Is Steven Gerrard a top 5 all time PL CM

[General_Elegancia]

You can argue that he was a better all-round midfielder than Scholes (I wouldn’t Agee but it’s certainly something g that deserves an argument) but his passing was nowhere near as good as Scholes’.

If you want to compare him to a United player, it would be Bruno — high risk, high reward.

Bruno reminds me a bit of Gerrard, the differences between him and Gerrard is "his attitude". Gerrard's game attitude for me is better than present Bruno Fernandes. like I've said before Bruno reminds me of 2009 version of Gerrard that've played at secondary striker for almost all season. I even consider Bruno imaginative and creative in passing and shooting in penalty box a bit better than Steven but Steven had a better attitude for the game, smarter in term of decisions, controlled the tempo of game better than Bruno and he was less clumsier in passing than Bruno. Even in long shooting he was also better than Bruno. Bruno for me has a lot of times to develop his skills and I'm sure that his skillset can be developed to one of the best midfielders in EPL(he is only 27).

On Scholes vs Gerrard , @Gio makes an excellent comment.

 

[POF]

Gerrard was a good tackler, good physically, early days he could drive the game like Roy Keane in an all-action way. Positioning and discipline were a slight issue on and off the ball, I agree it's the discipline to just play the simple pass. In the modern game I see a lot of similarities with Pogba actually. Pogba and Gerrard both have it all in his locker, and focused or disciplined they're the best in the league. But too often they almost couldn't resist their own talents and try a stupid pass or dribble too often, when a Scholes would make a better passing decision.

But for tactical displine I never get why this always gets levelled at Gerrard and not at Lampard, who essentially could only really excel in a midfield 3 as the most advanced midfielder. Gerrard was versatile enough to play well enough as deep midfielder, box to box and number 10, as well as the wing. Like Scholes, he could play deep or off the striker. Lampard was a fine player but Gerrard would have won the exact same things if he was at Chelsea with Makelele and Essien covering, in fact he might have even won more.

Lampard's main strength was his anticipation and reading of the game. Most of his goals were from being in the right place at the right time.

He was a good finisher and managed to score off a stupid number of deflections but he wasn't an outstanding footballer or athlete.

Would Gerrard have played that role as well or better? Who knows, but he would have played it very differently.

He really wasn't

He was big, strong, fast, an excellent tackler and very difficult to beat one on one. His positioning and discipline weren't great but he was naturally a very strong defensive player.

Scholes improved his defensive positioning later in his career but Gerrard's defensive contribution from central midfield was far better than him.

 

[B20]

That there are posters here who think Alonso was better tells you all about the bias.

People go on about how he won player of the year from right midfield, forgetting he played half the season in central midfield (and scored more goals from there) and that he was too ambitious with his passing.I actually think he was more conservative than de bruyne is. That's the type of midfielder to compare with.

Gerrard was was world class in like five different positions. When Scholes was being the invisible man for England before Lampard took his place, a young Gerrard was running that midfield from the deeper position.

I actually think his best season for us was Houlliers last one. He was utterly dominant in an otherwise awful side.

I remember after a game against villa where one of their defenders said they were sure he was heading in his own crosses at one point. He could dominate games in a way few others could.

His main flaws were the occasional lapse of concentration defensively and not trusting his lesser team mates when the chips were down.

The caf has collected a sizeable amount of posters whose are obsessed enough to do misplaced pass compilations of him if they knew how and have somehow fashioned an image of a player who couldn't be trusted in central midfield because he did nothing defensively and only had Hollywood passes for the cameras in his locker.

 

[devilish]

Who else is in contention?

Fabregas
Speed
Carrick
Alonso
Butt (he was great feck off)
Essien? (Too short of a prime?)
Fernandinho
Silva?
Makelele

Nicky Butt? Seriously? I can name 20 CMs who were/is better then him

Ince
Scholes
Carrick
Pogba
Gerrard
Alonso
Henderson
Lampard
Kante
Essien
Neves
Fletcher
Viera
Fabregas
Fernardinho
De Bruyne
Toure
Silva
Bruno

 

[harms]

That there are posters here who think Alonso was better tells you all about the bias.

People go on about how he won player of the year from right midfield, forgetting he played half the season in central midfield (and scored more goals from there) and that he was too ambitious with his passing.I actually think he was more conservative than de bruyne is. That's the type of midfielder to compare with.

Gerrard was was world class in like five different positions. When Scholes was being the invisible man for England before Lampard took his place, a young Gerrard was running that midfield from the deeper position.

I actually think his best season for us was Houlliers last one. He was utterly dominant in an otherwise awful side.

I remember after a game against villa where one of their defenders said they were sure he was heading in his own crosses at one point. He could dominate games in a way few others could.

His main flaws were the occasional lapse of concentration defensively and not trusting his lesser team mates when the chips were down.

The caf has collected a sizeable amount of posters whose are obsessed enough to do misplaced pass compilations of him if they knew how and have somehow fashioned an image of a player who couldn't be trusted in central midfield because he did nothing defensively and only had Hollywood passes for the cameras in his locker.

Five positions?)

 

[B20]

Five positions?)

Deep midfield, box to box, behind the striker, right midfield and right back.

 

[roonster09]

Deep midfield, box to box, behind the striker, right midfield and right back.

 

[harms]

Deep midfield, box to box, behind the striker, right midfield and right back.

I wanted to make a joke about the latter but you made it for me, thank you. And you accuse us of bias (alright, we're clearly biased as well)!

He wasn't world-class as a deep-lying playmaker if you're referring to his stint under Rodgers and he wasn't fecking world-class as a right back The rest of those I'm going to give to you, it's hard to argued against those, but it still makes your statement what, 40% false?

 

[harms]

We need a new thread, is Steven Gerrard a top-5 all-time PL RB?

One of the TIFO In Real Life (caf doesn't allow me to type in their name) guys picked him as a right-back in his all-time PL XI just a few days ago and @B20 seems to back his claim up... Considering relative shallowness of the pool...

 

[Random Task]

This video is indisputable evidence that the one known as Steven Gerrard is, in actual fact, a grade-A donkey. A semi-talented, functionally literate donkey, sure, but a donkey nonetheless.

He makes 57 backpasses to the keeper that led to goals against his team in that video. 57! How are we even contemplating the notion of putting Slippy in the top 5 PL midfielders of all time? It's absolutely ludicrous. Never change Redcafe.

 

[Gio]

He was big, strong, fast, an excellent tackler and very difficult to beat one on one. His positioning and discipline weren't great but he was naturally a very strong defensive player.

Scholes improved his defensive positioning later in his career but Gerrard's defensive contribution from central midfield was far better than him.

He had the potential to be a sensational holding midfielder, but clearly he was too good going forwards to be hemmed in like that. Especially for Liverpool where the holding role could be carried out by a more limited player. As you say he had all the physical tools, but other aspects of the role weren't as evolved as they would have been had he played there more regularly, rather than mainly for England in the early 2000s. This is him at 21 against Germany, holding next to a roaming Scholes:



That's as good as it gets from that position. But he would have needed to be played there more often over the course of his career to fine-tune all the passing choices. Obviously for Liverpool providing him with freedom to go box-to-box maximised his talent and influence on the team.

 

[General_Elegancia]

He had the potential to be a sensational holding midfielder, but clearly he was too good going forwards to be hemmed in like that. Especially for Liverpool where the holding role could be carried out by a more limited player. As you say he had all the physical tools, but other aspects of the role weren't as evolved as they would have been had he played there more regularly, rather than mainly for England in the early 2000s. This is him at 21 against Germany, holding next to a roaming Scholes:



That's as good as it gets from that position. But he would have needed to be played there more often over the course of his career to fine-tune all the passing choices. Obviously for Liverpool providing him with freedom to go box-to-box maximised his talent and influence on the team.

In fact, he even had a freedom in defensive phase more than offensive phase. During his peak form he could run to cover anywhere on the pitch especially lb and rb positions or even cb sometimes . I'm still confident that if he played under some managers that was very strict in term of divide zones or areas , he wouldn't have a freedom to do it.

 

[njred]

Hopefully Villa do the impossible Monday and Gerrard somehow gets to run over and kiss the camera. You know just for old times sake.

 

[roonster09]

Hopefully Villa do the impossible Monday and Gerrard somehow gets to run over and kiss the camera. You know just for old times sake.

Wouldn't put past him, camera kissing twat.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

Tbh it has been funny seeing Bruno labelled world class the last two years on a forum where Gerrard is considered overrated because "Hollywood passes"

 

[Random Task]

Hopefully Villa do the impossible Monday and Gerrard somehow gets to run over and kiss the camera. You know just for old times sake.

He'd most likely slip a few times mid-run, but I'm sure he'd get there eventually.

 

[roonster09]

Tbh it has been funny seeing Bruno labelled world class the last two years on a forum where Gerrard is considered overrated because "Hollywood passes"

It's also funny that forum is not a single poster but 1000s of posters with different opinions.

 

[Andersonson]

Gerrard wasnt a CM at his peak. More of an AM. Even as a RM he was better. Fantastic actually.

Vieira, Keane, Scholes, Lampard, Toure and Kante were all better CM's.

 

[DWelbz19]

Exactly. I will always include Kante in these because he’s absolutely unique and turns up on big occasions.

I won’t apologise for it either.

Kante won the league two seasons running for two separate clubs playing a huge part in both titles - winning POTY in the second one. He’s absolutely up there.

 

[njred]

He'd most likely slip a few times mid-run, but I'm sure he'd get there eventually.

It's also funny that forum is not a single poster but 1000s of posters with different opinions.

Thst is true except for some opinions. Like why the F would you lot give Pogba 500 k a week?! I can only ask this on this forum since most of us are banned from your United side of the site. I need to know

 

[giorno]

He was big, strong, fast, an excellent tackler and very difficult to beat one on one. His positioning and discipline weren't great but he was naturally a very strong defensive player.

Being a good tackler or a good 1on1 defender(which he wasn't anyways) doesn't make one a good defensive player

Gerrard wasn't a liability defensively, that's as far as you can go. He never had the instincts, discipline and IQ to be more than a passable defensive player, and even that only IF he focused almost entirely on that - to the detriment of everything else, as happened a few times with england

 

[roonster09]

Thst is true except for some opinions. Like why the F would you lot give Pogba 500 k a week?! I can only ask this on this forum since most of us are banned from your United side of the site. I need to know

I don't know Sun and shit like that was considered as reliable source. Maybe if someone like Simon Stone reports then I will answer this.

 

[TwoSheds]

That there are posters here who think Alonso was better tells you all about the bias.

People go on about how he won player of the year from right midfield, forgetting he played half the season in central midfield (and scored more goals from there) and that he was too ambitious with his passing.I actually think he was more conservative than de bruyne is. That's the type of midfielder to compare with.

Gerrard was was world class in like five different positions. When Scholes was being the invisible man for England before Lampard took his place, a young Gerrard was running that midfield from the deeper position.

I actually think his best season for us was Houlliers last one. He was utterly dominant in an otherwise awful side.

I remember after a game against villa where one of their defenders said they were sure he was heading in his own crosses at one point. He could dominate games in a way few others could.

His main flaws were the occasional lapse of concentration defensively and not trusting his lesser team mates when the chips were down.

The caf has collected a sizeable amount of posters whose are obsessed enough to do misplaced pass compilations of him if they knew how and have somehow fashioned an image of a player who couldn't be trusted in central midfield because he did nothing defensively and only had Hollywood passes for the cameras in his locker.

I agree with you about the Houllier point. He could have been one of the all time great CMs if he'd kept being developed in that position IMO but Rafa pandered too much to him by letting him play as a forward. If he'd had a better coach coming into his prime I think he'd have been the best English CM ever (admittedly I never saw Duncan Edwards or Sir Bobby play there of course). If he'd have moved to United after that Houllier season I think he'd have been effectively Roy Keane + goals. Linking up with Mourinho at Chelsea might have achieved a similar thing, or even Wenger at Arsenal.

 

[DWelbz19]

Thst is true except for some opinions. Like why the F would you lot give Pogba 500 k a week?! I can only ask this on this forum since most of us are banned from your United side of the site. I need to know

It’s quite obviously not true. Even if he extends it won’t be close to that figure - that’s literally x2 his wage at the moment and he’s now 28 coming off the back of a bunch of injuries!

Also, is that true? Never knew that was the case.

 

[Interval]

Yep. Just about up there.

Keane and Viera arw obvious. Yaya Too.

that leaves 2 spots amongst Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard, Fabregas, Kante, Carrick, Alonso and Essien.
Gerrard is the best of that lot. Last one is more of a personal choice I guess with Scholes, Kante and Lampard as more obvious candidates.

 

[Righteous Steps]

I wanted to make a joke about the latter but you made it for me, thank you. And you accuse us of bias (alright, we're clearly biased as well)!

He wasn't world-class as a deep-lying playmaker if you're referring to his stint under Rodgers and he wasn't fecking world-class as a right back The rest of those I'm going to give to you, it's hard to argued against those, but it still makes your statement what, 40% false?

Gerrard was very good and one of the best cms in the league undoubtedly in 13/14 when he’s legs had gone, people seem to ignore this because of one slip, but he was great that season as he was in 01-05, again playing deeper.

 

[POF]

He had the potential to be a sensational holding midfielder, but clearly he was too good going forwards to be hemmed in like that. Especially for Liverpool where the holding role could be carried out by a more limited player. As you say he had all the physical tools, but other aspects of the role weren't as evolved as they would have been had he played there more regularly, rather than mainly for England in the early 2000s. This is him at 21 against Germany, holding next to a roaming Scholes:



That's as good as it gets from that position. But he would have needed to be played there more often over the course of his career to fine-tune all the passing choices. Obviously for Liverpool providing him with freedom to go box-to-box maximised his talent and influence on the team.

I agree. The Gerrard/Scholes combination for England should have been fantastic if he kept playing that role. But he didn't/wouldn't.

Gerrard seemed to want to be a central midfield player. He hated playing the number 10 role and after Rafa left he was right back in midfield. Or maybe it was under Rafa when Alonso left and they didn't get Barry.

You say he had to for Liverpool because of a lack of talent but even for England, he wouldn't play the deeper role that would have made the Gerrard/Scholes or Gerrard/Lampard combinations more likely to work. He was the one who had the defensive capability to do it. But he was too arrogant and wanted to be the attacking fulcrum of the team from midfield.

Just like his Liverpool teams, the team suffered as a result.

 

[harms]

Gerrard was very good and one of the best cms in the league undoubtedly in 13/14 when he’s legs had gone, people seem to ignore this because of one slip, but he was great that season as he was in 01-05, again playing deeper.

There's a different between good or very good and world-class. He was very good in 13/14 and the slip doesn't change that, obviously. But he wasn't world-class and the infamous slip (and, more importantly, his performance throughout the aftermath of it) highlighted exactly what he had lacked to reach true greatness in that role. It shouldn't be held against him like some kind of a beating stick, he was way past his best and he was truly and inarguably world-class in different positions earlier. Just not in that role and not during that season.

 

[harms]

He had the potential to be a sensational holding midfielder, but clearly he was too good going forwards to be hemmed in like that. Especially for Liverpool where the holding role could be carried out by a more limited player. As you say he had all the physical tools, but other aspects of the role weren't as evolved as they would have been had he played there more regularly, rather than mainly for England in the early 2000s. This is him at 21 against Germany, holding next to a roaming Scholes:



That's as good as it gets from that position. But he would have needed to be played there more often over the course of his career to fine-tune all the passing choices. Obviously for Liverpool providing him with freedom to go box-to-box maximised his talent and influence on the team.

Yeah, it's hard to argue against this.

 

[POF]

Being a good tackler or a good 1on1 defender(which he wasn't anyways) doesn't make one a good defensive player

It doesn't, but being poor at both of those things makes you a bad one.

Of course Gerrard lacked discipline and positional awareness. He lacked that in his offensive game too but that doesn't stop him being rated extremely highly as an attacker.

Who would you rate as the better player defensively in a midfield 2? Gerrard or Scholes?

 

[giorno]

Of course Gerrard lacked discipline and positional awareness. He lacked that in his offensive game too but that doesn't stop him being rated extremely highly as an attacker.

Who would you rate as the better player defensively in a midfield 2? Gerrard or Scholes?

Lacking tactical discipline as an attacker is much less of a problem than it is defensively. And gerrard didn't lack for discipline or positional awereness in attack, quite the contrary. His decision-making could be inconsistent at times, but in general he was a phenomenal attacking midfielder

Mmm, don't remember much of Scholes defensively. Can't comment on it. Gerrard was like Seedorf - not a player that needed cover, but also not a good defensive player

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I don't think he was the best in his team, Alonso was better.

I was coming here to post this. Gerrard played best as a right forward, second striker behind Torres. As a midfielder he was too interested in Hollywood balls and long shots.

 

[VorZakone]

Exactly. I will always include Kante in these because he’s absolutely unique and turns up on big occasions.

I won’t apologise for it either.

Kante is a good shout. I still remember vividly his season with Leicester. I don't recall seeing so many bossing midfield performances by 1 midfielder.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Gerrard's range of strengths at his best meant playing him strictly in a 'modern' holding or attacking midfield role would have been a waste of his talents. A deeper midfield role wasted his attacking attributes (and highlighted his defensive/tactical deficiencies and tendency to play risky passes), but playing him as a second striker/pure attacking midfielder wasted his dynamism, tackling, ball carrying and long passing ability. In his best seasons Gerrard had an an all-action role which didn't fit the mould of what you'd normally expect of a player nominally playing from the right/behind a striker, but it definitely wasn't a central midfield role. If he was magically at the peak of his powers now he'd had to have a similar role built around him to get the best out of him but, again, it wouldn't be a central midfield one

With all that in mind, it's difficult to argue a case for him being one of the best central midfielders in Premier League history. For a start, the bulk of his truly 'World Class' form didn't come in central midfield. Secondly, his early years where he excelled as a box-to-box midfielder are balanced by his later years where he was nothing special as a deep-lying midfielder (to put Gerrard's ability in that role into context, compare with how amazing Scholes was in the half-season where he came back from retirement at 37 to play that role for us in 2012). Gerrard is one of the best players we've seen in the Premier League, but there are a fair few people beyond the obvious names who you can argue were better (both individually and as a cog in a team) central midfielders.

 

[mancan92]

I was coming here to post this. Gerrard played best as a right forward, second striker behind Torres. As a midfielder he was too interested in Hollywood balls and long shots.

That narrative is ridiculous really. There was like half a season he played there in his whole career. 90% of his career was at CM. All his best performances were at CM. When Liverpool were in trouble Alonso wasn't the player to get them out of it. It was Gerrard and his Hollywood plays.

 

[Steve 007]

To me Scholes is the best midfielder in PL history. I do absolutely appreciate that that’s my opinion and many will disagree.

Gerrard, Keane, Viera and Lampard are the top 5 in my opinion.

 

[Bobski]

Yes, of course he is. Better than Lampard who was in the main a goalscorer, Gerrard had far more ability to control a game with his passing, but he was maybe too infatuated with the spectacular pass over the simple to use that game controlling ability consistently. The Pogba comparison is there, Gerrard was better and even though he was not always an ideal fit in deep midfield he was still more capable of the role than Pogba.

Keane-Scholes-Vieria-Gerrard the top 4 then it gets a little more difficult, Yaya maybe with the highest peak but quite a short peak compared to others, Lampard/Kante/Essien/Fabregas/De Bruyne/Alonso in the next tier, with guys like Makalele(longevity) Carrick/Petit/Barry/Haaman/Fernandinho/Silva(Gilberto)Ince next up.

 

[Charlie Foley]

Scott Parker won FWA Footballer of the year when West Ham finished 20th, he didn't make team of the season though. Probably most undeserving winner.

That feels very London oriented!

 

[MrMarcello]

Liverpool shipped 50 goals in 13-14 and I recall Gerrard being a big part of that defensive frailty. I do not recall hm being anywhere near "great" that season but perhaps he was.

 

[Orion.]

For me, no. Keane, Kante and Carrick were more influential central midfielders for successful teams, so those three plus Scholes and Vieira would be my 5.

He was never really trusted to play the role by his most decorated coaches due to his lack of football IQ, hero complex and incapacity to play at anything other than full speed.