Xavi and Gerrard: 500 Games Each, But Worlds Apart?

It was almost 399 years after the day both Shakespeare and Cervantes passed away when Steven Gerrard and Xavi Hernández both played their 500^th 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 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.

Frank Lampard and New York City FC: (No) Way Out of an Arranged Marriage?

When Chelsea FC monument Frank Lampard ended up in the Skyblues kit early this season, under a City Football Group construction, Chelsea fans did not know where they had it. Not that they seemed to really hold it against their former captain – they would later applaud him even after having scored a dramatic late equalizing goal against Chelsea. And they were right not to do so. Irrespective of one’s achievements and loyalty during one’s career, it seems that the hard laws of professional football make that at a certain age top clubs will just gently push their heroes aside, under the form of either a contract extension of very limited duration or a huge wage reduction – and most typically both.

This had been the case of Lampard, who thus decided to embark on the exciting new project of joining Manchester City’s new franchise in the Major League Soccer, New York City FC. At the new City franchise team, he would be playing aside other designated player David Villa. The expected arrival of both at the Big Apple was announced more than half a year before the club would start competing. Notwithstanding the fact the squad did not yet count eleven players, season ticket sales kicked off in earnest, thanks to figureheads Lampard and Villa.

Source: dailymail.co.uk

So as to keep both aging stars in good form ahead of the new MLS season commencing, in March 2015, City Football Group assigned Lampard and Villa to its other portfolio teams, Manchester City and Melbourne City, respectively. While not necessarily always in the starting line-up, Lampard has shown that he is still of great value to a club of the stature of the Premier League Champions. To such an extent even that Manuel Pellegrini is now making it heard he wants to hold on to Lampard, at least until the end of the season. The Citizens are both rather injury plagued and, surprisingly, in the end, made it through to the knock-out stages of the Champions League, only for the second time in their history. Moreover, in the Premier league, the champions are only 3 points behind leaders Chelsea. Pellegrini thus sees in the 36-year old, who scored the only goal in last weekend’s league encounter with Leicester, a “very important player” for his team.

The Chilean does realize it is not just about what he – or even the player – wants, though. There is not only another team (New York City FC – although belonging to the same decision-makers as Manchester City) involved, but also, even much more critically, the Major League Soccer. It is clear that the MLS granted the City consortium the New York franchise based on the expectation to bring in players of the stature of Lampard and Villa. Likewise, newly declared fans bought their season tickets based on the same promise. When you come to the market with a new product, the last thing you would want to do is disappoint those who have been found willing to give you a try. To the extent that the City executives are in need of it, the MLS will surely remind them thereof.

Thus, it may seem unlikely we’ll be seeing Lampard playing his football in Europe much longer. However, every dissatisfactory solution has its alternative. It just happens to be that a very similar player to Lampard – in terms of both position and stature – is being led to the exit by his own Premier-League club. Indeed, Steven Gerrard, who nearly by himself was able to make the tactical errors of his manager Brendan Rodgers (see elsewhere on this blog) undone by qualifying the reds in extremis for the next round of the Champions League, is being forced by Liverpool FC to seriously reconsider his future at Anfield.

Liverpool FC proposed its 34-year-old captain a much reduced pay, from next season onward – should he decide to stay with them as a player – and their non-qualification for the Champions-League knock-out stages is unlikely to give them more financial breathing room. Their worst-case scenario would be to see Gerrard leave for free to a Premier-league competitor at the end of the season – which is not all that unlikely, with Stevie G recently having been linked to West Ham U, who are much more likely even than the Reds to feature in next year's Champions League. Thus, in case they are not willing and/or able to meet his needs, selling Gerrard off over Christmas – the last time the Reds could still get a transfer fee for him – to a cash-rich, non-direct competitor (i.e. NYC FC, through City Football Group) may well be their best available alternative. For Gerrard himself, it could well be an exciting new turn in his career and probably the best way for him to remain an icon at the club where he is most likely to return as staff member sooner rather than later.

Most importantly, for the MLS and NYC FC’s newly declared fans, Steven Gerrard may well be the only worthy and therefore acceptable alternative to Frankie Lampard – which, in turn, could only drive up the asking price for the Reds vis-á-vis City Football Group. A textbook example of a win-win solution? Let’s see if those writing the actual script agree.

Nothing More Important Than the Game After Next?

One of the most promising fixtures of this week's Champions League was at the Santiago Bernabéu, where Real Madrid would be hosting Liverpool. What may have slightly tempered expectations of a great game to come was that Liverpool had lost 0-3 at Anfield. At the same time, the Reds could thus be deemed to be out for revenge. Not so Liverpool’s manager Brendan Rodgers though: he baffled friend and foe by fielding a “B-team” in the most high-profile club competition, against the reigning champion. The rationale: Liverpool would be facing Chelsea in the league on Saturday, a game with a higher expected value for Rodgers. The Champions League qualification, Liverpool would compete for in its final two group games, against lesser opponents. Was this “strategic weakening” of his squad a clever move by Rodgers? I am quite convinced of the contrary and mainly for two reasons.

Source: independent.co.uk

First, the move is demonstrative of no less than two reasoning errors. The first error is to conceive of football as purely – or at least almost exclusively – a physical game, with a team’s performance being determined by the physical fitness of its players. A second and related error is “either/or” thinking, which has little or no solid ground in this case.

Let it be well-understood that physical fitness naturally determines for a great part how a team will perform. Thus, resting one or two players – even star players – in case they are showing clear signs of fatigue, e.g. as was Steven Gerrard ahead of Tuesday’s game – is quite granted. Deliberately weakening one’s team, as by replacing half the squad, is quite a different thing. As a result of the latter, those players who were put to rest – meaning they were not to play in the Bernabéu against Real Madrid, which they may or may not have enjoyed – may indeed be fresher, physically, when comes Saturday’s Chelsea game.

What is more, these players now also know that their coach is so convinced of their skill he is willing to accept defeat against a team such as Real Madrid already beforehand. A team’s manager should also be its leader and thus always the last man standing. Nothing more demoralising for players and fans than a leader who no longer believes in Sepp Herberger’s truism that the ball is round, i.e. that anything can happen on a football field. Furthermore, Liverpool is not just any club. It is the club whose fans are famous for it never having to walk alone. And the club that won the very Champions League in 2005 following the Miracle of Istanbul, recovering from trailing 3-0 at half-time against AC Milan. No miracle in the Bernabéu though. For miracles can only happen if you believe in them.

I like to link this experience to three separate episodes I witnessed in the past, in Belgium. In 2010, SV Roeselare was playing the semi-final of the Belgian Cup, against Cercle Brugge – not the strongest of opponents. Roeselare is a very small team, also for Belgian standards, and they were struggling not to relegate that season. For coach van Wijk it was very clear that remaining in the first league was much more important than playing the cup final – which, otherwise, for fans and players of a team as Roeselare tends to be a once – or never – in-a-life-time experience. And that he would not hesitate to keep his players fresh for the former challenge. Apparently, for van Wijk, it was “either/or”. Roeselare lost the cup’s semi-final first leg with 0-3. And it got relegated to the second division, where they remain up till today. Go to Roeselare and I challenge you to find a fan convinced s/he will ever make it to the King Boudewijn stadium to see his/her club compete in the cup final.

Another eye-opener for me was KV Mechelen’s home game against Club Brugge in the 2013-2014 season. Despite disappointing league positions in recent years, KV Mechelen is a team with a strong home reputation, in part thanks to the proximity of its fanatic supporters. In August ‘13, all signs were pointing to it again being “one of those nights”: with twenty minutes remaining, KVM had recovered from being one goal down and, five minutes after, when a Brugge defender was sent off, was left with ample time to bring the game home.

KV Mechelen's coach at the time, van Veldhoven, had initially approached the game very conservatively, playing with a sole striker. Even with Brugge being one man down and with the momentum of the late equaliser, he did not make any attacking change. As a result, Mechelen’s ample defenders were left so idle and with such a drive forward that they constantly ran out of position, leaving the team most vulnerable on the counterattack. Even playing at home against ten men, the coach did not believe we could beat Brugge that day. This became a self-fulfilling prophecy: we lost after Brugge got a penalty on the counterattack. Even more contagious than a manager’s relentless belief in his/her squad's ability is his/her lack thereof – and more so when it shines through in the tactics.

A more joyful example of contagion: shortly after my team, KV Mechelen, won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1988, by beating Ajax in Straatsburg, they were to receive archrival Anderlecht in the domestic league. After three days of non-stop celebrations, it is generally believed that the state of KV Mechelen’s squad at the time of kick off against Anderlecht is best described as “half-drunk”. KV Mechelen went on to beat Anderlecht 3-0 and the festivities could recommence.

From left to right: Erwin Koeman, Michel Preud'homme,
captain Lei Clijsters, Marc Emmers
Source: stamnummer25.be

Before getting carried away, on to the second reason why Rodgers’ move was in error. A football game is always played against an opponent. Thus, strength, weakness and fitness make most sense when considered relative to the opposition. The game Rodgers was saving his men for was against Chelsea. Chelsea would be playing in the Champions League one day later than Liverpool, away in Slovenia. Following their respective CL matches, Chelsea would have only two days before the league game; Liverpool 3, or 50% more than Chelsea. But then, if Rodgers believes his players could never get a result against Real Madrid, they probably need to be much more rested than Chelsea’s to stand any chance against them.

Let’s see what the physically fresh Liverpool players will do against Chelsea this weekend. And how and if Rodgers will be able to convince his team that the coming games in the Champions League are important – and that they surely have what it takes to win them.