View Full Version : Whos better Lampard or Gerrard?
Walter3000
16 Apr 2007, 10:07 PM
Poor coaching? Having too many players in the lineup that love the ball? Or....
Some players perform better for club than country, it isnt anything new. Lampard, unlike Gerrard, has actually played well for England in the past, and Im sure if they dropped England's most overrated midfielder(Gerrard) and paired Lampard with Hargreaves he'd do better than he has recently, of course the other side will say the same about Lampard.
I do enjoy how you completely avoided the point about how Lampard has shined for Chelsea through 3 systems and countless player turnover and injuries, why? Because it completely destroys your points made about him only being able to play in one system and with 2 DMIds? Over to you on that one.
Teso Dos Bichos
16 Apr 2007, 11:09 PM
I never said that though and the system has fundamentally remained the same throughout.
leg_breaker
17 Apr 2007, 12:53 AM
Some players perform better for club than country, it isnt anything new. Lampard, unlike Gerrard, has actually played well for England in the past, and Im sure if they dropped England's most overrated midfielder(Gerrard) and paired Lampard with Hargreaves he'd do better than he has recently, of course the other side will say the same about Lampard.
Lampard isn't dynamic enough for international football. Maybe if you want to play turgid, static football with little movement, and you need a midfielder who can just stand there and shoot, then he is acceptable, but if you want a fast, attacking team, Lampard isn't the man.
And why are Lampard defenders always Chelsea fans? Most neutrals favour Gerrard.
yasik19
17 Apr 2007, 01:11 AM
Lampard isn't dynamic enough for international football. Maybe if you want to play turgid, static football with little movement, and you need a midfielder who can just stand there and shoot, then he is acceptable, but if you want a fast, attacking team, Lampard isn't the man.
And why are Lampard defenders always Chelsea fans? Most neutrals favour Gerrard.
b/c this thread is not a discussion, it's Lampard bashing. Capice?
comme
17 Apr 2007, 03:51 AM
It has everything to do with England. If Lampard has 'shined' for Chelsea and his success has nothing to do with 'luck, a system, or better players around him', then why is he unable to do likewise for England? Could it be that his success for Chelsea is down to any of the three things you listed? Over to you.
Lampard has been able to shine for England. He was the fans player of the year in both 2004 and 2005.
That is the clear evidence that he has played well for England.
The reason he struggles to replicate his Chelsea form for England is that, like it or not, Gerrard is the one who is meant to be playing as the more defensive player. Yet he is unwilling or unable to do this.
comme
17 Apr 2007, 03:57 AM
Another pathetic response to a post of mine. Why don't you drop it and actually contribute to a thread for a change? My post stands and you know the point I was making. Deal with it.
I have contributed time and again, but this thread is going in circles now.
I actually rarely know the point you are making because you simply snipe in and out with a biased load of tosh.
Lampard has had to alter his game this season to accomodate Ballack, to lead the team in the absense of John Terry, and he has still managed to score 21 goals so far this season matching his own best with another 10 games to go.
You simply ignore the point that in his time at Chelsea Lampard has played effectively in a number of different midfield set ups.
Teso Dos Bichos
17 Apr 2007, 08:04 AM
Lampard has been able to shine for England. He was the fans player of the year in both 2004 and 2005.
That is the clear evidence that he has played well for England.
The reason he struggles to replicate his Chelsea form for England is that, like it or not, Gerrard is the one who is meant to be playing as the more defensive player. Yet he is unwilling or unable to do this.
He scored goals but his overall contribution was lacking. He is lucky in the sense that he can play like shit but providing he scores a goal then people think he has played well. You can count the good games he has had for England with one hand.
Surely that means Lampard's form is heavily dependent on the system used at Chelsea and him playing with better, complementary players? Besides, if you believe Chelsea fans then he should have no problem playing deeper and contributing to the defensive side of the game. Even then, when England has played with a holding midfielder in order to give him the freedom to attack, as he is given with Chelsea, he has still failed to deliver.
I have contributed time and again, but this thread is going in circles now.
I actually rarely know the point you are making because you simply snipe in and out with a biased load of tosh.
Lampard has had to alter his game this season to accomodate Ballack, to lead the team in the absense of John Terry, and he has still managed to score 21 goals so far this season matching his own best with another 10 games to go.
You simply ignore the point that in his time at Chelsea Lampard has played effectively in a number of different midfield set ups.
Is that why most of your recent 'contributions' on BS have been you jumping into a thread for the sole reason of sniping at one of my posts?
You fail to accept that ALL of the midfield 'set ups' involves Lampard having a dedicated defensive midfielder behind him to cover for his deficiencies, allowing Lampard to concentrate on getting forward to take shots. That was even the case with Ranieri when he played a 4-4-2.
comme
17 Apr 2007, 08:31 AM
He scored goals but his overall contribution was lacking. He is lucky in the sense that he can play like shit but providing he scores a goal then people think he has played well. You can count the good games he has had for England with one hand.
No, he was (along with Drogba and Essien) carrying a team in which the rest of the side were massively under performing. He was performing well and scoring goals. Lampard does both.
Lampard has been one of England's consistently good performers over the last few years. His games up to the WC were good, as was the first game against Paraguay. After that he tailed off.
Surely that means Lampard's form is heavily dependent on the system used at Chelsea and him playing with better, complementary players? Besides, if you believe Chelsea fans then he should have no problem playing deeper and contributing to the defensive side of the game. Even then, when England has played with a holding midfielder in order to give him the freedom to attack, as he is given with Chelsea, he has still failed to deliver.
Chelsea's players are not markedly better though.
How is a line up of Makalele, Essien and Lampard noticeably worse than Hargreaves, Gerrard and Lampard?
When has Lampard been given the dedicated defensive midfielder other than in these first few games of McClaren when the whole team has been terrible?
Lampard can drop deeper to help out now and again, but he is not a defensive midfielder. When Gerrard and Lampard play together it is Gerrard who is expected to do that, and he hasn't been. He can't reign himself in and play the role needed.
Is that why most of your recent 'contributions' on BS have been you jumping into a thread for the sole reason of sniping at one of my posts?
If you give so much ammunition that it seems like I am sniping then you only have yourself to blame. The fact that I point out your not so hidden agenda and your unwillingness to back up the ludicrous statements you continually make is your problem, not mine.
You fail to accept that ALL of the midfield 'set ups' involves Lampard having a dedicated defensive midfielder behind him to cover for his deficiencies, allowing Lampard to concentrate on getting forward to take shots. That was even the case with Ranieri when he played a 4-4-2.
Show me the current top midfields which don't have a defensive midfielder or a holding midfielder. Gerrard is equally dependent on Sissoko and Alonso as Lampard is on Essien and Makalele, but the difference is that Lampard is actually producing, whereas Gerrard has done sweet FA this season.
mcnaulty21
17 Apr 2007, 12:35 PM
Gerrard got the nomination for PFA Player of the Year
Alfiesdodgyknee
17 Apr 2007, 12:40 PM
Gerrard got the nomination for PFA Player of the Year
a completly unjustified nomination. Gerrard was appauling for the Majority of this Season. "I was tired after germany he complained"
Fabregas also Nominated??? ONE GOAL FROM MIDFIELD -Terrible.
cooldude
17 Apr 2007, 01:25 PM
Gerrard got the nomination for PFA Player of the Year
Well deserved.Very well deserved. Teso need not jusitfy this.
Alfiesdodgyknee
17 Apr 2007, 01:28 PM
Well deserved.Very well deserved. Teso need not jusitfy this.
OK you think Gerrrad deserves his Nomination this year? No no and NO again
tjbirdsfan
17 Apr 2007, 01:46 PM
The whole thing just depends. If you are talking about versatility Gerrard is clearly better, he can just do more than Frank. However if you are talking about flat-out who is the better in the center of the pitch; as much as it pains me to say it, Lampard takes it.
cooldude
17 Apr 2007, 02:01 PM
OK you think Gerrrad deserves his Nomination this year? No no and NO again
Sarcasm is the order of the day.;)
The whole thing just depends. If you are talking about versatility Gerrard is clearly better, he can just do more than Frank. However if you are talking about flat-out who is the better in the center of the pitch; as much as it pains me to say it, Lampard takes it.
Just a curious question, rather off topic but it baffles me, all the same. As a Utd fan, do u hate Frank more than Gerrard?
tjbirdsfan
17 Apr 2007, 02:26 PM
I like Gerrard better than Lampard but I do not hate either.
United Pumps
17 Apr 2007, 02:26 PM
Gerrard is likeable.
cooldude
17 Apr 2007, 02:42 PM
Right, thanks.
mcnaulty21
17 Apr 2007, 03:07 PM
a completly unjustified nomination. Gerrard was appauling for the Majority of this Season. "I was tired after germany he complained"
Fabregas also Nominated??? ONE GOAL FROM MIDFIELD -Terrible.
No offense, but I trust the PFA's judgement a little more than anybody's here (mine included)
Walter3000
17 Apr 2007, 03:43 PM
No offense but that is pretty ********in' stupid
mcnaulty21
17 Apr 2007, 04:16 PM
No offense but that is pretty ********in' stupid
Good rebuttal