Steven Gerrard

Suedesi

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
24,585
Location
New York City
He is a very talented player but often when he plays CM for Liverpool or England, he seems to unbalance the team. When he bombs fwd the back are exposed. So what's his best role? Can be suited to move further up field? Part of a three man midfield, or paired with a decent RB (not Brown) he could be very effective on the right perhaps?

It will be fascinating to see how Capello uses him - obviously he is highly rated by the Italian given that he made him captain.
 
He's hardly 'made' him captain yet though?
 
I honestly don't care anymore. I used to think Gerrard's best position was as an attacking midfielder playing alongside a holding player. But he still doesn't perform that well in that role. In some ways his best position might be to just play him in a free role so he just can run around like a headless chicken and occasionally score a stunning goal.
 
It's obviously my biased opinion, but I truly believe he would be a top class player now if he had chosen to join us some years ago when SAF was interested. But instead, the hatred was too much for him to handle, so he passed that opportunity. Him and Scholes together would be absolutely drooling.
 
We'll never know about him and Scholes, but I think Liverpool should have done the trade with Chelsea and used that money (plus the wages they gave up) to buy two high quality players. He is never the most consistent player, but when turns it on he is quality = part of the reason why LFC struggle in the League, but can produce a decent cup performance.
 
since 1987 said:
I still thinks he should play as a defensive midfielder, he is not good enough to be a playmaker (which he strangly seems to think himself..).
Click to expand...
True he's not a playmaker with England. Strangely Gerrard's pass to Cole that led to England's first goal was not any kind of play at all...horrible.
Strangely,his pinpoint cross for the second goal was also a non play by Gerrard. Strangely,Capello wasn't about to take him out for fear of losing his first match in charge.
He's just not good enough to be a playmaker.
 
njred said:
True he's not a playmaker with England. Strangely Gerrard's pass to Cole that led to England's first goal was not any kind of play at all...horrible.
Strangely,his pinpoint cross for the second goal was also a non play by Gerrard. Strangely,Capello wasn't about to take him out for fear of losing his first match in charge.
He's just not good enough to be a playmaker.
Click to expand...

U r right! he is not good enough to be a playmaker, as Diego, as Scholes as Maradona, as Ronaldinho. Thats why u lot dont have any consistency, cause Steviemee is your playmaker and he varys very much in form. Whereas a playmaker is the most important player a player who makes the plays decides the tempo and how the team should perform. Strangly u took the example from when Ingurland beat a poor Swiss, maybe thats because u couldnt find an example where he has made significant passes, crosses (recently) etc. I still think he could have been worldclass playing as a defensive midfielder instead of a overrated "playmaker".
 
since 1987 said:
U r right! he is not good enough to be a playmaker, as Diego, as Scholes as Maradona, as Ronaldinho. Thats why u lot dont have any consistency, cause Steviemee is your playmaker and he varys very much in form. Whereas a playmaker is the most important player a player who makes the plays decides the tempo and how the team should perform. Strangly u took the example from when Ingurland beat a poor Swiss, maybe thats because u couldnt find an example where he has made significant passes, crosses (recently) etc. I still think he could have been worldclass playing as a defensive midfielder instead of a overrated "playmaker".
Click to expand...

Eh...how successful was Scholes for England as a playmaker ?

Gerrard is good enough just that England have a dearth of strikers who are genuine goal scorers
 
since 1987 said:
Im not talking about Ingurland my friend:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

since 1987 said:
Again, im not talking about Ingurland my friend:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


If you are talking about Liverpool, then playmakers like Scholes would have done far worse for them than Gerrard has. Most top class playmakers require top class players alongside them to be effective at the highest level and dippers dont really have many above average players.

Its one thing to be a playmaker in teams featuring RVN, Rooney, Ronaldo, Giggs etc. A lot more difficult if you play beside Crouch, Kuyt or Cisse. IMO, an average Liverpool would have been far worse of if they had a player like Scholes instead of Gerrard.
 
Personally, I'd be tempted to play him right wing in a 4-2-3-1. The 'Ronaldo position' so to speak when we play that formation. The problem is that Joe Cole would probably be the left winger, and you wouldn't get any width with those two. One of the sides needs to be more of a natural winger, and England are stronger in that department on the right.

If he grew a brain and developed his positioning he'd be perfect for one of the deeper central midfield positions, but it's looking more and more likely that that's not going to happen. He simply runs around where-ever he wants to, which simply doesn't work all the time when you're playing in the centre of midfield.

If it weren't for Rooney then I'd have no hesitation in playing Gerrard as the deeper striker. Would solve so many problems.
 
Instant Karma said:
If you are talking about Liverpool, then playmakers like Scholes would have done far worse for them than Gerrard has. Most top class playmakers require top class players alongside them to be effective at the highest level and dippers dont really have many above average players.

Its one thing to be a playmaker in teams featuring RVN, Rooney, Ronaldo, Giggs etc. A lot more difficult if you play beside Crouch, Kuyt or Cisse. IMO, an average Liverpool would have been far worse of if they had a player like Scholes instead of Gerrard.
Click to expand...

Even though you're probably going to get lambasted for that, I have to agree with you. Gerrard has some urgency about his game and will (usually) run his tits off for the team.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Gerrard has some urgency about his game and will (usually) run his tits off for the team.
Click to expand...
That's the problem. He runs too much. Gerrard basically is a great individual, but because he runs around everywhere he can't make the team as a whole play good football, the way that Scholes does to us and that Cesc does for you. Generally when Liverpool play well it's because Alonso is doing that role, and Gerrard is more of an impact player who'll make the most of the ball when he does get it.

Of course, because of his style and his skill he'll sometimes drag Liverpool kicking and screaming to three points, similar to what Rooney was doing with us a few seasons ago. But he won't often be the main playmaker in making the team as a whole play beautiful stuff on a consistent basis.

In saying that, Scholes didn't do it early in his career either. It wasn't until about 02-03 that he started being the one controlling us around. Whether that was because he didn't have the experience to do it yet, or whether he simply let Keane & Beckham be the main playmakers, nobody will even know.
 
MadDogg said:
That's the problem. He runs too much. Gerrard basically is a great individual, but because he runs around everywhere he can't make the team as a whole play good football, the way that Scholes does to us and that Cesc does for you. Generally when Liverpool play well it's because Alonso is doing that role, and Gerrard is more of an impact player who'll make the most of the ball when he does get it.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've thought that's right for some time, Gerrard doesn't control the play from midfield (always anonymous against Arsenal) and his impact is mostly as a have-a-go-hero. A lot of people will disagree though.
 
peterstorey said:
Yeah I've thought that's right for some time, Gerrard doesn't control the play from midfield (always anonymous against Arsenal) and his impact is mostly as a have-a-go-hero. A lot of people will disagree though.
Click to expand...

Bollocks....control the play wont quite work as well for Liverpool. If you put Gerrard in the Derby midfield, he'd win more points for them than either Fabregas or Scholes would. An average team needs someone who will take the game by the scruff of the neck whereas an elite team needs a playmaker.
 
Instant Karma said:
Bollocks....control the play wont quite work as well for Liverpool. If you put Gerrard in the Derby midfield, he'd win more points for them than either Fabregas or Scholes would. An average team needs someone who will take the game by the scruff of the neck whereas an elite team needs a playmaker.
Click to expand...
That's entirely possible but completely irrelevant. Gerrard is being assessed as a "world class " central midfielder playing for a top 4 team.
 
Instant Karma said:
Bollocks....control the play wont quite work as well for Liverpool. If you put Gerrard in the Derby midfield, he'd win more points for them than either Fabregas or Scholes would. An average team needs someone who will take the game by the scruff of the neck whereas an elite team needs a playmaker.
Click to expand...

spot on instant...er to a degree. (the bold bit)


...whereas an elite team is more likely to benefit from a playmaker. (there are of course exceptions...gerrard is one. any team would benefit from him, elite or not).
 
Instant Karma said:
If you are talking about Liverpool, then playmakers like Scholes would have done far worse for them than Gerrard has. Most top class playmakers require top class players alongside them to be effective at the highest level and dippers dont really have many above average players.

Its one thing to be a playmaker in teams featuring RVN, Rooney, Ronaldo, Giggs etc. A lot more difficult if you play beside Crouch, Kuyt or Cisse. IMO, an average Liverpool would have been far worse of if they had a player like Scholes instead of Gerrard.
Click to expand...

excellent post
 
They seem to be saying Scholes would be crap in a midfield next to Hamman, Alonso or Mascherano.
 
peterstorey said:
Gerrard is being assessed as a "world class " central midfielder playing for a top 4 team.
Click to expand...

Thats because he single handedly turns a midtable team into a top 4 team and produces moments of magic to win trophies. We have been able to cope well even in the absence of Scholes and Arsenal would still finish top 4 without Cesc. But take Gerrard out and Liverpool will probably struggle to finish in the top half of the table. I doubt if any other player in the league would have the same influence on an average team and thats why he is assessed as world class - single handedly pulling them up the table with his performance.
 
Instant Karma said:
Thats because he single handedly turns a midtable team into a top 4 team and produces moments of magic to win trophies. We have been able to cope well even in the absence of Scholes and Arsenal would still finish top 4 without Cesc. But take Gerrard out and Liverpool will probably struggle to finish in the top half of the table. I doubt if any other player in the league would have the same influence on an average team and thats why he is assessed as world class - single handedly pulling them up the table with his performance.
Click to expand...
Liverpool without Gerrard are still well ahead of the rest of the PL. Gerrard excels against lower teams because his lack of discipline and real CM quality aren't exposed - against Man Utd or Arsenal he always disappears without trace.
 
Instant Karma said:
Bollocks....control the play wont quite work as well for Liverpool. If you put Gerrard in the Derby midfield, he'd win more points for them than either Fabregas or Scholes would. An average team needs someone who will take the game by the scruff of the neck whereas an elite team needs a playmaker.
Click to expand...
Derby? Yes, Gerrard probably would. But we're not talking a poor quality team (we might love to say that about Liverpool, but they aren't true poor quality).

Once you get to mid-table and above, a good playmaker will, over a period of time, be more of an asset than a more impact player. Look at Everton. Cahill is their version of Gerrard, the one who can turn games and win games that they otherwise wouldn't win. However over the course of a season it is Arteta, their playmaker, that will be more valuable and important.
 
While I agree with IK that Gerrard is a great player, I don't think he is better than Scholes. Scholes is not just a play maker, he can create and keep possession at the same time. Gerrard is obviously better at defending, but Scholes is a better finisher and better passer.
 
Dippersripper said:
are you implying that gerrard is a better player than scholes?
Click to expand...

Not at all...dont get me wrong. but in a team like liverpool where the onus is more on someone like gerrard or torres to make a difference (because in the main they are surrounded by shite) then scholes is less capable of individually winning the game in his own right. Someone like scholes needs good players around him more than someone like steven gerrard.


peterstorey said:
They seem to be saying Scholes would be crap in a midfield next to Hamman, Alonso or Mascherano.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. But with that supporting cast and the rest of the liverpool team then gerrard would be a better bet. scholes could not have carried liverpool like gerrard has at stages through the last 8 years (or whatever). He's not that sort of player.
 
GusHiddink said:
Incorrect. But with that supporting cast and the rest of the liverpool team then gerrard would be a better bet. scholes could not have carried liverpool like gerrard has at stages through the last 8 years (or whatever). He's not that sort of player.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the impact of CMs who run the game (and win it for their team) and are over-impressed with Hollywood balls and Roy of the Rovers shots.
 
Instant Karma said:
Bottom line - Gerrard would still walk into any team in the world including United and Arsenal. Does anyone actually think he isn't good enough to play for their clubs?
Click to expand...
No way is Gerrard walking into an Arsenal midfield ahead of Francesc Fabregas Soler. Would we even mess about with our formation to accommodate him anywhere? Not even sure of that.
 
peterstorey said:
I think you underestimate the impact of CMs who run the game (and win it for their team) and are over-impressed with Hollywood balls and Roy of the Rovers shots.
Click to expand...

No...it is you who underestimate the difference being able to pass the ball 5 yards to a ronaldo who will run the ball 50 yards as opposed to passing the ball to a pennant who will do jack shit.

Instant Karma said:
Bottom line - Gerrard would still walk into any team in the world including United and Arsenal. Does anyone actually think he isn't good enough to play for their clubs?
Click to expand...

No one in their right minds.

peterstorey said:
No way is Gerrard walking into an Arsenal midfield ahead of Francesc Fabregas Soler. Would we even mess about with our formation to accommodate him anywhere? Not even sure of that.
Click to expand...

He'd get into arsenal's team no problems whatsoever.
 
GusHiddink said:
Not at all...dont get me wrong. but in a team like liverpool where the onus is more on someone like gerrard or torres to make a difference (because in the main they are surrounded by shite) then scholes is less capable of individually winning the game in his own right. Someone like scholes needs good players around him more than someone like steven gerrard.




Incorrect. But with that supporting cast and the rest of the liverpool team then gerrard would be a better bet. scholes could not have carried liverpool like gerrard has at stages through the last 8 years (or whatever). He's not that sort of player.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Hard to disagree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.