I don't know if anyone else has posted this.
https://sportsbrief.com/football/ma...les-gerrard-lampard-debate-incredible-answer/
https://sportsbrief.com/football/ma...les-gerrard-lampard-debate-incredible-answer/
Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard debate.
- Thread starter Hammondo
- Start date
I don’t think either of them are scholars
Hahahaha, damn autocorrect!
The majority of European players tend to favour Paul ‘The Scholar’ Scholes. Pep, Henry, Xavi, Pirlo etc.
We’re obviously biased but they’ve all got very different skill sets - I’d go Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard in that order.
We’re obviously biased but they’ve all got very different skill sets - I’d go Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard in that order.
Its not a debate anymore at this point since theyre no longer playing and we know more about them. All of them are basically weirdos
They were all great players in their own way. Obviously I am biased towards Scholes but they were all great players. England didn’t know how good it had it with those three and they were wasted.
Scholes was a different kind of player after 2005, it would have been easier to accommodate the post-2005 Scholes in an England team with one of the other two. An England midfield three of Carrick-Scholes-Gerrard/Lampard in 2006 looks very nicely balanced to me. Gerrard and Lampard posed tactical problems for England even on their own, never mind trying to fit the other one in.
As for who was best of the three, it’s hard to call between Gerrard and Scholes I think. Always thought Lampard was slightly less talented than the other two, but made up for it in other ways I suppose.
As for who was best of the three, it’s hard to call between Gerrard and Scholes I think. Always thought Lampard was slightly less talented than the other two, but made up for it in other ways I suppose.
Scholes was technically so far above the other two it's not even funny. He was literally, yes literally the best CM in the prem at the age of 36. The only person I even rank alongside him is KDB. Alonso was the only other cm that could come close to what Scholes could do at the time. (Outside of the Barca duo).
That would be 2010. Scholes wasn’t even a guaranteed first XI player for us at that point, never mind the best CM in the league.
Scholes was clearly superior to Gerrard who was a weird but very good player. Lampard was nowhere near Gerrard never mind Pauly.
Still looking for the incredible answer from Pep in the article 
"All respect to Frank [Lampard], to Steven [Gerrard], but Paul Scholes is my favourite one. I love it. I think he had everything but the other two, come on, Frank and Steven Gerrard changed this. Paul Scholes is my favourite."
No idea what that dopey cnut means by that.
No idea what that dopey cnut means by that.
They shortened the quote: "those two, two, twoooo, come on,..."
Scholes is on the level of Modric, KDB, while the other two are just a tier down. I'd even put Gerrard a tier lower than Lamps.
Like look at their skillset, who would you fancy to hit the ball outside the box? They all had good long range efforts but Scholes would win it for me.
Vison wise, Scholes is ondifferent level to them both.
Passing those two never reached Scholes passing levels, he could hit any kind of pass from anywhere on the pitch with a pinpoint accuracy.
Defensively Scholesy might be slightly behind butI think he was great positionally and reading of the game, only later in his career he just mistimed tackles for fun because he was simply old.
What we should also consider is the goals and assists from the open play, Scholes unlike Lampard wasn't on penalties, because there were others to take, otherwise he would surpass even Lampard I am sure of that, didn't take many freekicks and corner either, because of obvious reasons having the best set piece taker probably in the history of the game in the squad as well, while he could easily do that.
What's driving me crazy that it is just very difficult to convince some people outside of United because simply Lampard and Gerard being captains and infinitely more exposed players in media and so much bias was created around them., while Scholes simply rained from 18-36 of age from start to finish, easily because he was so good he could adapt to new roles, tactics etc...
Like look at their skillset, who would you fancy to hit the ball outside the box? They all had good long range efforts but Scholes would win it for me.
Vison wise, Scholes is ondifferent level to them both.
Passing those two never reached Scholes passing levels, he could hit any kind of pass from anywhere on the pitch with a pinpoint accuracy.
Defensively Scholesy might be slightly behind butI think he was great positionally and reading of the game, only later in his career he just mistimed tackles for fun because he was simply old.
What we should also consider is the goals and assists from the open play, Scholes unlike Lampard wasn't on penalties, because there were others to take, otherwise he would surpass even Lampard I am sure of that, didn't take many freekicks and corner either, because of obvious reasons having the best set piece taker probably in the history of the game in the squad as well, while he could easily do that.
What's driving me crazy that it is just very difficult to convince some people outside of United because simply Lampard and Gerard being captains and infinitely more exposed players in media and so much bias was created around them., while Scholes simply rained from 18-36 of age from start to finish, easily because he was so good he could adapt to new roles, tactics etc...
His gametime was managed but he most certainly was one of the best if not the best midfielder that year and as good after coming out of his retirement which is just incredible. Yeah we were lacking legs in that midfield that year but we still managed to dominate majority of games and nick the title thanks to his control of midfield..
Pretty sure Lampard and Gerrard both scored way more long range goals
But Scholes has 3/4 in particular that stand out for excellence
Pep can sometimes be wrong about things and that's okay
I don't think any fans of Chelsea, Liverpool or Man United would swap their guy for either of the other two.
They were all fantastic players.
They were all fantastic players.
To be honest I would probably say Scholes if pushed but I do find it ironic he's the main pick of these three despite lack of goals compared to his peers when thats the main stick people beat Hazard with.
I don't think there is a "debate" in football that I'm more over/bored of then this one... Can even tolerate Ronaldo vs. Messi over it.
Exactly this.
Hazard is a right footed, left forward. Goals are far more important to that position than central midfield. Especially when so many of Lampard’s goals are penalties.
It's not Lampard, is it? Lets get that out of the way. Great goalscorer but he was a level below talent wise.
As for Scholes v Gerrard, as good as he could be when he went all Roy of the Rovers, Gerrard could not control a game. Its the most important part of being a centre mid and what made Xavi, Busquets, Pirlo and others so good. Had Gerrard been able to do it, Liverpool would undoubtedly have won the league. Scholes could do it with ease and thats why his trophy cabinet is so much bigger, and why he was the better player.
To hammer the point some more, if Gerrard and Scholes had swapped clubs, Liverpool would he sitting on a lot more trophies than they are now. Probably not the 2005 Champions League, but a lot of others they didn't win. I don't think even Liverpool fans would deny that.
As for Scholes v Gerrard, as good as he could be when he went all Roy of the Rovers, Gerrard could not control a game. Its the most important part of being a centre mid and what made Xavi, Busquets, Pirlo and others so good. Had Gerrard been able to do it, Liverpool would undoubtedly have won the league. Scholes could do it with ease and thats why his trophy cabinet is so much bigger, and why he was the better player.
To hammer the point some more, if Gerrard and Scholes had swapped clubs, Liverpool would he sitting on a lot more trophies than they are now. Probably not the 2005 Champions League, but a lot of others they didn't win. I don't think even Liverpool fans would deny that.
Keane and Vieira were the best
As you get farther from their playing days, the more impressive Scholes career and skill set looks. Gerrard was exciting and skilled, but also could be extremely careless and inconsistent at times. He might be the reason you won, but might also be the reason you lost, and his physical tools determined a lot of his play, so his window at a top level seemed shorter to me.
I love Frank, but I don’t think anyone thinks he was a gifted creator. He wasn’t “great” or super technical at anything. He was very solid at almost everything, similar to Mount, but more physically imposing than Mount. That trailing presence in the box made Frank very dangerous. And he was a good leader, but there were a lot of good leaders on those Chelsea teams. People generally point to his goals, but he took penalties, so that is skewed for me.
So, Scholes.
I love Frank, but I don’t think anyone thinks he was a gifted creator. He wasn’t “great” or super technical at anything. He was very solid at almost everything, similar to Mount, but more physically imposing than Mount. That trailing presence in the box made Frank very dangerous. And he was a good leader, but there were a lot of good leaders on those Chelsea teams. People generally point to his goals, but he took penalties, so that is skewed for me.
So, Scholes.
They were all brilliant in their own way.
On a bias note, Lamps' goalscoring numbers wont be beaten by a mid in the EPL for a long time, if at all. Only 7 behind Aguero, and 2 ahead of Henry [far more apps in EPL obviously, though]
On a bias note, Lamps' goalscoring numbers wont be beaten by a mid in the EPL for a long time, if at all. Only 7 behind Aguero, and 2 ahead of Henry [far more apps in EPL obviously, though]
So did Shearer, but he is still the best goalscoring player in prem history.
It's scholes, it was always scholes.
It's pretty pointless. You could make a case for any based on certain criteria and expect not to get laughed out of the room.
It's not as if there is a huge difference in their goal scoring records.
Took these stats from PL site and transfermarkt (might be wrong too, didn't check properly).
| Mins | Goals | Penalty goals | Non Penalty goals | Mins per goal | Mins per Non Penalty goals | |
| Scholes | 36115 | 107 | 1 | 106 | 338 | 341 |
| Lampard | 48909 | 177 | 43 | 134 | 276 | 365 |
| Gerrard | 41172 | 121 | 32 | 89 | 340 | 463 |
| Mins | Goals | Penalty goals | Non Penalty goals | Assists | Mins per NPG+Assists | |
| Scholes | 36115 | 107 | 1 | 106 | 55 | 224 |
| Lampard | 48909 | 177 | 43 | 134 | 102 | 207 |
| Gerrard | 41172 | 121 | 32 | 89 | 92 | 227 |
Scholes was the better football player.
Lampard is seriously underrated by some people. Great passer, always showed up in big games, scored tons of goals, created tons of chances.
268 goals and 171 assists in 894 games is insane for a midfielder. That is just under 0.5 goals & assists per game.
268 goals and 171 assists in 894 games is insane for a midfielder. That is just under 0.5 goals & assists per game.
Keaneand Vieirawerewas the best
feck scholes, marry lamps, kill gerrard
Also he was never injured.
It would have been interesting to see Gerrard play in a better team.
Incredible football player indeed with few extra dimensions when needed. In 2003 playing behind Van Nistelrooy and destroying defenses was probably my fav of his roles. That adventure was rather short, but so delicious in title race vs Arsenal who were still deadly at the time.
Lamps and Gerrard were simply instrumental for their teams, but SAF absolutely squeezed 200% out of Scholes that lasted to 20th title for United. Perhaps this is why Pep seeing him as his favourite in terms of longevity for PL success.
Pep very likely also recognizes qualities in Scholes that he, himself, possessed as a player.
Qualities that neither Gerrard nor Lampard had to anywhere near the same extent.
Robben was a left footed right forward yet was considered a monster for us despite not scoring that reguarly (for us).
This obsession with the top line is what led to the likes of Lukaku being thought off so highly.