Whos better Lampard or Gerrard?

[Marko]

Sorry. I just jumped in and posted without realising that this thread was 19 pages long. If I'd been aware of that, I'd have known better than to try to reason with Fat Frank's merry band of faithful followers. This dead horse has long been ready for the glue factory.

11best, while statistics can certainly be useful in supporting a point you are making, they should never ever be used alone when it comes to football. If I were to take your approach, I could say that Kevin Doyle is a better striker than Berbatov because he has more Premiership goals :D - that without ever watching a match.

PS: How on earth does one even attempt to measure the "durability" of a footballer?! The only thing that is remotely "durable" about Frank is his belly.

[yasik19]

Sorry. I just jumped in and posted without realising that this thread was 19 pages long. If I'd been aware of that, I'd have known better than to try to reason with Fat Frank's merry band of faithful followers. This dead horse has long been ready for the glue factory.

11best, while statistics can certainly be useful in supporting a point you are making, they should never ever be used alone when it comes to football. If I were to take your approach, I could say that Kevin Doyle is a better striker than Berbatov because he has more Premiership goals :D - that without ever watching a match.

PS: How on earth does one even attempt to measure the "durability" of a footballer?! The only thing that is remotely "durable" about Frank is his belly.

another poster with red-tinted glasses. You and Teso should hang out.....and while you're at it, you can tatoo "Scholes" on your foreheads.

Carry on.

[comme]

Post 241 had a single reply until cooldude questioned why I ignored penalties and then set-pieces (in terms of assists). The set piece issue has barely been mentioned in the rest of the thread. My argument, which I have clearly detailed on numerous occasions and even in this post (see above) is that the 'x scored more goals' posts are asinine. At the start of this thread I provided detailed scoring information for both Lampard and Gerrard in response and the debate continued. Unfortunately the same idiotic 'x scored more goals' posts eventually appeared again. That is when I provided additional information on Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes. As I stated above, I included the latter to highlight my point about taking number of shots and how clinical a player is into consideration when discussing and comparing goal figures. I was not the one who originally mentioned Scholes and I ignored him until my recent posts required him being used as an example for comparison. I did not say that we were not discussing their overall games but the key issue has always been goals and that is true of every single thread on the topic.

A shots to goal ratio is no more reflective of clinical finishing than an overall goal ratio, because it does not take into account the quality of the chance.

In fact the idea that any shot that doesn't result in a goal is wasted is just stupid.

What such ratios fail to take into account is the result of such shots and the alternative options available to a player.

Lampard's shots often result in corners or opportunities for players on the rebound. By simply looking at the goals/shots ratio you exclude all these factors.

Quite simply statistics are an imperfect way of measuring a game, but without them we are simply down to opinions (which is really what this thread is).

I think Frank Lampard is a better player than either Scholes or Gerrard. The imperfect statistics support me.

[The Jitty Slitter]

A shots to goal ratio is no more reflective of clinical finishing than an overall goal ratio, because it does not take into account the quality of the chance.

In fact the idea that any shot that doesn't result in a goal is wasted is just stupid.

What such ratios fail to take into account is the result of such shots and the alternative options available to a player.

Lampard's shots often result in corners or opportunities for players on the rebound. By simply looking at the goals/shots ratio you exclude all these factors.

Quite simply statistics are an imperfect way of measuring a game, but without them we are simply down to opinions (which is really what this thread is).

I think Frank Lampard is a better player than either Scholes or Gerrard. The imperfect statistics support me.


The stats clearly favour lampard and show him to be one of the elite midfielders in the world. It's a question of how he is used. Note that scholes also rates very highly on those stats.

As i posted in a different thread - John Barnes made the point that england struggle against packed defences because they have no ability to pass through them and have few players who can beat a man. Lampard is at his best with space. Same with Gerrard. At chelsea he gets that space and is optimised when flanked by Joe Cole and Robben with Drogba ahead.

Gerrards second goal against Andorra was something of a rarity for england - tight passing and a change of pace to get through.

Finally comme it has been statistically proven that shots on goal is predictive of win/loss - so the accuracy of a player is actually quite important.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

When looking at goal scoring midfielders and comparing them with the use of stats, that is the only sensible way to do it. It is not perfect, granted, but it is far better than simply quoting 'x scored more goals'.

[comme]

When looking at goal scoring midfielders and comparing them with the use of stats, that is the only sensible way to do it. It is not perfect, granted, but it is far better than simply quoting 'x scored more goals'.

No, it's not.

It's what suits your argument.

It used to be said of Andy Cole that it took him 5 chances to score a goal, but his movement was so good that at least 2 or 3 of those would be chances that another striker wouldn't get.

Frank Lampard gets himself into situations which other midfielders do not not. That is one of the main reasons he scores so many goals.

If Scholes doesn't score more, assist more, pass more, cross more, tackle more what does he do?

[leg_breaker]

Frank Lampard gets himself into situations which other midfielders do not not. That is one of the main reasons he scores so many goals.

How much of that is down to Lampard himself and not the players around him creating space and providing him? It's not like he can beat two players and line himself up a shot. When Chelsea are on the back foot Lampard is completely anonymous.

And as shown in the World Cup, when he isn't scoring, he isn't doing anything, he has nothing to back it up.

If Scholes doesn't score more, assist more, pass more, cross more, tackle more what does he do?

Create? Lampard's passing is easy and simple, it's all physical, he has nothing going on in his head. He can't read a game and send out intelligent passes accordingly like Scholes can. England played better with Scholes than they do with Lampard playing his role, Lampard just doesn't have the brains or the skill to orchestrate an attack, he's just a right boot programmed to shoot at goal when there's an opportunity, and to pass sideways five yards when there isn't.

Talk of stats and numbers is rubbish, this ain't baseball.

[mshankb]

Very silly question to ask. Lampard isn't even close to Gerrard; he's nowhere near as dynamic, and neither is he versatile like Gerrard is.

Admittedly, Lampard does tend to score more goals (albeit he must have the highest percentage of deflected goals of any footballer known to mankind), but that's the only aspect of the game in which he would be ahead.

Yeah, he must be on what... 7 now?

[Walter3000]

How much of that is down to Lampard himself and not the players around him creating space and providing him? It's not like he can beat two players and line himself up a shot. When Chelsea are on the back foot Lampard is completely anonymous.

And as shown in the World Cup, when he isn't scoring, he isn't doing anything, he has nothing to back it up.



Create? Lampard's passing is easy and simple, it's all physical, he has nothing going on in his head. He can't read a game and send out intelligent passes accordingly like Scholes can. England played better with Scholes than they do with Lampard playing his role, Lampard just doesn't have the brains or the skill to orchestrate an attack, he's just a right boot programmed to shoot at goal when there's an opportunity, and to pass sideways five yards when there isn't.

Talk of stats and numbers is rubbish, this ain't baseball.

Who would those players creating for him be? As it is(Joe Cole being out) he is the most creative and complimentary of our players. Robben is a fine talent, but he is also very selfish. Lampard's runs come down to reading the defense and anticipation, something he is better than most at, because most of his game is spent in a withdrawn LCM role.

The whole bit about his passing being simple and physical is all just nonsense. The simple fact is he has a great range in passing, and sets up as many or more goals as any midfielder in England over the last 4 years now.

Again like any of the other arguments about Lampard, there are excues chalked up by the "nuetrals" as to how he produces what he does and for the other players being compared to him(Gerrard and Scholes) there are excuses as to why they dont...

[Marko]

another poster with red-tinted glasses. You and Teso should hang out.....and while you're at it, you can tatoo "Scholes" on your foreheads.

Carry on.

That sounds like a blast, Yasik! Perhaps we can do that? You can join in too, if you wish :)

I digress. Can you please explain why you are referring to a footballer who I did not even mention in that post? I was comparing Gerrard and Fat Frank.

[yasik19]

That sounds like a blast, Yasik! Perhaps we can do that? You can join in too, if you wish :)

I digress. Can you please explain why you are referring to a footballer who I did not even mention in that post? I was comparing Gerrard and Fat Frank.

well, seeing as you agreed with Teso in your post and seeing you both are MANCs supporters, I arrived at that conclusion. The fact that you don't think Lampard belongs in the same discussion as Gerrard makes me very suspicious about your level of judgement.

[Marko]

I did not even refer to Teso in my post, so again, your reading comprehension skills appear to be sadly lacking at this present time. Either that or it's your eyesight on the wane. You should have gone to Specsavers.

Carry on being suspicious, it doesn't bother me. 23 years of watching football have given me a decent insight into the game.

By bringing up a player that is extraneous to the debate, you seem to be suggesting that Paul Scholes is not an excellent footballer. I can assure you that most professional players, coaches and football journalists would disagree with you.

Just out of interest, when did you start supporting Chelsea?

[luciusmagister]

Just out of interest, when did you start supporting Chelsea?
Chelsea? Everyone knows.......about the same time as the Russian mob bought the team. Eh, comrade Yasik? :D

[yasik19]

I did not even refer to Teso in my post, so again, your reading comprehension skills appear to be sadly lacking at this present time. Either that or it's your eyesight on the wane. You should have gone to Specsavers.

Carry on being suspicious, it doesn't bother me. 23 years of watching football have given me a decent insight into the game.

By bringing up a player that is extraneous to the debate, you seem to be suggesting that Paul Scholes is not an excellent footballer. I can assure you that most professional players, coaches and football journalists would disagree with you.

Just out of interest, when did you start supporting Chelsea?


I didn't say you explicitly agreed with Teso. However, if you actually read through the entire thread, you will see ho I arrived to my conclusion. Also, Scholes, unfortunately thanks to Teso is not extraneous to this debate.
Also, I don't think I ever said Scholes is not good. There is a thread on here comparing Scholes to Deco where I explicitly stated my preference to Scholes.

What does the length of time of me supporting Chelsea has to do with this debate? Does it matter if it was 1979 or 2006?

[yasik19]

Chelsea? Everyone knows.......about the same time as the Russian mob bought the team. Eh, comrade Yasik? :D

do you have anything thread-related to add or is trolling your main area of interest and expertise here?

[Matt Clark]

What does the length of time of me supporting Chelsea has to do with this debate? Does it matter if it was 1979 or 2006?

Well, you see, there's an awful lot of post-Roman Chelsea "fans". Particularly from abroad. And a common denominator seems to be a level of football insight commensurate with their length of service as "fans".

It's pretty logical when you think about it.

[yasik19]

Well, you see, there's an awful lot of post-Roman Chelsea "fans". Particularly from abroad. And a common denominator seems to be a level of football insight commensurate with their length of service as "fans".

It's pretty logical when you think about it.

I disagree. One, and this is only a wild guess, but I bet this site has gotten more members to support MANU, Arse and maybe even Liverpool in the past 3-4 yrs than Chelsea.
Two, there is a fairly good chance that a person has been following Chelsea or football in general for many years before registering on this site. What team a poster supports should not be the deciding factor in the level of that person's insight in football knowledge.

[cooldude]

Nice signature Yasik.

[Matt Clark]

I disagree. One, and this is only a wild guess, but I bet this site has gotten more members to support MANU, Arse and maybe even Liverpool in the past 3-4 yrs than Chelsea.
Two, there is a fairly good chance that a person has been following Chelsea or football in general for many years before registering on this site.

All very plausible. However, I made no reference to this site. I was referring to actual football “fans”, out in the actual world. That aspects of this site’s membership are symbolic of the trend just reinforces my point, it doesn’t actually make it.

Fact: there are gallons of Chelsea “fans” who have crawled out of the woodwork since 2003 and who, within a few moments conversation (real or virtual) betray significant signs of being, shall we say, newly wed to the sport of football.

What team a poster supports should not be the deciding factor in the level of that person's insight in football knowledge.

Of course not. But it all adds to the instinctual perspective many of us have.

[yasik19]

All very plausible. However, I made no reference to this site. I was referring to actual football “fans”, out in the actual world. That aspects of this site’s membership are symbolic of the trend just reinforces my point, it doesn’t actually make it.

Fact: there are gallons of Chelsea “fans” who have crawled out of the woodwork since 2003 and who, within a few moments conversation (real or virtual) betray significant signs of being, shall we say, newly wed to the sport of football.

Of course not. But it all adds to the instinctual perspective many of us have.

Very well. However, you must admit that the tendency to jump to certain conclusions, especially pertaining to Chelsea fans has been ridiculous at times here. I'm sure there are plenty of Chelsea fans (as well as any other fans) who support "what's hot right now" and do not possess a wealth of football knowledge, but that doesn't mean that as soon as a Chelsea supporter shows up on a thread, he/she should automatically be prepared to defend their allegiance and level of expertise to some internet junkie.