MounchesterUtd
New Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 2,059
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.
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.I think his passing was actually pretty good, what deserved to be criticise was his consistency and passing choices, when talking about variety, he could pretty much put the ball where he want using a range of techniques outside of the foot, drilling it, etc. thats what we mean by 'variety' see his pass against Fulham for Sturridges goal in 13/14 or pass against United at Old Trafford for Murphys goal in the early 00's.
I think even when comparing someone like Lampard he had more variety and guile/creativity to his passing than Keanes, he ranged in the middle because i think it was the lesser of Gerrards ability as a passer but he did have better feel for short passing and the mental side of not always over doing it. Scholes was the best British passer probably of the last couple decades(and one of the best full stop), but both Lampard and Gerrard were more creative passers than him he excels in different things that make him a better player but not that.
feck me, that team with Robson sounds like something from FMThe 84 game v Barca is the one people always talk about and rightly so..... it was scary. But he did that loads of times.... in Europe, for England, v the best English teams. In the mid 80's, he was untouchable.... hence why Juve tried to buy him despite having an amazing MF themselves (Tardelli, Prandelli, Platini).
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 When judging players, the CL has to many, superceded the WC or European Championships, but for me hte best players are just \ble to turn it on in the most important matches that come along then gone in a flash.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.its a good point that Keane played in better teams surrounded by better players. However Gerrard did have that at England and didn't really rise above the way Keane did, with a weaker Ireland.
Gerrard was good for that one season at holding, but quickly got found out. Crashed and burned at the World Cup aswell
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.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.
Bit of a myth, this.Keane for me as a midfielder is miles ahead.
I think Gerrard was best as a forward. I think it was 08/09 he played behind Torres with Alonso and Mascherano holding, phenomenal then.
Thanks for that...Tbf I believe it is a better comparison - stylistically they are more alike than Gerrard and Keane. Although Robson was a true midfield general in a sense than Gerrard never were.
And I believe that Furino and later Bonini (the change happened around the time of Platini's arrival) were the first choices ahead of Prandelli at the time
eeeeeeeeeeerrrrrm yeah he is a bit of an arsehole doe laCrikey.
You're a bit of a divviy aren't ya ?
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.And Gerrard would still come out second.
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.The state of this forum
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
A gem of a post.As a central midfielder Keane, it's not even close. As a goalscorer Gerrard. Gerrard's best seasons were as a second striker and right winger. Even in one of his supposed greatest games it was because Hamann came on to do the job he'd failed at, controlling the midfield.
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.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.
No it means that Gerrard needed two players behind him (Mascherano and Alonso) to get the best out of himTwo different types of midfielders .
I'd say Keane was better sitting back breaking things up but he never got forward like Gerrard. Keane in no way play that role Gerrard did with Torres.
Does this make him a better player ? No but it makes Gerrard a more complete player.
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.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).
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.That was my point twenty fecking posts ago.
Keane > DM and Gerrard every feckinwhere.
Gerrard had a good passsing range on him tooIt'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.
That's literally what "Rooney's passing" means.
Look at his through-ball against Schalke. Look at the backheel passes to RVP. Look at the countless Rooney's passing compilations on youtube (I'm not kidding).
This is a player who is capable of any pass. He just does it without consistency (and less and less as the time goes), just like Gerrard did.
Essien and Makalele too Id sayFrom the Premier League era, I'd have Scholes, Keane, Lampard, Vieira and Toure ahead of him.
Some great points there, hard to disagree with most of it.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.
Very much like the present day Pogba.A player that was capable of magical moments and lifted the whole team.
Basically, I don't know anything about one of the players we're comparing here, so I'll chose the other one.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.
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.Very much like the present day Pogba.
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.Basically, I don't know anything about one of the players we're comparing here, so I'll chose the other one.
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.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.
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.but he was a luxury and not a game changer.