Liverpool FC: John Flanagan Signs Contract Extension After Great Season
Liverpool's 18-year-old John Flanagan was thrown into the mix during the closing months of last season after a series of injuries to Martin Kelly and Fabio Aurelio. With that said, he delivered for the club in many ways and his poise was unimaginable for an academy player of his age.
He held down the right side in key matches against Arsenal, Manchester City and many others as the season came down to the wire, and he allowed Glen Johnson to continue on the left side in cover for Fabio Aurelio.
His performances have earned him a new contract extension with Liverpool as LFC.tv announced this Friday morning that Flanagan and his family were at the Reds Melwood training facility to pen the new deal with Director of Football Damien Comolli.
A bright future is believed to be ahead for young Flanagan and he will most likely feature in cup ties and throughout the season at various times, as well as being a primary member of the reserve squad. Comolli had these comments for the youngster in his interview with LFC.tv:
The first thing everyone will say is he deserves it because he did so well for us towards the end of last season. Flanno had a long time left on his current deal but we felt it was the right thing to do, to reward him for what he's done.
His attitude is absolutely terrific. As you see him on the pitch—committed, dedicated, the intensity of his game—is what he's like off the pitch. He's very professional, he knows how to look after himself and who to listen to, and I think that's why he's improved so quickly.
He's only 18 years old and he's still got so much room for improvement in every area of his game. But he's already a very good going forward, technically he's very sound. I'm sure in two years time we'll talk about him having made even bigger progress.
We're really looking forward to his development and seeing how he's going to do.
There is no doubt that the youngster has all the tools to succeed in the future under Kenny Dalglish.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?