Should Liverpool have signed Samuel Eto'o instead of Everton?

The 33-year-old could have joined the Reds for free over the summer.

His wages wouldn't have come cheap but, four months on, it is clear Liverpool could have done with Samuel Eto'o this campaign.

The Reds were linked with the free agent for some time over the summer, with reports at one stage suggesting he was even having a medical at Melwood.

In the end, however, Liverpool did not sign the Cameroonian. Nor did they sign Loic Remy. Both went to a side wearing Blue - and Brendan Rodgers signed Mario Balotelli.

But Eto'o, who is making an impact without regular playing time at Everton, could have been signed for free - and Liverpool in their current state need him far more than the Toffees.

  GoalsAssistsChances CreatedDribbles WonAerial Duels WonAppearancesMinutes Played
Samuel Eto'o 3 1 9 11 4 10 568
Rickie Lambert 1 0 5 1 31 13 535
Mario Balotelli 0 0 7 5 5 9 685
Fabio Borini 0 0 2 1 2 5 156

As Opta stats show, Eto'o has scored and assisted more than Balotelli in less minutes and more than Rickie Lambert in roughly the same amount of minutes.

The Everton striker has also created more chances than both - as well as Fabio Borini - and won more dribbles. The only area he is convincingly beaten in is in the air.

Imagine, then, if Liverpool had saved the transfer fee on Balotelli and just signed Eto'o. They could have afforded his wages and he could have partnered Lambert - making an effective partner for Daniel Sturridge when he returns from injury, too.

Indeed, Rodgers may wonder if he should regret letting yet another perfectly capable striker target end up elsewhere - and at Everton, no less.

Register for EVERTON team updates

Register for LIVERPOOL team updates

Register for HITC Sport - Daily Dispatch