In defence of Gerrard

In his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, Enoch Powell famously said ''All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs'.

Regardless of your thoughts on Powell's other public utterances and on Powell generally, he was unquestionably right. He could just as easily have been talking about football although, with football, careers generally end with regrets rather than necessarily failure.

I have argued before that the overwhelming majority of footballing careers end with failure flecked through them and with regret at every turn.

Some of our finest players are the most obvious. Sometimes, like van Basten, it will be regretting the injuries he suffered.  Paul Gascoigne was a superlative talent but he will be forever remembered as a man who managed to squander that talent. Glenn Hoddle and Matt Le Tissier will both think they could have done more for England or been treated more kindly by England managers. Best, di Stefano, Giggs and Weah will be viewed through the prism of never having played at the truly highest level. Roy Keane will forever recall that booking against Juventus. Cantona never won the Champions League. Baggio missed that penalty. Johann Cruijff, in my eyes the finest all-round footballer ever to play the game, never won the a major international tournament and - I suspect - that is why he isn't in the running when people argue about Pele and Maradona.

And these are the blessed! If players as gifted as Cruijff and Best have regrets it stands to reason that players not as sumptuous will figure similarly. Or, perhaps, it is only those who approach greatness that have regrets over things that could have been achieved, things within their reach but got away. I cannot imagine Andy Sinton sitting by a fire cursing recriminations because he didn't win Euro 1992.

Do the caps fit?

And what of Gerrard? He is a player who is a hero in his native land, a legend in his own playing career and, whisper it quietly, a man who has dislodged Dalglish as the finest player to ever pull on the red of Liverpool. There are some, in the game, who file him alongside John Barnes: a player who was sumptuous for Liverpool but erratic for England. (NB: I think a fairer Barnes comparison would actually be Wayne Rooney - although young master Wayne has time to dispel that notion).

This is a good time to consider Gerrard. He has recently reached 600 appearances for Liverpool and this week became only the sixth England player to win 100 caps. Both are achievements worthy of admiration and respect.

The blowhards in the press seem to think it is a travesty that he will be talked about in the same breath as Moore and Charlton. The same blowhards got terribly upset when Beckham overtook Moore. Letters are sent to The Times. Cheeks are blown. Brows are furrowed. The tone is one of general harrumphing.

Moore and Charlton are assured as English footballing legends for eternity. Their greatness is not measured by caps alone. After all, Moore nursed his way to 108 caps and, in reality, shouldn't have played past 1970. If he had retired with 90 caps, or 80, would we think any the less of him? Of course not. He lifted the World Cup! The curse of the past is that we over-rate what once occurred but we are not over-rating Moore or Charlton. That said, to say it is a travesty that a player as wondrous as Gerrard is in the same bracket as Wright surely overrates the latter as well as tarnishing the former.

Sensible people do not think Shilton was a better goalkeeper than Banks even though he got 52 more caps. Sensible people do not Barnes was a better winger than Finney even though he is higher up the cap list. Sensible people will realise that Gerrard should be applauded for his contribution to England's cause that, on balance, he generally played well for his nation and was one who - in his own understated way - cared about it deeply. Him getting 100 caps doesn't mean that we value Charlton any less. It merely means he has contributed a lot over a sustained period of time.

Evaluating Gerrard

There is no doubt that Gerrard will, like most players, retire with regrets and questions. His trophy cabinet is full enough - two FA Cups, three League Cups, a Champions League title and a UEFA Cup. But, of course, the glaring omission is the lack of an English Premier League medal. Unlike an international medal - which is contingent upon so many factors as players from Best to Cruijff can attest - a league win probably was within his grasp. Liverpool have finished second twice in his Liverpool career and there will no doubt be nights in the future when Gerrard will think ''if only Macheda's goal had bent around the post (or his handball spotted)'' or ''why did Arshavin turn up that night?' or ''why didn't we turn some of those many draws into wins?'.

He may also dwell on what might have been if he had moved to Chelsea in 2005. That links to a wider idea that Gerrard only ever played under two truly world-class managers in Benitez (under whom he excelled) and Capello (under whom he excelled but to a lesser extent). Compare Gerrard's list of managers to that of Scholes, Lampard, and Fabregas. Great footballers often need a great manager to coax out their genius. It would be fair to say that Gerrard, partly through his own volition, has been unlucky in that regard. One wonders what would have happened if Gerrard had moved from Anfield and how he would have developed under Mourinho.

Individually, again, he has won much. FWA Footballer of the Year, Players' Player of the Year, Young Player of the Year, UEFA Club Player of the Year, PFA Team of the Year and UEFA Team of the Year on multiple occasions. He has figured highly in the Ballon d'Or voting and on four occasions been voted in the top 10 players in the FIFA World Player of the Year.

Most players - even those at the highest heights - would be pleased enough. Again, the truly great players view their trophy cabinet and see what isn't there rather than what is and my guess is Gerrard will know that a league title, an international trophy or, even, a Ballon d'Or would smooth his path to greatness.

What might have been?

There is, however, as Wilson notes the whiff of ''what might have been'' with Gerrard. My reading of the situation differs from that of the Sage of Sunderland. It is indubitably the case that Gerrard and Lampard did not form a truly effective midfield partnership for England (or, more correctly, they were perfectly effective they were just not as good as many hoped). I don't think, however, we can simply blame the managers for not noticing this or focus on Gerrard - as many do - as the better player. There are comparatively few brow-beating articles about Lampard. Perhaps that is because Lampard is one of those curiously un-English players who squeezed every last drop of talent out of his body whereas football came more naturally to his Scouse partner.

Gerrard's allegedly subdued form in an England shirt must be viewed as part of a longer historical process. For many years, England have had a series of players who have not reached their peaks with England. Hoddle, Scholes, Barnes, Le Tissier, McManaman, Carrick, Gerrard to differing extents have all been hurt by the way they have been treated.

Scholes and Gerrard have both, at points, been played on the left-wing for England. Wilson acknowledges this and criticises Gerrard for this ''at the World Cup in South Africa he was supposed to operate on the left but again and again appeared in central areas''.

To not question why one of England's finest midfielders was playing on the left in the first place is odd (answer: As ever, to accommodate the very fine Frank Lampard who does not have versatility amongst his many attributes). To not note that Gerrard was one of only two players to come back from South Africa with any credit is an oversight. Even if he did drift inside too often he was still markedly better than the men chosen in central midfield and markedly better again than Rooney who, in one game, had the touch and subtlety of a landmine.

Even if Wilson is right in that Gerrard ''isn't a midfielder who slots happily into a system but needs a system to be built around him' then one might consider asking the question why not build a team around him? It is certainly a question I've asked routinely about Scholes and England for years. Most countries seeing a fine talent will build the team around that player. England never have and I fear never will. I would not be surprised if, in 10 years time, Wilshere is asked to play on the left-wing.

Moreover, I don't think Wilson is right. Where Wilson may have had a stronger footing would be to say that Gerrard can fit into a system but would have been better for England if England had built the system around him. 

Gerrard has played numerous roles for Liverpool and England and typically carries them off with aplomb - the surging right-back in the Champions League final; earlier in 2012 an understated defensive midfield performance against Manchester United; as a support striker in that hell-for-leather chase in 2008/9 for Liverpool; as the forward thinking central-midfielder alongside a holding Gareth Barry on a number of occasions for England; as a decent enough left-sided midfielder in South Africa when all bar he and Cole were losing their heads; as one of two deeper midfielders for England this summer in Poland and Ukraine (where, again, he was England's best player). It isn't that he doesn't fit into a system. It is that he is versatile enough to be wedged in almost anywhere. That is truly Gerrard's curse. Indeed, I would argue that his heighest heights were playing behind Torres. Not once, from my recollection, did England play Gerrard in the position he excelled for with his club.

His surroundings and Roy Race

Look, for example, at his best season for Liverpool - sitting off Torres ahead of the sumptuous Alonso and the tenacious Mascherano. Scholes, Lampard and Fabregas - as well as having wonderful managers - have had their entire club careers surrounded by world-class players. Gerrard has, arguably, had that luxury for a handful of seasons.

Wilson is right that this complex has led to Gerrard becoming Liverpool's Roy Race. Indeed, the modern sporting star he identifies with most obviously is Andrew Flintoff - a man who could win a game with a moment of astonishing brilliance. Where he is most like Flintoff, however, is that people focus on that moment of astonishing, cartoonish brilliance and believe that is all he did in a game. Gerrard, for the best part of a decade, served up sustained excellence but could dip into superhuman reserves on occasions. One of the saddest trends as he winds down is that his all-round play is still very good but his ability to manipulate the game with the extraordinary moment has diminished. Considering Gerrard we remember the 93rd minute strike against West Ham but forget that he was the best player on the pitch for the other 92 minutes.

There is a tendency in the English footballing intelligentsia to take Sacchi's quote on Gerrard as gospel:

'When I was director of football at Real Madrid I had to evaluate the players coming through the youth ranks. We had some who were very good footballers. They had technique, they had athleticism, they had drive they were hungry.

But they lacked what I call knowing-how-to-play-football. They lacked decision making. They lacked positioning. They didn't have the subtle sensitivity of football: how a plater should move within the collective. And for many I wasn't sure they were going to learn.

You see, strength, passion, technique, athleticism, all of these are very important. But they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. They help you reach your goal, which is putting your talent at the service of the team and, by doing this, making both of you and the team greater. In situations like that, I just have to say, Gerrard is a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player''

I don't think that is true but even if it were we did see, under Benitez, a system which allowed Gerrard to shine, ''putting his talent at the service of the team'', and making both greater. It happened with England in a different way. His talent was put to the service of the team but done so in myriad ways over the course of his career. We wonder why he didn't play like he did for Liverpool but never notice he was rarely asked to or allowed to.

He will be remembered as a very fine England player if not one who would get into the all-time XI. He will be remembered as Liverpool's finest ever player and one of her most loyal servants. For most men that would be enough. Wilson, on this at least, is right. For Gerrard it won't be. If my hypothesis is correct - that the greatest players dwell on their regrets the most - then that, perhaps, is the biggest compliment I can pay him.

RCM