The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This has been discussed loads of times, but me and my mate are going on about it and we disagree with each other.
So, who would you drop out of the England side if you could only play 1 out of Gerrard and Lampard?
I had Lampard, because of his stats for Chelsea (6 goals in 11) and stats for England (5 goals in 10 in the group games)
He had Gerrard because he won Liverpool the European Cup and is a better defensive player than Lampard.
So who would you have and why?
So, who would you drop out of the England side if you could only play 1 out of Gerrard and Lampard?
I had Lampard, because of his stats for Chelsea (6 goals in 11) and stats for England (5 goals in 10 in the group games)
He had Gerrard because he won Liverpool the European Cup and is a better defensive player than Lampard.
So who would you have and why?
Page:
Mav wrote:
> If you held me at gunpoint and asked me to decide, I would ask for
> Gerrard to be given the same opportunity as Lampard to display his
> full attacking credentials with a defensive partner and then make a
> choice. If that was denied me, I would pick Gerrard, mostly because I
> think he's clearly our most naturally gifted midfielder.
Ahahahaahahahah
Gunman: Gerrard or Lampard, DECIDE NOW OR I BLOW YOUR MOTHER****ING BRAINS OUT!
Mav: Please can we grant Gerrard the same opportunity that Lampard had to display his full attacking credentials with a defensive partner before I make my choice? ...No?
What I think is, Gerrard shines brightly at Liverpool because he's certainly one of their best players, and he picks the team up and makes them play, much like Beckham used to do for England. But Gerrard doesn't do this for England, because there are so many other good players and potential leaders in the team. So I'd drop him over Lampard. Lampard scores more too.
And once again, anyone who drops Beckham is crazy. People get confused by the fact that he's so famous and rarely far from the tabloid headlines, and believe he's all style and no substance. It's just not true. Watch him play for Real Madrid, not only is he always looking for the cross or through ball he can deliver to the strikers, but he's also the first to track back and defend, the first to try and win posession back. He can deliver a pinpoint cross from anywhere on the pitch, not just on the right, and although the quarterback role didn't quite work out, that was far from being entirely Beckham's fault. He needs the freedom he has at Madrid, that will get the best from him.
Wright-Phillips is excellent, but he has virtually no international experience, he doesn't know Gary Neville, Michael Owen and the rest of the players he'll be linking with as well as Beckham does, and often his crosses are poor. Although Beckham may be less attacking, you'll get more goals with him in the team.
It's an interesting idea to have a three man Chelsea-style midfield, though. Maybe one to consider after Beckham retires. If you had a midfield section of King (or Carrick, Parker, or whoever), Gerrard and Lampard, you could afford to have an extra player elsewhere. So you could play Rooney behind Owen and Crouch. Rooney's tendency is to drop back anyway, there's no way it'd be an incompatible formation. It'd be a difficult attack force to deal with. Or, considering England's abbundance of defenders, you could go for a 5-3-2. Ferdinand, Campbell, and Terry in central defence, Ashley Cole and Gary Neville as wing-backs. Plus Rio Ferdinand wouldn't make me so nervous with his "I'll just run up the pitch for no apparent reason" runs, because Campbell and Terry would still be behind him. But then, if you're having an anchorman like King in midfield, you probably don't need three centrebacks.
> If you held me at gunpoint and asked me to decide, I would ask for
> Gerrard to be given the same opportunity as Lampard to display his
> full attacking credentials with a defensive partner and then make a
> choice. If that was denied me, I would pick Gerrard, mostly because I
> think he's clearly our most naturally gifted midfielder.
Ahahahaahahahah
Gunman: Gerrard or Lampard, DECIDE NOW OR I BLOW YOUR MOTHER****ING BRAINS OUT!
Mav: Please can we grant Gerrard the same opportunity that Lampard had to display his full attacking credentials with a defensive partner before I make my choice? ...No?
What I think is, Gerrard shines brightly at Liverpool because he's certainly one of their best players, and he picks the team up and makes them play, much like Beckham used to do for England. But Gerrard doesn't do this for England, because there are so many other good players and potential leaders in the team. So I'd drop him over Lampard. Lampard scores more too.
And once again, anyone who drops Beckham is crazy. People get confused by the fact that he's so famous and rarely far from the tabloid headlines, and believe he's all style and no substance. It's just not true. Watch him play for Real Madrid, not only is he always looking for the cross or through ball he can deliver to the strikers, but he's also the first to track back and defend, the first to try and win posession back. He can deliver a pinpoint cross from anywhere on the pitch, not just on the right, and although the quarterback role didn't quite work out, that was far from being entirely Beckham's fault. He needs the freedom he has at Madrid, that will get the best from him.
Wright-Phillips is excellent, but he has virtually no international experience, he doesn't know Gary Neville, Michael Owen and the rest of the players he'll be linking with as well as Beckham does, and often his crosses are poor. Although Beckham may be less attacking, you'll get more goals with him in the team.
It's an interesting idea to have a three man Chelsea-style midfield, though. Maybe one to consider after Beckham retires. If you had a midfield section of King (or Carrick, Parker, or whoever), Gerrard and Lampard, you could afford to have an extra player elsewhere. So you could play Rooney behind Owen and Crouch. Rooney's tendency is to drop back anyway, there's no way it'd be an incompatible formation. It'd be a difficult attack force to deal with. Or, considering England's abbundance of defenders, you could go for a 5-3-2. Ferdinand, Campbell, and Terry in central defence, Ashley Cole and Gary Neville as wing-backs. Plus Rio Ferdinand wouldn't make me so nervous with his "I'll just run up the pitch for no apparent reason" runs, because Campbell and Terry would still be behind him. But then, if you're having an anchorman like King in midfield, you probably don't need three centrebacks.
Gotta agree with Blank there, sorry Mav. I think Gerard thrives on being the heartbeat of Liverpool and that's why it's beneficial he didn't go to Chelsea. He doesn't seem to generate the same level at international level.
Don't apologise mate, it's your opinion. Doesn't matter if I disagree.
Which I do. I don't think Gerrard performs well for Liverpool because he stands out above the rest, I think he performs well because he's the most able central midfielder in the world. He's stronger defensively than Lampard, I haven't seen anyone who can read a game better and he has the ability to surge forward through the middle and run with the ball. His performances for England have been lacking because he has not had a clear role, and that's also the reason that in certain games Lampard notoriously finds himself looking anonymous for eighty minutes.
And concerning Beckham, I do watch him play for Real Madrid and I do often defend him when unfairly criticised. But he is severly lacking in several areas that good right-wingers must master. He has some excellent abilities but given the choice between him, Lampard and Gerrard it would be the latter two every time.
Which I do. I don't think Gerrard performs well for Liverpool because he stands out above the rest, I think he performs well because he's the most able central midfielder in the world. He's stronger defensively than Lampard, I haven't seen anyone who can read a game better and he has the ability to surge forward through the middle and run with the ball. His performances for England have been lacking because he has not had a clear role, and that's also the reason that in certain games Lampard notoriously finds himself looking anonymous for eighty minutes.
And concerning Beckham, I do watch him play for Real Madrid and I do often defend him when unfairly criticised. But he is severly lacking in several areas that good right-wingers must master. He has some excellent abilities but given the choice between him, Lampard and Gerrard it would be the latter two every time.
But he isn't a right winger, he's a midfielder who happens to play on the right. There's a difference. Beckham isn't the same sort of player as Wright-Phillips, Joe Cole, Joaquin, Robben, Vicente etc. And I don't think it's ever likely to be a choice of two from Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard. If it were, I think I'd still go for Beckham as one of them. Gezzers and Lampers are similar players, but Beckham brings something else. And although Wright-Phillips will take people on and get into the box more than Beckham, I think Beckham will get more goals. Not scoring, but setting them up. And he's better at the curling free-kicks than Lampard. Lampard has better though. And Beckham is ace defensively. I don't know why I'm saying this, I'm sure I've said it all three times before.
Anyway, I think a midfield of Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham and King/Carrick/Parker would be interesting. A holding player, and the other three operating as 'satellites'. No designated left player, no designated right player. Chelsea's midfield doesn't have them, and the Brazilians don't generally use traditional wingers, the attacking players drift around all over the place. Except Ze Roberto, maybe. But anyway, it proves you don't need designated wide midfielders. You'd still have full backs. Hmm.
Anyway, I think a midfield of Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham and King/Carrick/Parker would be interesting. A holding player, and the other three operating as 'satellites'. No designated left player, no designated right player. Chelsea's midfield doesn't have them, and the Brazilians don't generally use traditional wingers, the attacking players drift around all over the place. Except Ze Roberto, maybe. But anyway, it proves you don't need designated wide midfielders. You'd still have full backs. Hmm.
Blank wrote:
> Lampard has better though.
?
> Lampard has better though.
?
Haha, I meant better power. The free kicks that he just drills through, Beckham can't/doesn't do that.
I'm sorry, but you cannot drop David beckham. Fair enough, Wright-phillips is a great player, but whenever England have been really down needed a leader to pull them thorugh - Beckham has been there, Against greece for instance, or virtually the whole of the '98 world cup, excluding argentina. Beckham Hasn't been as good in the last few years, but he is still a world class player, and the best choice for his role, as he is the best crosser and long-range passer in the world, and of course he is our captain as well.
The David Beckham debate, like the Lampard-vs.-Gerrard argument, is one which I believe depends greatly now on how the rest of the team shapes up and who we are up against.
If Eriksson is too smartly go for the Ledley King-holding midfield player option in our next competitive match, as I believe he should, then that leaves you with three spaces ahead - and why not make them all attacking players then?
Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham could still featute in the same starting lineup together. I admire Shaun Wright-Phillips and Stewart Downing (when fit) very much, don't get me wrong. But I don't honestly think there's a better mifdield trio to attack some of the world's very best in our squad, on paper anyway.
I'm not entirely sure opting for two naturally wide players would be the safest option here anyway. I'm all for stretching a team as much as any other person may be, but our team now is pretty much centralised around Wayne Rooney, who relishes any opurtunity in the middle, for club and for country. You can't say the same for playing down the channels, after Northern Ireland.
It also leaves the 'middle-man' highly exposed to the counter attack, when England inevitabley lose the ball to another dissapointing touch from Peter Crouch or perhaps a hapless dive from Michael Owen.
Back to the main topic, and Steven Gerrard is the better man of the two for a defensive job. Saying that, however, I'm sure you're all aware by now that he is shining brighter than ever in the attacking sense, especially for Liverpool. These talents are ones that truly cannot be ignored, in the aftermath of Paul Scholes' early retirement.
As for David Beckham, personally, I still feel he has an awful lot to offer our team at the highest level. If any one player in our team can come back from the adversity to perform when called upon I still believe he is the man.
However, I don't rate him as a captain. He's certainly no leader of men on the pitch - how many times have we seen an England team in need of a big pick-me-up within the last 6 months alone. We need someone with a voice, someone with real pressence - just like Ince and Adams used to be...
Beckham's been rightfully critisised almost every time he's pulled on an England shirt recently and I find it apalling once again to see a new excuse in the 'papers today: "My back hurts before and after every game, it's me, the way I kick the ball, I'm special, I'm an exception, I have to take painkillers 24/7..."
Make what you like of it.
If Eriksson is too smartly go for the Ledley King-holding midfield player option in our next competitive match, as I believe he should, then that leaves you with three spaces ahead - and why not make them all attacking players then?
Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham could still featute in the same starting lineup together. I admire Shaun Wright-Phillips and Stewart Downing (when fit) very much, don't get me wrong. But I don't honestly think there's a better mifdield trio to attack some of the world's very best in our squad, on paper anyway.
I'm not entirely sure opting for two naturally wide players would be the safest option here anyway. I'm all for stretching a team as much as any other person may be, but our team now is pretty much centralised around Wayne Rooney, who relishes any opurtunity in the middle, for club and for country. You can't say the same for playing down the channels, after Northern Ireland.
It also leaves the 'middle-man' highly exposed to the counter attack, when England inevitabley lose the ball to another dissapointing touch from Peter Crouch or perhaps a hapless dive from Michael Owen.
Back to the main topic, and Steven Gerrard is the better man of the two for a defensive job. Saying that, however, I'm sure you're all aware by now that he is shining brighter than ever in the attacking sense, especially for Liverpool. These talents are ones that truly cannot be ignored, in the aftermath of Paul Scholes' early retirement.
As for David Beckham, personally, I still feel he has an awful lot to offer our team at the highest level. If any one player in our team can come back from the adversity to perform when called upon I still believe he is the man.
However, I don't rate him as a captain. He's certainly no leader of men on the pitch - how many times have we seen an England team in need of a big pick-me-up within the last 6 months alone. We need someone with a voice, someone with real pressence - just like Ince and Adams used to be...
Beckham's been rightfully critisised almost every time he's pulled on an England shirt recently and I find it apalling once again to see a new excuse in the 'papers today: "My back hurts before and after every game, it's me, the way I kick the ball, I'm special, I'm an exception, I have to take painkillers 24/7..."
Make what you like of it.
OswaldoČ4 wrote:
> hapless dive from Michael Owen.
Where on earth have you got this from?
Owen doesn't dive. He's a ridiculously fair player. He's had about four yellow cards in his entire career.
Besides, he's English.
> hapless dive from Michael Owen.
Where on earth have you got this from?
Owen doesn't dive. He's a ridiculously fair player. He's had about four yellow cards in his entire career.
Besides, he's English.
Whaaaat?
Owen always dives, AWFULLY.
He dives so awfully, that referees find it charming and take pity on him, and give him the free kick anyway, even when he hits the ground three minutes after full time.
Owen always dives, AWFULLY.
He dives so awfully, that referees find it charming and take pity on him, and give him the free kick anyway, even when he hits the ground three minutes after full time.
Page: