Gerrard would have stayed as squad player if offered coaching role

There has been a policy at LFC under FSG to remove experience. After Ayre's fingers were burned trying to manage KK, they opted for the more supine Rodgers.

In turn he has despatched the likes Of Carra, Agger, Reina and Stevie G, all for good playing reasons, but their knowledge of winning has been lost to the staff at the Club.

All part of the levelling down process.

There has been a policy at LFC under FSG to remove experience. After Ayre's fingers were burned trying to manage KK, they opted for the more supine Rodgers.

 

In turn he has despatched the likes Of Carra, Agger, Reina and Stevie G, all for good playing reasons, but their knowledge of winning has been lost to the staff at the Club.

 

All part of the levelling down process.

I agree. The experience is not there because it undermines those without.

FSG probably take the view that as long as there is an experienced, respected and well loved ex-player near the coaching side of things, the clamour for him to be made manager when things go tits up only intensifies. I think it's a good thing that Gerrard got away for some time, maybe to clear some cobwebs and get away from carrying the club on his shoulders. But he should 100% be involved in future - if he wants it of course.

There has been a policy at LFC under FSG to remove experience. After Ayre's fingers were burned trying to manage KK, they opted for the more supine Rodgers.

 

In turn he has despatched the likes Of Carra, Agger, Reina and Stevie G, all for good playing reasons, but their knowledge of winning has been lost to the staff at the Club.

 

All part of the levelling down process.

Absolutely. I was skeptical of this theory at first but there is no doubt now that this has been the approach. 

His comments about playing twice a week last season are interesting.

He's better off not with with the clusterfuck we've become.

Plus we'd all be reading how he'd kicked the ever loving fuck out of Lovren after the West Ham game.

 

“Maybe that was selfish of me but I had gone a long time playing every single game. I might be contradicting myself here but what would have kept me at Liverpool into this season was the chance of shadowing Brendan Rodgers and his staff as well as playing. Those ideas were only mentioned to me after I had announced I was leaving.”

That's the key phrase: "shadowing Brendan Rodgers"; it's certainly how himself would have seen it. I don't like Rodgers in the least but can't blame him for wanting Stevie over his shoulder. Still a cuntish way to play him, though.

It was time to move on I think. I don't think he has anything to offer us in a coaching role just yet. Being honest I don't think he ever will, he doesn't seem the type.

I'd have Stevie now over Brendan. That probably says more about Brendan than Stevie.

Gud nite sweet prince, u r wit d angelas now

I'd rather he enjoy his time in the MLS for a few years then retire from football completely before he adopts a coaching role. He'd have to train with the players then be involved in all the meetings with the coaches, plan training, analyse the stats, study games. It's too much, either be a player or be a coach, you can't be both.  

This is the key quote in the whole thing:

"I was surprised a role wasn’t mentioned when chief executive Ian Ayre sat down with my agent ..."

 

Not the bit about Ayre apparently neglecting to mention the possibility of a future coaching role for Gerrard, but the bit about the agent. There might well have been more face to face conversations with Gerrard about his future long before he decided to accept the LA Galaxy offer, but he still left it to his agent to deal with it. I'm not sure why players don't take a more active role in contract negotiations. While I think agents wield too much power and influence these days, I can accept that they have a role to play in ensuring their clients aren't taken for mugs by the club. I can also accept that the player can't be present for all meetings because he might have other engagements to fulfil but if a player has his say in his own words during these meetings about things that he wants or issues that need resolving, it can remove confusion, bring up hitherto unknown issues and resolve them very quickly, and the player can see for himself if the club really want him to stay and look after him.

I think it was the right decision for him to move away. 

Get out of the goldfish bowl, enjoy playing more regularly, enjoy some sunshine and a new experience, and then see what life brings. 

If he wants to get into coaching then I'm not sure about being in the first team set up at Liverpool so soon after playing. I'd like to see him get some experience of being a coach and then let's see where it leads to. If he worked alongside Brendan it would be a bad mix, as Brendan is on thin ice and Stevie is much more highly regarded, so the whole situation would be imbalanced. 

Let's say we brought Klopp in. He's a man who is a leader and comfortable in his own skin. He could handle having Gerrard as part of the coaching team, no problem, if he wanted to. I'd go for something like that. 

But Stevie around Brendan in a coaching capacity? I think that would have been a bad idea, and he may also have ended up being tainted by association (if it goes pear shaped for Rodgers from this point on). He's better off out of it for now, but I'm as intrigued as the next fan as to what the future holds.

Sorry but this is really... he left because he wanted to be somewhere else, same as Carragher chose the much more convenient and probably lucrative career of a TV pundit over going into coaching, and didn't want to hang around for one more season because he didn't believe we would be involved in a title race.

Cunt owners.

I bet Stevie's not very popular at picnics - he always wants the best rolls for himself.

Did billy liddell get a coaching role at liverpool, ian callaghan, phil neal, ian rush, john barnes? All great players but not necessarily coaching material. Did stevie tell them he wanted a player coach role?

The difficulty is that you have a club legend who is probably past it on the bench and rodgers didnt want carroll on the bench because of his price tag. The other thing has also been said once the shit hits the fan you ve a club legend on coaching staff who the fans will want as a replacement.

Why didnt he say this when he was asked at the last home game how great he thought everything was "they re making me go. Dont listen to themmmmmmmmm" carried off into the dressing rooms. Peter McDowell standing their applauding "Captain. Red. Legend. Comedian. Lets here it for Stevie"

Still a better attacking midfielder than Lallans.

We should have let the cheeky cunt rot in the reserves.

Never heard of him.

Irrespective of Gerrard's position on this, it's still an issue surrounding his departure that FSG were happy to let a man of his ability, experience and influence leave. 

Gerrard could have been offered a contract extension so that we still retained his creative and goalscoring ability on the field (regardless of how often he would play), and had his experience and influence around the dressing room for our new players and younger players in the first team squad. That could also have been combined with a coaching development role (as he alludes to) shadowing senior staff as well as using him at Youth and Academy level.

Gerrard himself has often stated the enormous influence a "past it" Gary McAllister had on himself and the other young players at Liverpool in terms of professionalism, training each day, looking after yourself, conduct and behaviour, good habits, managing situations in matches, etc, etc, etc even though McAllister wasn't playing every match.

We all know Gerrard is a compex, introspective character so inconsistencies in his interviews and statements are nothing new. However, what's clear is that FSG were only looking at Gerrard's salary value in terms of minutes on the pitch and were not considering (or simply undervalued massively) the value he could add right across the club. It still remains a poor judgement and poor strategy by FSG to allow him to leave the club.

Anyone who wouldn't want Steven Gerrard or Jamie Carragher helping them manage Liverpool is an idiot.

This should probably go in the immunity thread, but I personally wouldn't want Gerrard as manager right now.  Even as an assistant.

Far too often, football clubs appoint famous players, especially if they were legends at the club, in management without any other experience.  It's so tempting to make an emotional decision, but it's usually unwise.  Sure, every once in a while you get a Dalglish, but just as often you get a Souness.

The problem is that the qualities that make a top footballer are not the same as the qualities that make a top manager.  Gerrard may turn out to be a great manager, and if he were to take a few years to manage at a lower level and proved he had the knack for it, there's no one I'd rather see as Liverpool manager.  But it's very easy to be swayed by his playing career and I'd want him to prove himself in management elsewhere first.  

If he were here right now as assistant manager and part-time player, it would be a huge millstone around Rodgers' neck.  Whatever slim chance he has of getting out of this fix would be gone.

Think of it this way - wouldn't we all be excited if the Mancs were to sack van Gaal and replace him with Giggs?  Or if they had appointed Solskjaer or even Keane, as they were reported to be considering a few years earlier if Ferguson had stepped down early?  Of course we would, and they'd be doing the same if we appointed an untested manager simply because he was a great player.

I will say one thing in Gerrard's favour - I'd much rather him than Carragher.  Every time Carragher speaks about how unfairly some English player is being treated (usually because a far superior foreign player is being played instead) I think "I'm so thankful he's not our manager."  I loved Carragher as a player, but I shudder to think of what he'd do with our squad if given a chance to express his philosophy.  Probably sell Coutinho so that he could play Jordan Rossiter in his place.  It's a bit of a blind spot for him - it's understandable why he has it, but that wouldn't make it any less foolish or dangerous if he were ever to manage us.

Anyone who wouldn't Steven Gerrard or Jamie Carragher helping them manage Liverpool is an idiot.

Don't know about Idiot mate. Certainly in the case of Gerrard there's an argument that he's too big to be helping out, the minute there's a bad run of results there would be a clamour to have him promoted to the hot seat, I can see how it would be a potentially massive distraction. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been retained only that I think holding an opposing view wouldn't necessarily make you an idiot.

Agree with Paul.

Agree with Paul.

Cheers mate, oh you meant that Paul!