As I said above, there is 2 ways to look at the Gerrard being the stand out player angle. Yes he did carry Liverpool at times but it's easier to stand out and get the plaudits when you can have the ball all the time and don't have to compete for it with lesser players. He has always been the sort of player to go for the eye catching stuff as well. Looks great on a highlights reel but you don't always see the other 40 yard passes that went out for throw ins or when he starts playing quarterback and falls over or hits a dodgy back pass. Lampard stood out in midfields that had Ballack, Essien, Makalele, Robben etc. Would Gerrard have stood out in such good midfields or had the luxury of having everything go through him like he did at Liverpool? We will never know whether Scholes or Lampard could have done the same in weaker teams but players can't really be judged like that as very few greats settle for playing in mediocre sides most of their career. And for all the talk of Lampard not being as versatile, ironically when both players were forced into deeper roles later in their careers, Lampard took to it better.
His best years came when surrounded by the likes of Alonso, Mascherano and Torres! Don't agreee on the versatility comment either. Lampard still had a holding player alongside him, Gerrard didn't. Gerrard was always the one that was played out of position for England too, because the others couldn't do it. Scholes quit because he was being asked to pay from the left - yes, playing him word was crazy imo
All conjecture m'lud.... you can't see it but Chelsea and United fans would argue they could ... and that Gerrard would not have been as good at their clubs ... there will never be agreement no matter how long it is debated ... what we have actually learned from this which seems now to be generally accepted by all is: Gerrard was a fine player despite having played for most of his career with a cuckoo nesting in his barnet and a penchant for defective non-slip footware Scholes was a fine player despite apparently playing with a small pig lodged in his passage, causing strange facial expressions unfortunately exacerbated by him also being ginger Lampard was a fine player despite mainly playing with a happy meal in one hand and a chest hair epilator in the other ... we move on ...
Yet above.... 'Had he been surrounded by top players, he would have trusted others to do their job more'. Can't really have it both way!! Gerrard was played out of position because he was adequate in those positions but by no means great in them. If you are that great, and that effective in your true position, you don't get moved. During that time, Lampard was back to back England player of the year and runner up Ballon D'or. If Gerrard wasn't moved out wide he would have been benched in that system. Paul Warhurst was more versatile than any of them and played central defence, striker and central midfielder during his career. Most on here probably can't even remember him!
Backed up by the fact he played better when there were better players around him He dragged the club up when surrounded by **** players but played his best football when surrounded by better players. Aka; he was great in both situations. And players do get moved if it's best for the team. We were playing 442 when he played on the right because (in Rafa's opinion) he was never disciplined enough to be in a central two. Before you say it, Lampard rarely played in a central two either.
So because Lampard didn't get to play with **** players and drag them up, he can't have been as good as Gerrard?! Better get Messi down to Swansea to cement his legacy Lampard has more apps, goals, assists and medals. The rest is mere opinion.
Jebus, I'm starting to understand why folk don't talk to you I never claimed Gerrard was better. I obviously think he is but I'm also aware that I'm biased on this subject, just as you are
Personally I think Lampard was better. It's a really hard one to call tbh. As an all rounder I think Gerrard just wins out but Lampards ability to score consistently made him a huge asset. He is one of the best midfield players I've ever seen in terms of knowing when to make a run and creating the space for a shot. As they aged Lampard also continued to perform while Gerrard I felt lost his legs quicker. Lampard was quality for city and in the USA after leaving Chelsea at an age at which most would have retired. Gerrard was undoubtedly an incredibly talented player and without him Liverpool wouldn't have done nearly as well as they did with him in the team. But Lampard despite not appearing to be the all out super star was a top professional who knew what he was good at and consistently delivered regardless of who he had around him. Gerrard had a tendency to go for the spectacular (a bit like Ramsey) whilst Lampard stuck to what he knew would be effective. Scholes outshines them both as an all round CM but was better played deeper than the other two. If he had ever learned the art of tackling he would have reached ridiculous levels. Even when he had retired and came back again he could spray a pass across the pitch as well as anyone in the game.
I never bought that 'poor old scholsey, he just can't tackle' bollocks. He was, or could be, a nasty little ****er. Most of his 'mistimed' tackles were no more than petulance or temper.
... conclusive proof of scousers shying away from work and infesting the internet then? ... ...and you conveniently ignore the cuckoo ... typical
