Where does Steven Gerrard rank amongst the world's best midfielders(current)?

[ScarFace107]

Where does Steven Gerrard rank amongst the world's best midfielders? Top 10? Top 5? Thanks just lookin for opinions

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Probably top 10.

[lgsshedden]

Probably top 10.

I'd put him top 5 right now based on his ability to impose his will on a game. He carried Liverpool much of last season and if you look at games where England have pushed forward and looked good it is when Gerrard has had strong games. If he is off (either form or substituted) or absent, England have fared worse and looked pedestrian.
It used to be owen and Beckham were the two essentials in the England side. Now its the combination of Gerrard and Lampard. England will flourish if and when they build the team, its formation and style of play around a fulcrum of Gerrard and Lampard -- they have excellent defensive depth, good young strikers and a new crop of keepers: now is when the switch needs to be made.

[Robert25]

Tough one, I think top 10.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

It depends on whether we are taking about all types of midfielders or not.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Lampard

England's weak link and one of those responsible for the early retirement of your best player.

[royalstilton]

England's weak link and one of those responsible for the early retirement of your best player.
---
nice try techo de besos

on what do you base your opinion? certainly the flight of paul scholes is gravely to be regretted, but lampard is regarded well in most informed circles, or are you the vetter of all things futbolistico?

[Teso Dos Bichos]

---
nice try techo de besos

on what do you base your opinion? certainly the flight of paul scholes is gravely to be regretted, but lampard is regarded well in most informed circles, or are you the vetter of all things futbolistico?

Paul Scholes should have been played in the centre. That is his best position and he has been most effective for club and country there. With Butt being injured, Scholes should have been moved into the middle and Lampard either on the left or on the bench. Lampard, for all of his goals (in positions that Scholes would usually be!) is the weak link. He loses possession and concedes stupid freekicks. Most people and commentators generally accept this. I am not saying that he is a bad player, but his inclusion has contributed to Scholes retiring and also weakened your midfield and side as a direct result. Butt should be playing instead of Lampard!

[bitter leftie]

he needs to really impose his will on a match on the international level far more consistently for him to be considered in the top ten in my opinion, if he could translate his domestic form into the same kind of influence either in the Champ. league or for England he could be one of the best.

[royalstilton]

Paul Scholes should have been played in the centre. That is his best position and he has been most effective for club and country there. With Butt being injured, Scholes should have been moved into the middle and Lampard either on the left or on the bench. Lampard, for all of his goals (in positions that Scholes would usually be!) is the weak link. He loses possession and concedes stupid freekicks. Most people and commentators generally accept this. I am not saying that he is a bad player, but his inclusion has contributed to Scholes retiring and also weakened your midfield and side as a direct result. Butt should be playing instead of Lampard!
---
You know of course that Scholes for all his goal scoring prowess at Old Trafford and in the EPL had a 29 match drought in international play for England. For an attacking midfielder, this is not good production. Lampard, on the other hand, has scored 5 goals for England in 2004. Has he cost England matches that would have been won had Butt or someone else had been in his place? Well, ask David Beckham whether his penalty kick misses have been more costly for England. Say what you will, and I love Nicky Butt, but Lampard is a player of greater or equal value.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

---
You know of course that Scholes for all his goal scoring prowess at Old Trafford and in the EPL had a 29 match drought in international play for England. For an attacking midfielder, this is not good production.

Under Keegan, Scholes played in the centre and was very impressive. Since then, he has been dumped on the left wing. Do you even watch games?

[royalstilton]

Under Keegan, Scholes played in the centre and was very impressive. Since then, he has been dumped on the left wing. Do you even watch games?
---
well, then, let's bring back Keegan. and do i watch games? of course not. why should i spoil things? it's far better to be ignorant and express opinions that are worth sod all than inform oneself, innit? your years of experience should have taught you that much.

[Gar7]

Definitely top 10. Should be England Captain.

[Colm]

Steven Gerrard is a great midfield player but there is still room for improvment...i'd but him in the top ten but hopefully (and i think he will) be in the top 5 very son :)

[Teso Dos Bichos]

---
well, then, let's bring back Keegan. and do i watch games? of course not. why should i spoil things? it's far better to be ignorant and express opinions that are worth sod all than inform oneself, innit? your years of experience should have taught you that much.

There is no point now.

[Pazarius]

Under Keegan, Scholes played in the centre and was very impressive. Since then, he has been dumped on the left wing. Do you even watch games?

Scholes has still played in his favoured role as a central attacking midfielder for the majority of his games since Keegan.

After Eriksson's took over in 2001, his first regular centre midfield partnership was Scholes and Gerrard as the defensive midfielder (In that part of his career, Gerrard was a more defensive player), with Barmby/Heskey on the left side.

For the Argentina game in the 2002 World Cup, Scholes was shifted out to the left to make way for a Hargreaves+Butt 'ball-winning' midfield. Hargreaves was injured 20mins later, and Trevor Sinclair was put on the left, allowing Scholes to move back into his favoured attacking midfield position for the rest of the world cup.

After the world cup and through 2003 it was mostly Gerrard on the left side, with Butt and Scholes in the centre.

It wasn't until 2004 that Lampard looked capable of doing the impossible, i.e. dislodging one of Sven's favourites from a starting spot for England. He'd been playing superbly for the newly rich Chelski for six months, but you know how Sven likes his favourites. Butt hadn't seen much first team action for Man U. in the 2003/2004 season, but Sven didn't seem bothered and he was only dropped when the last two friendlies before Euro2004 came along. So now we have a midfield of Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes.

For the first friendly, Lampard was tried in 'a holding role', a stupid idea which backfired. For the second friendly, Sven switched to a Gerrard + Lampard centre midfield with Scholes again on the left. This stayed the same throughout England's Euro2004 campaign, Butt's injury preventing him returning to action.

And then Scholes retired. And most fans were not really that bothered by his decision, as for the past three years for England he has looked easily replaceable, despite playing in his favoured position for most of the time.

Lampard, for all of his goals (in positions that Scholes would usually be!)

This is exactly the point. Lampard has been more effective in that position than Scholes was when he was in the same position.


He loses possession and concedes stupid freekicks. Most people and commentators generally accept this. I am not saying that he is a bad player,


Scholes is the proven master at conceding stupid freekicks. Every time he tries to tackle the whistle goes.

For as far back as I can remember England teams have been losing possession needlessly. It's a problem with all English players, Lampard coming into the team and Scholes retiring does not appear to have changed things, for better or worse.

Lampard offers more defensively than Scholes. He's a better tackler and works harder.

but his inclusion has contributed to Scholes retiring and also weakened your midfield and side as a direct result. Butt should be playing instead of Lampard!

If a player decides to 'retire' because he's no longer guaranteed his favourite position, do we really want him?

I think part of the reason Scholes has retired is that he himself thinks he hasn't been able to produce his best form in Eriksson's system.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

For over half of Paul Scholes' international career he was an absolute gem of a player, with a fantastic scoring record who adapted seemlessly to the international game (like most good players). The second half, shortly after Sven's management commenced, was entirely forgettable. The fact that until Sven became boss, he was one of the most reliable players in the team, both for goals and assists should not be forgotten.

In Le Tournoi he was brilliant, Keggy could never stop eulogising about him ('he's got everything'), and Hoddle thought he was the 'complete player'. He scored a hat-trick from midfield, and he alone saved your blushes against Scotland with a brace. The entire team was poor in the last two tournaments, apart from Rooney.

If you stick Wayne Rooney in at right-back and he doesn't perform are we to assume he's a crap player or a top player playing out of position? I know the answer, so why should Scholes be treated any different? The fact is that Sven's tactics completely bypassed Scholes in midfield so he's hardly been in a position to show his United form for England.

You chose to magnify the fact that Scholes has not scored in the last 3 years for England until Portugal 2004 while ignoring the more important ones:

Fact One: Scholes plays in central midfield or just behind the strikers, but he has been consistently deployed out of position by Sven for the last three years.

Fact Two: Scholes has scored 14 international goals between 1997 and 2000 - just before Sven was appointed.

[Pazarius]

You chose to magnify the fact that Scholes has not scored in the last 3 years for England until Portugal 2004 while ignoring the more important ones

For me it's just not that. Apart from his lack of goal-scoring during that period, he offered nothing defensively (as usual), and as a playmaker wasn't creating as much as he used to.

Fact Two: Scholes has scored 14 international goals between 1997 and 2000 - just before Sven was appointed.

That Scholes' run of poor form started shortly after Sven's appointment is not in dispute.

However, even if we're certain Sven is to blame, what difference does it make? The loss of Scholes' best form was, in retrospect, a small price to pay for the significant overall improvement in the team after Sven replaced Keegan. Sven is staying for the foreseeable future, and anyway there's no guarantee that a new manager will be able to rejuvenate Scholes AND improve the overall team.

The fact is that Sven's tactics completely bypassed Scholes in midfield so he's hardly been in a position to show his United form for England.

Something vaguely plausible at last.

I think Scholes' success at united is closely related to the way they play, with attacks concentrated down the flanks and at least one striker good in the air. Scholes is usually lurking at the edge of the box for knock downs or cut backs, or making late runs into the box himself.

For a while he was able to do something similar for England under Hoddle's 3-5-2 and then under Keegan's 'gung-ho' attacking tactics, which were ultimately a failure, but in the calmer passing game Sven is trying to make us play he hasn't looked anywhere near as good.

I don't think in general people are blaming Scholes personally for this. He's trying as hard as always, he just doesn't seem to be able to adapt to Sven's style of play. It's unfortunate, but life goes on.

There are good reasons to want Sven out, but because a new manager MIGHT rejuvenate ONE player isn't one of them.

Fact One: Scholes plays in central midfield or just behind the strikers, but he has been consistently deployed out of position by Sven for the last three years.

Didn't I just refute this two posts ago?

You can keep posting this as many times as you want, it won't make it true.

Under Sven, Scholes played as an attacking central midfielder for most of the games he played (until Euro2004, it was almost all of them).

[geordie_gary]

Lampard is an awesome midfielder. Scores goals and gets stuck in.

Paul Scholes retiring was the best thing to happen to England in the least 3 years, lets just hope Beckham decides to do the same.

[nurspec]

As an attacking midfielder i would rank him only behind Vieira,Okocha,Zidane personally.I think he has the vision that is rare in British players and his passing game is fantastic.I believe you have to have dimension as a midfielder and Gerrard only lacks the ability to take on defenders consisitently because of his lack of pace.