---------------Robinson--------------- Richardson--Terry--Ferdinand----ACole --------Hargreaves---Carrick/Barry---- ------Gerrard---Lampard----JCole------ ----------------Owen-----------------
Why would you totally transform a winning formula? Heskey def deserves to start and im not sure about Owen up front by himself. If it aint broke, dont fix it.
I agree plus Rooney will come back I would just like to see it. And Iam glad Heskey is doing well because I am tired of seeing Crouch
garethchelsea is english your first language? you have worse grammar and syntax than me but it's no suprise as your a chavski fan
I think Lmapard is more clincal than Gerrard, though Gerrard is pretty clincal. Gerrard though has a better long shot, though Lmapard has a pretty fine long shot himself.
So clinical in fact that he shanked, skyed, and flat out missed sitters one after another in World Cup 06.. The fact is Barry has played well enough to earn the starting role in midfield. Whether he is better or not is not for me to judge. I do know he has brought an added amount of energy and presence in the midfield, and he actually knows how to track back, hustle, and play defense, along with doing all the other things on the offensive end.
I was highly impressed with Barry during the last two England games. He did the simple things well like actually being able to pass the ball and keep possesion (a big thing for an England player). He definetly deserves to keep his place in the team for the next game. The big test will come when we play a harder game. Russia away should be a good judge of his skills.
OK, he had a bad WC 06, but if you look at his overall play, The only othe midfielder I can think of who is a clincial as Lampard is Totti. All players go through patches of bad form. 'Course Barry is much better defensive player, he has afetr all played as a centre-back for England. Tbh right now I do favour a Barry-Gerrard combination in the centre, but that's no need to slate Lampard - he's a quality player.
Whether he is a better player or not is of no concern. The issue is which is the best team, and on recent evidence Barry and Gerrard works better than Lampard and Gerrard.
I think it should be noted that Lampard plays primarily in a diamond shaped midfield at Chelsea where in the England system he is asked to play in a more traditional 4-4-2. I think this is what lead to us seeing him play a bit to far up in the past, crowding the box and not really getting back. IMO Lampard's instinctive positioning from playing in Chelsea's diamond has thus lead him to play out of position in England's 4-4-2.
To be onist i have no idea why Mclaren says he has a difficult decision to make for the midfield it's easy. the centre of midfield should be filled by gerrard and barry because gerrard and barry are good friends off the pitch and work well on it they work alot better then gerrard and lampard. barry and gerrard in the starting line-up and lampard or hargreaves on the bench. lampard had a terrible world cup and never lives up to the hype i don't think he is anywhere near as good as gerrard. in the top 100 world footballers list gerrard was number 6 and lampard was 25 i think that says it all gerrard is a class above lampard and shouldn't be hard for Mclaren to say that unless hes too scared. and i don't think the fact that he plays diamond at chelsea has anything to do with th fact he does perform for england if he is as goos as everyones says he is he should be able to adjust to be a world class player which he obviously isn't therefore gerrard should always start a head of lampard and never play with him unless we are despirate and have no other alternative.
To be honest I've always though comparing Lampard to Gerrard was laughable, and only Chelsea fans did it. Barry is one of the most underrated midfielders in the Premiership and it is laughable that Dyer got into repeated squads and Barry missed out. I'd go for Barry, even with Lampard fully fit, and I think Lampard would be behind Owen Hargreaves as well. I don't say he isn't very good, but then I think that Barry has suffered from not playing for the big four. The current climate where those coming in have to make instant and massive waves to be kept and it has been a joke. How can you make an impact off the bench in friendlies? Especially given that his performances in the last three years or more for Aston Villa have been ignored.
MWAHAHAHA!! If by the parts of your post that I could actually read you are insinuating that Lampard is better than Gerrard, before qualifiying it with Bridge is better than Cole, I take my hat off to you. It was a great joke.
garethchelsea - dont agree with you on the Lampard v Gerrard issue but I do agree regarding Ashley Cole and Bridge. Cole is definitely not the player he was, totally over-rated by the media, whereas Bridge is under-rated by most.
For Me It Lets compare Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard recent success Frank Lampard 06/07 23goals and 16assists Steven Gerrard 06/07 14goals and 10assists Frank lampard 05/06 20goals and 10assists Steven Gerrard 05/06 23goals 11assists Frank Lampard 04/05 23goals and 16assists Steven Gerrard 04/05 14goals and 5assists Frank Lampard 03/04 16goals and 7assists Steven Gerrard 03/04 8goals and 7assists Frank Lampard 02/03 8goals and 2assists Steven Gerrard 02/03 7goals and 8assists And For NT:- Frank Lampard 56appearances and 13goals Steven Gerrard 59appearances and 12goals Totals: - includes club and country Frank Lampard 93goals and 51assists Steven Gerrard 78goals and 41assists and Gerrard has had a hundred more appearances than Lampard, Literally!! Steven Gerrards best season to date = 05/06 23goals and 11assists Frank Lampards best season to date = 04/05 23goals and 16assists 07/08 steven gerrard 1goal and 0assist 07/08 Frank Lampard 4goals and 1assist In my opinion:- Steven Gerrard is a spectacular player and obviously is one of the top players in the world, But just look at this season as an example, While Gerrard has been playing Liverpool did'nt lose one single match but guess what? Even when Gerrard is not playing they still win matches meaning they don't need Gerrard as much as Liverpool fans think(6-0thrashing of Derby without Stevie). And look at Chelsea this season, Lampard is their top goalscorer, As soon as he got injured Chelsea havent won a single match, So how can the other fans use the 'He's surrounded by better players' excuse, Lampard has been scoring around 20goals a season on average and roughly 10assists a season and all from the midfield!!! I would rather Lampard in ManU(i'm a ManU fan)But atm I would prefer Fabragas to both of them Ladies and Gentlemen the winner is ....(drum roll)... FRANK LAMPARD. Game, Set, And match. Liverpool or should i say liverpoo fans are blindly defending Gerrard because he has had 5or6 amazing games in his career but his career as a whole, Is nothing special. He turns up to 10games out of the 40something games a season and hardly ever in the premiership. In a word, Underachieving Drop Gerrard and make it Lampard attacking and Hargreaves holding! Also I've been a die hard ManU fan my whole life so Liverpoo fans don't rip out the 'well only chelsea fans would say that'
Yp, I do hink Gerradr is the bettr playter, basicaly he brought Liverpool from 3-0 to 3-3 in the European Cup fianl almost single-handedly. But why doe sveryone need to be so down on Lampard? Undoubtelty he is and has been for a long time Chelsea's most important midfielder, desipite being surrounded by players like Makelee, Essein, Robben, etc. In terms of goal scoring AM's I'd say only Totti is better at the moment. Basically lampard is a world class player, yes it might be betrr fior England if he isn't an automatic starter, but there's still no need to slag him off.
Once again, this thread has turned into a Lampard/Gerrard, and club team debate.. Most of the posters that are regulars in this forum already know who performs better for England between the 2, because they actually watch the games, and don't post crap just for the sake of arguing..
Lampard and Gerrard are both great players and it's hard to choose the better of the two ... is it possible that young Michael Carrick could surpass both of them??? He is starting to find form with United and if he finishes his carrer strongly (as well as a good performance at WC2010) who do you think everyone will be talking about? Then again we must remind poor old England that the game is played on blades of grass, not paper, and more than big names are needed for success (mind my aussie humor ) but what are the thoughts on carrick????
i'm going to stay away from the lampard/gerrard debate because 1) it's old and 2) it will never end. as for carrick, while he is still young, he's not that young anymore. and it's hard to compare him to gerrard and lampard since he plays differently than them. but no, i don't believe he'll be better than them.
Rien n'a changé, eh? Or is it, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"? I mean this was meant to be a comparison between Barry and Lampard, a superfluous exercise in itself, but has quickly become Gerrard v Lampard. Yawn.