The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

The Question: is Steven Gerrard good for Liverpool?

It seems almost heretical to say it, but could it be that Liverpool's captain Steven Gerrard is not the solution but the problem?

When Steven Gerrard came off the bench against Newcastle United on 30 December and transformed a 1-1 draw into a 3-1 win, the assumption was that, with their talisman back after an ankle injury, Liverpool would kick on. That win took them to fifth and with Chelsea and Arsenal faltering, Newcastle seemingly beginning to feel the effects of their comparatively slender squad and Tottenham being Tottenham, a challenge for Champions League qualification, perhaps even third place, seemed probable.


Liverpool have won only two of their 13 league games since then. Going into Tuesday's game against Blackburn Rovers they lie eighth, level on points with Fulham and Norwich City, the two sides below them, and risk finishing outside the top eight for the first time since they returned to the top flight in 1962. They need 15 points from the six games that remain to avoid their worst points tally in a 20-team Premier League (in 2005, a failure that was mitigated by their European Cup win that year).


A Carling Cup and possible FA Cup, of course, provide some mitigation and it is actually slightly depressing that league position apparently means so much more than trophies but it is still reasonable to ask what on earth has gone wrong since the turn of the year. Take a cohesive team, add Gerrard, and the result has been a shambles.


It seems almost heretical to say it, but could it be that Gerrard is not the solution but the problem; that, fine player though he is, he has destroyed the balance of the side? When Gerrard has not started this season, Liverpool have won 48% of games played; when he has started, that drops to 9%.


In the 11 games Gerrard has started, Liverpool have scored an average of 1.00 goal per game while conceding 1.36; without him it is goals for 1.24, goals against 0.90. They have taken 1.67 points per game without him, just 0.73 with. Project that over a season: without Gerrard, Liverpool would get 63 points, which last season would have seen them finish fifth; with Gerrard, they would get 28, certain relegation form.


Those figures include six games in which Gerrard has come off the bench. In two of those, against Everton away in October and against Newcastle, he helped turn draws into wins. In the other four, the result has remained unchanged, although Manchester City did increase a 2-0 lead to 3-0.


It was apparent even under Rafael Benítez that Gerrard was at his best when he could be let off the leash, when the situation was so desperate that he could be released from responsibility and told simply to swash buckles and storm barns all over the pitch as he did against Olympiakos in December 2004, against Milan in the 2005 European Cup final and against West Ham in the FA Cup final the following year. In that regard, he fitted perfectly the Roy of the Rovers template and, as Scott Murray argued in The Blizzard (a piece reproduced here), there has been no figure so pernicious in English football history as Roy Race.



"While little schemers from Italy dreamt of becoming fantasistas, conducting their team-mates to victory from the centre of the park, while South American youths honed their skills and picked up a few street-smarts in the dusty favelas, hoping to put it all together in a gambeta," he wrote, "thanks to Roy Race, English children spent their formative years sat on their arses being taught a very strange lesson: it doesn't really matter what you do for 89 minutes because a superhero will turn up eventually, welt the ball into the net, and you can all go home with your cups and medals.

"Such was the sermon preached from the Melchester pulpit. In the big games, Rovers were perfectly happy to wing it, knowing Racey would amble along to the rescue at some point. As a result, nobody would bother preparing for anything. More often than not, Melchester would yawn on to the pitch, and end up a goal or two down not long after kick-off. A Race-inspired comeback was nearly always on the cards."


Nobody ever mentions it but in terms of control, Liverpool's best performance in their 2004-05 run in the Champions League was the 0-0 draw at Juventus, where Gerrard was absent and Liverpool's midfield comprised Xabi Alonso, Igor Biscan and Antonio Núñez.


Gerrard's penchant for Hollywood passes and his tactical indiscipline are well-known, but the Opta statistics present a more nuanced picture. Shots on target and shots to goal are virtually unchanged with and without Gerrard while possession (55.22% to 56.50%) and pass completion (80.79% to 81.06%) improve marginally with him in the side.

Cross completion drops from 21.21% to 15.19% when Gerrard comes into the side, while the number of tackles won falls from 75.49% to 71.90%. That latter figure perhaps hints at what he does in terms of disrupting the shape of the midfield. That said, the injury to Lucas Leiva who, remarkably, has still made more tackles than anybody else in the Liverpool squad this season despite having been injured since November, partly accounts for that fall-off and has clearly been a significant factor in Liverpool's stumble.


But what is really telling is the impact Gerrard has on other players. All six of Charlie Adam's assists and both his goals have come when Gerrard has not started. Jordan Henderson's tackle success rate drops from 92.59% when Gerrard does not start to only 63.64% when he does. Jay Spearing wins 60.71% of duels when Gerrard does not start; only 54.76% when he does. When Gerrard is there, they have to adjust to different roles and, so far, that seems to have had a detrimental effect.


The phenomenon of a big player dwarfing those around him, particularly when, as in the case of Henderson and Adam, they are low on confidence, is well-known. The tendency, understandably, is to give the ball to the star, to try to feed him at every opportunity: Cesc Fábregas described it happening at Arsenal in Thierry Henry's last full season, while an overreliance on Samuel Eto'o has clearly hampered Cameroon. Gerrard offers an excuse, an easy way for his team-mates to dodge responsibility.


It is not that he is a bad player, far from it and Lucas's absence is almost certainly a bigger reason for Liverpool's slide than Gerrard's return but it could be that his impact is detrimental. That is the problem with building up individuals in football: no matter how gifted he is, it is never just about one man.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/apr/10/the-question-steven-gerrard-liverpool

Raises some very interesting statistics. Not sure if it boils it down to statistics too much and thereafter creates something out of nothing. If Gerrard plays tonight, definately something I'll be keeping an eye out for.
The article is spot on. For me, Gerrard has no future in central midfield and should either be played behind the striker or out wide on the right. I think he has only got a couple of years in him playing at this level. We should be looking to build the first team without him next season.
(edited 12 years ago)
It's not so much Gerrard playing, it's where he is playing. He has never been, and never will be, a central midfielder no matter how many people say that he is. The stats prove this. If you look back through the years Gerrard's best, and most productive seasons, have been on the right wing and as the second striker. When he's played for England in central midfield he's been underwhelming, but when given more license to attack for England in a 5 man midfield he's done better, and it's the same with us. Against Everton at Anfield this season Gerrard was at his inspirational attacking best, but he barely spent any time in central midfield that night and spent a lot of it in the attacking third.

The fact of all this is that Steven Gerrard is most effective in the attacking third of the pitch and he always has been, dropping him down to central midfield stifles not only him but the whole team, get him out of there and things will improve. That's not going to happen though.
Reply 6243
I almost posted a couple of days ago about how Gerrard doesn't suit a pass and move system of football. Now it'll just seem like I'm jumping on the 'Gerrard is a problem' bandwagon. :frown:
Reply 6244
Gerrard isn't a problem, like Chris pointed out, it's where he's playing that's the problem.
It's interesting since it especially means we can't move to a 4-4-2 with Gerrard in the side and that we should be playing 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 if Gerrard is in the side.

No reason why we can't play to a system and aim to groom a replacement. Can I see Gerrard playing 60 games next season? No. So why can't we have a bright youngster playing that role for 20 games? Wonder if Henderson is seen to be that player, seeing as he usually plays further forward or if it's just because no one is sure who should play where..

Makes it more essential we buy a central midfield player in the summer.
We shouldn't be playing 4-4-2 anyway, it's antiquated and ineffective. None of the top sides in Europe play it and build their sides around 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1. That's what we should be doing.

Hell, if you want to go to an extreme, watch Barca and see that they don't even play with a striker.
Reply 6247
I think in the long run, we will move to a 4-2-3-1. It's what the reserves and U-18s play and I think it's what we will end up playing. Either a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-2-2-2 that would be similar to what we did at the end of last season. The transfers we need in the summer reflect positions that we lack in for either formation: a DM, an attacking playmaker/winger and a striker.
Original post by ChrisWilliams
We shouldn't be playing 4-4-2 anyway, it's antiquated and ineffective. None of the top sides in Europe play it and build their sides around 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1. That's what we should be doing.

Hell, if you want to go to an extreme, watch Barca and see that they don't even play with a striker.


Tbh I think it's more about being pragmatic. The reason 4-4-2 shouldn't be played is because most teams play with 2 centrebacks now. It means there isn't enough space for both strikers and both line up directly opposite a defender.

The reason why 4-2-3-1 looks so effective is because you play between the lines but also look to attack the gap between the defenders. Tbh I don't think we explain that to our players clearly enough when we're looking to attack. Only Kuyt really looked to do that and get between fullback and CB.

If we were to play a side looking to play with 3 CBs (Napoli or other Italian teams) then there is no reason why we couldn't play 2 strikers.

Imo the evolution should be looking to play 4-1-2-3 in an attacking sense (that's a lie, it should really be one deep covering CB, one CB comfortable on the ball, 2 wingbacks up the pitch, one deep midfield player to cover/be a back option, two attacking midfield players looking to dominate the one holding player and then 3 attackers looking to play between the gaps between the two CBs and then between CB and fullbacks. I think that's what Barcelona look to play. Tactically it makes perfect sense against a deep 4-4-2/4-5-1.
Original post by Zerforax


Imo the evolution should be looking to play 4-1-2-3 in an attacking sense (that's a lie, it should really be one deep covering CB, one CB comfortable on the ball, 2 wingbacks up the pitch, one deep midfield player to cover/be a back option, two attacking midfield players looking to dominate the one holding player and then 3 attackers looking to play between the gaps between the two CBs and then between CB and fullbacks. I think that's what Barcelona look to play. Tactically it makes perfect sense against a deep 4-4-2/4-5-1.


I don't think that's what Barcelona play. Sometimes they play 2-3-2-3 which is just confusing but they can do that because they're that fluid and that good. Barcelona are probably the exception to anything I've every seen and we really shouldn't be looking to replicate how they play, it'll take us a very long time and we'll more than likely fail at doing so.
Some vital imformation released by one of the young lads today;

Jordan Lussey @jordanlussey
Had hiccups for the last 30mins #anychance!!!
How you guys finding the great heights of 7th place?
Original post by ChrisWilliams
It's a bit too soon to know whether he'll carry on scoring or Demba Ba it and not score for a Torresesque amount of time.


Don't insult Demba Ba like that. It's only been 7 games for Demba. Plus since Cisse came Demba has been playing more on the left. Also i think he's playing through an injury.
Original post by ChrisWilliams
I don't think that's what Barcelona play. Sometimes they play 2-3-2-3 which is just confusing but they can do that because they're that fluid and that good. Barcelona are probably the exception to anything I've every seen and we really shouldn't be looking to replicate how they play, it'll take us a very long time and we'll more than likely fail at doing so.


It was more a case of trying to provide an example of a team (and the best one) of how they look to expose space and gaps in the opposition to break them down.

I think our biggest problem is that we set up and then end up directly man for man and therefore make no inroads or progess.

I've missed the last couple of games so should be interesting to see how we do tonight. Wonder how many we'll rest for the weekend.

I wouldn't mind seeing Carroll, Maxi, Kuyt, Downing, Adam, Henderson and saying - we care more about the weekend than 3 points today, go earn yourself a place in the semi-final but no pressure on today's result.
Original post by Deshi
Same with Ben Arfa, was always regarded as one of the best French prospects, if Newcastle have taught us anything it's DON'T BUY BRITISH.


HBA was Anelka-esq before Newcastle though. So it was a massive gamble on our part to sign him. Espeically as we completed a £5.8m permament deal for him while he was still out with his broken leg. Quite risky.

While Cabaye, Tiote and Santon were proven abroad. Them replacing experienced premiership players such as Barton, Nolan and Jose Enrique was a risk.

Our young players we have brought in are very exciting too; Vuckic, Abeid etc.

And along with our ambitions to bring in the best British youth in the future.

Its looking very promising on Tyneside.


I can't wait to see what new gems Mr Carr finds us for next season :coma:
Reply 6255
There has always been a weird statistic with Gerrard. Nearly every single season we have had a better win percentage without him than with him.
Original post by Mess.
There has always been a weird statistic with Gerrard. Nearly every single season we have had a better win percentage without him than with him.


Tbh between 2002 and 2010, he played 30+ league games.

(34, 34, 30, 32, 36, 34, 31, 33 - although many may be sub appearences)

So any stats are going to be skewed despite being very few games.
Original post by L18
The rational thing to do would of been not to sack him in the first place.


Hahaha, true dat. But i'd say your position is similar to that of Inter Milan's, all of the players are there, basically the same ones that have been challenging for a top 4 spot over the past few years, but somethings not right.
Reply 6258
Original post by DontBeJelBeReem
Hahaha, true dat. But i'd say your position is similar to that of Inter Milan's, all of the players are there, basically the same ones that have been challenging for a top 4 spot over the past few years, but somethings not right.


How are we similar to Inter Milan :confused: Some of our most integral players from during that period have left.
The closest team to Inter in that respect is Chelsea - Liverpool only really have Reina, Agger, Carragher, Kuyt and Gerrard left.

Latest