It was
almost 399 years after the day both Shakespeare and Cervantes passed away when Steven Gerrard and Xavi Hernández both played their 500th league
game for their respective clubs. As for these writers, although contemporaries,
both players have quite distinct styles. It is not just that they are
different. Gerrard is a ‘box-to-box’ player, said to be a protagonist of a game of times passed, whereas Xavi, the technical virtuoso, typifies a more modern game. In light of their distinct styles, many
may appreciate linking Xavi to a literary genius; fewer in the case of Stevie G. In this post, I present a personal comparison of both jubilee
celebrators and explain that a main reason why Gerrard is considered the ugly
duckling of the two may be due to a matter of - bad - timing.
Source: sport.es |
In his
excellent book on football tactics, Universality:
The Blueprint for Soccer’s New Era, Matthew Whitehouse speaks of Gerrard in terms of “the classic midfielder of the late 1990’s”, which faded
away with the advent of the 2000’s. Xavi, on the other hand, is labelled “a
technician, ideally suited to the contemporary game and its needs” and “the
best midfielder of his generation”. These views also seem reflected in the way
both clubs are currently treating their veterans: whereas Barça President
Bartomeu told Xavi he has earned himself the right to decide whether and how long to remain at the club, Gerrard was made to understand it was time for him
to leave Liverpool FC. Xavi’s place in football stardom is definitely well
deserved. But is Gerrard’s in the periphery really granted?
Both Xavi and Gerrard started their club careers at the end of the previous millennium
and, since, have turned into icons of their respective clubs. The
highlight in both players’ club careers has been winning a Champions League and receiving the man-of-the match award for their individual
performance in the final. Both respective games could hardly have been more
telling of both protagonists. In 2005, Gerrard saw his team 3-0 behind
at half time in the CL final against AC Milan. After scoring the 3-1 with a rare, thumping header, the captain windmilled his arms, urging the Reds’ fans this one
wasn’t over till it was over. The rest went into history as the 'miracle of
Istanbul' and ended with Gerrard lifting the trophy. Four years later, FC Barcelona
would beat Man. U. 2-0, with Xavi demonstrating his sublime skill throughout
the game and presenting Messi the second goal with an inch-perfect assist.
Fighting
spirit vs. a touch of class. In contemporary football the former seems to have
lost its appeal, in favour of the latter. In the case of Gerrard and
Xavi, is it fair to say the latter is really superior, in terms of efficacy? Although
goals and assists, admittedly, only tell a partial story, comparing both
players on this basis seems informative, for two reasons. First, both played 500
league games, a large enough number to rule out most randomness and
coincidence. Second, both are midfielders whose team contribution lies primarily in the build-up of the
attack and setting up goals.
Comparing
both players' vital stats, it can be noted that, in 500 league matches, Gerrard scored 117 goals; Xavi 56. Let’s have Gerrard’s 32 penalty goals count only for
half, adjusting the statistic to 101 goals. Xavi is the king of assists, with
110; Gerrard has 68. That makes a total of 169 goals + assists for Gerrard vs. 166
for Xavi. Moreover, as over the period in which Gerrard and Xavi were active,
the average number of goals in a Premier-League game is 2.64 as compared to
2.68 in a Liga game, a goal/assist in the Premier League seems even slightly
more difficult/decisive. The vital stats, thus, do not seem to bear out the
difference in relative superiority typically perceived in both players. Then why
this perception?
In addition
to the outspoken differences in success with their respective national teams – only Xavi
was part of a golden generation – a major explanatory factor is that the world
seemed to be ready and waiting for the Xavi-type of player, while it was, at
the same time, tired of and not yet ready for Gerrard. Together with
contemporaries such as Iniesta, Messi and David Silva, Xavi defied the obtain logic
that there was no space at the front stage of world football for small and
frail technicians. Shortly after the “rise of the little man”, as Whitehouse calls it, however, they seemed to dominate world football, through both FC
Barcelona and Spain. General appreciation for the novelty of this type of
player and his flair are evident in the FIFA Ballon d’Ôr’s nominations: Messi
has been on the stage during all five ceremonies, Xavi and Iniesta both twice.
Xavi became one of the billboards of a new type of football – tiki-taka –
featuring an exciting new type of player.
Gerrard is
much less atypical – tall and athletic, with physical prowess, power and endurance
being his key attributes. He was often considered too old-school, not refined enough for the modern
game. Although most popular in the traditional English game, the ‘box-to-box’
player seems much less vital in newly emerging formations, notably the
4-2-3-1. During the 2005/2006 season, then-Liverpool manager Benitez considered Gerrard not tactically disciplined enough to be at the
centre of the field as he “wanted to do everything himself” and preferred to
play his captain wide or as support striker. Stevie G did not let it get to his heart
and scored 23 goals in all competitions that season.
Coaches have been playing the Liverpool skipper in a range of positions:
defensive midfielder, central midfielder, number 10, support striker, winger
and right midfielder. Gerrard's versatility, then, seems to resonate with the
“universal player” of the imminent future, which Whitehouse speaks of, i.e. the
type of player who excels in many different positions and formations, allowing
for fluidity of play and tactics, even in a single game, personified by Philip Lahm. In
this sense, Gerrard probably came to the stage too early.
In contrast, Xavi, who played in just one position, viz. central midfield, made his career at the same time that the type of football he was playing flourished, a possession-based type of play summed up by Xavi's statement that "if you are not going to pass the ball then why play the game?", which, today, not even Barça or Guardiola’s Bayern are attempting to perform anymore. Obviously, Xavi was not just lucky with this; he contributed to the success of his type of football. For Gerrard, it has always rather been an uphill battle: too late as a ‘box-to-box’; a universal type of player avant-la-lettre.
In contrast, Xavi, who played in just one position, viz. central midfield, made his career at the same time that the type of football he was playing flourished, a possession-based type of play summed up by Xavi's statement that "if you are not going to pass the ball then why play the game?", which, today, not even Barça or Guardiola’s Bayern are attempting to perform anymore. Obviously, Xavi was not just lucky with this; he contributed to the success of his type of football. For Gerrard, it has always rather been an uphill battle: too late as a ‘box-to-box’; a universal type of player avant-la-lettre.
In spite of this, comparing their vital league stats at their respective clubs, Gerrard does not seem to have to shy away from Xavi’s. But, as Xavi accurately notes, “in football, the result is an imposter. There’s something greater than the result, more lasting – a legacy”. And to leave a legacy, it helps being a child of your time.