Slippy G vs Fat Frank

[MUFC]

Both were firstly hard working players and great professionals. The question should be are they good as Fred?

[CaaC (John)+]

I respect the two of them as professional footballers good in each of their own way, Gerrard has my respect as a manager and getting my Gers a league title here in Scotland, a learning curve for him if he returns to the EPL, maybe, just maybe, Lampard might end up at Celtic and do well there, you never know. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

22 minutes ago, Lucas said:

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.

This is exactly the sort of enchantment that blinded England into favoring an objectively worse player. 

[Lucas]

50 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

This is exactly the sort of enchantment that blinded England into favoring an objectively worse player. 

*In your opinion

To tell you the absolute blunt truth of the matter, the problem with these debates is it feels fruitless because it's all subjective.

I can respect any view from anyone that Lampard was better for reason x, y, z and acknowledge the point, but that will not alter why I believe Gerrard was better.

It's like having a Messi v Ronaldo debate, part 326. You will always get people that favour one over the other and it will never change as long as we all got a hole in our arse.

[Cicero]

It really is on a matter of who you'd rather have based on preferences. Which is fine. 

What isn't fine is not accepting that in their prime, Lampard was better. A Ronaldinho away from the Balon d'Or. 

[carefreeluke]

1 hour ago, Lucas said:

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.

So are other top midfielders of that generation and of the last twenty years not as good as Gerrard because he did it in a lesser team?

[MUFC]

25 minutes ago, Lucas said:

*In your opinion

To tell you the absolute blunt truth of the matter, the problem with these debates is it feels fruitless because it's all subjective.

I can respect any view from anyone that Lampard was better for reason x, y, z and acknowledge the point, but that will not alter why I believe Gerrard was better.

It's like having a Messi v Ronaldo debate, part 326. You will always get people that favour one over the other and it will never change as long as we all got a hole in our arse.

Any pics?

[Cicero]

3 hours ago, carefreeluke said:

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.

Yup. Lampard was essentially a DM during that period to accommodate the manager and his methods. Almost as if the team wasn't allowing him to flourish...

Still, 

 - Scored the penalty that had us secure the comeback against Napoli. 

- Dispossessed Messi and played the ball to Ramires in acres of space to slot it home for Drogba to beat Barca in the first leg, and then did the same thing the 2nd leg. 

- Captained the team against Bayern when all the odds were against us, and slotted the penalty in the Bayern end. 

It appears the main argument for Gerrard is being more influential and big moments. Which is a fallacy itself in my opinion as Lampard has big moments virtually every season vs having 3 or 4 in his entire career. 

[Danny]

I think the main issue for fans is less the argument about who was better and it's more who did you connect with? As a kid I had Gerrard on my England top, I think his style of play was more romanticised. Those driving shots, cross field passes of his just had you drawn in, you'd never pretend to be Frank Lampard as a kid when you was playing football unless you supported Chelsea. I think Gerrard probably had more natural talent which is why I think when you look at his big moments they seemed so much greater, but I think Lampard was the better player overall and generally more consistent with his quality. Chelsea did have great players but he didn't really seem to need great players to play great himself, which I think goes against the argument of Gerrard played in a lesser team.

If you told me that I was about to manage a team in a cup final and I could pick one of them, I'd pick Gerrard.

If you told me I was going to manage a team over a few years and I could pick one of them, I'd pick Lampard.

[Machado]

Not much between them.

Voted for Frank to keep it closer in the poll.

[DeadLinesman]

Went for Lampard because I hate @Dr. Gonzo

 

Next up. Adriana Chechik vs Riley Reid.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, DeadLinesman said:

Went for Lampard because I hate @Dr. Gonzo

 

Next up. Adriana Chechik vs Riley Reid.

Riley Reid

[Spike]

Gerrard had as many moments of idiocy as he did genius, and he had a lot of genius moments. That would be the defining line for me picking between the two. If I am the coach for England, I’d love either but I’d pick Lampard if I had to choose because Gerrard has the history of taking bad passes that lead to goals, red cards, and other meltdowns, and if I am trying to win that world cup, I just can’t trust a more emotional player like Gerrard, we don’t tolerate that sort of behaviour in defenders, so why should it be different to midfielders? It is a completely pragmatic decision, one that I think I am making for the team. My ideal midfield would have been a little too pragmatic but I would have picked Carrick, Barry, and Lampard as the starting trio. I think that is a trio that can dominate possession, defend, as well pass the ball long and short. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Spike wouldn’t have picked Zidane for France, apparently 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

@Spike wouldn’t have picked Zidane for France, apparently 

Don't see what that has got to do with anything.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Spike said:

Don't see what that has got to do with anything.

He was an emotional player with a hot streak that got him sent off from time to time. How could you ever win a World Cup with a player like that? 

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

He was an emotional player with a hot streak that got him sent off from time to time. How could you ever win a World Cup with a player like that? 

Didn't work well for England the past 50 years with Gascoigne, Rooney, Gerrard, Shearer, now did it? But then who is the alternative for France? You can switch out Gerrard and Lampard like modulation, who is the alternative for Zidane? And if I recall correctly there was no meltdown in '98, they won a cup (not even mentioning FIFA rigging the drawing to give France an easier path to the cup final and Ronaldo's 'epilepsy'), a meltdown in '06 was directly correlating to France losing.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Spike said:

Didn't work well for England the past 50 years with Gascoigne, Rooney, Gerrard, Shearer, now did it? But then who is the alternative for France? You can switch out Gerrard and Lampard like modulation, who is the alternative for Zidane? And if I recall correctly there was no meltdown in '98, they won a cup (not even mentioning FIFA rigging the drawing to give France an easier path to the cup final and Ronaldo's 'epilepsy'), a meltdown in '06 was directly correlating to France losing.

They only got to that final because of Zidane. And things not working out for England are partially due to the insistence that England managers stick to a 442, which is why you’d end up with shit like Sven trying to fit Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard into a 4 man midfield and hope for the best. Even on paper you can see it doesn’t matter how good the 3 of those are on paper - it’s just not a midfield that goes well together (on the right you’d typically have David Beckham).

Meanwhile France were loaded with talent in every position and had Zidane being a fucking Wizard. In 2006 he was the best player in the tournament except maybe Cannavaro and carried them to the final.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They only got to that final because of Zidane. And things not working out for England are partially due to the insistence that England managers stick to a 442, which is why you’d end up with shit like Sven trying to fit Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard into a 4 man midfield and hope for the best. Even on paper you can see it doesn’t matter how good the 3 of those are on paper - it’s just not a midfield that goes well together (on the right you’d typically have David Beckham).

Meanwhile France were loaded with talent in every position and had Zidane being a fucking Wizard. In 2006 he was the best player in the tournament except maybe Cannavaro and carried them to the final.

Yeah they got to the final to lose it because of him, ultimately being a pointless effort. There is no glory in coming second otherwise the Dutch would be the best of all time. All I'm trying to do is mitigating risk and maximising efficiency, there is no bias in my decision, it's a totally pragmatic decision that I believe would have given ENG the best chance of winning, if you disagree that is fine it's just here say, but if you can't even see the rationale behind it, I don't know what to tell you.

But everyone says in this thread Gerrard brings teams up, as well as his tactical flexibility, so if that were the case it wouldn't have mattered where he played for England, he would have elevated the team, right? You can't have that cake both ways, claim that Gerrard raises a team up, but the manager brings Gerrard down.

I don't even dislike Gerrard for fucks sake, I think he was great, I'm just making a pragmatic decision.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Yeah they got to the final to lose it because of him, ultimately being a pointless effort. There is no glory in coming second otherwise the Dutch would be the best of all time. All I'm trying to do is mitigating risk and maximising efficiency, there is no bias in my decision, it's a totally pragmatic decision that I believe would have given ENG the best chance of winning, if you disagree that is fine it's just here say, but if you can't even see the rationale behind it, I don't know what to tell you.

But everyone says in this thread Gerrard brings teams up, as well as his tactical flexibility, so if that were the case it wouldn't have mattered where he played for England, he would have elevated the team, right? You can't have that cake both ways, claim that Gerrard raises a team up, but the manager brings Gerrard down.

I don't even dislike Gerrard for fucks sake, I think he was great, I'm just making a pragmatic decision.

I don’t think you get the best Gerrard either out wide on the left (on the right, sure, but he’d never get picked ahead of the Captain and FA marketing tool) or playing as a defensive midfielder - a role he could play, but it was never his best role.

Being pragmatic with England probably would have meant changing to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, and getting Barry alongside both Lampard and Gerrard. Or even a 5-3-2 with Gerrard as the right back.

Those two, alongside Rooney, were the most talented England players that weren’t defenders. But the defense of the “golden era” was the real jewel of the England team of that era imo. At least while Sol Campbell was still playing. Cole - Terry - Campbell - Neville is a fucking quality back 4.

But that era of England was marked with dogshit goalkeeping and an insistence that we stuck with a midfield 4 despite not really having the players to make one work. We never had a decent LW that would work in a traditional 442 at that level unless you include Stewart Downing as a decent left winger... which I’m not sure anyone should do.

[Danny]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don’t think you get the best Gerrard either out wide on the left (on the right, sure, but he’d never get picked ahead of the Captain and FA marketing tool) or playing as a defensive midfielder - a role he could play, but it was never his best role.

Being pragmatic with England probably would have meant changing to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, and getting Barry alongside both Lampard and Gerrard. Or even a 5-3-2 with Gerrard as the right back.

Those two, alongside Rooney, were the most talented England players that weren’t defenders. But the defense of the “golden era” was the real jewel of the England team of that era imo. At least while Sol Campbell was still playing. Cole - Terry - Campbell - Neville is a fucking quality back 4.

But that era of England was marked with dogshit goalkeeping and an insistence that we stuck with a midfield 4 despite not really having the players to make one work. We never had a decent LW that would work in a traditional 442 at that level unless you include Stewart Downing as a decent left winger... which I’m not sure anyone should do.

We had Joe Cole  

 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don’t think you get the best Gerrard either out wide on the left (on the right, sure, but he’d never get picked ahead of the Captain and FA marketing tool) or playing as a defensive midfielder - a role he could play, but it was never his best role.

Being pragmatic with England probably would have meant changing to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, and getting Barry alongside both Lampard and Gerrard. Or even a 5-3-2 with Gerrard as the right back.

Those two, alongside Rooney, were the most talented England players that weren’t defenders. But the defense of the “golden era” was the real jewel of the England team of that era imo. At least while Sol Campbell was still playing. Cole - Terry - Campbell - Neville is a fucking quality back 4. 

But that era of England was marked with dogshit goalkeeping and an insistence that we stuck with a midfield 4 despite not really having the players to make one work. We never had a decent LW that would work in a traditional 442 at that level unless you include Stewart Downing as a decent left winger... which I’m not sure anyone should do.

I think it truly is either Gerrard or Lampard, you pick the one more appropriate against the opposition, hence my Gerrard 'supersub' comment earlier, that would definitely change (if not win games) take Lamaprd off at around 70mins for a fresh Gerrard, that would be an unreal weapon to utilise. IF they didn't like that, I'd tell them to fuck off back to club duty. If I'm manager, I'm here to win, not ply the ego of superstars.

Cole - Rooney - Milner
Carrick - Lampard/Gerrard
           Barry
Cole - Terry - Rio - Neville
         Hart

There you go, I reckon that could do a job at Euro 08 or WC 10

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

We had Joe Cole  

 

Joe Cole would have been better for England in a 4231 as well tbh. Not the greatest wide man for a 442 imo.

[Danny]

I always thought you could have Lampard and Gerrard together but just ask Lampard to play a deeper role helping the DM and have Gerrard go forward. Always felt Lampard was better technically in short spaces with smaller passes, would have added more balance to the team than trying to get them both doing the same thing

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

I always thought you could have Lampard and Gerrard together but just ask Lampard to play a deeper role helping the DM and have Gerrard go forward. Always felt Lampard was better technically in short spaces with smaller passes, would have added more balance to the team than trying to get them both doing the same thing

Ideally yeah, but it'd be hard for a player to curb their drilled responses and lampard would bomb in the box with late runs, which would leave the midfield dead to be run over in a counter. but hey if spain can fit xavi, iniesta, alonso, fabregas, silva, mata, de la red, senna, and a bunch of other midfielders, england should have been able to do it as well