Well Lineker was rather self-deprecating but I think even he would admit that he was principally a penalty box striker. That's not to say that he he didn't do anything else and as you say, stretching defences is of value, but he wasn't like an Ian Rush or Mark Hughes who pressed from the front and really worked hard for his side. If an English midfielder was in the style then it was probably David Platt rather than Lampard. In terms of the stats, sadly I can't find a huge amount more but apparently he was Opta's player of the year in 2004-5 and 2005-6: http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/forums/showthread.php?p=969665
I think there is an element of truth to that. At the same time I think he played a lot of his career as a central midfielder and it is very difficult to accommodate something like that in that position. It's one thing to afford that sort of luxury player in a more attacking role but another to use them in a midfield pivot. And I think maybe that is why he probably played the best football of his career as an auxiliary forward in 2008-9, because he was freed from the responsibilities of having to think defensively. In contrast I don't think Lampard was as effective higher up the pitch than slightly deeper as it took away some of his element of surprise and movement.
That is all interesting. What was the Cruyff quote on Gerrard out of interest? I think Lampard is also held back by the fact that he left West Ham (who have an unusually high profile among London based journalists - Martin Samuel, Jacob Steinberg, Lee Clayton, Rob Dillon) to join a club which for many embodied the invasion of foreign money. Maybe that is reading too much into it (Samuel for instance has always raved about Lampard) but I do wonder. He should be a West Ham hero but he is despised there. Also Lampard has an unusual background. Going to a private school, having a high mensa score and a GCSE in Latin all make him a natural outsider to the traditional English "football man". But then his dad played for England, his uncle is Harry Redknapp (the definitive "football man") and his cousin was a prominent England international who is also one of the leading broadcasters for Sky. Regardless I agree about Gerrard and it muddies the waters in trying to get an accurate picture. Scholes is another whose legacy is hard to properly assess due to all the revisionism that has subsequently taken place about his career. He is also another one who has a legion of fans among very prominent sections of the media (Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand). Edit: Also Lampard took what he had and made himself great. Strangely that doesn't help him because we tend to like players who are "naturally" great. I don't think anybody would have thought when he was at West Ham that Lampard couldn finish second in the Ballon d'Or. There is the old footage of Redknapp defending him and saying he would go "right to the top of the game" but I don't think even he would have imagined how good he would become. Witness the "fat Frank" comments that followed him throughout his career. In contrast it was clear from the outset how good Gerrard was. He was a prodigy from an early age.
Do you mean my byline "His quote about the 2001 UEFA Cup final is also famous." ? The first paragraph is famous and often-repeated. "Liverpool are just like Bayern Munich. They're all about name, wealth and prestige but, in football terms, we're talking about two horrible teams. You might think I'm exaggerating but in my opinion a team are horrible if they are incapable of stringing three passes together." "Leeds are another story. They've met Barcelona, AC Milan, Deportivo La Coruna and Real Madrid and survived. Technically they're not my cup of tea but I like one thing about them and I like it very much - their attitude. They're always positive, they run and battle and they believe in themselves. Like all English teams, if you give them the ball they will make you dance the way they want. They'll hit the long balls, hump in the crosses and exploit the corners." I thought the first (famous) paragraph symbolizes the general stance to Gerrard. The second paragraph (not 'famous') actually symbolizes the charm he might evoke. Gary McAllister (b. 25 December 1964) did not seem to mind: "I scored, had a hand in the winner and was given the man of the match award by one of my heroes, Johan Cruyff" He said about a year ago to FFT. Of course, as always, the basic Ockham's razor recipe he preached was always to not give the ball away and "allow them to make a pinball machine of the match". During the Rijkaard era: "But the last time I saw Liverpool playing, I have to say that with [Dirk] Kuyt and [Peter] Crouch up front, they played some excellent stuff. And in the air nobody wins anything against them. The two of them form an enormously good partnership. Crouch is better technically than folk think and Kuyt is good in positional play." "The Barcelona trademark is a high-speed game which could break down the Liverpool lines. Then the middle line, with dangerous men like Steven Gerrard, cannot link up with Kuyt or Crouch. By doing that you take the sting out of the English." McAllister was a nice player by the way... You wonder what has happened with Scotland and Scottish football. Probably destroyed by the vastly superior money (factor x10) elsewhere. Yes I've heard very often too that he was a prodigy. Gerrard was 'merely' a right-back as a youth player and during his debut season wasn't he? How does that fit? Interesting that both were born in 'difficult' months (May and June respectively).
Scholes was somehow always liked here, with virtually zero criticism (ofc there were matches where he did little). Remember that famous Portsmouth match of 2008? Especially in the first half he was seen as the best player on the field. There is also a Frank de Boer comment of 2000 where he says Scholes is as good as Gullit. During euro2000 a lot of praise for Scholes, even on BBC by Dutch guest pundits. Don't know why but he did not divide opinions. Only that he wasn't always notable and visibly present.
In England Scholes was always seen as being the 4th best of United's midfield, with each of Keane, Giggs and Beckham having some clear qualities which made them viable candidates to being the best. Then, sometime after his international retirement and after his return from his eye problems, he started to gain prominence. In fairness to him he did play well after that point and he adapted his game to playing a deeper role but I always felt he got a lot of credit for just not being there when England's "golden generation" failed. Lampard and Gerrard got a kicking for being built up by the media and then not delivering what was hoped for. The fact that Scholes had played 4 major tournaments himself and never got past the quarter-finals was forgotten. People started to think that an error was made in marginalising him, when the reality is that he chose to retire because he was played out of position. That's his choice but Gerrard was played on the left-wing by Capello and Lampard was dropped by McLaren but they never turned their back on England. At the same time some mythology has been built up about Scholes, supported by various quotes from assorted greats which may or may not be genuine. My problem with all of these is that if Scholes was so good, why was he never recognised as such at any point during his career by his peers, managers or pundits. Why was Scholes only once nominated for the Ballon d'Or (getting no votes)? Why did he never make the ESM team of the year? Why was he never Manchester United's player of the year, let alone the PFA or FWA player of the year? If he was so great, how come that isn't borne out in anything to support it? Edit: Certainly I think he is impacted by never being the "emblem" of the club. If Liverpool or Chelsea failed then the first person to blame is Gerrard or Lampard. Scholes was never that, never had so much weight placed on his contribution or so much expectation surrounding him.
That is interesting, I hadn't heard that quote. I think he mainly played in midfield but was versatile to play anywhere and his energy/drive made him seem a natural defensive player. But when I say prodigy I don't necessarily mean a player like Michael Owen, Wayne Rooney or Joe Cole who were being heavily hyped before they even made their debut. It was more that as soon as he appeared in professional football he clearly had a big future and was fast tracked into the full England side, going to Euro 2000 having only just turned 20. Lampard in contrast (like Carragher) spent a huge amount of time with the U21s and only really established himself as an international in the 2003-4 season.
Yes definitely. Do you have maybe the BBC DVDs of euro2000? I don't but from old newspapers I know that e.g. Gullit (and JC was pundit there too?) were mightily positive about Scholes. Something that has also helped him is that goal in the 2008 CL semi final. One of the things the commentator here said (and I checked it to be sure) "and the player who might fit well into Barcelona is on the brink of knocking them out". Which is another thing: despite being 4 and 6 years older than Lampard and Gerrard, he was perceived as more 'modern' or a player for the connoisseur. Like Gerrard, he had also that local working class boy aura although with less charisma and seen as 'shy' (on the field: unnecessary yellow cards and reds - but at least he faced the due punishment instead of being protected). The charming asthma background story too. Now I think of it, maybe Lampard hasn't such charming background story as Gerrard and Scholes. There is a case to be made that Scholes was very underrated and ridiculously overlooked around 2003 (in a different role). He was a major aid for RvN his best or second best club season there in Manchester. Either way, I think Scholes fits best for an 'HM' while Lampard/Gerrard are candidates for 'top'. edit: Scholes his 2008 semi final goal is remembered because Manchester United won the trophy. Lampard's three semi final + final goals (including one penalty goal) are forgotten because Chelsea didn't win or didn't progress.
After a brief search I found something (back), although I broadly agree with your theory that him not being the 'emblem' or 'symbol' (of the midfield) helped for invisibility not resulting into divided opinions. ESPN and Daily Mail http://www.espnfc.com/england/news/2001/0814/20010814engscholesmufc.html https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77202117.html (this is August 2001 - needles to say there's hardly a level beyond that) http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/i-like-scholes-a-long-time-already-1.284390 This is broadly also how I remember it domestically and have seen it again. With a few above mentioned factors as a help, although then this is perhaps very much a handicap: "Roy Keane once highlighted that Scholes did not like the "celebrity bullshit" side of professional sports." (having recently seen how Ian Wright vs Bergkamp panned out in 1997, it is not something that should be totally dismissed). Whether that is enough to outweigh the fact of ManUnited as best supported club, or the avalanche of quotes by the greats; probably not.
Maybe this is funny to see; Interestingly Redknapp picks Scholes in his ideal midfield of the later EPL years, and not Lampard (or Keane). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...e-XI-modern-era-alongside-Steven-Gerrard.html
There's more of where that came from: Btw: Inter were only Serie A champions after Juve and Milan were disqualified. Gerrard was not exactly surrounded by world class talented either. http://m.imgur.com/srfKKRK I mean we basically had 11 world class players on the pitch, and were up against a team with one world class player (Gerrard), one future world class player (Xabi Alonso), and the rest of the team was basically either solid or average. In my honest opinion, I agree that Riquelme was more talented than Gerrard, but he also came with a lot of baggage. By the age of 28 (when you'd expect him to hit his prime) he fell out with Villarreal and went back to Argentina. He could have achieved so much more if he had the discipline and work ethic of Gerrard. I believe that he had a ceiling as high as Xavi or Iniesta, and that's saying something. Gerrard himself rarely got the admiration Totti received for being loyal to one club, when he easily could have joined a better team and won more trophies.
maybe thats just a difference in national media. I'm sure the Italian media praise Totti. The English media loves Gerrard as well.
comparing gerrard's liverpool 2004-2005 with riquelme's villarreal 2005-2006, i will take gerrard's team, better than riquelme's villarreal conclusion, gerrard had better teammates than riquelme, meaning gerrard had an easy task than what riquelme had Gerrard's Liverpool 2004-2005 Goalkeeper 20 Scott Carson 1 Jerzy Dudek 40 Paul Harrison 22 Chris Kirkland 29 Patrice Luzi Defender 23 Jamie Carragher 3 Steve Finnan 4 Sami Hyypiä 17 Josemi 12 Mauricio Pellegrino 31 Dave Raven 6 John Arne Riise 21 Djimi Traoré 37 Zak Whitbread Midfielder 25 Igor Bišćan 8 Steven Gerrard 16 Dietmar Hamann 7 Harry Kewell 18 Núñez 26 Richie Partridge 34 Darren Potter 11 Vladimír Šmicer 41 Mark Smyth 35 Stephen Warnock 32 John Welsh 14 Xabi Alonso Forward 5 Milan Baroš 9 Djibril Cissé 15 Peter Crouch 13 Anthony Le Tallec 10 Luis García 33 Neil Mellor 19 Morientes 24 Florent Sinama-Pongolle Riquelme's Villarreal 2005-2006 Goalkeeper 25 Mariano Barbosa 31 Juan Carlos 1 López Vallejo 13 Sebastián Viera Defender 30 Alcántara 3 Rodolfo Arruabarrena 4 Arzo 2 Gonzalo Rodríguez 17 Javi Venta 24 Josemi 36 Óscar López 22 Juan Peña 16 Quique Álvarez 12 Juan Sorín Midfielder 11 Calleja 14 Héctor Font 32 Javi Rubio 6 Josico 19 Marcos Senna 27 Marquitos 8 Román Riquelme 10 Roger 21 Santi Cazorla 18 Alessio Tacchinardi Forward 5 Diego Forlán 9 Guillermo Franco 7 Guayre 23 José Mari 26 Xisco Nadal
Both are comparable in the sense of playing for sub-par clubs (Liverpool has a much higher profile though) but for prominent countries. Some countries are only politically prominent (Uruguay - and there are reasons why that is), others financially (the 'new world') but Italy and England are both. If a young Totti does something, or a young Gerrard scores against Crystal Palace calibre of opposition then the media, administrators and sponsors make sure the shot is heard around the world. Both have received plenty of media attention, arguably also at moments they did not deserve it for their individual performance. It is of course always possible to nitpick (both CR7 and LM10 their record against English opposition was until recently not that spectacular; LM10 his consistent no-show against the senior Brazil NT) but nevertheless; Totti his record against variable Internazionale quality in the Serie A is 36 games and 11 goals (with 5 penalties) - and he was more or less always the go-to guy. Totti his record against AC Milan in the Serie A is 37 games and 8 goals (with 2 penalties). Totti his record against Juventus in the Serie A is 33 games and 9 goals (with 5 penalties). In the Ballon d'Or Gerrard 'wins' hands down, which might be or might not be the accurate call. Totti his best finishes took all place in the 00s and that was 5th, 10th, 14th and 18th. Gerrard his best finishes are 3rd, 10th, 10th, 13th and 25th. I certainly think that Totti his 'big game' performances in the Champions League dried up after 2003. Totti is occasionally highlighted as a 'big game flop' while Gerrard has become the ultimate big game player, and while that is both an exaggeration, I do think Totti would lose the comparison comfortably. Also important to highlight: Totti won at club level three trophies. He won two Coppa Italias while in one of them he did not play (in 2008). The pinnacle is the league title of 2000-01, and it must be noted that AS Roma did not become implicated in the Calciopoli scandal (unlike every other winner between 1995 and 2006). Juventus was cheating in Rome with drugs and referees - breaking the rules they themselves designed and covering it up - right under their nose. But it is highly debatable whether he was Roma's best (creative) player in that campaign and the team was as good as any Liverpool team Gerrard played for. Then there were also missed chances such as the 2010 Coppa Italia where Totti committed a blatantly stupid 'foul' and was deservedly red carded. Considering that AS Roma doesn't get many opportunities it was an inexcusable act of madness. On the other hand, Totti would fit better into 'star teams' as somewhat proven in the 2000-01 campaign itself and possibly the national team performances (2000, 2002 and 2006 considering the circumstances). Here is by the way a problem with Pirlo (who I place a level higher than Totti): he did not cover himself in glory in 2004, 2008, 2010 and 2014.
Yeah, he's very opinionated, maybe one of the most opinionated people I know on Twitter, but he posts some interesting stuff. Certainly very good at generating debate.
I still believe Pirlo, Xavi and Iniesta were the top three midfielders of the last generation. Gerrard was indeed an excellent all-round midfielder, an incredibly dynamic midfielder with amazing work rate. In terms of pure individual ability, I don't think there is much difference between Gerrard and the top three despite the ways they play and their technical attributes were very different, and the ways how they influence the teams were very different. But what usually determines the status of a player isn't only his individual ability, but also how a player incorporates himself into a team to exert his tactical influence to achieve titles/to push his limit against the big teams under various circumstances. To compare with the top three, you really need to achieve something at the national team level, or at least have some memorable performance against the big teams IN pretty much EACH MAJOR TOURNAMENT over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN YOUR CAREER to show your tactical influence and individual ability. At the club level, Gerrard did have many memorable performance across the years(For example, 04/05 UCL Final 3-3 AC Milan, 07-08 Liverpool 4-2 Arsenal, 08-09 Liverpool 2-0 Inter, 08-09 Liverpool 4-4 Chelsea), but still consider the teammates surrounded him, I believe he should have done more. At the club level, if people say that the 2004/05 Liverpool's line up was significantly weaker than AC Milan, then from 06-09, the line up that Liverpool had, Torres and Kuyt in the forward, Gerrard, Alonso and Mascherano in the middle, Hyppia and Carragher at the back wasn't weak at all(In my opinion, considering that all of these players were at the prime at that time, I would rate the lineup even slightly above 06/07 AC Milan). However, given such a great team, failing to achieve yet a single league title and champions league is indeed something that needs to be questioned(Given the standard of AC Milan 02-07, Man United 07-09, Barcelona 2008-11). At the England national team, Gerrard was surrounded by Rooney and Owen in the forward, Joe Cole and Beckham on the side, Lampard, Scholes(prior to 06), Carrick in the middle, Terry, Ferdinand and Ashley Cole at the back for years and he was always regarded as one of the core players in the team, yet failing to reach even one Semi-Final is indeed unsatisfactory.
In 2004 he did not start the opening game. Trapatonni made the mistake of not building the team around Pirlo and Gattuso in 2004. Lippi did in 2006 and they won the World Cup. From 2002/03 to 2006/07 Pirlo-Gattuso was the best midfield duo in the world. Pirlo was injured in 2010 In 2014 he was old and past his prime, but still MOTM against England, and he created two clear chances for Balotelli against Costa Rica.
That was what I was trying to point out the other day. Italy was fundamentally the same in WC 2002 and Euro 2004(Team structure and style of play). In both the WC2002 and Euro 2004, Trapatonni relied too much on their pure defensive strength(even using two pure defensive DMs(C.Zanetti, Perrota, Tommasi, Gattuso in the holding role) and in attack, they relied too much on the creativity of the single attacking midfielder Totti(Cassano), and the aerial strength of Vieri. As a result, you couldn't see any flow or movement of the ball in the Centre, and the build-up from the centre was severely lacking. With the introduction of Pirlo in WC2006, he fundamentally changed the way how Italy used to play by starting the build-up from the back and driving the team forward by “pass-move and pass-move” and you see much more flow and movement of the ball in the middle. Although, Totti's role at WC2006 was deemphasized relative to WC 2002 and Euro 2004 with the introduction of Pirlo, Italy was able to play with much more organization and fludity since finally they had someone who could dictate the tempo and distribute the ball in the centre. Also, because Pirlo was at his prime at that time, with the help of a likewise prime Gattuso, Pirlo was not only superb offensively in orchastrating attacks but also defensively he wasn't a liability, either.
It's a little bit difficult to argue Pirlo vs Gerrard for me since I do rate Pirlo an inch higher but not a category higher. To argue Gerrard's case can make it seem as if I'm putting down Pirlo while I think Pirlo as slightly but not clear-cut significantly ahead. Pirlo was there in 2004 when Italy exited in the first round. He did not start the first game (0-0 vs Denmark) but in the 2nd game the Del Piero - Totti tandem was dropped and both Gattuso and Pirlo started (1-1 vs Sweden). In the last game Gattuso was suspended and Italy won 2-1. To argue the significance of Gattuso feels to me like an argument in favor of Gerrard's set of qualities and abilities. They won in 2006 yes, but the Australia match signified very much the moment where it could have ended like 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2010 (in 2010 he played the do-or-die match). Maybe it was just now their turn to be lucky in 2006 after the orchestrated outrage in 2002 (Byron Moreno) and 2004 (the Scandinavian pact). Regardless, it is a difficult proposition to argue. The only thing I can unequivocally say is that it is 'poor' to rank contemporaries based on team trophies, finals and those things (although when combined with 'end product' it can signal individual consistency). Examples are the aforementioned cases of Matthaus vs Maradona; Baggio vs contemporaries; Ronaldo Luis vs contemporaries. This is true as well for team sports with fewer players (5 players per team). Gerrard was one of the most inspirational figures of the last decade, and so far he has also acted like it. Both are a level ahead of Totti (checked Totti's GI rating and unsurprisingly it is unambiguously and significantly lower than Gerrard's). Let 11 Gerrard's play against 11 Pirlo's and the cannonballs are flying around the ears of the latter, and with him grasping for breath after 45 minutes. I mean, did Pirlo belong among the best of his team in the 2003 and 2007 CL final? (I don't want to involve him but I saw PDG remarking that Pirlo made a number of 'mistakes' in the 2007 final and that was also my impression, and I also cited the Gazzetta ratings and ideal team in that respect). There are also traits working in Pirlo's favor and that's why I tend to place him slightly ahead of Gerrard but not a complete tier - recognition as the Ballon d'Or votes are far from perfect but it backs it up.
What do you think about Scholes vs Luka Modric in terms of 'awards' and recognitions? Has Modric a clear upper hand there? A few of Modric his midfield peers will end up with more and higher BdO rankings for ex. Team mate Kroos is younger but take him as a comparison. There are many who rate Modric highly, and maybe even the most impactful player for Madrid (the last 'clasico' as example). Maybe you have missed my question but do you know what's on the euro 2000 BBC DVD's?
He tried a nutmeg which failed and the ball went out of bounds. Mascherano intercepted his pass His pass hit the referee Other than that I see no obvious mistakes overs 90 minutes. A few ambitious long balls which his teammates didn't get to but I'd hardly classify those as mistakes. If one classifies Pirlo's 2007 final as error prone, surely Gerrard's game against United in 2009 which you posted cannot be described as a great game. Rather look at the good effects Pirlo had on the game. His freekick indirectly caused the first goal, and he sent Kaka through 1 on 1 had Inzaghi not been offside.
Let's maybe see in a few years time. Modric's style is well suited to see him prosper for another few years yet. He is probably underrepresented in terms of awards but is latterly starting to get some recognition with a few Ballon d'Or nomination last year, appearances in the FIFPro XI, the UEFA team of the year and LFP awards as the best midfielder. He has probably got a slightly harder task with a "lesser" national team and a league in which it is harder to win awards given the presence of Messi and Ronaldo. I don't know I'm sorry. Are they recordings of the broadcasts at the time or something more?
Yes I agree. Well it made me wonder what Gullit and JC14 might have said there, and they're always in for some laughing entertainment (Gullit not always backing off, as he recently did with Rooney). Maybe I buy it myself also because I like the tournament very much. I think I can track on which games they were present. But if it is only the matches that is on there then it is a waste of money.