Fine, we won't talk about cup campaigns. Would Lampard have made Liverpool a league winning side the last 2-3 years? Doubtful. Gerrard couldn't do it, but I would be willing to bet if Gerrard was in Chelsea's team that they would still have won the league. Because I personally believe that the other players like Cech, Drogba, and Terry were more influential in there league winning campaigns then Lamps. I think that Gerrard is a better footballer than Lampard. That is my opinion. Better tackler? Gerrard Better shot? Gerrard Better dribbler? Push, but Gerrard can drive towards the net better. Better in the air? Gerrard Better passer? Push That's the last I am going to say on this, because I believe there is already a thread started on who is better Lampard or Gerrard.
You're entitled to you opinion but I've just been more impressed with the way Platt plays. Having said that, I'm thinking a lot of his displays with England and not so much his club record. His 1989-90 season with Villa sounds impressive but a player can't be assessed just on one season.
What on earth are you talking about? My thoughts on this issue are thus: There is nothing for you to add. There is nothing to debate. Your opinion, is your opinion, I do not agree with it in the slightest, I see no reason to dance around the point. Looping, tediously, over and over again. Using caps is not impressive, nor does it convey your point any better than lower case. My 'argument' for Byrne is above. How you've minimised it to MATTHEWS only you can say. My whole argument is not based around one sole issue, which is where your response is wholly flawed. Matching Matthews and Finney as well as being a fantastic two-way LB notes a man of immense standing. I noticed how skipped my point about Ashley Cole vis-a-vis Ronaldo and Pennant. How convenient for you. Matching up excellently against Ronaldo is not the be all and end all of Ashley Cole, just as it's not for Byrne with regard to his superb opponents, but it certainly adds a great deal to his profile. If you don't agree with that, then this is dead out of the water. Context. All of this is absolutely irrelevant to this thread. Try using English League examples if you want a response. And if you're trying to debate, try responding to questions asked of you instead of skipping whole paragaphs and then asking me a bunch of questions you expect responses to. The complex part is the one-on-one power struggles seen all over the pitch. And of course each one holds massive bearing on the result of a team game. If one CB who is supposed to be marking one striker loses his man and happens to cause his team to concede then he is most likely to be held solely responsible as well as that one attacker being solely praised should he have bested and outsmarted his opponent. If this is not the case, how do you think rankings are actually compiled? #1 guy is more or less likely to have bested more direct opposing players than not to establish himself as dominant and top dog: Ergo, Roy Keane is clearly top dog of at least his own era, allayed to the brilliance of his presence upon a team game in a team setting, he ends up number one for his position with no doubts or queries that can't be answered.
How can you bet? You are trying to imagine an alternative reality. We will never know. I could bet that without David May, United wouldn't have won the treble. And who can argue against me in fantasy land? Here is your credibility shot. Drogba was more influential than Lampard in the title winning seasons? Until last season Drogba was a peripheral player at Chelsea. These are irrelevant even if I agreed with you. Gerrard is a very complete player. He is more complete than Maradona, Garrincha or Puskas were. That does not make him a better player though.
My argument against this laughable criteria to judge the #1: "Being credited and distinguished as of few to do very well against both Matthews and Finney would rank higher for me than longevity in the position." And your opinion is also your opinion, except that your opinion is unsupportable, by 1) using Pele's "better than everybody criteria" 2) by failing to name the other "legendary opponents" for all those all-time greats. Your argument for Byrne, by using Matthews and Finney, have been shot by the two issues I made above. Your whole argument to campaign Byrne for #1 was Matthews/Finney argument, a criteria I am picking apart. Do you think a player without all these virtues can be a #2 all-time? THAT'S A GIVEN!!! I have no dispute if you stick with Byrne as #2. Deal? Well, I notice how you intentionally skip my point of the "legendary" opponents of Beckenbauer, Platini, Pele, Garrincha, etc. Is it because you have no way to use the same argument for all these great players? I also notice how you skipped my point on your absurd definition of "definitive moments'. Exactly, how convenient for you. Your dodging of the issue is well acknowledged. I flat out disagree with that. Now what? Matching up against a player mano-o-mano doesn't add a great deal for Pele, Beckenbauer, Garrincha, Zidane, Platini, etc. Afterall, you still fail to name that one player/selected few players that these legends matched up against (and built their legacy on). So why does it add a great deal TO BYRNE to make him #1? inquiry mind wants to know. Context, all of this is an example of how absurd your criteria is. Try looking at a bigger picture. You are trying to judge a player as an all-time #1, yet that criteria doesn't apply to judging Pele, Beckenbauer, Garrincha? That's the techique of argument. I render your questions meaningless, by using my questions to drive my point. Who are you to say that your questions are the only ones that count? You don't answer mine and I don't answer yours, yet your "Pele is better than everyone else" still contradicts your own criteria. Blame yourself for falling into the Pele trap. But once you made that claim, you have no way out... Easy, because in a team game, it's NOT mano-o-mano. It's just that simple. Who's Pele's one-on-one power struggle against England in 1970? - Banks (the last line of defense & the best save he's ever seen) - Moore (the best defender he's played against) - Mullery (the player actually marked him) See, just this example shows that how simplistic your one-on-one power struggle was.. Nonsense. Who's Pele's direct opposing player? Are you going to conveniently skip this question?
Most people in the world will never understand that their own "special insights" into reality are much less reliable than objective benchmarks. Your average football fan, like most people, is a very poor judge of probability, risk and cause and effect. So for example we hear that Lampard's success is down to others. Or that Rooney is over rated, or that Robben was washed up. Yet Robben was the 2nd most valuable offensive player last season, and Rooney 3rd.
Would Gerrard (or any other central midfielder for that matter) have replaced the 13 and 16 goals Lampard scored in the two title winning seasons? Given that Gerrard has only oncemanaged 10 league goals in a season (something Lampard has done for the last 4 seasons, scoring more than Gerrard's career total in those seasons) I doubt it. Until you can justify how Gerrard would have replaced this goalscoring, which was a key factor in both championships, then we can let this matter rest.
Thought it might be worth adding for any British based posters that BBC4 tonight at 9pm is showing A Game Of Two Eras in which the players from the 1957 and 2007 Cup Finals are being compared.
In the two title winning seasons, Lampard played as an advanced attacking midfielder who - without major responsibilities in the defensive third - was allowed to ghost in behind Drogba as a support striker. Gerrard has never been allowed to play that role extensively in the league, nor has he had a strong LW-CF-RW in front of him to create space and lay off opportunities. It's a bad comparison - Gerrard and Lampard. Gerrard is the more technically and physically gifted player, but Lampard is the more mentally astute player. Gerrard has played better, and been more influential, in bigger games than Lampard. But, Lampard has performed more consistently. Let's stop ruining a thread with this crap discussion and move on to the next position.
Actually, I seem to remember Lampard being in Chelsea's top 5 players on the OPTA stats for passing, tackling, and crossing as well as shooting and goals in at least Chelsea's first season. I vividly remember posting it in a 'Lampard or Terry for PotY' thread from that season. Anyway... Agreed. P.S. It's good to see that nobody has questioned Scholes being comfortably above both of them.
Passing, Crossing, Shooting, and Goals are a by-product of what I iterated. And, all tackling is not done in the defensive third. What anything else has to do with my post, I'll never know!
Scholes has been playing at a high level for longer, but I think that they are capable of overtaking him. So far yes, I think Scholes deserves to be ahead. If we did this again in 5 years then perhaps not. I don't think Scholes has ever had a domestic league season as good as Lampard's three from 2003-6. That is part of the problem with including contemporary players, it is very difficult to have some perspective about their careers.
Scholes has had countless better seasons, particularly if we are dicussing overall play as opposed to simply goals. Last season is but one example and that was him playing an entirely different role than usual in supporting Carrick. Lampard only had his break-out season after Makelele was brought in to act as the shield behind him and he then improved on that after Mourinho added another central midfielder to enable Lampard to concentrate on getting into shooting positions. The only time Scholes has been allowed to play with the same attacking freedom as Lampard was in 02/03 when he scored 14 league goals. A figure Lampard has only beaten once. Of course that is if we are only discussing goals, which is Lampard's entire game but only one facet of what Scholes provides.
We have been over all this before ad nauseum. Scholes started very well last season and then faded after Christmas. Last season he was basically on par with Lampard, who was having his least spectacular season in years. Lampard assists more, passes more, tackles more, gets booked less, gets sent off less and gets injured less. I don't want this thread to go the way of so many others that you have ruined, so do everyone a favour and go bang the United drum elsewhere.
If we have supposedly been over all of this previously then why do you refuse to accept that Lampard only started his good seasons of scoring (which is what he is known for) after the signing of Makelele and then the subsequent change in system which resulted in yet another central midfielder being included? I ask because any claims otherwise is clearly a claim that disagrees with the facts. Last season Scholes played very well (in an unfamiliar position) and was nominated for the PFA Player of the Year award (finishing third) and was also included in the PFA Team of the Year. Lampard was not even nominated. Obviously few players maintain their level of performance over an entire season and Scholes is no different. Neither is Lampard, who also did not fare well in the run-in and had a disappointing league season compared to normal. A season when his usual system was changed by trying to incorporate a better player in Ballack into the team. I'm not surprised that Lampard assists more considering he is the nominated set-piece taker at Chelsea and plays in a more advanced role. Passing is generally even but Scholes usually leads the league in midfield accuracy (he did last season and a quick check shows he does this season). Tackling obviously goes to Lampard (no idea of figures) although it should be noted that Scholes was originally a striker. Discipline links back to tackling but Scholes is required to put in more risky challenges as a result of his position and role in the side. As for injuries, Scholes is 33 years old and Lampard is 29 years old. I'm not surprised although Lampard did have a good run going. Since we have been discussing goals then we should also note that Lampard takes a lot more shots in comparison to Scholes but his conversion rate is a lot worse. If you don't wish to have this discussion again then don't post things that you cannot support. It's that simple and has nothing to do with respective teams. If you cannot handle constructive criticism then don't post things like this in the first place and don't ask for it, which you did!
hate to say it, but i agree with teso lampards goals came when he was sheilded by 2 deeper lying cms one of whoom is a pure defensive screen allowing him to become almost a second striker behind drogba and giving him the freedome to wait for opportunities outside the box credit to the man for scoring but i personally dont feel he or gerrard has consistantly performed to scholes level for their respective clubs like the ginger wizard has for a decade practically he was wasted at int level which has allowed him to quit that and play at his level longer but we are detracting from the thread again, comme...whens the next part?
What bearing does this actually have on the point? Scholes played his entire career alongside arguably the best defensive/box to box midfielder ever. Trying to hold Makelele's presence against Lampard is thus clearly ludicrous. Putting that to one side, the point itself is garbage. Lampard scored 14 goals in 49 games in 1999-00, compared to 15 in 58 in his first season with Makelele. But Teso I didn't think you put any store by these awards. Lampard's failure to be nominated counts against him, but Francesco Totti's from the EPOTY award doesn't? It's not like you Teso to be hypocritical .... Oh, sorry, who am I trying to kid? Ask Chelsea fans if Ballack is the superior player. Last season was disappointing for Lampard primarily because it was being compared to his own high standards. If C Ronaldo scored 14 goals in the league this season it will be considered disappointing. Teso, if someone outscores the other, out tackles the other and out assists the other, he is performing better. Those are basically the measures for a player. The reason Scholes picks up bookings and red cards is because he can't tackle. He never has been able to and he never will. The reason that Lampard takes the set-pieces for Chelsea is he is good at them. That is a strength. It counts in his favour. A good run? The most consecutive appearances in the history of the Premiership is "a good run"? I can support it. I have done many, many times before. The problem is that you can't handle the facts. In football the only things that can be supported are facts and figures. Beyond that everything is opinion. The great problem is that you seem to believe that your opinion is a fact.
If Scholes' conversion rate is a lot better then why doesn't he take a lot more shots to help the team? Is it because (1) if he takes as many shots as Lampard then his conversion rate will be as bad as Lampard's? (2) he doesn't want to help the team but only cares about his own statistics (conversion rate)? This "but his (Lampard's) conversion rate is a lot worse" is such nonsense to try to boost Scholes that it isn't even funny. The biggest play I remember on Scholes was his mindless foul in the England X Brasil game in 2002. That foul, 40 yards from goal on a no-threat situation, led to Ronaldinho's lop over Seaman for the winning goal. That goal pretty much ended Seaman's career, but no one ever remember the real culprit of the goal: Scholes.
Yep, like the nonsense that "conversion rate" is actually more important than the number of goals. player A: 4 goals on 6 shots, 67% conversion rate player B: 20 goals on 60 shots, 33% conversion rate which player is helping the team more?
Are you trying to claim that the role a player has in his side and the factors that influence his performance are not relevant when comparing players? Lampard is regarded as being a good player because of his goal scoring and that alone is what people use to place him above others. You made direct reference to Lampard's three good scoring seasons and clearly used that as the basis for his inclusion at such a high placing in your list. A placing many have disagreed with. You then made the laughable claim that Scholes has never had a better season than any of those, again referring to Lampard's goal figure. Not only is that completely incorrect but it is also incorrect when only considering goals. Lampard had a single season with only Makelele and his goal figures improved as a direct result. Since then he has almost always had two central midfielders playing behind him. Your refusal to acknowledge why this is important when comparing players does not make it any less relevant or true. You attempt to compare Makelele to Keane is worthless not only in terms of a direct comparison but also in terms of how their game impacts on their respective central midfield partner. Every player can have a good season but the point remains that Lampard only started to perform and gain the recognition that he has after Makelele joined Chelsea. Besides, by your own criteria Lampard only scored 10 goals in 99/00 in total, with only 7 coming in the league. I personally rank the league higher than domestic cups as end product can easily be boosted by playing against lower league opposition in the latter. Lampard has benefited from just that in previous seasons. No doubt you will find some way to disagree. I put some stock (albeit not a lot) in what the players think. After all, they are the ones facing each other each week. An award of that nature is completely different to the joke awards that I despise. Why would I ask any Chelsea fan? Aside from their inflated opinion of Lampard being completely irrelevant, anyone with any knowledge is aware that Ballack is the superior player. Being completely misused by Chelsea does not change that fact. As for Ronaldo, while it would be disappointing in terms of goals it all depends on the rest of his play and influence. Lampard does not have that luxury because outside of shooting and taking set-pieces he is useless. I fully disagree. It is clear to anyone who watches both play that Scholes is not only the better player but the better all-round performer. You cannot look at goals scored or assists without taking their roles into consideration. Not doing so is simply stupid and makes any comparison futile. I never said that Scholes was a good tackler and I said that Lampard was better. I then noted that Scholes was originally a striker. If you cannot make the connection I was making between that and tackling then simply ask for an explanation. My point in regard to bookings stands. Lampard has two defensive players to do the tackling for him, so he is not be required to make the risky or tactical fouls. Scholes does because of his role. Yet another reason why making comparisons without any consideration for roles is useless. Wayne Bridge previously held the record for most consecutive Premiership appearances. Does that make him a great player in the grand scheme of things? The usual rubbish. You failed to support your opinion previously and you have failed to do so now. I'm not surprised that you tried to put the brakes on this discussion here as well. My post was in direct response to your incorrect claim that Scholes has not had a season to match Lampard. You were the one who subsequently started the rest of the discussion. You made incorrect claims that you could not support. Just accept it and move on. Neither of us even disagrees with Scholes' placing in the list. (1) Not at all. Scholes has always had a good conversion rate throughout his career, no doubt because he was originally a striker. While he can score great goals from distance he is better known for his late runs into the box. Shooting from chances like that is obviously going to be more accurate. (2) It's all down to position and role. Scholes' best Premiership season for goals (which Lampard has only beaten once) came when was given far greater freedom to operate ahead of the midfield and support Ruud. Prior to that he has always been in a 4-4-2 which requires tactical discipline and defensive play. Last season he sat deeper than before in central midfield to support Carrick, limiting his attacking chances even more. Plus let's not forget that he is 33 years old. His role is a lot less attacking than that of Lampard, particularly since the latter has been playing with Makelele and then a further central midfielder. There is no surprise to see the number of shots and therefore goals that Lampard has scored suddenly increase under those circumstances.