The Scholes Lampard Gerrard debate

[Maradona37]

Scholes then Lampard. Gerrard was a good player but also an amazingly overrated Hollywood ball merchant with minimal football IQ. His Roy of the Rovers style sums up what's wrong with the English game. Unlike Lampard who is subjected to fat jokes etc, Gerrard seems to be untouchable in England too, like it's sacrilege to criticise him. I hate players like that. I once got abused around the time of Germany 2006 for saying Totti was more talented than Gerrard, as if that is somehow a bad opinion rather than a fact.

None of them are anywhere near Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric, Zidane, Kroos, PRIME Busquets etc. In fact rating someone like Gerrard above someone like Kroos or Busquets or Modric or Xavi (as many in England do) is everything that is wrong with English football. The guy was an attacking midfielder who was better close to the opposition goal - he laboured under the delusion he was a CM when he couldn't control a game to save his life - he didn't have the short passing game, the calmness or the composure. People say he carried Liverpool but I think his one-man army act was very detrimental to them for many years. Also, Hamann coming on changed the 2005 CL Final, not Gerrard.

Scholes seems to have developed some sort of amazing reputation too in some circles. People genuinely argue he was better than Xavi when he was more like the Poundland version. That's more down to Man United hype. Still, it's downright weird to hear infinitely better players like Zidane say Scholes was better than him.

 

[Tyler]

All completely different types of players really.

Scholes was someone who controlled the tempo. He played most of his career a lot deeper than the other two. Think he will get a lot of Spanish votes as he's the one that played closer to a Spanish style. He was always part of a fantastic Manchester United team though and always had great players around him.

Gerrard was the most dynamic and had the best overall skillset. He could shoot, pass, dribble, tackle, head, run... He also carried Liverpool at times more than any other player I've seen for any club. He couldn't control the tempo of games but he didn't have to. That was the job of Alonso, and Hamann before him. He could play in about 4 different positions and still often be the best player on the pitch wherever he played.

Lampard was simply the best goalscoring midfielder of his generation. He was more intelligent and disciplined than Gerrard, but lacked his overall game and versatility. He made the absolute most of his natural ability and more.

Overall, Gerrard was the most complete player of the 3. Both Torres and Suarez named him as one of the best players they have played with in their careers for a reason. But you can make a pretty strong case for either of them.

 

[Maradona37]

He could play in about 4 different positions and still often be the best player on the pitch wherever he played.

I've picked out your worst comment about Gerrard (and there were a few).

He was sometimes excellent when he played as an attacking midfielder (by a mile his best season was in 08-09 behind Torres and in front of Masch and Alonso). He was sometimes good as a RW. He was a positional liability as a CM and DM. He couldn't play right-back consistently and never really played there and proved he can play there consistently - despite the propaganda in the media. Where are these other positions he was 'OFTEN the best player on the pitch'? LW? LB? CB? Goalkeeper?

When did this ever ACTUALLY HAPPEN in multiple games, other than spouting romanticised myths about Gerrard? You can't just throw out a completely vague, arbitrary and frankly ridiculous comment like that and not back it up with examples. And no, what a terrible pundit and clown like Roy Keane apparently said is of no consequence here. With all due respect, it sounds like you read that somewhere and are now parroting it - because it never happened in reality.

So he was very good in two positions max. There's zero evidence that he ever was the best player on the pitch in four positions occasionally, never mind often. Stop repeating bollocks you read in the media and from Liverpool fans.

The fact you think any player in history - let alone a low IQ player like Gerrard (see Arrigo Sacchi's comments) - could 'often be the best player in the pitch in four positions' tells me you're indoctrinated here. Have you ever played football? Nobody can just casually move into multiple other positions demanding radically different skillsets, outperform specialists, and be THE BEST ON THE PITCH. It just doesn't happen. Not even with Dutch Total Football did that happen. Even Pele could only be the best as a 9 or 10. Even Messi is only the best as a false 9, number 10 or a RW. And he's clearly better in some of those positions than others. And they're both in a completely different stratosphere of ability and football IQ to Gerrard - it's like another solar system.

I have heard this before about Gerrard from his sycophants. 'He could have been world class in any position on the park' - it's a load of lazy, inane fucking bollocks regurgitated from the tabloids, and which has never ever been proved and is just thrown out there as a lazy comment. It's thinking like that that keeps England as a terrible team tactically.

It's sad to say, but based on your comments here and your comment in the England thread, you must believe a lot of what you read from the English media. Many of your arguments are expressed by the tabloids and on Liverpool/England forums, almost word for word. Sorry for being harsh but it's true.

 

[Maradona37]

Just realised that post comes across a bit wankery. My apologies Tyler - you're likely a good guy. I just totally disagree and wanted to explain why. But I could have been a bit less dicky about it. Sorry mate.

Overall, It's really an ideological preference. Gerrard's game is far too weighted towards athleticism and power for my liking. I much prefer technical players and artists.