Agreed But I would say he was an organiser as well - he would always tell Sturidge, Sterling and Coutinho who to press and when. Another underrated quality of the man...
I was reading the BBC news this morning and saw 'no.4 Suarez bite' and thought what ... ..... but it was actually the fourth 'door' opened on their sports Advent 'calendar' of significant events from the year
Has anybody stopped to think just how much the presence of Gerrard (both on and off the pitch) has effected and limited Rodgers ability to develop the leaders that he so badly needs.
Are you saying it is time for Gerrard to go? My feeling is that he is planning to stay for at least 2 years. But can a top football club afford to be sentimental? Don't get me wrong. Like most of us I think that Gerrard has been phenomenal for us. He is/will be a legend. But he is longer the player he was 10 years ago and his contributions have been getting less and less. For most managers the task of retiring your iconic player is the most difficult. The few who can do it have built winning teams again and again. If Gerrard goes, the team may miss him at first but will ultimately benefit from new leadership and new ambition. We just seem stuck in a rut.
Even Fergie struggling with retiring his flagging stars but at least he was able to manage them properly. Of course, it helps if you have the squad to cope with such management too. We should have that squad with the money we've spent but the fact is, we haven't.
Would someone like Paisely have kept Gerrard in the team? .. From what I read on the man, I get the impression who would be quick to drop these players. Didn't he say 'let them retire on someone else's pitch'.
I'm not even trying to say that Gerrard has a negative effect upon the club. I'm not even trying to say that he even tries to use his position to influence individuals or events. I am saying that, amongst the playing-staff he is the Big Beast of Anfield. Therefore any decision made regarding the players, tactics etc will have included, at least, a consideration of how he would feel/comment or act. Therefore even if he tries to remain silent and impartial that very silence will be interpreted by others - often incorrectly. For some clubs it is the ex-managers and players who influence things directly - even when they are no longer directly associated with the club. United already have experience of the shadow of Busby falling across the managers who followed him. Hopefully they will repeat the same history with Ferguson. With clubs like Leeds United then it was ex-players who exerted undue influence. But in defence of Rodgers, why would he chose to pick an argument with Gerrard that might cause rifts within the club?
With that in mind, how do we combat it? Only two ways for me, remove the problem or get him more involved by making him a coach.
Sun Tzu said in his epic The Art of War "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" so making Gerrard a coach would be a good managerial decision. However, I get the feeling that Gerrard is resisting such a move. Ultimately Rodgers has to bite the bullet. He either keeps attempting to work around the problem or he removes both the problem and Gerrard.
Pretty much what I had in mind along with a "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality. If the person who's reaction you are concerned about is involved in the planning discussions then you'd know what their thoughts were meaning there would no longer be the awkward silences.
