Banging the same drum over and over ...
... is what I have a tendency to do.
Oh why oh why does no one listen to me, he cries.
So, Steven Gerrard. I've already talked a bit about Steven Gerrard, but I'm going to do so again, but hopefully in a more interesting way, which touches on the way we think, the way I think, the fact we're all doomed.
Of all the controversy caused by what appear to be a series of perfectly measured, intelligent and reasonable extracts from Sir Alex Ferguson's new book, a lot of the outrage and fury turned to something close to ridicule when Ferguson suggested that Gerrard was not a "top, top" player, not out of the very highest class.
How dare he suggest that about our Captain Marvel? Especially when he tried to sign him three times? Well, the fact he tried to sign him clearly shows this was not a dismissive comment on Gerrard but an attempt at an accurate assessment.
And, obviously, not everyone Ferguson signed was a "top, top" player. In fact, hardly any, I can hardly think of any players who went to Man Utd as the finished article, he was much more about taking talent and moulding it. Perhaps if Gerrard had gone to Man Utd he could have been world class. But he didn't. And he isn't. I promise.
But I'm thinking about this. When one (or for argument's sake, I) has a take on something, our thinking on it might initially be hesitant and nuanced, but as one becomes more and more entrenched, it can be harder to express the nuance in one's thought, and not to make things personal.
Do I dislike Stephen Gerrard now? Do I kind of tell myself he's a rubbish footballer? Yes, a bit. Well, I've got to stop doing that.
I used to like him a lot. I remember him scoring a lush goal as a Liverpool teenager, his early days for England when he clearly improved the team, that great goal against Germany in 2001, and yes, there was no doubt he was quality. And then there was 2005, when he really did inspire them to the Champions League, and 2006, when he drove them to the FA Cup. I'm sure through all period my admiration was as thorough as anybody else's.
Right, brief detour from Stevie G specifically. There's something I want to get to the nub of, in terms of, as a sports fan, who/what become our heroes/our teams. There are things we just love and we can't help it. I became a Spurs fan because my dad was and then my brother too and it was pretty much before i had conscious thought. I backed Brentford because I grew up within a mile of Griffin Park.
I loved David Gower because he was called David, he was England captain, he was left-handed. There's something a little irrational there, sure, and that's what some sporting fandom is like, so you'll back your guy/your team to the hilt and your rationality slightly goes out of the window.
And it's not just a childhood thing. At the Olympics, for a few minutes you'll throw your whole life into supporting some random Brit just because they're British, you'll hope their opponent, who might be the finest, most noble man in the world, falls flat on his face.
But not all sporting fandom is like that. You may or may not be aware that I'm a fan of Ryan Giggs. Have I ever mentioned that? Well, that's not because he's my brother, or we come from the same time, or he played for the team I support. It wasn't irrational. I saw he was really good. I then saw him getting a lot of undue equivocation. "He gives the ball away too much" "He's no George Best etc" and it grew into a particular interest to me that people were underestimating him (gosh, all this though process is 20 years ago. 20 flippin years). And I began to follow that fact over the next few years and gained more and more proof, both factual and instinctive, that this was true, and then people speaking to the contrary began to enrage me.
And I suppose at times it grew to go beyond the rational. I backed him. It mattered to me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think I have been 100% right on that topic all along.
But our rational interests can take us over.
Then there's Rio Ferdinand. Now, I don't like Rio Ferdinand. He seems like a bit of a knob sometimes. But in the 2002 World Cup, it struck me that he was absolutely brilliant, and I've followed that train of thought on him since, statistically proving it through various means and arguing that point passionately at various times. Someone coud justifiably say to me "You love Rio Ferdinand". But I don't. He's just a pet case of mine. His case is important to me. Being right about him is important to me.
So it is with Steven Gerrard. I do like him. I like his rumbunctious style, his general good nature and his effort. But his not actually being a world class player has become a "case" of mine, so I will argue that point pasionately, and so people might think I have a thing against him. And, sometimes, I do. I confess I was ever so slightly miffed when he scored England's second goal vs Poland last week - it took weight away from my argument. Dammit.... but yippee, England are going to the World Cup!
So, what happened? When did doubts start to creep in? Well, there was the Gerrard/Lampard debate, for one. How come England don't play flowing football when these two play together? Interesting question. And then you watch them for their clubs, and you see how similar they are, but how Lampard plays a much simpler, more safety-first game, but also how Lampard has a much higher goal ratio, and how other players seem to flourish around Lampard. Hmm, so where's the problem?
Then I remember Steven Gerrard being nominated for Player of the Year one year even though Liverpool were well down the table that year and not doing much anywhere else. I've looked it up. it was 2007-08. I even did a facebook note on it. This is it.
I wonder why it appears to be a default setting that Stevie Gerrard makes it, year on year, into the Top 6 shortlist for PFA player of the Year despite the fact that he continues to underachieve for England and, more importantly, has never done a single thing which has had an impact on the outcome of the Premier League season.
It suggests that professional footballers are both remarkably unimaginative and, more worryingly, that they have lost sight of what their job is supposed to be.
Has Gerrard, frequently uninspired in an only occasionally inspired team this year, really been better this year than, say, Robbie Keane (look how many goals he scored in 2007) or Nemanja Vidic or Rio Ferdinand or Gael Clichy, Patrice Evra, Joleon Lescott... I could go on.
I like Steven Gerrard, he seems like not a cock and is a fine player, but he just gets rewarded with praise year on year for turning out the same level, which appears not to raise the level of his team-mates, when he has only one great achievement to his name. The fact is that even the now-maligned Lampard scores way more goals, and important goals at that.
English people have got to get over Gerrard, he's so potentially good he really needs to start doing better in my opinion, needs to learn to adapt to what team he's playing in better. i'm sure he doesn't unbalance teams wilfully, but he does unbalance teams, without question. Compare that with the way Ryan Giggs (of course I couldn't go without mentioning Ryan Giggs) as quietly fitted into being able to play 7 different roles for Man U down the years while keeping the team balanced and constantly successful.
Sorry, quick, instant rant.
Jesus, I'm dull. But actually, the inclusion of this from 5 years ago furthers my point, how viewpoints develop into passions.
And, yes, there's the really important thing. People LOVE him. He's the embodiment of the great English footballer and they vote for him as their player of the year. But England play bad football. No one can stop saying that, either. And Liverpool are perenially disappointing, and have been for 20 years. People can't stop saying that either.
Yet, they can't marry the correlation. In a comment about cricket I made recently, I referred to cricket journalists as Climate Change sceptics. It's the same wilful blindness. It will kill us all.
Liverpool do better without Gerrard than him. That statistic was brought to my attention about five years ago when he was out injured for a while. I kept it in my head. Then came across it again last year. Statistics, eh?
Football is a complex game, it is all together, to its very core, a team game, where 11 must work as 1, far more so than cricket, more so even than rugby or American football. It can be a mystery how the ever evolving body that is a football team works. Certainly to me. I "get" cricket in a way that, despite playing it for 25 years, I only partially get football.
But I don't think anyone does.
Here are some other things. OK, Cristiano Ronaldo was wonderful for Man Utd, and he took them to three consecutive titles and scored loads of goals for them. And the year after he left, they didn't win the title. But - they scored way more goals. Everyone else started weighing in for them again. He was a selfish player, he unbalanced them and took away momentum and potential from other players. But he got to be so fucking good that everyone was fine with that, and that became Man U's game plan, and it worked.
Gerrard's like that. He's not a hog, not a horrible selfish man, but he draws the action towards himself, dominates things. stops the flow of the game so he can attempt his 60 yard pass. But, listen, he scores about a quarter of the goals Ronaldo scores. So, you see, it's not worth it. It's not of benefit to the team.
Liverpool only came within a sniff of the title when they had two guys who were better than him, who took the game away from him, Fernando Torres and Xabi Alonso.
There are so many players at Liverpool who have gone to Liverpool and everyone's said they're rubbish and if only they were as good as Stevie G. And then they go on elsewhere, and they're really good again.
Gerrard, bless him, is the problem, not the solution. England and Liverpool will only truly flourish when free of him.
So, yes, Fergie's right, he's not world world class. Yes, Man Utd tried to sign him, and Ferguson might have been able to beat him into shape, so he could become a true team man.
But he'd probably have been another Juan Sebastian Veron. That's Stevie G's level. Talented. Likeable. Probably would be one the great footballers if football was a one man game. But it's not.
Oh why oh why does no one listen to me, he cries.
So, Steven Gerrard. I've already talked a bit about Steven Gerrard, but I'm going to do so again, but hopefully in a more interesting way, which touches on the way we think, the way I think, the fact we're all doomed.
Of all the controversy caused by what appear to be a series of perfectly measured, intelligent and reasonable extracts from Sir Alex Ferguson's new book, a lot of the outrage and fury turned to something close to ridicule when Ferguson suggested that Gerrard was not a "top, top" player, not out of the very highest class.
How dare he suggest that about our Captain Marvel? Especially when he tried to sign him three times? Well, the fact he tried to sign him clearly shows this was not a dismissive comment on Gerrard but an attempt at an accurate assessment.
And, obviously, not everyone Ferguson signed was a "top, top" player. In fact, hardly any, I can hardly think of any players who went to Man Utd as the finished article, he was much more about taking talent and moulding it. Perhaps if Gerrard had gone to Man Utd he could have been world class. But he didn't. And he isn't. I promise.
But I'm thinking about this. When one (or for argument's sake, I) has a take on something, our thinking on it might initially be hesitant and nuanced, but as one becomes more and more entrenched, it can be harder to express the nuance in one's thought, and not to make things personal.
Do I dislike Stephen Gerrard now? Do I kind of tell myself he's a rubbish footballer? Yes, a bit. Well, I've got to stop doing that.
I used to like him a lot. I remember him scoring a lush goal as a Liverpool teenager, his early days for England when he clearly improved the team, that great goal against Germany in 2001, and yes, there was no doubt he was quality. And then there was 2005, when he really did inspire them to the Champions League, and 2006, when he drove them to the FA Cup. I'm sure through all period my admiration was as thorough as anybody else's.
Right, brief detour from Stevie G specifically. There's something I want to get to the nub of, in terms of, as a sports fan, who/what become our heroes/our teams. There are things we just love and we can't help it. I became a Spurs fan because my dad was and then my brother too and it was pretty much before i had conscious thought. I backed Brentford because I grew up within a mile of Griffin Park.
I loved David Gower because he was called David, he was England captain, he was left-handed. There's something a little irrational there, sure, and that's what some sporting fandom is like, so you'll back your guy/your team to the hilt and your rationality slightly goes out of the window.
And it's not just a childhood thing. At the Olympics, for a few minutes you'll throw your whole life into supporting some random Brit just because they're British, you'll hope their opponent, who might be the finest, most noble man in the world, falls flat on his face.
But not all sporting fandom is like that. You may or may not be aware that I'm a fan of Ryan Giggs. Have I ever mentioned that? Well, that's not because he's my brother, or we come from the same time, or he played for the team I support. It wasn't irrational. I saw he was really good. I then saw him getting a lot of undue equivocation. "He gives the ball away too much" "He's no George Best etc" and it grew into a particular interest to me that people were underestimating him (gosh, all this though process is 20 years ago. 20 flippin years). And I began to follow that fact over the next few years and gained more and more proof, both factual and instinctive, that this was true, and then people speaking to the contrary began to enrage me.
And I suppose at times it grew to go beyond the rational. I backed him. It mattered to me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think I have been 100% right on that topic all along.
But our rational interests can take us over.
Then there's Rio Ferdinand. Now, I don't like Rio Ferdinand. He seems like a bit of a knob sometimes. But in the 2002 World Cup, it struck me that he was absolutely brilliant, and I've followed that train of thought on him since, statistically proving it through various means and arguing that point passionately at various times. Someone coud justifiably say to me "You love Rio Ferdinand". But I don't. He's just a pet case of mine. His case is important to me. Being right about him is important to me.
So it is with Steven Gerrard. I do like him. I like his rumbunctious style, his general good nature and his effort. But his not actually being a world class player has become a "case" of mine, so I will argue that point pasionately, and so people might think I have a thing against him. And, sometimes, I do. I confess I was ever so slightly miffed when he scored England's second goal vs Poland last week - it took weight away from my argument. Dammit.... but yippee, England are going to the World Cup!
So, what happened? When did doubts start to creep in? Well, there was the Gerrard/Lampard debate, for one. How come England don't play flowing football when these two play together? Interesting question. And then you watch them for their clubs, and you see how similar they are, but how Lampard plays a much simpler, more safety-first game, but also how Lampard has a much higher goal ratio, and how other players seem to flourish around Lampard. Hmm, so where's the problem?
Then I remember Steven Gerrard being nominated for Player of the Year one year even though Liverpool were well down the table that year and not doing much anywhere else. I've looked it up. it was 2007-08. I even did a facebook note on it. This is it.
I wonder why it appears to be a default setting that Stevie Gerrard makes it, year on year, into the Top 6 shortlist for PFA player of the Year despite the fact that he continues to underachieve for England and, more importantly, has never done a single thing which has had an impact on the outcome of the Premier League season.
It suggests that professional footballers are both remarkably unimaginative and, more worryingly, that they have lost sight of what their job is supposed to be.
Has Gerrard, frequently uninspired in an only occasionally inspired team this year, really been better this year than, say, Robbie Keane (look how many goals he scored in 2007) or Nemanja Vidic or Rio Ferdinand or Gael Clichy, Patrice Evra, Joleon Lescott... I could go on.
I like Steven Gerrard, he seems like not a cock and is a fine player, but he just gets rewarded with praise year on year for turning out the same level, which appears not to raise the level of his team-mates, when he has only one great achievement to his name. The fact is that even the now-maligned Lampard scores way more goals, and important goals at that.
English people have got to get over Gerrard, he's so potentially good he really needs to start doing better in my opinion, needs to learn to adapt to what team he's playing in better. i'm sure he doesn't unbalance teams wilfully, but he does unbalance teams, without question. Compare that with the way Ryan Giggs (of course I couldn't go without mentioning Ryan Giggs) as quietly fitted into being able to play 7 different roles for Man U down the years while keeping the team balanced and constantly successful.
Sorry, quick, instant rant.
Jesus, I'm dull. But actually, the inclusion of this from 5 years ago furthers my point, how viewpoints develop into passions.
And, yes, there's the really important thing. People LOVE him. He's the embodiment of the great English footballer and they vote for him as their player of the year. But England play bad football. No one can stop saying that, either. And Liverpool are perenially disappointing, and have been for 20 years. People can't stop saying that either.
Yet, they can't marry the correlation. In a comment about cricket I made recently, I referred to cricket journalists as Climate Change sceptics. It's the same wilful blindness. It will kill us all.
Liverpool do better without Gerrard than him. That statistic was brought to my attention about five years ago when he was out injured for a while. I kept it in my head. Then came across it again last year. Statistics, eh?
Football is a complex game, it is all together, to its very core, a team game, where 11 must work as 1, far more so than cricket, more so even than rugby or American football. It can be a mystery how the ever evolving body that is a football team works. Certainly to me. I "get" cricket in a way that, despite playing it for 25 years, I only partially get football.
But I don't think anyone does.
Here are some other things. OK, Cristiano Ronaldo was wonderful for Man Utd, and he took them to three consecutive titles and scored loads of goals for them. And the year after he left, they didn't win the title. But - they scored way more goals. Everyone else started weighing in for them again. He was a selfish player, he unbalanced them and took away momentum and potential from other players. But he got to be so fucking good that everyone was fine with that, and that became Man U's game plan, and it worked.
Gerrard's like that. He's not a hog, not a horrible selfish man, but he draws the action towards himself, dominates things. stops the flow of the game so he can attempt his 60 yard pass. But, listen, he scores about a quarter of the goals Ronaldo scores. So, you see, it's not worth it. It's not of benefit to the team.
Liverpool only came within a sniff of the title when they had two guys who were better than him, who took the game away from him, Fernando Torres and Xabi Alonso.
There are so many players at Liverpool who have gone to Liverpool and everyone's said they're rubbish and if only they were as good as Stevie G. And then they go on elsewhere, and they're really good again.
Gerrard, bless him, is the problem, not the solution. England and Liverpool will only truly flourish when free of him.
So, yes, Fergie's right, he's not world world class. Yes, Man Utd tried to sign him, and Ferguson might have been able to beat him into shape, so he could become a true team man.
But he'd probably have been another Juan Sebastian Veron. That's Stevie G's level. Talented. Likeable. Probably would be one the great footballers if football was a one man game. But it's not.
Comments
Post a Comment