Gerrard is not more complete , the only thing he's ever had on him is tackling. Scholes is better in every other major area
Someone explain how Gerrard is a more complete player? Hes worse than Scholes in attack, worse than Keane in defence (who was pretty damn good in attack and Scholes was a brilliant defensive playmaker) but better? It doesn't make any sense. At all.
So he's not complete because 2 players are better than him at 1 aspect of football each. Okay then...
Some people don't realise that keeping the ball, is part of defending. If your opponent doesn't have the ball they can't hurt you
Well I suppose if you think attacking and defending are just aspects then you might be onto something.
Gerrard is shocking defensively because he lacks the intelligence and positional sense needed to play such a role. Keane came to United as a b2b midfielder and was one of th best around, The emergence of Scholes meant he didnt need to play that role so often and became arguable the best defensive midfielder the league has ever seen. Of course when scholes got older and his legs were not what the used to be his superior football brain meant he could dictate the game from deep. So much so that he inspired some for the best players to have played in the modern era. His best role was as a second striker behind Torres. We've already gone over how Scholes was the better attacker though so I am at a loss as to why he is A. more complete and B. the better player?
Gerrard's biggest weakness was his inability/refusal to hold a position and fit into a system. His Roy of the Rovers approach to the game meant his team mates had to fill the gaps he left behind him.
So you're saying attacking and defending aren't part of football? Or do you just not understand the meaning of the word 'aspect' ? Either way
Try again lad. You're having a mare here. As is anyone trying to claim Gerrard was a more complete or better player despite being worse at the one thing he was actually good at. Couldnt make it up.
When we say Gerrard is more complete - we're not saying that he was the best at everything. Saying he was able to do everything at a very high level.
Well scholes was better in both attack and defence. Obviously you are not familiar with Keane otherwise you would be well aware of just how good a b2b midfielder he was and we don't need to go into the defensive side. Keane was also a better captain. I will concede that neither Scholes or Keane were very good rightbacks though.
So Scholes wasn't that good because he didnt have to defend? But Gerrard could attack AND could defend? (in his fitter days, he was better defensively) - hence, he was far more rounded in his abilities.
So Keane was a better CM than Gerrard - agreed. But could he attack all that well? No. So Scholes is better offensively and controlling a game than Gerrard - agreed. But could he defend all that well? No. Could Gerrard attack and defend at a high level in all aspects? Yes he could.
Scholes was brilliant defensively. His tackles were a bit off, granted but he was very capable, even in his younger days. Remember, he played in a midfield 2 unlike Gerrard who played in a midfield 3. 2 of which were defensive minded. Also, when was Gerrard ever any good defensively? Hes always been shocking as he just doesn't have the discipline or intelligence.
When was Gerrard ever good defensively?Liverpool during his best years played with 2 defensive minded players alongside Gerrard in midfield. Gerrard peaked as a second striker.
He played as a box to box mid before Rafa came and took the defensive duties away from him. Prior to that, he could track runners and win the ball back effectively. And as proven on the biggest stage of them all, he was shifted to RB and did a great job on Serginho.
