Lampard and Gerrard too similar

Superdub2

right guys i dont care if there is an England match thread cuz this deserves one all of its own!

I think it is fair to compare the two since they are playing in the same team as a midfield partnership and have a similar game.

firstly Englands problems for me are not in defence, where even Rio seems to up his game for England ,and not in the forward line when all are fit but in the midfield where they have two attacking midfield players and none that can slow down the game and act a s a playmaker! This leads to them giving the ball away all the time and being punished by good teams.

My opiniuon is that Gerrard is a better version of Lampard and England ill never win things until they stop accomodating both of them in midfield,

Ps: i know Gerrard doesnt usually play there for England but thats been the plan for eriksson for a while i think when he has all his players fit

MrJoeSoap

I don't think they are similar, I just don't think they play well together. I'd pick Parker is he was fit, or Carrick at the moment.

Dropping Lampard just isn't going to happen under Sven though, and I don't think it will happen under McLaren either. Losing one or the other through injury could be a blessing in disguise for England. Nothing serious, obviously!

Superdub2

i agree bout Parker, i think he cud make a huge difference but i dont think Carrick is quitegood enough at the moment

PHB

Lampard and Gerrard I don't think can work in a midfield together at all.

They both play as the most attacking member of a 4-3-3 system.

IMO Lampard is the better player (this is because he doesn't go for the spectacular every single damm time, every pass is a killer ball every shot is a 100 yard belter), but in comparision, he is simply more attacking a player than Gerrard.

A team of
Makelele - Gerrard - Lampard

Might be interesting and work because Makelele is just so damm defensive it'd be ok, but even then, I think it would be a bit unbalanced.

Jazzy

PHB wrote:

Lampard and Gerrard I don't think can work in a midfield together at all.

They both play as the most attacking member of a 4-3-3 system.

IMO Lampard is the better player (this is because he doesn't go for the spectacular every single damm time, every pass is a killer ball every shot is a 100 yard belter), but in comparision, he is simply more attacking a player than Gerrard.

yes, but you support utd. and therefore will pretty much always side with the non-liverpool player


imo tho ithink they could afford a 4-4-2 with gerrard on the right instead of becks... but he used to play for utd.... and i support pool...

MrJoeSoap

Jazzy wrote:

imo tho ithink they could afford a 4-4-2 with gerrard on the right instead of becks... but he used to play for utd.... and i support pool...

Tbh, I'm not a Beckham fan at all but you can't argue with the guys results. Best crosser of a ball in the world, and not a half bad free kick taker either. Worth having in the team for those two reasons alone.

Unless you weren't being serious...

PHB

If United played a 4-3-3, I'd rather have Lampard than Rooney, the guy produces in a 4-3-3 at a level higher than anyone in English football produces consistantly in their respective positions.

Lemlin

I'd agree with PHB. I think Gerrard is a better player but Lampard is the better attacking midfielder IMO. Just look at his record over the past two seasons for Chelsea.

I think England would be best off playing Lampard with a holding midfielder. Whether they have a holding midfielder ready is another thing. Carrick hasn't looked great for England so far, Parker isn't there, King and Carragher are defenders and Hargreaves is just muck.

MrJoeSoap

Gerrard was blocking shots like nobodies business today, maybe if he was told to play as a holding midfielder he could do a job there.

Lex Luthor

It looks as if Gerrard was asked yesterday to do a more defensive role than Lampard.

I think in the 4-4-2 system they are not going to be as effective because Gerrard playing defensive is not getting the best out of him.

England would be far better off with the personnel they have going 4-5-1, with a defensive midfeilder of either Carrick or Carragher, Lampard & Gerrard in front attacking and supporting Crouch until Rooney gets fit.

I can see Sven adopting this formation for T&T so as to boost the goal difference for the group.

Chardee MacDennis

PHB wrote:

IMO Lampard is the better player (this is because he doesn't go for the spectacular every single damm time, every pass is a killer ball every shot is a 100 yard belter)

i'm sorry did you see the game yesterday? every time gerrard OR lampard saw goal no matter where they were they went for it. i'm pretty sure they have been told to hit it after seeing what can happen from the Germany game.

Superdub2

Lampard only plays when the team is playing well unlike Gerrard who is a natural leader IMO

Anam

I think if you are playing a 4-4-2 with a defensive midfielder then it is gerrard who should be dropped,Lampard is better at that role,he will get you more assists and goals over the course of a season than any player in the world in that position.

No doubt gerrard has more of an influence on the pitch in terms of leadership and is probably the better player overall,but for example Lampard and Makelele would be a better partnership than Gerrard and Makelele imo.

Attractive Nun

With Rooney injured and Owen clearly not in form, you really can't drop either. I agree they don't play well together, and I agree England don't have a decent holding player but I just don't see how any other selection makes sense. Carrick has a great range of passing, but he's not all that defensive. The idea that him+Gerrard/Lampard would solve all England's woes is a bit ridiculous.

England really just have to face the fact that they won't control central midfield and get on with it. With Joe Cole cutting inside and Rooney to come back, they'll probably win a fair few free kicks, which are always dangerous. Lampard and Gerrard are always good for a spectaculor as well, and Rooney, Crouch and Owen are bound to get a few with passers like Beckham and Gerrard around. They just have to hope their defence can hold up.

Lex Luthor

Attractive Nun wrote:

They just have to hope their defence can hold up.

I imagine it will and will get better as the tournament progresses.

PHB

England are using the group stages to get their players fit.

The knockout stage team will be :

Robinson

Neville - Rio - Terry - Cole

Beckham - Gerrard - Lampard - Cole

Rooney - Owen

If you look at that team, they have some of the best players in the world in their position, but it never seems to turn out that way when the team plays.

redspider

There is indeed a problem with the structure of the English midfield. Gerrard and Lampard are both quality players, but they both play better when they have a colleague central midfielder who plays deeper in defence. If I was the English manager, I would instruct one of them to play the deep role for the full match, or at least a half at a time. The problem is that its not clear if Lamps could play that role perfectly. Keeping it fluid in the match means that neither player does their going forward part good and neither player does the defending part good.

Beckham is playing well, and Joe Cole is being himself, quite good, but I see weakness in Owen, he is not match sharp and is proving easy to mark, his runs are easly being picked up. Also the full backs arent contributing as much as they should be, Neville is just ok and Ashley Cole who is not better is not match sharp, as he was out for most of the season.

So, whilst England may seem to have a team of 'superstars' if you read some papers, in reality many of the players are performing oridinarily.

With a better struture though, Gerrard and Lampard could do better. That's up to Sven.

Overall, and nowithstanding yesterday's lack lustre performance against Paraguay, I would be very surprised if England won it. It would take a significant change in the way players have been playing and there has been no evidence of that during the season for the vast majority of them. If Rooney does indeed put in a Maradaona or Pele like performance when he plays, he may carry the team to greatness. And luck would also be needed. But like Maradaona in 1990, it takes more than one brilliant player to win such a competition. Also, with Rooney being out with that injury, there is a risk that he wont be match sharp to do that task.

Its now looking like the runner-up in Group C will beat England in the quarter final. That could be Holland or Argentina or Ivory Coast! England arent out yet, but as they are in a weak group and will likely meet a weak team in the last-16 stage, surely its just a matter of time.

I expect England to win their group ....

redspider

Lex Luthor

England are comfortable at the moment and it will take a giant f$ck up for them not to win their group. Once they get through the group and Rooney is ready, they will improve immensely.
John Terry will cover them well at the back.

I think however they will adopt the 4-5-1 formation sooner rather than later as they progress with Rooney up front and Crouch coming on as a late sub in most matches. Owen at the moment is not cutting the mustard but he is a nice one to have on the bench to come on with 20mins to go.

I think if Sven adopts a DCM player, it will be Carragher over Carrick, purely because he is a lot more experienced. They don't need another great passer like Carrick when they already have players like Beckham, Gerrard & Lampard who can easily split defenses open with a pass to Rooney. Carragher will keep it simple and just feed it to the other midfielders.

Neville will take a game or 2 to play with Beckham to the standard they played at Man U and Cole just needs the next 2 group games and he will be fit enough to show us what he normally is good at.

I could be proved wrong but this is the way I would play them. Neville

PHB

If they do go 4-3-3
It'll be

---

Carrick

---

----Gerrard---Lampard---

Beckham

---

Rooney

---

Owen

---

adox

I` played one or the other,not both,and imo its an easy choice - Gerrard.
They are quite similar players,but Gerrard is by far the better overall player.
Lampard is overrated.Sure he is a very good goalscoring midfielder,but hes a bit of a luxery and you need the team set up properly around him if you are going to play him.Games quite often pass him by without him having any real impact at all.When Engalnd are on the back foot he is really found wanting.

So I`d have Gerrard as a better attacking option and Gerrard as a better defensive option.

PHB

When Engalnd are on the back foot he is really found wanting.

That's just flatly untrue. Just look at Lampard's record for England and compare it to Gerrard.

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

That's just flatly untrue. Just look at Lampard's record for England and compare it to Gerrard.

What has record got to do with anything? When the team is not playing well then Lampard is found wanting. That is as true as you can get. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread but I had to just to say that.

PHB

His record shows in big games when England aren't doing well, Lampard is the one who gets the goal.

Just look at Euro 04:

France: 38 mins in 0-0, Lampard scores to put it 1-0
Switz: Gerrard scores when 2-0 up and England crusiing
Croatia: Lampard scores 5 mins after Croatia pull it back to 3-2
Portugal: 5 mins left in extra time, Lampard pulls it back to 2-2

Who preformed for England in that tournament?
It was Lampard. And he was the one who pulled it back when England were found wanting. Gerrard has never preformed at the same level as Lampard for England.

Sizzler

Lampard defo off to barca, you heard it here first

eirebhoy

That's like comparing Roy Keane's goalscoring record with Paul Scoles. Give Gerrard the freedom Lampard gets and he'll be scoring aswell. The fact that you're discussion goalsoring when it comes to England's 2 central midfielders says it all anyway.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

His record shows in big games when England aren't doing well, Lampard is the one who gets the goal.

Just look at Euro 04:

France: 38 mins in 0-0, Lampard scores to put it 1-0
Switz: Gerrard scores when 2-0 up and England crusiing
Croatia: Lampard scores 5 mins after Croatia pull it back to 3-2
Portugal: 5 mins left in extra time, Lampard pulls it back to 2-2

Who preformed for England in that tournament?
It was Lampard. And he was the one who pulled it back when England were found wanting. Gerrard has never preformed at the same level as Lampard for England.

and where was gerrard when lampard was scroing all these goals?

i'll tell u...he was futher down the pitch watching lampards ass incase he missed and the opposition broke on the attack.

Anam

eirebhoy wrote:

That's like comparing Roy Keane's goalscoring record with Paul Scoles. Give Gerrard the freedom Lampard gets and he'll be scoring aswell.

Your argument is that Lampard is found wanting when things arent going well,PHB has just proved that to be untrue.

eirebhoy

Anam wrote:

Your argument is that Lampard is found wanting when things arent going well,PHB has just proved that to be untrue.

He certainly has not. I've yet to see Lampard have a great game when his team isn't playing well. Scoring a goal does not make a great performance. If he was a striker maybe PHB would have proved me wrong.

Lemlin

el rabitos wrote:

and where was gerrard when lampard was scroing all these goals?

i'll tell u...he was futher down the pitch watching lampards ass incase he missed and the opposition broke on the attack.

Oh right, and was he doing that when he gave a dodgy back pass that resulted in France scoring in the first game?

Guy:Incognito

Lemlin wrote:

Oh right, and was he doing that when he gave a dodgy back pass that resulted in France scoring in the first game?

It's a good job Lampard makes sure he can't make mistakes like that by spending 90 mins in the opponents half.

el rabitos

Stekelly wrote:

It's a good job Lampard makes sure he can't make mistakes like that by spending 90 mins in the opponents half.

exactly

lampards never put in a position to be made look bad.

PHB

Oh come on:

What has record got to do with anything? When the team is not playing well then Lampard is found wanting.

Shown to be completely untrue.
Lampard's job is to score goals and create goals, he did that.

I've yet to see Lampard have a great game when his team isn't playing well. Scoring a goal does not make a great performance.

Well perhaps you should watch more football.
He gets the goals when England are not playing well, I've just shown it above. What the hell are you on about?

and where was gerrard when lampard was scroing all these goals?

i'll tell u...he was futher down the pitch watching lampards ass incase he missed and the opposition broke on the attack.

As for Gerrard, if his job for England is the DMC, he doesn't do that well, because they lose because of the lack of midfield protection and control.

Furthermore, the reason he doesn't do the job well, is because he goes forward too much, which results in him leaving the gaps. But it doens't result in the goals.
He is meant to play as a DMC, but he plays as a half and half, but with the worst of both worlds, not scoring goals and not protecting the defense.
He has not produced for England in any way. Lampard has.

This is without a doubt due to the system, but nonetheless,
Lampard has produced in the past, when it matters, in big games, with big preformances and big goals, and to suggest otherwise is just plain wrong.
He has done what he is meant to do, Gerrard has not.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

As for Gerrard, if his job for England is the DMC, he doesn't do that well, because they lose because of the lack of midfield protection and control.

Furthermore, the reason he doesn't do the job well, is because he goes forward too much, which results in him leaving the gaps. But it doens't result in the goals.
He is meant to play as a DMC, but he plays as a half and half, but with the worst of both worlds, not scoring goals and not protecting the defense.
He has not produced for England in any way. Lampard has.

This is without a doubt due to the system, but nonetheless,
Lampard has produced in the past, when it matters, in big games, with big preformances and big goals, and to suggest otherwise is just plain wrong.
He has done what he is meant to do, Gerrard has not.

eh...my point is gerrard should be dropped if he's only going to be played as a defensive midfielder, carrick should be playing ahead of him.

but in the normal world, where svg obviously doesnt live, lampard would be dropped, gerrard would be in his postion and carrick would be the defencive midfielder

PHB

eh...my point is gerrard should be dropped if he's only going to be played as a defensive midfielder, carrick should be playing ahead of him.

Totally agree.

but in the normal world, where svg obviously doesnt live, lampard would be dropped, gerrard would be in his postion and carrick would be the defencive midfielder

Why?
Lampard has produced in the past for England, Gerrard has not.
Lampard has produced at more consistant levels for Chelsea than Gerrard has for Liverpool.

Gerrard has done nothing to warrent him being ahead of Lampard.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

Why?
Lampard has produced in the past for England, Gerrard has not.
Lampard has produced at more consistant levels for Chelsea than Gerrard has for Liverpool.

Gerrard has done nothing to warrent him being ahead of Lampard.

well firstly gerrard is hardly going to produce **** all for england when he's wiping lampards ass for him tbh.

if gerrard played in the same postion for liverpool, liverpool wouldnt have got that first goal back against milan and i doubt that 35 yard short against west ham would have happened either.

Anam

eirebhoy wrote:

He certainly has not. I've yet to see Lampard have a great game when his team isn't playing well. Scoring a goal does not make a great performance.

Indeed but what use is a good performance if it doesnt result in goals?

At the end of the day the job of an attacking midfielder is to create and score goals,Lampard has done this for England and as such should not be dropped in favour of a dmf,gerrard should.

Guy:Incognito

Anam wrote:

Indeed but what use is a good performance if it doesnt result in goals?

At the end of the day the job of an attacking midfielder is to create and score goals,Lampard has done this for England and as such should not be dropped in favour of a dmf,gerrard should.

Gerrard should'nt be playign as a dm in the first place, he's a better player than Lampard and should be first choice am. then fit Lampard in if he wants to try. If lampard had been playing dm people would be calling for his head after one match. He also scored mores goals than Lampard last(this?, whatever) season while not being in his best position all season while lampard is, so being played out of position for Englland is not a true reflection of form/ability because he is clearly a better player.

Lemlin

Anam wrote:

Indeed but what use is a good performance if it doesnt result in goals?

At the end of the day the job of an attacking midfielder is to create and score goals,Lampard has done this for England and as such should not be dropped in favour of a dmf,gerrard should.

Exactly. Just look athe goal scoring records of both in the PL over the last two seasons. Lampard is the better attacking midfielder.

el rabitos wrote:

exactly

lampards never put in a position to be made look bad.

And your point is? He's an attacking midfielder. He does exactly what it says on the tin: scores and helps create goals.

You've just highlighted my point actually. Lampard did what he was supposed to in that game, scored a goal. Gerrard didn't. His job was to defend and he didn't, he gave away a goal.

Gerrard is the better midfielder and better all-round player no doubt but, when it comes to being an attacking midfielder, Lampard is the better player.

Lemlin

Stekelly wrote:

Gerrard should'nt be playign as a dm in the first place, he's a better player than Lampard and should be first choice am. then fit Lampard in if he wants to try. If lampard had been playing dm people would be calling for his head after one match

Why would a team play an attacking midfielder as a defensive midfielder? Makes about as much sense as Holland playing RVN at right back.

Gerrrard is a better player but not a better attacking midfielder which is why Lampard plays in the attacking role. If Sven changes the system, Lampard should start with a holding midfielder to protect him getting forward.

Whether England have a midfielder good enough to play as a defensive midfielder is another debate altogether though.

Guy:Incognito

Lemlin wrote:

Exactly. Just look athe goal scoring records of both in the PL over the last two seasons. Lampard is the better attacking midfielder.



And your point is? He's an attacking midfielder. He does exactly what it says on the tin: scores and helps create goals.

You've just highlighted my point actually. Lampard did what he was supposed to in that game, scored a goal. Gerrard didn't. His job was to defend and he didn't, he gave away a goal.

Gerrard is the better midfielder and better all-round player no doubt but, when it comes to being an attacking midfielder, Lampard is the better player.

Gerrard is an am played out of position as a dm by sven. Why can't Lampard do a stint as dm and we can see the true gerrard as an am. The fact of it is, Gerrard is a better am than Lampard and because of sven and his stupid tactics one of them has to play dm , which neither are. Gerrards always gets this job and as a result idnt playing as well. Neither are dm's but Gerrard is less of a risk there becuase he is a better player and more adaptable.

Anam

Lemlin wrote:

Exactly. Just look athe goal scoring records of both in the PL over the last two seasons. Lampard is the better attacking midfielder.



And your point is? He's an attacking midfielder. He does exactly what it says on the tin: scores and helps create goals.

You've just highlighted my point actually. Lampard did what he was supposed to in that game, scored a goal. Gerrard didn't. His job was to defend and he didn't, he gave away a goal.

Gerrard is the better midfielder and better all-round player no doubt but, when it comes to being an attacking midfielder, Lampard is the better player.

Spot on,Gerrard even said himself recently that Lampard has been the best player in England in that position for the past 2 years.

Superdub2

PHB wrote:

Totally agree.



Why?
Lampard has produced in the past for England, Gerrard has not.
Lampard has produced at more consistant levels for Chelsea than Gerrard has for Liverpool.

Gerrard has done nothing to warrent him being ahead of Lampard.

As Steven Gerrard himself has said he has only previously played 55 minutes for england in his proper position so dont give me he hasnt produced as opposed to Lamps who, while being a great goalscorer, is constantly accomodated and is never played out of position!

Also while Lampard may come up with the goals when they are needed he doesnt come up with the big game performances and rarely has much of an influence on the games bar his goals, but since he plays in central midfield i dont think his goals shud be the only barometer with whic to judge lamps.

Lampard has been more effective for England because he is never played out of position and Gerrard if given that role would prosper im sure, like he does for the pool

Guy:Incognito

Anam wrote:

Spot on,Gerrard even said himself recently that Lampard has been the best player in England in that position for the past 2 years.

Terry said Carra was teh best centre half last season, so why wasnt/isnt he first choice for england?

Anam

Stekelly wrote:

The fact of it is, Gerrard is a better am than Lampard

He's not though.

You cant argue with 16 PL goals for a midfielder.

Gerrard has more influence on a game in terms of leadership and is a better all round midfielder but Lampard produces more end product consistently.

Lemlin

Stekelly wrote:

Terry said Carra was teh best centre half last season, so why wasnt/isnt he first choice for england?

I've said plenty of times that Carragher should be playing ahead of Ferdinand, check my posts.

el rabitos

Lemlin wrote:

And your point is? He's an attacking midfielder. He does exactly what it says on the tin: scores and helps create goals.

You've just highlighted my point actually. Lampard did what he was supposed to in that game, scored a goal. Gerrard didn't. His job was to defend and he didn't, he gave away a goal.

Gerrard is the better midfielder and better all-round player no doubt but, when it comes to being an attacking midfielder, Lampard is the better player.

my point is, gerrards an attacking midfielder, but he defends aswell. when someone mentions lampard, the first thing i think of is makelelle.

you cant compare gerrards contribution to a team to lampard, theres just no comparison. at liverpool gerrard has sissoko to rely on for cleaning up the defencive dutys, but u dont see him rely on him to the extent lampard relys on makelelle.

PHB

England's problem is that Gerrard doesn't do DMC, because he attacks too much. He has had oppurtunities to reproduce his club form for England and has not.
e.g. in the first half vs. Paraguay he had 6 shots from outside the box, all over the bar. He got forward, got his chances, didn't produce.

As for the CL final, a year ago, and the FA Cup final, he was great there. No doubt about it. Gerrard plays different for club and country though, probably due to loving the club he plays for. Lampard on the other hand, is the same for club and country.

Aswell as that, let's look at some stats.

Lampard:
Prem: 16 goals
CL : 2 goals

Assists(Prem): 8

Gerrard:
Prem: 14 goals
CL: 0

Assists(Prem) : 6

Actim Ratings:

1 thierry henry Arsenal 7.34
2 frank lampard Chelsea 7.21
3 ruud van nistelrooy Manchester United 6.85
4 steven gerrard Liverpool 6.32

Ultimately, I think Lampard is a better AMC than Gerrard. You say you can't measure his preformance in terms of goals and assists? What else do you want from an attacking midfielder.

If you want to argue that Gerrard drags teams to victory, that's true for Liverpool, but not for England

Also, Gerrard's great preformances, i.e. CL final, came as part of a 3 man midfield, as the most attacking player.

Guy:Incognito

Lemlin wrote:

Why would a team play an attacking midfielder as a defensive midfielder? Makes about as much sense as Holland playing RVN at right back.
.

Do I look like a bald middle aged swedish man? ( I might , but trust me, I dont) Only Sven can decide who he plays with and why (no ulrika jokes). He seems determind to play his best 11 players instead of what a real manager would do, which is play the best team. Sven picks his 11 players then worries about a system to fit them into, he's a joke of a manger. Thats the reason why Gerrard and Lampard both start, they are both the same type of player but someone has to do a defensive job in the middle. Lampard is incapable of itso it falls on Gerrard. It's a process of elimination brought on by svens retarded method of picking a team.

Anam wrote:

He's not though.

You cant argue with 16 PL goals for a midfielder.

Gerrard has more influence on a game in terms of leadership and is a better all round midfielder but Lampard produces more end product consistently.

Why is it just pl goals? They play in more thanone competition you know. Gerrard scored more goals last season than lampard. If you want to strip out the games that Gerarrd scored in to suit your stats then so be it.

Superdub2

Stekelly wrote:

Terry said Carra was teh best centre half last season, so why wasnt/isnt he first choice for england?

dead right, someone shud tell ur man that great players like Gerrard or John Terry are usually modest, and how many times have we heard Roy Keane say he was the best midfielder of his generation??? never!

Also how can anybody say Frank Lampard who is a luxury surrounded my great players in a fantasy football team has been better in the prem than Steven Gerrard who has carried the Liverpool team on his back for several years now, wimnning the Champion League which Chelsea are still struggling to achieve!

adox

We know that Lampard scores alot of goals,its not in dispute.
My point that he goes missing in games when England are under pressure is that the game bypasses him alot of the time.He really does go mising.His ability to distribute the ball is not as good as Gerrards.His ability to influence the overall pattern of game is less than Gerrard.His overall ability is less than Gerrard.

If you think that the sole purpose of an attacking midfielder PHB is to score goals then you can have Lampard.Its doesnt come first on my list.

To suggest that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard is a very strange opinion to hold,and to suggest that Gerrard be a player to be dropped from the England team is an even stranger opinion to hold.Boardering the luidicrous to be honest.:D

Superdub2

Stekelly wrote:

Do I look like a bald middle aged swedish man? ( I might , but trust me, I dont) Only Sven can decide who he plays with and why (no ulrika jokes). He seems determind to play his best 11 players instead of what a real manager would do, which is play the best team. Sven picks his 11 players then worries about a system to fit them into, he's a joke of a manger. Thats the reason why Gerrard and Lampard both start, they are both the same type of player but someone has to do a defensive job in the middle. Lampard is incapable of itso it falls on Gerrard. It's a process of ilimination brought on by svens retarded method of picking a team.

While i think that Sven is a joke this is not a mess of his making! The all powerful English media and the public insist on Gerrard and Lamps in the same team and we have all seen in the past how those delusional ******** have tormented the poor souls who begged to disagree!