i disagree with u about gerrard i believe he is a better player than hargreves. gerranrd can tackle better and score more goals than gerrard he is also a hell of alot more creative than hargreaves. gearrard can play the holding role or play the more advanced role, u say that scholes is better than gerrard because he scores more goals i believe that if gerrard was playing the more attacking role that scholes play then he would have just as many goals. goth gerrard and scholes can score goals for fun from outside the area if u remember from about 3 years ago every week on match of the day one of them had scored an amazing goal from outside the area. scholes form has not been the best recently and it may be time to give someone else a try in the middle of the park if only to give scholes a kick up the butt so that he doesnt take his position in the team for granted. i dont think hargreaves should start in the england team yet he definatly should be in the squad. however
I like how they refer to him by his first name, Owen, to make it appear as though a star player is injured. Typical of the British media to mislead with attention-grabbing headlines. All that aside, it does kind of put the kybosh on the Hargreaves-Gerrard debate. How about J. Cole over Paul Scholes for a new one?
Wildman. I am glad you have found some friends. I hope that you can keep them. Guys - Matt can be a bit harsh at times - but once you have been around this board for any time at all, you will understand why there is not much patience for Wildman90210, the gloryhunter (check out his "favorite teams") who likes to pop onto the Liverpool boards and say that he kinda thinks Michael Owen is washed up (at the age of 23) or that Steven Gerrard is worse than Owen Hargreaves as a defensive/central midfielder because he does not have the strike rate of Paul Scholes, or that Paul Scholes is a better bet for England because in the pre SGE-era he really did light it up for England. Unfortunately, the system SGE employs is never going to be suitable for a player with Scholes set of skills. As long as SGE is in charge of things, the goalscorers on the team are going to be: 1) Michael Owen, 2) Michael Owen, 3) David Beckham (pks and freekicks) 4) St. Mike's second banana (Roonaldo or Vassell or (gasp) Heskey), 5) a central defender (off of a corner kick) and once in a blue moon 6) a wonder goal from a midfielder (Lampard and Gerrard). If you don't think that I am right, take a gander at all of the results since SGE has come on as National Team manager: http://www.englandfc.com/nostal/yrbyyr/2000_2004.html At this rate, its not going to be a question of who plays central midfield. The pairing is going to be SGE's future center midfielder (once he joins Chelsea) Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard. Then it will be a matter of who else makes the team. Scholes, Hargreaves, Butt, Cole, Dunn, etc will all be in the mix. I am not saying this is right, but it should come as no surprise given Lampard's form and SGE's predelictions. By the way, Gerrard has chipped in a goal for the national team each of the last three years. David Beckham (thanks be to free kicks and penalties) is the only other England midfielder who can make such a claim. Luminaries such as Gareth Southgate, Sol Campball, Frank Lampard, Danny Murphy (we love you Spud), Joe Cole, Rio Ferdinand, Emile Heskey and Robbie Fowler have all scored more goals than Paul Scholes and Owen Hargreaves combined over the last 2.5 years. Don't forget Wildman90210 - scoring goals is a pivotal part of any team's success.
ooooh yeah ,I bet people are really fooled by the title until they look at the next line of the article.. well done ,brainbox. As for the debate... Hargreaves is a useful utility player who can fill a number of roles. He aint in the same class as gerrard though.. cant see why wildman is so obsessed with the subject...abit weird if you ask me.
Steven Gerrard is a superb player and currently the most naturally gifted English midfielder. He can tackle fiercely, read the play offensively and defensively, play a simple ball or pick an inch perfect pass to a runner from over 60 yards away, he has the physical strength and speed to cover the entire midfield or drive forward from deep to finish a move inside or outside the box. Add to that his increasing ability to take defenders on one-vs-one (i.e. in the Turkey game in Istanbul) and he already has the complete package and will only get stronger and more polished with experience. To even compare Hargreaves to him in any capacity is ridiculous, let alone to start saying Hargreaves should play ahead of him at any time. Gerrard would stroll into the Bayern Munich team, no question. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool with an axe to grind. Scholes can fit comfortably with Gerrard, and if push comes to shove out of the two it would be Scholes who would be left out. It's no coincidence that Gerrard has still not lost a game when playing for England. His talent and impact on the team is unquestionable. I'm no Liverpool fan, but even I know they have a major talent there who would succeed at any club in any league in the world.
Well my point was that if you read the next line then they've already got you, anyway it's really a non-issue. Maybe Wildman is Owen Hargreaves.
Sender, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I never said Gerrard was not a fine player. He is among the best that England currently have. However, to suggest that he would stroll into Germany and replace Ballack, is streching his ability a wee bit. Don't you agree?
Ahh the typical troll manouver, your original effort has been shot down so you try and shift your argument from Hargreaves vs Gerrard to Ballack vs Gerrard in the blink of an eye. That's weak mate As to your latest 'point', I would say there's no doubt that even at a significantly younger age Gerrard has more of a versatile game than Ballack. I would say that in the past year Ballack has improved to hit a peak, which is not surprising considering his age (27), and he has had some highly impressive stretches of form in the last World Cup and that Champions League run with Leverkuson. But Ballack is a goalscorer, a highly effective one over the past couple of years, one of the elite in that position in Europe, but he's not a particularly versatile midfield player. He plays in the middle behind the strikers with a ballwinner for company, and occasionally with a playmaker as well if it's a 3-5-2. Anywhere else and he is not as effective. To compare him any more indepth to Gerrard is misleading, they do not play on the same teams and offer different attributes in a game. A more accurate comparison would be between Scholes and Ballack, two attacking midfielders who look to score goals and play in behind the strikers. Out of those two I would usually prefer Scholes, which is no slight at all on Ballack's abilities, just a recognition that Scholes is a top class player with more ability and more of a threat to top class defences. Ballack is best suited for matches against weaker teams where a win is expected and space is freely available, such as Saudi Arabia, USA, Scotland etc..
{{{{{{{{{Out of those two I would usually prefer Scholes, which is no slight at all on Ballack's abilities, just a recognition that Scholes is a top class player with more ability and more of a threat to top class defences. Ballack is best suited for matches against weaker teams where a win is expected and space is freely available, such as Saudi Arabia, USA, Scotland etc..}}}}}}}}}}}} Sendor, as much as I like Scholes for England, I'd prefer Ballack. I think Ballack is the best in world in his position. No sense quibbling. No troll manuever here, just an extension of the dialog.
That's because it is. Sniff, lick, eat, enjoy bitch. No. But there's two things about that - one, Tord Grip (that's his name, file it) would never suggest such a thing because it is ridiculous and both he and SGE know their football and two, if it was YOU that suggested it to him, then the mild-mannered Swede would probably take of his glasses, smooth back what little remains of his hair and kick you in the nuts as hard as he could. It's the effect shit trolls have, you see. With a single-gear delivery, you quickly become a vaccuum, a void, onto which the rational world can project whatever venom they see fit. I guarantee you that Hargreaves will NEVER start ahead of Steven Gerrard in central midfield for England unless Gerrard is injured. And on current form, even then it would be either Lampard or Butt. SGE has not once considered the possibility without first thinking the words 'if all those boys got hurt, then ... ' Reality will prove you wrong yet again, Wilmand. Your incredible record of NEVER having said anything that made ANY sense will be maintained in it's current, unblemished form. That's the difference between a good troll and a bad one. I notice the wounded innocence has been hitched back into place. One-track delivery mate ... you want to work on that. No, we disrespect you. Because even Hargreaves wouldn'y be daft enough to suggest he is better than Gerrard. Or Lampard or Butt, for that matter. But he is a fine player in his own little way. He does wonders in the fifth-best league in Europe. Because he's better at everything. It's not about being open-minded, it's about knowing your shit. No one is arguing this. Tangential probe, but typically ineffective. You ain't got the brains for this, Wildman. There are not many anything midfielders that can. Give or take the last three years, of course. For Manchester United, a better team than England. And Danny Mills is a crap goalkeeper, thereby adding further weight to your theory that Owen Hargreaves is better than Steven Gerrard. Moron. LOL! See above, blank canvas. You given any more thought to shooting yourself, Wildman?
I wouldn't say Manchester United is a better team than England. Comparing each position, CAPS are (in my opinion) the superior player: Owen - RUUD VAN NISTELROOY ROONEY - Solskjaer Scholes - Scholes BECKHAM - P. Neville GERRARD - Keane (whoever plays LW) - GIGGS Ferdinand - Ferdinand CAMPBELL - Silvestre G. Neville - G. Neville A. Cole - Fortune (I think they're both crap) James - BARTHEZ England 4 - Man United 3 England also has more depth. Actually in doing this excerise, I've noticed that there are way too many Man United players in England's starting lineup. It's still arguable which team is better, but I think in terms of your argument, England has easily enough quality to provide Scholes the same opportunities he receives at Man United. I think his scoring record is a result of his playing a more attacking role on Man United and a more central role with England.
But he doesn't. He plays at the apex of the diamond shape that SGE uses for his midfields. Besides, United are a better TEAM than England. They have better balance (just the Giggs thing alone guarantees that) and more experience of playing - and winning - together. I said nothing about the individual qualities of the players. Of course England has more depth than United. They have a larger pool of quality players to draw on than United who, for all their money, could not afford to assemble the England 22 as their squad. Although, as I type this, United are losing at home to Fulham so bang goes all that anyway.
Of course you can guarantee Hargreaves will not start ahead of Gerrard. Hargreaves is hurt for the forseeable future, (probably the season)and will take him months after that to get his game back. No one said Hargreaves was better than Gerrrard. What was stated was that the combination of a Hargreaves and Scholes middle would be a an aggressive attacking midfield that would allow Scholes to play behind the strikers. Someone beside Owen needs to be counted on for goals. Heskey sure does not score, but I pointed that out months ago, and was proven right and endured a few insults for my trouble.
I find it very hard to believe that anybody, anybody at all, argued with you that Heskey does score goals. My 10 year old could be "proven right" on that account. Are you sure you weren't just called a silly cunt because of collective rubbish, as opposed to anything specific
Wow.......do you realize that you've just admitted that Hargreaves is, at best, Gerrard's equal, yet still claim he should start anyway? Btw, how does England count on Scholes to score? Come to think of it, when WAS the last time Scholes scored for England competitively? Around the same time you were playing with Pele, I would imagine. (On current form I would take Lampard in a heartbeat.) Oh, and about the Heskey comment...........I want to find the mean people that ridiculed you for claiming Emile doesn't score. Because I want to meet a person that's actually dumber than you.
Clan, that's fiddlesticks. You lads were bashing me about how great Heskey was and responded that I had no knowledge, and I was dumb, and I'm a troll, etc. etc. I was saying that over a year ago. Of course it's plain as day now that he does not score, but no one was agreeing with me 12 months ago. ps. I thought you were above the nasty comments. Are any of you lads capable of having a rational discussion without name calling someone that has a different view? Is this some sort of secret club were all views are welcome just as long as they don't upset anyone? I've about had enough of the hostility.
Wait, so for the previous 5 years people thought Heskey could score? And only now they recognize this? What planet do you live on to find such people? NO ONE has ever thought Heskey could score. I'm pretty sure even his mother would admit he's got the goal scoring ability of a clumsy llama. Then leave. That's all we want, really. Isn't it time for an NASL reunion? I'm sure Cruyff will be fascinated by your utterly uninformed views.
I guarantee it in perpetuity. His current injury has nothing to do with it. Even if he were fit as a fiddle, SGE would not even vaguely entertain the notion of playing Hargreaves ahead of a fit Steven Gerrard. You come to terms with that in your own time, Sparky. I realise it's difficult, being this wrong, this consistently. Although quite why you persist ... oh, that's right - you're a troll. Butt Beckham - Gerrard Scholes I said it a good few posts ago, perhaps it needs to be drawn to your attention again. Explain to us, if you would, the 'diamond formation' and then revisit your comments. Rubbish. You have endured insults for a lot of things, including your inane comments about Owen, your utterly rubbish standard of trolling, your frankly embarrassing lie about playing in the NASL as a means of extricating yourself from another battering and your total inability to say anything, at all, of value to a football discussion. But never have you been in an argument where the statement 'Heskey does not score' was fundamentatlly opposed.
I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet: if Hargreaves was so much better than Gerrard in central midfield, wouldn't he have ousted the very mediocre Jens Jeremies as Bayern's holding midfielder a long time ago?
Hitzfeld did start Hargreaves ahead of Jeremies at the beginning of the season but after a few games in which Bayern conceded to many goals he concluded that he isn’t strong or disciplined enough to play as a lone defensive midfielder. After that Demichelis has taken over that position with great success and Hargreaves was played on the right or on the left of the diamond midfield.
All very true. But what we're really trying to get our resident genius to comprehend is that Gerrard is not even assigned the defensive midfield role in SGE's system. So if Hargreaves were to displace anyone in taking the holding role, it would of course be Nicky Butt. But even that starkly obvious fact is beyond Wildman's appreciation of the topic he has chosen to embroil himself in. And besides - that ain't going to happen either. For the reasons you bring to the table, amongst others (PS - look Wildman! Real knowledge, proper opinions, reasoned discourse! And no, it's not just because they agree with everyone but you.). So Hargreaves is looking at understudying either Gerrard on the left of the England midfield diamond or Beckham on the right. Although should Beckham miss an England game, Gerrard would move to cover his side and Lampard, Dyer and Hargreaves would be the main contenders for the left of the diamond. As happened against Serbia, if I recall correctly. On current form, it would be hard to leave Lampard out of that equation in any case. Hargreaves will continue to be a quality squad player until he finally moves to Arsenal. Then we shall have to see how he does, presumably as one of the two holding midfielders Wenger likes to deploy. If he can dislodge Gilberto from the berth alongside Viera, then he may have a shot at Butt's place in the England team.
Getting a bit off-topic now but do you really think Gerarrd’s permanent position for England should be on the left? I would really like to see him in the center, sharing the ball winning duties with Beckham who is excelling at that position in Madrid with Dyer on the right J.Cole on the left and Scholes behind Owen
No, I don't think Gerrard's permanent position is on the left. But neither is it as the holding midfielder. That is a waste of his talents, even as he excels in the role at Liverpool in Hamann's absence (he was awesome again yesterday). Not convinced about Dyer - he has never really done it for England. But he is a more natural choice for the left side than other candidates in many ways. Beckham in the centre doesn't work under SGE's system. If, as is widely expected, SGE leaves after Euro 2004 then where Beckham is deployed will largely depend on who is placed in charge of the team. I like what Beckham is doing for Madrid, but for England I think the value of his wider play is still there to be compensated for in any move infield. Besides, he has about as much license to roam as a player can get in a tactical system that nominally places him on the right. Cole will need to play regularly for Chelsea before he can be considered a starter for Enland. As things stand a number of players, including Hargreaves, are ahead of him in the queue.