Liverpool Transfer News: Brendan Rodgers Smart to Want Craig Bellamy Back
Though he's had his issues in the past, Bellamy was a positive player for Liverpool this past year, and the team would be best-served having him back. And it would seem that Rodgers agrees.
Rodgers believes Bellamy may have much to offer his new Liverpool and has no intention of looking to move the 32-year-old on.
"I had a really positive chat with Craig on Monday," Rodgers told the Liverpool Echo. "It was good to meet him and get his side of the Liverpool story. He's a big supporter of this club—he loves the club.
"He's a good guy. He has a real passion for Liverpool Football Club and that's the type of people I want here. I like his intensity, his work-rate and his passion so I would love him to be here."
As the above piece notes, it has been rumored that Cardiff City might look to retain his services. But if Rodgers is to be believed, Bellamy will be sticking around.
Bellamy may not be spectacular, but he is a consistent producer. He's the type of player you can expect about 10 goals and eight assists from per season, and last year for Liverpool he was good for nine goals and seven assists in 37 appearances (18 starts).
Bellamy is certainly thought highly enough of by Stuart Pearce, who named him as one of the three over-23 players for Great Britain's Olympic team along with Manchester United's Ryan Giggs and Manchester City's Micah Richards.
If you were selecting the Great Britain Olympic team, would you select Bellamy over Beckham?
Yes, Bellamy got the nod over David Beckham.
Bringing back the hard-working winger with the chippy attitude would be the smart move for the Reds, who will want to maintain some familiarity while the Rodgers era begins. The bad-boy days of Bellamy seem to be behind him, and his veteran presence certainly won't hurt Liverpool.
I don't expect him to go anywhere. For Liverpool fans, that's great news.
Hit me up on Twitter—my tweets dominate like the Williams sisters at Wimbledon.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?