by bigmick » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:12 am
In fairness the exchange earlier was nothing to do with anyone being "nervous" about Gerrard being criticised. He is like any other footballer, he has good games and bad games and probably more in between, average games than either extreme. The obvious rider in his particular case is that even on a bad day he's quite good compared to most, and on a good day he's miles better than most. Even on an average day he's far better than most, nothing "nervous" about admitting the obvious, he is only human.
Where the controversy has come from on this occasion is firstly the notion that all things within a football team are interlinked. Some people are obviously more ready to accept that than others. Would Alonso playing central midfield for instance rather than Aurelio make a difference to how well Torres and Gerrard play? My feeling is that most definately it would make a difference, whereas it appears that some people don't agree with that.
As for the "we would finish sixth without Gerrard" I think that would have been the case in the past. Nowadays, with Torres fit and scoring regularly we would probably finish higher than that. Were Torres to get injured though as well as Gerrard being absent, we would struggle to better sixth IMHO. As it is, it is more of a concern where we will finish WITH Gerrard than without him. It is my view that if we insist on continually proving my theory correct that central midfielders who aren't up to the job nullify your potent front two, we may struggle to finish fourth with both Gerrard and Torres playing regularly. Certainly on the four occasions we've isolated them up front so far this season, we've lost three times and managed to beat Stoke.
Some people evidently think that's a coincidence, and I don't agree. That's the discrepancy here, not anybody being nervous about Gerrard being criticised.
Last edited by
bigmick on Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
"se e in una bottigla ed e bianco, e latte".