Since their respective moves, Ba has returned two league goals from his 13 appearances for Chelsea, while Sturridge has netted 10 in the same number outings. With the luxury of five months’ hindsight, can we look back on the Blues’ winter decisions as rash ones?
A glance at the above tallies would certainly suggest as much – if Chelsea were not exactly foolish, they certainly appeared undervalue a man who could legitimately claim to have been the club’s best striker. Ba, though, has not performed as underwhelmingly as the afore-quoted stats would suggest – he has netted a further four goals in six FA Cup appearances, for a start, and has provided a rangy physical presence which Sturridge could not have done, as illustrated by their respective success in headed duels.
That said, though, goals are a striker’s defining currency, and the new man at Anfield can always play this trump card against the more abstract notions of ‘good hold-up play’ and such like. The Liverpool forward also boasts the explosive pace over short distances that Ba’s creaking knees cannot facilitate; this speed combined with the dartingly quick feet that were on show on Sunday makes for a potent attacking cocktail when Sturridge is on song.
When we look across the overall games of each player, too, Sturridge’s approach proves far more multi-faceted than he’s often given credit for. An attempted 41 take-ons for his new employers, for instance, is over five times as many as that of the Senegalese forward, while the Liverpool man has also gone about creating chances for teammates at the heady rate of two per game.
That last stat is not something one might expect from a player often derided as selfish; of course, Sturridge’s decision-making can often veer infuriatingly towards the indulgent, but that’s not to say that he doesn’t possess the eye for a pass or a smart piece of movement that will present a fellow attacker with a chance at goal – his dummy for Luis Suarez’s strike during January’s demolition of Norwich being a prime example. In other words, the raw materials are there, and at the age of just 23 it is only fair to expect some rough edges to the mental side of a player’s game.
It is hard not to look at the above information and not conclude that the west Londoners would have been better off leaving Ba be in January and installing Daniel Sturridge as their first-choice striker, although such a conclusion does not come without its caveats.
Context, as ever, is king: At the time of Sturridge’s sale, Chelsea were arguably ridding themselves of a restless player, and were bringing in a striker who was all-too-happy to play second fiddle to the underperforming Fernando Torres – all the while making a tidy profit of £5million.
If the Stamford Bridge masterplan was and is to recruit a striker of the quality of Radamel Falcao or Edinson Cavani in the summer, perhaps Ba represented a better, shall we say, ‘interim forward’. Factor in the possible presence of 19-year-old Romelu Lukaku in and around the first-team next term, and the need for Sturridge in the long-term could further dwindle. If Chelsea make it into the Champions League next week and go about enlisting one of the above names in the coming months, perhaps the England man’s sale has been vindicated – £12million is, of course, nothing to sneer at, even if Brendan Rodgers will rightly believe that he got himself quite the deal.
As usual, time will tell. Whether we can file Chelsea’s sale of Sturridge under ‘mistake’ remains to be seen. What we can be more sure of is that the early signs all indicate that his acquisition by Liverpool will prove an unambiguous success.