Liverpool Transfer Rumors: Failing to Sign Gylfi Sigurdsson Would Be Big Blow
Instead, it would appear that Tottenham has convinced Sigurdsson that a move to London is in his best interest. From Jason Burt of The Telegraph:
Sigurdsson, 22, fits the profile and talks have progressed between Spurs and German club Hoffenheim. He could undergo a medical this week after the fee was agreed.
He was on loan at Swansea for the second half of last season, taken there by the club's then manager Brendan Rodgers, who wanted to sign him permanently and then wanted to take him with him to Liverpool.
Sigurdsson has still not agreed to personal terms with Spurs but the club are expecting to announce a deal next week for the attacking midfielder who could eventually succeed Rafael van der Vaart.
For Liverpool, they aren't only losing a solid, young presence in the midfield, they're also losing out on a player who thrived under Rodgers last season. In 19 appearances (17 starts) for Swansea, Sigurdsson netted seven goals and added three assists.
The Reds won't be able to overuse midfielder Steven Gerrard, who is still effective but is subject to wear and tear at this stage in his career. That would make Sigurdsson an excellent option to see a lot of time in an attacking midfield role, where his playmaking and solid shot from range would make him a handful for defenses.
And the two of them on the pitch together would have been an intriguing midfield duo.
Gylfi Sigurdsson will have a bigger impact playing for...
Sigurdsson has his weaknesses—he isn't a box-to-box midfielder, doing his best work moving forward—but his creativity in the attacking third would have been just what the doctor ordered for the Reds after a disappointing 2011-12 campaign.
His move to Spurs isn't written in stone, so hope in this regard is not completely lost just yet. But if his transfer to London holds, the Reds may long lament the failure to secure Sigurdsson's services.
Hit me up on Twitter—my tweets hit the mark more often than Spain's passing.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?