From uncertain recruitment to troubling optics around his expected Saudi move, Liverpool's sporting director leaves behind more doubts than confidence.
How on earth have Liverpool missed out on targets that once seemed attainable?!
Quote the opposite - through the entirety of my supporting Liverpool, we have *never* been able to sign targets of the calibre of Wirtz, Isak.
Make no mistake - Ian Graham made it absolutely clear how vital Klopp was in raising the quality of target we could get over the line. But… aside from VVD, which was frankly all about Klopp and a world record fee… we have never signed the world’s most indemand players. always missed out.
Wirtz had his pick of City, Madrid, Bayern.. and frankly he could have made more money at any of them.. and picked us.
Isak.. could have gone on strike to force a move to arsenal on more money and they would have loved to have him.
Frankly, even Frimpong at £35m buyout could have his pick.
Hughes played the hand that was dealt him.. and that hand was having a runaway league winning team and using it as leverage to sign the worlds most in-demand top-tier players that were available.
Who did we miss out on in the summer? Guehi.. the deal was agreed, Glasner threw his toys out. Absolutely no chance they were selling him before their euro qualifying game.
At January… it’s the 12 game losing streak that meant we missed out on Guehi and Semanyo to city. Not Hughes.
The sporting directors play a hugely important role.. BUT.. fans need to grasp reality and understand that top players sign for clubs based on reality, no romance.
As for Hughes’ career choice - SD’s operate in a world of multi-millionaire and billionaires.. and entirely at the whim of a team or coaches performance… and they are paid nowhere near the coaches or players.
Right now, people are (wrongly) judging Hughes’ signings last season as a failure.
However - he will now go to Saudi, make his life changing big bucks… and in two years when he may want to move on…. Wirtz, Kerkez, Isak, Leoni, Rio could be amazing and he will be judged a genius… and take his pick of jobs anywhere
Fair points, and I actually agree with some of that. Wirtz and Isak are exceptional deals, and Hughes deserves credit for helping get them over the line. I said as much in the piece.
My point is broader than individual transfers. Liverpool have still lost Konaté on a free, failed to resolve several contract situations, missed out on Diomande, and now face another rebuild despite huge spending. That doesn't feel like a football operation in complete control to me.
The Saudi aspect is separate. It's less about the money, I'd probably take it too, and more about the optics. If you're sporting director of Liverpool and already looking towards your next job while the club still has so much work to do, it inevitably shapes how supporters view your tenure.
History may well prove me wrong. If Wirtz, Isak, Leoni and the rest become the backbone of another great Liverpool side, Hughes' reputation will soar. I'm simply judging what I've seen so far, rather than what might happen over the next five years.
Wirtz vs diomande.. the difference most likely has nowt to do with our recruitment team and more to do with our results.
It’s Guehi vs Guehi… we were his preference as league winners and we’re not 5 months later on the back of an absolutely terrible run and being out of the league race.
.. and frankly Diomande hasn’t signed for PSG yet. Whilst I think it’s unlikely we can win him back over, it’s does somewhat highlight the impact of the world cup on deals being done.
I think we’ve debated the contract/leaving on a free thing before… whatever our views, if it’s the FSG/LFC policy then it’s not a lack of control.
Likewise - last seasons huge spend only being half of the rebuild is somewhat irrelevant because.. that’s the market rate for top players. The world record fees for VVD and Ali were never a total rebuild.
You simply cannot rebuild a title challenging team in one summer for a net spend of £250m. Even with gross of £450m. Arsenal and Man City have at least doubled our spend over the same time.. city have spent big in 3 successive windows.
The optics are an interesting one because in theory it would be ideal for the SD to have the longest reign to give stability. But it’s very rare you have someone in a hierarchy who earns significantly less than the people they manage and recruit (coaches & players).
.. and, whose performances ultimately decide their job prospects/legacy etc.
The fact that other teams scheme to recruit our players and suits is a sign of the success of our recruitment model and department, not its lack of success.
There’s a bit of a fantasy about the way we used to do recruitment and a data model revealing bargain signs that is no longer there.. hence why Edwards thought a multi club model was the route.
Our needle-moving signings are in competition with city, Arsenal, psg, real, Bayern..
Our bargain signings have all been identified by Newcastle (!), Chelsea, Brighton, Brentford etc
Our best players are being chased by the world’s best teams.. Diaz, Trent, konate..
I’m not having a go.. I just think many fans expectations of what a sporting director can do is not necessarily grounded in reality and their opinions of success driven entirely by short term over reaction and long term hindsight…
Last season we lost Trent to Real Madrid and signed one of the world’s most indemand players.. and players chose us over Newcastle.. this season we lost konate to Real Madrid and did not sign one of the worlds most indemand players… and players chose us over Newcastle.
The SD can do his job perfectly and exactly the same each season; but he can’t make us Madrid and he can’t change whether we win the league or not.
But he will get blamed for all of those players decisions, the outcomes, performance levels etc. 🤷♂️
I think we can expect a sporting director to deliver a balanced squad with adequate cover in every position. The poor results weren't just Slot's fault.
Our squad was drastically more balanced then slot made it look… and dramatically better then everyone is jumping to conclusions over.
and part of the reason we lacked squad players (and therefore depth) was that slot drove them out by not playing them the season before…
Ie Elliot, Quansah… even Nunez.
Now… if you expect a sporting director to assemble a squad of 22-25 “starting” players… well that’s not remotely financial possible.
How much would we have to have spent last window?
Realistically.. if we had spent another £100m on barcola, he would have come here through not starting every game, been blown away by the intensity and constant games, and struggled in his first season the same as everyone else.
Guehi is a good player.. but he’s not drastically better than Quansah who slot ditched after one game and didn’t use all season… not sure Guehi is winning more duals.
We were absolutely terrible.. and until the 8 weeks could easily have finished 3rd last season. If we just hadn’t conceded after 90mins we would have been pushing 2nd.
Nice try, but we could easily have bought better replacements for the money we brought in - or thought we brought in - from those players. We blew too much money at 9 and 10 without replacing Diaz or the players you mentioned.
Slot did a terrible job last season, but so did the SD
No you can’t easily sign more title challenge ready players for cheaper.
Don’t be daft.
If you could they would have done it.
As for blow money - there’s no indication they ran out of funds last year or this year.
We spent a further £60m in January, just spent €40m and have just bid over €100m
And let’s say we spent less on 9 & 10 - Isak and Wirtz specifically - you may get 3 lesser players for the price of those two.
But all three would be even bigger gambles.
That’s what you pay for with the big fees - the players who have the data, evidence, experience to be less of a gamble and back up the big fee.
You could say cherki vs Wirtz in terms of price - but there’s a reason cherki was everyone’s second choice.
As for Diaz - I would have liked another ball carrier to replace him. It was the big gap for me.
But with Ekitike and Rio both capable of playing off the left there was cover there until everyone got injured.
The squad wasn’t the strongest we’ve had, or in the league, and there was a lack of direct pace on the wings.
But if you consider Iriola saying he needs more players - that’s because he’s a manager who has consistently and constantly rotated his team and plays with high intensity.
Slot constantly talked about not rotating and sticking with basically a first team. (And it’s what he did) So you improve the first team.
There’s no point building a deep squad of cheaper players for a manger who doesn’t use a deep squad or squad players.
What a pathetic opening comment. The centre back they signed was 18 years old! His injury was sad, but even if he'd stayed fit he couldn't have been relied on to cover a long term injury and it would have been detrimental to his long term physical condition. Nobody would be stupid enough to rely on a kid and a crock to back up their first choice centre backs, which is why they tried to sign a more experienced CB when they already had Leoni. And you try to say that I'm the fool.
Of course the centre back they tried to sign is average in the air but an elite ball progresser, which would have gone some way to replace Trent who left and Robbo who sadly had to be phased out. They knew we were deficient in that area, sadly you're still in denial.
Good to see you've rowed back on the superlatives re Isak's pressing to the more realistic "fine." What you've not mentioned is that he had high workrate wingers (Almiron and Gordon) doing all his running for him at Newcastle, just like the low workrate Haaland has at City. His injury had an impact on goal output, but we still would have lacked the high workrate wingers needed to make him and Wirtz successful while protecting the midfield. You've already admitted we needed a winger, who could have replaced the almost useless Chiesa without reducing the game time or blocking the pathway of Rio, who could walk in two years anyway.
Which brings us to right back. The amount of games missed by Bradley was higher than expected, but he's always missed lots of games and we needed another reliable right back. Even if he'd stayed fit that would never have been Frimpong who isn't a right back. That's why a midfielder was selected there ahead of him even when he was fit.
That's four cast iron squad deficiencies that would have been still there even without the injuries you keep trying to hide behind. The SD did a terrible job last summer and we can only hope that he does a much better job this year to give Iraola a fighting chance.
I suppose the question is, who are the great Sporting Directors who have created stability?
Im not sure I envy the set up at any other elite level team.
For me, he ultimately presided over title No.20 which put us back on our perch (along with Slot). He has my respect for that. Every club wants to win titles, not many do. We did.
That's a fair way of looking at it, and if people judge Hughes primarily on No.20 then I completely understand why they'd view his tenure positively.
I just think sporting directors should be judged on more than medals. They shape the club's future as much as its present. Contracts, succession planning, squad balance and long term stability are all part of the job.
Liverpool won the league, absolutely. But we're also heading into another summer needing significant surgery, with uncertainty over key contracts and senior figures leaving. To me, that doesn't feel like the hallmark of a football operation in complete control.
Time may prove me wrong. If the next few years are built on foundations Hughes laid, I'll happily revisit my opinion. Right now, though, I don't think one title tells the whole story.
Hmmm. Not sure on this.
How on earth have Liverpool missed out on targets that once seemed attainable?!
Quote the opposite - through the entirety of my supporting Liverpool, we have *never* been able to sign targets of the calibre of Wirtz, Isak.
Make no mistake - Ian Graham made it absolutely clear how vital Klopp was in raising the quality of target we could get over the line. But… aside from VVD, which was frankly all about Klopp and a world record fee… we have never signed the world’s most indemand players. always missed out.
Wirtz had his pick of City, Madrid, Bayern.. and frankly he could have made more money at any of them.. and picked us.
Isak.. could have gone on strike to force a move to arsenal on more money and they would have loved to have him.
Frankly, even Frimpong at £35m buyout could have his pick.
Hughes played the hand that was dealt him.. and that hand was having a runaway league winning team and using it as leverage to sign the worlds most in-demand top-tier players that were available.
Who did we miss out on in the summer? Guehi.. the deal was agreed, Glasner threw his toys out. Absolutely no chance they were selling him before their euro qualifying game.
At January… it’s the 12 game losing streak that meant we missed out on Guehi and Semanyo to city. Not Hughes.
The sporting directors play a hugely important role.. BUT.. fans need to grasp reality and understand that top players sign for clubs based on reality, no romance.
As for Hughes’ career choice - SD’s operate in a world of multi-millionaire and billionaires.. and entirely at the whim of a team or coaches performance… and they are paid nowhere near the coaches or players.
Right now, people are (wrongly) judging Hughes’ signings last season as a failure.
However - he will now go to Saudi, make his life changing big bucks… and in two years when he may want to move on…. Wirtz, Kerkez, Isak, Leoni, Rio could be amazing and he will be judged a genius… and take his pick of jobs anywhere
Fair points, and I actually agree with some of that. Wirtz and Isak are exceptional deals, and Hughes deserves credit for helping get them over the line. I said as much in the piece.
My point is broader than individual transfers. Liverpool have still lost Konaté on a free, failed to resolve several contract situations, missed out on Diomande, and now face another rebuild despite huge spending. That doesn't feel like a football operation in complete control to me.
The Saudi aspect is separate. It's less about the money, I'd probably take it too, and more about the optics. If you're sporting director of Liverpool and already looking towards your next job while the club still has so much work to do, it inevitably shapes how supporters view your tenure.
History may well prove me wrong. If Wirtz, Isak, Leoni and the rest become the backbone of another great Liverpool side, Hughes' reputation will soar. I'm simply judging what I've seen so far, rather than what might happen over the next five years.
You kind of reinforce the point though…
Wirtz vs diomande.. the difference most likely has nowt to do with our recruitment team and more to do with our results.
It’s Guehi vs Guehi… we were his preference as league winners and we’re not 5 months later on the back of an absolutely terrible run and being out of the league race.
.. and frankly Diomande hasn’t signed for PSG yet. Whilst I think it’s unlikely we can win him back over, it’s does somewhat highlight the impact of the world cup on deals being done.
I think we’ve debated the contract/leaving on a free thing before… whatever our views, if it’s the FSG/LFC policy then it’s not a lack of control.
Likewise - last seasons huge spend only being half of the rebuild is somewhat irrelevant because.. that’s the market rate for top players. The world record fees for VVD and Ali were never a total rebuild.
You simply cannot rebuild a title challenging team in one summer for a net spend of £250m. Even with gross of £450m. Arsenal and Man City have at least doubled our spend over the same time.. city have spent big in 3 successive windows.
The optics are an interesting one because in theory it would be ideal for the SD to have the longest reign to give stability. But it’s very rare you have someone in a hierarchy who earns significantly less than the people they manage and recruit (coaches & players).
.. and, whose performances ultimately decide their job prospects/legacy etc.
Slot’s payoff likely eclipsed Hughes’ earnings. 🤷♂️
The fact that other teams scheme to recruit our players and suits is a sign of the success of our recruitment model and department, not its lack of success.
There’s a bit of a fantasy about the way we used to do recruitment and a data model revealing bargain signs that is no longer there.. hence why Edwards thought a multi club model was the route.
Our needle-moving signings are in competition with city, Arsenal, psg, real, Bayern..
Our bargain signings have all been identified by Newcastle (!), Chelsea, Brighton, Brentford etc
Our best players are being chased by the world’s best teams.. Diaz, Trent, konate..
I’m not having a go.. I just think many fans expectations of what a sporting director can do is not necessarily grounded in reality and their opinions of success driven entirely by short term over reaction and long term hindsight…
Last season we lost Trent to Real Madrid and signed one of the world’s most indemand players.. and players chose us over Newcastle.. this season we lost konate to Real Madrid and did not sign one of the worlds most indemand players… and players chose us over Newcastle.
The SD can do his job perfectly and exactly the same each season; but he can’t make us Madrid and he can’t change whether we win the league or not.
But he will get blamed for all of those players decisions, the outcomes, performance levels etc. 🤷♂️
I think we can expect a sporting director to deliver a balanced squad with adequate cover in every position. The poor results weren't just Slot's fault.
Oh they were. Absolutely slots problem.
Our squad was drastically more balanced then slot made it look… and dramatically better then everyone is jumping to conclusions over.
and part of the reason we lacked squad players (and therefore depth) was that slot drove them out by not playing them the season before…
Ie Elliot, Quansah… even Nunez.
Now… if you expect a sporting director to assemble a squad of 22-25 “starting” players… well that’s not remotely financial possible.
How much would we have to have spent last window?
Realistically.. if we had spent another £100m on barcola, he would have come here through not starting every game, been blown away by the intensity and constant games, and struggled in his first season the same as everyone else.
Guehi is a good player.. but he’s not drastically better than Quansah who slot ditched after one game and didn’t use all season… not sure Guehi is winning more duals.
We were absolutely terrible.. and until the 8 weeks could easily have finished 3rd last season. If we just hadn’t conceded after 90mins we would have been pushing 2nd.
So the squad clearly isn’t that bad or imbalanced
Nice try, but we could easily have bought better replacements for the money we brought in - or thought we brought in - from those players. We blew too much money at 9 and 10 without replacing Diaz or the players you mentioned.
Slot did a terrible job last season, but so did the SD
No you can’t easily sign more title challenge ready players for cheaper.
Don’t be daft.
If you could they would have done it.
As for blow money - there’s no indication they ran out of funds last year or this year.
We spent a further £60m in January, just spent €40m and have just bid over €100m
And let’s say we spent less on 9 & 10 - Isak and Wirtz specifically - you may get 3 lesser players for the price of those two.
But all three would be even bigger gambles.
That’s what you pay for with the big fees - the players who have the data, evidence, experience to be less of a gamble and back up the big fee.
You could say cherki vs Wirtz in terms of price - but there’s a reason cherki was everyone’s second choice.
As for Diaz - I would have liked another ball carrier to replace him. It was the big gap for me.
But with Ekitike and Rio both capable of playing off the left there was cover there until everyone got injured.
The squad wasn’t the strongest we’ve had, or in the league, and there was a lack of direct pace on the wings.
But if you consider Iriola saying he needs more players - that’s because he’s a manager who has consistently and constantly rotated his team and plays with high intensity.
Slot constantly talked about not rotating and sticking with basically a first team. (And it’s what he did) So you improve the first team.
There’s no point building a deep squad of cheaper players for a manger who doesn’t use a deep squad or squad players.
Top article Eddie. I loved hearing Iraola speak about Curtis the other day. He already gets the club and city far better than Slot or the SD.
We have a squad with almost zero depth, and we’re Liverpool. Last season showed it in spades. It’s remarkably negligent.
What a pathetic opening comment. The centre back they signed was 18 years old! His injury was sad, but even if he'd stayed fit he couldn't have been relied on to cover a long term injury and it would have been detrimental to his long term physical condition. Nobody would be stupid enough to rely on a kid and a crock to back up their first choice centre backs, which is why they tried to sign a more experienced CB when they already had Leoni. And you try to say that I'm the fool.
Of course the centre back they tried to sign is average in the air but an elite ball progresser, which would have gone some way to replace Trent who left and Robbo who sadly had to be phased out. They knew we were deficient in that area, sadly you're still in denial.
Good to see you've rowed back on the superlatives re Isak's pressing to the more realistic "fine." What you've not mentioned is that he had high workrate wingers (Almiron and Gordon) doing all his running for him at Newcastle, just like the low workrate Haaland has at City. His injury had an impact on goal output, but we still would have lacked the high workrate wingers needed to make him and Wirtz successful while protecting the midfield. You've already admitted we needed a winger, who could have replaced the almost useless Chiesa without reducing the game time or blocking the pathway of Rio, who could walk in two years anyway.
Which brings us to right back. The amount of games missed by Bradley was higher than expected, but he's always missed lots of games and we needed another reliable right back. Even if he'd stayed fit that would never have been Frimpong who isn't a right back. That's why a midfielder was selected there ahead of him even when he was fit.
That's four cast iron squad deficiencies that would have been still there even without the injuries you keep trying to hide behind. The SD did a terrible job last summer and we can only hope that he does a much better job this year to give Iraola a fighting chance.
I suppose the question is, who are the great Sporting Directors who have created stability?
Im not sure I envy the set up at any other elite level team.
For me, he ultimately presided over title No.20 which put us back on our perch (along with Slot). He has my respect for that. Every club wants to win titles, not many do. We did.
That is the measure of his tenure.
That's a fair way of looking at it, and if people judge Hughes primarily on No.20 then I completely understand why they'd view his tenure positively.
I just think sporting directors should be judged on more than medals. They shape the club's future as much as its present. Contracts, succession planning, squad balance and long term stability are all part of the job.
Liverpool won the league, absolutely. But we're also heading into another summer needing significant surgery, with uncertainty over key contracts and senior figures leaving. To me, that doesn't feel like the hallmark of a football operation in complete control.
Time may prove me wrong. If the next few years are built on foundations Hughes laid, I'll happily revisit my opinion. Right now, though, I don't think one title tells the whole story.