Slippy G vs Fat Frank

[Devil-Dick Willie]

So in 2017, someone or other asked the question, Stevie G vs Frank Lampard vs Paul Scholes who is better. 
They didn't include a poll (cunt) 
And including a player who was a specialist in a different position was uncouth. 

So here it is, for one and all. Place your bets gentlemen. 

Here's my thoughts on the debate. 

Both were best behind a striker at their peak, both were excellent. 
Lampard had elite movement in and around the box, was the best goal scoring midfielder I've ever seen, even over other specialist goal scoring midfielders who brought less to the table over all (Van Der Vaart comes to mind) He also had excellent ball retention skills and could find his striker in the final 3rd relentlessly. He is a type of player we still see today, Gundogan recently comes to mind. and if you took a Lampard clone all the top teams in the world would want to have him. Truly ahead of his time IMO. 

Steven Gerrard was a heart on his sleeve real fan favorite type player. Always looked like he was doing something, great spreader of the ball and had a hammer foot. All the things the fans love to see, passion, passes in behind for a rapid striker (Suarez or Torres ) and spectacular goals. He was also generally tidy on the ball, but more optimistic than pragmatic with his passing. Had a lot more "wasted" possessions than lamps. Gerrard scored lots of spectacular goals, but missed from range. A lot. His dink passes over the top were cleaned up by defenders or keepers. A lot. That's the nature of the beast when you're trying to create so much however. 

I honestly think its no contest. England made a huge mistake when they pinned the golden boy badge on Gerrard over Lampard and now that we have the benefit of hindsight I think the better man is clear. Gerrard is a player we all wish we had playing for our teams don't get me wrong. But Lampard was frightening. So efficient he needs to get an honorary German passport. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Also, never winning your side a title, and having some truly catastrophic moments in some of your biggest matches doesn't help 

[Scouse_Mouse]

30 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Also, never winning your side a title, and having some truly catastrophic moments in some of your biggest matches doesn't help 

Are you really banging on about this again?

Not sure what your obsession is about Stevie? homo erotic dreams? a jilted affair with a Scouser years ago?  a psychiatrist might be more qualified to help.

Seriously seek help Dick, I am concerned, you should be thinking about women (or men) your own age, your obsession with a middle aged Scouser is quite frankly a bit sad.

[Dr. Gonzo]

53 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

So in 2017, someone or other asked the question, Stevie G vs Frank Lampard vs Paul Scholes who is better. 
They didn't include a poll (cunt) 
And including a player who was a specialist in a different position was uncouth. 

So here it is, for one and all. Place your bets gentlemen. 

Here's my thoughts on the debate. 

Both were best behind a striker at their peak, both were excellent. 
Lampard had elite movement in and around the box, was the best goal scoring midfielder I've ever seen, even over other specialist goal scoring midfielders who brought less to the table over all (Van Der Vaart comes to mind) He also had excellent ball retention skills and could find his striker in the final 3rd relentlessly. He is a type of player we still see today, Gundogan recently comes to mind. and if you took a Lampard clone all the top teams in the world would want to have him. Truly ahead of his time IMO. 

Steven Gerrard was a heart on his sleeve real fan favorite type player. Always looked like he was doing something, great spreader of the ball and had a hammer foot. All the things the fans love to see, passion, passes in behind for a rapid striker (Suarez or Torres ) and spectacular goals. He was also generally tidy on the ball, but more optimistic than pragmatic with his passing. Had a lot more "wasted" possessions than lamps. Gerrard scored lots of spectacular goals, but missed from range. A lot. His dink passes over the top were cleaned up by defenders or keepers. A lot. That's the nature of the beast when you're trying to create so much however. 

I honestly think its no contest. England made a huge mistake when they pinned the golden boy badge on Gerrard over Lampard and now that we have the benefit of hindsight I think the better man is clear. Gerrard is a player we all wish we had playing for our teams don't get me wrong. But Lampard was frightening. So efficient he needs to get an honorary German passport. 

If we’re having a serious discussion, my argument for Gerrard would be the number of times various managers asked him to reinvent his play style to carry us, over and over again year in year out until Rodgers fucked with the squad.

Came into the squad as a right back, became captain and really made a name for himself as a box to box player, ended up looking like one of the best wide players in the country for a season, became a fantastic #10, and then became a deep lying playmaker.

And he never played in squads that were anywhere near as good as Chelsea’s best sides of the era. Even in Rafa’s best years, we never had a side with their same quality in depth.

He had a lot of strengths and was asked to showcase them in so many different ways. He was asked to carry the club over and over again in a way not many players are asked to.

And I always thought if you swapped the two of them in their prime, we’d probably be a lot worse off because I’m not sure we could have asked Lampard to carry us in the same way Gerrard did.

They’re both absolute legends though. Two of the best midfielders I’ve ever seen play in my life. And they’re probably a big part of what made that faux rivalry between both clubs as big as it was back then. I think you can make a valid case for either of them.

I’m obviously biased, but I think I bring up a valid point on the number of times Gerrard’s role suddenly was very different in our midfield - but he continued to excel.

The fact the FA insisted England stick to a 4-4-2 for such a long time while we had both of them should be an example of why the people in the FA should all be sacked and replaced because they’re not good at football related decisions.

[Cicero]

I know there’s always some bias between Chelsea, United, and Liverpool fans, but I will always carry the argument to my death bed that all three in their prime, peak Lampard (2004-2008) was best. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If we’re having a serious discussion, my argument for Gerrard would be the number of times various managers asked him to reinvent his play style to carry us, over and over again year in year out until Rodgers fucked with the squad.

Came into the squad as a right back, became captain and really made a name for himself as a box to box player, ended up looking like one of the best wide players in the country for a season, became a fantastic #10, and then became a deep lying playmaker.

And he never played in squads that were anywhere near as good as Chelsea’s best sides of the era. Even in Rafa’s best years, we never had a side with their same quality in depth.

He had a lot of strengths and was asked to showcase them in so many different ways. He was asked to carry the club over and over again in a way not many players are asked to.

And I always thought if you swapped the two of them in their prime, we’d probably be a lot worse off because I’m not sure we could have asked Lampard to carry us in the same way Gerrard did.

They’re both absolute legends though. Two of the best midfielders I’ve ever seen play in my life. And they’re probably a big part of what made that faux rivalry between both clubs as big as it was back then. I think you can make a valid case for either of them.

I’m obviously biased, but I think I bring up a valid point on the number of times Gerrard’s role suddenly was very different in our midfield - but he continued to excel.

The fact the FA insisted England stick to a 4-4-2 for such a long time while we had both of them should be an example of why the people in the FA should all be sacked and replaced because they’re not good at football related decisions.

Fat chance of that on here my friend.

But as you say, both great players, like you I'm obviously biased, I'll agree that Stevie didn't win as much and wasn't on a money stacked team as Frank but I doubt if Frank could have taken a lesser side to greatness the way Stevie did.

The biggest difference for me was that England selectors had a hard time playing two players who played pretty much the same role together, and what usually happened was Stevie got played out of position, Not because Lampard was better but purely because Stevie could play so many roles and Frank was much more "limited"

Anyway, two great players, it would be nice to debate them, unfortunately it's just a matter of time before google boy starts waffling on about trophies won or other irrelevant intangibles

 

[Harry]

They both fit their sides perfectly. But Chelsea were a much better side.

Would Torres have achieved the same success at Liverpool with Lampard behind him?

But then, would Gerrard have been as useful in a more talented Chelsea team that didn't rely on him so much?

We'll never know.

[Spike]

Don’t buy that ‘if they were on a better/worse team argument’ it’s painful to read. Gerard played with two of the best strikers ever in the PL for fucks sake, he wasn’t dragging little Burnley to cup ties at Wimbledon. Stop acting as if Liverpool were so shit, it’s tiring and an idea that is repeated as nauseum. Lampard also played for bloody West Ham and some shit Chelsea teams. One was better than the other, who gives a shit about the other players. Gerard was flashier, Lampard was efficient, both were great. Gerard pulled more out of his arse, but Lampard was more consistent. Lampard should have been the starter for ENG and Gerard the super sub when the chips were down and the team needed some magic. But Gerard was also prone to complete meltdowns and diving, which Lampard didn’t do. 
 

Anybody that actually got wound up in the Lewandowski v Kane thread is an idiot

 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If we’re having a serious discussion, my argument for Gerrard would be the number of times various managers asked him to reinvent his play style to carry us, over and over again year in year out until Rodgers fucked with the squad.

 

You're right in that he was flexible. I will say I was very impressed with that aspect of his game. However, even fat frank, who was very much a specialist in his position, when eventually he got older and was asked to drop deeper he impressed the shit out of me. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Don’t buy that ‘if they were on a better/worse team argument’ it’s painful to read. Gerard played with two of the best strikers ever in the PL for fucks sake, he wasn’t dragging little Burnley to cup ties at Wimbledon. Stop acting as if Liverpool were so shit, it’s tiring and an idea that is repeated as nauseum. Lampard also played for bloody West Ham and some shit Chelsea teams. One was better than the other, who gives a shit about the other players. Gerard was flashier, Lampard was efficient, both were great. Gerard pulled more out of his arse, but Lampard was more consistent. Lampard should have been the starter for ENG and Gerard the super sub when the chips were down and the team needed some magic. But Gerard was also prone to complete meltdowns and diving, which Lampard didn’t do. 
 

Anybody that actually got wound up in the Lewandowski v Kane thread is an idiot

 

This is a side that competed for shit with players like Djimi Traore & Igor Biscan. Let’s not pretend Liverpool’s best side were as good as the better sides in the league.

Especially the stacked Chelsea of that era

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

This is a side that competed for shit with players like Djimi Traore & Igor Biscan. Let’s not pretend Liverpool’s best side were as good as the better sides in the league.

Especially the stacked Chelsea of that era

oh come on, that wasn’t every season, liverpool even pushed united to the brink with a  title chase in 07 and 08 if i recall. liverpool were definitely superior to chelsea a number of seasons, as well as west ham

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 minutes ago, Spike said:

oh come on, that wasn’t every season, liverpool even pushed united to the brink with a  title chase in 07 and 08 if i recall

And even in that season we didn’t really have much depth. We had really unbalanced sides in those days because Rick Parry was a moron and Gillett and Hicks were asset strippers. In that season you’re talking about, he was playing alongside shite players like Andrea Dossena I believe

We had some very good players. We also had players that were pretty average or outright flops.

Stevie was the spice that could make our good team great. I’m not saying we were loaded with dogshit players, but we weren’t anywhere near as good as our competitors around the pitch. United, Chelsea, or Arsenal sides of that era were all better on paper imo - maybe not Arsenal after Vieira and Henry left.

But he was often the spark that took us up another level.

[DeadLinesman]

6 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

So in 2017, someone or other asked the question, Stevie G vs Frank Lampard vs Paul Scholes who is better. 
They didn't include a poll (cunt) 

Thats because he’s a referee.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 minute ago, DeadLinesman said:

Thats because he’s a referee.

Aye, a shite one too. 

[The Palace Fan]

This thread makes me feel like I have just returned to Total Football Forums in 2007.

[Devil]

If I'm going to be totally honest I'd have to go with Gerrard, forget the trophies Lampard won, you can be an exceptional player and not win a trophy in your career. Plus Gerrard won his fair share, he just wasn't in a team that was capable of winning a title until he made that infamous slip, which is something that will haunt is dreams. 

Lampard was a very important cog in well oiled Chelsea machine where as Gerrard was the beat heart of Liverpool for the length of his Premier league career. Let's not kid ourselves both are in the debate for best English midfielders of all time so this question isn't an easy one to answer but given Gerrard could do all Lampard could in an attacking sense and he was ferocious tackler tips the pendulum in his favour for me. 

I'd still take a prime Scholes over both though, they all adapted their games but he adapted better than the other two in my opinion. 

[Honey Honey]

Gerrard would single handedly beat us. So him. Lampard would move a free kick about 10 yards forward behind the referees back.

[The Palace Fan]

As an FPL manager - Frank Lampard

As a real manager - Stevie Gerrard.

[Mel81x+]

Maybe this is biased and it probably is but I'd take Steven over Frank for a quality that he possessed which is getting players around him to put their best performances in. If you need a person to get players to push harder and take a chance even when you think the game is gone Gerrard is that player. I can't begin to count the number of times he'd walk over to players or shout at them just to get them fired up to put that little extra effort in. The only other player I can think of that had this capability is Suarez and he didn't do it with the same kind of intensity as Gerrard did. One of the reasons we even came so close that year of the slip is because we didn't have one but two players who pushed others around them to play harder. I really doubt we'll ever see that combination for a long time to come. Also helped that he led by example and provided some moments that will last in the minds of fans for a long long time.

 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Whoever edited it to slippy G I just spat juice all over my fucking laptop 

[Stan]

Just now, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Whoever edited it to slippy G I just spat juice all over my fucking laptop 

You're welcome.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

7 hours ago, Cicero said:

I know there’s always some bias between Chelsea, United, and Liverpool fans, but I will always carry the argument to my death bed that all three in their prime, peak Lampard (2004-2008) was best. 

Vote for the fucker you're making us Lampard lovers look bad. 

Where the fuck are Blue&Wine, ChelseaTotty or TheRealFatFrank when we need them? 

[Honey Honey]

1 minute ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Vote for the fucker you're making us Lampard lovers look bad. 

Where the fuck are Blue&Wine, ChelseaTotty or TheRealFatFrank when we need them? 

Her name is @Bluewolf

[carefreeluke]

Lampard also spent a lot of our 2012 Champions League win, playing out of position and a lot of his later years. Whilst Drogba was the most influential in that competition,  Lampard captained us in the final.

Two key passes in the semi-finals against Barcelona, the Ramires assist (probably helped by the significance of the goal) is still genuinely one of the best assists I've seen since watching us. If you want to show anyone the importance of the weight of the pass, that's the assist.

 

[Lucas]

Steven Gerrard.

When I think of Gerrard, I think of the big moments when his club needed him. Olympiakos, West Ham, AC Milan etc.

Personally, I find him more inspirational. I think he dragged a pretty average Liverpool through the mud at times and his presence forced sub standard players around him to play to a level they wouldn't normally reach.

The irony is we've seen the joke a thousand times about his slip but he played just as pivitol a role that season that without him, Liverpool wouldn't have managed to get as close anyway.

I respect Lampard and what he's done but he had the better of it for me, flourishing in a team that allowed him to do so. I personally don't think Lampard would have managed the same affect on Liverpool if the roles were reversed.