Liverpool - Chelsea...Round 9.....FIGHT!!!

eZe^

Des wrote: »

Gerrard is not a "country mile" better than Lampard ffs, how can any football fan even think that?

There is very little between them, Gerrard may shade it on versatility, but then again, Lampard could be considered good enough to play in and hold down only one position for his entire career.

I've actually heard that argument many many times before, and it always gets me. I mean people always say to me that Gerrard is 'the most complete player in world football', but I couldn't disagree more. Nobody can really tell me what position he plays, because he possess the complete list of qualities to be labelled any type of midfielder in particular.

His passing, creativity and vision isn't intelligent enough to play in the deep lying Pirlo / Fabregas, plus if he played here so many of best qualities would be stifled and you wouldn't get the best out of him.

He isn't a traditional physical CMF like Essien, because even though he is good defensively, he isn't the type of player who should be used to first neurtalise the other teams threat, and then consider attacking.

He can't be played as a typical midfielder in my eyes, because he ISN'T complete enough to play any of these roles, but at the same time, it's for that exact reason why he's so bloody effective. He is a natural born leader, his tenacity can't be matched by any other player in world football, and his sheer desire means he scores more goals than any other midfielder in world football (along with Lampard).

There is NO team in world football that wouldn't be improved by the addition of Gerrard, it's just important to ensure he isn't placed in a team where he is made do a specific job, he needs to be given free reign to get forward, get in peoples faces, and do whatever he wants really.

Lampard on the other hand is more conventional, which means it's easier to implement him into a traditional midfield system, but in turn you lose some of the qualities that you have with Gerrard. I think Lampard and Gerrard are very close when it comes to goal threat, Gerrard is probably marginally better, I think Lampard is better at passing, dictating the tempo of a game, and at holding up the ball. The key difference is that Gerrard lives for big important matches, which means that he proved year in year out in the crunch matches why he is considered the best 'midfielder' in the world. (I don't really think he is a midfielder at all)

thegen

eZe^ wrote: »

I've actually heard that argument many many times before, and it always gets me. I mean people always say to me that Gerrard is 'the most complete player in world football', but I couldn't disagree more. Nobody can really tell me what position he plays, because he possess the complete list of qualities to be labelled any type of midfielder in particular.

His passing, creativity and vision isn't intelligent enough to play in the deep lying Pirlo / Fabregas, plus if he played here so many of best qualities would be stifled and you wouldn't get the best out of him.

He isn't a traditional physical CMF like Essien, because even though he is good defensively, he isn't the type of player who should be used to first neurtalise the other teams threat, and then consider attacking.

He can't be played as a typical midfielder in my eyes, because he ISN'T complete enough to play any of these roles, but at the same time, it's for that exact reason why he's so bloody effective. He is a natural born leader, his tenacity can't be matched by any other player in world football, and his sheer desire means he scores more goals than any other midfielder in world football (along with Lampard).

There is NO team in world football that wouldn't be improved by the addition of Gerrard, it's just important to ensure he isn't placed in a team where he is made do a specific job, he needs to be given free reign to get forward, get in peoples faces, and do whatever he wants really.

Lampard on the other hand is more conventional, which means it's easier to implement him into a traditional midfield system, but in turn you lose some of the qualities that you have with Gerrard. I think Lampard and Gerrard are very close when it comes to goal threat, Gerrard is probably marginally better, I think Lampard is better at passing, dictating the tempo of a game, and at holding up the ball. The key difference is that Gerrard lives for big important matches, which means that he proved year in year out in the crunch matches why he is considered the best 'midfielder' in the world. (I don't really think he is a midfielder at all)

Then what is he?

Funny Zinedine Zidane proclaimed him as the best midfielder in the world due to his ability to, tackle, pass and score goals.

You point out he is not a holdin or typical Central midfielder. Maybe its because he is the most complete midfielder. The type of midfielder you point out there do a specific role. They are not complete.

Anyway thats only IMO.

eZe^

Jesus, relax, I'm not trying to undermine him as a player.... :rolleyes:

thegen

eZe^ wrote: »

Jesus, relax, I'm not trying to undermine him as a player.... :rolleyes:

Very relaxed, just my view on the subject. You have yours and I have mine.;)

iregk

thegen wrote: »

You have yours and I have mine.;)

You stole my line

Have to agree with eze. When you play Gerrard you have to play holding midfielders as the only way to use him is to let him do what he wants. Gerrard has no tactcial nous what so ever and leaves huge gaps in midfield when he plays. Hence why Liverpool deploy two deep lying players (alonso, masch) to cover those gaps.

Lampard is much more of a conventional midfielder who is a better passer of the ball, better tackler and much more of a tactical head on him. Controls the tempo much better.

That said eZe. You say Gerrard is much more of a goal threat. Lampard played 595 scored 165. Gerrard 477 scored 117. By percentage Lampard is more of a goal threat! Stevie G has only outscored Lamps in one season of his career.

ctrl-alt-delete

Just adding to the stats in the post above,

Id like to see how many of these goals were scored when the team was not in a winning position,

Obviously i don't have the stats, and i wouldn't have the time to compile them

But i'd like to think Gerrard would have a higher percentage then than Lampard,

That is one of the reasons i'd choose Gerrard in my side over Lampard,

His commitment, work rate, effort and effect on others being my thinking behind it.

iregk

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Id like to see how many of these goals were scored when the team was not in a winning position,

But i'd like to think Gerrard would have a higher percentage then than Lampard,

Ah come on now what more do you people want

Unfortunately I don't have stats for right foot -v- left foot. When Lampard was wearing unbro boots as opposed to Adidas or which number blade of grass they were on the pitch while scoring.

Boggles

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

But i'd like to think Gerrard would have a higher percentage then than Lampard,

I'd LIKE to think up things too, doesn't mean it is right though.

ctrl-alt-delete

iregk wrote: »

Ah come on now what more do you people want

Unfortunately I don't have stats for right foot -v- left foot. When Lampard was wearing unbro boots as opposed to Adidas or which number blade of grass they were on the pitch while scoring.

I just meant that, I would rather have a player who caqn turn a game, than one who revels in a team playing well,

It's obviously just my opinion, but i get the impression Gerrard is the former, and lampard has elements of the latter, i might be being too hard on Lampard though!

ctrl-alt-delete

Boggles wrote: »

I'd LIKE to think up things too, doesn't mean it is right though.

It does on the internet