Slippy was a 'top, top player' contrary to what Ferguson says, but I have to take Keane over him. Best player in the PL era, and quite possibly a Top 5 B2B CM ever.
Keane versus Gerrard (Who Was Better?)
- Thread starter Omar Little
- Start date
Got to disagree. What's the point pulling off an outside of the foot pass once in a blue moon when someone else using a more standard technique is nailing the execution time after time? It doesn't make you a better passer if you occasionally pull something a bit unorthodox off, it just makes you a bit flashier. Keane wasn't as flashy as Gerrard, but he was a much better passer.
feck me, that team with Robson sounds like something from FM
These threads remind me of a mouse chasing it's tail over and over.
Yeah the World Cups were a perennial dissapoinment. Of course the blame doesn't lie squarely at his feet, but when you're lauded as world class, and a leader he was just beyond disappointing. Lampard shoulder's the same blame too. Not once did they, as a pair or individually rise above mediocrity. Instead, our best players during those barren years, were either Ashley Cole, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Owen, Rooney (2004), Beckham and even Joe Cole. When judging players, the CL has to many, superceded the WC or European Championships, but for me hte best players are just \ble to turn it on in the most important matches that come along then gone in a flash. Zidane, Ronaldo, Hagi, Henry, Thuram the list goes on. Gerrard was never able to come close, and yet some demand he belongs in that elite class. Not quite in my humble opinion.
Gerrard, hands down all day ery day Monday through to Sunday!
Also who's Keane?
Only messing. I'd say Gerrard because he often had to single handedly drag us out of games, Keane was surrounded by greats, Gerrard didn't have world class talent around him 24/7.
Also who's Keane?
Only messing. I'd say Gerrard because he often had to single handedly drag us out of games, Keane was surrounded by greats, Gerrard didn't have world class talent around him 24/7.
Gerrard was average at best for England, like all the so called Golden Generation but he remains the only player to have scored in a League Cup Final, FA Cup Final, UEFA Cup Final and Champions League Final.
Bit of a myth, this.
Gerrard and Torres started less than half of our league games that season I believe.
The wider combination of Gerrard, Torres, Alonso and Mascherano only played together in around 6.
Thanks for that...
The state of this forum
eeeeeeeeeeerrrrrm yeah he is a bit of an arsehole doe la
Yea but thats not to completely discredit Gerrard as a player, he was pretty good. For his own career he should have been a bit less loyal, he might hava had the medals to prove how good he actually was.
I mean in comparison of style of player he was a lot more like Scholes than Keane. Passing range, link up play with forwards, goal scoring, etc.
I might be wrong but didnt he have a similar career path to Scholes too, starting off a lot further up the pitch, whereas Keano was box to box #6 from day 1.
The only real similar traits he had with Keane were more personality and character as opposed to footballing ability. Or am I completely wrong on that?
This might sound a bit stupid but I think part of the reason Keano was so successful in the Prem was because he was the chalk to a lot of the cheese as far as midfield players were concerned at the time. Which is why he worked so well with Scholesy too. He was the perfect foil to a lot of opposition midfielders if that makes sense?
I think the only player to compare to Keane in the last decade and a half is Essien.
Last edited:
Keane > Gerrard /thread
Don't blame me! This isn't my thread, I didn't start it. It was just a couple of my posts moved over from the RAWK thread where I was defending Keano.
Both brilliant, both sometimes underappreciated. Keane the better player, but there's not a great deal in it if we're honest.
Gerrard played in an England team that included Ashley Cole, Ferdinand, Terry, Hargreaves, Lampard, Beckham, Joe Cole, Rooney and Owen and regularly stank the place out. If he wasn't a diamond amongst turds, he was the turd.Gerrard, hands down all day ery day Monday through to Sunday!
Also who's Keane?
Only messing. I'd say Gerrard because he often had to single handedly drag us out of games, Keane was surrounded by greats, Gerrard didn't have world class talent around him 24/7.
I agree that the comparison to Keane is an odd-one, but I also see no point in comparing him to Scholes either, especially not on here, because many will say Scholes, hands-down, every time.
I think Gerrard was always seen as a midfielder. He was getting shifted around to the wings on occasion as a youngster, but if anything he saw himself as a more defensive player in his younger days, but as it turns out, he didn't have the skillset to do it.
I don't really know about the chalk and cheese thing because Keane played when there were still a number of angry british and irish blokes in the PL, it just happened that he was the best of the lot.
I think that Keane was the better player but using England as a stick to hit Gerrard with is unfair. That entire generation (Terry, Gerrard, Lampard, Ferdinand, Rooney, Owen etc) were failures at international level for one reason or another. Lampard never even managed a goal at a World Cup. Gerrard wasn't the weak link, they were all managed terribly by useless managers like Eriksson and Mclaren.
It's hard to find less suitable comparison to Gerrard than Scholes in my opinion. They don't share anything apart from a great goalscoring ratio and a time spent upfront (but while Scholes started his career as a striker and moved deeper, Gerrard was moved upfront around his peak). To compare their passing is absolutely ridiculous, Scholes had a vision and a skillset to execute every possible pass and he did it with the frightening consistency.
Absolutely, and awe inspiring Roy of the Rovers stuff at times. But the frustating thing for me as a (beaten down) England fan that our misfield lacked a player who could really knit the play together. We had world class players - Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Scholes. but we looked one dimensional, lacked creativity. I'm old enough to at least have enjoyed watching the likes of Gascoigne, Platt, Waddle et al play with the flair that held their own against their European and South American rivals. I'm not sure, Scholes excepted the others could play that way. Great in their own way but ultimately lacking the football brain and vision to stand out against elite competition. We tend to appreciate players who get the goals, do the spectacular, but it's arguably harder to find players who have superior vision/reading of the game that makes playing easy. Sheringham had it, Players like Zola, Silva, Pogba (allow me this one), Fowler. Point is are the golden generation really undisputed greats?. Relatively speaking yes, but none are complete players, other than Scholes for me.
This is a very irritating thread. First you have people trying to convince others that Keane was a defensive midfielder. Then they and others have tried to pretend Gerrard was a better passer of the ball (He wasn't. Gerrard was better at Rooney passes and long range shots. In every other facet, Keane was superior).
Worst of all is Duffer insisting that if you don't play in the final, you haven't won a European Cup. The trophy is for a tournament, not just one game. By his logic, Petr Cech is the only player to have won a European Cup for Chelsea as he was their only player to play in every European game of 2011/12.
Unless he is suggesting that the final is the only game that matters, and that despite Keane being vital in seeing off Bayern, Barca, Inter and Juventus on the way to the final, he is less deserving of a medal than Ryan Bertrand who did not feature in a single European match day squad for Chelsea before starting the final in 2012?
Worst of all is Duffer insisting that if you don't play in the final, you haven't won a European Cup. The trophy is for a tournament, not just one game. By his logic, Petr Cech is the only player to have won a European Cup for Chelsea as he was their only player to play in every European game of 2011/12.
Unless he is suggesting that the final is the only game that matters, and that despite Keane being vital in seeing off Bayern, Barca, Inter and Juventus on the way to the final, he is less deserving of a medal than Ryan Bertrand who did not feature in a single European match day squad for Chelsea before starting the final in 2012?
A gem of a post.
A big problem England had was self made - shunting scholes left to accommodate Gerrard and lampard because they wanted to play two up top. Those 3 should have been a midfield 3 with one up top and two wide. Instead scholes retired and England lost a player who could control the tempo, which would have got more out of lampard and Gerrard. Piss poor management - not helped by insane media pressure.
No it means that Gerrard needed two players behind him (Mascherano and Alonso) to get the best out of him
Most threads comparing players are irritating because they follow the same pattern. Fanboys on either side end up making hyperbolic arguments. Reasonable posters decide not to post. That said, Gerrard never impressed me.
To me Keane and Vieira were hands down the best two CMs of the PL (92+) era.
Gerrard probably had more license to roam, but had he had the quality of team mates Keane had then his role would have certainly been more defined. Keane marshalled United, Gerrard had to try and be everywhere, because the team often needed him to be perhaps. They were just performing the roles needed for their team as it stood at the time.
From the Premier League era, I'd have Scholes, Keane, Lampard, Vieira and Toure ahead of him.
Gerrard had a good passsing range on him too
But Ive far too much for this scouse twat now.. i feel nauseous.
Gerrard is a bit better than Rooney (at passing), because he is doing these passes all throughout the game. Making little chipped passes utilising different parts of his foot to get the ball to its intended target, yet the difference is he is also misplacing some simpler 5 yard passes and also making the wrong options at times using the wrong pass for the wrong instance when a simpler pass could have sufficed.
Saying that, that doesn't speak for his ability to get the ball to where he wants using a range of different techniques meaning his passing is good. Selecting the right option is as much to do with the mental side of things, and his attitude to passing is why he would end up having better seasons with licence roam, an attacking player could get a passing percentage of 81% in a game while a deep lying playmaker gets 93%, the consistency of the DLPs passing makes him a more consistent passer but it doesn't mean he can pass to the range or to the variety of the more attacking player simply put.
Gerrard was still passing the ball well in his last and 2nd to last season, what he loss was his legs and the mental side of his game wasn't as refined as Scholes.
Essien and Makalele too Id say
Who was better? Obviously there is some bias in this thread. We all worship our heroes. Gerrard gave me some great moments, and he is definetely one of the best english players of his generation.
Some people would claim, that he carried Liverpool FC for ten years or more. I don't agree. Of course you can point out many matches, where Gerrard was the key factor in a win with a spectacular goal, or where his determination would spur the rest of the team to a win. Who could hit a ball hard, better than Gerrard?
But I don't think he carried LFC.. He tried to, and when he succeded, it was great. But quite often I felt, that he tried so hard on his own, that the team suffered from it. Gerrard had som great individual tools, but he wasn't a great teamplayer in the sense, that he made the other players better.
Keane didn't have the same ability to win a match on his own, but he was a teamplayer. He made the team better. I haven't seen a more inspirational captain in my time, than Keane.
So for me, Gerrard probably had the best individual skills, but Keane would win you titles.
Some people would claim, that he carried Liverpool FC for ten years or more. I don't agree. Of course you can point out many matches, where Gerrard was the key factor in a win with a spectacular goal, or where his determination would spur the rest of the team to a win. Who could hit a ball hard, better than Gerrard?
But I don't think he carried LFC.. He tried to, and when he succeded, it was great. But quite often I felt, that he tried so hard on his own, that the team suffered from it. Gerrard had som great individual tools, but he wasn't a great teamplayer in the sense, that he made the other players better.
Keane didn't have the same ability to win a match on his own, but he was a teamplayer. He made the team better. I haven't seen a more inspirational captain in my time, than Keane.
So for me, Gerrard probably had the best individual skills, but Keane would win you titles.
Some great points there, hard to disagree with most of it.
Gerrard for me. Caf has always oddly underrated Gerrard. However, I caught Keane at the tail end of his career and my assumption is based on what I've read about Keane/seen on maybe youtube.
So I can't really speak for Keane but the reason I chose Gerrard is his ability to change games on his own. Time and time again he carried that crap Liverpool squad. A player that was capable of magical moments and lifted the whole team.
Scholes will always be better than Gerrard for me but one aspect in which Gerrard was ahead was how he could change games.
So I can't really speak for Keane but the reason I chose Gerrard is his ability to change games on his own. Time and time again he carried that crap Liverpool squad. A player that was capable of magical moments and lifted the whole team.
Scholes will always be better than Gerrard for me but one aspect in which Gerrard was ahead was how he could change games.
Very much like the present day Pogba.
Basically, I don't know anything about one of the players we're comparing here, so I'll chose the other one.
In terms of impact on the game Pogba can and should strive to be like Gerrard. Don't think he will ever dictate play like Modric or Scholes would but it's the drive and ability to produce moments in players like him or Gerrard.
This is also why I don't think Pogba is like Lampard. Lampard was a great player in my eyes (again underrated) but he was a luxury and not a game changer.
Keane was far superior.
Expected an immature post of this sort. If you know so much about Keane why don't you tell me how he had the qualities I mentioned about Gerrard? Was he capable of magical game changing moments? Certainly not as much as Gerrard from what I have read. Or maybe you believe we have to watch every player in detail to even consider comparing them.
If you're going to make a statement that x player is better than y, it kind of helps if you've actually seen a decent amount of both players. You say Gerrard stood out in a crap team, carried a crap team, all well and good, Keane stood out in one of the most successful club sides of all time and carried them quite a bit, a team full of superstars.
Another thing, nearly all of Roy Keane's goals, were important ones, in big games. He was the ultimate big game player.
That's nonsense. You don't score 20+ goals from midfield for ten years running and be called a luxury player. Sure that team was built on their defense but Lampard was precisely what they needed, someone who meshed well in the industrious nature of the midfield and provided incredible positioning, intelligence and clinical ability going forward. His consistency simply shits on most midfielders you can think of and he was as vital as anyone else in making Chelsea the force they were for years.