Imagine saying a bloke who won absolutely nothing apart from a CL title, is better than a player who won 11 league titles and 2 CL titles But but but....
Yeah he was a great player, old school blood and thunder type who elevated himself far beyond his natural ability. Carried Liverpool for years during the mid noughties too. Not a patch on the best midfielders in the league of the past 30 years though.
I do put Gerrard above Scholes, and I said why, tell me why Scholes is better without trophies? And I rate Silva just threw me putting him in there with Scholes and Lampard as none of Scholes or Lampard is even nearly in the same mould of player as Silva. Silvas a pure AM. And has played for City ffs all his accolades don't mean **** to me.
See its impossible to explain why Scholes was a better all round player than stevie without all the trophies.
Gerrard was a mediocre at tackler, went missing far too often, got caught up in the moment in a negative way as well as positive and as he aged his game became one dimensional and stale. He was world class probably for one season. He had world class moments now and again. Frank and Scholes were unbelievably consistent, they kept doing it well into their later years as players and both dragged their teams to premier league titles. Is that answer long enough?
Cmon man, I've basically smashed the scholes >> Gerrard debate to smithereens. Yor just here fishing tho
Nah he didn't have the drive and application to push himself on like Gerrard did so well. I'd say more natural ability for sure but that doesn't cut it on its own.
Maybe for you it is, cos you’re a bindipping rodent. He controlled practically every game he ever played, read the game faster than any PL player of his era and had the winning mentality of an apex champion. Scored vital goals throughout his career in big games that won trophies for his team, time and time and time again, not just once.
