Milos Kerkez Proved Jamie Carragher Wrong vs Fulham After Bizarre Comparison to Former Liverpool Star - Opinion

In a thrilling 2-2 draw at Craven Cottage, Liverpool's Milos Kerkez delivered a standout performance that directly contradicted Jamie Carragher's recent bizarre comparison to former Reds star Alberto Moreno[1][2][3]. Carragher had likened the young left-back's chaotic style to Moreno's error-prone tenure at Anfield, suggesting Kerkez risked a similar fate. Yet, against Fulham, Kerkez channeled his frenetic energy into a solid showing at both ends of the pitch, earning 6/10 ratings across multiple outlets for his composure and contributions[2][3][4].

Liverpool made three changes, reinstating Kerkez alongside Cody Gakpo and Alexis Mac Allister. Fulham struck first around the 20th minute through Harry Wilson's clinical finish, assisted by Raul Jimenez, with VAR confirming Virgil van Dijk played him onside despite initial offside flags[1][2]. Liverpool pushed back, but Gakpo was ruled offside from Kerkez's inviting cross early in the second half, and Mac Allister headed onto the bar from a corner[1][2][5].

At the hour mark, Florian Wirtz equalized after Conor Bradley's surging run, with VAR overturning an offside call[1][2]. Gakpo nearly won it in the fourth minute of stoppage time, tapping in Jeremie Frimpong's dipping cross, only for substitute Harrison Reed to stun the Reds with a stunning solo rocket three minutes later[1]. Kerkez's key crosses and defensive reliability highlighted his growth, proving Carragher's skepticism premature. While not flawless—Liverpool conceded from defensive lapses—Kerkez's balanced display silenced critics, positioning him as a vital asset in Liverpool's title chase[2][3][4].

This result underscores Kerkez's adaptation since joining, thriving under pressure unlike Moreno's decline. Carragher's comparison, rooted in early erratic moments, overlooked the Hungarian's potential. With consistent performances like this, Kerkez could redefine Liverpool's left flank for years[1][2].

(Word count: 298)