I think Gerrard could take the game by the scruff of the neck in a way Scholes couldn't but other than that Scholes is clear in pretty much every way. That's not a dig on Gerrard either because he was extremely good.
Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard debate.
- Thread starter Hammondo
- Start date
Ferguson rated Gerrard highly while he was still coaching, if I remember correctly. Something seemed to change towards the end of his management career and he was scathing in his autobiography.
It's not only the mice that are on methWould he feck!
I am not into discussion = will not reply back
Some real strong shit as well. He on that Blue Sky meth!
Scholes and Lampard are clear of Gerrard, with that said Scholes is also clear of Lampard.
Thowing my United bias over board, I think Lampard was the best of them:
His peak and longevity was just ridiculously good:
In 8 out of 9 seasons between 2001 and 2010 Lampard played 36 or more PL games a season (minimum 3115 minutes), 9 total (He played every minute (3420) of the 98/99 season for West Ham), Stevie played more than 3000 minutes twice (36 games both times), Scholes never played more than 35 games or 2757 minutes in a PL season in his career.
In 6 seasons in a row between 2004 and 2010 he had 31 or more goal contributions in all comps from his midfield position and maxed it in the 09/10 season with 45:
04/05 17 G + 21 A
05/06 20 G + 12 A
06/07 21 G + 20 A
07/08 20 G + 11 A
08/09 20 G + 21 A
09/10 27 G + 18 A
Lampard did it 3 times (05/06 - 23G+15A, 07/08 - 21G+18A and 08/09 - 22G+13A) and his best ever was 39.
Scholes never did it and his best ever goalcontribution season was the 02/03 season with 27 (20G+7A).
They were all great though.
His peak and longevity was just ridiculously good:
In 8 out of 9 seasons between 2001 and 2010 Lampard played 36 or more PL games a season (minimum 3115 minutes), 9 total (He played every minute (3420) of the 98/99 season for West Ham), Stevie played more than 3000 minutes twice (36 games both times), Scholes never played more than 35 games or 2757 minutes in a PL season in his career.
In 6 seasons in a row between 2004 and 2010 he had 31 or more goal contributions in all comps from his midfield position and maxed it in the 09/10 season with 45:
04/05 17 G + 21 A
05/06 20 G + 12 A
06/07 21 G + 20 A
07/08 20 G + 11 A
08/09 20 G + 21 A
09/10 27 G + 18 A
Lampard did it 3 times (05/06 - 23G+15A, 07/08 - 21G+18A and 08/09 - 22G+13A) and his best ever was 39.
Scholes never did it and his best ever goalcontribution season was the 02/03 season with 27 (20G+7A).
They were all great though.
These stats aside, how do you accurately measure Scholes' value as a deep lying playmaker in his second half of his career though? He plays in a different role to the other two, and luminaries such as Xavi and Pirlo are his peers instead. Gerrard and Lampard could not control games the way Scholes could, even if their output is more (freed up to play higher)
Even Keano was agreeing with Jamie Carragher about Gerrard being a better big game player than Scholes and Gerrard being more versatile. All Keano had for why he chose Scholes was "loyalty".
Yeah I'm not sure that claim makes much sense. If you look at the achievements and trophy counts of both players, I'm pretty sure a lot of people would pick Scholes' ahead of Gerrard's.
Pointless debate on the caf. People pretend as if Scholes being compared to Gerrard and Lampard is like Messi being compared to Nani and Valencia.
The perceived gulf in quality was never a reality in their playing days but in retirement Gerrard and Lampard have been underrated and Scholes overrated.
The perceived gulf in quality was never a reality in their playing days but in retirement Gerrard and Lampard have been underrated and Scholes overrated.
To be honest I don't trust Keane's views on much about football and I'm always sceptical when he talks about United. It tends to be coloured by his feelings around how he was treated at the end.
As for swapping Scholes for Gerrard? I think they'd have complimented each well if Gerrard was more advanced behind the likes of Rooney but in CM it's Scholes all day, for me.
It's an interesting topic, but before we start we need to go back to the year 1642 and look at the history of just kidding it's Scholes. Scholes, Scholes, Scholes.
Scholes.
Scholes.
Back during the war, one of these players was nicknamed Mr Invisible by quite a few. Can you guess which one?
Scholes retired at 38 while still playing to a high standard in the Premier League.
Lampard was playing in the MLS at 36, and Gerrard was in the MLS at 35.
Scholes literally has longevity over both of them.
Am I not reply = will back into not discussion
P. S. I am not
into discussion equals
will not reply back
into discussion equals
will not reply back
After hearing this debate for years, it comes down to how you see the game and what value you personally place on their differing qualities.
Scholes lacked the physicality of the other two and by most easily quantifiable measures is behind them.
I couldn’t care less about that. Scholes had the ability to make the teams he was in play good football (or the kind of football I like).
To put it even more simply, Scholes is my favourite midfielder of all time. To me he is the best.
No amount of reasoning such as:
“Sometimes he got dropped”
“Sven played him on the left”
“we won games without him”
“he didn’t win individual awards”
“he was small and wheezy”
will persuade me otherwise. Even though it’s all true.
Another thing I like about him is he does not and never did give a shit what anyone else thinks about all this stuff. He just turned up, did some God-like stuff, had some pints and went home.
Scholes lacked the physicality of the other two and by most easily quantifiable measures is behind them.
I couldn’t care less about that. Scholes had the ability to make the teams he was in play good football (or the kind of football I like).
To put it even more simply, Scholes is my favourite midfielder of all time. To me he is the best.
No amount of reasoning such as:
“Sometimes he got dropped”
“Sven played him on the left”
“we won games without him”
“he didn’t win individual awards”
“he was small and wheezy”
will persuade me otherwise. Even though it’s all true.
Another thing I like about him is he does not and never did give a shit what anyone else thinks about all this stuff. He just turned up, did some God-like stuff, had some pints and went home.
Scholes ended this debate today. I am not surprised that nobody is talking about this. Humble and Honest man. Keane was my most favorite player from that era more than Cole, Rooney or Eric, but Scholes was not far off. Bloody brilliant player who got hyped a little bit at the end of his career.
Another MOTM performance. Wait, what year is this?
Scholes is a humble guy who I swear doesn't realise himself what made him so special.
If England played a 433 at the time they could have incorporated all three reasonably well -
.....................CF.........................
.....LW...........................Gerrard......
..........Lampard......B2B...............
..................Scholes.........................
I can't think who could have played the B2B role off hand.
Edit - Just checked England's 2004 Euro squad, which is their best, B2B could have been Owen Hargreaves.
.....................CF.........................
.....LW...........................Gerrard......
..........Lampard......B2B...............
..................Scholes.........................
I can't think who could have played the B2B role off hand.
Edit - Just checked England's 2004 Euro squad, which is their best, B2B could have been Owen Hargreaves.
This again? feck me
Do you envisage Scholes as the DM in this formation?
Scholes by a country mile every single day. Then Lampard. Then, many many miles back Slippy G.
Scholes also had the better team around him for the most part too.
All opinions but I have the completely opposite one. Personally though a grat player for Chelsea, I always find it strange he is ever even in these deabtes. For me Scholes and Gerrard were both on a completely different level to Lampard.
Deep lying playmaker. A bit like Pirlo in the early 2000s Milan side.
You have to understand that Gerrard's reputation on here and online especially amongst United fans bares no resemblance to his status and impact when he was actually playing.
His career has been rewritten largely based on his lack of PL and the impact the CMs in the mould of Xavi, Iniesta and Modric had. Somehow this meant midfielders like Gerrard get shit on even though that style was pretty common in the 2000s.
I get he's a camera kissing cnut but it's actually astonishing how easily he gets downplayed. Hes was a hell of a player and seen as the best CM/AM in the PL for many years.
They were all great players in their own rights, look at what they did at the club level.. No United, Liverpool or Chelsea supporter is going to give you an unbiased opinion on who was better, you would probably get a fairer opinion from a neutral. The issues with these three involves their England career. Various managers have tried to shoestring all three and after Scholes retired from International duty, the two into the line up at the same time. England maybe have faired better if only two were picked for England, with one starting and the other used as an impact sub. Ask a neutral which of the three started, sat on the bench or stayed home.
Scholes should be next to lampard on your formation with a dedicated DM behind the 2.
I think the best answer is Scholes was the best footballer and had by far the better technical skills and ability to read the game (by a mile). Not sure how anyone could disagree with that. Just look at the longevity of his career.
Between about 03-07 Gerrard was the best player of the three, before that was Scholes, and after
I think Scholes can go toe to toe with both of them but be careful not to slip if you back Gerrard, there's a fat chance Lampard could come out on top.
I don’t know why they are compared just because all of them were midfielders. It’s like comparing Modric, de Bruyne and Thomas Muller and asking which one is better.
The problem is, Scholes didn't play in the Deep-lying-playmaker role for United when he was still playing for England
If he'd played in that role for United in 2003 it would have probably been obvious how to fit them all in.
If he'd played in that role for United in 2003 it would have probably been obvious how to fit them all in.
Modric.
Apologies if this has already been said, but in terms of England, the one name that always seems to get forgotten in this debate is Beckham.
as great as he was… as captain, he had to play… and Beckham completely dictated the shape of the team. A flat midfield 4. England only started to move to other formations once he retired
I think Scholes (deep lying playmaker), Gerard (box to box 8), and lampard (No 10) would have made a great midfield 3…
it’s just unfortunate that generation was wedded to 442, and wasn’t blessed with glut of technically great, pacey wide forwards England has now.
that 00’s midfield, with the current front 3 of Saka, Kane, and any of the great LW options, we would have been some team.
especially with the 00’s defence too.
as great as he was… as captain, he had to play… and Beckham completely dictated the shape of the team. A flat midfield 4. England only started to move to other formations once he retired
I think Scholes (deep lying playmaker), Gerard (box to box 8), and lampard (No 10) would have made a great midfield 3…
it’s just unfortunate that generation was wedded to 442, and wasn’t blessed with glut of technically great, pacey wide forwards England has now.
that 00’s midfield, with the current front 3 of Saka, Kane, and any of the great LW options, we would have been some team.
especially with the 00’s defence too.
Whatever formation England used after Beckham was forced to retire after the WC 2006 worked wonders, no? and resulted in England’s non qualification for the Euros 2008. England without Beckham was even worse than with him and only slightly improved once Southgate of all people took over.