Alexis Mac Allister’s performances for Argentina at this summer’s World Cup came as a surprise to many of those who had watched him toil so badly for Liverpool last season.
But not his colleagues at the AXA Training Centre, who had privately speculated that a response to a difficult season was coming on the biggest stage of all.
Their suspicions were partly driven by a feeling shared at executive level that so many in the Reds’ squad were far better than they showed last term.
In fact, that was a key reason behind Arne Slot’s dismissal, and has been further evidenced by Cody Gakpo’s own return to form.
But Mac Allister’s revival was also predicted because of the sheer bloody-mindedness he has regularly shown since arriving at Anfield in 2023.
The Argentine has long been regarded as a standard-setter on the training ground, a fact the many youngsters who have found themselves dressed down by him can attest to.
Those clashes are also a product of his passionate nature, a quality brought to the surface most recently by Liverpool’s refusal to offer a new contract.
You can see why the club viewed the younger pair of Ryan Gravenberch and Dominik Szoboszlai as the better bet for new deals, given the stronger likelihood they would retain value even amid struggles with form.
However, this move has clearly wounded Mac Allister and, when combined with the aforementioned factors, has lit a fire that has resulted in him roaring back to his best in the early stages of this new season.
What is perhaps most confusing about this renaissance is that the player’s struggles last term looked less like a form problem and much more like a physical drop-off.
Mac Allister was too often slow to press, weak in challenges, and then lacked zip on the ball in a way that was familiar to all those who had witnessed fellow midfielder Fabinho’s sudden decline.
And, rather intriguingly, his physical statistics so far this term support that theory given they are worse than the last.
In a supposedly more aggressive team, Mac Allister’s top speed (31.6km/h vs 31.3), distance covered per 90 (11.4km vs 11.1) and number of sprints per 90 (7.91 vs 5.37) have all fallen.
