Lampard vs Gerrard

Kirby

What exactly does watching football have to do with a player stating he wishes to leave? Surely he doesn't do it during a game to the camera's.......

Just curious.

PhilTorres

Gerrard for me.

Lampard has generally played with better players around him than Gerrard which is huge since Gerrard has carried Liverpool aside from the couple of good seasons Torres had.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Chancer3001 wrote: »

lampard by a million miles,.

better player

passer

scorer

less transfer requests handed in

more consistent

has adapted his game better as he ages

Bloody hell.

Would love to know do some people actually watch football before posting ridiculous statements.

Nothing outlandish there apart from the obvious exaggeration in the first line.

grohlisagod

LiamoSail has it pretty much spot on.

It would have been interesting to see how good Gerrard could have been if he had played the majority of his career in the free role behind the striker. He's so talented that he could have been classed among the absolute stars of the modern game but we only saw it for 2 or 3 years.

To be honest I think the main reason the comparison exists is because England have tried to crowbar the two of them into the same midfield, thinking of them as playing the same position, when they really don't. I'm surprised really that England didn't give a Gerrard/Rooney attack a proper run considering the lack of top class strikers that has plagued them since Owen's demise.

Both have been great players for club and country.

grenache

Gerrard looked alright at Liverpool for many years because he had quality players who could dictate the play beside him, at first Gary McAllister, then Xavi Alonso. However since Alonso left Liverpool have not had a decent play maker in midfield. Liverpool have been shocking the past 2-3 seasons and Gerrard has been exposed for the average midfielder that he is.

daithijjj

Its not even a contest on an individual basis, Lampard would have barely got a game if Mourinho had managed to sign Gerrard for Chelsea.

Lampard has been surrounded by some of the best players around for 7 or 8 years, Gerrard has been surrounded by largely inferior players for the bulk of his career. Lampard will age more gracefully because he has a lot more quality around him to do the work in the team, Gerrard doesnt have that and its a major reason why Scholes could prolong his career as much as he has.

Gerrard and Scholes are head and shoulders above any other England midfielders over last 12 years.

LuckyLloyd

grenache wrote: »

Gerrard looked alright at Liverpool for many years because he had quality players who could dictate the play beside him, at first Gary McAllister, then Xavi Alonso. However since Alonso left Liverpool have not had a decent play maker in midfield. Liverpool have been shocking the past 2-3 seasons and Gerrard has been exposed for the average midfielder that he is.

Your hate sustains me.

Chucky the tree

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your hate sustains me.

His take on Gerrard is pretty accurate tbh.

G.K.

Did Gerrard play better alongside Alonso and Masch? Yes. That cannot be denied.

However, is he average, even now? No. He's better than that.

Chucky the tree

G.K. wrote: »

Did Gerrard play better alongside Alonso and Masch? Yes. That cannot be denied.

However, is he average, even now? No. He's better than that.

Well you'd need to quantify average. Is he average for a LOI midfielder? Of course not, he'd be excellent. Is he average for a international side looking to compete for World cups and European championships or a side looking to win PL titles? Then yes he is average as a central midfielder.

G.K.

As a centre mid, I don't think Gerrard is anything special any more. I think he's still capable of playing in a title-challenging team in an AM role.

LuckyLloyd

Chucky the tree wrote: »

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your hate sustains me.

His take on Gerrard is pretty accurate tbh.

I've been one of his biggest detractors in the Liverpool thread over the past couple of years but the language used in that post is anything but "accurate".

lol Teddie though, always eager to dig the knife into anything that isn't current and shiny.

Chucky the tree

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I've been one of his biggest detractors in the Liverpool thread over the past couple of years but the language used in that post is anything but "accurate".

lol Teddie though, always eager to dig the knife into anything that isn't current and shiny.

As one of his biggest detractors you should be smart enough to realise that some of is accurate, clearly not though.

niallo27

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well you'd need to quantify average. Is he average for a LOI midfielder? Of course not, he'd be excellent. Is he average for a international side looking to compete for World cups and European championships or a side looking to win PL titles? Then yes he is average as a central midfielder.

Are you taking about Gerrard of now or one in his prime.

GavRedKing

Definetly Lampard after tonight. :pac:

Chucky the tree

niallo27 wrote: »

Are you taking about Gerrard of now or one in his prime.

The one in his prime. Well it depends when you consider his prime I suppose.

Chucky the tree

Chucky the tree wrote: »

niallo27 wrote: »

Are you taking about Gerrard of now or one in his prime.

The one in his prime. Well it depends when you consider his prime I suppose.

Gerrard was average in his prime?

Jaysus

smileyj1987

To me it has to be Gerrard but it is very close between the two players .

Lampard to me has always been Mr Consistent and you always know how he is going to play . He does Score a good few goals and is a very good passer but I feel he lacks that little bit of magic . He has been a vital cog in Chelsea's team over the last number of years but he has got great players around him who made life alot easier because he only had to concentrate on his job because there was other players who where the match winners ( Drogba , Anelka , Robben are 3 examples ) .

Gerrard to me is just magical as a player because he has played in so many position's over his career where Lampard has only played in one position . To me a great player can play in a few positions and this is why Gerrard has to be the better footballer . He also has the Magical ability to grab a game by the scruff of the neck and turn it on its head . Plus anybody who can win a Champions League with Djimi Traore deserves a medal for that alone .

To me they are both great players and will go down as legends of the EPL and it kind of sounds like an argument between Blur and Oasis who is better . It all comes down to individual opinion at the end of the day .

Beefy78

daithijjj wrote: »

Its not even a contest on an individual basis, Lampard would have barely got a game if Mourinho had managed to sign Gerrard for Chelsea.

Nonsense. Mourinho wanted to play the two of them together.

Chucky the tree

rarnes1 wrote: »

Gerrard was average in his prime?

Jaysus

An average CM yes. But he didn't play that position in his prime for the most part.

Royal Legend

The British press has played up Gerrard being a brilliant world class central midfielder, when he really an attacking midfielder, either in the hole or wide right. Rafa saw this and everyone critisised him for it, yet, he scored more goals when playing on the right side of midfield.
Was he a great player, yes, without a shadow of a doubt, was he international class, yes, also without a shadow of a doubt, he has been Englands best player for a number of years, that he has had to play in poor international teams is not his fault.
Some people on here need to take their club hatred somewhere else. And as a Liverpool supporter, I also had great time for Keane, (by the way Gerrard dominated Keane in a number of united/Liverpool matches) and Lampard is also a great midfielder.
Blaming Englands woes on Gerrard is far from the facts, that England got rid of a world class manager who was too good for them and replaced him with a complete and utter incompetant, ignorant and over rated clown (The Hodge) Possibly the greatest accident ever waiting to happen as England manager.

redzerdrog

Chucky the tree wrote: »

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your hate sustains me.

His take on Gerrard is pretty accurate tbh.

And your take on gerrard is predictable of you

Chucky the tree

redzerdrog wrote: »

And your take on gerrard is predictable of you

It's also correct.

LuckyLloyd

Chucky the tree wrote: »

His take on Gerrard is pretty accurate tbh.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

As one of his biggest detractors you should be smart enough to realise that some of is accurate, clearly not though.

Chucky the tree

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's why I said pretty accurate. Means it wasn't completely accurate.

LuckyLloyd

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's why I said pretty accurate. Means it wasn't completely accurate.

Pretty:

To a moderately high degree; fairly: "he looked pretty fit for his age".

Some:

about - approximately - somewhat - thereabouts - a little

EchoO

Tony Cascarino told this story on one of OTB's roadshows. Cascarino wrote an article saying Gerrard and Lampard can't play together for England, Gerrard is the better player - so drop Lampard. Lampard rang him, ranting and raving(something he apparently is very prone to doing) about "how could an ex-blue say this". Cas replied - "What do you want me to do - lie" and hung up.

Chucky the tree

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Pretty:



Some:

They only part of his post that was wrong was the first part about him being average for Liverpool. Rest was spot on, I'd call that pretty accurate.

gosplan

Does anyone else feel that the inability, or lack of guts, of successive England managers to pick between these two very similar players has really cost their national football team over he last decade or so.

I'm always reminded of when Italy has Totti and Del Piero. I don't think they won anything but the whole nation seemed to clearly see that they couldn't both be in the starting line up.

I think in terms of the media in the UK, it's a no win decision for a manager and perhaps that's why people have avoided it.

Gbear

Some really cracking posts here amongst all the biased horse****.

Different players are different.
Gerrards skill, explosion of pace and piece of genius on tap set him apart as an amazing player. His recklessness in possession and tackling made him only a pretty good midfielder though and a bit of a liability on occasion. Lately he's shown an ability to reign the brashness in (red card tonight notwithstanding) but he doesn't really stand out as a DM in the same way he did as an AM.
In the final third you always have to sacrifice some control for some attacking threat. Gerrard did that and when Liverpool played to his strengths he was utterly breathtaking at times.

Lampard has an absolutely brilliant standard of play. He just plays well nearly all the time. I don't think he has the kind of superlative quality that Gerrard can produce (or could, to be more precise) but he'd have been a great asset in any midfield in the world over the past 10 years. Because of the nature of his game he also seems to be ageing better.
The ability to produce that and to consistently score goals, by hook or by crook are another vital element of a team.

Both players gave key elements to their respective football teams. They had their similarities but ultimately you can only compare them in terms of how important and effective they were in their ideal positions with the right players around them. They were both roughly as good as each other at doing that. I think the notion that they can't play in the same team is bull****.

grenache

daithijjj wrote: »

Gerrard and Scholes are head and shoulders above any other England midfielders over last 12 years.

Scholes yes. Gerrard certainly not. In any case, that would not be difficult considering England produce about as many world class midfielders as Ireland do nuclear physicists.

Since Bobby Charlton in the 60s, England have produced 1 'world class' midfielder in the shape of Paul Gascoigne.

grenache

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

grenache wrote: »

Gerrard looked alright at Liverpool for many years because he had quality players who could dictate the play beside him, at first Gary McAllister, then Xavi Alonso. However since Alonso left Liverpool have not had a decent play maker in midfield. Liverpool have been shocking the past 2-3 seasons and Gerrard has been exposed for the average midfielder that he is.

Your hate sustains me.

I'm very happy for you.


(I don't hate any team for the record - except Crystal Palace)

niallo27

grenache wrote: »

Gerrard looked alright at Liverpool for many years because he had quality players who could dictate the play beside him, at first Gary McAllister, then Xavi Alonso. However since Alonso left Liverpool have not had a decent play maker in midfield. Liverpool have been shocking the past 2-3 seasons and Gerrard has been exposed for the average midfielder that he is.

Well if you think he looked only alright playing behind torres for them few years, you either have very high expectitions for footballers, havent a clue about football or very bitter towards the man.

Beefy78

gosplan wrote: »

Does anyone else feel that the inability, or lack of guts, of successive England managers to pick between these two very similar players has really cost their national football team over he last decade or so.

I'm always reminded of when Italy has Totti and Del Piero. I don't think they won anything but the whole nation seemed to clearly see that they couldn't both be in the starting line up.

I think in terms of the media in the UK, it's a no win decision for a manager and perhaps that's why people have avoided it.

The problem wasn't playing Gerrard and Lampard in the same team. It was playing Gerrard and Lampard in the middle of what was usually a 4-4-2 when neither player have ever consistently played well in that role and where both were happier going forward than sitting. The problem was increased by having Beckham in the same side who almost everything went through anyway.

You'd have been able to play both in the same side had Gerrard been further forward, just behind the striker, or if England played with a midfield three but with Beckham as the first name on the team sheet for a decade a 4-3-3 was never going to work.

bullvine

grenache wrote: »

Scholes yes. Gerrard certainly not. In any case, that would not be difficult considering England produce about as many world class midfielders as Ireland do nuclear physicists.

Since Bobby Charlton in the 60s, England have produced 1 'world class' midfielder in the shape of Paul Gascoigne.

Bryan Robson was world class!

Beefy78

As was Scholes who was mentioned in that post but then not counted as World Class. I'd count Glenn Hoddle as well.

If Charlton counts as a midfielder then Le Tissier does as well and he's the best English player in my 33 years on this planet.

GavRedKing

Beefy78 wrote: »

As was Scholes who was mentioned in that post but then not counted as World Class. I'd count Glenn Hoddle as well.

If Charlton counts as a midfielder then Le Tissier does as well and he's the best English player in my 33 years on this planet.

Beefy78

Awesome and considered response. Well done.

GavRedKing

Beefy78 wrote: »

Awesome and considered response. Well done.

Then you may also like this guy. :rolleyes:

TBH, I wanna know why you picked Le Tissier over the abundance of players that were better then him in 33 years.

Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Gascoigne, Scholes, Shearer but to name a few and thats before you mention people like Keegan, Robson, Lineker, Shilton.

So......why do you think Le Tissier was better then all those?

Tox56

In terms of pure natural talent I don't think it's that outlandish to suggest he's the best English player over the last 30+ years. All those other players have achieved more and worked harder, but Le Tissier still had extraordinary natural ability.

GavRedKing

Tox56 wrote: »

In terms of pure natural talent I don't think it's that outlandish to suggest he's the best English player over the last 30+ years. All those other players have achieved more and worked harder, but Le Tissier still had extraordinary natural ability.

Not doubting his ability one bit, that was there for all to see but I just dont think hes the best in 3 decades.

monkey9

Gerrard Vs Lampard! It's like Reeling In The Years circa 2005.

Beefy78

GavRedKing wrote: »

Then you may also like this guy. :rolleyes:

TBH, I wanna know why you picked Le Tissier over the abundance of players that were better then him in 33 years.

Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Gascoigne, Scholes, Shearer but to name a few and thats before you mention people like Keegan, Robson, Lineker, Shilton.

So......why do you think Le Tissier was better then all those?

He had a natural talent that none of the names that you mention come close to. They all worked harder than him, they all (other than Gazza) had smaller bellies than him but Le Tissier had far more natural ability than any of them (other than maybe Hoddle).

People hold Paul Gascoinge up as an example of a World Class midfielder but Gazza couldn't do what Le Tissier did. Gascoinge had the combination of great ability and a Rooney-esque explosiveness but as someone who saw them both many times both on TV and live there's absolutely no doubt in my mind which was the better footballer.

Felexicon

Tox56 wrote: »

In terms of pure natural talent I don't think it's that outlandish to suggest he's the best English player over the last 30+ years. All those other players have achieved more and worked harder, but Le Tissier still had extraordinary natural ability.

There have been plenty of better English players in the last 30 years tbf. Although I always loved LeTiss

bullvine

I think Scholes had more natural ability than Le Tissier personally, just that he didnt have to do it because he was more of a team player.

Skylinehead

Beefy78 wrote: »

He had a natural talent that none of the names that you mention come close to. They all worked harder than him, they all (other than Gazza) had smaller bellies than him but Le Tissier had far more natural ability than any of them (other than maybe Hoddle).

People hold Paul Gascoinge up as an example of a World Class midfielder but Gazza couldn't do what Le Tissier did. Gascoinge had the combination of great ability and a Rooney-esque explosiveness but as someone who saw them both many times both on TV and live there's absolutely no doubt in my mind which was the better footballer.

Having more natural talent doesn't necessarily make you the better player.

bullvine

Skylinehead wrote: »

Having more natural talent doesn't necessarily make you the better player.

Exactly, otherwise those lads that juggle the ball from one end of the pitch to the other would be the best in the world.

Beefy78

If his head was screwed on I'd have had Stan Collymore near the top of any list of English players over the last couple of decade. The guy was ridiculously talented and could do anything that proper Ronaldo could do.

Although as a Southend United fan I accept that I'm hopelessly biased there in favour of our best ever player.

kryogen

bullvine wrote: »

Bryan Robson was world class!

This.

The problem is I would guess that many are too young to have seen much of Robbo. He was amazing

Beefy78

Skylinehead wrote: »

Having more natural talent doesn't necessarily make you the better player.

Depends what you look for in a player. That rationale would make David Batty and Phil Neville great players. Football is entertainment and scoring goals & demonstrating exceptional ability that other players couldn't even think of being able to do in the context of a match will always be the most important thing to me.

It's all subjective though.