I would agree. Some players need to be the centre of attention otherwise they don't get the same desire.
I agree that some players perform better in weaker sides, Suarez for instance will never replicate his Liverpool form at Barca, Berbatov could never stand out for us like he did for Spurs. Gerrard had he left Liverpool he wouldn't have been the main man anymore, he'd of just been another good player in the squad. He may have won more medals, but I don't think he'd of got the individual recognition that he currently gets.
For me the conundrum with Gerrard will always be whether he would have become a player who performed well in stronger sides, had he moved to a stronger side. If he'd gone to Chelsea or Utd, he would have been given a lot less rope to play with, and would have been required to play a specific role and be very good at it, rather than being moved around as he has done at Liverpool. I wonder if a move to a more consistent and better quality side would have helped him become an excellent out and out goalscoring midfielder like Lampard, or a proper disciplined box to box player like Keane, rather than the good all rounder he has become.
Stevie would have struggled to remain a star player if he had gone to another club. Just like the Rat is now finding at Barca. To me he has reached his optimum level at the RS. Stevie has too and I am sure he wouldn't have reached a higher level at Chelsea or Milan or Madrid. Just like scholes and giggs would not have at other clubs. For me Stevie just squeezes into top 20. He is not a top top player.
I think to be a talisman for a top side you have to have something extra special. There are very few players in the world that have that sort of ability. Ronaldo and Messi are the 2 who standout as players there teams heavily rely on, whilst you could also say Robben is the go to man for Bayern. But more often than not with big teams, they have a collective group of top players, so they don't rely on anyone heavily. Our team in 99 didn't rely on anyone a lot, and Chelsea under RA have always been a side that has had no real talisman, they have all just been very good players. We have had our moments of relying on one player, like when we've had Ronaldo, Cantona and RVN. But sometimes when you have a player that is that good in your side it's hard not to over use them
No, look he's still a very good midfielder for the reasons we can both agree on. Just bcos I'm saying it's debatable he's on this list does not equate to me saying he's ****. Why does it have to be one extreme or another? When I said I doubt we'd be talking about him, I meant on this thread. There are plenty of English midfielders that were very good but won't get mentioned on here (partly bcos they're consigned to history). Ray Wilkins, Alan Ball(look at his goals record for Everton and Arsenal), Martin Peters (great goalscorer), Platt or even Ince. I'm not saying they deserve to be on the list of top 10, but then that's also how I see Lampard. I really don't think anyone knows what he would have achieved at another club, given the circumstances with the culmination of exceptional talent surrounding him at Chelsea. I look at players like Hoddle, Gascoigne, Bell, Charlton, Scholes, Robson and Gerrard, and probably a couple of others and I just think Lampard is a tier below.
The thing with Lampard though, is that he was still the stand out player consistency wise despite all that talent around him. This isn't someone who stood out because the majority of his team mates were average. He stood out amongst world class players. Of those players you've mentioned, only Charlton could be said to be definitely better (and maybe Scholes). All the others you could make a case for Lampard over them. Gascoigne and Hoddle were undoubtedly technically better players but that's irrelevant (otherwise Le Tissier would be in the top 10 ahead of Robson and Gerrard for sure). A player has to be judged on his ability to influence and win games consistently - which Lampard did for the best part of 10 years. Lampard has also won a damn sight more than the likes of Hoddle, Gascoigne, Gerrard and even Robson (Robson won 2 league titles but only as a bit part player). Time will remember Lampard a lot more favourably I suspect. His goal scoring record alone will see him remembered as a great. I agree its not a case of saying someone's great or **** but I can't agree that some of the players you've mentioned are a tier above Lampard. Stats and honours don't support that and they are the only things that aren't down to subjective opinion.
There you go again. Have you ever actually had a reasoned discussion about football on this forum, or are you just here purely to have a dig at rival fans?
I actually partly agree with the Chelsea fans here, you can doubt Lampards technical ability all you like, but you can't doubt his influence on games. When Chelsea won there first 2 titles back to back Lampard was the top goal scorer in the team. He was arguably there best player both years. Lampard had a pretty remarkable knack for scoring goals, he was very good at making runs at the right time, his finishing was pretty deadly to. He also had great fitness levels which allowed him to get up and down the pitch like he did, I'm sure he holds the record for most consecutive games by an outfield player. His passing and tackling weren't outstanding but he was still decent at both. To say he shouldn't be in the top 10 is plain ridiculous. The best player for a back to back title winning side, shouldn't be in the top 10??? Are some of you for real? He may not have pulled off the 30 yard screamers like Gerrard, but over a full season he was a better player than him, and influenced games more than Gerrard did
Isn't this what this thread is? Debating the best English midfielders? Stop being a wally Schteeevvvee.
