TOMKINS: ENGLAND'S LOSS, LIVERPOOL'S GAIN
Paul Tomkins 13 October 2008

I have to shake my head in disbelief at the criticism that has come Steven Gerrard's way in the past week, from fans and media alike.
Of course, it all stems from England's matches; although this has led fans of other clubs, somewhat laughably, to expand it to include talk about how overrated he is in general. (By the way, isn't ‘overrated' the most tiresomely overused word in football? I can't think of one player it hasn't been levelled against.) It was even mooted by one United fan that Michael Carrick is a far better player – a fact ‘proven' by him having won a greater number of the medals that matter most. By this logic, dear old Djimi Traoré is as good as Michael Owen, Matt Le Tissier and Alan Shearer combined, on account of total career medals garnered, which includes the European Cup. Clearly it doesn't work this way. Carrick better than Gerrard? Yes, the debate has got that surreal. Football is about opinions, but let's keep some reality; I'm not about to argue that Bernard Diomede was a better winger than Cristiano Ronaldo just because I'm a Liverpool fan. And Michael Robinson, who admitted to being woefully out of his depth at Anfield in 1984, won as many medals as George Best, but I won't take that train of thought any further. The issue of Gerrard's quality is not to be confused with team balance, something that England often lack in the centre of midfield when Gerrard and Lampard are paired together, given their similar desire to get forward. At Liverpool, Mascherano and Alonso don't clash with their captain's instincts. For England, Gerrard has to think a lot harder, because before making a move he has to check whether his midfield partner has already bombed forward. One national newspaper's blog even spoke of Gerrard's (and Lampard's) “limited technical ability and incessant mediocrity at international level”. It makes me laugh that this is suggested after a game against the calibre of opposition that wouldn't even make the Uefa Cup; and yet over the past five seasons we've seen Gerrard impress hugely in leading Liverpool to the latter stages of the Champions League, and inspiring the Reds to overcome the mighty AC Milan from a 3-0 disadvantage. (And let's face it, Lampard has hardly been found wanting in European football, has he?) Suddenly Gerrard doesn't posses the adequate technique for international football? What is the Champions League then? – an English pub league? I'm sorry, but aside from the top few national teams in the world, the knockout stages of the Champions League has a greater proliferation of world-class talent than the general international arena. And the group stages involve more talent than a World Cup qualifying campaign; Marseilles and PSV Eindhoven, propping up Liverpool's group, are far better sides than Kazakhstan, while teams like Andorra wouldn't even make the Inter Toto Cup. Big European teams have the cream of the world's crop, gathered in tight clusters. Liverpool themselves have a collection of the best players from England, Argentina, Spain and Holland, four of the globe's traditional superpowers, and emerging internationals from two further major nations, Italy and Brazil. You can say something similar of all the top Champions League sides. Only last month Gerrard scored the kind of goal against Marseilles that 99.9% of players from any country could only dream about: wrapping his foot around the ball for a shot in such a difficult and unnatural body position – so that he looked almost double-jointed in its execution – but making it look effortless in the process. The goalkeeper didn't move a muscle. If Ronaldinho had produced this piece of skill we'd have heard about how only the Latinos of this world can conjure such otherworldly perfection. And someone is telling me that Gerrard lacks technique beyond the confines of the hurly-burly of the Premiership? (Which, itself, is now a far more technical league than in the past.) The problem is not one of technique or calibre of opposition, but of context. At Liverpool, Gerrard is respected, treasured and a go-to man. For England, he has much less of a support network. For England, like others, he is just another potential scapegoat. For a start, any player representing England has to put up with the numbskulls who boo their own players mercilessly after a mistake. Far be it from me to want to defend Ashley Cole (and I'm more likely to be asked to become the sixth member of Girls Aloud than to make a habit of it), but a baying home arena does not help players, no matter how much they earn. Why would anyone want to destroy the confidence of one of their own players with 20 minutes remaining? Yes, you pay your money, but you're only likely to make players more nervous; if not just this time, then when contemplating the next game. Thankfully Anfield still remains the most cultured crowd. You only have to look at how quickly the passionate Newcastle fans have turned on their own players and managers in recent seasons (and how it only made things worse) to see that patience and intelligence are also key attributes of a club's support – not just raw emotion, dedication and passion. I've only been to see England play once as an adult, back in 1996, when Robbie Fowler made his debut against Croatia. By contrast I've been to see Liverpool a few hundred times. Therefore, like a lot of fans, I care about my club first and foremost. However, if I did care enough about England to pay money and travel to the game (and therefore, presumably, desperately wanted them to win), I don't see the point of then booing a player I don't like. Why don't these fans ask themselves why their team plays better away from home, when they're not playing with fear? The media treatment of England is also generally appalling. Again, the players are well-paid professionals at the top of their sport who don't need mollycoddling, but equally they should not feel like they are battling their own nation. It's easy to look on at the Olympic spirit seen this summer by our heroic gold medal athletes, but they didn't have thousands of fans barracking their every move from the sidelines and journalists praying that they fail, because it makes better copy. There's also this new ‘Hollywood' accusation regarding Gerrard's passing. Suddenly it's a bad thing to be able to pass 60 yards with incredible vision. Sure, they don't always come off; nor do Xabi Alonso's. But at times you have to try and mix it up, and if one out of every three or four dissects the opposition like a hot knife through butter, then it's a job well done. I'm sure you could put together a stunning montage of Gerrard's long-range assists over the past decade to justify his decision to look ambitiously long every now and then. Having said all this, like every other top-class player, Gerrard is not without his faults. He seems to burn too much nervous energy ahead of big games, but then he does carry an enormous burden of expectation and responsibility; even cool, calm and collected Alan Hansen said that the older he got the more he became a bag of nerves before big matches, as a lot was expected of him as a senior figure in the team. But even if Gerrard can look nervous early on in big games, he tends to come good and deliver when it really matters. His record proves that. Of course he will struggle to regularly dominate games against Chelsea or Man United to the degree he does others, because these are fixtures in which no-one really dominates proceedings, such is the spread of talent and the tactical battle at the heart of the pitch. Often centre-backs are the ones who get noticed most. Sometimes it frustrates me when Gerrard gets Man of the Match for Liverpool almost on his reputation alone; on occasions you can pick out someone less-heralded who underpinned the victory. And as we saw against Man United recently, Liverpool are not lost without him, even though you'd want him in the side whenever possible. There seems to be this usual black/white reporting that he saves ‘one-man' Liverpool's bacon time and time again, yet when he has a bad game for England he is rubbish and technically incompetent. To me, it's like Liverpool get insulted by the media in club debates as having only one great player (a nonsense, even before Torres arrived), but with England, it is then Liverpool's player that gets insulted. I admit my bias, but I don't recall Wayne Rooney getting so heavily doubted after four mostly uninspiring years for his country. But despite one or two inevitable flaws, I still think that Gerrard is the most complete player to represent Liverpool (and England); at least in my lifetime. He can pass, shoot, tackle, beat a man, but what marks him out is that he has both the pace and the stature to make him a dominant physical presence, too. To score 100 club goals from midfield is a remarkable achievement, particularly as he was not on penalty duty for much of his career. Hopefully he will feel far more comfortable, appreciated and understood once he returns to Melwood at the end of the week. And, once back in the fold, he can instantly begin work on his next century of goals.