Vivalaraza
Member
I'm a good 12 hours LTTP here, but a few pages ago there was a debate running about Gerrard and him being a great player, I find this quite interesting and it's a conversation I've had with alot of people over the years, so I thought i'd give my opinion.
So, is Gerrard a great player? I think it was mentioned the definition is important, and it really is because people use the term "great player" and "world class" and quite often have totally different definitions of what they mean. I don't think Gerrard has been a great player in the sense that he's been a footballing great, one of those timeless players of which you only get a handful in a generation. So by that definition I don't think he's been a great. But of course, he has been a really incredible player over the years.
Anyway, I'm not that concerned about whether he has been or not, more just, Gerrard generally and his strengths and weaknesses, because I think he's one player who peaks very high and low.
I think it was mentioned he's technically lacking. I agree. You couldn't say he has bad technique, but for the very top players, his technique hasn't been as good as others...and it's typical of most English players. Rooney reminds me of Gerrard in this sense, with the tell-tale signs a very inconsistent touch on the ball, sometimes great and then sometimes heavy. Also, in tight spaces and areas I think too often Gerrard's touch and passing is poor. Rooney is just the same for me and whilst the both of them still have great games and moment this will always hold players like that back IMO, that you can never be certain about them because their control is just so...different from game to game, not consistent or reliable.
The other "flaw" which Gerrard has had IMO, has been his inability to dictate the tempo or pace of a game and it basically comes down to the whole "hollywood" idea. I think the very great players should be able to put their foot on the ball and take control of a game. Demand the ball, pick it up, play it, get it back, move other players about, both on their own team and on the opposition. Gerrard has never had that about him and as such he hasn't been a great play-maker IMO. He's not just lacked positional discipline but the discipline, composure and foresight to dictate the flow of games, this was something Xabi Alonso used to do for Liverpool quite alot, alongside Gerrard. (Unrelated but I think this is the one area of Cristiano Ronaldo's game which is severely lacking and for similar reasons, he isn't a good play-maker and it's almost because he doesn't want to be, he's not interested...and it really is something which holds you back when being considered as an elite level player IMO and where Messi is a million miles ahead of him.)
The thing is though, Gerrard has been so good elsewhere and whilst I don't think he has ever been able to impact games by controlling them for long periods...his short term impact has just been devastating, truly match turning moments. His greatest for me will always be the FA Cup final against West Ham when he scored the long ranger, that was the one time that sticks out for me when I thought, "damn, Gerrard is just something else, a true force". It came from nowhere and it just turned the game around completely...there are many similar moments like this for Gerrard of course.
IMO he has always been a very individual player. But he has had so many great moments that it was worth it for Liverpool. And now, slowly, it's less and less worth it and it's been mentioned by LFC fans here and others...that actually, Gerrard was having a negative effect on the team in some games....but then he has games like the one against Everton, priceless performances when he pretty much wins the game on his very own. In that sense I think his greatest strength in his uncanny and often unmatched ability to just pull things out of the fire has limited him from becoming that player who could, almost take that secondary role, and make things happen for others, not just in an "assists" way, but by making those around him better players, by making things easy for them. I don't think Gerrard has ever made his team as a whole play better, or made players around him look better or play better (I think Zidane was the master of this)...he just used to drag them through games kicking and screaming instead...something which is actually quite incredible. Gerrard has won over 10 medals with LFC I think, that's pretty awesome when you consider how average their team has been for most of his career. Not to shit on the whole team and other players they've had...they've had some really good ones, but a 10+ medal haul for him is pretty impressive.
People often compare Gerrard and Scholes and I think the other had the one quality each could have really done with. Gerrard could have done with Scholes' finesse in play-making and Scholes, Gerrard's in moment and games of individual importance. Of course, that isn't to say they're both totally shit in the areas where they're a little bit weaker...they've been brilliant players, just IMO a little bit lacking in certain areas.
I think Gerrard is going to really struggle in this latter part of his career because he'll have to change his game in a fundamental way. It's not just about being a water carrier, by letting others have responsibility ahead of you and appreciating and doing the slightly simpler things which are actually, just as important, or at least not far behind in importance. IMO this is something which most good English players suffer from and it's why England hardly have play as a good team.
Anyway, if somebody asks me whether Gerrard is a great player or not I always say yes because he's just had some moments of absolute brilliance which very very few players have, and he's had a few of them....but I do see why people don't rate him that highly, because for alot of football fans that mercurial ability to set tempo is something they find really important in CM players.
I think Gerrard has always been better than Lampard though. Lampard's been a bit of a half way house between Scholes and Gerrard I think. Lampard fits better into a team but I think England should have completely built the team around Gerrard. It's not like we ever had a handful of amazing players (we told ourselves we did I guess) and Gerrard could have got the job done in some of those games where we were close if he had the licence to be free and just do what he wants. That's when he's best and you have to say, in that role, he got Liverpool through time after time after time. A proper match-winner.
Well, it's probably a bit biased but that's my opinion on Gerrard. Always been fascinated by him. I hope he sticks around for a few more years but I can see his embers dying fast now.
So, is Gerrard a great player? I think it was mentioned the definition is important, and it really is because people use the term "great player" and "world class" and quite often have totally different definitions of what they mean. I don't think Gerrard has been a great player in the sense that he's been a footballing great, one of those timeless players of which you only get a handful in a generation. So by that definition I don't think he's been a great. But of course, he has been a really incredible player over the years.
Anyway, I'm not that concerned about whether he has been or not, more just, Gerrard generally and his strengths and weaknesses, because I think he's one player who peaks very high and low.
I think it was mentioned he's technically lacking. I agree. You couldn't say he has bad technique, but for the very top players, his technique hasn't been as good as others...and it's typical of most English players. Rooney reminds me of Gerrard in this sense, with the tell-tale signs a very inconsistent touch on the ball, sometimes great and then sometimes heavy. Also, in tight spaces and areas I think too often Gerrard's touch and passing is poor. Rooney is just the same for me and whilst the both of them still have great games and moment this will always hold players like that back IMO, that you can never be certain about them because their control is just so...different from game to game, not consistent or reliable.
The other "flaw" which Gerrard has had IMO, has been his inability to dictate the tempo or pace of a game and it basically comes down to the whole "hollywood" idea. I think the very great players should be able to put their foot on the ball and take control of a game. Demand the ball, pick it up, play it, get it back, move other players about, both on their own team and on the opposition. Gerrard has never had that about him and as such he hasn't been a great play-maker IMO. He's not just lacked positional discipline but the discipline, composure and foresight to dictate the flow of games, this was something Xabi Alonso used to do for Liverpool quite alot, alongside Gerrard. (Unrelated but I think this is the one area of Cristiano Ronaldo's game which is severely lacking and for similar reasons, he isn't a good play-maker and it's almost because he doesn't want to be, he's not interested...and it really is something which holds you back when being considered as an elite level player IMO and where Messi is a million miles ahead of him.)
The thing is though, Gerrard has been so good elsewhere and whilst I don't think he has ever been able to impact games by controlling them for long periods...his short term impact has just been devastating, truly match turning moments. His greatest for me will always be the FA Cup final against West Ham when he scored the long ranger, that was the one time that sticks out for me when I thought, "damn, Gerrard is just something else, a true force". It came from nowhere and it just turned the game around completely...there are many similar moments like this for Gerrard of course.
IMO he has always been a very individual player. But he has had so many great moments that it was worth it for Liverpool. And now, slowly, it's less and less worth it and it's been mentioned by LFC fans here and others...that actually, Gerrard was having a negative effect on the team in some games....but then he has games like the one against Everton, priceless performances when he pretty much wins the game on his very own. In that sense I think his greatest strength in his uncanny and often unmatched ability to just pull things out of the fire has limited him from becoming that player who could, almost take that secondary role, and make things happen for others, not just in an "assists" way, but by making those around him better players, by making things easy for them. I don't think Gerrard has ever made his team as a whole play better, or made players around him look better or play better (I think Zidane was the master of this)...he just used to drag them through games kicking and screaming instead...something which is actually quite incredible. Gerrard has won over 10 medals with LFC I think, that's pretty awesome when you consider how average their team has been for most of his career. Not to shit on the whole team and other players they've had...they've had some really good ones, but a 10+ medal haul for him is pretty impressive.
People often compare Gerrard and Scholes and I think the other had the one quality each could have really done with. Gerrard could have done with Scholes' finesse in play-making and Scholes, Gerrard's in moment and games of individual importance. Of course, that isn't to say they're both totally shit in the areas where they're a little bit weaker...they've been brilliant players, just IMO a little bit lacking in certain areas.
I think Gerrard is going to really struggle in this latter part of his career because he'll have to change his game in a fundamental way. It's not just about being a water carrier, by letting others have responsibility ahead of you and appreciating and doing the slightly simpler things which are actually, just as important, or at least not far behind in importance. IMO this is something which most good English players suffer from and it's why England hardly have play as a good team.
Anyway, if somebody asks me whether Gerrard is a great player or not I always say yes because he's just had some moments of absolute brilliance which very very few players have, and he's had a few of them....but I do see why people don't rate him that highly, because for alot of football fans that mercurial ability to set tempo is something they find really important in CM players.
I think Gerrard has always been better than Lampard though. Lampard's been a bit of a half way house between Scholes and Gerrard I think. Lampard fits better into a team but I think England should have completely built the team around Gerrard. It's not like we ever had a handful of amazing players (we told ourselves we did I guess) and Gerrard could have got the job done in some of those games where we were close if he had the licence to be free and just do what he wants. That's when he's best and you have to say, in that role, he got Liverpool through time after time after time. A proper match-winner.
Well, it's probably a bit biased but that's my opinion on Gerrard. Always been fascinated by him. I hope he sticks around for a few more years but I can see his embers dying fast now.
