Harry would pick Paul Scholes

Your not very bright at football are you sonny? Lets hope your horse racing knowledge is better

Maradona didn't win the public vote as that was deemed unreliable as most of it was internet based and was proved to have been corrupted by Maradona fans making umpteen nefarious accounts and was discounted which is why Pele won it. When Messi wins a world cup or three he will have eclipsed them.

But Lampard didn't play in a team that had a Van horseface or a ladyboy, Harry's only talking about it because Franks desperately out of form otherwise who would pick Scholes?

 

Wow..How bitter are you,been sucking on lemons all night?
Point is, Scholes dictates play with his passing/movement.Lampard may(in your opinion)be the better goalscorer but does he accomodate the system Harry's got in mind?
Square pegs in round holes ala Sven if you had your way.(and look how great England have been with the midfield they've had)

 

Maradonna did win the public vote, and it was only deemed unreliable by FIFA, because they wanted there poster boy Pele to win it, and they didn't want as you say a Drug taking cheat. Regardless of Maradonna's behaviour, he was a genius on the football pitch, no one can deny him that. *If you realy believe that a vote amongst FIFA big wigs proves Pele was the best, then your even more stupid than you come across on here.*

I also find it laughable that you believe players should be judged, on a 6 week tournament once every 4 years. Pele's Brazil side would have won those World Cup's regardless of wether he played or not, they were so far ahead of everyone else.*

Judging players by World Cup victory's is ridiculous, as it doesn't matter how good a player is, if they come from the Faroe Islands there not going to win a World Cup.*

Pele was a great goal scorer, but if he wasn't given the opportunities he wouldn't score. Maradonna was completely different, you could put him in any side, and he could carry them on his back. His Argentinian side would never have got anywhere near 2 world cup finals without him, everytime he recieved the ball he made things happen, and he would influence others around him to play well, with his creativity, *and flair. It was the same at Napoli, they were an average side, without him, but he made the whole team tick, the team knew all they had to do was give him ball and he could open up the opposition.*

Lampard is only out of form because age has caught up with him and he doesn't have the legs to make all the forward runs he used to, and he doesn't have the all-round quality to adapt and play as a deep lying playmaker, as Scholes has. *Were a player relys on there passing, creativity, and technical ability to make an impact. *

Read what Redknapp says about Scholes, or anyone else that knows there football, the guy is a miles better player than Lampard ever has been, even at the age of 37.*

There is probably no point trying to argue with you, as your a Chelsea supporter, and are unable to look at things objectively,*but talk to a neutral about Scholes and Lampard, and they will say Scholes every time.

Even Lampard's own uncle would prefer Scholes in his side, what does that tell you? *

 

So many good points ruined by the statement that Scholes is still better than Lampard ever was. Come off it, this is a player who scored 20 goals a year from midfield 5 years running and was voted 2nd best player in the world by people actually in the game.

 

Absolute tosh, Fifa suspended the result as the vote was sullied by supporters of Maradona.

We agree on one thing

Yes he was an amazing player but eons behind a man that won three world cups and scored over 1200 goals. You are of course entitled to your opinion no matter how stupid it is.

I would take time out to see just how many goals he scored in the world cup finals before you make yourself look a complete twat.

Why, because it doesn't support your innane argument

I suggest you watch some of Pele's international goals, then you can come back and apologise.

As I said he was a great player but you intentionally try to denigrate the other players of the Argentinian team who were very decent also. So it wasn't anything like what you said yet this player who you say who could carry any team to victory only helped Napoli win two titles in seven years. What happened in the other five?

Check the goals lad

Check how many appearances and goals for England then look at Scholes record

That's an opinion and that's why England will be over run if he manages the team

Says a man who says that a player who should have retired three years before he did should again play for England after a few cameo roles for his club

Taken out of context, How could anybody take a player who is clearly past his best by some years and have inferior stats such as appearences for club & country, Goals for club & country and assists for both.

Come back when you have any hard facts you can quote sonny

 

Robby

Found this for you

[video=youtube_share;8QEmnP48PEc]http://youtu.be/8QEmnP48PEc[/video]

 

absolutly fantastic video,that why i've alway's rated Pele as the greatest Player ever,even above maradona

 

Thanks Ginge

I have to agree totsfan

Both exceptional but Pele achieved so much more but you know how up there own arses the Mancs are.

 

So that settles the Scholes/Lampard debate, as Scholes has achieved 'so much more' Or does that rule only count when it suits your argument?

 

Not when you are just talking about team honour won.

Individually Lampard has better goals and assist stats and was voted 2nd best player in the world and europe something Scholes never got near to. It's very much open for debate. What isn't though is your ridiculous submission that Scholes now is better than Lampard ever was.

 

Is that realy an award, coming 2nd. David Beckham came 2nd in that in 99, despite the fact Scholes was superior to Becks, and im sure SAF and the majority of his team mates would tell you the same. Scholes has avoided the spotlight throughout his career, he doesn't do interviews, he's not on the front of footy magazines, he doesnt want to be captain, and he doesn't put himself forward for duties on the pitch like penalty's. That's just the way he is. In other words he's the opposite to guys like Lamps and Becks.

I can assure you though Lampard would swap that 2nd place for even 1 more premier league winners medal, as that's what realy counts

 

Fixed

 

Jonathan Greening got a CL medal too, does that make him better than Lamps?

 

He was never a first team regular, where as Scholes has been a first team regular his whole career. Greening probably made a few cameo appearances at the end of the group stage, once we had already qualified

 

I'm sure he would swap as well but that's not the debate is it?!?

Troure/Wes Brown etc have C.L medals and Micheal Ballack for instance doesn't. Doesn't tell the whole story does it.

Scholes was a fine player as was Lampard. Is Scholes better now than when Lampard was in his pomp, clearly not and that is what you said.

 

But that's not what you are arguing is it? You're basically saying that because Scholes has won the CL that makes him better than Lampard.

 

Not really old son just about everybody in the world over 30 recognises Pele as the best ever, well apart from a few idiots. Lampard is more effectual and is the best goalscoring midfielder of the modern game including a certain ginger headed thug (not you Ginge).

You just go to prove to all on here that the average United fan knows absolutely jack **** about football.

Off you go now and have a good read up

 

Only to a glory hunting Manc twat

 

Have a gold star Robby

please log in to view this image

 

I think your all missing the point..Point being that Harry does'nt want Scholes as a goalscoring midfielder but as a possession/pass playing midfielder playing from deep.As good as Lampard is(not saying Scholes is better cos I'm biased)he cannot adapt to this role.Point is moot anyway cos he might pick both or Scholes may not even bother going!