http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32734819 Final bit is............. How will they be remembered? The question that will always divide. Neville refused to make that comparison but says: "I think as a goalscoring midfielder, Frank was the best in Premier League history. You can't take that away. In terms of an influence on one club, you'd probably say Gerrard has been the best in the Premier League. "It is very difficult to choose because I don't like comparisons but in an individual way, Frank was the best at what he did and, for what he did at Liverpool, Steven was the best at what he did." Neville's admiration for Gerrard is revealed by this admission: "Put him alongside Roy Keane, probably even ahead of Frank, put him alongside Paul Scholes or a Michael Carrick and you think United probably would have won more European Cups. "If you talk about Liverpool players over the years - and they have had some greats - I have never once thought I'd like to put him in a Manchester United shirt. [But] Gerrard was one - put him in a United midfield next to Scholes or Keane and wow, utopia." Robbie Savage, who also played against both, edges towards Gerrard: "Steven is the best midfielder I played against but Frank was not far behind him and it is hard to say who had the greater impact on the Premier League in the last 15 years or so. "Lampard has more titles to show for his career but the only reason for that is because when he was at Chelsea he played with better players in a better team. "Could Lampard have done for Liverpool what Gerrard has done? I'm not so sure. He is a fantastic goalscoring midfielder but maybe not the complete player that Gerrard was at his peak. That is the only difference between them." And the verdict here? Let's use a twist on the old cricket adage of who you would like to play an innings to save your life. While the answer to this question is obvious, Geoffrey Boycott of course, here the margins are more slender. But if a choice has to be made it would be Gerrard. Just. Just for that ability to change a game in an instant which is the preserve of true greatness.
Where's McNulty from again? I think we all know who everyone on our respective boards will choose. I can't see any Chelsea fan saying Gerrard was better or Liverpool fans saying vice versa which I why I don't really tend to get into these arguments. I will agree with what McNulty said at the end though about Gerrards ability to change a game in an instant. Gerrard's style of play is much better on the eye and more entertaining than Lampards but at the end of the day nobody can argue with Lampard's goal/assist tally from his position. Lampard's style of play also allowed him to remain at the top level and sustain his ability for longer than Gerrard has in my opinion. Both great players in their prime and whatever people's opinions on either of them, it's a shame to see them both leaving. P.s. please log in to view this image Couldn't resist
hehe Right now, Lampard is leaps and bounds ahead. He is still a decent player imo. Overall the article is right, we never got to see Lampard drag a whole team by himself because he was always in a talented team. While it doesn't feel right that Lampard be punished for not playing in a crap team it also shows that Gerrard was able to do amazing things with that squad.
Apologies Luv, I'll ammend my post Lampard is much better now get the **** off our board you stupid dipper
I'd have been intrigued about how Mourinho would have played them together. I don't think they easily sit in the same team, unless Gerrard sits and that would have been a waste.
Would have had both in a heart-beat at my club Lampard is one of the most gifted and, more importantly, hardworking English players I have ever seen, but Gerrard not only falls into that category, but is an utterly inspiring character. I've enjoyed watching both, but, in my view, Gerrard's performances will live much longer in the mind because he put in some of the most incredible big-game performances of all time, performances a non-Liverpool fan such as myself will cherish in the memory bank forever.. Lampard has aged much better, no question, and if Gerrard gets praise for dragging poor Liverpool sides along, then Lampard demands praise for consistent performance and selection in more talented sides. I'd just give the nod to Gerrard overall, but down to personal taste I suppose!
Lampard > Gerrard for me. His goalscoring record is unbelievable. Gerrard may have had one or two more memorable single games, but Lampard has him beat for consistency over the years.
Games 503 Slippy 608 Lamps Goals 119 Slippy 176 Lamps Assists 92 Slippy 102 Lamps Total goal involvement 211 Slippy 278 Lamps Win % 50.7 Slippy 57.2 Lamps Trophies 10 Slippy 13 Lamps There is no argument to be made.
yes there is. Football is about more than statistics. And even as far as they go, Gerrard has played as a defensive midfielder at times, how does that measurement fit in. Gerrard played in worse teams, so win % and trophies settle nothing between the 2 players. For me Gerrard is a better all round player than Lampard. Lampard is a great player, but Gerrard can play wide, in front of the back four or behind the main striker.
All your points say Gerrard was more all round, but the better player? And we are talking football here. Stevie, play me anywhere is fine but say Pele was no good at defending and a crap defender fine, was Pele a good footballer?
It's like trying to define which mineral water is better, there's nothing in it. Both were absolutely fabulous players, both had different attributes and flaws. Pushed, I'd say Gerrard had more natural ability, which only means I admire Frank more for achieving the same level of play, and doing it his way. I once worked with Greg Norman ,who was No 1 at the time and a BIG rival to Nick Faldo. He told me since they were kids, he felt that he, Norman, was a more gifted natural player by some way. That just made him have greater respect for Faldo who he said would achieve all that Greg had, simply by doing things another way. He was right and both became legends. Same with Frank and Stevie G. Legends, greats and both will be missed.
Gerrard was more versatile, but being a jack of all trades doesn't make you a better player. Lampard was world class as a goal scoring midfielder, where as I don't quite believe Gerrard was ever world class in any position in midfield. Gerrards strength was his energy levels and ability to get up and down the pitch, but technically he was always lacking, and that has been proven since his legs have gone. The scousers thought Gerrard could play a Scholes/Pirlo role for them in his latter years, not realising how much skill is required to play that position. And how much Gerrard was lacking in that department. Lampard was never technically a great player either, but he had a remarkable knack of getting in the right positions at the right time, and he was a great finisher. So I'd always rate him above Gerrard
Scholes technically better than both. CM for England under Sven should have been Hargreaves holding with Scholes in front, bringing Frank to get a late winner. Becks/Gerrard wide right and Joe Cole on left. Or 4 3 3 with Hargreaves holding behind Scholes and one of Gerra/Lamps
Agreed we actually had a very talented side back then, we just used the players we had incorrectly. Hargreaves was very underrated as a holding player
Don't think much has changed, there's still plenty of talent used badly. England need a manager whose best days are ahead of him, not behind. He needs to be inventive and especially to phase out the kick bollock scramble, power is everything, mentality and adopt a more thoughtful and skilful style of play. As the PL sides fail in the CL, so does the national team in World competition, and I believe most of that is down to the outdated style of play. If you "play to your strengths" and keep getting rolled, you need to have a good think about trying something else.
