My God. Try to be less biased.
Carrick rules himself out.
Scholes was never going to happen and it shouldn't have.
Cleverly didn't play enough this season.
Gerrard - the most complete player in Premier League history?
- Thread starter R.N7
- Start date
My God. Try to be less biased.
Carrick rules himself out.
Scholes was never going to happen and it shouldn't have.
Cleverly didn't play enough this season.
I am sorry but a player as old as Gerrard & someone who recently been through series of injury setbacks, you guys should still feel lucky that he was there to atleast restore some pride in this campaign of yours.
Gerrard was always a direct player, more often one who gets on the end of a pass, but here he was asked to create, which surprisingly he actually did.
Plus he hardly had a brilliant set of players around him, did he?
Gerrard was always a direct player, more often one who gets on the end of a pass, but here he was asked to create, which surprisingly he actually did.
Plus he hardly had a brilliant set of players around him, did he?
I agree it's silly to contemplate a notion of Cleverley 'deserving' a place. But in my opinion he had as much right to be there as Henderson who was thoroughly gash even in the many games he played compared to a player who played a handful of times and looked promising.
But then again Downing was in the squad and didn't even feature.
Gerrard - Most overrated player in football history.
Gerrard had a good tournament by his standards. The ball retention thing is a team / squad / entire nation issue
The best of a shite bunch for the last two competitive tournaments.
It's silly.
How can you say that when England's midfield was overrun in almost every game. He's one of the two sitting in there. It can't be all Parker or Lampard.
No more silly than those who think he's better than Souness, let alone Dalglish.
I know they were all bad last night but he was especially wank.
That stat that shows Carroll had more passes than him despite not coming on until late in the second half is absolutely shocking.
This is our midfield captain.
That stat that shows Carroll had more passes than him despite not coming on until late in the second half is absolutely shocking.
This is our midfield captain.
I know they were all bad last night but he was especially wank.
That stat that shows Carroll had more passes than him despite not coming on until late in the second half is absolutely shocking.
This is our midfield captain.
Thought he was ok, albeit not very involved, prior to his cramp. Didn't see him at all after that aside from set pieces and I actually looked. Doubt he even touched the ball.
As a midfielder that is a worrying sign.
It's weird that he wasn't pulled off right away, or at least soon after when it became apparent he was done. When a player starts cramping in the 70th minute, you can't expect that he will have much to give after that. Instead he played another 50 minutes.
In fairness, as much as I dislike Gerrard as a player I'd rather a Gerrard at 50% than a fully fit Henderson.
EDIT: Wait, they brought him on for Parker....hmmm. Hodgson probably only wanted Gerrard for his penalties.
EDIT: Wait, they brought him on for Parker....hmmm. Hodgson probably only wanted Gerrard for his penalties.
Something along these lines though I would be a bit more positive about it.
I thought he was quite good in S Africa. And everyone else was shite.
I thought England were much better as a whole this time around, with Gerrard still the best player we had out there. They played at about the level they are capable of, no more, no less. As opposed to S Africa where they were even shit, even in the context of their own limited capabilities.
The same as Carrick and Scholes were two of our standout performers last season, despite that our biggest problem by far was being overrun in central midfield.
Scholes is 38, and Carrick isn't mobile at all. However they can at least retain possession, even if they aren't brilliant at winning it back. Gerrard can't retain possession, positionally he constantly was overrun.
The problem is that I'm not sure that having just one player who's great in possession would have made a huge difference.
I think Carrick is the best English cm, the best in possession too. Say he was there last night. He gets on the ball, sprays the ball out to Milner, Young, Carroll or Rooney....who then proceed to lose the ball straight away. Then the ball comes straight back.
You need the whole team to be comfortable in possession. Not just one or two, I don't think that would make a huge amount of difference to be honest.
That's a fair point.
Lets not be blaming it on the cramp, now. He was a piss poor excuse for a midfielder and should've just demanded to play on the right, seeing as that's where he usually was.
Everything good about England in these last two competitions (not that much) has come through Gerrard. You can't expect one player to be a game changer, whilst also being expected to be positionally disciplined and have a 90% pass completion. It would be like looking at Giggs' pass completion and tackle statistics and concluding that he "can't retain possession, positionally he constantly was overrun".
If Hodgson was expecting Gerrard to play consistently accurate short, sharp passes, stick to a rigid position and still influence games in the same manner then I would be as confused as anyone.
My issue is that maybe if he did his job by being positionally disciplined and having a 90% pass completion rate he would've give others (such as our strikers or wingers maybe?) the platform to be the game changers. His usual captain fantastic play comes at the expense of the rest of the team, in my opinion.
Spot on. That was the problem for me, the centre midfield did as well as could be expected, but whenever they did manage to find an England shirt, they could not pass accurately enough, or hold the ball long enough to sustain any real possession.
Disappointing but not really unexpected. Same old story really, the players who are brought up in the kick and rush EPL, have no clue how to keep the ball at international level. No composure, poor technique and no imagination when we have the ball.
He doesn't look after the ball though does he. The central midfielders have to look after the ball and be available to receive passes at all times. Gerrard is all about Hollywood passes, great set pieces, passion and drive (running about like a maniac). Between him and Parker retaining the ball was never going to be possible. Gerrard has been a superb player but he needs the team to be built round him and his style of play has become obsolete at the top level.
I think he played a fairly disciplined midfield game in the first two games. Points about ball retention are imo superfluous given Hodgson's tactics. Scholes would have looked pointless in this side (though I do think the midfield would have looked better with a distributor like Carrick in there alongside him).
But I do think one of the reasons he has played well when he has this tournament is that he has obviously been the main man and been relied on to be the one to deliver those chances. Been a problem for England in the past that too many cooks have spoiled the broth (shouldn't have been really, but it was).
The pace probably would have defeated Scholes but I think that you are under estimating what a player of that ilk brings to the team by making themselves available for passes at all times. Carrick would have been better than Parker for example because we simply needed someone in those areas to hold on to the ball. I still feel that Gerrard's style become redundant when you make that step up in class and face a team that can starve you of possession.
Would you not say that Benetiz got the best out of Gerrard by playing Alonso and Mascherano behind to cover up for the gaps that his style brings?
My point was that clearly what you're saying wasn't his job, unless Hodgson thought he could totally change a seasoned professional's game in 2-3 weeks.
Exactly, if you expect him to suddenly change his game to be a hybrid of Scholes and Keane you are bound to think he is positionally useless, gives the ball away too frequently and allows our defence to get exposed. The fact is he shoulders the burden of making something happen (particularly with Rooney so useless), through driving runs, Hollywood passes and generally being hard to counter, as he gets around the pitch and isn't tied to a finite position.
Against better opposition it is obvious that Rooney should be up top alone with Gerrard given the same role he shines in. Having Gerrard in a 2 man midfield against probably the best 10-15 midfield's in the world is asking for trouble.
Carrick didn't rule himself out, he just didn't accept being back up.
So whos job was it?
Was it up to Parker to pass and dictate the play in the middle, or was it supposed to be Young and Milner out on the wings?
That's ruling himself out.
And i also don't get why he thinks Hodgson will not play him as a starter, when he has never played under him.
Probably he just took a look at his direct competition and thought how the feck are they starting ahead of me.
Having a playmaker in there wasn't going to make the players around him move any more to receive it. Hodgson's team is static because this is how he sets them out. Rigid chains in both attack and defence. Players don't have much license to leave their zones which is why they aren't showing much for the ball.
It would have made a difference to have someone more comfortable spreading out play over 20-25 yards, but the whole 'holding on to the ball' thing I think wouldn't have made much difference. The major reason for the inability to retain the ball was that it wasn't a priority.
I don't think it becomes redundant, but it does necessitate having a distributor in there alongside him.
Not really. First of all, I think it's completely misleading to suggest that a player behind the main striker 'leaves gaps'. And although Gerrard/Alonso as a pairing might not be all too re-assuring defensively against the top teams it was more than adequate for 80% of the teams we'd face in the prem. If Carrick and Giggs/Scholes can dominate the league without defensive worries, Gerrard and Alonso aren't a concern in that regard.
It's not coincidence that Rafa started every season bar his last with the premise that Gerrard was supposed to play central midfield and he was only moved elsewhere to plug the obvious gaps that would show elsewhere in the squad (and Alonso/Masch/Hamann/ meant that gap didn't exist in central midfield).
It got the best out of the team but this was as much a case of us being able to field our best players as it is 'gerrard's best position'. In 2006, his best position was on the right, because it meant not having to play fecking Sissoko on the right. In 2009, it was behind the striker because it meant we could field both Mascherano and Alonso in midfield and we had no one as good up front (Keane was just rubbish).
I think in either case, if we had had a player of similar high quality in the position Gerrard moved into as we did in the position he vacated, we would have been better off with Gerrard in midfield for most games. Too often we simply didn't have enough quality players going forwards to break teams down.
And contrary to popular perception, Gerrard actually played as many games in central midfield in 2006 as he did on the right and scored more goals and had more assists from that position. And some of his better performances these past two seasons have been ones where he has had to play a disciplined game against top opposition in central midfield (including against your lot), though that perhaps is more suggestive of the fact that his matchwinning performances have become rarer (not in the least due to injuries).
I think his best position is behind the striker, because it leaves you with less of a jigsaw to get right in midfield. Alonso/Gerrard lacked defensive strength against the best teams, Gerrard/Mascherano needed a playmaker (this combo never really worked). And by now, his mentality has been coached into that role as well. But he has had many great games in central midfield, same as he has from the right.
As far as I am concerned, it really is more a case of 'how can we field our best players' and the fact that Gerrard is so versatile he can step into any of those three positions than it is a case of 'where is Gerrard weakest'. For Liverpool these days, I'd prefer him on the right of midfield (assuming Kenny's 4-4-2-ish formation) for the same reason.
He can look into the future?
I think you are too blinkered on this one. B19.
Gerrard has always been too ill-disciplined to work in a midfield two. He goes chasing after balls and the cliche about him going for Hollywood passes is also true. He did well in this tournament admittedly but that's never been his forte.
Gerrard has always been too ill-disciplined to work in a midfield two. He goes chasing after balls and the cliche about him going for Hollywood passes is also true. He did well in this tournament admittedly but that's never been his forte.
The criticism Gerrard gets on the caf is often over the top. He's never been the ball retention type or someone that can dictate the pace of a game. The problem with him is he thinks he's best at centre midfielder, but he doesn't play the right pass enough or has the discipline to play the role effectively when paired alongside a dire partner such as Paker. As someone mentioned, his best role is when Benetiz played him infront of Alonso and Mascherano giving him the freedom to roam. I don't think he's overrated really, I do sometimes wonder though how much a better player he would have been if he was managed by a manager like Wenger or SAF.
Carrick has himself to blame for not being on the plane. If he was on the standby list, once Barry and Lampard got ruled out, he would have been in, with a decent chance of entering the first team. If I had a player who made such demands, I'd ban him from the squad entirely, but that's another issue...
I don't think Gerrard is the problem. The problem is the system, which for years tried to shoehorn Gerrard and Lampard into the same midfield, having a detrimental effect on the play. Even at this tournament, even though he was really disciplined in a withdrawn role, you could see that's not his game. Gerrard shouldn't be playing so deep. Looking at how shit Rooney was, it would have been better to take him off and move Gerrard up behind Welbeck/Carroll.
He's not Scholes or Xavi. That doesn't make him a shit footballer.
I don't think Gerrard is the problem. The problem is the system, which for years tried to shoehorn Gerrard and Lampard into the same midfield, having a detrimental effect on the play. Even at this tournament, even though he was really disciplined in a withdrawn role, you could see that's not his game. Gerrard shouldn't be playing so deep. Looking at how shit Rooney was, it would have been better to take him off and move Gerrard up behind Welbeck/Carroll.
He's not Scholes or Xavi. That doesn't make him a shit footballer.
I agree, more or less, about the observations, but not the conclusions. Don't think he is too ill-disciplined to work in a midfield against the majority of teams in the league. Giggs was starting in midfield against barcelona, ffs (though that was obviously a mistake). And I think he has shown that he can play a more disciplined game when he needs to.
And I agree that he is not a patient passer of the ball. But like I said, that just means you need a playmaker behind him to do that. When you have that, the balance comes out fine. Certainly did with Alonso.
You need both a playmaker and a destroyer for Gerrard to really function and for that he isn't really a central midfielder.
Gerrard would have been most effective, doing the role Milner was doing. But I don't think his ego would have allowed it. Rooney had the same issue, he should have picked up on Pirlo but his ego and lack of fitness got in the way and Welbeck had to do it befgore he got taken off.
Gerrard would have been most effective, doing the role Milner was doing. But I don't think his ego would have allowed it. Rooney had the same issue, he should have picked up on Pirlo but his ego and lack of fitness got in the way and Welbeck had to do it befgore he got taken off.
It doesn't take some sort of genius to work out that our midfield would have been terrible based on the players that were picked to be honest. I worked that out and I'm no mystic. Plus Carrick is a better central midfielder than those that were selected.
Given what England have served up over the years, it would've served them better to play Gerrard right with the license to roam. Play a compact solid midfield 3 and let Rooney + Gerrard + 1 more to add the creativity.
I have alot of respect for Gerrard as a player. However, he suffers from what alot of English players do. They need a team centred around them. They seem to be uncomfortable in a limited yet disciplined role required at the international level.
He CAN play in a midfield 2 but against most strong teams, it won't give him the freedom to do his best. He should just be playing off the striker or on the wing. He isn't ever going to be a deep lying playmaker either.
I have alot of respect for Gerrard as a player. However, he suffers from what alot of English players do. They need a team centred around them. They seem to be uncomfortable in a limited yet disciplined role required at the international level.
He CAN play in a midfield 2 but against most strong teams, it won't give him the freedom to do his best. He should just be playing off the striker or on the wing. He isn't ever going to be a deep lying playmaker either.
So basically he judged the situation and he did rule himself out, didn't he?
It' completely fine if a footballer thinks that it's not worth destroying his vacations(after a long tiring season), playing in Euros where there is little hope of winning it.
We should respect that decision rather than make it look like Roy ignored him.