The England Thread

[Guest neesy111]

Scholes for England 97 - 01 was superb.

[Ronaldo]

Relatively prosperous? That's an understatement, like.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

If I had to sign one of them for 10 years of their peak it'd be Lampard.

 

Scholes was the greatest of the 3 on his best day, though.

 

If probably pick Lampard too and that's down to his goals and assists. That's why I'd always pick Shearer over Beardsley for example despite the latter clearly being the better footballer.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Scholes for England 97 - 01 was superb.

 

Ha ha, true.

[Cronky]

I'd say that Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes all played better for their clubs than their country. England have always struggled for fluency, and of course most top players perform better in the familiar surroundings of their clubs, where the formation can be built around them.

 

There was always the problem - which was never overcome - that if you played those three in their best role, they be competing for the same place. In that respect, Gerrard's versatility was a problem for him, in that he could be shunted forward, or wide, or more recently in a holding position. So he had to adapt more than Lampard, who had to play in centre mid to be of any use. Scholes also tended to get shunted wide now and then.

 

If you restricted your judgement to England games, you'd be hard pressed to choose between them, because none of them consistently shone in that environment. But looking at club form, I'd say Gerrard comes out top.

[Guest firetotheworks]

They all have different qualities, which is what makes the debate about them mildly interesting.

 

For me Lampard was a player that did things that people took for granted. He made everything look easy and because of that people tend to think of him as a run-of-the-mill player, but to me his exceptional positioning, timing and reading of the game makes a lot of what he did seem basic, when in fact he just made it look basic.

 

Gerrard was pure enthusiasm and drive and determination in a player, with a very good all-round game that thrived on the spectacular. In 2005 he was near enough the best midfielder in the world for me because of the way he played.

 

Scholes was a little bit more like Lampard in terms of his subtle demeanor and making the difficult seem basic, but with a better range and accuracy in passing than both of them. As spectacular as Gerrard, but not as consistent a goalscorer as Lampard. The difference with Scholes was that he had a higher ability than both of them to completely control games of his own accord. Both of the others can obviously do it and do it well, but Scholes was more of a pure midfielder like that, Gerrard at his purest would make an impact on the game as he saw it and had the quality to, whereas Scholes could just change the game or control it from the start.

 

I think Ronaldo had it right in saying that for his record you'd probably take Lampard, but for overall quality you'd pick Scholes.

[Disco]

The wastage of Scholes in an England shirt man, absolutely ridiculous.

[Ronaldo]

I think Ronaldo had it right in saying that for his record you'd probably take Lampard, but for overall quality you'd pick Scholes.

 

I think if you had to acquire one of them aged 25 with a view to having them in your side for 10 years, Lampard's easily the sensible pick. He'd guarantee you 200 goals, well over 100 assists, never get injured and generally be a committed leader and class act on and off the field. You can't really contend with that.

[Incognito]

The wastage of Scholes in an England shirt man, absolutely ridiculous.

I'll  second that.

 

And there's been some real rewriting of history here by the usual suspects. Frank Lampard hasn't been a good England player and while Steven Gerrard hasn't performed at his full potential for England,  he's been comfortably better than Lampard who has rarely performed at International level.

The reason being, at International level you have to have more in your locker than what Lampard has. Picking the ball up 30 yards from goal, advancing 5 or 10 yards then shooting, which Frank has made a career from, just doesn't cut it. Gerrard is a better passer, tackler, is quicker and has more fitness. And has the ability to control a game. Lampard never had that to his game.

 

I remember having virtually the same debate about Gascoigne and Platt. And Gerrard and Lampard is a good comparison with them.

[Guest firetotheworks]

To me it's pretty obvious that it's because they were both played at the same time. Both could have been excellent England players and it has nothing to do with either of them not having the quality, the chemistry didn't work with them because despite their differences in style, their roles for Chelsea and Liverpool were the same.

 

People always say the same things and pick out Lampard as the lesser of the two, when for me he's the much more intelligent footballer.

[CPL]

At international level I always said Lampard over Gerrard, his ability to pick passes and keeping the ball is even more vital against the bigger international teams. But as stated already, I would say Scholes is the best midfielder England has produced since I started watching football (1997).

[Incognito]

To me it's pretty obvious that it's because they were both played at the same time. Both could have been excellent England players and it has nothing to do with either of them not having the quality, the chemistry didn't work with them because despite their differences in style, their roles for Chelsea and Liverpool were the same.

 

People always say the same things and pick out Lampard as the lesser of the two, when for me he's the much more intelligent footballer.

Not intelligent at all if you Google his 9/11 antics. 

[Incognito]

At international level I always said Lampard over Gerrard, his ability to pick passes and keeping the ball is even more vital against the bigger international teams. But as stated already, I would say Scholes is the best midfielder England has produced since I started watching football (1997).

Lampard went missing far too often for England. And as I said, whilst Gerrard never reached the heights internationally that he should have,  he was still comfortably better than Lampard in an England shirt. Even as recently as 2 years ago he was England's best player at a major tournament.

[CPL]

At international level I always said Lampard over Gerrard, his ability to pick passes and keeping the ball is even more vital against the bigger international teams. But as stated already, I would say Scholes is the best midfielder England has produced since I started watching football (1997).

Lampard went missing far too often for England. And as I said, whilst Gerrard never reached the heights internationally that he should have,  he was still comfortably better than Lampard in an England shirt. Even as recently as 2 years ago he was England's best player at a major tournament.

 

Lampard was played far too often in a 4-4-2 alongside Gerrard which didn't suit him, same can be said for Gerrard and also Scholes on the left in a diamond 4-4-2. Was probably to the detriment that we had so many gifted CAM's at the same time. One of the best games I saw from Lampard was actually when Ledley King was playing the DM role giving Lampard license to bomb forward. Gerrard popped up with crucial goals in the world cup so was tough to drop one of them.

[Incognito]

At international level I always said Lampard over Gerrard, his ability to pick passes and keeping the ball is even more vital against the bigger international teams. But as stated already, I would say Scholes is the best midfielder England has produced since I started watching football (1997).

Lampard went missing far too often for England. And as I said, whilst Gerrard never reached the heights internationally that he should have,  he was still comfortably better than Lampard in an England shirt. Even as recently as 2 years ago he was England's best player at a major tournament.

 

Lampard was played far too often in a 4-4-2 alongside Gerrard which didn't suit him, same can be said for Gerrard and also Scholes on the left in a diamond 4-4-2. Was probably to the detriment that we had so many gifted CAM's at the same time. One of the best games I saw from Lampard was actually when Ledley King was playing the DM role giving Lampard license to bomb forward. Gerrard popped up with crucial goals in the world cup so was tough to drop one of them.

Sven should never have pushed Scholes out left to accommodate Lampard. We saw the potential of a Scholes/Gerrard partnership in the 5-1 in Germany. And that should've been our midfield pair barring injuries until 2006 or even 2008.

 

[The College Dropout]

Gerrard's positionally flexible in terms of where he plays but tactically he's very rigid. As in he plays very much as an individual. Which can happen when you're the star player for a decade.

[Hughesy]

Lampard has always been a more intelligent footballer than Gerrard in my opinion.

[Incognito]

Lampard has always been a more intelligent footballer than Gerrard in my opinion.

As in he's seemed to make a good career out of being a limited player?

[Hughesy]

Lampard has always been a more intelligent footballer than Gerrard in my opinion.

As in he's seemed to make a good career out of being a limited player?

 

I think you are underestimating Lampard a huge amount in your analysis.  I am not sure on what basis Lampard is a limited footballer - there is a huge amount more to his games than long range shots as you seem to imply.

 

It would be a bit like me saying all Gerrard does is run around a lot (usually ending up in the wrong position), play long crossfield 'Hollywood' balls to the opposition full back and put in a few hard tackles (usually bordering on two footed).

[Incognito]

Lampard has always been a more intelligent footballer than Gerrard in my opinion.

As in he's seemed to make a good career out of being a limited player?

 

I think you are underestimating Lampard a huge amount in your analysis.  I am not sure on what basis Lampard is a limited footballer - there is a huge amount more to his games than long range shots as you seem to imply.

 

It would be a bit like me saying all Gerrard does is run around a lot (usually ending up in the wrong position), play long crossfield 'Hollywood' balls to the opposition full back and put in a few hard tackles (usually bordering on two footed).

That's honestly how I see Lampard.  I don't recall him ever controlling a game in the way an International quality midfielder should. I think the comparison with David Platt is a very good one. Average footballers with a goalscoring knack. 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Lampard has always been a more intelligent footballer than Gerrard in my opinion.

As in he's seemed to make a good career out of being a limited player?

Limited players don't play his role in every single game at that level and be a resounding success for 10 years. That just doesn't happen.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I've watched him control most games that he's featured in for a decade. He's an excellent footballer with incredible positional sense and awareness. What he does isn't glamorous but it's just as impressive imo. I'd have him over Gerrard every year except maybe 2005.

[Incognito]

Sorry but both of those posts are nonsense. Lampard is a goalscoring midfield player with little else in his arsenal. He isnt quick, he doesnt beat players nor win the ball nor play defence splitting passes. All staple parts of a quality midfielder.  Some,  like Gerrard,  did all. There's the difference.

[Guest firetotheworks]

David Platt You're talking about a player that was first name on the team sheet in the Abramovich era and a midfielder that's Chelsea's all-time top scorer.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Sorry but both of those posts are nonsense. Lampard is a goalscoring midfield player with little else in his arsenal. He isnt quick, he doesnt beat players nor win the ball nor play defence splitting passes. All staple parts of a quality midfielder.  Some,  like Gerrard,  did all. There's the difference.

Nah, that's all wrong imo.