Without a doubt, Fernando Torres. Why?

1) His signing was hyped up by the press, no doubt but his goalscoring record was all but impressive for Atletico. Fans were influenced by the media and expectations were high but several pundits had their doubts. After all, Fernando Morientes before him was a gem and scoring goals for fun all about Europe but came up short in the Premiership. This was a striker whose goals helped Monaco reach the finals of the 2004 Champions League Final no less. Needless to say, Fernando Torres has far exceeded my expectations.

2) He has adapted to the league like a fish to water. I did not expect him to be this strong and powerful. Yes, he may go down under light tackles so far but it's not everyday you see a slender kid from Spain out-muscle big blokes like Bikey.

He is selling more T-Shirts than Steven Gerrard, even in Liverpool. The fans sing his song every game even when he is on the bench. He has earned the respect of former Liverpool greats like Kenny Dalglish, Greame Souness and Ian Rush. He has scored more goals in one season than any other Liverpool striker since Robbie Fowler, despite playing alone up-front for much of the time.

Roque Santa Cruz was a shrewd signing no doubt but Fernando Torres far eclipses him in overall ability and my vote goes to him.

If I may offer my opinion:

1) Fernando Torres was talked about more because he plays in a league more people are familiar with, the La Liga. Roque Santa Cruz has already played 57 games for Paraguay and had made 155 appearances for Bayern Munich. I have seen him play for Paraguay before though not very often. I don't think many had even heard of him as he was playing in a less popular league. My point is, he didn't exactly come from "nowhere". That and Blackburn do have David Bentley (England U-21), Tugay (Turkish International), Matt Derbyshire (England U-21), Morten Gamst Pedersen (Norwegian International) and Benni McCarthy (South African International) in attack. They may not be the highest scorers in the league but they aren't toothless either. Brett Emerton is also a pretty decent passer of the ball.

2) Torres does receive passes but bear in mind that seldom does he score tap-ins or arrive just in the nick of time to nod a cross in. Much of the time he gets the ball 30 - 40 yards out and makes a beeline to goal by himself. Ask anyone who has watched him play with some degree of regularity. He creates a lot of his own chances.

3) It's true that there was more hype on Torres because he played in the La Liga, and he was signing for one of the "big four". If Man Utd had gone for Santa Cruz, you can bet he'd be headline news. Having said that, don't you think there was much more pressure on Torres to perform and score goals? Optimistic fans expected him to score 20 odd goals in his first season and he wasn't exactly prolific before signing for Liverpool. He averaged a mere goal every 3 games for Atletico. If that had continued, he would only have scored what? 13 goals for us in the league? What expectations were there on Santa Cruz? How much pressure was he burdened with?




This post has been edited by Duke Red: May 6 2008, 05:11 PM

?

and I suppose Santa Cruz scores in every match?

Torres has at least scored in his last 8 Premiership appearances.

---

Added on May 6, 2008, 5:44 pmI just have to add that I find your statement rather baffling.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: May 6 2008, 05:44 PM

I'm sorry, was the questions "who was the best signing", or "who was the best bargain"?

If it were always to do with being cheap and good, how do players like Kaka, Zidane and Ronaldinho win "Best Player" awards given their price tags?

While I do agree that price does matter to some degree, I'd like to believe it's the impact a player makes on the team and the fans. Liverpool's entire shape has changed just to accommodate Torres simply because he is scoring for fun and some may say, he forced Liverpool to adjust to his inclusion. So much so that Peter Crouch who scores almost each time he plays, has been shelved. So much so that Liverpool have reverted to a 4-3-3 from our traditional 4-4-2 or even 4-4-1-1. I also haven't a doubt in mind who is the more talented player.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: May 7 2008, 10:53 AM

Judging from feedback here, the typical Malaysian mentality is "cheap and good". Santa Cruz was signed for $3.5 million pounds and scored 19 goals for Blackburn. This would mean that a forward signed for $20 million pounds would need to score 109 goals to be considered as one of the best buys of the season. This is why I think it doesn't make sense to base it on cost and goals alone. If that were so, how would you rate midfielders? Cost to pass completion ratio? What of defenders? Tackles to cost ratio?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: May 8 2008, 11:01 AM

You have a point.

Would it be fair to suggest that had Liverpool signed Santa Cruz, he would have made a bigger impact than Torres? What if Blackburn had signed Torres? Who would have made the bigger impact? Torres or Cruz?

If by "same thing", you meant score goals then I'd have to agree. I have to add that unless you have seen both players play with same regularity, it's unfair to pass much judgement. Aside from Liverpool fans here, how many have seen Torres play more than 10 times this season? How many have seen Roque Santa Cruz play the same number of games? I can't say I've seen much of the Paraguayan myself. Because of this, most people are just looking at numbers. If Cruz's goals had all come via deflection, he'd still be the "best buy" rather than the "luckiest buy". Judging from what I've seen of the two though, Torres is the more complete player. Santa Cruz for me needs supply and being 6'3" has a penchant for the English game where the ball is often played up to him. Most of his goals that I've seen have come from headers. He may surprise me much like how Miroslav Klose did at the last World Cup where he scored every goal with his feet (unlike in the previous one) but at this moment, I think Torres has more dimension to his game.

Still I respect everyone's opinion in this matter and I accept that I may be biased. It's just been a long time since we've signed such an exciting player. When was the last time?

The thing about value is this; if a player is almost out of contract and is looking to leave, clubs can buy him on the cheap. Then there is also the bosman ruling, etc. What i'm trying to say is that the value of a player can change depending on the details of his contract and it's duration. Steve McManaman was free and therefore could be considered an even better signing than David Beckham. Just trying to put things in perspective and look at it from other angles, aside from cost.

Why? Just because soccernet says so? What's printed isn't always the gospel truth. I've my opinion and they have theirs. There is no absolute truth.

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one that quoted the article insisting that those who voted Torres agree with soccernet, and change their votes to Santa Cruz. I've already made my points.

I completely agree. Expectations of Torres was high despite him only scoring once in three games for Atletico. There were no expectation of Santa Cruz. There was therefore more pressure on Torres to perform as all eyes were on him. Andy Gray paid him a huge compliment by claiming he was the complete centre forward and when a bluenose says that, you know this kids special. Santa Cruz was given little attention much like Benni McCarthy in his first season. Now that there are expectations, let's see if he performs in his 2nd season. McCarthy himself has moved down the pecking order near the end of the season behind Jason Roberts.

Alright so we weight cost to goals ratio for strikers. What about goalkeepers, defenders and midfielders?

In my opinion, you have to look beyond statistics because numbers don't always tell the whole story. If they could, all anyone would need to do is look at the stats sheet to pick the winner, much like how you buy players in Football Manager without having seen the player in the flesh.

It doesn't matter if this argument continues so long as you have something constructive to say. It doesn't mean that there has to be a definitive answer.