Carlos Tevez: Should Liverpool Make a Move for the Striker?
With the January transfer window just around the corner and Liverpool's sitting at sixth in the table, signings are bound to come as Dalglish will look to strengthen his squad in anticipation of the tough months ahead.
Luis Suarez has been suspended for eight games pending an appeal, and Andy Carroll has not performed nearly as well as hoped since completing an estimated £35 million transfer in January.
Liverpool have struggled to score this season, and expectations are that Dalglish will make a move to sign a striker in the January transfer window.
The Argentine forward is on the way out from Etihad Stadium, with City reportedly offering him on a name-your-price deal to anyone willing to take him.
Despite his troubles, the 27-year-old remains a great striker, and, though Tevez may be out of practice, Liverpool would be very lucky to have him at the bargain price he would arrive for.
In 212 Premier League appearances, Tevez has scored 93 goals, emerging as one of the world's premier attacking players. Last season, he scored 23 goals in 39 games as City's captain, leading their team to a third-place finish.
Should Liverpool Sign Carlos Tevez?
Tevez would fit in well at Anfield. Dalglish has implemented a system based on skill and attacking flair, a tactic that fits the Argentine well. He plays a similar game to that of Suarez, and the Liverpool team is used to playing with a man like him at the helm.
Furthermore, Liverpool are looking for a new striker, regardless of the Suarez suspension, and Tevez would certainly be the perfect option. A pure goalscorer, Tevez is just the player Suarez would be able to thrive alongside, and having the two of them up front would create a formidable partnership.
Don't be surprised to see Kenny Dalglish and Damien Comolli take a long look at Tevez when January rolls around.
Follow Jake Ware on Twitter at @JacobWare95.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?