[quote author=Ryan link=topic=37131.msg992797#msg992797 date=1258671468]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=37131.msg992789#msg992789 date=1258670268]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=37131.msg986675#msg986675 date=1257999357]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=37131.msg986674#msg986674 date=1257999077]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=37131.msg986664#msg986664 date=1257993581]
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=37131.msg986653#msg986653 date=1257989414]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=37131.msg986648#msg986648 date=1257989028]
No other player has single-handedly done as much for a club as Steven Gerrard has for us.
[/quote]
Matt Le Tiiss.
[/quote]
OH MY SWEET FUCKING GOD.
HEY EVERYONE - COME AND CHECK THIS OUT!
[/quote]
Ha ha so your saying Le Tiss hasn't done an incredible amount for his club?
I would say he pretty much kept his club in the top flight for at least 3 seasons longer than they should have been.
Some of his moments were along the lines of what Gerrard did for us.
Remember the Newcastle game. Pure magic.
[/quote]
HEY EVERYONE, HE'S STILL PERSISTING WITH THIS.
APPARENTLY, "MATT LE TIIS" DID MORE FOR SOUTHAMPTON THAN GERRARD'S DONE FOR US.
I THINK I MAY WELL MAKE THAT MY SIGNATURE.
[/quote]
Hhmmmm, maybe I'm missing this; we don't seem to disagree too much so its entirely possible. However, on face value I've got to say that I think Le Tiss was as much the heart, the soul, the talisman of Southampton as Gerrard is for us; maybe more so.
That in no way suggests that he is in the same league, stratosphere, as Gerrard in terms of performances - just the relative importance of each to their clubs. Le Tiss was an absolutely huge fish in a very small pond at Southampton. Gerrard is a much bigger fish in an absolutely huge bloody ocean at Liverpool.
Again, maybe I'm missing it but I can't see how the analogy is that far out if at all.
[/quote]
Personally, I think Le Tissier's ability has been wildly exaggerated. First things first; he was obviously a super footballer, and dragged that bullshit club out of holes on many many occassions. He was certainly too good for them. But, he wasn't that fucking brilliant. Spurs were the only side to ever try and sign him, none of the 'big clubs' ever took a look at him (and don't give me the 'cos they knew he'd never leave' chat mate, cos examples like Rooney show if big enough clubs want you, then you can be prized away regardless of what cult status you enjoy), and he got what half a dozen caps cap for England? Three successive England managers ignored him. Why?
Anyway, I guess it depends on what onus you place on importance. I'm not going to list Gerrard's achievements for us, just say that I view them as far far superior in importance to what an inferior player did for a small-time club.
[/quote]
Without belabouring the point, mate I don't think the question has got anything to do with either players footballing abilities or even a comparison of their footballing abilities. It's simply a question of their relevance to their own club.
A quick analogy which probably has many flaws but I'll run with it cause I haven't the time to think of another.
Roy Emerson was the biggest thing in mens tennis during the 60's; a giant walking amongst men and the winner of the record number of Grand Slam tennis events. For men's tennis (amateur at the time) he was the most important thing walking on two legs. A far superior player in almost every aspect of the game was Rod Laver who played on the professional tour while Emerson continued in the amateur tour. On the same tour with Laver were players such as Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales and Tony Roche - all of whom had claims to being the best.
If Laver had retired, been injured or just stopped playing the professional circuit would have continued because the other players were still very good. If Emerson had told the amateur circuit he was turning professional earlier then the "Open" era would have started much earlier - he was everything to them. As such, despite being a far lesser player than Laver was, Roy Emerson was a more important player to the amateur tour than Laver to the professionals.
IMO this is the same as Le Tiss who was a far inferior player than Gerrard, never reached anything like the heights Stevie has achieved, would probably not have made it at a big club and yet was directly responsible for a greater % of Southamptons (moderate) success than Gerrard has been for Liverpool.
