As I Liverpool fan I find myself asking this unavoidable question as I come to terms with the announcement on friday that Luis Suarez has officially left the club; if you take Luis Suarez out of the team, you take away 31 goals, 14 assists and a general fear of other clubs knowing the sometimes unfathomable amount of damage he can inflict in a game (just ask Norwich keeper John Ruddy).
His energy and passion was definitely carved into the team last season, the pressing, the non-stop attacking, play oozing with skill and at times blowing other large forces in the premier league apart. In particular Suarez seemed to have had a large influence on the rise of Raheem Sterling, he is definitely the type of player who will inspire the youth in any squad.
Yet despite all of this, I can’t help feeling that Liverpool will still survive, even with a Suarez shaped hole at Anfield. This is not just because his transfer will take with it a bucket load of controversy that the club will be glad to have a break from, but mostly because all players will leave their clubs eventually, they all will, and the clubs moves on.
Take Manchester United, they lost Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid in 2009, and many have argued they were never able to find a replacement for the current holder of the Ballon d’or, but that didn’t seem to hinder them from winning the premier league title two times since his departure.
Arsenal lost Robin Van Persie to the red side of Manchester in 2012, yet they finished 3 places higher than him and his team last season and managed to finally end their 9 year trophy drought without his help, meaning however much a blow it was for the club to lose their star striker, they moved on, and now have strengthened their squad with the signing of one of the main players to make a name for himself at the world cup, Alexis Sanchez.
Perhaps the only currant exception to the rule is Gareth Bale. Real Madrid supplied spurs with 90 million pounds for the Welshman, but it wasn’t enough for them to challenge realistically with their north London rivals for fourth place. However I don’t think this means they couldn’t survive without him, only that they wasted the money on unproven players who were unable to live up their price tag, and meant the squad was unfamiliar with all the new faces, which was highlighted by the disconnection on the pitch. One new signing did shine through the darkness of disappointment for the club though; Cristian Erikson has the makings of a gifted and threatening force in midfield and with new manager Mauricio Pochettino hoping to improve on the progress he made with Southampton, there is little reason that Spurs cannot still be a force as a team, without a superstar.
Which brings me to my final point, is it better to have one superstar carrying the team on their back, or a team full of gifted but not world star players who play as team? In other words Brazil or Chille; Brazil may have won the match between those two teams at the world cup, but we all saw the surreal implosion they suffered without Neymar. Maybe it’s better not to have a superstar?
So though it is disappointing to see Suarez leave Liverpool, and it’s almost impossible to think of a replacement who will be able to perform for the club the way he did, history will show that players will come and go, and when it is a world class player, it’s a massive loss. However it’s pointless to argue they cannot survive without him, because he was always going to leave at one point, all players will, and the club moves on.