Regardless of the Scholes comparison, as I believe he should be higher than Lampard in the list, why is it exactly that a Chelsea fan's perspective on Lampard is 'irrelevant' and yet a United fan's opinion on Scholes isn't? Also, the idea that Lampard is 'useless outside of shooting and taking set pieces' is ridiculous. I can see why some would disagree with his place in the list, but really, there's no need for such hyperbole.
Chelsea fans are notorious when it comes to overrating Lampard. The same cannot be said of Man Utd fans and Scholes. Almost everyone else rates the latter higher regardless. Lampard's game is based around getting into shooting positions and taking set-pieces. That is what he does best. The rest of his game is lacking. It's not hyperbole but simply the truth. Feel free to dispute any of my posts. Who is the better player between Ballack and Lampard?
Every team's fans are 'notorious' for overrating their players. I don't see how you can say that Chelsea fans are somehow unusually biased. It's not the truth though, by the way. It's your opinion. I don't think the rest of his game is lacking at all. Elements of it are, as with every player, but to reduce him to such a one-dimensional player as you have seems off. Here's my assessment of Lampard which is as objective as possible: Obviously his greatest strength is his ability to get into goalscoring positions, his record reflects that. That's a massive strength for a midfielder, particularly at Chelsea where the only other consistent goalscoring threats (at various times) over the past few seasons have been Drogba and Crespo. For all the talk of him relying on other players in midfield, the space he provides others by dragging other midfielders/defenders deep (both with his runs and his presence) is invaluable. The only sustained period he's been out over the past few seasons was a couple weeks this season, in which Chelsea's players who are supposedly 'carrying' Lampard played very poorly and our midfield struggled to pose any sort of attacking threat. He can be selfish at times in the final third, getting a bit of 'tunnel vision' on occasion, but I think his goalscoring record justifies that. He's also a very good passer. He's not a 'natural' in this part of his game as much as someone like Carrick, but he's worked hard at it and is very adept at switching the point of attack and playing lofted balls into space for runners to get onto. Scholes is pretty much unrivalled in that aspect amongst current Prem players, but Lampard is still very good at it. He's usually very positive with his passing, which is again something that our midfield lacked in his absence. He's not going to consistently probe the opposition with threaded passes, but he sees the field well and is usually very quick to release the runner. His footwork is pretty good. He won't take players on very much, but as Kalou's goal against Derby showed, he can, from time to time, use this part of his game effectively. I'm guessing most pros can though. Not what I would describe as one of his strengths, but like every part of his game he knows his limits and it's rare you'll see him dispossessed in midfield. He's good technically, his first touch is rarely caught wanting and on the few occasions over the past few seasons that Chelsea have played any sort of short passing, rhythmic game, he's never looked out of place. Anyone doubting his technical ability should rewatch our game against Arsenal last season where Boulahrouz got sent off. Lampard, along with J. Cole and Kalou, almost out-Arsenaled Arsenal at times with their passing. His work rate is excellent, he's not a great tackler but he's willing to put in a defensive shift, closing players down and never shirks his defensive duties. It must also be noted that he played the 'Essien' role when Gudjohnsen played at the front of the midfield so he's comfortable playing deeper and I don't seem to remember his goalscoring tally dropping off much during that time, although I could be wrong. I can't remember ever being sent off for Chelsea. One of his weaknesses is that he can disappear from games at times, he's capable of 'taking the game by the scruff of the neck' (see our home tie vs. Schalke) but doesn't do it often enough. Not in the sense that he doesn't contribute to the game at all, just that he 'control' the game enough. Overall, he's a very smart player. He knows his limits and his strengths and has worked on his game tirelessly and as someone already pointed out, I believe, that is probably his greatest strength. And as for who is better between him and Ballack, for Chelsea it's undoubtedly been Lampard. The one time they met in the CL in 04/05, Lampard was the better of the two as well, IMO. Ballack is more talented in terms of natural ability and over the course of his career will probably be rated the higher of the two but at this point in time, I don't think there's that much between them and given Lampard's importance to the side in the past, it's his spot to lose and thus far, Ballack hasn't shown near enough to be rated Chelsea's 'top dog' in midfield.
How was the show? Was it insightful? comme, how is Scholes higher than Hoddle? Is it mostly a trophy cabinet thing or a case of more consistent performances?
How the fcuk can you say all of this with a straight face? You go around posting the same crap everytime someone doesn't share your boner for Manchester United or its players. You just make stuff up as you go along. Lampard sucks because all he does is score. It doesn't matter what his closest followers think because they're biased (unlike Manchester United fans such as yourself), it doesn't matter if he performs well in some seasons because he had Makelele play with him and of course dear Scholes can afford to score less goals than him, because, well... he has better conversion rate (yay!), Scholes should be exempt from statistical comparison because he is forced to play in a deeper position which allows him to make up for his lack of goals with his superb tackling skills... woops... I mean super Manchester United skills that no statistic can fully capture. What else? Oh yeah Scholes shouldn't be penalized for his discipline or injuries... I mean if he's Messi being compared with other Manchester United wunderkid... yeah injuries make you an inferior player, but COME ON, IT'S PAUL SCHOLES! Take a friggin' look at yourself in the mirror before you call others biased and ignorant.
i watched it. quite a bit of it was just due to natural progression. e.g. better fitness techniques. it was still very interesting though watching both matches being broken down simultaneously and also having the ex-players talking their way through it. i don't want to ruin anything but the 'tackle' in the first 5mins is unmissable
I'll post here rather than PM because it is indirectly relevant Fraser this was recently discussed to death on BG. What was their view on fitness levels, power, speed etc between the era's? What conclusions did they reach if any on direct comparisons between players of different era's?
fitness levels and speed are vastly superior in the modern day compared to the 50's final. this is because of diet, training and exercise. in the 50's the players training techniques were based on army techniques at the time and weren't anywhere near as specialised as they are now. england in the 50's was very insular in football terms and therefore there was no other comparison to be made on any different way to train players. it was the norm. nowadays the gadgetry a modern gym has gives players a huge advantage over their counterparts from the 50's when it comes to developing their bodies for greater speed and strength. proper diets make a big difference to energy levels in the modern game. the players from the 50's didn't have the benefit a proper diet brings of better stamina, an overall better level of health, better growth and the ability to recover quicker from injuries. a couple of other aspects of the programme i found interesting where the lack of subs at that time and also the difference to the style of play the ball made in that era. ex-players told of how difficult it was to get a corner into the box once the ball was sodden wet. the chances of scoring 30yd screamers were next to nothing in certain conditions. and of course the main thing that stood out between the two finals was the physical contact, or lack of in chelsea v man utd compared to the '57 final. it was certainly a man's game back then. goalkeepers were afforded little protection (as witnessed in the first 5 mins of the '57 final) and had to defend themselves. it showed footage of a keeper from a previous final who had broken his neck but continued to play on. it was fascinating to watch some of the tackles that were flying in and seeing players get up and get on with it (rather than show that the opponent had actually hurt them) and also the absence of any shows of dissent regarding decisions. it seemed to me that both finals had flaws in this area of the game (tackling). yes it was good to see tackles flying in and players getting up and getting on with it but some of them were extremely dangerous and yet no cards let alone free kicks were given. the modern game is a stop-start affair that at times ruins any chance of a rhythm in a game but by the same token players have better protection from serious injury than they did back then.
I'll believe that if "shots taken" is an official stat in soccer. This is not basketball, that every shot taken is recorded as an official stat, that leads to the stat FG%. If you claim Scholes has a better conversion rate than Lampard. How many shots did he take last season? How many shots did Lampard take? Who took the most shots last season? who had the highest conversion rate? what's the minimum # shots in a season to qualify for the ranking? Cite the official source. Do you think I'll believe your conversion rate is a FACT? And if that's the case, why doesn't he play that role full-time? If he wasn't allowed to play that role full-time in Man U, don't you think a high-conversion rate/free-rooming striker won't be useful to Barca/Real/Milan/Inter/Arsenal/Liverpool? In other words, this high conversion rate is meaningless, even if it exists. So in other words, Lampard's offensive production is leaps and bounds better than Scholes. IT'S AN UNDENIABLE FACT. Yet you have the nerve to use this nonsense "conversion rate" to try to argue for Scholes. If Scholes is ordered to play a more defensive role to make him rank lower than Lampard in offense, tough!!!
You simply have no grip on reality. You try and credit Scholes some sort of unmeasurable, intangible ability ahead of Lampard, which you merely attempt to back up by stating "Watch the games". The problem is that you don't understand that football is a game based on goals. The object is to score more goals than the opposition. If a player contributes more to his team through scoring and making goals, and also helps to prevent the opposition scoring he is outperforming his rival. Any other "facts" that you come up with are merely conjecture. Talking to you is an utter waste of time, and I'm not going to let you ruin another thread with your continued Manchester United agenda. I'm sticking you back on ignore.
Take a look at any of the threads in relation to Lampard versus Gerrard (versus Scholes) to see what I have stated in action. Chelsea fans are far, far more defensive and biased towards Lampard than Liverpool or Man Utd fans are to their respective players. Even you are guilty of it to some degree, although you are probably the most impartial Chelsea fan that contributes to these discussions. What I have posted has been fully backed up on numerous occasions, so it is the truth. I also disagree with the opinion cop-out that most try to use in discussions of this nature. I would also like to note that my initial disagreement was over the laughable claim that Scholes has never had a season as good as Lampard. I, like many others, disagree with Lampard being placed so highly but that was not what I was discussing. It was comme who started the subsequent comparison between their respective games. I read your post but rather than splice it I'll make a general point instead. Lampard is an attacking central midfielder. Consider the individual components that a player of that nature requires and then contrast Lampard to the rest of the league in terms of each component. Outside of his movement into scoring positions, shooting (regardless of accuracy) and taking set-pieces, all of which he does to a very high level, I don't think he makes the top half of the list for anything else. That's not to say that he is not very good at what he does, simply that the rest of his game is limited. It's a point even comme made previously. The best method to highlight this is to look at his record for England. I can count the number of very good performances on one hand. He has scored goals but his overall performances have been lacking. So much so that when he does not score he is almost invisible. That's not a slight on Lampard because it has a lot to do the differnce in role and system between club and country. Anyway, as a Liverpool fan previously said... Let's stop ruining a thread with this crap discussion and move on to the next position. There is far too much stupidity and ignorance in that post for me to even bother responding. It's certainly does not merit further response in this thread. It is an official stat and there are countless more. If you are not aware that there are several professional companies compiling official stats for the Premiership then you really need to do your reseach before posting again. If we wish to debate the named players in detail then go to one of the relevant threads where all of the details have been posted and analysed. This thread is not the place, despite comme starting this discussion. The rest of your post is an irrelevance because it is based from a purely statistical perspective that shows no knowledge of the actual game or the intricacies involved. It is precisely the point I made previously. You cannot simply look at goals scored and then claim that player x is better than player y. It does not work like that and to do so highlights the ignorance of the person involved. That is exactly what people are guilty of doing in relation to Lampard and his scoring record. We need to consider all of the relevant factors. It is something that fans of Lampard refuse to do for obvious reasons. The expected response. The fact remains that you made an ignorant statement that you were incapable of backing up. You can attempt to mount a spirited attack on me and then run off to your ignorance list but it does not change what you did. If you cannot handle constructive criticism then you should not have asked for it, embarked on this thread or started the discussion in relation to their respective games. I maintain that Scholes has clearly had better seasons than Lampard, even when only ignorantly considering goals. You were clearly wrong, now be man enough to admit it. That is the last I shall say at this point because I don't want you continuing to ruin a good thread.
The official site of the Premiership is: http: //www.premierleague.com The stat page of that site is http://www.premierleague.com/page/Statistics/0,,12306,00.html Go ahead and pull down on the menu on the "player" side. Where is "shot taken"? You think you can get away with such a stupid lie here? Where is it published in their official site? If are you not aware that I won't let you off the hook if you fail to cite the source, you would be in a big surprise. Before we do that, cite the Premier League's site posting the ranking of the players on shot taken, and if possible, on "conversion rate". This thread is a place to catch someone's lie: using smoke and mirror as official stat to support an argument "player X is not a better goal-scorer than player Y". Remember, this is about better goal scorer, not better player. "but goal-scoring is meaningless, I am talking better player overall", you say? "better player overall is meaningless, I am only interested in picking apart your argument regarding goal-scoring", I respond. The intricacies is that you have NO WAY, I repeat, ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, to argue for Scholes as far as goal-scoring merits is concerned. By introducing a phantom criteria (conversion rate) with nothing to back up, you are cooked. Let's see, where did I claim that player x is better than player y? I am picking apart your supporting argument (conversion rate) that player x is a better goal-scorer than player y? Yep, the ignorance is that when everything fails in the area of "goal scoring" merits, then change the context: "we are not talking about goal scoring, we are talking about who's a better player"? My argument is not about who's the better player, but who's the better goal scorer, but given that you already lost in that count, why not change the context? I am picking apart your argument against Lampard regarding goal-scoring, not any other relevant factors. As long as you admit that Lampard is a better scorer than Scholes, no ifs or buts, no "conversion rate" rubbish, I'll let you off the hook. Deal? I won't bet on it...
Honestly guys, let's wrap it up. The point has been done to death and even the opponents of Lampard have stated his obvious qualities. There's no ill-natured bias here. I think that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard ALL ave limitations as players. And, they ALL play different styles. It's very hard to correctly compare ALL three in some universal context. Moving on...
It seemed that fitness, stamina and pace has been strongly emphasised in this documentary. Aside from the balls being different to control in certain conditions, did it mention anything about how the players ability and skills on the ball?
Scholes has probably been more consistent than Hoddle was, he has also played his entire career in England which benefits him. Hoddle had such a glorious spell in France, which obviously isn't counted in these lists.
it highlighted that technically players are much better in the modern era. it showed a clip of the '57 final where a player nutmegs another and in those days that was highlight reel material. the focus of the game in the '57 final was not time and possession on the ball. the main idea in england then was get the ball into the opposition's box as quickly as possible (kind of like how we still play in the SPL ). this meant that ball control and skill on the ball wasn't as important as it is now because no teams employed a possession style game. also, the fact that bookings and red cards were virtually non existent would have meant that 'flair players' would probably have had a rather short career judging by the tackles that would have been inflicted on them.
You heard of Opta? Thought not. Actim is what they currently use, although the Actim Index is a bit of a joke. Regardless, the official site never lists everything that has been compiled. It did not do so with Opta and it does not do so with Actim. As this has nothing to do with the thread then send me a PM if you wish to continue.
Ever heard of "official"? obviously not. So you have nothing to back you up. I am not interested in PM. If you have nerve, cite it in public to prove that you aren't lying. Give the URL, or admit that you make things up to back up your argument for Scholes. And how isn't it related to this thread when I smashed you supporting argument against Lampard to pieces? Quick, what's Scholes "shots taken" last season as recognized officially by the Premiership? what's Lampard's? You have been wimping out since I asked you. I suggest you make up something like "Scholes took 20 shots last season and Lampard took 107, and it's not listed in anything official from the Premiership. You just have to believe me"
Honestly, you've had your say. And, OPTA stats are official stats, but they don't release all of them publicly. Unless, I'm a really bad web-searcher. ::shrug::
Any data not released publicly is just Teso's hearsay. I mean, he has yet to back up this claim on the conversion rate using any publicly available information... After he shows us this publicly available information, I'll then tell you why he has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to calculate the conversion rate from the ACTIM/Opta raw data...
It's not that hard to get statistics... Last year... Scholes scored one goal in every 6 shots. 9 shots out of 14 were on target. Lampard scored one in every 10 shots. 10 out of every 25 shots were on target. ACTIM Index, Supplied by Soccernet.com
It sure is, because you are not using official stats. So where did soccernet get the SH (shot taken)? This is from Actim's FAQ (http://www.pa-sport.com/en/actim/actim-stats-faqs.html): What kind of stats are produced? Actim Stats are a collection of team, player and match statistics. They are derived from all the actions that take place during a match, including goals, shots on target, corners, assists, clean sheets, fouls, offsides, passes, tackles, blocks and clearances. The raw data can be used to generate a wide range of tables and statistics such as player profiles, team and player head to heads and form guides. If you use ACTIM as your argument, please tell us where did you get the "shot taken" stats? Can't imagine Soccernet.com, an American site (ESPN's subsidiary) that thrives on stats of individual players, would not use all the stats that ACTIM generated for Lampard and Scholes, including fouls suffered, tackles, blocks and clearances. "But ACTIM only said 'including', they didn't say that's all they collect", you say? SHOT TAKEN is the stat with the most volume among all the stats, more than saves, shots on target, fouls, etc. If ACTIM collects it, can't imagine they don't include it as one of the raw data they produce...