Steven Gerrard retires from England international duty

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Anyone else think he got a lot of undue stick? England were very unlucky not to reach a semi final at least once during Gerrard's time. In '04 and '06 they were knocked out by penalties

Stuart Pearce, Gazza etc are considered legends for their team only reaching semi finals. However, in 1990 they were very lucky to squeeze past the might of Belgium and Cameroon and on home soil 6 years later only reached the semis courtesy of a penalty shoot-out win against the Spanish (who by the way got an onside goal disallowed)

The English public will be moaning even more when the penny drops the 'young blood' they crave for such as Henderson and Barkley will never be anywhere near as good as Steven Gerrard was

fred funk }{

Another vile filled thread.

Soups123

For the quality player he was in his day, he never really delivered on the international scene as much as his ability should have allowed him.

Should have retired a couple of years earlier

Utopia Parkway

He was probably England's best player at Euro 2012. Probably should have gone after that. It was a thankless task hanging on to play for Hodgson's England. I guess the lure of a World Cup in Brazil was pretty tempting.

Washington Irving

Soups123 wrote: »

For the quality player he was in his day, he never really delivered on the international scene as much as his ability should have allowed him.

Should have retired a couple of years earlier

Rarely played in his best position for England, various managers tried to accommodate himself and Lampard into a 442. It was never going to get the best out of either player. Been a great servant for his country. Six major tournaments - captain in three,2 POTY award, 114 caps - one behind Beckham for all time highest capped outfield player.

Should have retired on a relative high after his good Euro 2012 performances, though as with Lahm, there would have been a large amount of fans saying it was too early.

GavRedKing

Soups123 wrote: »

For the quality player he was in his day, he never really delivered on the international scene as much as his ability should have allowed him.

Should have retired a couple of years earlier

You could fill this thread with English internationals who havent performed well for their country, I wouldnt just hold the criticism for Gerrard.

smileyj1987

Washington Irving wrote: »

Rarely played in his best position for England, various managers tried to accommodate himself and Lampard into a 442. It was never going to get the best out of either player. Been a great servant for his country. Six major tournaments - captain in three,2 POTY award, 114 caps - one behind Beckham for all time highest capped outfield player.

Should have retired on a relative high after his good Euro 2012 performances, though as with Lahm, there would have been a large amount of fans saying it was too early.

I remember him getting shunted out to play on the right wing a lot for England . At the time he should have been getting played behind Rooney or another striker as an attacking midfielder .

Rayne Wooney

He retired half way through the Italy game in all seriousness. Completely outclassed in every game

Washington Irving

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

He retired half way through the Italy game in all seriousness. Completely outclassed in every game

To be fair, that applies to the entire England team and manager.

FortuneChip

Rooney seemed to be the main fall-guy for England's poor performance, but I felt Gerrard was absolutely terrible in Brazil as well and didn't seem to get nearly as much criticism.
He'll be one of Liverpool's all-time greats, there's no way he's earned the same reputation for England in my opinion.

I see now that Rooney is 1/3 to replace him; can't help but feel that's a terrible decision, the guy is not a leader.

Turtyturd

Retirements do wonders for players' status.

Aenaes

You could see it coming really. Best thing for him, England and Liverpool. Good timing too. Had he came out a week or so after their exit, when "pundits" were clamouring for him (and Lampard, ha) to stay there might have been some furore or uproar.

He gave a good account of himself for England, showing good commitment and desire.

I think it's an unfair comparison about the 1990 team. They went on a great run leading up to and during that World Cup. Yes, they had to "squeeze past" some teams considered weaker but they still had to beat them and so did Argentina in the last World Cup to get to the final. Bobby Robson was very under-rated, England went 19 matches unbeaten before the Italia '90 started, the managers Gerrard served under haven't seemed to be able to have England properly competing/fighting.

Had Gerrard been in a team with a real sense of direction that reached a semi-final or so and inspired real enthusiasm/excitement during a tournament, then his times in an England shirt might be better remembered than what they are now.

AllGunsBlazing

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Stuart Pearce, Gazza etc are considered legends for their team only reaching semi finals.

Gascoigne was easily one of the best players of that particular tournament and lit up the first division the following season. He was rightly idolised and England haven't come close to producing a player of such jaw dropping ability since. Although quite a few have been hyped to the rafters.

TheDoc

Wishful thinking that this can stay somewhat mature, but I'm sure any critism against Gerrard will be seen as a dig at liverpool fans somewhow, but I've no doubt in my mind his reputation as a club legend has far inflated his actual performances, especially in an England shirt.

Gerrard is a curious case of a reputation/status building up ahead of what is actually happening on the pitch.

I think those somewhat detached from Liverpool and England, would have comfortably predicited England suffering problems with Gerrard operating in a deep position at a World Cup, where a lack of experience and intelligence would prove costly.

Whilst this is no fault of his own, Gerrard has been shifted and accomodated throughout the years based on some pretex that he is undroppable, and needs to be in a team. His withdrawl to a more deep role for Liverpool was more obvious, a club legend where the incoming manager felt his experience could provide dividends to his squad, and accomodated him. I don't believe it was a case the manager hadn't the balls, I think he felt he would hold genuine value.

But he's been shown as shockingly ineffective at that role, in the big games against proper opposition both for Liverpool and England. And both had personal better suited to the role but it seems anyone involved with Gerrard sees him as undroppable. It's a really English and Liverpool fan thing. Anyone unattached from both always knew that the question wasn't how to play Lampard and Gerrard together, but which one to play alongside Scholes, and everyone unattached knew that Alonso and Mascherano were far superior to Gerrard, and allowed him to romp forward to do what he did best.

Gerrards game was always based around explosiveness and aggression, something that slowly drifted away as the years went on. At his best he was marauding forward at defences, at his worst, slow in possesion trying to force the play.

He hasn't retired from football, just international football, and so discussion should be based upon that and upon reflection he is another instance of a talented player failing to perform to any level of excellence for his country when it mattered.It was ridiculous he went to Brazil as not only the no.1 DM, but the only DM, when Carrick and Barry perform the role far better.

jonnyfingers

Gerrard had a great performances for England over the years, plenty of solid ones and a few poor games, but he's one of a number of England midfielders that never reached their potential on the international scene. The problem lies with the team rather than the player though I feel. Like Scholes he was played out of position to try and accommodate other players and it never really worked. He was very poor in Brazil, as were the England team as a whole, so he's probably right to call it a day, especially if Hodgson remains in charge.

If anything retiring from international football now might give him an extra year or two for Liverpool.

K-9

TheDoc wrote: »

Whilst this is no fault of his own, Gerrard has been shifted and accomodated throughout the years based on some pretex that he is undroppable, and needs to be in a team. His withdrawl to a more deep role for Liverpool was more obvious, a club legend where the incoming manager felt his experience could provide dividends to his squad, and accomodated him. I don't believe it was a case the manager hadn't the balls, I think he felt he would hold genuine value.

But he's been shown as shockingly ineffective at that role, in the big games against proper opposition both for Liverpool and England. And both had personal better suited to the role but it seems anyone involved with Gerrard sees him as undroppable. It's a really English and Liverpool fan thing. Anyone unattached from both always knew that the question wasn't how to play Lampard and Gerrard together, but which one to play alongside Scholes, and everyone unattached knew that Alonso and Mascherano were far superior to Gerrard, and allowed him to romp forward to do what he did best.

IIRC Liverpool P15 W12 D2 and L1 from the Villa game when the Gerrard experiment started. How 38/45 points is ineffective or anything like that I don't know. The one big game that everybody remembers, Chelsea, Liverpool were actually comfortable in that game barring an accidental slip.

England is a different matter again, it's a limited team and they don't really have the manager, tactics or players to compensate for his weaknesses.

Rodgers picked him to get the best out of him and a sometimes limited midfield defencively and concentrate on attacking football. They pressed high to leave less pressure on Gerrard further back and also gave him room to get the ball at the back and spray possession. It's a pretty good balance as he isn't a DM and never will be, we all know that.

Also love the way you start your post about any criticism of Gerrard will be seen as criticism of Liverpool fans, getting the ould retaliation in first! Liverpool fans are very aware of his limitations, if anything he came in for far more criticism than was warranted the season before last and before that because of who he is.

RasTa

This will be his farewell season for Liverpool imo

Soups123

Washington Irving wrote: »

Rarely played in his best position for England, various managers tried to accommodate himself and Lampard into a 442. It was never going to get the best out of either player. Been a great servant for his country. Six major tournaments - captain in three,2 POTY award, 114 caps - one behind Beckham for all time highest capped outfield player.

Should have retired on a relative high after his good Euro 2012 performances, though as with Lahm, there would have been a large amount of fans saying it was too early.

I would agree, he was wasted for a long time shunted out left, not sure whether it was the speed of the game or not but he just never struck me as having ever got going in international football for the quality player he was.

GavRedKing wrote: »

You could fill this thread with English internationals who havent performed well for their country, I wouldnt just hold the criticism for Gerrard.

Yep but this threads about him. Club wise he had some quality years but as I say above my impression of him was that he just never got going with England. Of the trio of him Lampard and Scholes the other two did better, but again as above he got shifted a fair bit when they where accomadating the 3

Iused2likebusts

TheDoc wrote: »

Wishful thinking that this can stay somewhat mature, but I'm sure any critism against Gerrard will be seen as a dig at liverpool fans somewhow, but I've no doubt in my mind his reputation as a club legend has far inflated his actual performances, especially in an England shirt.

Gerrard is a curious case of a reputation/status building up ahead of what is actually happening on the pitch.

I think those somewhat detached from Liverpool and England, would have comfortably predicited England suffering problems with Gerrard operating in a deep position at a World Cup, where a lack of experience and intelligence would prove costly.

Whilst this is no fault of his own, Gerrard has been shifted and accomodated throughout the years based on some pretex that he is undroppable, and needs to be in a team. His withdrawl to a more deep role for Liverpool was more obvious, a club legend where the incoming manager felt his experience could provide dividends to his squad, and accomodated him. I don't believe it was a case the manager hadn't the balls, I think he felt he would hold genuine value.

But he's been shown as shockingly ineffective at that role, in the big games against proper opposition both for Liverpool and England. And both had personal better suited to the role but it seems anyone involved with Gerrard sees him as undroppable. It's a really English and Liverpool fan thing. Anyone unattached from both always knew that the question wasn't how to play Lampard and Gerrard together, but which one to play alongside Scholes, and everyone unattached knew that Alonso and Mascherano were far superior to Gerrard, and allowed him to romp forward to do what he did best.

Gerrards game was always based around explosiveness and aggression, something that slowly drifted away as the years went on. At his best he was marauding forward at defences, at his worst, slow in possesion trying to force the play.

He hasn't retired from football, just international football, and so discussion should be based upon that and upon reflection he is another instance of a talented player failing to perform to any level of excellence for his country when it mattered.It was ridiculous he went to Brazil as not only the no.1 DM, but the only DM, when Carrick and Barry perform the role far better.

He played DM from Feb till the end of the season and certainly wasn't ineffective in the big games arsenal Everton spurs at home utd away were all good performances he was decent at home against city and against Chelsea was guilty of trying to force things to make up for his slip. So hardly ineffective in the big games prior to the world cup. On form he was alongside Barry the best option for the role and by playing Barry over Gerrard it was hardly going to alter England's campaign one way or the other.He had a poor 2 game world cup like a lot of the England squad and has had only a decent England career like the majority of the so called golden generation. He should have gone after euro 12 and perhaps would have if there were any decent alternatives.

rob316

The slip aside he was absolutely brilliant in the run in for Liverpool in his "quarterback role" last season. As a Liverpool fan I have concerns about whether he has it in him to again next season, he is 34 now and was always a fairly all action player who liked to burst forward. Just focusing on Liverpool will help prolong his club career now though but I hope he packs it in altogether before he become a passenger in the side. I couldn't see a single Liverpool manager drop him.

The best you saw of Gerrard was in 08/09 when he played just off Torres, that is where he should of played his whole career but he always like to be in the middle taking the game by the scruff, the trouble is he couldn't control a game which the modern game requires for more of.

One of the finest attacking talents England has ever produced and Liverpool's greatest ever player IMO.

TheDoc

K-9 wrote: »

IIRC Liverpool P15 W12 D2 and L1 from the Villa game when the Gerrard experiment started. How 38/45 points is ineffective or anything like that I don't know. The one big game that everybody remembers, Chelsea, Liverpool were actually comfortable in that game barring an accidental slip.

England is a different matter again, it's a limited team and they don't really have the manager, tactics or players to compensate for his weaknesses.

Rodgers picked him to get the best out of him and a sometimes limited midfield defencively and concentrate on attacking football. They pressed high to leave less pressure on Gerrard further back and also gave him room to get the ball at the back and spray possession. It's a pretty good balance as he isn't a DM and never will be, we all know that.

Also love the way you start your post about any criticism of Gerrard will be seen as criticism of Liverpool fans, getting the ould retaliation in first! Liverpool fans are very aware of his limitations, if anything he came in for far more criticism than was warranted the season before last and before that because of who he is.

I only started with that opening piece because as a United fan, any comments I've ever made on Gerrard, to Liverpool fans, is quickly ridiculed as having a pop at him because of the rivalry, which is not the case. I don't subscribe to the tribal stuff.

Also I wouldn't, or havn't, formed my opinion based on his slip against Chelsea or his wayward incident against Uruguay.

I just feel it's somewhat obscure to put him into that deep lying role where he does not seem to have a grasp on the concept of controlling a game, or dictating it. Some might call it lazy analysis, but I think there is truth in it, that he forces the play way too much with "hollywood" passes(hate the phrase) compared to his counter-parts in the same position who keep possesion a lot more controlled.

The_Kew_Tour

Never delivered in a major Tournament no matter where he played.

K-9

TheDoc wrote: »

I just feel it's somewhat obscure to put him into that deep lying role where he does not seem to have a grasp on the concept of controlling a game, or dictating it. Some might call it lazy analysis, but I think there is truth in it, that he forces the play way too much with "hollywood" passes(hate the phrase) compared to his counter-parts in the same position who keep possesion a lot more controlled.

Lucas unfortunately isn't the player he was going to before his injuries, Allen wouldn't really suit that role, Henderson can be attacking but again he isn't the best defencively. Its about the balance and the run in and results show it was the right call, going from challengers for 4th to an actual title challenge.

I'd agree with the hollywood ball comment, but it actually suits that team because of the pace and attacking talent it had. The downside is leaking goals, and it did cost them a title in the end, but that was a title people would have laughed at back in January when the Gerrard experiment started.

So I don't think he can be called ineffective in that role, not a great DM? yes, but it isn't a traditional role like that, there was more emphasis on his attacking/creative side and take the risk on his downsides.

Iused2likebusts

TheDoc wrote: »

I only started with that opening piece because as a United fan, any comments I've ever made on Gerrard, to Liverpool fans, is quickly ridiculed as having a pop at him because of the rivalry, which is not the case. I don't subscribe to the tribal stuff.

Also I wouldn't, or havn't, formed my opinion based on his slip against Chelsea or his wayward incident against Uruguay.

I just feel it's somewhat obscure to put him into that deep lying role where he does not seem to have a grasp on the concept of controlling a game, or dictating it. Some might call it lazy analysis, but I think there is truth in it, that he forces the play way too much with "hollywood" passes(hate the phrase) compared to his counter-parts in the same position who keep possesion a lot more controlled.

Watching him last year in that role he did control the game from deep and unlike most of his peers he has a Hollywood pass in his locker. If you were to have a criticism of him in that role his passing and controlling of the game is not the issue.

Iused2likebusts

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Never delivered in a major Tournament no matter where he played.

Apart from Ashley Cole and maybe rio jt I'm struggling to think who consistently did in an England shirt. Could be wrong but can't think of too many attacking players since the turn of the century.

daithijjj

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Never delivered in a major Tournament no matter where he played.

.............read the tombstone of 99% of England players for about 40 years.

The_Kew_Tour

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Apart from Ashley Cole and maybe rio jt I'm struggling to think who consistently did in an England shirt. Could be wrong but can't think of too many attacking players since the turn of the century.

oh yes most are let down, but its not as many as some like poster below believe.

daithijjj wrote: »

.............read the tombstone of 99% of England players for about 40 years.

incorrect

klose

Utopias post sums it up for me anyways, happy from a liverpool supporter point of view anyways, doesn't have too many seasons left in any case. Most capped outfield player isn't he? Don't get such an accolade by not doing it for your country by and large, enjoy the retirement.

The_Kew_Tour

Its a pity he was poor at this WC cause he did deserve better then that I will say that.

For himself and Liverpool he is better off

Delighted. Hopefully more follow suit

Royal Irish

He is one of the most self obsessed footballers in the modern game.

~Rebel~

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Never delivered in a major Tournament no matter where he played.

Best English player at Euro 2012. Certainly hasn't been as good for England as he has for Liverpool down the years alright though.

Royal Irish wrote: »

He is one of the most self obsessed footballers in the modern game.

Yeah, never out of the media - talking about himself constantly that guy...oh wait...

eagle eye

He never really played to the level he did for his club at International level. I think its a good thing for the England that he has finally retired.

gosplan

This is about the biggest 'who gives a ****' in history.

It makes very very little difference to anyone including England and Liverpool fans.

bucketybuck

Gerrards England career will forever be remembered alongside that of Frank Lampards for the one vital question.

Why oh why did no England manager have the balls to do the right thing and just drop one of them?

tayto lover

His last few games probably scared the crap out of him and forced this decision.

rob316

Royal Irish wrote: »

He is one of the most self obsessed footballers in the modern game.

He really isn't he's a very down to earth guy from what you hear and a model pro.

Played his whole career at his home town club, when he could of moved on and won more. The last of a dying breed of loyal footballers.

jimmytwotimes 2013

A wise decision from Gerrard, he has to make the most of his time left at Liverpool now. This decision might help him maintain a slightly longer club career.

Gerrard does not have the benefit of a greyhound-like frame, ala Giggs, and I don't see him going on for more than two more years. I think he has slowed down considerably in recent years and this decision should help him knock the last out of what is left in the tank.

Would he be the last of the 'Golden Generation' to retire from international football? Either an over-hyped or underachieving generation given how highly they were rated.

All said, a good decision for Gerrard. It will make little difference to England as they are moving into a new generation of footballers.

AllGunsBlazing

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Best English player at Euro 2012.

True. But then again, I don't think I've seen a game where his shortcomings were more brutally exposed than against the Italians in the 1/4 finals. Any denial of time and space seems to almost totally nullify him.

gosplan

bucketybuck wrote: »

Gerrards England career will forever be remembered alongside that of Frank Lampards for the one vital question.

Why oh why did no England manager have the balls to do the right thing and just drop one of them?

I remember Italy having Tottj and Del Piero as their best two attacking players.

They never really started together in international tournaments.

Royal Irish

rob316 wrote: »

He really isn't he's a very down to earth guy from what you hear and a model pro.

Played his whole career at his home town club, when he could of moved on and won more. The last of a dying breed of loyal footballers.

Bahahahaha.

The Chelsea move in 04?

For me Gerrard will always be remember as the Liverpool great who never won a league title, but came close only to let it slip.

Here is a good read about Gerrard:

http://www.sundayworld.com/sport/opinion/roy-curtis/why-stevie-g-is-most-self-obsessed-footballer-of-his-generation

garra

TheDoc wrote: »

I only started with that opening piece because as a United fan, any comments I've ever made on Gerrard, to Liverpool fans, is quickly ridiculed as having a pop at him because of the rivalry, which is not the case. I don't subscribe to the tribal stuff.

Also I wouldn't, or havn't, formed my opinion based on his slip against Chelsea or his wayward incident against Uruguay.

I just feel it's somewhat obscure to put him into that deep lying role where he does not seem to have a grasp on the concept of controlling a game, or dictating it. Some might call it lazy analysis, but I think there is truth in it, that he forces the play way too much with "hollywood" passes(hate the phrase) compared to his counter-parts in the same position who keep possesion a lot more controlled.

That was true of Gerrard ("Hollywood passes") up to about 5 years ago. Last season in particular he consistently picked the right pass based on the game as it developed in front of him and he controlled games with composure (except THAT game obviously).

Hulk Hands

daithijjj wrote: »

.............read the tombstone of 99% of England players for about 40 years.

Nonsense, the majority of high profile English players have had a good major tournament at some stage

Utopia Parkway

Royal Irish wrote: »

Bahahahaha.

The Chelsea move in 04?

For me Gerrard will always be remember as the Liverpool great who never won a league title, but came close only to let it slip.

Here is a good read about Gerrard:

http://www.sundayworld.com/sport/opinion/roy-curtis/why-stevie-g-is-most-self-obsessed-footballer-of-his-generation

I always wondered who on earth read Roy Curtis columns.

daithijjj

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Nonsense, the majority of high profile English players have had a good major tournament at some stage

Meh....

The best win ratio for any England team came under Capello, which coincided with Gerrard getting the armband in the Euro's. In 2012 he dragged them through the group with some great deliveries and played most of the Italy game injured which resulted in some ill informed 'bad game' analysis. Played on because he was that important for Capello.

He got 2 MOTM in the group and was the only England player in the official team of the tournament.

If you're saying a vast swathe of England players before that have done similar then yea, i was talking sh1te all along :pac:

Kirby

rob316 wrote: »

He really isn't he's a very down to earth guy from what you hear and a model pro.

Played his whole career at his home town club, when he could of moved on and won more. The last of a dying breed of loyal footballers.

Staying at a club you are idolised and on nearly 200k a week isn't "loyalty." It's ridiculous to suggest it is. Its recognising you have it good and staying put. People put the same comments of Loyalty about Carragher and they were equally erroneous.

If Gerrard played his whole career at Preston on 15k a week when Chelsea came calling and said no.....that's loyalty.

8-10

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

I always wondered who on earth read Roy Curtis columns.

He can't even spell Zlatan's name properly!

DildoFaggins

rob316 wrote: »

He really isn't he's a very down to earth guy from what you hear and a model pro.

Played his whole career at his home town club, when he could of moved on and won more. The last of a dying breed of loyal footballers.

Him and Totti both could have easily went to far far superior teams and won it all and be far more known in the general public and the be held in a higher regard especially Totti.


To the fella trying to compare Preston and Liverpool that argument reeks of envy and hate.
Liverpool are one the greatest clubs ever Preston is a nothing club that had success in the dark ages. David Nugent left all them years ago to move up in the ladder. If Gerrard or a player of similar ilk was a PNE player it would be in everyone's best interests for him to leave to get the club money and him to perform on a bigger stage with better players.

He is as loyal as they come In the end Gerrard didn't go to Chelsea so it has no weight in the argument.If he did he would just be seen as another "Judas" who chased the trophies.

Totti,Gerrard,King,Di Natale,Del Pierro etc they are loyal players.

Kirby

DildoFaggins wrote: »

To the fella trying to compare Preston and Liverpool that argument reeks of envy and hate.
Liverpool are one the greatest clubs ever Preston is a nothing club that had success in the dark ages.

Firstly, "fella" is unnecessary. My post is a few inches above yours....you can see me name.

Secondly I think you are very confused. You have completely misinterpreted my post and have instead responded with some bizarre defence of Liverpool and slagged off Preston?

Have a read of my post again, slower this time and I think you might get my meaning. I'll spell it out a bit more in case you still don't get it.

The fact that Gerrard was earning mega bucks at a big club, and winning the champions league and idolised by his fans, means he isn't exactly giving up a whole lot or displaying loyalty by staying. He still gets to live in his mansion and stare at his Champions League medal.

If he played for Preston who were a "nothing club" (your words, not mine) and turned down Chelsea even though he was on a miniscule wage, at an unfashionable club and knowing that he will never win anything.....that would be displaying loyalty......and its something that would likely never happen.

Personally I find words like loyalty laughable when used in the context of modern football. Gerrard knew what he had at Liverpool and wisely chose to stay. Showing self-interest isn't loyalty.

Royal Irish

Royal Irish wrote: »

Bahahahaha.

The Chelsea move in 04?

For me Gerrard will always be remember as the Liverpool great who never won a league title, but came close only to let it slip.

Here is a good read about Gerrard:

http://www.sundayworld.com/sport/opinion/roy-curtis/why-stevie-g-is-most-self-obsessed-footballer-of-his-generation

Good read and the Sunday World in the same sentence. A paper designed and put together for amoebas.

Should be a cracker

That_Guy

Right decision. He's been toxic for quite some time on the international stage. Probably a mixture of tactics/individual performances.

In what was an awful World Cup for England, he was one of their worst.