Premier League 2018-2019

[Wee Baby Seamus]

No.

Lampard was a better goal scorer and on better teams, Gerrard was better all around.

If you put Lampard on those Liverpool teams, and Gerrard on those Chelsea teams, Liverpool gets worse and Chelsea gets better.

Eh, I was mainly just posting it to shit-disturb, you can't have a post about how good Gerrard was without someone jumping in to say Lampard was better. As a Chelsea fan, I prefer Lampard - he's probably my second favourite player to ever play for us behind David Luiz - but I don't look down upon any 'Pool supporters who prefer Gerrard.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Gerrard and Lampard..perfect symbols of the late modern English understanding of what a midfielder does. I really wouldn't want either one of them on my team to be honest.

 

[Gecklund]

Gerrard and Lampard..perfect symbols of the late modern English understanding of what a midfielder does. I really wouldn't want either one of them on my team to be honest.

Why?

 

[The Abusement Park]

Why?

Because you could pick Scholes over both.

 

[Gecklund]

Because you could pick Scholes over both.

Oh I agree but I still think that Gerrard and Lampard would be a welcome addition to any midfield in the world and him saying he wouldn't want either on the team is just ignorant to say the least.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Oh I agree but I still think that Gerrard and Lampard would be a welcome addition to any midfield in the world and him saying he wouldn't want either on the team is just ignorant to say the least.

Oh totally. 3 of the best midfielders of their generation that every team would welcome with open arms.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Why?

I wouldn't trust either of them to control play, pace, structure etc. and that's what I'd expect a central midfielder paid that much to do.

 

[Live in the Now]

If Gerrard had played #10 his whole career as he played for Benitez, it wouldn't be much of a debate. He was able to do absolutely everything from that position. I have no idea why other managers thought he should play central midfield when they had a player who could run through, pass, or shoot on target from almost anywhere near the box.

For all that Benitez did well with Gerrard, the inability to buy a good left sided player was an ultimate sin that prevented Gerrard and others from having a full trophy cabinet.

 

[Baxterman]

Oh I agree but I still think that Gerrard and Lampard would be a welcome addition to any midfield in the world and him saying he wouldn't want either on the team is just ignorant to say the least.

Lampard yes, dogshit Gerrard no thanks.

 

[Gecklund]

Lampard yes, dog**** Gerrard no thanks.

Even though Gerrard was at least equal.

 

[Evilo]

Gerrard's no Kroos

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Gerrard's no Kroos

Kroos is a better passer of the ball, which seems like no minor skill for a central midfielder. Kroos doesn't track back much, but then neither did Pirlo.

As a deep-lying playmaker Kroos is in fact significantly better than Gerrard ever was. As a box-to-box midfielder or "6" Kroos will always be let down by his lack of engine, defensive instincts and motivation.

Gerrard was of course a much better athlete and 'dynamo' which made him a tremendous goal-scoring attacking midfielder, but in central midfield he had some significant deficits.

 

[YNWA14]

I don't know why people always try to insert Scholes into the conversation. Very talented player; Lampard and Gerrard were both better.

Gerrard's no Kroos

This may be the first post of yours I've ever 'liked'.

I wouldn't trust either of them to control play, pace, structure etc. and that's what I'd expect a central midfielder paid that much to do.

Except Gerrard showed later in his career he was absolutely able to do that. His passing range was also always fantastic.

 

[Evilo]

Gerrard's passing was fantastic. Kroos is certainly great at it as well.

And that ladies and gentlement, is the ONLY aspect of the game where they're comparable. All the rest is easily in favor of Gerrard.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I don't know why people always try to insert Scholes into the conversation. Very talented player; Lampard and Gerrard were both better.

This may be the first post of yours I've ever 'liked'.

Except Gerrard showed later in his career he was absolutely able to do that. His passing range was also always fantastic.

Because of the English NT never being able to figure out how to use all 3 of them effectively together.

And because most people don't remember watching them in their prime, and remember that all 3 were CM in FIFA.

 

[Live in the Now]

Kroos doesn't track back much, but then neither did Pirlo.

I will actually disagree with this. When Pirlo was at his best in Carlo's Milan, he actually tracked back and tackled a lot, he had a very strong engine. You wouldn't mistake him for a hard man, but his tackling was above average. Their team was so good because Gattuso, Pirlo, and Seedorf were all hell bent on getting the ball to Kaka. The elegant rarely tackling player came later on. In some ways he was also better as the late career player, but his teams won a lot more when he could put in a hard shift and I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I don't know why people always try to insert Scholes into the conversation.

Because he’s very comparable to both of them talent wise.
Gerrard was the best athlete, most well rounded.
Lampard was the best scorer
Scholes was the best distributor.

They’re all incredible players but have 3 different skill sets.

 

[YNWA14]

Because he’s very comparable to both of them talent wise.
Gerrard was the best athlete, most well rounded.
Lampard was the best scorer
Scholes was the best distributor.

They’re all incredible players but have 3 different skill sets.

Talent doesn't make a player though. We've seen this many times. Gerrard and Lampard both performed better and that's what mattered. Also Gerrard was, IMO, more talented overall than either. His distribution was top notch, but gets overlooked because of his engine, athleticism and 'grit'.

But I told myself I wouldn't argue this because most people have already made up their mind. I will agree all three were incredible, but I think Scholes was never on the level of Gerrard or Lampard consistently.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Gerrard was a good passer, Kroos is a fantastic passer. It's easy to determine as well. Without his passing Kroos would never have been signed by Real or get playing time there. Gerrard, of course, never played for a club as prestigious as Real Madrid, but his role at Liverpool wasn't primarily that of a passer. Xabi Alonso was probably the better passer in Liverpool's midfield.

 

[Evilo]

Gerrard won a CL thanks to him.
Kroos won CLs thanks to his team.

 

[YNWA14]

Gerrard was a good passer, Kroos is a fantastic passer. It's easy to determine as well. Without his passing Kroos would never have been signed by Real or get playing time there. Gerrard, of course, never played for a club as prestigious as Real Madrid, but his role at Liverpool wasn't primarily that of a passer. Xabi Alonso was probably the better passer in Liverpool's midfield.

Xabi Alonso was a better passer than Kroos too, but Gerrard wasn't far behind Xabi anyway, if at all. Gerrard's passing was better than just 'good'.

 

[Il Mediano]

lol... Gerrard .. dogsh!t? ... I mean, do you listen to yourself, Baxter? Not rating him is one thing , but that? ... I mean, c'mon.

Anyways, speaking as a complete neutral , if I'm starting a team , I'm taking Gerrard over Lamps and Scholes. If I already have a loaded roster , I'll take Scholes. I'd have Lamps #3 , tbh. Obviously can't go wrong with any of them.

....And since Kroos found his way into the conversation , I'd have him #4.

 

[Baxterman]

lol... Gerrard .. dogsh!t? ... I mean, do you listen to yourself, Baxter? Not rating him is one thing , but that? ... I mean, c'mon.

Yes I do and I stand by my comments.

 

[Savant]

I love the ignore button

 

[Burner Account]