View Full Version : Whos better Lampard or Gerrard?
Pigs
17 Apr 2007, 05:17 PM
I'd take Steven Gerrard, not just because he's a former Evertonian like Jamie Carragher and most liverpoolfc heroes. But because he's naturally more skilled, and can play absolutely anywhere. Take Lampard away from his normal attacking midfield role, then you've lost him.
mcnaulty21
17 Apr 2007, 06:22 PM
I'd take Steven Gerrard, not just because he's a former Evertonian like Jamie Carragher and most liverpoolfc heroes. But because he's naturally more skilled, and can play absolutely anywhere. Take Lampard away from his normal attacking midfield role, then you've lost him.
Gerrard an Everton man? He was playing with the Liverpool youth side by age 9.
But yeah, didn't he play right back in the CL Final when they beat Milan?
Pigs
17 Apr 2007, 06:29 PM
Gerrard an Everton man? He was playing with the Liverpool youth side by age 9.
Yes, Steven Gerrard supported Everton as a kid. He doens't even deny it. He just says he didn't know a lot back then.
But yeah, didn't he play right back in the CL Final when they beat Milan?
I think he played in three positions that night, he was everywhere. What he did in that final, Lampard could never emulate.
mcnaulty21
17 Apr 2007, 08:25 PM
Yes, Steven Gerrard supported Everton as a kid. He doens't even deny it. He just says he didn't know a lot back then.
Cool fact, I didn't know that.
humstein
17 Apr 2007, 08:37 PM
For Club- Lampard
Gets a number of crucial goals for chelsea really contributes on a team loaded with high priced talent. Not to say that Gerrard doesn't score some world class goals for Liverpool, but I like Lampard's club level production.
For Country- Gerrard
Has more mobility and is more versatile than Lampard. Don't think that Lampard's disappearing act at the World Cup was a fluke.
Perry Stein
Walter3000
18 Apr 2007, 02:32 PM
Yes, Steven Gerrard supported Everton as a kid. He doens't even deny it. He just says he didn't know a lot back then.
I think he played in three positions that night, he was everywhere. What he did in that final, Lampard could never emulate.
Including being completely anonymous in the first half? Taking a dive to win a penalty? And then not even taking that oenalty or one of the 5 for his team in the shootout?
United Pumps
18 Apr 2007, 02:50 PM
Including being completely anonymous in the first half? Taking a dive to win a penalty? And then not even taking that oenalty or one of the 5 for his team in the shootout?
Gawd this is good. You're trying to make out that Gerrard played badly in that match. That is almost definetly the stupidest thing I've heard on these forums and that is saying something.
You, dear sir, have taken your "Chelsea supporting" biased views to a new level.
Walter3000
18 Apr 2007, 05:25 PM
Gawd this is good. You're trying to make out that Gerrard played badly in that match. That is almost definetly the stupidest thing I've heard on these forums and that is saying something.
You, dear sir, have taken your "Chelsea supporting" biased views to a new level.
No, you idiot, it was an attempt to dispell this notion that he single handedly lifted Liverpool to the CL Final, I know your pea-size brain and lack of any understanding of this game, makes you continually post bullshit all over this site, here's a hint, stop.
United Pumps
18 Apr 2007, 05:52 PM
That was like a Chelski-Dagger to my heart.
No-one had actually said that he single handedly won that match (that would be the FA Cup Final) but whatever floats your boat. Maybe you're trying to suppress your true feelings?
Walter3000
18 Apr 2007, 05:57 PM
No-one had actually said that he single handedly won that match (that would be the FA Cup Final)
Plenty of people have perpetuated that myth, unfortunately your head is too far up your ass to notice.
United Pumps
18 Apr 2007, 06:02 PM
Not in this sliced bread and not in the pickled lime that I've been on this Georgian decorum. :)
mshankb
19 Apr 2007, 08:46 AM
*ring ring*
*ring ring*
"Good afternoon, Salford Psychiatric Care Centre, Karon speaking"
"Hi, I have this... acquantance who is in severe need of help"
...
mshankb
19 Apr 2007, 09:21 AM
For Club- Lampard
Gets a number of crucial goals for chelsea really contributes on a team loaded with high priced talent. Not to say that Gerrard doesn't score some world class goals for Liverpool, but I like Lampard's club level production.
For Country- Gerrard
Has more mobility and is more versatile than Lampard. Don't think that Lampard's disappearing act at the World Cup was a fluke.
Perry Stein
Well, Perry, I would take only slight issue with that. The sly mention of Lampard being part of a great team is... well... silly. You can't tell me a midfield of Hargreaves/Gerrard/Lampard would cost less than Maka (or Mikel)/Essien/Lampard, surely? Indeed, we were heavily mocked for eventually paying out £16m for Mikel, but Hargreaves is being touted around the £20m mark! It's not so much a case of one being better than the other, as it is a case of making them work together in an organised, disciplined, clearly defined manner.
Hargreaves's assurance on the ball, positional sense, and strength in the tackle are comparable to Makelele's.
Gerrard has many similar qualities to Essien - they're both quick, strong, good passers, intelligent and neither is shy of a tackle. They both pop up with important goals frequently and they are commited - both players will run and run.
Lampard for England has not been the same creature as Lampard for Chelsea for some time now, but there was a time not so long ago when he did at least reproduce his goalscoring. The public have stuck by Wayne Rooney and his England form has been significantly poorer than Lampard's for a similar period - Frank has at least scored a couple.
Look, England have quality on the wings in Joe Cole and Aaron Lennon, and Shaun Wright-Philips has shown massive improvement (even before last night). One thing that was emphasised last night is Wayne Bridge's forward play, particularly out wide, and we all know the crossing ability of Gary Neville. Both are, of course, exemplary in defensive situations as well.
Rooney or Owen or especially Dean Ashton could work very well up the middle - I point out Ashton because he has the strength to hold up the ball, is fantastic in the air, a decent passer and has a brilliant finish in him.
There is versatility in the system as well. With a whole ream of substitutes on the bench to choose from, we needn't fear being overawed by attacking teams, or feeling we have to push on for the second or even third goal only to tire out and concede.
I spoke of the similarities of Essien and Gerrard earlier - both can play right-back, if needed, and Carrick can replace Gerrard to provide a slightly deeper set midfield.
Carrick could replace Lampard, pushing Gerrard into the nominally more attacking role. After all, it has been said that Gerrard is the more effective of the two, defensively speaking, and there will be times when the opposition will be camped on our 18 yard line as the clock hits 88 minutes, no matter how well we perform.
We can also switch easily to a 4-4-2. Joe Cole comes back to left midfield, Gerrard pushes right or leave either Gerrard or Lampard in with Hargreaves and bring on a Keiron Dyer on the right. The final possibility I offer for a 4-4-2 midfield is to put Carrick in the middle with Gerrard/Lampard and move Hargreaves to right midfield. In all cases, Lennon/SWP are replaced by a more balanced midfielder.
Just imagine a team of
Robinson/Foster
Neville/Richards Ferdinand Terry Bridge
Hargreaves
Gerrard
Lampard
Lennon Owen/Ashton/Rooney Cole
with a bench including
SWP
Owen/Ashton/Rooney/Johnson/Crouch
Ashley Cole
Carrick
Defensive subs as you would expect
That kind of brings me to the main point of why England don't manage to use Gerrard and Lampard together effectively. There are too many names - will Steve McClaren ever drop one or even two from Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, and Owen? Not in a million years.
Would Mourinho play this way? You're damn right he would.
One little bone to throw to the Fat Frank camp:
If Lampard/Gerrard are injured or off-form, Rooney could drop to attacking midfield, with someone else ahead of him. Or that could even be the default set-up, with Lampard on the bench. But there are just no balls in the England camp and too many egos.
United Pumps
19 Apr 2007, 12:49 PM
*ring ring*
*ring ring*
"Good afternoon, Salford Psychiatric Care Centre, Karon speaking"
"Hi, I have this... acquantance who is in severe need of help"
...
Club: Chelsea
Location: Manchester
I suppose my post applies for you as well. Not that you have any clue what I'm getting at, or would.
Also, ugh, just ugh.
mshankb
19 Apr 2007, 01:49 PM
1. Your first sentence does not make sense.
2. As I've said to numerous posters around these oh-so-quick-witted parts, your shitwittery in the face of reasoned debate leads you to point out that *shock horror* I live in Manchester. Just because you've probably been in Blackley or Walkden or some other shithole all your life, doesn't mean I have.
United Pumps
19 Apr 2007, 01:59 PM
Shitwittery? Mebbe. Reasoned debate? lol.
Mellor, actually.
Everytime I look at your profile I start to chuckle.
mshankb
19 Apr 2007, 04:25 PM
Really? Then you are easily amused.
United Pumps
19 Apr 2007, 05:12 PM
Really? Then you are easily amused.
Then so are most Mancunians. You'd know. :)
The Jitty Slitter
19 Apr 2007, 05:27 PM
i am still gob smacked by this
Hargreaves's assurance on the ball, positional sense, and strength in the tackle are comparable to Makelele's.
United Pumps
19 Apr 2007, 05:33 PM
i am still gob smacked by this
A tad over the top. I don't see why Fergie didn't pounce on Zokora when he was offered. He may not be as refined, experienced or determined but he's certainly a more typical DM. The price Bayern want for Hargreaves is daylight robbery. However, this doesn't really belong in this thread.