Lampard vs Gerrard

bullvine

kryogen wrote: »

This.

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

Aye, he was unreal, amazing for both United and England which is rare these days.

redzerdrog

kryogen wrote: »

This.

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

I am too young to properly remember robbo in his heyday but have seen bits and pieces of both him and souness back in the day and **** me they were some competitors.

I would love to see a game with those two going hammer and thong against each other!

Felexicon

Beefy78 wrote: »

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.

Incorrect. If he had said that determination and battling ability are better attributes than natural talent then the rational would be that Batty and Phil Neville are great players. But that's not what he said.

Beefy78

Felexicon wrote: »

Incorrect. If he had said that determination and battling ability are better attributes than natural talent then the rational would be that Batty and Phil Neville are great players. But that's not what he said.

The statement was that natural ability is not what makes a great player. The implication being that players who work harder and make a better contribution to the team have a greater claim to being great than a natural talent who has never seen his own penalty area does.

Felexicon

Skylinehead wrote: »

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

Beefy78 wrote: »

The statement was that natural ability is not what makes a great player. The implication being that players who work harder and make a better contribution to the team have a greater claim to being great than a natural talent who has never seen his own penalty area does.

That wasn't the statement at all

Beefy78

Fine. Well done.

bullvine

In fairness to Gerrard he has amazing technique, one of the best strikers of the ball ever, as good as Beckham in my opinion.

Lets not forget his performance as a sort of Right Back in the 2005 final, he was incredible.

Skylinehead

Felexicon wrote: »

That wasn't the statement at all

Exactly. Natural ability on its own doesn't make a great player. What if that player has no knees? Physicality, determination and the desire to make it as a great of the game are also very important in determining the best players. Le Tissier, as you say, probably had more natural ability than the likes of Gerrard. But Gerrard was easily the better player, because he could drive a team to win games on his own, score goals when they were needed the most, run all day, get tackles in, not what Le Tissier could do.

grenache

niallo27 wrote: »

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.

or maybe I just see him for the good pro that he is. He certainly is not the world class player that every Liverpool fan says he is.

If you've watched him you'll know this to be true.

larchielads

As someone posted the club stats of both players they're almost similar and as with the voting it's prob the tightest pole I've ever seen on here about football. It's almost 50/50 . I think they're both more or less the same as stats have proven so it's down to who you'd want in your team and if I were picking a prem league 4-3-3 my mid 3 would be keane scholes and gerrard cos in MY opinion I think they would compliment each other. Keane holding with the other 2 joining in the attack. Gerrard is more defensive then lamps so if keano pushed forward gerrard could sit and I'd still have the goal threat of scholes.

But hey that's just me

And for the pendantics out there, yes I know keane is retired:p

The_Hustler

No, Lampard's club stats are considerably better.

Liam O

larchielads wrote: »

As someone posted the club stats of both players they're almost similar and as with the voting it's prob the tightest pole I've ever seen on here about football. It's almost 50/50 . I think they're both more or less the same as stats have proven so it's down to who you'd want in your team and if I were picking a prem league 4-3-3 my mid 3 would be keane scholes and gerrard cos in MY opinion I think they would compliment each other. Keane holding with the other 2 joining in the attack. Gerrard is more defensive then lamps so if keano pushed forward gerrard could sit and I'd still have the goal threat of scholes.

But hey that's just me

And for the pendantics out there, yes I know keane is retired:p

Gerrard's more defensive than Lamps yet Lamps plays better in a deeper role than Gerrard? When they were both in their prime and playing the behind the striker role then they were very similar imo. I think Gerrard had more flair but as part of a system like Chelsea played during their successful period I don't think Gerrard could have done better than Lamps. Gerrard got more involved in the play overall though so while it's a toughie if I was a mid-table team I'd probably choose Gerrard, if I was a top team with quality around him I'd go for Lamps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1D9RRML2As

^
There's some acts of genius in there tbh

larchielads

The_Hustler wrote: »

No, Lampard's club stats are considerably better.

Lamps has 16 more assists and 44 more goals but lamps has played in better Chelsea teams than gerrard wit pool teams. My point is if gerrard had quality players around him like kamps had I think we would see the stats a lot closer to each other and gerrard had more defensive responsibilities than lamps ever had.