The Forward Liverpool Let Slip Through Their Fingers

Every club has a transfer call that still nags at supporters decades later, and for Liverpool, one name keeps resurfacing whenever that conversation comes up. It is not Fernando Torres or Luis Suarez, the two forwards most associated with Anfield greatness in the Premier League era. It is a player who never actually stayed long enough to find out what he could have become: Nicolas Anelka.

A Decision That Still Doesn’t Add Up

Back in 2002, Liverpool had Anelka on loan from Paris Saint-Germain and got a good look at what he offered. Quick, composed, technically sharp, and dangerous in behind a defence, he gave the side something different up front. Across 22 appearances he scored five times, numbers that undersell how often he looked like the most dangerous player on the pitch. When the loan ended, Liverpool chose to pursue El Hadji Diouf instead, fresh off a strong World Cup with Senegal, rather than make Anelka’s move permanent. With the benefit of hindsight, it is hard to defend that call.

Anelka went on to score 30 Premier League goals across two seasons once he landed at Manchester City, output that only sharpens the sense of what Liverpool walked away from. He had already played for Arsenal, Real Madrid and PSG before his mid-twenties, a résumé that should have told Liverpool exactly what kind of talent they were dealing with rather than raising doubts about his character.

Gerrard’s Verdict Carries Real Weight

Few people are better placed to judge this than Steven Gerrard, who played alongside both Anelka’s eventual replacement and the two strikers who went on to define Liverpool’s attack. Speaking on the Open Goal Podcast, Gerrard did not hold back. “It’s not the decision I would’ve made, I’d have took Anelka all day long,” he said, adding that Anelka “was class” with “a swagger” built on a proven track record at some of Europe’s biggest clubs.

Gerrard was equally blunt about why the club went the other way. Diouf’s World Cup form had created the impression there was more upside in that direction, while Anelka carried a reputation for being difficult. “Playing with him, he was just on it,” Gerrard said of Anelka, a verdict that carries more weight coming from a teammate than from any outside pundit. Dressing rooms tend to spot genuine quality before boardrooms do, and this looks like a case where Liverpool’s recruitment got seduced by a short-term narrative instead of trusting what was right in front of them.

Torres and Suarez Set an Impossible Bar

The more interesting question Gerrard raises is whether Anelka could have matched what Torres and Suarez eventually produced in red. His answer suggests he genuinely believes it was possible. “I think if he would’ve had a longer stint at Liverpool, I think potentially he could’ve done as much damage as them,” Gerrard said, before making clear where Suarez sits in his own personal rankings. “Suarez was off the scale. He’s the best player I’ve ever played with,” he added, pointing to a player who never seemed to get injured and trained with the same intensity he played with.

On Torres, Gerrard recalled an 18 month spell where the Spaniard looked unplayable, powerful, explosive and thriving on the responsibility of being Liverpool’s main man. “He used to come off the pitch and say to me ‘I just feel on top of the world here, the way the fans see me’,” Gerrard remembered, though he still rates Suarez above him purely because of the Uruguayan’s range as a footballer.

The Lesson Liverpool Still Needs To Learn

None of this is really about Anelka himself at this point. It is about a pattern. Clubs talk themselves out of obvious quality all the time because of noise around a player’s reputation, and Liverpool’s call in 2002 is as clean an example as you will find. They had a top class forward on their books, saw what he could do up close, and let him go because a rival forward had enjoyed one good summer. Torres and Suarez went on to become Anfield legends, but Gerrard’s comments are a reminder that the margins between a club getting it spectacularly right and spectacularly wrong can be thinner than anyone likes to admit.