No, you're not getting away with that, you cite aggression as an unnecessary trait.
You claim Carra threatened to leave when all he said in a book was that he could never see himself watching from the bench and he may have to go - has he left?
Fair point, and you're right. I should modify the OP to at least say that I think when he made those comments he was coming from a 'good' place, they were born of his determination and competitiveness, and his passion.
You put Lucas on a pedestal of self improvement and suggest Carra & SG havent made similar attempts - wrong.
I also said I can't fault them on the pitch. Just for me Lucas' pedastal in that respect is Godlike, where Carra and Gerrard's are merely herculean.
"Yet, for the number of times they've mentioned Spearing as a prospect, talked him up, given him encouragement, how often have they done the same for a foreign player? Did they even mention Palsson, who at one time looked an almost equal prospect? Have they mentioned Gulasci? Suso? Pacheco."
How do you know they don't do all their talking to the lads themselves?
So why would they offer equal encouragment off the pitch yet unequal encouragement in the press? I don't get that. Either single out players equally, single them out for a clear reason (for example responses to criticism of Lucas) or avoid singling them out at all, or maybe give them as an example among more general praise. But you're right, I don't know, and the post is obviously subjective.
You're full of assumptions Seb.
Again, of course the post is subjective. I'd love for you to demonstrate a way I could have written this, a way I could make this argument, using only hard facts. Besides, since when are you down on subjectivity? Don't you often talk about the limits of statistics when there is a post that tries to be as objective as possible (noting of course that true objectivity is a genuine impossibility)?
It's a hell of a statement to say that on balance Gerrard and Carragher have done more harm than good to young players. There's a worrying shortage of evidence to back up that massive claim.
Yet I never said that. In fact, I said the exact opposite, that, on balance, I think they've done more good than harm. But is 'good' good enough? Do we, as a club, aspire to be good? Or great? Or do we aspire to be as close to perfection as we can possibly achieve?
For a start, we football supporters don't see what happens on the training ground, in the canteen, on the coach, in the changing room etc etc. That's where leadership happens, just as much as on the pitch. Who knows what passes for private conversation at Melwood between (say) Gerrard and Lucas or Gerrard and Kelly? You don't. I don't. And even on the pitch what do we really see? A scowl here, a sharp word there, a bit of a bollocking somewhere else. In fairness we also see - although you don't mention it - the pat on the back, the thumbs up, the supportive clap.
I realise we don't see that. There's a hell of a lot we don't, and can't see in football. So instead we go on, and discuss, what we CAN see, otherwise what's the point? We might as well give up discussing anything, let alone football, if we can only discuss what we CAN sense.
As for what we do see on the pitch, I do mention the good and bad, that's what I've based my entire post on. What else could I base it on, but what I've seen on the pitch and what I've read as direct quotes in the media?
You conclude, oddly, by saying "our team spirit is incredible". It shouldn't be if your first 20 paragraphs are correct. It should be not only bad, but notoriously bad (given how long the two culprits have been around).
It's possible to have great 'spirit' with poor leadership, and doesn't the some of the greatest leadership of all happen when 'spirit' is at it's lowest? I've no doubt that Richard's men followed him with as much joy and passion and spirit as any army follows it's leader. I've no doubt he was an astonishing man of magnetic charisma. He was and is beyond popular. He is a legend. He will forever be written in the annals of history as a legend and a great leader of men. But as a leader, what did he actually achieve? What legacy did he leave? Not much, really. Not concrete things that truly laid foundations we've built on ever since. Not like Elizabeth I. Not like Shankly.
I'd look at that post again mate and decide how much is based on real evidence and how much on pure impressionism.
I'm trying to edit as I go along - I should have put this in the writer's forum first. I've never used it and I do see now why it's so incredibly useful (though as I've said this OP did start from a response to another post, so I had a real feeling of striking when the iron was hot, because I haven't posted in ages and certainly haven't posted any worthwhile OP since, well, far too long).
I'm open to suggestions as to how (in terms of process especially, and the types of data I should have used) I could have improved, given my actual skillset. I think Harinder's post was a very interesting one and clearly a more objective approach, though even then how do you measure something like 'commitment' or even 'competence' without relying heavily on subjective judgements based on subjective data.
Granted I haven't done all I can to be as objective as possible. I am open to suggestions but that doesn't mean I want to try and write an academic paper analysing leadership qualities in football. Its an opinion piece, obviously, so how flawed is it in those terms?
