Liverpool were right to renew Salah and Van Dijk; hindsight doesn’t change that… | OneFootball

When Liverpool announced contract extensions for Mohamed Salah and Virgil van Dijk, did you think it was a mistake? Be honest…

The Reds are now copping considerable grief for extending their two highest earners but there is a whole year’s worth of hindsight applied to criticism of what were then universally popular moves.

Can anyone recall any dissent to the Salah and Van Dijk decisions? Paul Merson doubted whether it was wise to renew Salah on massive money given his age, and absolutely fair f***s to him. Because we don’t recall anyone else piping up in protest.

Jamie Carragher certainly did not. And that’s no criticism of the former Liverpool skipper. But he was an invested as anyone, certainly in Salah’s situation, and while some Liverpool fans might insist he doesn’t speak for them, Carragher’s views summed up a far wider sentiment.

“Huge relief all round,” said Carragher reacting to Salah’s signing. “You can start to think of the excitement of what’s to come in the next couple of years. It sends a big message.”

He must have been similarly chuffed at Van Dijk following suit a week later given he said this of the centre-back two months before:

Granted, not everyone was quite as gushing over Van Dijk, but you would struggle to find a sane voice that didn’t acknowledge the Dutchman’s peerless status as the Premier League’s best centre-back once again during Liverpool’s procession to the title.

And that has to be remembered amid the questions now being asked of the Anfield board over the wisdom of extending their two best players.

A year ago, they were the right calls. What has transpired since does not change the fact that Liverpool made savvy judgements based on what they knew to be true at the time.

The known unknown was how the form of either might be affected with another year in their legs. Unquestionably, time seems to have been less kind to Salah. Should Liverpool have foreseen the slump that has prompted to Egyptian to score only five Premier League goals this term?

Maybe. Probably not.

He was 32 at re-signing, 33 now. He played in every Premier League game last season and averaged 36 league appearances per season in the eight before renewal. We all know he looks after himself; there was little on the surface to predict such a downturn in output.

But Salah hasn’t slumped this season because his legs have gone; his head seems to be a bigger concern. Part of which is probably down to the wider problems at Anfield.

Much has changed at Liverpool this season, all the while the team has too often stayed the same. Those things combined offer the most basic insight into why the Reds have been such bad champions.

Arne Slot is shouldering his share of the blame and perhaps a little more besides, according to some. But there’s plenty to be spread throughout the players too. Even Dominik Szoboszlai, the one player who might be excused based on his form, can’t keep the brain farts in.

They simply have not been good enough for a host of reasons, very few that are acceptable even if some are understandable.

Is there an absence of motivation? It is always the easiest accusation to throw at a player or a squad because it’s often the hardest to really measure.

This Liverpool group would hardly be the first team to take their foot off the gas after success. It is a human reaction, especially when glory was followed so swiftly by tragedy. By all means, question Van Dijk and Salah’s leadership qualities this season because if they have tried to lift the levels of their Liverpool team-mates, neither have succeeded.

But assessing the renewals of last spring also requires the context of the summer that followed.

It certainly seemed smart to have kept the seniority of Van Dijk and Salah when the Liverpool squad was grief-stricken upon the death of Diogo Jota. And there was the other contract that the Reds sought to renew but could not.

Deny it though they might, the loss of Trent Alexander-Arnold backed Liverpool further into a corner when it came to the other renewals. Losing one, keeping two was viewed as an acceptable solution to a problem the club made for themselves by failing to act sooner over looming expiries. The criticism they received for that also highlights the lack of foresight over these deals being a mis-step.

Are we saying now that Liverpool should have let Salah and Van Dijk walk with Alexander-Arnold? At the time, there is no way that was a palatable outcome for Liverpool supporters and not one any pundit would have praised.

Of course, they were expensive contracts. But neither Van Dijk nor Salah were given massive raises. Reports suggest the improvements in Van Dijk’s deal were largely incentivised, in which case, the club won’t be out of pocket. While Salah’s form and status made his demands comparatively fair.

The fag-packet maths calculates that this season the pair have cost Liverpool in the region of £36-40million quid. How much would they have had to spend on replacing them? They have been short on centre-backs even with Van Dijk. Had he gone, Liverpool would have been even more porous and poorer by comparison in almost every measure.

Imagine if Van Dijk and Salah had been waved off and thrived elsewhere.

Manchester United have made a few mistakes, renewing contracts through fear of being made to look daft by their players succeeding elsewhere, and it cannot be the leading factor in contract decisions. But, unquestionably for FSG and co, it is a factor.

Liverpool would have been universally panned had Van Dijk or Salah gone and torn it up with a major European rival. Maybe Salah would be facing the Reds tonight with PSG. But realistically, Slot’s side would not have limped as far as they have this season without that pair.

At least one of the two supposed wrongs will be made right this summer when Salah departs. That is the correct decision now. Just as renewing a year ago was the right decision then.