Big discussion in the boozer tonight after Gerrard packed in,who was the better.
I was pretty much out on my own ,it was Gerrard for me , agame changer within a lot of shit sides and virtually won a CL off hes own back.
Scholesy who I love ,was outstanding ( and hes a top bloke ) stats wise not as good as Gerrard and imo not as efffective for England .
How the fuck did England do fuck all with these two Gerrard,Rio,Terry,Cole ?? ( shite keeper imo ) is unebelievable.
Great career Gerrard credit where credits due.
Scholes or Gerrard?
Scholes for me just for his versatility and unbelievable technical ability and reading of the game to go from a 10 to someone who can sit back and dictate a whole game.
Think if you asked Spanish, Italian, German players, the majority would say Scholes
Think if you asked Spanish, Italian, German players, the majority would say Scholes
Well I suppose that's the knighthood fucked.
This myth that Gerrard won the CL on his own is a fucking joke. If anyone deserves credit then it's the goaly Dudek.
People seem to forget that the so called "world class" Gerrard was so shit in that first half and was totally useless in the midfield that it wasn't until Rafa brought on a proper holding midfielder in Hamman that Liverpool started getting a grip on the game.
People keep saying how Gerrard was so great in midfield yet his best seasons at Liverpool was when he played in front of proper midfielders like Alonso and Mascherano. He couldn't hack it in a 2 man midfield because he wasn't disciplined enough or intelligent enough in the role.
You compare him to proper midfielders like Keane, Viera and Scholes and you can see his shortcomings. He was best as an attacking player who had license to do whatever he wanted. Then he was without doubt a superb player.
Not fit to lace Scholes boots imo.
People seem to forget that the so called "world class" Gerrard was so shit in that first half and was totally useless in the midfield that it wasn't until Rafa brought on a proper holding midfielder in Hamman that Liverpool started getting a grip on the game.
People keep saying how Gerrard was so great in midfield yet his best seasons at Liverpool was when he played in front of proper midfielders like Alonso and Mascherano. He couldn't hack it in a 2 man midfield because he wasn't disciplined enough or intelligent enough in the role.
You compare him to proper midfielders like Keane, Viera and Scholes and you can see his shortcomings. He was best as an attacking player who had license to do whatever he wanted. Then he was without doubt a superb player.
Not fit to lace Scholes boots imo.
[color=#008000]GLAZERS[/color] [color=#FF8000]OUT![/color]
Scholes by a mile. Of course he was never as effective for England because the midfield always read Lampard,Gerrard, an other.Any decent manager would have put Scholes name first and worked around that.Perhaps he didn't blow his own trumpet enough but England missed out on a huge opportunity in not playing him in his preferred position.
As you say Justin Gerrard couldn't hack it when he moved back as evidenced in his appalling,error ridden displays for England in the Brazil world cup. And you're right again,it was the introduction of Hamman that won Liverpool that cup.
As you say Justin Gerrard couldn't hack it when he moved back as evidenced in his appalling,error ridden displays for England in the Brazil world cup. And you're right again,it was the introduction of Hamman that won Liverpool that cup.
Scholes. He's the most natural english footballer of a generation. The one Messi and co used to call "teacher"
Like Gerrard he also won games on his own, scored important goals (eg the semi v Barca) pulled the team out of the shit - he just didn't gob off about it. Gerrerd would entertain the praise post match, Sky, locally. But Scholes kept his head down so his heorics aren't as well remembered.
Evra said recently Scholes was the only player that didn't recieve the hairdyer treatment while he was there, because "he never really did anything wrong." Whereas Gerrerd lost Liverpool a title
Like Gerrard he also won games on his own, scored important goals (eg the semi v Barca) pulled the team out of the shit - he just didn't gob off about it. Gerrerd would entertain the praise post match, Sky, locally. But Scholes kept his head down so his heorics aren't as well remembered.
Evra said recently Scholes was the only player that didn't recieve the hairdyer treatment while he was there, because "he never really did anything wrong." Whereas Gerrerd lost Liverpool a title
Ha, is this even a question? Even Lampard imho was a better player than Gerrard. Gerrard had 2 very impressive seasons and he was a world class player but peak Gerrard was just mainly 2 seasons.
Lampard was excellent for a decade I think although none of his seasons compared with the 2 excellent seasons Gerrard had.
Henry was asked this question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6jVRGsFxe0
Lampard was excellent for a decade I think although none of his seasons compared with the 2 excellent seasons Gerrard had.
Henry was asked this question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6jVRGsFxe0
-
pint vulger
- Legend
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: 5 years ago
Top red zone .Lazarus wrote:Fuckin stupid question to ask on a United forum. You should nip over to RAWK to see what answers you get, maybe you could stay.
Maybe you should dig up how Fergie hitting Beckham with a football boot will affect the players trust in him next.pint vulger wrote:Top red zone .Lazarus wrote:Fuckin stupid question to ask on a United forum. You should nip over to RAWK to see what answers you get, maybe you could stay.
Top red zone! Fuck off with your archaeological discussion, Scholes and Gerrard have been done too death on here. Ask Bman he's an expert!
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." 