banana wrote:I agree with Stu on most things.
Gerrard, although a good player, ain't no messiah.
He is first and foremost a physical player. Good heavy shot. Good upper body strenght. Good pace.
But his shortcomings are also obvious. Lack of calm, composure and coolness. Lack of creativity and the "zidane factor".
He ain't the best reader of the game and he is far from able to position himself or cover as much space or close down the opponent as the best box to box or defensive midfielders are.
I don't think he is good enough to play centrally in a 4-4-2 setup. If the system has 3 midfielder the there is room for him in a attacking role. For me a player like Paul Scholes is clearly a better midfielder. Both good at going forward, defending and keeping possession while being creative.
I hope Gerrard can improve his mental attributes with age. His skill level will probably not improve as he will never have amazing control, flair or technical skill.
To sum up; I like him. But he is far from being as good as some people think.
I disagree hugely with this post.
1) He's not just good, he's exceptionally good.
2) He's an immense athlete in every respect.
3) Few players in the history of football have managed to combine the all round ability possessed by someone like Gerrard with the skill and intelligence of someone Zidane.
4) Paul Scholes can't tackle for sh!t, he has absolutely nothing on Gerrard defensively.
5) To sum up, he's been our best player for the past 5 years, he's one of our best players of all time, and one of the best English midfielders of all time.