Steven Gerrard leaving Liverpool?

Hollister11

michael999999 wrote: »

Jamie redknapp was asked today, who does he consider the best player. Lampard or Gerrard?

He picked Gerrard!

Obviously there's no nepotism there.
With lamps being his cousin

monkey9

Hollister11 wrote: »

Obviously there's no nepotism there.
With lamps being his cousin

Well....yeah.

michael999999

Hollister11 wrote: »

Obviously there's no nepotism there.
With lamps being his cousin

Am I missing something here?

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

First of all, trophies don't lie and over the course of a season Scholes and Lampard have shown that they have the ability to be the best consistently to win titles for their club, while also having better stats for club and country.

What a stupid point.

Trophies definitely do lie when judging an individual. In fact, they're largely irrelevant. They're a team accolade. Not an individual's accolade.

Gerrard was in the PFA team of the year 8 times. Patrick Vieira was in it six times; Roy Keane and Frank Lampard had 5 five inclusions, Paul Scholes had two.

That's actually much much more relevant if you want to judge an individual player. Trophies is really only relevant when judging whole teams.

Nailz

cournioni wrote: »

Of the ones that I've seen live Iniesta, Xavi, Zidane, Keane, Schweinsteiger, Alonso, Fabregas and Pirlo are others that spring to mind outside of the England team that I'd rate above Gerrard too.

As far as Liverpool players go, I would rate Alonso more highly than Gerrard, and I'd imagine most people would.

monkey9

Mr Alan wrote: »

What a stupid point.

Trophies definitely do lie when judging an individual. In fact, they're largely irrelevant. They're a team accolade. Not an individual's accolade.

Gerrard was in the PFA team of the year 8 times. Patrick Vieira was in it six times; Roy Keane and Frank Lampard had 5 five inclusions, Paul Scholes had two.

That's actually much much more relevant if you want to judge an individual player. Trophies is really only relevant when judging whole teams.

Yeah but he doesn't like Phil Collins, Al. Therefore Scholes is clearly the better player.

cournioni

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm not doubting the abilities of Scholes and Lampard. Scholes was pure class who was playing for a huge club.

Lampard was quality as well of course. But you realise Lampard's winning of titles at Chelsea was down to Roman Abramovich. I'm not saying he wasn't good enough, but he wouldn't be winning league titles at Chelsea without the tycoon.

Lampard was the catalyst for Chelsea in their success. His appearance record for Chelsea along with his statistics during Chelsea's most successful period speaks volumes. His record for England mustn't be ignored either.

Nidgeweasel

cournioni wrote: »

Lampard was the catalyst for Chelsea in their success. His appearance record for Chelsea along with his statistics during Chelsea's most successful period speaks volumes. His record for England mustn't be ignored either.

There's this guy from Russia......

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

Trophies definitely do lie when judging an individual. In fact, they're largely irrelevant. They're a team accolade. Not an individual's accolade.

Gerrard was in the PFA team of the year 8 times. Patrick Vieira was in it six times; Roy Keane and Frank Lampard had 5 five inclusions, Paul Scholes had two.

That's actually much much more relevant if you want to judge an individual player. Trophies is really only relevant when judging whole teams.

If popularity contests mean you are a better player than so be it.

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

Lampard was the catalyst for Chelsea in their success. His appearance record for Chelsea along with his statistics during Chelsea's most successful period speaks volumes. His record for England mustn't be ignored either.

You must be the only person in the world who doesn't think Abramovich isn't the one responsible for Chelsea's success.

That includes Lampard by the way who has been quite honest in stating it was Roman's money that brought Chelsea to a new level.

8-10

I don't see much between those 3 England players mentioned (Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes). All very important to the relative successes of the clubs they represented and if i'm being critical, I think all 3 underachieved at international level based on what they produced for their clubs.

I couldn't really argue putting those 3 in any order 1-3 as I think it's too close to be unanimously conclusive unless you're talking really specific stats

monkey9

cournioni wrote: »

Lampard was the catalyst for Chelsea in their success. His appearance record for Chelsea along with his statistics during Chelsea's most successful period speaks volumes. His record for England mustn't be ignored either.

Roman Abramovich is the reason for Chelsea's success. That's not even an arguement.

Lampard was clearly good enough to be part of that. So too would Gerrard.

If tycoons had taken over Liverpool, the billionaire team would have been built around Gerrard.

I get that some people don't like Liverpool and therefore Steven Gerrard. But seriously, let's not get silly.

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

If popularity contests mean you are a better player than so be it.

Not really a popularity contest. More a survey of a huge number of professional footballers giving their opinion on the performances of individual players over the course of a season.

By no means perfect, but infinitely better than using the trophy count of an entire football club when trying to judge a single player.

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

You must be the only person in the world who doesn't think Abramovich isn't the one responsible for Chelsea's success.

That includes Lampard by the way who has been quite honest in stating it was Roman's money that brought Chelsea to a new level.

Owners can spend all the money in the world without success, the players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch. Lampard was Chelsea's main man on the pitch.

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

Owners can spend all the money in the world without success, the players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch. Lampard was Chelsea's main man on the pitch.

The players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch? Yes.

I'll spell it out for you....

The more better players on the pitch the more likely it is to be achieved.

The more money spent, the more better players on the pitch.

Roman bought many quality players.

Lampard admits that it was Romans money that moved Chelsea to the next level.

You were wrong & talking nonsense.

Nidgeweasel

cournioni wrote: »

Owners can spend all the money in the world without success, the players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch. Lampard was Chelsea's main man on the pitch.

Such drivel.

Mr Alan wrote: »

The players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch. The more better players on the pitch the more likely it is to be achieved. The more money spent, the more better players. Roman bought many quality players.

Lampard admits that it was Romans money that moved Chelsea to the next level.

You were wrong & talking nonsense.

What he said.

8-10

cournioni wrote: »

If popularity contests mean you are a better player than so be it.

And if dispopularity contests mean you're average and overrated then so be it!

monkey9

cournioni wrote: »

Owners can spend all the money in the world without success, the players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch. Lampard was Chelsea's main man on the pitch.

And if Roman bought Liverpool, Gerrard would have been Liverpool's main man on the pitch as we won league titles together with everything else we actually did win.

Ulysses Gaze

cournioni wrote: »

Owners can spend all the money in the world without success, the players make it achievable by their actions on the pitch. Lampard was Chelsea's main man on the pitch.

Without Abramovich...no Mourinho and no titles.

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

Not really a popularity contest. More a survey of a huge number of professional footballers giving their opinion on the performances of individual players over the course of a season.

By no means perfect, but infinitely better than using the trophy count of an entire football club when trying to judge a single player.

You can call it what you like, I'd call it a popularity contest. Scholes only getting into the team twice in his career proves that. Ironically Scholes is rated by three of the best midfielders of the past twenty years as the best that they have seen (Xavi, Iniesta and Zidane).

I'd prefer to use their success on the pitch for both club and country as a gauge. It is worth noting that Scholes and Lampard have both performed statistically better than Gerrard for England also.

monkey9

Is anybody actually doubting the quality of Scholes and Lampard? This is a thread about Gerrard leaving Liverpool and Gerrard would walk into any of those Chelsea or Man U teams.

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

You can call it what you like, I'd call it a popularity contest. Scholes only getting into the team twice in his career proves that. Ironically Scholes is rated by three of the best midfielders of the past twenty years as the best that they have seen (Xavi, Iniesta and Zidane).

Weird that those players would say that.

Particularly Zidane who is actually on record as saying Gerrard was the best player in the world at a time when Scholes was at his peak :rolleyes:

I prefer to use their success on the pitch for both club and country as a gauge. It is worth noting that Scholes and Lampard have both performed statistically better than Gerrard for England also.

You prefer to use the trophy count of an entire team when judging an individual player. We've established that. If you can't see how stupid that is, there's not much point carrying on any conversation.

"Both performed statistically better"

What stats would they be?

Mr Alan

monkey9 wrote: »

Is anybody actually doubting the quality of Scholes and Lampard? This is a thread about Gerrard leaving Liverpool and Gerrard would walk into any of those Chelsea or Man U teams.

Both players are sheer class.

cournioni

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Without Abramovich...no Mourinho and no titles.

The same logic can be applied to any successful club without a sugar daddy owner.

Without fans no money, no manager, no players.

Fact is, without the players on the pitch nobody wins anything, it doesn't matter how you try to dress it up. Lampard has shown statistically for Chelsea and England that he is better than Gerrard.

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

Fact is, without the players on the pitch nobody wins anything, it doesn't matter how you try to dress it up. Lampard has shown statistically for Chelsea and England that he is better than Gerrard.

WHAT STATS

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

WHAT STATS

Trophies, games to goals ratio, games to assists ratio. The ones that count.

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

Trophies, games to goals ratio, games to assists ratio. The ones that count.

Trophies aren't relevant as discussed.

The others have varying degrees of relevance, but are not nearly definitive by any means. Particularly for midfield players.

I don't have any great desire to continue this conversation with you, just wanted to step in & point out you were talking absolute ****e. Which I've done to a satisfactory level.

Donnielighto

monkey9 wrote: »

Is anybody actually doubting the quality of Scholes and Lampard? This is a thread about Gerrard leaving Liverpool and Gerrard would walk into any of those Chelsea or Man U teams.

Wouldnt have walked into the utd treble team. Scholes and keane would have been ahead of peak gerrard. Maybe into the chelsea team but im not sure where, Lampard was better in a similar role and chelsea often played with more defensive players in the other 2 spots

8-10

cournioni wrote: »

Trophies, games to goals ratio, games to assists ratio. The ones that count.

I'm interested in the games to goals and games to assists ratio for all 3 players for both club and for England. Trophies aren't really stats but I know what you mean and I know those ones already, but the other 2 stats for the 3 lads would definitely be interesting if you can post them? I reckon Gerrard comes close to Scholes in them?

Nidgeweasel

Just think, If Gerrard hadn't have slipped last year he wouldn't be in contention for the "best player to never win a league title".

He'll probably be the unanimous winner of that one.

Every cloud.

Donnielighto

Mr Alan wrote: »

Trophies aren't relevant as discussed.

The others have varying degrees of relevance, but are not nearly definitive by any means. Particularly for midfield players.

I don't have any great desire to continue this conversation with you, just wanted to step in & point out you were talking absolute ****e. Which I've done to a satisfactory level.

So do we disregard the cups gerrard has won when discussing his level as a player, good to know

Mr Alan

Donnielighto wrote: »

Wouldnt have walked into the utd treble team. Scholes and keane would have been ahead of peak gerrard. Maybe into the chelsea team but im not sure where, Lampard was better in a similar role and chelsea often played with more defensive players in the other 2 spots

The fact that Mourinho was desperate to buy Gerrard for the Chelsea team you're referring to should tell you all you need to know.

Nidgeweasel

Donnielighto wrote: »

Wouldnt have walked into the utd treble team. Scholes and keane would have been ahead of peak gerrard. Maybe into the chelsea team but im not sure where, Lampard was better in a similar role and chelsea often played with more defensive players in the other 2 spots

He wouldn't have gotten into the United midfield between 1993-2004.(Injuries during that period notwithstanding).

I' sure with his ability he'd have found a role somewhere else.

Gits_bone

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Just think, If Gerrard hadn't have slipped last year he wouldn't be in contention for the "best player to never win a league title".

He'll probably be the unanimous winner of that one.

Every cloud.

There was still 45 mins to go.

Mr Alan

8-10 wrote: »

I'm interested in the games to goals and games to assists ratio for all 3 players for both club and for England. Trophies aren't really stats but I know what you mean and I know those ones already, but the other 2 stats for the 3 lads would definitely be interesting if you can post them? I reckon Gerrard comes close to Scholes in them?

Id also be interested in tackles attempted & tackles won, passes attempted & passes completed. Surely if we're talking about "stats" to judge a midfield player these are hugely relevant?!

Nailz

Anyone who thinks that trophies are irrelevant in considering the quality of a player is bullshitting to an enormous degree.

Gits_bone

Scholes was out on the left for England with Lampard and Gerrard in the middle.

Nidgeweasel

Gits_bone wrote: »

There was still 45 mins to go.

Against a team who were happy with a draw, set up to get one, and playing for one.

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

Trophies aren't relevant as discussed.

The others have varying degrees of relevance, but are not nearly definitive by any means. Particularly for midfield players.

I don't have any great desire to continue this conversation with you, just wanted to step in & point out you were talking absolute ****e. Which I've done to a satisfactory level.

Ah so we discount trophies. Well competitive football is completely pointless so. :cool:

Donnielighto

Mr Alan wrote: »

The fact that Mourinho was desperate to buy Gerrard for the Chelsea team you're referring to should tell you all you need to know.

You're right I checked the chelsea squad that season, he would have added a lot. But that chelsea team did well when a proper cm was brought in allowing lamps to take the am position properly. First XI though, makele and essien behind lampard, where does stevie g play? wide right?

Mr Alan

Nailz wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that trophies are irrelevant in considering the quality of a player is bullshitting to an enormous degree.

Largely irrelevant.

Who's a better player Danny Welbeck or Luis Suarez?

You see where I'm going with this?

Ulysses Gaze

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Against a team who were happy with a draw, set up to get one, and playing for one.

And the Palace game?

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

Ah so we discount trophies. Well competitive football is completely pointless so. :cool:

Who is a better player Tom Cleverly or Matthew LeTissier?

8-10

cournioni wrote: »

Ah so we discount trophies. Well competitive football is completely pointless so. :cool:

Please post your stats you mention as being the important indicators. In my head I reckon Gerrard and Scholes are close on your games to goals and games to assists stats but interested in the reality?

Gits_bone

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Against a team who were happy with a draw, set up to get one, and playing for one.

No, mourinhos gameplan was going perfectly at the time but Chelsea needed the win to stay in the title race and he would have got it anyways.

Augmerson

Nailz wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that trophies are irrelevant in considering the quality of a player is bullshitting to an enormous degree.

Roy Keane never won a World Cup.
Ryan Giggs never played in a World Cup.
Matthew Le Tisser ......
Paul Gascoigne has.... an FA Cup he won from hospital and two Scottish Premier Leagues..

So to say these players are lesser than those who have won those competitions, would that be correct to say following your logic?

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

Who is a better player Tom Cleverly or Matthew LeTissier?

It would be much more advisable to use a player with a similar appearance record when trying to make a comparison. Which is what we have done with Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard.

Any reasonable football fan would have done so, but judging by your posts that isn't something we are to expect.

cournioni

Augmerson wrote: »

Roy Keane never won a World Cup.
Ryan Giggs never played in a World Cup.
Matthew Le Tisser ......
Paul Gascoigne has.... an FA Cup he won from hospital and two Scottish Premier Leagues..

So to say these players are lesser than those who have won those competitions, would that be correct to say following your logic?

But... Paul Scholes, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard have all played in the same team, why don't we assess how they've done for England and factor that in also?

8-10

Mr Alan wrote: »

Id also be interested in tackles attempted & tackles won, passes attempted & passes completed. Surely if we're talking about "stats" to judge a midfield player these are hugely relevant?!

I thought he was going to mention passing initially as it's probably the most important. Let's see what the games to goals & assists are first (I presume he means goals per minute or game and assists per minute/game)

Mr Alan

cournioni wrote: »

It would be much more advisable to use a player with a similar appearance record when trying to make a comparison. Which is what we have done with Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard.

Any reasonable football fan would have done so, but judging by your posts that isn't something we are to expect.

Who is better midfielder Darren Fletcher or Steven Gerrard?