[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[gumboots]

His interviews are also top of the boring list. Makes most players sound exciting and dynamic in contrast

[Al]

Well they stayed up with a good proven manager, we should learn?

Dann was always a good player. Just another who was rounded on on here unjustly.

[thenodrog]

What a load of tripe. Your getting worse. Of course he was world class for two to three years at the very least. Don't listen to me, just take King Kenny's or Souness'es word for it, or do they know jack sh*t as well? Why did Ferguson and Mourinho want him so much? Both clueless?

Gerrard leaves Liverpool having won the Champions League, Uefa Cup, two FA Cups and three League Cups. He was man of the match in the 2005 Champions League final victory against AC Milan. He scored in CL Cup finals, FA Cup finals, League Cup finals and I think also the Eufa Cup. A bit like Shearer, could have played for any team in World football and would have a medal collection as long as his arm but for staying with Liverpool. One of the very best players in the PL for the last 15 years. Top, top, player, could have played in about 5 positions for Liverpool and still been first choice.

Your bias affects your balance.

Obviously your newspaper has red on the front page.

I rely on my eyes. World class my arse. If stevie g is world class just how would you describe the likes of zidane, gullit, iniesta, xavi, toure, vierra? Where would gazza figure in your list? Gerrard is a top player without a doubt but 'world class'??? Behave.

[den]

Obviously your newspaper has red on the front page.

I rely on my eyes. World class my arse. If stevie g is world class just how would you describe the likes of zidane, gullit, iniesta, xavi, toure, vierra? Where would gazza figure in your list? Gerrard is a top player without a doubt but 'world class'??? Behave.

Depends on how you see "world class". I see it as being good enough to be part of any team in the world - as I believe Gerrard was. The players you mention could be seen as some of the best players ever. There's a difference there.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Obviously your newspaper has red on the front page.

I rely on my eyes. World class my arse. If stevie g is world class just how would you describe the likes of zidane, gullit, iniesta, xavi, toure, vierra? Where would gazza figure in your list? Gerrard is a top player without a doubt but 'world class'??? Behave.

Its all about opinions and yours are rather amusingly all over the place. If you don't truly know how to assess or judge a player you shouldnt really comment. As recently as last week Torres was in the paper saying Gerrard was the best player he had ever played with. What price your argument regarding all your little Spaniards then?

Like I say I can foster my own view and if incidentally it is supported by Dalglish and Souness, plus current Internationals and respected football people I can then evaluate your opinion in a wider context very easily without claiming to be the big I am.

The other players mentioned are all great players. That is not the argument. Stevie G could have been a world class full back easily, (one of the few to mark Duff easily out of the game when switched to nullify in the FA CUP at Anfield - Nathan Blake winnder if your werent there) was already a world class centre midfield, could have made the defensive midfield slot his own in world football without breaking sweat (Makalale ) and was also quick enough and skillfull enough to play right wing, or the number 10 role. Imagine Patrick Vierra at right back , Zidan defensive centre midfield, or Gazza asked to run and track back defensively. Stevie G could do it all and for me that truly marks a special talent, not just someone who can play very effectively in one position only.

[Salgado Is Still A Hero]

Alex Ferguson said Gerrard was a top player, but not a top, top player. I agree with him.

I always considered Scholes to be superior. Gerrard lacked the intelligence to sit in CM and control the tempo of a game like Gerrard or Xavi could.

Instead, he would just choose the wrong option often too often, spraying hollywood passes about that went out for a throw in (although some would obviously be inch perfect).

Criticizing Zidane because he couldn't play defensive mid is just silly. Versatility is not even particularly important if you're good enough. Xavi for instance, doesn't score, doesn't even assist too many, can't head, can't really tackle and can't dribble yet will be remembered as one of the best midfielders of all time. Similarly, Van Nistelrooy couldn't beat a man, or score from outside the box.

His defensive capabilities were always overrated because they would be compared to Scholes. He was even being lauded for it last season when his side conceded 50 goals in the league, double the number of Chelsea's who finished behind them. It then made Hodgson think England could do well at the World Cup with just him and Henderson CM.

In my lifetime, the likes of Scholes, Shearer, Gascoigne and Ashley Cole were as good as you could find anywhere on the continent, and certainly in the same bracket. I think Gerrard falls short of that. I'm sure every manager would have loved to have had him in their team, but like Ferguson said, not a top, top player.

[davulsukur]

Alex Ferguson said Gerrard was a top player, but not a top, top player. I agree with him.

I always considered Scholes to be superior. Gerrard lacked the intelligence to sit in CM and control the tempo of a game like Gerrard or Xavi could.

Instead, he would just choose the wrong option often too often, spraying hollywood passes about that went out for a throw in (although some would obviously be inch perfect).

Criticizing Zidane because he couldn't play defensive mid is just silly. Versatility is not even particularly important if you're good enough. Xavi for instance, doesn't score, doesn't even assist too many, can't head, can't really tackle and can't dribble yet will be remembered as one of the best midfielders of all time. Similarly, Van Nistelrooy couldn't beat a man, or score from outside the box.

His defensive capabilities were always overrated because they would be compared to Scholes. He was even being lauded for it last season when his side conceded 50 goals in the league, double the number of Chelsea's who finished behind them. It then made Hodgson think England could do well at the World Cup with just him and Henderson CM.

In my lifetime, the likes of Scholes, Shearer, Gascoigne and Ashley Cole were as good as you could find anywhere on the continent, and certainly in the same bracket. I think Gerrard falls short of that. I'm sure every manager would have loved to have had him in their team, but like Ferguson said, not a top, top player.

That is a great summary

[longsiders1882]

Alex Ferguson said Gerrard was a top player, but not a top, top player. I agree with him.

I always considered Scholes to be superior. Gerrard lacked the intelligence to sit in CM and control the tempo of a game like Gerrard or Xavi could.

Instead, he would just choose the wrong option often too often, spraying hollywood passes about that went out for a throw in (although some would obviously be inch perfect).

Criticizing Zidane because he couldn't play defensive mid is just silly. Versatility is not even particularly important if you're good enough. Xavi for instance, doesn't score, doesn't even assist too many, can't head, can't really tackle and can't dribble yet will be remembered as one of the best midfielders of all time. Similarly, Van Nistelrooy couldn't beat a man, or score from outside the box.

His defensive capabilities were always overrated because they would be compared to Scholes. He was even being lauded for it last season when his side conceded 50 goals in the league, double the number of Chelsea's who finished behind them. It then made Hodgson think England could do well at the World Cup with just him and Henderson CM.

In my lifetime, the likes of Scholes, Shearer, Gascoigne and Ashley Cole were as good as you could find anywhere on the continent, and certainly in the same bracket. I think Gerrard falls short of that. I'm sure every manager would have loved to have had him in their team, but like Ferguson said, not a top, top player.

Scholes was without question superior, easily the best English midfielder of the last 30 years along with Gazza - yet the England manager chose to shunt him to left of a midfield to accommodate Lampard and Gerrard. Shows you some fottball managers really are helmets.

In fact I think I agree with pretty much your entire post.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Alex Ferguson said Gerrard was a top player, but not a top, top player. I agree with him.

I always considered Scholes to be superior. Gerrard lacked the intelligence to sit in CM and control the tempo of a game like Gerrard or Xavi could.

Instead, he would just choose the wrong option often too often, spraying hollywood passes about that went out for a throw in (although some would obviously be inch perfect).

Criticizing Zidane because he couldn't play defensive mid is just silly. Versatility is not even particularly important if you're good enough. Xavi for instance, doesn't score, doesn't even assist too many, can't head, can't really tackle and can't dribble yet will be remembered as one of the best midfielders of all time. Similarly, Van Nistelrooy couldn't beat a man, or score from outside the box.

His defensive capabilities were always overrated because they would be compared to Scholes. He was even being lauded for it last season when his side conceded 50 goals in the league, double the number of Chelsea's who finished behind them. It then made Hodgson think England could do well at the World Cup with just him and Henderson CM.

In my lifetime, the likes of Scholes, Shearer, Gascoigne and Ashley Cole were as good as you could find anywhere on the continent, and certainly in the same bracket. I think Gerrard falls short of that. I'm sure every manager would have loved to have had him in their team, but like Ferguson said, not a top, top player.

A lot of Gerrards in that sentence in bold.

I didn't criticise Zidan. Read it again. I said he was a great player. In mentioning limitations, I was demonstrating Gerrard's versatility only. Amazed you think versatility in an eleven man team and on a 100 yard football pitch isnt important.

Ferguson talks with forked tongue. Always did and has done. Damned with faint praise springs to mind. He paid 28 million for Veron. He would have loved to have taken Gerrard from Liverpool. I knew Gerrard was destined for the very top when I first saw him. A bit like Paul Scholes. Tremendous players.

[DE.]

Alex Ferguson said Gerrard was a top player, but not a top, top player. I agree with him.

I always considered Scholes to be superior. Gerrard lacked the intelligence to sit in CM and control the tempo of a game like Gerrard or Xavi could.

Instead, he would just choose the wrong option often too often, spraying hollywood passes about that went out for a throw in (although some would obviously be inch perfect).

Criticizing Zidane because he couldn't play defensive mid is just silly. Versatility is not even particularly important if you're good enough. Xavi for instance, doesn't score, doesn't even assist too many, can't head, can't really tackle and can't dribble yet will be remembered as one of the best midfielders of all time. Similarly, Van Nistelrooy couldn't beat a man, or score from outside the box.

His defensive capabilities were always overrated because they would be compared to Scholes. He was even being lauded for it last season when his side conceded 50 goals in the league, double the number of Chelsea's who finished behind them. It then made Hodgson think England could do well at the World Cup with just him and Henderson CM.

In my lifetime, the likes of Scholes, Shearer, Gascoigne and Ashley Cole were as good as you could find anywhere on the continent, and certainly in the same bracket. I think Gerrard falls short of that. I'm sure every manager would have loved to have had him in their team, but like Ferguson said, not a top, top player.

Agreed. Gerrard's limitations were cruelly exposed at the last WC, being played in a position that required more intelligence than he possesses. It was a sad way for him to bow out of the international scene, though conversely quite fitting considering the overall failure of the national team as a whole during his time as a regular.

[roverandout]

I would say he was a far better player than toure

[K-Hod]

Hmmm, I'm unconvinced by that. Yaya Toure is more two footed, better in the air (granted he's taller) and when he turns it on is unplayable.

[Rover_Shaun]

It may not be right but Gerrard will be forever remembered for slipping up after 'that huddle'

[Stuart]

Obviously your newspaper has red on the front page.

I rely on my eyes. World class my arse. If stevie g is world class just how would you describe the likes of zidane, gullit, iniesta, xavi, toure, vierra? Where would gazza figure in your list? Gerrard is a top player without a doubt but 'world class'??? Behave.

It's a bit disingenuous to compare players from different eras. If you did that then the benchmark would be one player per position. So there would only ever be 11 world class players and half of them would be dead and very likely non-comparable to the point of immortality!

[donnermeat]

I'd say Gerrard certainly was world class for a time, never to the level of Zizou of course, but nevertheless still world class. If Zidane is the benchmark for 'world class' then very very few players have achieved that status.

[Salgado Is Still A Hero]

A lot of Gerrards in that sentence in bold.

I didn't criticise Zidan. Read it again. I said he was a great player. In mentioning limitations, I was demonstrating Gerrard's versatility only. Amazed you think versatility in an eleven man team and on a 100 yard football pitch isnt important.

Ferguson talks with forked tongue. Always did and has done. Damned with faint praise springs to mind. He paid 28 million for Veron. He would have loved to have taken Gerrard from Liverpool. I knew Gerrard was destined for the very top when I first saw him. A bit like Paul Scholes. Tremendous players.

Sorry, I know you weren't properly criticizing, I was just disagreeing with your point on versatility. If somebody is good enough in that position then it doesn't matter where else they could play. For example, you could easily play Aguero on the left in a front 3, but you wouldn't because you want to play him up top. Then you also can't then say Aguero was better than Van Nistelrooy because Aguero was more versatile.

People praise Rooney's versatility when he is played in midfield or on the left but Rooney when he is on top form would never be played there, he would be played as a No. 9. Unless you're Van Gaal I suppose. But I was talking more of Rooney in Euro 2004 or the two seasons around 2010 when he was at his best.

I know versatility is massively important in a general sense but I disagree that it sets top players apart from others. They should only be judged in their actual positions imo.

Of course Ferguson would have loved to have signed him, everyone would have. He might not have meant what he said but personally I agree with the sentiment.

[Mike E]

Where's the 'Zidane unable to defend' stuff come from? One of the hardest keaners I've ever seen play football!

[onlyonejackwalker]

Sorry, I know you weren't properly criticizing, I was just disagreeing with your point on versatility. If somebody is good enough in that position then it doesn't matter where else they could play. For example, you could easily play Aguero on the left in a front 3, but you wouldn't because you want to play him up top. Then you also can't then say Aguero was better than Van Nistelrooy because Aguero was more versatile.

People praise Rooney's versatility when he is played in midfield or on the left but Rooney when he is on top form would never be played there, he would be played as a No. 9. Unless you're Van Gaal I suppose. But I was talking more of Rooney in Euro 2004 or the two seasons around 2010 when he was at his best.

I know versatility is massively important in a general sense but I disagree that it sets top players apart from others. They should only be judged in their actual positions imo.

Of course Ferguson would have loved to have signed him, everyone would have. He might not have meant what he said but personally I agree with the sentiment.

Its ok no problem, enjoying the discussion. It seems we all think he was a top player even thenodrog. Just depends on whether you believe he was world class or simply International class / European class. People have short memories and are thinking of Gerrard in 2014 / 2015. Go back 10 years and he was a totally different player.

Zidane said Scholes was one of the best midfielders he had ever seen and as Rovers fan who watched him score almost every time he played against us it is hard to disagree.

Your still losing me on the versatility point. I would say Aguero is better than RVN in a direct like for like comparison, nothing to do with anything else. The point made about Gerrard is he was good enough to play in a number of positions and did, not just the one he had specifically trained for all his life. He would have made an amazing right back for example if concentrating there. Rooney playing out wide is selected there for a reason doing a job for the team. Surely that is a positive for a manager and a credit to Rooneys ability and skill. Put Rhodes for example out wide and you saw what happened against Liverpool. Surely the ability to play in a number of different positions to a very high standard demonstrates a myriad of ingredients and qualities that the player possesses? Clearly a player with more ability than most.

Anyway I am not a Liverpool fan, but I am a fan of good football and footballers. Its only my opinion.

[West Yorks Rover]

I'd say Gerrard certainly was world class for a time, never to the level of Zizou of course, but nevertheless still world class. If Zidane is the benchmark for 'world class' then very very few players have achieved that status.

I would say Gerrard was very often a "gamechanger" at club level, but for me at international level he gave the ball away far too often

with his tendency to rush his passes in order to get the ball forward.

He probably had about 15-20 good/very good games for England, the rest were average to poor IMO.

Could have done with spending a couple of years in Italy or Spain, early in his career, he would have

returned a much better player.

[roverandout]

Where would people place pirlo, made a mockery of Gerrard at the world cup

Gerrard's best game for England was in Germany, 5-1, Gerrard at his best

[West Yorks Rover]

Where would people place pirlo, made a mockery of Gerrard at the world cup

Gerrard's best game for England was in Germany, 5-1, Gerrard at his best

Class act, hardly ever see him rush a pass, he'd pass it short or keep the ball, until a good forward pass was on, a bit like Tugay.

Unlike Gerrard.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Class act, hardly ever see him rush a pass, he'd pass it short or keep the ball, until a good forward pass was on, a bit like Tugay.

Unlike Gerrard.

The whole team was built around him.

Unlike Gerrard.

[donnermeat]

Pirlo has been a superb player for years but against Real Madrid the other night, he really showed his age. Suppose that's understandable in such a game at his age though.

[skous18]

I do remember Paul Scholes shining against top teams at age of 36

[roverandout]

I would say David Beckham was world class in his day