Agree. There's no way we should be letting him go until we have a succession in place, which at the moment we don't have.
A successor in place will mean less game time for Mo of course. The right flank will cease to be his absoute property if a successor is to be blooded properly.
The obvious question then becomes 'How will Salah react to not starting every game?' The evidence this season is that he does not react very well. Great players rarely do when they are rotated or taken off the field. This was true of the very first Liverpool player to be substituted at Anfield (Roger Hunt who threw away his shirt in disgust when Shankly called him off) and it will probably always be true. Great players find it hard to accept that their powers are fading. Ronaldo - admittedly with an Himalayan sized ego - became a toxic presence at Old Trafford when he was substituted or sidelined. But we all loved the fact that United had bought a dying meteor.
I don't know whether Mo's powers are fading. The combination of Afcon, a bad injury and a prolonged fast at a poor time (ie during his attempt to recover match fitness) could have skewed the evidence. It would certainly be a massive call to conclude "he's done" and look to find another pitch, not ours, on which he can "lose his legs" as Paisley used to say. But the question remains. Mo will eventually go into decline. He may not recognise this state of affairs when it comes. He may continue to be petulant with any manager that prefers to blood a successor than give him an automatic starting spot. All these things will surely be considered.
As will any fat Saudi purse which is dangled in front of us this summer.
Recent Posts