i agree with this although still stick by that you need to win titles. the more of you that agree with her, the harder i'll hit her
It appears many seem to have differing opinions of what makes a player a true 'great'. I'll stick with my memories of watching some of the aforementioned play in their prime, and how they dominated games/headlines for years (for football reasons, not for sleeping with some slapper from Wales)
I just don't understand when people say Frank Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he's won league titles. Ridiculous argument, Gerrard is better than Lampard at every aspect of football.
Of course Wes Brown is more successful than Lineker, as two champions league and countless league titles prove. He is also a better centre half or right back than Lineker could ever dream of being. **** striker though, no doubt.
Shyte like John O'Shea has a league title or two. I doubt he'd get anywhere near player of the season though
Maybe international titles aren't required but they must be able to continue their club form to the international stage.
Actually it's five. And a champions league. Spurs would be delighted to have him too, players like him are why United are so successful. He's played nearly 300 games for us filling many roles and is a valuable squad member and yes, he is more successful than Gary ****ing Lineker.
As opposed to Linekers none. Ergo, more successful. I can count, it's just a turn of phrase. Thanks for your help though.
There, fixed that for you. See, anyone can just change a word and claim that's what someone said. Which of course, as anyone who can read will testify, I did not.
Medals wise yes. Most players will define their careers by what they have won, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. Robson's success can be defined by how he performed for both England and United. I DID NOT say he was a better player than them.
But surely there's a difference between how succesful a player's career is and how succesful the team he's playing in is?
