Steven Gerrard retires from England international duty

Rayne Wooney

The Lampard Gerrard pairing was always toxic, both average CMs and didn't like playing with each other made it worse

If England could go back in time to 99/00 they'd play Scholes with one of the two no doubt

Rooney the only one left of the golden generation, he will end up being the best of them all but overall the golden generation obviously was a major flop

rob316

Kirby wrote: »

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.

You equate money with loyalty.

Gerrard has had offers to go to chelsea, real madrid and god knows who else has tried to sign him, United tried even and he stayed put. Sure he has won alot with liverpool but for a player of his talent he could of won so much more.

Rayne Wooney

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

The Lampard Gerrard pairing was always toxic, both average CMs and didn't like playing with each other made it worse

If England could go back in time to 99/00 they'd play Scholes with one of the two no doubt

Rooney the only one left of the golden generation, he will end up being the best of them all but overall the golden generation obviously was a major flop

England had Scholes and played him on the wing. Can't ever have sympathy for them. The red tops pick the team.

Rooney is golden no more. He should follow Gerrard and get away from that mess of an England setup.

Rayne Wooney

rarnes1 wrote: »

England had Scholes and played him on the wing. Can't ever have sympathy for them. The red tops pick the team.

Rooney is golden no more. He should follow Gerrard and get away from that mess of an England setup.

He only needs 9 more goals to be their all time top goal scorer, he'll stick around for another Euros and probably be made captain

Rayne Wooney

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

He only needs 9 more goals to be their all time top goal scorer, he'll stick around for another Euros and probably be made captain

I hope he does

Iused2likebusts

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

As you obviously let roy curtis form your opinions. I'm sure you agree with him that sterling is a better no 10 than rooney and sturridge a better striker.

http://www.sundayworld.com/sport/opinion/roy-curtis/curtis-in-midweek-should-rooney-be-dropped

His opinions are nonsense summed up by using the game against Villa as a stick to beat gerrard. A journalist worth his salt would realise this was the start of the gerrard at DM expirement and it wasnt very successful and was changed at half time. A couple of things were tweaked and liverpool and gerrard went onto have their best run of form from the game after Villa till the end of the season.

Soups123

I despise Roy Curtis how any paper can pay him to right about football shows everything that is wrong with the rags

Iused2likebusts

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

The Lampard Gerrard pairing was always toxic, both average CMs and didn't like playing with each other made it worse

If England could go back in time to 99/00 they'd play Scholes with one of the two no doubt

Rooney the only one left of the golden generation, he will end up being the best of them all but overall the golden generation obviously was a major flop

Unless he does something major in the euros Rooney will not be classed as the best of the lot. He had a good euro 04 , 2 dreadful world cups 06,10 and he was average this time around. The only golden generation players that come out with any major credit are a couple of the defenders. Id say ashley Cole has had the best england career of that generation.

Lostman1990

Ah sure, his legs had gone.....

kippy

Hard to know with Gerrard. Obviously a brilliant player for his club the majority of the time however wasn't really able to reach anywhere near those heights with England, although its fair to say not may players for England in recent history have been able to reproduce their best form playing for their country. Whether thats a failure of national management and tactics or an indication of how much the English clubs rely on non english players to get the best out of their english players is a different argument.
He's been a loyal servant however and never shied away from the national scene. He's been lucky however at times that Rooney has taken most of the flack of the past number of years.

It'll definitely extend his usefulness to Liverpool and most Liverpool fans are delighted I'd say.

LuckyLloyd

Some solid nonsense here.

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.

You should at least admit your bias before you begin, that would seem the reasonable thing to do.

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

His reputation and status is based on a number of concrete factors:

- for a period, say 2003 - 2009, he was one of the better midfield players in Europe. Not the best or anything, but an immense talent;
- he has retained a number of attributes which would improve and benefit most teams. Brilliant set piece delivery; great range of passing; a natural flair and willingness to try to execute ambitious plays;
- he has been for much of his career a 'clutch moment player' and been central to huge performances for club and country;

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.

England have had huge problems with their central midfield throughout the entirety of Gerrard's career. They've never had a top class defensive midfielder and they've had numerous coaches insistent on playing two in the middle. Gerrard did very well in 2012 in a similar role, but the England team played a more cautious and regressive game plan. At Liverpool last season, the tempo was very high. In both cases, the tactical approach did not require or depend upon Gerrard to be what he isn't - i.e. an Alonso style pace dictator helping to control possession the whole time. Gerrard is what he is, and when used correctly he can and has contributed to teams who have won everything bar the league (and been in the team of the season the two times Liverpool came closest to the league in his career). Hodgson's decision to set England up as they did was a disaster waiting to happen, but Gerrard shouldn't shoulder all of that blame.

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.

He HAS provided genuine value to Liverpool in that role. His last two seasons were his best club seasons since 2008 / 9, a genuine rejuvenation of his career. If anything, the issue was that he was not played more consistently behind the striker for the largest part of his career when he was still a dynamic athlete. That was where he did the most damage and was utilised to the full extent. Certainly, that is how he should have been deployed from 2009 - 12.

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.

I agree with the very last point, that he was best ahead of Masch and Alonso. The bolded is, well...everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to be wrong is a fine privilege. At Euro 2012 he had a brilliant tournament, and has come off a fine and universally lauded season in that role for a Liverpool team that performed very well in the league.

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.

You are correct that he played some poor ball in a deep position at Liverpool in Benitez's final season and during the Hodgson debacle and Dalglish return. I argued the same point. But the nuances of his role for Liverpool the past couple of seasons have been different, largely because the general tactical approach and therefore the demands placed upon his have been different. Over the past couple of seasons at club level his attributes have been allowed to come to the fore and his weaknesses minimized.

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.

Again, while I strongly disagree with your opinion I would fight to the death for your right to express it. I mean, we're only two years removed from his best tournament for England. He was superb and can't be blamed for a penalty defeat in the quarters. He also had a very solid tournament in 2006, and turned in good performances in key qualifying games through the years.

You are wrong in a lot of the above, a product of your bias. I argued against Gerrard over the years on two main points:

- he wanted to be a central midfielder at his peak when Benitez had actually figured a far more effective way to deploy him, and he should have embraced that considering he had his most effective campaign playing behind Torres;
- he was consistently underwhelming between 2009 - 2012 and had a poor world cup in 2010;

But I have been shut up by his performances from Euro 2012 on. He had a very poor tournament in Brazil as part of a very underperforming side with no solid tactical identity. But you way overreach when you try to suggest he has been 'shockingly ineffective' the past two years or 'should have been dropped'.

LuckyLloyd

gosplan wrote: »

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

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

And this is very true. He wasn't going to make a tournament as a 36 year old in two year's time, and he is going to need to be naturally phased out over the coming two years from a Liverpool perspective. I was 14 when Gerrard broke into the Liverpool side, so he's been there for what seems forever. But this will be the wind down period. Maybe he hangs on for three seasons tops, but he's unlikely to be a regular starter after this coming year.

Pro. F

The quality of Gerrard's 2012 tournament is being overstated imo. He was the best midfielder in an extremely defensive team who were rubbish at controlling possession. That is not particularly impressive.

Gerrard is a good number 10, but a very limited central midfielder and winger. He played all of his England career in the positions where he has limited ability, so it's the managers who should get the real criticism.

He's called it a day now and you can guarantee the England fans and management will select another central midfielder who can't control possession to replace him. It's what they do.

NIMAN

He should have been retired earlier than this. The fact that he was there playing in this WC, in all the games despite being outclassed in the opener, sums up why England will never move on in the football world. They aren't ruthless enough to ditch players who are past it.

I heard yesterday that he played in 5 major tournaments. Did he do anything of note in any of them? If so, I can't remember it.

Demosthenese

Gerard should have retired before this Tournament but instead the lure of another WC proved too much. Plenty of players have done the same and i don't really blame them. If England had a proper replacement (Unbelievable to think they do not! but there ya go) it would have been a different decision. However, to contrast with Pirlo whom everyone loves to laud over - he had 1 good game against a poor England team that gave up possession and was utter tripe for the other games when young fresh legs nullified his game completely whereas Gerard had 2 forgettable games in a poor england side. That's international football for you ... players cannot let go and managers do not have the balls and sometimes resources to replace them.

As for Gerards England career, it was always strange that in his prime as an attacking midfielder they chose to piss around and play him behind 2 up front instead of his best position - no manager would drop him or Lampard and that proved to be a disaster for them both. Hard to get the best out of your top players when you play them in wrong positions.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

He's called it a day now and you can guarantee the England fans and management will select another central midfielder who can't control possession to replace him. It's what they do.

That's the crux of it.

Why England managers don't play to players strengths is beyond me.

They are a comicle international outfit.

Kirby

Lloyd I agree with most of your long post but I would take issue with two things. Firstly gerrard did not have a great euro2012. Repeating it doesnt suddenly make it true. Being not quite as crap as the rest of the english midfield isnt an achievement and he would have gotten nowhere near the team of the tournament.....even if you picked two different teams.

Secondly, the fact that you described gerrard as a dynamic athlete from 2009 to 2012 is hilarious. He slowed down alot well before 2012 and his stamina suffered too. There hasnt been anything physically dynamic about him for a long time.We havent seen any impressive physical play from gerrard sincethe mid 2000's.

Oregano_State

He was playing in a midfield two with England at the WC, that was never going to work. If Hodgson wanted to use him in a similar role to what he did for Liverpool under Rodgers this season, then he should have set the team (or at least the midfield) up similarly.

Utopia Parkway

NIMAN wrote: »

He should have been retired earlier than this. The fact that he was there playing in this WC, in all the games despite being outclasses in the opener, sums up why England will never move on in the football world. They aren't ruthless enough to ditch players who are past it.

I heard yesterday that he played in 5 major tournaments. Did he do anything of note in any of them? If so, I can't remember it.

Probably England's best player in Euro 2012. I recall him being one of England's better players in South Africa in 2010 as well. He scored a few goals in Germany 2006.

He generally played quite well for England in tournaments but obviously that is inside the England bubble. They didn't make a huge impact on any of those tournaments as a team.

K-9

Kirby wrote: »

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.

Le Tissier is always the example I think of, legend. I agree with your point though, staying at Liverpool was hardly a Le Tissier decision, he got big contracts and ended up in another CL final, a CL S/F, 2 title challenges and won an FA Cup that he'll always be remembered for.

A true test would have been if a big offer came in around 2010-12.

rarnes1 wrote: »

That's the crux of it.

Why England managers don't play to players strengths is beyond me.

They are a comicle international outfit.

Yep, English managers bought into the myth, probably more striking is that the 3 Liverpool managers after Rafa all did too, until Rodgers copped how to handle him.

Kirby wrote: »

Pro.F wrote:

The quality of Gerrard's 2012 tournament is being overstated imo. He was the best midfielder in an extremely defensive team who were rubbish at controlling possession. That is not particularly impressive.

True, he'd a good EC, not a great one! It's getting down to semantics though.

K-9

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

As you obviously let roy curtis form your opinions. I'm sure you agree with him that sterling is a better no 10 than rooney and sturridge a better striker.

http://www.sundayworld.com/sport/opinion/roy-curtis/curtis-in-midweek-should-rooney-be-dropped

His opinions are nonsense summed up by using the game against Villa as a stick to beat gerrard. A journalist worth his salt would realise this was the start of the gerrard at DM expirement and it wasnt very successful and was changed at half time. A couple of things were tweaked and liverpool and gerrard went onto have their best run of form from the game after Villa till the end of the season.

Well in fairness Sterling probably is a better No.10 for England in the long term, Rooney better striker than Sturridge. But the problem really is it is hard to get the 3 of them operating properly in an England team, without putting at least one of them in less effective positions.

Also agreed on that article, the person that linked to it started their post Bahahahahahahah.

Sums up how lowest common denominator the piece is.

LuckyLloyd

Kirby wrote: »

Lloyd I agree with most of your long post but I would take issue with two things. Firstly gerrard did not have a great euro2012. Repeating it doesnt suddenly make it true. Being not quite as crap as the rest of the english midfield isnt an achievement and he would have gotten nowhere near the team of the tournament.....even if you picked two different teams.

Except he was in the team of the tournament:

http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=1838241.html

Secondly, the fact that you described gerrard as a dynamic athlete from 2009 to 2012 is hilarious. He slowed down alot well before 2012 and his stamina suffered too. There hasnt been anything physically dynamic about him for a long time.We havent seen any impressive physical play from gerrard sincethe mid 2000's.

I said 'the issue was that he was not played more consistently behind the striker for the largest part of his career when he was still a dynamic athlete'. I also said he should have continued in that role during 2009 - 12.

I think he was pretty dynamic in 2008 / 9, would have thought that was obvious, so I think you're overselling his dropoff in those departments.

Kirby

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Except he was in the team of the tournament:

http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=1838241.html

That's a 23 man squad my good man. Not a team. A squad of the tournament.

As I said, he would have gotten nowhere near a team of the tourney....even if you picked two.

De Rossi, Xavi, Iniesta, Khedira, Busquets, Pirlo, Ozil and Alonso were also picked in that squad of the tourney.....and all would be ahead of Gerrard. So unless you plan on playing a system with nine midfielders, he isnt getting near the team.

Utopia Parkway

Kirby wrote: »

That's a 23 man squad my good man. Not a team. A squad of the tournament.

As I said, he would have gotten nowhere near a team of the tourney....even if you picked two.
.

So he was in the 23 man squad of the tournament but would be nowhere near a team of the tournament even if you picked two teams totaling 22 players.

Makes sense.

Kirby

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

So he was in the 23 man squad of the tournament but would be nowhere near a team of the tournament even if you picked two teams totaling 22 players.

Makes sense.

I know. It does. Because every other midfielder in the squad would be ahead of him. Ergo, unless you are playing him upfront, in defence, or in goal, he would be number 23 in the squad and therefore miss out on both teams picked. I'm ofcourse going to give Casillas and Buffon a half each to prove my point.

ROCKMAN

As a United Fan I reserve my right to hate/dislike any Liverpool legend and I defeat my right not to have to back up this dislike with stupid facts and reasons.
However As a Liverpool player he is rightly considered a legend and his decision to retire from international duty is the right one and may prolong his club career. But for Liverpool fans sake I hope your manager is strong enough to pull the plug when the time is right and not let him develop into a sad shadow of the player we have seen over the last decade or so....

the incredible pudding

Gerrard is extremely good at a lot of things but awful when put under pressure when he immediately receives the ball. He's never had that appreciation of the space around him to create that bit of space around his marker. I'd rate his vision and range of passing as being up there amongst the best in the league though. Liverpool will get another good few years out of him provided that they don't play him directly against mobile #10s like Silva and the ilk but against teams that sit back, defend deep or don't have players that can exploit his positional indiscipline he'll be invaluable to them.

This positional indiscipline seems to be something that the majority of English players are lacking in, with Rooney being another culprit which has prevented him from being as good as he could be. For this reason I've always been baffled by people's criticism of England's inability to control possession; they shouldn't be trying to play that way, they should aim to be organised, hard to beat (like Argentina this year) and counter attack at pace. It's a very viable strategy and one much better suited to them then trying to pass the ball too much and inevitably losing it in dangerous possitions leaving themselves exposed.