This is a genuine question for Liverpool fans. Rodgers bought Sturridge to support and complement Suarez in the strikeforce. The plan was also to allow Suarez some rest. Sturridge was bought for £12 million. Ba would have cost only £7-8 million and IMO a more proven finisher than Sturridge. He showed his finishing yesterday in scoring 2 in his debut. Did Rodgers miss a trick here?
I am not sure that Ba was even on Rodgers radar. I may be wrong. But Chelsea has sold one striker for 12 million and replaced him with a better one (IMO) for 7.5 million. Good deal I think
His goals were something Torres could have scored, however Torres won't score them as he is useless and Ba will forever be stuck on the bench for 5 minute cameos. So he fits Chelsea perfectly, greedy players sat on the bench causing problems. Didn't want Ba and didn't want Sturridge.
assuming the fee didn't just apply to clubs in the CL(is this true or bull?) if we got into a bidding war with Chelsea over him we would lose ever time, Chelsea can offer ridiculous wages(lets be honest a lot of players go for over club, sad as that is its life these days) so even if he was on the radar we would have lost out as we have proved with the sig transfer we wont be held to ransom or pay more wages than we think he is worth. Sturridge has a point to prove, can't say for a fact yet but if Ba hasn't got an ego problem yet, he soon will playing for Chelsea, and start having an attitude problem and think he is better than he is.
Simple really, Ba has a chronic knee problem which means no club other than one prepared to take a massive hit would take him, Strurridge is a young british player who when the fair play rules come in will be worth a lot more than 12m even with average form, good business by LFC IMO lets see how he does.
What you wanted a 'loyal' player like Ba. What is it 3 clubs in 4 seasons. Rather not have that sort of player. In fact I would rather have a team of loyal ,committed players who want to play for Liverpool even if it means us being only top 6 material than a bunch of mercenaries who are only there for the money.
I'm not a fan of Ba, he may score some spectacular goals and is undoubtably a good player but I have noticed that when he is not playing well he is next to useless on the pitch. 1 good game is sometimes followed by a very poor game.
Could you elaborate on that a little bit more please?? what's fair play got to do with player's value increasing? I honestly don't see any team paying more than what we paid to get him
Nor would he fit the system: he's not a hard worker or versatile - don't give me that bollox about him playing on left after Cisse arrived, he was **** in second half of the season!
There are a number of reasons why Rodgers would prefer Sturridge over Ba.... 1. Ba is 27, Sturridge is 23. With reports that we are only looking at players under the age of 25, then obviously that rules Ba out. 2. Ba is injury prone with a dodgy knee that could explode at any time. Obviously, its a risk for anyone who buys him and as we already have one striker out then its probably not a risk we want added. Sturridge has been pretty consistent in his appearances. 3. Sturridge's type of play suits us more than Ba's. He's a pacy striker with good ball control, which complements our forward play and especially Suarez's technique. Ba is a more complete striker, but he's definitely not as fast and he possibly drops back into midfield too much for a forward.
He wouldn't cost us 7-8million. The clause was for CL clubs only. We'd be paying double that at least so for us, Sturridge was the better, younger, cheaper, fitter, more suited to our system option.
Chelsea can afford to gamble on Ba - both his fitness and his ability to do the job for 3-4 seasons. Sturridge is a safer option in terms oof either performing for 8-10 years at the top level, or being sold on for a reasonable price. Plus I feel that Sturridge is a better fit for BR's system than Ba
