The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Haha, I meant better power. The free kicks that he just drills through, Beckham can't/doesn't do that.
Blank wrote:
> Lampard has better though.
?
> Lampard has better though.
?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can we forget for a moment that the Poland game ever happened?
In the papers much was made of the Lampard-Gerrard central partnership before the Austria game. Stevie himself said that now was the time to seriously think about making it work.
While the match itself wasn't convincing or entertaining, the morning papers were unanimous in their verdict that the two central midfielders were our best players. It was by no means a World Cup winning performance, but it showed that the foundations were in place to build a successful piston-styled "you go, I drop" mentality in the middle of the park.
Despite how much more effective than usual Lampard looked with a purely defensive midfielder behind him, the idea of him and Gerrard playing well together should not be abandoned completely. Don't forget that the notion of purely attacking and defensive players was not always so widespread - there are plenty of teams who have made partnerships between players similar to Lampard and Gerrard work in the past. Don't take the need for specialists as gospel.
And I wouldn't drop either of them. They're too important. I would much sooner see Beckham go to make way for a holding midfielder - someone like Scott Parker who could play just behind Gerrard and Lampard and allow them both to go forward. Like the Essien-Makelele-Lampard trio at Chelsea, or the Gerrard-Hamann-Alonso midfield at Liverpool.
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.
In the papers much was made of the Lampard-Gerrard central partnership before the Austria game. Stevie himself said that now was the time to seriously think about making it work.
While the match itself wasn't convincing or entertaining, the morning papers were unanimous in their verdict that the two central midfielders were our best players. It was by no means a World Cup winning performance, but it showed that the foundations were in place to build a successful piston-styled "you go, I drop" mentality in the middle of the park.
Despite how much more effective than usual Lampard looked with a purely defensive midfielder behind him, the idea of him and Gerrard playing well together should not be abandoned completely. Don't forget that the notion of purely attacking and defensive players was not always so widespread - there are plenty of teams who have made partnerships between players similar to Lampard and Gerrard work in the past. Don't take the need for specialists as gospel.
And I wouldn't drop either of them. They're too important. I would much sooner see Beckham go to make way for a holding midfielder - someone like Scott Parker who could play just behind Gerrard and Lampard and allow them both to go forward. Like the Essien-Makelele-Lampard trio at Chelsea, or the Gerrard-Hamann-Alonso midfield at Liverpool.
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.
Hold on a minute - am i missing something?
Any team in the world would want steven gerrard in their team, and given time he can work with lampard. lampard has been good for england recently, but before that he hasn't done much and Gerrard has been brilliant for Engalnd ever since he came in. Gerrard should take king's role behind lampard, as wasn't that stevie's prefered position anyway in Dm?
Any team in the world would want steven gerrard in their team, and given time he can work with lampard. lampard has been good for england recently, but before that he hasn't done much and Gerrard has been brilliant for Engalnd ever since he came in. Gerrard should take king's role behind lampard, as wasn't that stevie's prefered position anyway in Dm?
I think it's ben shown they can't work together - and with Ledley King, Lampard proved how weel he could play with him and I think we played better because of it (one attacking midfielder and one defensive midfielder). I think they're are the same in quality, but Lampard is better at scoring by far.
So it'd definitely be Lampard for me.
So it'd definitely be Lampard for me.
They're both instrumental players. I prefer Steven Gerard and think he's more useful to a team particularly Liverpool, but the nature of England's play means they don't need huge runs through the middle but rather are more a flank side with overlapping full backs. I'd test them both out on their own and see who copes better, but I just expect Lampard would shade it.
Page: