Defending Steven Gerrard’s Old Trafford display
It’s easy to criticize Steven Gerrard at the moment. After all, he’s having the worst season of his career, in an amazingly underwhelming campaign for Liverpool, having come so close to their first Premiership title last time out. Meanwhile, more persistent doubts remain about his true ability as a footballer. The master of modern football tactics, Arrigo Sacchi, once said that Gerrard ‘lacks what I call knowing-how-to-play football’, describing him as ‘a great footballer, but not a great player’.
The knives were out yet again after Liverpool’s 1-2 defeat at Old Trafford at the weekend. “His performance slumped again” according to The Times, whilst Daniel Taylor at the Guardian said Liverpool’s defeat came about because “Fernando Torres was isolated”, going on to say that “Gerrard had a poor game”.
But let’s look at this objectively. Firstly, take Steven Gerrard’s position. Since he has played the majority of his career as a midfielder, and in recent years has played behind the frontman in a 4-2-3-1, it’s tempting to think of Gerrard always as an attacking central midfielder. But this is not the case in many games, and at Old Trafford his role was not as an onrushing midfielder, but as an auxiliary forward in a 4-4-1-1 or almost 4-4-2 shape. Watch the game again and you’ll find Gerrard playing on a similar ‘line’ to Torres – indeed the Spaniard often drops behind Gerrard when pressuring the man on the ball, leaving Gerrard as the highest Liverpool player up the pitch.
Yet Gerrard is still seen as a central midfielder. And so when observers reflect on where Liverpool lost the game, and identify losing the midfield battle as the key reason – a fair analysis – it is Gerrard that gets the blame. Taylor’s piece claims Torres struggled as he had ‘too little support’ throughout the game, which is understandable considering how deep Liverpool’s midfield was, but the same could be said of Gerrard, considering he too was playing as a forward. It seems bizarre to sympathise with Torres in this regard, and not with Gerrard.
In a way, Gerrard was a victim of his early success in the game. The opening ten minutes was an exciting, frantic affair that looked set to produce a classic. And yet the final 80 minutes produced an awful game. Why? The main reason was that United started the game with a 4-1-4-1 formation that left Michael Carrick on his own in front of the defence. When Gerrard twice came deep, got the ball and ran at the United defence early in the first five minutes (on the second occasion beating Ferdinand, slipping the ball to Kuyt who crossed to Torres for the opener), Ferguson reacted. He shifted Fletcher deeper, alongside Carrick, meaning Gerrard would be up against two Manchester United players when he dropped deep, making it extremely difficult for him to find space.
In that sense, the fact that both sides played with two ’sitting’ midfielders seeking to nullify the one opposing ‘creative’ midfielder/deep forward (Gerrard and Park) was what produced such a tight game, which is exactly what Benitez would have wanted.
And yet still, in a game of only six clear-cut chances, Gerrard produced two of them. When Arsenal played Dennis Bergkamp ‘in the hole’ in a 4-4-1-1 shape, no-one expected him to run the midfield. That was not his job. His job was to create goalscoring opportunities for his strike partner, and in the same role, that is what Gerrard did today. Two bursts down the right-hand channel resulted in cutbacks for Torres, who completely fluffed his lines. On 62 minutes, his awful first touch sent the ball up in the air, allowing Ferdinand to clear – whilst on 90 minutes, his horrendous miskick only looped up into the air to Yossi Benayoun, whose header was saved.
Therein lies the problem with assessing the performance of creative midfielders and attackers – they will always be judged according to whether the strikers manage to convert the chances they create. On another day, Torres would have converted at least one, if not two, of those very easy chances, and Liverpool would have recorded a surprise 2-3 victory. Gerrard would have two assists and played a big role in another, and the Gerrard-Torres partnership would have been hailed yet again.
Gerrard’s body language, fitness, mentality and long-term future might all be up for question. But let’s not unfairly criticize him for this performance. He was the one Liverpool outfield player who did what he was in the side to do – and that job was to create chances, not to run the midfield.
Defending Steven Gerrard’s Old Trafford display
Hi ZM,
great stuff here. About time somebody drew the distinction between a No.10 and a second-striker. For me, the No.10 (like the central player in a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-1-2)is stationed between the lines and is as responsible for feeding the striker(s) as well as the other oncoming midfielders. Bergkamp, as you mention, was more of what Michel Platini called a “9-and-a-half” only half jokingly; in fact, the term went on to endure in French football vocabulary. It is a strike partner to a more conventional forward but also one who can link up play or offers more varied movement.
This is not to deny that certain players cannot perform both roles: Kaka and Maradona did both perhaps even Messi in recent games.
Regarding Gerrard, I still think his ideal postion is deeper and even starting from the left, either advanced on the flank (as in 4-2-2-2 or 4-2-3-1) or deeper still as a box-to-box player just wide-of-centre (in a diamond).
It was revolutionary of Benitez in the first place to have shifted Gerrard at all from midfield, but when he is expected to perform as a second-striker – now that is quite a stretch.
I really like the “neuf et demi” term, I must say.
I think the Sacchi quote sums up Gerrard’s performance and career quite well. (Brace yourself Stevie G fans, this is not a good post)
It is what undermined his game on Sunday. The fact is, he’s not a second striker (because he’s not a striker), he’s not a great central midfielder (no positional sense), he’s not a great wide player (not a winger), and not a great defensive midfielder (again no positonal sense).
Given the right circumstances, you have a world-class player. The AC Milan turnaround is a famous example and there are others. However you do feel that in a league campaign over 38 matches, you need to build a team around this guy (and Torres). The big problem is Gerrard has no true position to build around!
He’s been tried as a number 10, tried wide-left, tried centrally and at the highest level he cannot consistently perform like his talent should allow. And in my opinion it’s to do with his footballing brain – he just doesn’t have one. He’s all action, has a wonderful range of passing, unlimited strength and stamina but he just doesn’t know when and where to apply it.
But a 100% Steven Gerrard in the right position against the right team is truly devastating. Unfortunately for the 95% of other games in a season you’re only getting a fraction of his potential.
I agree with you in part. I’m a Liverpool fan and love Gerrard. But often he does show that he is lacking in the “footballing brain”. However, I think he has greatly improved in this area since Benitez has been at the club.
Shouldn’t we be looking at the “problem” the other way around, I mean, why does Benitez change Stevie’s position so much? For me, because he can perform quite well in all of those, but that also means he’s not able to play a full string of matches (10 or more) in the same position. A player needs to know his whereabounts on the pitch, also taking into account the rest of the team. Let’s not forget as well the tactical system of Liverpool: it should also stabilize enough to allow players, not only G., to find their marks on the pitch.
I agree that SG is not a nr.10, nor a 9.5; he’s too good attacking to be a nr.6 (defensive mid sitting in front of the defense). For me Stevie is simply the best nr.8 in the business if you play in a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 system.
[...] Defending Steven Gerrard’s Old Trafford display by mnelson071799 on March 22, 2010 Interesting analysis of Steven Gerrard’s game for Liverpool FC during their 2-1 loss to Manchester United. Thanks to [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zonal_Marking: NEW ON ZM: Defending Steven Gerrard’s Old Trafford performance: http://bit.ly/dsd795...
As a Liverpool fan I find the Gerrard ‘question’ an interesting one, and this idea of him having no natural position (or positional awareness) seems pretty valid as every team needs to accomodate him in some way. Liverpool instruct Lucas and Mascherano to sit deep and play simple lateral balls while Gerrard tries to work space, and Rooney is the constantly dropping wide left to fill the void left by him when he does some marauding.
However, I think a big problem is his personality and his relationships with other players on the field. He doesn’t encourage his midfield forward (if he is in this auxilary striker role) as he seems not to trust either of them and mostly opts not to test them with balls when they are in good positions or to give and go, and remains fairly static when he does give them the ball. Also, he seems intent on getting a goal and often plays with his head down trying to smash one in from outside the box. Obviously, when he plays well, you wouldn’t want any other player in the world, but this season his flaws have become increasingly obvious and the lack of development of players around him (Lucas, formally a livewire) seems to hint at a team hindered by his presence currently.
An interesting thing to see is how him and Aquillani will work together, if he ever gets a game, as they seem to occupy some of the same positions, hopefully Gerrard will realise that there’s a team around him and he should play with them a little bit more, rather than just with Torres.
This could be just a wild ramble that gets blown out of the water straight away, but it’d be interesting to hear any other takes on this.
I always felt Steven Gerrard would have made an absolutely cracking right-back – he is quick, strong, a decent tackler, has a great shot and prefers having space to run into. His stamina would also serve him well, he would get up and down the flank all day.
He could have been the English Dani Alves! Indeed, if he had developed as a player in Brazil it is probably quite likely that this would have been his position of choice
Gerrard should not be judged on what Sacchi says, one game and one bad season. He is an outstanding player who knows how to play football all right. His game has become more controlled since Benitez arrives, you dont see him rushing back to make tackles now, there are others to do that.
Its true he doesnt look right this season, but then Liverpool dont in general look right- in a fully functioning Liverpool team (e.g last year against Real Madrid and many others) he is unstoppable.
What this guy says is bang on.
I think that Benitez’s reasoning behind putting Gerrard, first behind and then later just-off Torres, was less to do with having discovered Stevie’s true vocation and more a way of just letting him play whilst not upsetting the structure of the team. In other words, Gerrard’s new positition would be inconsequential to the integrity of the formation. That way Benitez could play his four midfielders plus Torres, whilst Gerrard was just given licence to play in and around him.
In fairness, Sacchi’s comments are extremely harsh. Gerrard may lack the fine skills, organizational ability and levels of awareness of a classic “between the lines” player, but the ability to perform at the very least competently in most positions on the field is not the characteristic of a man with no feel for the game. Last spring Alonso and an inform Benayoun provided what was lacking in Gerrard’s game, leaving him to do what he does best – maraud into the wide open spaces between the opposition’s defence and midfield. The problem is post Essien in the CL quarter final last year, most teams compress this space withdrawing at least one CM, or two a la Fergie. This makes it a lot more difficult for Gerrard to play his usual game but it could be an advantage for Liverpool if they played a ball playing, linking player in their midfield as he would be afforded a lot of space to try to control the game. Now where could they find a player like that?
David Silva!
They could even offer Riera, Babel or a similar player in part exchange to Valencia.
If only, Roberticus! Liverpool definitely need some imagination on the flanks, but what I actually meant by midfield is their two central midfielders. When Fletcher dropped deep to help Carrick tie up Gerrard, Lucas and Mascherano were regularly left in acres of space in the middle of the field. Both are dilligent defenders but lack the creativity and, I think, confidence to playmake. Considering Park was the only United attacker in their area, I was dissapointed a more creative player like Aquilani wasn’t occupying one of these positions. Maybe Benetiz was concerned about the United wide players and wanted plenty of cover for his full-backs, but you can’t leave Gerrard and Torres isolated, with sporadic assistance from either Kuyt or Maxi, to take on the United defensive unit by themselves and expect to create many chances.
Or maybe even an alonso?
I think it’s a damning indictment of Rafa’s man management that he spent a pretty penny on exactly what was needed and yet had him sitting on the bench. Their side desperately misses Alonso’s ability and intelligence in their engine room.
Absolutely. Letting Alonso go was easily the biggest mistake Benitez has made at Anfield. That he actually brought this situation about himself through his ridiculous pursuit of Gareth Barry is simply unforgivable.
Good article about Gerrard. A tireless engine and a great goal scorer (or at least a scorer of great goals), but he just isn’t bright enough for a controlling midfield role. Feed him well and he’ll win you games.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by averyisahorror: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/23/steven-gerrard-liverpool-man-united/ @empireofthekop this is a good read…
[...] of the Day RT @averyisahorror:http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/23/steven-gerrard-liverpool-man-united/ @empireofthekop this is a good [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liverpool Supporters, Philip Stringfellow, Aditya Mahendra, NORBET, Avery Garrard and others. Avery Garrard said: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/23/steven-gerrard-liverpool-man-united/ @empireofthekop this is a good read [...]
Ironically I think Gerrards development as a player has somewhat been hampered by his ability. When he emerged as a youngster he was very often compared to Roy Keane, a tough, dominating, intelligent and slightly deeper lying central midfielder. I think I’m right in saying that in the 5-1 defeat of Germany England set out with a midfield of Gerrard and Scholes, I don’t think many would advocate that now.
I think due to Gerrards ability in the final third, particularly his shooting ability, Managers tended to keep pushing him further up the pitch, and as a result he never really learned the central midfield role as he should of done. He is a great player but he just can’t control a game the way a great midfielder should.
An interesting quote from Arrigo Sacchi, but what does it actually mean?
If he is saying that the true greats are the players that not only have an innate understanding of what’s needed but can also execute them then its a small list indeed, and Gerrard wouldn’t be on it. But if you want to compare him to his pears then he stands comparison with most in the modern game. Every player has short comings and in sport the most talented individuals aren’t always the ones who dominate. You have to combine talent and technique with physical strengths as well as mental fortitude and desire.
No doubt the footballing brain of Paul Scholes or even Danny Murphy with the body and personality of Gerrard might have made for a better footballer but there are plenty of others players i’d be looking to improve first.
There are probably more players who can turn a game because of individual talent then players who can turn a game through drive and will power. He isn’t a control type of guy, he thrives on dynamism and impact. Enjoy him for what he is, and the moments he creates. Great footballer or not he has left some great memories.