This is a good reminder. My gentle pushback, and I certainly don't want to make this into a 'pro FSG vs anti FSG' thing or label fellow fans or push binary thinking, but my gentle pushback is there are a few posters, and you're probably among them, who were defending our transfer business all summer or claiming that the situation is down to bad luck more than anything else (specifically with regard to the midfield) or saying we'll be fine without investing in the midfield. But it's getting to the point where the decisions we've made look like they might be catastrophic. The next few weeks will show us whether that's overly negative. But if we've managed to fall back into the pack, and even be struggling for top 4, given the position of strength we've been in, and given how brilliant Klopp is, and how world class several of our players still are... well that would awful. And it makes the, 'it's understandable how we got here, transfers are hard, we can survive without a midfield signing' arguments look very hollow. Which is not to say it's binary. It's too easy for people like me to say, 'if we'd signed a top class midfielder all our problems would be solved', probably they wouldn't be. And perhaps we'll recover and be convincingly 2nd by the end of the season (I can't see us getting close to City at this point).
No-one actually said that though, and again the views of the so called 'pro-FSG' fans are being misrepresented. I think universally everyone wanted a midfielder, and no-one actually thought we'd be completely fine as we were. Any acceptance of the situation was largely about making do with what we have, and putting the window in context instead of crying about it.
The midfield situation and how we've got to this position is also probably far more complex than many make out, and certainly not as simple as the 'Just buy Tchouameni' type solutions that were put forward. Whilst I have no more evidence than the next person on what was going on behind the scenes, I find it highly unlikely we weren't tracking multiple players for months, and trying to find a deal that worked for both parties with players that fit our criteria. We must remember that the pool of players that will fit what Jurgen wants from a physical, mental, and technical level is relatively small. Even if we'd bought a top class midfielder there's no guarantee they'd hit the ground running or make an immediate impact - especially as almost everyone else was either injured or out of form.
There were certainly other factors that would've influenced our position - if you follow the midfield recruitment timeline, it seems clear that Jurgen's midfield plan was likely a trio of Keita, Ox and Fabinho, allowing Hendo, Milner (and then Thiago) to grow old gracefully with managed minutes. Jones and Elliott would have been eased in, with the hope of a succession plan. Jurgen has also (rightly or wrongly) repeatedly shown faith in Ox/Keita over the years - even extending Ox's contract after an horrific injury (otherwise he'd be gone by now). That midfield plan hasn't worked, but is it really due to the owners and not buying more midfielders, or is it because we bought players in other positions instead like Jota, Nunez, Tskimas, Konate and Diaz, and had some horrendous luck with injuries to multiple players?
The other argument often used on here is to refer back to a specific transfer or player leaving, such as the Lovren domino effect (so commonly used in arguments that it should have its own chess move name, such as the 'Lovren Gambit'). But that situation is a complete myth when taken in context - we didn't have to buy Thiago, Jota and Tsimikas in 2020 - Jurgen could've bought a centre back (which everyone in hindsight said we should've done), plus bought a younger and less injury prone midfielder. But we decided not to - probably because:
a) Jurgen thought it unlikely that Virgil, Matip and Gomez would all get season-ending injuries within a couple of months
b) We needed backup for Robbo, cover for the front 3, and someone in midfield to help unlock packed defences
c) We were in a global pandemic
People can do as much mental gymnastics as they like with the permutations of what we should and shouldn't have done over the last 2-3 windows (and the subsequent ripple effects on the squad), but I can 100% guarantee that if we'd bought a CB in summer 2020 and one of our front 3 got injured long term, the knives would be out from the same people for the exact same reasons.
Similarly, Jurgen could've bought a midfielder this summer, but we spent big on Nunez. Who decided that - Jurgen or FSG? We could've bought a midfielder for that money (possibly two), or bought a £40m midfielder and a £30m striker, or bought a £75m midfielder and retained Origi/Minamino. But again, people would have complained that Bobby and Mo are getting on a bit, we hadn't replaced Sadio, and were at risk if we had injuries.
That's not to put blame on Jurgen, but ultimately he decides which positions need reinforcing or are most at risk from injury/burnout/retirement, and he's had opportunities to buy a DM or CM for 3 summer windows and only bought Thiago in (who was 29 and injury prone). It might well be that our targets went elsewhere, or he prioritised other positions, or he thought Ox/Keita might have an injury-free spell, or that we had deals lined up that fell through. But that's why I think everyone should keep a far more open mind about how things play out, as none of us truly knows what goes on or why things happen they way they do. Yet many jump on FSG, the transfer team, or make tacit suggestions that the club don't see what we do, or don't want to fix the problems, or just sit on their hands until the final day of the window.
That's pretty much it - we did buy players, but not the ones some people wanted, and not in the positions they wanted. We did spend money, but not as much money as people wanted, and not as much as some other teams (many of whom have spent several times more than us to go backwards).