Neither could Gerrard tbh. He was always bombing off up the pitch and neglecting the defensive aspects of his position. I'd argue Alonso and Makalele were superior players precisely because they played a specific CM role and played it outstandingly, rather than Gerrard who tried to do everything but ended up doing nothing really well. Didn't break up opposition play, didn't control the tempo, didn't build attacks consistently. Just ran around a lot and scored the odd impressive goal. Liverpool's greatest successes of the past decade all came when Gerrard was shifted out of the CM and into a more specialised position. Istanbul happened because Hamman replaced Gerrard in CM, pushing him forwards into an attacking role and freeing him from the need to defend 2006 FA Cup happened because Gerrard played on the wing 2009 second place happened because Gerrard played as second striker
I disagree, you're picking specific games and ignoring the fact that he could play anywhere in the midfield and as the 10 role and RW that's just an indication of how good he was. He's had many a fantastic game over the years in the middle of the park and has been superb box to box getting in important defensive challenges at crucial times aswell as doing well in attack. Nothing wrong with the examples you provide Hamman was a huge influence and the change did allow Gerrard to get forward score and create. The FA cup game he was all over the pitch and brilliant, his winning goal was not from a wide position.
I don't argue that he could play anywhere in midfield, and pretty much anywhere on the park. But all the evidence suggests that, as a member of a CM pairing or even in a three man midfield, he was not as good as the six I stated, although I will give you Toure as he lacks the consistency. Imo you could pick a balanced midfield pairing from Keane, Scholes, Vieira, Alonso and Makalele, with one defensive player and one playmaker, and it could not be improved by replacing either of them with Gerrard. As an all round player Gerrard was great, but football is not about being an all round player, it's about being outstanding in your specific role, and that's where Gerrard falls down for me.
And that's where opinion kicks in I suppose I'd have Gerrard in where you would not I'd be tempted to go Keane Gerrard and ignore the DM role.
I don't think that partnership works myself. Keane was a dynamic box to box who worked best with a holding or playmaker, Ince and Scholes being the outstanding partners. Both Keane and Gerrard would be trying to play the same dynamic role.
A few years ago, United were playing at Anfield, and the press was building up the game which centered on the midfield battle between the old master (Keane) and the young pretender (Gerrard) with the opinion favouring Gerrard. After 3 or 4 crunching tackles between the two, it was obvious that the old master still had the edge over the young upstart. United went on to win the game, with Stevie me hardly getting a touch. Its OK having the wonderful Stevie in your side for the likes of Stoke, West Ham, Villa etc etc, but put him up against the top sides and he is exposed as an average middle table side. Nothing more, nothing less
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...gue-XI-2012-says-s-arguably-best-history.html Brenda is such an ar**licker. He didn't even rate Stevie Me to be good enough for the best premiership XI in 2012 (before his massive decline). And to be fair that XI is not a bad one too.
Wonder how Brenda will wriggle out of that one Christian? To me it just proves he is either thick or a classic arSe licker
Compared to over 10 years as one of the best players in the League, I wouldn't have him on the same level. Not easy mind, as they're completely different players.
You can't beat proven quality. Just like players, you need people who have shown quality at the very top level. Some (managers and players) just cannot take that extra step up. Some can only operate at their comfort level.
Such crap from start to finish, it must have been more than a few years ago and to then go and say he's average is just taking away from any proper discussion. He's scored in many a big game and against you lot and Everton on more than one occasion.
Everybody knows Rodgers talks a lot of twaddle, so its no great surprise he is now praising Stevie. None of us really care when we're doing well, but when we're not its irritating. Contract negotiation should be behind closed doors in my opinion.
Not even worth debating that mate. If people cannot praise Stevie for how good he was, especially in big games, then they're a moron quite frankly. Debate of who is best is however down to opinion - one of which us and them will never agree!
While winning literally **** all. That's the point. Everyone goes on about how influential and instrumental Gerrard is and yet he's not won a bean. Compared to Cantona who was absolutely instrumental in turning a team of also-rans into winning the league four times out five. And yes, winning it does matter when it comes to discussing who the very top players of the PL era are. That's why Cantona IS one the PL greats and Gerrard is merely a Liverpool great.
I mean BOW, you're debating whether Benitez should come back in your sig. That to me says you accept nearly but not quite there as a success. The rest of us don't.
