turn 19 next month.

Compared to Flanagan, Shaw is the better chance creator, more efficient tackler, and significantly superior in the air, but our number 38 has a higher pass rate, nearly doubles his counterpart's tackles and clearances, and holds onto the ball better.  If Southampton were to offer Shaw for Flanagan, Rodgers would be an idiot not to take them up on it, but that would never happen.  It's not that Shaw is that much better than our 'Red Cafu' and the distance between their productivity may never be much, but Shaw has more potential.

Comparing Shaw to the others above, he is probably most similar to Kolarov.  The Serbian is a great attacking left back, but is not an exceptional defender like Azpilicueta.  Would I have paid £27m for Kolarov at (soon-to-be) 19, if I had known then what I do now? Probably, but with Shaw there's no such luxury.  It's still a crap shoot with all that can happen in his young career.

The one thing that will improve at a bigger club is the quality of his teammates.  No offense to Southampton, but Adam Lallana is no Steven Gerrard and Rickie Lambert is not even a poor man's Rooney.  Having players around him who are quicker and more talented overall should improve his numbers.  It certainly helps Kolarov.

If I've said it once, I've said 'til your eyes bleed, if we are going to splash that kind of cash for a left back or really any player, it should be Ricardo Rodriguez. He is the real deal and can provide coverage on the wing as well.  Shaw is just not worth the risk when we have fully capable coverage in Flanagan.