Whos better Lampard or Gerrard?

[leg_breaker]

I think we can all agree, that they both failed to turn up to the World Cup and both choked in the shootout.

If I had to choose one for England it would be Gerrard. Lampard can only function in a tactically organised team, which England don't have.

[Matt Clark]

Starting to get aggressive and anxious
Hahaha. What, precisely, is there for me to get anxious about? As I've repeatedly demonstrated, the point at hand was resolved pages ago, we're now discussing just how important our European Cup-winning captain is to the team. The Lampard "battle" (:rolleyes:) finished days ago, all that's left there are the crows pecking out the putrified innards of the fallen (hey, it's your metaphor ... ).

[blanc]

Lampard deflects too often.

[comme]

Yes. Yes I do. Now will you ******** off and/or accept the obvious fact that I was not being entirely literal, because let's face it, I don't have to be in any discussion about whether Fatty is a disastrous choice of spanky monkey for anyone who wants to pretend they know something about what makes a genuinely meaningful footballer?


So in reality your non-literal definition of single-handedly winning a game is to be one of the more important players for a team utterly outplayed?

[Matt Clark]

Sigh … I’m neither offering nor pursuing a definition of anything – you’re the one who’s hung up on this. And who outplayed whom is a total red herring in this debate in any case. Gerrard’s presence in the team that night was instrumental, to the point of decisive, as regards the final result.

[comme]

Sigh … I’m neither offering nor pursuing a definition of anything – you’re the one who’s hung up on this. And who outplayed whom is a total red herring in this debate in any case. Gerrard’s presence in the team that night was instrumental, to the point of decisive, as regards the final result.

What is your point then?

You initially tried to claim that Lampard had never had a major influence over an important game, but the example you gave of Gerrard's great influence was ridiculous. He was one of the more important players for Liverpool, that is all that can be said of him in that game. Until Hamman came onto the pitch he was nowhere.

Liverpool were completely outplayed for all but 10 minutes of a game lasting 120, and that game is meant to be evidence of Gerrard's ability to dominate a game?

What sort of fantasy world is this?

Gerrard scored a good header, dived for a penalty and then played well at right back. That is not evidence of someone who has dominated a game. He was a passenger in the first half.

Liverpool's outstanding player in the game was Lady Luck, not Steven Gerrard, so if that is the evidence that Lampard has never risen to the occasion then I suggest you try and find some which bears some vague relevance to the discussion at hand.

[The Jitty Slitter]

LOL

Don't get all revisionist on the gerrard myth Comme!

[Matt Clark]

You initially tried to claim that Lampard had never had a major influence over an important game, but the example you gave of Gerrard's great influence was ridiculous.
Oh please. Enough already. Gerrard has been instrumental in winning major finals, Lampard hasn’t. End of. It’s you that’s been torturing this simple reality to buggery. You appear to expect me to seriously address the substance of your random interjections, but I don’t have to do I, because I’m self-evidently right in my own point and insufficiently interested in your point, insofar as I can discern one at all.

Can we crack on now?

[comme]

Oh please. Enough already. Gerrard has been instrumental in winning major finals, Lampard hasn’t. End of. It’s you that’s been torturing this simple reality to buggery. You appear to expect me to seriously address the substance of your random interjections, but I don’t have to do I, because I’m self-evidently right in my own point and insufficiently interested in your point, insofar as I can discern one at all.

Can we crack on now?

Crack on to what? You aren't interested in discussing it all clearly!

That is the only possible reason why you seem to evade all discussion, while seemingly chanting to yourself "I am right, I am right". You must hold the BigSoccer record for saying the most while saying nothing. The sum total of your contributions to this thread are, Gerrard is better because he is. That is not a self-evident truth for everyone outside of Merseyside.

Gerrard has been instrumental in winning one final, the FA Cup final against West Ham last year. A final Liverpool were universally expected to win but made such hard work of.

[Karloski]

Crack on to what? You aren't interested in discussing it all clearly!

That is the only possible reason why you seem to evade all discussion, while seemingly chanting to yourself "I am right, I am right". You must hold the BigSoccer record for saying the most while saying nothing. The sum total of your contributions to this thread are, Gerrard is better because he is. That is not a self-evident truth for everyone outside of Merseyside.

Gerrard has been instrumental in winning one final, the FA Cup final against West Ham last year. A final Liverpool were universally expected to win but made such hard work of.

[scouse accent] Calm down, calm down.:)

[nicephoras]

Oh please. Enough already. Gerrard has been instrumental in winning major finals, Lampard hasn’t. End of.

Lampard has been instrumental in winning the league. Gerrard hasn't.

[Matt Clark]

Lampard played a notable role in Chelsea's title winning seasons. It's pretty safe to assume, however, that they would have won those titles regardless of whether he was playing or not, given their strength relative to key competitors in both seasons. Now that that relative strength has been eroded (by the loss of genuinely invaluable players at Chelsea and the return of equally pivotal players at United), his contribution is notable for little more than endeavour and drive (although even that is hardly remarkable given that he plays alongside Michael Ballack, who could make the corner flags look driven).

Meanwhile, there's no question Liverpool would have failed to win either trophy under discussion without Gerrard in the side on both occasions. That's the only point I've ever made here, despite the now half-crazed protestations of some.

Soooooo ... now we have two utterly dead points in the water. Gerrard is better than Lampard and Gerrard has been more instrumental to Liverpool's success than Lampard to Chelsea's.

We're running out of things for me to do here, such is the paucity of attempts at something not self-evidently true from the outset.

[three lions]

Gerrard...Wow, that was easy..:)

[schafer]

I fail to see how this:

Lampard played a notable role in Chelsea's title winning seasons. It's pretty safe to assume, however, that they would have won those titles regardless of whether he was playing or not, given their strength relative to key competitors in both seasons. Now that that relative strength has been eroded (by the loss of genuinely invaluable players at Chelsea and the return of equally pivotal players at United), his contribution is notable for little more than endeavour and drive (although even that is hardly remarkable given that he plays alongside Michael Ballack, who could make the corner flags look driven).

Meanwhile, there's no question Liverpool would have failed to win either trophy under discussion without Gerrard in the side on both occasions. That's the only point I've ever made here, despite the now half-crazed protestations of some.


proves this at all.

Soooooo ... now we have two utterly dead points in the water. Gerrard is better than Lampard

It may mean that Gerrard is more important to Liverpool (which really speaks nothing of individual quality) but you've still failed to prove, other than your own opinion combined with simply mocking those who disagree with you, that Gerrard is better than Lampard. Honestly, if you read back through this thread, all that you've proved is how effective you are at dodging arguments with your clever wordplay.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Lampard has consistently scored and created more goals over the past 3 seasons, all you've done is attacked the poster who brought it up.

You claimed that all the experts agreed that Gerrard was better, and when the evidence of the FIFA POTY and the Ballon D'or were brought up, you simply disregarded their worth (which is somewhat valid, but considering they are voted on by fellow professionals, one of the authorities you appealed to, they should be considered, no?)

You then made the laughable claim that Lampard's only key performance was against Bolton, which would seem to suggest that you don't actually watch Chelsea or have any sort of reliable opinion on the matter of Lampard's quality

Every time you simply claimed that the argument was dead, presumably because you had written your opinion so eloquently so as to squash any potential disagreements. The entire basis of your argument, as comme pointed out, is that Gerrard is better because you say so. Despite your impressively large vocabulary and amusing analogies, you've really contributed next to nothing to this discussion.

[5_EUROPEAN_CUPS]

[scouse accent] Calm down, calm down.:)

[manc accent] ******** off before I bockle you.

[nicephoras]

Lampard played a notable role in Chelsea's title winning seasons. It's pretty safe to assume, however, that they would have won those titles regardless of whether he was playing or not, given their strength relative to key competitors in both seasons. Now that that relative strength has been eroded (by the loss of genuinely invaluable players at Chelsea and the return of equally pivotal players at United), his contribution is notable for little more than endeavour and drive (although even that is hardly remarkable given that he plays alongside Michael Ballack, who could make the corner flags look driven).

Meanwhile, there's no question Liverpool would have failed to win either trophy under discussion without Gerrard in the side on both occasions. That's the only point I've ever made here, despite the now half-crazed protestations of some.

Soooooo ... now we have two utterly dead points in the water. Gerrard is better than Lampard and Gerrard has been more instrumental to Liverpool's success than Lampard to Chelsea's.

We're running out of things for me to do here, such is the paucity of attempts at something not self-evidently true from the outset.

So in other words, you just typed "I'm right" again. We get it Matt, we know what your opinion is. Problem is, the point that Liverpool wouldn't have won without Gerrard is about as uknowable as that fact about Lampard, especially given Lampard led Chelsea in scoring both title winning seasons. Seems pretty instrumental to me.
As for Chelsea suffering from instrumental players being lost - how would you know how instrumental Lampard is, given that he doesn't miss games? Oh, and remind me, what's Liverpool's record like without Gerrard?

[5_EUROPEAN_CUPS]

Lampard has been instrumental in winning the league. Gerrard hasn't.

Yeah had nothing to do with Cech, Robben, Terry, Makelele and the other band of 200 odd million quid of talent. Honest.

[schafer]

Yeah had nothing to do with Cech, Robben, Terry, Makelele and the other band of 200 odd million quid of talent. Honest.

:confused:

Saying Lampard was influential in winning two league titles doesn't rule out or downplay the contribution of other players at all.

[mshankb]

..and of course it had very little to do with Robben :D

[Walter3000]

:confused:

Saying Lampard was influential in winning two league titles doesn't rule out or downplay the contribution of other players at all.

He only lead the team in goals as a midfielder 2 years in a row(setting the league record the second year for such), and probably also lead the team in assists combined over the 2 seasons(him or Drogs anyway) and hardly ever if at all misses a match, and had absolutely no one on the squad who could adequately fill in for him if he wasnt there, and that we always played worse without him....... No, not too influential, maybe only the 1st or 2nd most influential player on a back to back EPL winning side