He played predominantly on the left for you, didn't he? And only moved over to the right at Bayern.
Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard debate.
- Thread starter Hammondo
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
Not sure what that has to do with comparing a left forward to a central midfielder, but if I was asked to compare their careers at Chelsea then I would say Hazard was far better than Robben.
Ronaldo and Messi changed everyone’s perception around goal scoring. Hazard was being talked about as a rival to them at one point, which is testament to how well he was playing for a few seasons, but also led people to believe he should have been scoring 30 Premier League goals a season, in fact 16 is a very good return. Robben was playing in a pre-Messi/Ronaldo era at Chelsea.
Because he was 36. He had to have his time managed so he could play the most important games. Please do tell who was better than him at CM?
On paper but in reality he was interchanging with Duff/Cole and a lot of his goals came through cutting in that side.
It was only really 06/07 (when Duff was gone and Cole was injured) he played there more permanently.
That’s not really true though is it. There’s a massive difference in goals between Lampard and the other 2 for CMs. Lampard was definitely less talented than the other two but he was a better finisher and creator. Scholes was the better player if you wanted to control the tempo of a game and Gerrard was absolutely fantastic as a one man team surrounding by mostly mediocre players. Gerrards numbers would arguably be higher in a better team, that goes without saying.
Reason Gerrard and Lampard could not play together is simply because they both wanted to occupy the same space on the field. Even in a 3, you would only be able to use one of them.
In 2010 Gerrard and Lampard were both better. Toure who signed for City that summer was better. Fabregas was still with Arsenal until 2011, Modric was at Spurs. We’d have been better off with any of those options over an ageing Scholes, as great as it was to watch him still going at that point (though at United Fletcher was mostly preferred alongside Carrick, and Park was also probably more important to us around that time).
As for being saved for the most important matches, Gibson was preferred to him at home to Bayern in 2010. During our CL run to the final the following year I really don’t remember Scholes featuring much. He didn’t start the final against Barca, and our preferred CM pairing was Carrick and Giggs.
Generally I think a lot of people overrate Scholes’ later seasons with us. For me his peak was 2002/2003, and his final great season for us was 2006/2007.
How England had these 3 on their pomp and still won feck all is even bigger cause for debate.
I think an anchor man in midfield three with 2 runners on the flank would absolutely brought the best out of them. And owen upfront..
All great players: Lampard with insane goal and assist output while almost never injured, Gerrard with brute force in the middle of the pitch, also capable of big moments and was integral part of Liverpool team for so long, but, IMO, Scholes was only one who mastered transition through multiple position on the pitch without losing impact or being lesser of a player.
Agree with all of this. All great footballers.
Scholes was the better player. Then Gerrard, and then Lapmard. However, I think Lampard was a better team player than Gerrard. If that makes any sense.
Scholes is the best player out of the three. Better passing and technical ability, as well as understanding of the midfield role. I don't think there's much separating Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard is a better goal scorer and maybe a bit more comfortable playing in midfield. Gerrard is more likely to win you a game on his own.
I think Gerrard was better as a more advanced attacking player.
I think Gerrard was better as a more advanced attacking player.
Lampard was the worst. Gerrard was a quite ridiculous player for a good 7-8 years.
Think Gerrard gets too much credit regarding this.
His best period was working alongside Xabi Alonso and Javier Mascherano. Both very good players in their own right.
Great to see this debate finally being settled. Thanks to sportsbrief and Pep for doing fantastic research and bringing an end to this unsolved question.
can remember Andy Gray used to give Benitez a load of stick for moving Gerrard out of CM for the likes of those two and Sissoko but no doubt it got the best output out of him
Was it 2010 when Capello tried to get Scholes back into the England team? I think Scholes was still our best midfielder until he retired but of course he couldn’t do the yards and couldn’t play every game. He was still controlling games even then.
Agreed. He was a quality footballer.
Surely there isn't any neutral fan, or even non Chelsea fan who thinks Lampard is in the conversation with the other two?!
He was controlling games against the likes of Wolfsburg, or in cup cameos like against Arsenal that time. He wasn’t really starting many of our big games, never mind controlling them as he used to. Starting him in a two-man midfield in a big game after 2008 was asking for trouble. No shame in that, he was at the very end of his career, and he was still very useful at times.
For me Gerrard and Lampard are pretty similar, but Scholes is way above.
In an ideal midfield, the way I picture it, neither Lampard nor Gerrard could play. Simply not creative enough. When I say creative, I mean incapable of running games with tens to hundreds of small passes like Scholes.
Scholes is player in the mould of Pirlo and Xavi. Those other two are simply below. And I believe they were the reason England could never dominate internationally.
In an ideal midfield, the way I picture it, neither Lampard nor Gerrard could play. Simply not creative enough. When I say creative, I mean incapable of running games with tens to hundreds of small passes like Scholes.
Scholes is player in the mould of Pirlo and Xavi. Those other two are simply below. And I believe they were the reason England could never dominate internationally.
Hot take: I don't think lampard is that far from Gerrard, who feels slightly overrated here
Gerrard is usually played down outrageously on here, being a Liverpool player.
We're all biased on Scholes of course, and the longevity thing definitely hypes him in the same way it underrates Beckham - who had arguably the finest United season of any United player in the last 25 years bar Ronaldo's Ballon D'or winning season.
But the tales of players saying Scholes was the best player at United go back yonks, plus all the European greats etc.
I can't remember ever hearing anything even close about Lampard .
Lampard strikes me as a guy who made the absolute most of himself through hard work, plus being very fortunate to have a team that perfectly suited him in effect playing almost as a second striker.
Scholes was pure skill and a pure footballer, not relying on physicality in any way, which is so unusual for an English talent.
I watched Scholes play the odd match back then for both United and the national team. To be honest no one outside United rated him the way he has come to be rated later. Not saying that he was bad or average but he simply wasn't rated as world class. Nobody would have had Scholes ahead of Gerrard, Lampard. He wasn't really that missed when Hargreaves emerged as a capable cdm for the national team and later on Carrick in the same ball playing role.
With that said I would need to rewatch some of his games because he clearly has been rated ever since Xavi and the rest began to speak of him as some sort of demi god. It's sort of like Moussa Dembele who everybody now claims was the GOAT but back then no one outside of Tottenham gave a toss about as more than a good player.
With that said I would need to rewatch some of his games because he clearly has been rated ever since Xavi and the rest began to speak of him as some sort of demi god. It's sort of like Moussa Dembele who everybody now claims was the GOAT but back then no one outside of Tottenham gave a toss about as more than a good player.
What you describe isn’t really creative, creativity most of the time is defined by final passes, passes in the final third, not being a playmaker, the most creative players in this league aren’t really the onea who control games, people mention DeBruyne as an example but he is even more wasteful with the ball than Lampard and even Gerrard was.
Yeah I think you are right he wouldn’t always be trusted for 90 mins in 442 but Scholes says he thought he was playing very well in the run up to the WC and Capello obviously thought so. His consistency was probably off because of his age but he did still control periods of games. He was still bloody good in my opinion.
Yeah, but to me that's also creativity, because you are the one player who directly affects team as a whole. I'd say that generally deep lying playmakers are the most creative players in the team by far, as they completely influence how the game looks. It's not just about making chances and raking up assists.
I remember Carragher speaking about this years ago on MNF.
His argument why Lampard/Gerrard was better than Scholes was because SAF felt the need to go out and sign Juan Sebastian Veron to cover a similar position.
Clearly forgetting that United sold Veron on to....that's right, Chelsea.
His argument why Lampard/Gerrard was better than Scholes was because SAF felt the need to go out and sign Juan Sebastian Veron to cover a similar position.
Clearly forgetting that United sold Veron on to....that's right, Chelsea.
One thing i find interesting is Gerrard having so many more PFA team of the season appearances than the others, though obviously those awards always have their flaws. i wish they did it as a top 33 instead of just first 11 though, so you could easily see who else was being considered, but just missed out as best in the league for each position.
I’d have taken Gerrard over Scholes around 04-06, I think he dropped off a bit after Keane went, but 07 onwards Scholes really turned into a different beast
Out the 3 scholes is the only one who could dictate games. Technically a lot better than the other 2 and more agile, clear why Pep picks him.
Also Liverpool, Chelsea signed lot of midfielders too. So that should be used against Lampard and Gerrard.
1. Scholes
2. Gerrard
3. Lampard
2. Gerrard
3. Lampard
Nah Lampard is overrated for the same reason, people only post stats, it's the only way they can talk about Lampard. He played furthest forward in a 4-3-3 with two defensive players a perfect target man, build-up striker for most of his best years. The team was set up for him to score. He was the least versatile of the three, wasn't that good outside of that system or in other midfield roles.
Scholes could play striker at the start of his career, scored 20 in 2002/03 off the striker, played box to box many years before that, then deep-lying playmaker from 2006 onwards, which was probably his best ever football. Gerrard could play deep midfield, box to box, winger and second striker. He was quite good as a wide player actually and well suited to it, his ego just wouldn't allow it.
Both lampard and Gerrard aren’t even fit to lace Scholes’s boots. Neither of them come close to the genius of Scholesy as a midfielder.
Especially the way they (pundits) describe Gerrard is so annoying and so not true. He can shoot, he can pass, he can tackle, he can create etc etc like the hell he was doing all these things every week. You would think he was this amazing most of the time. The way they list the qualities of Gerrard in a sentence dwarfs even fecking Zidane’s. In reality, he was a clutch Player who was a 7/10 every now and then but was a 6/10 most weeks.
Especially the way they (pundits) describe Gerrard is so annoying and so not true. He can shoot, he can pass, he can tackle, he can create etc etc like the hell he was doing all these things every week. You would think he was this amazing most of the time. The way they list the qualities of Gerrard in a sentence dwarfs even fecking Zidane’s. In reality, he was a clutch Player who was a 7/10 every now and then but was a 6/10 most weeks.
Gerrard is dumber than a bag of hammers and played like a cave man . Scholes read the game like a supercomputer, knew where everyone was and was several steps ahead In his decisions, which made him always seem like he had more time on the ball with more space than he really did have. His technique was superior to the other two, who were, frankly, a pair of cnuts.
- Scholes
- Gerrard
- Lampard
Scholes is basically hero. Gerrard had a bit of everything probably a more complete player. Lampard was the best goalscorer but scholes was still better than the two of them. He was 5 passes ahead. We can all babble away but the majority of professionals say scholes. Barca based there teachings on scholes I think they know more than us
Because Sven couldn't utilise them in right way
And it wasn't that much of a task. Drop lampard (goal threat from bench) play Gerrard or Rooney from left or as 10 behind owen and interchange don't need left winger they had cole and play carrick or Barry with scholes.