*Official* English Football Season 2010-11

[Ikki]

For me it comes down to a simple question, would you back a team with Gerrard in CM to consistently dominate possession/territory against the best sides? I don't think so. If you want quick counter-attacking, occasional long-range strikes and bursts of individual brilliance, he's your man... but I'd be reluctant to build a team around those traits.

Gerrard's never been a pass-master a la Xavi, but then again neither really were Vieira or Keane. They were more water-carriers in the Makalele mould - Vieira less so than Keane. I wouldn't back them to run possession against the best sides either in those terms and definitely wouldn't create a team around them based on that facet. That wasn't their game. Whereas with Gerrard I'd back him to dominate against all but the very best sides and even when he wouldn't he'd still be dangerous with regards to the fact that he can single-handedly win you games.

I won't change your mind but I simply put Gerrard on another/different level to those guys. Gerrard is far better rounded as a player. He started off as a RB, moved to DM and won the treble. Started influencing matches more and won the CL as a CM. A year later he was moved to wide-right and he still scored 20+ goals. Moved behind the forward after that and another 20+ goals. That many goals and assists - even disregarding the other qualities he brings to his side - is far from an inconsistent player. For him to merely have been a strong presence in midfield and play simple/safe passes like a Keane would be a complete waste of his talent. To me there is no doubt, if Gerrard was playing for either of the other top 3 they'd have won even more titles. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[vcs]

Gerrard's never been a pass-master a la Xavi, but then again neither really were Vieira or Keane. They were more water-carriers in the Makalele mould - Vieira less so than Keane. I wouldn't back them to run possession against the best sides either in those terms and definitely wouldn't create a team around them based on that facet. That wasn't their game..

Agreed. Wouldn't call them water-carriers in the Makelele mould but they were disciplined enough to stick to their job and area of the pitch. In Vieira's case, you had Bergkamp to provide the creativity and Beckham/Scholes alongside Keane.

Basically, there are two ways of looking at it - does Gerrard try to do everything on his own because his team-mates are not good enough, or does he inhibit his team-mates because he tries too much? As always, the truth lies somewhere in between. I think Gerrard could have made his teams better as a CM if he put more trust in his team-mates.

 

[Furball]

Gerrard's never been a pass-master a la Xavi, but then again neither really were Vieira or Keane. They were more water-carriers in the Makalele mould - Vieira less so than Keane. I wouldn't back them to run possession against the best sides either in those terms and definitely wouldn't create a team around them based on that facet. That wasn't their game. Whereas with Gerrard I'd back him to dominate against all but the very best sides and even when he wouldn't he'd still be dangerous with regards to the fact that he can single-handedly win you games.

I won't change your mind but I simply put Gerrard on another/different level to those guys. Gerrard is far better rounded as a player. He started off as a RB, moved to DM and won the treble. Started influencing matches more and won the CL as a CM. A year later he was moved to wide-right and he still scored 20+ goals. Moved behind the forward after that and another 20+ goals. That many goals and assists - even disregarding the other qualities he brings to his side - is far from an inconsistent player. For him to merely have been a strong presence in midfield and play simple/safe passes like a Keane would be a complete waste of his talent. To me there is no doubt, if Gerrard was playing for either of the other top 3 they'd have won even more titles. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Rubbish.

There's absolutely no comparison between players like Keane and Vieira and Makelele.

 

[GIMH]

Jonathan Woodgate has been ruled out of the start of the season.

In other news, most goals wins a game this season and it will be three points for a win.

 

[Neil Pickup]

YouTube - Best Penalty Kick Ever? Ezequiel Calvente Penalty for Spain U19 vs Italy U19 (24/07/10)

Thought it was worth showing.

Can't figure out why the keeper's gone right so early.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh and guess how many current Arsenal contracted players have a PL medal?

Just Clichy I reckon.

Anyway, love Henry, but Big Den was something else. Best technique of any player I've ever seen. Without qualification. His touch and vision just otherwordly. &, ftr, he was widely regarded as one of the best two or three players in the world when Inter bought him from Ajax.

 

[GIMH]

Ha, I KNEW you would agree with me, well, I think you just did anyway

 

[vcs]

I find technique very hard to rate in a footballer, there are so many aspects to it. The best all-round technicians I can remember are Zidane and Bergkamp (I'm probably missing many others though).

I feel Ronaldinho at his best was a heady ****tail of technique, inspiration, and sheer WTF outrageousness that was unmatched.

 

[Jarquis]

Just Clichy I reckon.

Anyway, love Henry, but Big Den was something else. Best technique of any player I've ever seen. Without qualification. His touch and vision just otherwordly. &, ftr, he was widely regarded as one of the best two or three players in the world when Inter bought him from Ajax.

Yup. Bingo.

As for Bergkamp vs Henry, I'm not best placed to comment. I get the feeling I missed Bergkamp at his absolute best. I only have my Centurions dvd for that (Henry and Den's 100 league goals) but he was an exquisite player. I suppose I can really comment from 00/01 onwards and Henry was just something else for 4 or so seasons from then on.

 

[cpr]

Gerrard's never been a pass-master a la Xavi, but then again neither really were Vieira or Keane. They were more water-carriers in the Makalele mould - Vieira less so than Keane. I wouldn't back them to run possession against the best sides either in those terms and definitely wouldn't create a team around them based on that facet. That wasn't their game. Whereas with Gerrard I'd back him to dominate against all but the very best sides and even when he wouldn't he'd still be dangerous with regards to the fact that he can single-handedly win you games.

I won't change your mind but I simply put Gerrard on another/different level to those guys. Gerrard is far better rounded as a player. He started off as a RB, moved to DM and won the treble. Started influencing matches more and won the CL as a CM. A year later he was moved to wide-right and he still scored 20+ goals. Moved behind the forward after that and another 20+ goals. That many goals and assists - even disregarding the other qualities he brings to his side - is far from an inconsistent player. For him to merely have been a strong presence in midfield and play simple/safe passes like a Keane would be a complete waste of his talent. To me there is no doubt, if Gerrard was playing for either of the other top 3 they'd have won even more titles. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Sorry, but if i was building an all time Prem XI, when it comes to midfield, Vieira would be the first name on the sheet. Whilst I wont begrude Gerrards ability, you've made him sound like the greatest player ever there... So he scored 20+ goals in all comps as an attacking player for a few seasons, you'd expect him to TBH. Don't get me wrong, 45 in 96 is damn good, but its rare to see Gerrard exert all these qualities in one go. He's been very good in reshaping himself over the years, but if he's playing an attacking role, he doesn't offer the defensive side much. Vieira would constantly do it all. Nothing more impressive than Vieira bringing the ball out of midfield and carving holes for Henry (i daresay Henry owes a hell of a lot to Vieira).

Keane prior to his injury in 99 was on a par with Gerrard for all round influence in my eyes. Think its fair to say they were both as equally important to their clubs (Keane's role in getting to us to the final in 99 being a fine example).

 

[Ikki]

Rubbish.

There's absolutely no comparison between players like Keane and Vieira and Makelele.

To clarify, I am talking about their type of passing. Vieira a bit more hazy because he did have games where he owned matches (see the FA cup final they lost to us) but certainly with Keane they weren't the type to dominate matches by way of their passing and you wouldn't build a team around them because of their passing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yup. Bingo.

As for Bergkamp vs Henry, I'm not best placed to comment. I get the feeling I missed Bergkamp at his absolute best. I only have my Centurions dvd for that (Henry and Den's 100 league goals) but he was an exquisite player. I suppose I can really comment from 00/01 onwards and Henry was just something else for 4 or so seasons from then on.

Chief Cheateur is only 'something else' purely because he got the ball so much.

It's like saying how awesome Larsson was in Jockland because he got a hatful of chances every game. Then as usual people gloss over or forget the missed opportunities and remember the ones that are converted.

Regardless of what other people think Chief Cheateur wasn't and isn't that great a finisher. He's not that great on the ball either. Hence his rapid decline once his pace went.

 

[Cevno]

Scholes Was pretty much a box to box midfielder in his prime. Though he played as a AM sometimes ,most of the time he contributed defensively a lot too ,and then also popped up scoring goals at the other end.
In his current avatar he has started playing more deeper though and has become a deep lying playmaker and played as the deepest united midfielder on many occasions.

Keane and Viera were more defensive minded box to box midfielders while as Gerrard(for 3 seasons) and Scholes were more attack minded Box to box midfielder.

The only player i see in the premiership currently playing to that level as a box to box midfielder ,specially in a 4-4-2 is Michael Essien.
He is pretty much a complete midfielder and box to box.
Fletcher is Box to box as well currently but a lever lower.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, but if i was building an all time Prem XI, when it comes to midfield, Vieira would be the first name on the sheet. Whilst I wont begrude Gerrards ability, you've made him sound like the greatest player ever there... So he scored 20+ goals in all comps as an attacking player for a few seasons, you'd expect him to TBH. Don't get me wrong, 45 in 96 is damn good, but its rare to see Gerrard exert all these qualities in one go. He's been very good in reshaping himself over the years, but if he's playing an attacking role, he doesn't offer the defensive side much. Vieira would constantly do it all. Nothing more impressive than Vieira bringing the ball out of midfield and carving holes for Henry (i daresay Henry owes a hell of a lot to Vieira).

Keane prior to his injury in 99 was on a par with Gerrard for all round influence in my eyes. Think its fair to say they were both as equally important to their clubs (Keane's role in getting to us to the final in 99 being a fine example).

He also scored 20+ on the wing and very few players manage that. I probably do rate him much higher than you because for me there has been no more complete player than Gerrard in at least the last two decades. No one has had the physical attributes as well as technical, with the ability to play multiple positions to a very high standard. Gerrard in the last few years has certainly not played with all those qualities at once because, as I alluded to earlier, box-to-box midfielders are essentially dead. The Gerrard that did it all existed from about 00-06.

I disagree with you naming Vieira ahead of Gerrard for simply the reason that Vieira whilst maybe better in defence the balance is better with Gerrard. Neither Vieira nor Keane would ever carry a side like Gerrard did with Liverpool in 05. That's why he is my #1 name on the sheet. Because if I do not know who else I am going to get in 'my' side, I at least have one player who can play so many positions to a very high standard and who can play DM yet also play up front and score 20 a season if need be. You can't say that with the other two.

This is one of my favourite videos of Gerrard. It's not really a highlight reel per se as it's quite random (it's not really the "best" of him) and it's quite old, but it shows Gerrard towards probably his peak with respect to the box-to-box midfield position:

Gerrard on Vimeo

 

[Jarquis]

Neither Vieira nor Keane would ever carry a side like Gerrard did with Liverpool in 05.

I don't think it's an issue that they couldn't, particularly for Vieira. But, arguably, they weren't needed to. Had Vieira played for Arsenal like Gerrard did for Liverpool, we'd have been a seriously disadvantaged side because of it IMO.

 

[Cevno]

Gerrard's never been a pass-master a la Xavi, but then again neither really were Vieira or Keane. They were more water-carriers in the Makalele mould - Vieira less so than Keane. I wouldn't back them to run possession against the best sides either in those terms and definitely wouldn't create a team around them based on that facet. That wasn't their game. Whereas with Gerrard I'd back him to dominate against all but the very best sides and even when he wouldn't he'd still be dangerous with regards to the fact that he can single-handedly win you games.

That is wrong on so many levels.
Keane was a water carrier only in his last few years at united. He was complete box to box before that and scored crucial goals as well.Though among the two top box to box midfielders united had he was the more defensive of the two whereas Scholes was the more offensive off the two and used to run games offensively like gerrard through his passing and scored Goals. At nottingham Forest Keane was played in the scholes gerrard role and excelled there too before his move,if i am not wrong though not as attacking as the other two.

Viera became the defensive of the two man central midfield at Arsenal when Petit was there as Petit played further forward, though viera distributed from deep.But after he left along with Gilberto,Viera started playing as the attacking of the midfield two and was the chief distributor from the centre from Arsenal.

While Makelele throughout his career was only a defensive midfielder or the third centre back and just kept it simple and disrupted the opposition. Though he was bloody good at it he was not as multi-dimensional as Keane and Viera.

 

[Cevno]

I don't think it's an issue that they couldn't, particularly for Vieira. But, arguably, they weren't needed to. Had Vieira played for Arsenal like Gerrard did for Liverpool, we'd have been a seriously disadvantaged side because of it IMO.

Keane had spells where playing alongside Butt he carried united in games,even alongside Scholes sometimes.
Though he was not a prolific goalscorer he pretty much set the tone for the game and set the tempo of it on many occasions even against top class opposition. Juventus away in 1999 CL comes to mind.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think it's an issue that they couldn't, particularly for Vieira. But, arguably, they weren't needed to. Had Vieira played for Arsenal like Gerrard did for Liverpool, we'd have been a seriously disadvantaged side because of it IMO.

Bah...do you really think they could? I think it's revisionism to even suggest it. Paddy scored 29 goals in his whole Arsenal career; Gerrard has scored that in almost 1 season alone. There's very little suggesting he could carry a side on the attack side of it. Especially if he had played for a team like Liverpool who at that time were full of also rans like Mellor, Diao, Traore, Nunez, etc. Paddy for pretty much all of his career had a much stronger team than Gerrard did that season and never even got to a final, let alone won it. IIRC, in his entire career at Arsenal they only got to the quarters once.

I agree that they didn't need to because for both Keane and Vieira the more defensive role they played suited their teams perfectly as they had enough firepower elsewhere. But do I think they could step up to the extent to practically lead an attack if their teams needed them to? Not for an entire tournament. A game here, or there, but I would strongly disagree they could be the attacking focal point of their team for an entire tourney. They simply lacked the attributes. Paddy was IMO better going forward than Keane - although Keane at Nottingham Forrest did get forward much more - and had more creativity with his passing.

 

[Jarquis]

I think you have a pretty valid point. i don't think Vieira would've offered as much as Gerrard going forward, no. But I think he did have that aspect to his game, it just wasn't as strong as other parts and just as importantly, it was needed as much.

I'm guessing when you mention "final" and "tourney" you mean the Champions League. I will point out though, that to carry your team through the Champions League you only need to contribute for "a game here or there". To win the Champions League you have to win what? A handful of games?

 

[Cevno]

If you want to compare the type of midfielder Gerrard was in his prime,Scholes would be a more valid comparison then Keane and Viera.
The attacking of the box to box midfielders vs the defensive box to box midfielders.