They are just different players. Gerrard had the ability to grab the game by the throat and change it himself, Lampard wasn't that type of player. The fact Lampard scored the amount of goals he did from midfield despite not having the natural ability the likes of Scholes or Gerrard had, deserves a huge amount of credit regardless of what side he played in. To say we wouldn't even be talking about him is bollocks because he is that good he would have moved to another club, just like he did with West Ham.
Can anyone help. Apparently Gerrard is a more complete player than Scholes. Hes just worse in attack and defence compared to scholes. He was however, a superior right back. So how is he more complete?
My thoughts exactly. Turning the argument on its head, I doubt Gerrard would have been as successful as Lampard has been if he'd been signed by Chelsea in 2001. Lampard fits into the team better, scoring and making goals when he has good players around him. Gerrard is undoubtedly better at leading the team himself, but not always as good at working with the players around him. In a team of top class talent like Chelsea of the last decade, I'm not sure Gerrard would have been willing, or able, to be just another cog in the machine, he'd always want to be the main man. I also reckon Liverpool could have won the league in either 2009 or last year if they'd had Lampard instead of Gerrard. Particularly in 2009, a midfield of Alonso, Mascherano and Lampard would have been outstanding and would have taken much more pressure off Torres up front. Maybe not enough to bridge the four point gap, but definitely enough to make it a very tight race in the end. And Lampard wouldn't have slipped up at such a vital moment last season either.
JoS? Is that a new boyband you like? Gerrard probably is a 'more complete' player in terms of his ability to play more positions than Scholes. But unfortunately for Liverpool fans footballers generally only play one position at once. I don't give a **** if my midfield playmaker isn't a good right back or winger, same as I don't care if my goalkeeper can't win a header in the opposition's half, or my striker is a **** man marker. I want my playmaker to control the tempo of the game, dictate the play and create good chances for the attacking players around him, as well as chip in with a few good goals from open play. On all of those requirements, Scholes ****s all over Gerrard. The rest is just noise.
Out of interest, is that what you'd categorise him as? A playmaker. Of the nominal CM categories; playmaker, defensive (holding), attacking or box to box I'd have him as box to box and so is directly up against Roy Keane (not English I know). Who also ****s all over him.
Tbh I wouldn't really categorise Gerrard as any of those. Which is pretty much my point - he's not good enough at controlling the tempo to be a top class playmaker, not good enough positionally to be a DM, not disciplined enough to be box to box, and fancies himself as too much of an all rounder to be a properly focused attacking midfielder. Scholes, Fabregas and Alonso all **** on him as a playmaker; Makalele, Carrick and Macherano as holding players; Keane, Vieira and Toure as box to box; Lampard as an attacking midfielder. No wonder Liverpool always shunted him off to the periphery when they had good players to fit those roles. Jack of all trades.
Gerrard also much more prone to a game costing errors than Lampard. Not just that slip but the own goal in the CC final, various misplaced back passes etc. Lampard just doesn't make these kind of mistakes. People can't just focus on the occasional worldie that Gerrard had and forget the limitations and errors as well. It's the complete package. I've always thought Gerrard looks amazing on a highlights reel but actually over the course of 90 minutes, over a season, a career even, he's simply not a great central midfielder, just a midfielder who has had some great games/moments. Take away a couple of hit n hopes v Olympiacos and West Ham plus Milan's lack of professionalism in the C.L final and he'd not be talked up nowhere near as much. Perhaps in his defence though is that great players are generally made in and form part of great teams and Gerrard has never been part of a great team at Liverpool or England.
Exactly, which is surely where he should be ranked if we're talking top ten English midfield ever. Scholes wouldn't get in as a holding mid, which is where he essentially ended. Same with Keane, who ended more defensive than b to b. Ergo, I wouldn't directly compare him to Scholes, but I would to Lampard. Who also shat all over him!!!
Exactly. Some try to use his obvious versatility to somehow elevate him above less versatile midfielders. However if he was that great a central midfielder, he wouldn't have been pushed into wider areas to accommodate other central midfielders.
This is getting into the usual argument. The above I would disagree with as Gerrard was brilliant at linking with Torres and created so much for him I would say that putting Lampard in would mean that Torres scores less.
Looking at how much of a flop Suarez has been so far at Barcelona. would Gerrard have gone down a similar route had he gone elsewhere during his career? Torres to some extent too. Does being hero worshiped by Liverpool fan drive players on?
Silly question as it could apply to any player. Why don't you all just get together agree that Gerrard wouldn't get into the 1965 Rotherham team, **** yourselves off at a Wayne Rooney highlights vid and all go home happy.
It's not just unique to Liverpool but some players really thrive being the main man. Other players can be just as effective playing for top teams in more balanced roles. Gerrard had a chance to come to us in 05. Had he done so he'd have almost certainly won some P.L medals but would have had to have been just another good midfielder like Essien and Ballack accepted when they joined subsequently. I don't think Gerrard would have liked that personally. Suarez was never going to stand out at Barca with Messi, Neymar etc as competition compared to Borini and Sturridge.
