Only fans believe loyalty is a virtue in beautiful game
The lifelong unrequited love, the raw emotional involvement in meaningless abstraction, the sacrifice of time and money, the malicious glee in the struggles of rival clubs — all of these from the perspective of non-fans look suspiciously like the symptoms of mental imbalance.
It’s therefore not easy to say what aspect of fandom is most irrational, but it might be the delusion that the players see the game the same way.
A few months before Fernando Torres joined Liverpool, he was photographed in an Atletico training session with an armband bearing the legend “You’ll Never Walk Alone.”
Liverpool fans have been singing about that armband since he joined the club, as though it actually meant something. Torres was said to have watched the videos, read the books, immersed himself in the culture, learned the Liverpool way, five European Cups, 18 leagues, his head filled with snatches of classic commentary and half-century-old Merseybeat classics: “Keegan, Toshack, one-nil,” “anyone who had a heart, would take me, in his arms and, love me too...”
Of course, the fact that Torres was a Liverpool player at all proved he had long grown out of thinking like a fan.
He grew up supporting Atletico Madrid and captained that club at 19. He left them behind because he thought he could win the Champions League with Liverpool. Three-and-a-half years later he has won nothing and the club has gone backwards. Liverpool is a job to him and there are better jobs elsewhere.
John Aldridge said over the weekend that he was disappointed with Torres’ lack of loyalty, but a player’s only loyalty should be to himself.
The news has caused anger and dismay among Liverpool’s supporters. Journalists who reported on Friday that Torres wanted Liverpool to listen to Chelsea’s offer were subjected to a barrage of online criticism from some of the club’s dimmer fans. Liverpool’s owners plainly risk unpopularity if they sanction the sale. Torres has presented them with their most difficult decision so far.
He is the best striker Liverpool have had in the last 20 years — more athletic than Robbie Fowler, more skilful than Michael Owen, and more prolific than either. He has the best goals-per-minute ratio of any player in the Premier League era, without a single penalty to pad his stats. Beyond the numbers he has a spectacular style that appeals to the child in everyone, which is why he sells more shirts than any other player in the league.
The joy of football is about watching players like Torres do the things the rest of us can only dream of. And yet maybe Liverpool have already had the best of him.
Torres is 27 in March and has been hampered by muscle and knee problems. Given that much of what is exceptional about his game comes from his speed and elastic athleticism, maybe he is closer to the end of his best years than his age suggests. (Equally, he could be due a huge season in 2011-12 after his first proper summer break in four years).
Then there is the question of his attitude. In Torres’ first seasons he was praised almost as much for his courage and appetite for work as for his goals. Now he seems to play in a permanent state of irritation.
For a long time now, Liverpool have been anxiously monitoring the mercurial moods of their two superstars. Maybe the time has come to place their trust in players who are prepared to work rather than sulk.
Yet while there are persuasive arguments for selling Torres, they only convince if the offer from Chelsea is big enough.
There are parallels between Chelsea’s pursuit of Torres and Liverpool’s own desire to sign Charlie Adam. The Adam transfer has stalled because his worth to Blackpool is double the amount it would be prudent for Liverpool to spend on him. Chelsea have offered £35m for Torres which is a record for them, but Liverpool cannot afford to sell him at that price.
It’s not just that he is their best player and biggest commercial asset. The problem is that it will be hugely expensive to replace him.
Liverpool would likely invest the Torres money on two or three players as they need to add quality in several positions. But then instead of paying one salary they will be paying three, and if the new players don’t have the impact of the one who has left, the club sinks further into loss-making mediocrity.
Liverpool should therefore follow the example of Ajax and Blackpool and take a very tough line in negotiations. They should not entertain any deal that includes the past-it Nicolas Anelka or the lightweight Daniel Sturridge.
They should demand a straightforward cash mountain. Why should Roman Abramovich get the best striker in the league for less than the annual maintenance bill on his fleet of yachts? A man who lavished £54m (€63m) on Francis Bacon’s Triptych cannot put on the poor mouth and expect to be taken seriously.
If Abramovich balks at paying a Bacon-like sum, Liverpool can happily stall any deal until the summer. Torres might not like it, but Cesc Fabregas, Wayne Rooney and Carlos Tevez are all playing for clubs they have recently asked to leave. Delaying the deal would mean Liverpool could see the prospective Torres-Suarez partnership in action for at least a few months.
Come the summer other clubs might be interested, which would be good for both Liverpool and Torres: Liverpool because an auction would drive up the price; Torres because he might get to join a club with a better future than Chelsea.
Manchester City might be looking to replace Tevez, and Real Madrid will certainly be signing a centre-forward — maybe Fernando Llorente, maybe somebody else. Most fans could not imagine an Atletico legend ever joining Real. They need to remember that players don’t think like fans.
