and there's the problem.
Anyone who has watched, followed, or been involved in football to the extent of thinking past media bullshit rarely makes these things a binary issue.
A simple look at Keita's games for us when he was injury free, shows him to be an excellent player.
Equally, a quick look at the injuries he's had shows he can't be called a "flop", but because of those injuries, he can't really be called a success as yet either.
Once again, a poster ignores context and tries to frame an argument in a binary way that is pretty nonsensical.
Lol - the most arrogant poster on here is off again! I've never heard/read the media say anything about Keita in terms of his impact, probably because he's hardly played, so you're wrong with that assertion!
What context have I ignored? My context is, he was signed for big money, with a huge reputation and many on here saying what a monster of a player he is going to be. Well, he hasn't been!
Citing Barcelona targeting him because he's so good is laughable; more likely they targeted him as he seems to be made of glass.
He's been injured countless times, so the question has to be asked, is he strong enough physically to play week-in, week-out in the prem. The evidence, thus far, points to the contrary.
As you are firmly in the camp of "Klopp knows best, so you can't criticise anything red" in a bid to be a "top-red", no-one can challenge the manager, any player, any performance as that makes us not a "top-red".
On a scale of 1 to 10 (non-binary), 1 being very poor, 10 being phenomenal, how would you rate Keita's impact in his 2 seasons?