Liverpool FC: Fernando Torres Leaves; Is Steven Gerrard Right to Stay at Anfield?

Fernando Torres’ shock move to Chelsea was completed in the final hours of the January transfer window. While it surely delighted the Blues’ fans, the sheer nature of passions running at Anfield ensured that El Niño turned from hero to villain overnight. Torres jerseys in flames was a common sight around Merseyside, and some humor writers even suggested that the "useless" No. 9 jerseys should be donated to children in Africa instead.

While Liverpool supporters may have a reasonable case to make against the alleged "back-stabbing" that their hero performed, is Torres entirely at fault for demanding a move to a Chelsea? Or is he expected to play at Anfield for his entire career and risk being a great player with nothing to show for it?

Torres joined Liverpool from Atletico Madrid in 2007. Since then, Liverpool have come close to winning any sort of trophy only once when they finished four points behind Manchester United in the 2008-09 Premier League campaign. The last trophy Liverpool won was the 2006 FA Cup.

Since then, Chelsea have won one Premier League, three FA Cups, one Carling Cup, in addition to a Champions League final appearance in 2008. Stats say Chelsea are definitely the place to be in this era, even though Liverpool are still the most successful club in the country.

So is it justified that Torres be declared a "mercenary" for the sole reason he wanted to pursue his dream at a place he believes he is more likely to achieve it?

Torres’ image has been slaughtered in the last week—especially on the Merseyside. It's believed that all he wants is the huge pay packet he is likely to get at Stamford Bridge. But look, if Tevez gets £280k week, isn’t it logical for Torres to think that he deserves his current Chelsea emoluments.

This leads us to the conclusion that Torres might have made the right decision in wanting to leave Anfield. Which brings us to the second part of the article: Is club talisman Steven Gerrard right in wanting to stay at Liverpool for his entire career, even at the cost of never winning that evasive Premier League medal?

"Stevie G" joined Liverpool as a trainee in 1987, eventually starting his senior career with the Reds in 1998. Since then, he has won one Champions League, two FA Cups and two Carling Cups (among other minor trophies).  While his trophy cabinet could still be considered decent, there is absolutely no doubt that a player of his caliber definitely deserves more.

Make no mistake, Gerrard could easily walk into any team on earth right now, but what comes as a real eyesore is the absence of that Premier League medal in his trophy collection.

While morality and devotion to his childhood club could be offered as valid arguments for his refusal to leave, is it actually worth sacrificing one’s whole career for a club? Would your efforts would be recognised that much outside your club? Here is what history books could tell you about Gerrard twenty years down the line:

“An exceptional player, spent his whole career at Liverpool and was thrice a Premier League runner-up”

With new investment at Anfield, Liverpool might still be challenging for the title in 2012. God willing, they might win it too. But in any case, compare Gerrard’s trophy haul to that of, let's say, Lillian Thuram. Often considered the "greatest right back ever", Thuram played in Italy, Spain and France. Does Stevie G stand up in comparison to the great Frenchman who was never a servant to just one club?

The article is not about criticising those who rank emotions above ambitions. Nor is it about supporting the so-called "mercenaries". All that is questioned here is whether it is worth dedicating your whole career to a club in distress, and thus relinquishing your rightful place into the annals of football immortality.

In short: Whose mentality do you support? Torres' or Gerrard's?