The Gerrard Delusion

Where did this "Gerrard is the best player in the world" nonsense come out of? From John Aldridge to Zinedine Zidane there seems to be a world-wide conspiracy whereby we are fed with the notion that Stevie G is the best we have to offer. It was one thing trying to convince people that Ronaldo wasn't the best footballer in the world when he was banging in goals right left and centre, but surely nobody can make a solid case for Gerrard being the planet's best?

His recent performances have been pretty decent, but honestly, he's not even been the best Liverpool player in either of the last two games, not to mention his credentials for best in the world. Torres was better against United, and Reira was better against Villa. Is Gerrard a good player? Of course, but let's not get carried away here people. He has a good shot, and he bursts into the box better than anyone. But is he particularly good at dribbling? No. Is he particularly good at passing? No. In fact his passing is so suspect that he actually can't be trusted in midfield. So what is his actualy position then? For Liverpool he generally plays off Torres in what you could consider to be the Bergkamp role. However, he plays the game almost nothing like the way Bergkamp played it. In fact, he plays the game almost nothing like the way any classic second striker plays it. Generally the second striker is the one who controls the attacks, but this can't be said about Gerrard. Gerrard is the guy who gets on the end of attacks. He won't really be involved much in a tight game, but he may (or may not) pop up with a goal. Is this kind of player valuable to a team? Yes, but I would much rather someone like Iniesta or Rooney on my team - a player who gets on the ball and brings other people into the game. A player who doesn't show up in moments, but has an impact on the game from 0-90 minutes.

Gerrard is an enigma, and enigma's can never be considered the best in the world. The best player in the world has to be somebody who makes perfect sense. You're supposed to look at him and think, 'Now I realise what football is all about'. They are the kinds of players who bring meaning and order to the game. Zidane was this kind of player. You watched him play and paradoxically you tought "I can do what he's doing" while at the same time thinking "What an absolute genius". Something similar is true about Messi, though his speed obviously sets him apart. You look at him and he makes footballing sense. You're not left scratching your head wondering where you can play Messi to get the most out of him. You simply know that he is great at football, and as long as he is on the field then everything will be okay.

With great players the simple becomes the sublime, and the sublime becomes the simple. With Gerrard, it's all about the wonderous, unrepeatable moments. The 30 yard drive, the splendid freekick, the dash into the box and the ripping volley. Game-changing moments, but all unreliable.

Jonathan Wilson (hands down the most insightful, intelligent football journalist I've yet to come across) says that you don't win matches by scoring goals; you score goals by winning matches. I couldn't agree more with this statement, and it is for this reason that Gerrard will never be the best player in the world - he doesn't help you win enough matches.

Uh Oh Lawro

You may or not be aware of this, but Mark Lawrenson actually said something of interest yesterday. Unfortunately for Lawro however, it landed him in some pretty hot water, so don't expect him to come out with anything of the sort again.

So what did he say and where did he say it? Well, he said it talking to Irish media of course. Isn't it great that we Irish have the gift of making football people be completely candid, and getting them to say whatever the hell they want to say? I think so. Being an analyst in England is like being a caged animal, or even a circus animal that performs the same tricks week in week out. However, the Irish media lets the animal out of the circus. It's as if people see Eamonn Dunphy and think "Well if he can get away with it then why can't I?" so they end up being refreshingly honest, albeit largely wrong (some things can't change).

In talking to Today FM, Lawrenson probably got a bit too excited about his latest scoop, forgot about the fact that people in England can still hear about things that happen in Ireland, and went beyond the call of duty, at least in the eyes of LFC. Here's what he had to say regarding a topic I wrote about not so long ago:

"Sorry to name drop but I had a drink with Steven Gerrard at a function on Saturday night, and we were talking about Robbie Keane...He was saying to me that they [Keane and Gerrard] share the same agent and he thinks something is going to happen with Robbie Keane in January...He thinks he's going to be moved on."

First of all, sorry to name drop? Yeah right! You just wanted to shout the fact that you had a drink with Gerrard from the roof tops, didn't you Mark? My guess is that Lawro just made the whole Robbie Keane thing up in order to let it be known that he had a drink with Stevie G. He couldn't just say "So I had a drink with Steven Gerrard" and leave it at that. After all, that would just come off as a pathetic attempt to name drop, which is clearly not what Lawro wanted to do [???]. Instead, Lawrenson decided to attach an interesting but fictional piece to his Gerrard encounter, just so he could let it be known that he is on drinking terms with Steven Gerrard, but without sounding like that's all he wanted people to know. Nice try, Mark.

Of course being reasonable people, we can only assume that Lawrenson wasn't just making this whole thing up, right? I mean if we were to find out that none of this was true, and that Steven Gerrard never said that he thinks Robbie is going to be moved on, then I don't think the BBC would have any choice but to sack Mark Lawrenson based on his penchant for downright lying, nor would the Sun have any choice but to hire him for that exact reason. After all, one man's Busted is another man's Led Zeppeilin, or something...

Well all of this happened yesterday, and it left the footballing world in quite a stir, while Robbie Keane was probably left crying into his laptop screen wondering how in the world he could be moved on while Dirk Kuyt gets to stay. I'd love to be at Liverpool's training ground today, that's for sure.

But alas, this isn't the end of the tale. Lawrenson has come out saying things again, only this time he has retracted the one interesting piece of information he has ever given us. Why, Mark, why!? Larwo now claims that all of what he said on Today Fm was his own opinion, failing to realise that we gave up paying attention to his opinion long ago, and would actually rather lies than it. Anyway, here's what he said today about what he had to say yesterday:

"I'm sorry if it caused any aggravation but it wasn't meant to. Steven Gerrard's name should never have come up in terms of Robbie Keane going in January. It wasn't Steven saying that it was me saying it.

"The only connection I was making between the two was that they have the same agent and I have had a hunch for a while that Keane could go.

"But that is my opinion and nothing whatsoever to do with any conversations I had with Steven Gerrard.

"I happened to mention I spoke to him on Saturday night but I didn't mean for that to come across in the way that it has been interpreted."

So he did just do it for the sake of name dropping! That's real classy, Mark. Real classy.

What I'm not clear about is that referring to Gerrard, Lawrenson clearly said yesterday that "He thinks he's [that is, Keane] going to be moved on". But now he's saying that it wasn't Steven Gerrard saying that, but rather that is his own opinion? Did Lawrenson even have a drink with Gerrard at all, or was he just having both a drink and a conversation with himself? Or perhaps he did have a drink with Gerrard, but then quoted himself in the third person.

And where does the agent fit into it? If Gerrard never said anything regarding Keane, then mentioning their mutual agent is utterly meaningless. Saying that he was just trying to make a connection between Gerrard and Keane becomes completely redundent, because we're well aware of a pretty strong connection already - they both play for Liverpool! The fact that they share the same agent means diddley squat if Gerrard didn't voice an opinion on the Keane situation, which Lawro is now saying he didn't.

Honestly, given that I have trouble believing that someone would just make this whole story up for Irish radio, I think Gerrard did say those things, but then Lawro realised that he really shouldn't be repeating them in public. Now he's just trying to cover his tracks, but there's really no way to do that unless he wants to brand himself as either a complete fool or a filthy liar. If I were Lawro, I'd play the "fool" card. I don't think people will have trouble buying into that.