Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard debate.

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
26,657
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
The motm award was BS. He got it because he was a big name. In any case he loved passing back to Henry, slipping when it matters and Hollywood balls. In addition he was relatively technically limited. He had the desire and drive to carry Liverpool though.
Now we know you didn't actually see him play.
 

SirReginald

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,420
Supports
Chelsea
I said relatively meaning he was good but not as good technically as Scholes. Xavi and Pirlo were technically above Scholes.
Disagree about Xavi. A very good player but a very specific player. He wasn’t technically good enough to play any other way. What he did, he did very very well but you wouldn’t pull out the tactics and tell him to change because he couldn’t.
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,836
Disagree about Xavi. A very good player but a very specific player. He wasn’t technically good enough to play any other way. What he did, he did very very well but you wouldn’t pull out the tactics and tell him to change because he couldn’t.
Ironically, this is what I think about Iniesta, not Xavi. Xavi was always brilliant. in the 08/09 season, with more open spaces, he was making so many penetrative passes. He had the best press resistance, count hassle better than most midfielders, his positioning was top class, and that's before we talk about the things that made him truly special.

The agility to hold on to the ball and turn into positions that gave him space to assess. His head swivels that could accurately detect space. The pinpoint accuracy and shapness of his short passes. I think in another team, Xavi may have ended up being a slightly different player, but he would have been just as good.

Iniesta on the other hand, I don't really think so. His game relied heavily on how lateral Barcelona's game was. Yes, he we was sort of an outlet for players who were struggling to keep the ball in attacking positions, due to his brilliant roaming. However, due to most teams not actually having the opportunity to make space for multiple roaming players, on another team, like United in the 2000s, I could easily see him being isolated out of games. Even at Barca, he wasn't what he became until Pep turned up, Rijkaard who was another good possession manager struggled to use him as effectively. He had good balance and agility, but I don't think his strength would have allowed him play in a no.10 role in England or Italy. He's also not the final ball player like a Fabregas could be. My take would be, on another team, even at Real Madrid or Atletico in La Liga, I don't think Iniesta would be considered that important to his team due to them not being able to use him like Barca did. Furthermore, some people might cite David Silva. However, Silva was an exceptional player who had similar attributes, but I think he actually dictated games more than Iniesta did. Where Iniesta is more of a relief for surrounding attacking players, who could occasionally drive when provided with space and could thread that through pass from the left inside space on occassion, Silva was more of a constant threat and playmaker. He would seek the ball to create one two and then have it back. He would use his agility, balance and off the ball movement to create space, retain possession, dictate tempo and create chances. They had very similar skillsets, but I feel Silva used it in a different way and I can decisively say if given the opportunity that Iniesta could have played in this way.
 

Righteous Steps

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,589
Disagree about Xavi. A very good player but a very specific player. He wasn’t technically good enough to play any other way. What he did, he did very very well but you wouldn’t pull out the tactics and tell him to change because he couldn’t.
He was technically good to play any other way, what he didn’t have is the athleticism but Xavi could play in a lot of systems, as long as they were possession based. Which means he could play under Pep Klopp Wenger or Ferguson.

People try to rewrite history as if he was a crab like footballer when he was at his prime getting 20 assists in a season, his passing was far more decisive and creative than someone like Iniesta for example who while was still a good passer also relied on his mobility and dribbling which Xavi didn’t have.
 

ScholesyTheWise

Full Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2022
Messages
152
Both Xavi and Iniesta were also very very good (maybe not as phenomenal) before the Pep years. Yes, his system elevated them to god-like midfielders but they were there before that. I remember Iniesta being talked about as something very very special when he broke through.

as per the OP, I believe Lampard isn't underrated nor overrated around the Caf. He's considered as a very very good player who we'd have loved to have on our team, as would many others. I'd say he's inferior to Gerrard and Scholes but he's brilliant in his own right.

Peak Gerrard is really underrated around here, while Scholes is thought of as this mythical controller who bossed it for 15 years, while he was a playmaker for maybe half of his career (this being the only area where his shits on Gerrard. as an AM or box-to-box, it's close).

Gerrard even though we hate him to bits was quite an astonishing player at his absolute best, and his worse games are seemingly overplayed in this thread. He wasn't a stupid player and he didn't try the Hollywood pass 10 times a game. He was quite a complete midfielder and a brilliant leader, even though he had some flaws to his game as you'd expect (for me- positional awarness in defense and not knowing when to slow a game down are the biggest ones).

I'd say Gerrard does fit to "lace Scholes' boot", while not being the same type of player.

I'll choose Scholes over the other two for his creativity and versatility, but I'd have paid huge amounts of money to buy a Gerrard-clone who isn't a cnut and a scouser.

Liverpool/neutrals who'd say that Gerrard's peak was better, or that they'd build their team around him rather than Scholes, are not complete idiots. It's not an outrageous opinion by any means.
 

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
632
Location
old trafford
Disagree about Xavi. A very good player but a very specific player. He wasn’t technically good enough to play any other way. What he did, he did very very well but you wouldn’t pull out the tactics and tell him to change because he couldn’t.
Interesting point of view. Although I mostly disagree. The 2012 Euro final illustrates why.
 

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
632
Location
old trafford
Both Xavi and Iniesta were also very very good (maybe not as phenomenal) before the Pep years. Yes, his system elevated them to god-like midfielders but they were there before that. I remember Iniesta being talked about as something very very special when he broke through.

as per the OP, I believe Lampard isn't underrated nor overrated around the Caf. He's considered as a very very good player who we'd have loved to have on our team, as would many others. I'd say he's inferior to Gerrard and Scholes but he's brilliant in his own right.

Peak Gerrard is really underrated around here, while Scholes is thought of as this mythical controller who bossed it for 15 years, while he was a playmaker for maybe half of his career (this being the only area where his shits on Gerrard. as an AM or box-to-box, it's close).

Gerrard even though we hate him to bits was quite an astonishing player at his absolute best, and his worse games are seemingly overplayed in this thread. He wasn't a stupid player and he didn't try the Hollywood pass 10 times a game. He was quite a complete midfielder and a brilliant leader, even though he had some flaws to his game as you'd expect (for me- positional awarness in defense and not knowing when to slow a game down are the biggest ones).

I'd say Gerrard does fit to "lace Scholes' boot", while not being the same type of player.

I'll choose Scholes over the other two for his creativity and versatility, but I'd have paid huge amounts of money to buy a Gerrard-clone who isn't a cnut and a scouser.

Liverpool/neutrals who'd say that Gerrard's peak was better, or that they'd build their team around him rather than Scholes, are not complete idiots. It's not an outrageous opinion by any means.
Gerrard was a better tackler and more of a leader who could drive his team Scholes was a footballer (and a bad tackler).
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,228
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
England was stuck in a 4-4-2 for way too long and that was a huge problem. Imagine keeping Scholes out of the starting 11 because you have to get Heskey in. Truth is, it shouldn't have been a matter of which two of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are going to start. It should have been "Is Gerrard or Lampard going to play in the CAM with Scholes and Carrick"?
 

Orion.

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
46
Now we know you didn't actually see him play.
Yep. Gerrard was technically very good, just lacked the football brain to implement it properly; always tried to play at full speed, like he was in the playground.
 

Orion.

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
46
England was stuck in a 4-4-2 for way too long and that was a huge problem. Imagine keeping Scholes out of the starting 11 because you have to get Heskey in. Truth is, it shouldn't have been a matter of which two of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are going to start. It should have been "Is Gerrard or Lampard going to play in the CAM with Scholes and Carrick"?
That’s the thing - neither Lampard or Gerrard were midfielders at their peak. Lampard was a false #8 in a system designed for him to be the top scorer, while Gerrard played his best football on the right or just off the striker; it was only Scholes who regularly played as an orthodox midfielder.

Regarding the overall debate, I’d go Scholes-Lampard-Gerrard, although I think they were all overrated to an extent. Gerrard was too chaotic despite being the most complete of the 3, Lampard was elevated from good to great by his goals alone, while Scholes looked awkward carrying the ball and therefore belongs in a tier below the absolute elite of Pirlo, Modric, Redondo etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oates

SirReginald

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,420
Supports
Chelsea
England was stuck in a 4-4-2 for way too long and that was a huge problem. Imagine keeping Scholes out of the starting 11 because you have to get Heskey in. Truth is, it shouldn't have been a matter of which two of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are going to start. It should have been "Is Gerrard or Lampard going to play in the CAM with Scholes and Carrick"?
Carrick? Carrick would never have played with Scholes for England even if he hadn’t retired. Hargreaves perhaps. Carrick hadn’t even peaked.
 

Ludens the Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
16,132
Location
London
Scholes was the best. Completely understandable if chelsea and Liverpool supporters disagree. What is telling though is in the general ‘English’ public, they mostly don’t consider Scholes the best but outside of England they do (as a few have alluded to)
People in England are still heavily occupied with numbers, blood, guts etc rather than the technical, pure ability side.
This is the thinking that led to England picking the likes of Scott Parker and Gareth Barry ahead of Michael Carrick which imo is a bigger travesty than what happened with Scholes with England because he did retire quite early. Between 2008 and 2014 numerous England managers ignored Carrick despite England being absolutely trash at major tournaments during that period.
 

ReSchmycling

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
15
Scholes was the best. Completely understandable if chelsea and Liverpool supporters disagree. What is telling though is in the general ‘English’ public, they mostly don’t consider Scholes the best but outside of England they do (as a few have alluded to)
People in England are still heavily occupied with numbers, blood, guts etc rather than the technical, pure ability side.
This is the thinking that led to England picking the likes of Scott Parker and Gareth Barry ahead of Michael Carrick which imo is a bigger travesty than what happened with Scholes with England because he did retire quite early. Between 2008 and 2014 numerous England managers ignored Carrick despite England being absolutely trash at major tournaments during that period.
It's interesting that for most of that period of Scholes / Gerrard / Lampard and then Carrick / Barry / Parker, England were managed by two foreign managers in Eriksson and Capello... So it wasn't just an 'English' problem (but presumably the English media and public opinion still played a part).
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
47,489
It may be blasphemy on this site, but I think Scholes is grossly overrated, especially since retirement. His reputation has blown completely out of control since he stopped playing.
He was bossing premier league games in his late 30s. Scholesy was a freak of nature. A pure footballer in a league dominated by physical traits
 

nakpodiareuben

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2022
Messages
303
To me, scholes is the best central midfielder to ever play the game. I may be a bit biased but that is not far from the truth. The reason lampard and Gerald are mentioned in the same sentence with scholes is their goals and how important they are to their clubs. Gerald Is the one I would say come close but scholes is just a beast. This guy came back from retirement to win is our last title
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,228
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
That’s the thing - neither Lampard or Gerrard were midfielders at their peak. Lampard was a false #8 in a system designed for him to be the top scorer, while Gerrard played his best football on the right or just off the striker; it was only Scholes who regularly played as an orthodox midfielder.

Regarding the overall debate, I’d go Scholes-Lampard-Gerrard, although I think they were all overrated to an extent. Gerrard was too chaotic despite being the most complete of the 3, Lampard was elevated from good to great by his goals alone, while Scholes looked awkward carrying the ball and therefore belongs in a tier below the absolute elite of Pirlo, Modric, Redondo etc.
What the feck are you talking about????
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,228
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
Carrick? Carrick would never have played with Scholes for England even if he hadn’t retired. Hargreaves perhaps. Carrick hadn’t even peaked.
Carrick was 10 times the player Hargreaves was. One of the first names on SAF's team sheet but couldn't get into the England squad. Hargreaves was a utility player who got over rated because of one good game. Carrick is one of the best pure holding midfielders England has ever had (in the modern era) but most England fans didn't like him because he didn't run around and kick people like Scott Parker. England fans are some of the worst fans in the world. For folks who invented the game, it sure takes them a long time to adjust to the times and recognize what a great player really looks like and Carrick was a great player...
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
14,783
Disagree about Xavi. A very good player but a very specific player. He wasn’t technically good enough to play any other way. What he did, he did very very well but you wouldn’t pull out the tactics and tell him to change because he couldn’t.
Xavi wasn't technically good enough?

Is this a joke? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Xavi was the player of the tournament at the 2008 Euros and Spain weren't that possession dominant in the tournament.

He was arguably Barcelona's best player during the 2008-2009 season as well and he had 30 assists from central midfield and they weren't as possession dominant in Pep's 1st season as the following 2 seasons.

Like, what am I reading here....
 

Righteous Steps

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,589
Xavi wasn't technically good enough?

Is this a joke? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Xavi was the player of the tournament at the 2008 Euros and Spain weren't that possession dominant in the tournament.

He was arguably Barcelona's best player during the 2008-2009 season as well and he had 30 assists from central midfield and they weren't as possession dominant in Pep's 1st season as the following 2 seasons.

Like, what am I reading here....
Crazy isn’t it, there was very little Xavi couldn’t do any limitations he had was in his athleticism being he was 5’7 or so and not the fastest, yet he could run all day.

Technically though he was as complete as a midfielder you could get, I would say probably Pirlo and maybe Riquelme had better technique out of all the CMs I’ve seen in the last 20 years(Zidane excluded) he had a better brain than those two mentioned though.
 

jesperjaap

Full Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
4,840
All great players in there own right, lets be hoenst, in a golden generation, generally they were all shite for England, In the ase of Scholes partly as didnt seem proud about playing for his country which is a shame....but he did get shutned out wide to acomodate Lampard and Gerrard who never worked together even long after Scholes gave up on England.

Gerrard was very different to the other two and maybe all round the best, Lampard was similar to Shole but for me, not even a debate, Scholes was head and shoulders above him and technically and intelligence and just pure class to watch, Scholes was my favourite even without the bias....always pretty much made the right decision and exeuted it perfetly, which Gerrard didn thave. Scholes ad Gerrard were world class even if not for there coutnry, Lampard for me wasnt
 

DixieDean

Everton Fan
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
4,744
Location
Liverpool
Supports
Everton
Lampard easily the worst out of the 3. And I would have said that before he inflicted his awful management on everton. Good player, though.
 

Bebe

Full Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
5,121
Location
The true north.
Guardiola waxed lyrical about Scholes before the CL Final in 2011, we've always known who he'd pick out of those three.

(and he's right, obviously)
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
4,848
Xavi wasn't technically good enough?

Is this a joke? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Xavi was the player of the tournament at the 2008 Euros and Spain weren't that possession dominant in the tournament.

He was arguably Barcelona's best player during the 2008-2009 season as well and he had 30 assists from central midfield and they weren't as possession dominant in Pep's 1st season as the following 2 seasons.

Like, what am I reading here....
I honestly do not think some people know what being technically good is if they say Gerrard we technically better than Xavi.
 

Renegade

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,192
Which version of Scholes do people think was the best and use as comparison.

I feel like people make the mistake in merging all versions when they compare him to others.

97-01 - Pure CM midfielder (Roy Keane duo)
01-05 - Attacking midfielder / Veron/RVN era
05-13 - Deep playmaker (Carrick Duo)
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
14,550
Which version of Scholes do people think was the best and use as comparison.

I feel like people make the mistake in merging all versions when they compare him to others.

97-01 - Pure CM midfielder (Roy Keane duo)
01-05 - Attacking midfielder / Veron/RVN era
05-13 - Deep playmaker (Carrick Duo)
Have great memories of him in all these roles (and his 94-97 second striker version). I think the period from 1999 to 2008, which incorporates parts of all three of your versions but only your 01-05 version n full, was when he was pretty much undroppable and one of our most important players. Outside that range he was less influential and important. So on that basis I’d opt for your 01-05 version but I’d probably quibble a bit with your periodization.
 

Lay

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
15,808
Location
England
Carrick was 10 times the player Hargreaves was. One of the first names on SAF's team sheet but couldn't get into the England squad. Hargreaves was a utility player who got over rated because of one good game. Carrick is one of the best pure holding midfielders England has ever had (in the modern era) but most England fans didn't like him because he didn't run around and kick people like Scott Parker. England fans are some of the worst fans in the world. For folks who invented the game, it sure takes them a long time to adjust to the times and recognize what a great player really looks like and Carrick was a great player...
I think Carrick for United was very good but for England he was always a bit meh. Never really got going internationally
 

SirReginald

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,420
Supports
Chelsea
Carrick was 10 times the player Hargreaves was. One of the first names on SAF's team sheet but couldn't get into the England squad. Hargreaves was a utility player who got over rated because of one good game. Carrick is one of the best pure holding midfielders England has ever had (in the modern era) but most England fans didn't like him because he didn't run around and kick people like Scott Parker. England fans are some of the worst fans in the world. For folks who invented the game, it sure takes them a long time to adjust to the times and recognize what a great player really looks like and Carrick was a great player...
Firstly Carrick was not a pure holding midfielder. Secondly Scholes retired in 2004 for England. Carrick wasn’t even at his peak when he signed for United in 2006. It’s irrelevant if Carrick was better than Hargreaves because Carrick would never have played for England WITH Scholes.
 

SirReginald

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,420
Supports
Chelsea
Xavi wasn't technically good enough?

Is this a joke? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Xavi was the player of the tournament at the 2008 Euros and Spain weren't that possession dominant in the tournament.

He was arguably Barcelona's best player during the 2008-2009 season as well and he had 30 assists from central midfield and they weren't as possession dominant in Pep's 1st season as the following 2 seasons.

Like, what am I reading here....
Clearly you can’t read so it’s irrelevant. I said Xavi was only capable of playing one way. Scholes adapted his game many ways and many times.
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
3,580
It's a bit of a joke how some of our fans talk about Gerrard. I know we don't have to like him but it's just embarrassing. Even in real life discussions a lot of my mates will talk about him like he was a dog chasing his tail, and tried twenty passes over 50 yards with the outside of his boot every game.

Somehow I think how well rounded he was and the driving force he was for completely mediocre Liverpool sides goes against him when it really should not. He pretty much was called on to try and win them games. Who else would if he didn't? Of course he tried things.

He had the ability to do anything. It's all very well these days talking about how certain midfielders are great in specific niches. This was a different era, and Gerrard was a spectacular example of a box to box goalscorer. He could pass, create, score, he was an incredible athlete. No he wasn't a conductor and didn't have the tactical skillset for that, but that's no more relevant than asking Xavi to score 20 goals. It doesn't go against him in my mind.
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
14,783
Clearly you can’t read so it’s irrelevant. I said Xavi was only capable of playing one way. Scholes adapted his game many ways and many times.
I actually argued against this point with specific examples. You're throwing pointless insults.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
12,555
Clearly you can’t read so it’s irrelevant. I said Xavi was only capable of playing one way. Scholes adapted his game many ways and many times.
I think it’s more you need to rephrase it to him definitely suiting tiki taka more than other styles. He could obviously play in any possession oriented team, he just wouldn’t be as incredible.
 

MegadrivePerson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Messages
137
All three were outstanding players, but Gerrard is slightly ahead of Scholes, then Lampard.

Something that's not been mentioned yet is that Gerrard was in the PFA team of the year eight times, Scholes twice and Lampard three times. Clearly the players that played against them at the time rated Gerrard ahead of the other two. Some people believe that Gerrard is the greatest Liverpool player of all time, whereas nobody would say that Scholes is the greatest United player of all time.
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,228
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
Firstly Carrick was not a pure holding midfielder. Secondly Scholes retired in 2004 for England. Carrick wasn’t even at his peak when he signed for United in 2006. It’s irrelevant if Carrick was better than Hargreaves because Carrick would never have played for England WITH Scholes.
Any credibility is lost with your first comment. I didn't even bother reading anymore after that. Carrick wasn't a pure holding midfielder? You're talking out of your arse. That's exactly what he was and had his name been "Carrickinho" we would have talked about him being one of the best ever. But English fans wouldn't know a pure holding midfielder if he kicked them in the nuts. Amazing how little a country can know about a game they invented
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,228
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
I think Carrick for United was very good but for England he was always a bit meh. Never really got going internationally
Every time he stepped on the field for England he was fantastic. The problem was the English people either wanted their midfielders to score goals or make bone crunching tackles. Carrick's artistry on and off the ball was beyond them. Had he been Spanish they'd be saying "we need a player like that guy". But English fans aren't the smartest when it comes to the game they invented...
 
X