With the second international break of the season now very much here, what better time to assess Liverpool’s start to the campaign and chew the fat over the big talking points from Anfield.
And that’s very much what our chief LFC writer Ian Doyle did on his latest live Q&A on the ECHO’s website. A range of topics were covered, from the latest on the future of Mohamed Salah to the latest developments on the Anfield Road extension.
And on the back of Howard Webb breaking his silence on the shambolic VAR decision to rule out a perfectly good Luis Diaz goal in the Reds’ controversial defeat at Tottenham Hotspur, a number of questions were fielded about that incident and officiating in the Premier League.
seanbrad2: No surprise to see Salah flying once again for Liverpool this season. What is your gut feeling on what happens to him next summer? Do the Reds tie him down to another deal, or might he be sold in the next stage of the rebuild?
Ian Doyle: My gut tells me many things, usually that I’m hungry or need to do some exercise. Or get that gall bladder thing sorted. Regards Salah, I think he’ll go in the summer provided the Saudi Pro League hasn’t imploded by then, and he’ll attract big money. I also think he will be impossible to replace like for like, so the Reds will look to do something different. And if he stays, then great – he’s still Liverpool’s best player.
After your piece on Andre and incomings at Liverpool, what about outgoings or even contract renewals?
I read your Matip article this morning and with the weeks passing by, I feel the argument to offer a one-year extension for Joel Matip becomes clearer. Do you expect any further moves to tie down some of Liverpool’s players who are in the last one to two years of their contracts?
Ian Doyle: Matip is an interesting one. It’s easy to forget he has been there so long, but what intrigued me is how often he’s played in the last few years. He actually hasn’t been injured all that often, and when he does play – certainly this season – he has been different. However, Virgil van Dijk is the club captain and you can’t have too many centre-backs in their 30s. I think Matip’s future depends on that of Joe Gomez. If Gomez stays then Matip leaves and Liverpool will look to sign another young centre-back. As it is, there’s no suggestion of Gomez going anywhere – he signed a long-term deal only last summer.
In terms of other contracts, I’d be surprised if Thiago is offered one or even agrees to sign one. And I fully expect Liverpool to sign a defensive midfielder whether in January or next summer. It might be Andre, it might not. But that they already like him will be a big help.
Asuldan: Any ideas who the next sporting director is?
Ian Doyle: Jorg Schmadtke is still there as he signed a one-year deal in the summer. So there’s no real whisper on who is replacement will be, should there be one in the immediate future.
tommypyg: When commenting on the reasons why the VAR didn’t stop the game after realising their error on the Diaz goal, Howard Webb referenced them knowing the IFAB rules on VAR protocol and following those.
I was interested when checking the IFAB protocols for 23-24 to see their notes on the use of video in reviews, specifically relating to the Curtis Jones red card. Given that it was upheld on appeal there’s no need to reopen the argument over the actual tackle. However, the presentation to the ref by the VAR of a still seems to have been critical to his decision; and the IFAB protocol is pretty clear: “The referee can request different camera angles/replay speeds, but in general slow motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of offence /player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the “intensity” of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence.”
So in this case, as in many other red card on field reviews (dealing with the “intensity” of the offence), referees are being shown slow motion or freeze frame when actually normal speed should be used.
What are your thoughts on this? If referees and VARs are familiar with the IFAB protocol – and I assume they are – it seems strange that they override it in relation to red card reviews. Especially when they feel bound by it in relation to stopping a restarted match to correct their own clear error.
