Yeah, I suppose someone like Nicky Butt at DM would work. I just think it would do to have a more dynamic presence at CM - using the 2004 squad I would choose a young Hargreaves (still at Bayern at the time).
Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard debate.
- Thread starter Hammondo
- Start date
In that Agree/Disagree game with Keane and Carragher, Roy basically agreed that Gerrard was better than Scholes.
Always found that surprising since Roy never had beef with Scholes and is very loyal to his ex-teammates.
Always found that surprising since Roy never had beef with Scholes and is very loyal to his ex-teammates.
What Scholes said was right on the money. He wasn't just being "humble", I think that's a honestly held view. Scholes couldn't have done what Gerrard did at Liverpool. Very few could. Gerrard had that blend of personality and individualism that resulted in some astonishing performances in average sides. He was built for that cult of personality and the best kid on the playground type style.
But he couldn't necessarily dictate the tempo of a game with the touch and intelligence Scholes had either, so they're two very different players.
Which for me is exactly why Sven should have grown some balls and realised these two were his best bet, because they're that different they should be able to work if you get the pieces arranged correctly. It should really have been Carrick, Scholes and Gerrard to have the right type of balance. Lampard was a luxury we didn't need, would have been better coming off the bench.
But he couldn't necessarily dictate the tempo of a game with the touch and intelligence Scholes had either, so they're two very different players.
Which for me is exactly why Sven should have grown some balls and realised these two were his best bet, because they're that different they should be able to work if you get the pieces arranged correctly. It should really have been Carrick, Scholes and Gerrard to have the right type of balance. Lampard was a luxury we didn't need, would have been better coming off the bench.
I kind of agree. Maybe Gerrard is a star in an ok team but Scholes is the kind of player you want when you have brillant players around him. He is much more compatible to the Ronaldo’s, Messi’s and Mbappé of this world as he will make them shine. Not that they need him really, but the team will be better with that kind of fantastic player making easy the overall play of the team. He is a kind of player you need in a winning team.
Yeah it is because he played for a hated rival, never understood that, dont have to like a player to appreciated them, was a great player. The thing is he was a different type of player to Lampard and Scholes so I dont really understand the debate.
Scholes and Lampard were similar, well until Scholes latter years anyway and again there is simply no comparison there for me, Scholes technical abilities giving himself time ont he ball and his range of passing and vision was on a totally different level to Lamaprd.
That is why I find the while debate a bit daft really. Lampard though obviously a very good player, I am baffled why anybody but the most ardent Chelsea fan thinks he is in the debate and then Gerrard and Scholes were totally different players.
I think the biggest debate regarding the three was who was the shittest for there country as all were pretty dreadful on the whole
Scholes on ever metric, without hesitation!
Scholes
Gerrard
Lampard
That is my ranking. While the other two were more physical, Scholes showcased a level of class that was a rarity in the premier league during his peak. He has a very deep understanding of the game.
Gerrard
Lampard
That is my ranking. While the other two were more physical, Scholes showcased a level of class that was a rarity in the premier league during his peak. He has a very deep understanding of the game.
Beckham "having to play" had much more to do with him being our best player most of the time at that stage than it did to do with him being captain. Frankly he was only made captain because he was the best player at the time.
Added to the fact that at that time Scholes was still a very attacking midfielder, so dropping him play so deep would have been just as ridiculous as playing him from the left of midfield. The midfield three you mention would have had all the same issues the team did when it played Gerrard/Lampard as a two and Scholes on the left by the way, as others have mentioned it would have needed to be Scholes/Gerrard and a holding midfielder. The only way you'd have ever got a tune out of Lampard/Gerrard in the same midfield was if Gerrard had gone to Chelsea while Mourinho was there, as it was it was ridiculous to keep trying something that didn't work for so long (and to continue seeing people say "oh it could have worked it x or y), no it couldn't have worked unless they were together day in day out and Gerrard's hero mentality was coached out of him, because while he was an excellent player, had he left Liverpool he could have been even better working as part of a team rather than needing to essentially be the team.
This is the correct answer by the way. There's a reason those who played against him rate him so highly.
No Beckham?
Gerard was a world class forward when he played off Torres or off the right. And just a very good midfielder.
This is the problem with comparing him to Scholes, who was a classic CM and incredible at it. Gerrard can't compete with Scholes as a CM, and Scholes can't compete with Gerrard as a forward.
I don't think Lampard is on the same level as either, despite being a brilliant player himself.
But why has the debate been ended? Anyone know what he's on about?
This is the problem with comparing him to Scholes, who was a classic CM and incredible at it. Gerrard can't compete with Scholes as a CM, and Scholes can't compete with Gerrard as a forward.
I don't think Lampard is on the same level as either, despite being a brilliant player himself.
But why has the debate been ended? Anyone know what he's on about?
The main debate is who is 2nd best after Scholes
Interesting take.
I remember Owen Hargreaves played quiet a few times as our DM or even RB during our CL winning run so he definitely had it in him to do so for England.
I would go for a 4-2-3-1
....................Owen..........
....Rooney.....................Becks
..................Gerrard...........
........Hargreaves......Scholes.....
Would have Scholes/Hargreaves as the double pivot. Would be a very good combo of possession, protection of the back4, passing and creativity to unlock lower block defenses, something England struggled under Erikson. Scholes could also bomb up the pitch and offer support to the front line with his shooting and shadow running to nod crosses in, something he did for us on numerous games.
Gerrard ahead of them as he was the more physical and attacking threat akin to the Bruno Fernandes of his day.
Have Rooney occupy the left channel mimicking Henry. Rooney also played LW for us on numerous occasions to great effect.
Have Beckham provide the necessary workrate and creativity, crosses from the right and Lampard coming off the bench.
Have Lampard be on the bench and bring him on for the Rooney/Gerrard role. That would be my solution to this conundrum.
I'm going with Scholes on this. Take nothing away from Gerrard and Lampard who were great players, but what separates them is I always felt Gerrard and Lampard were put in positions to be the star man, whereas Scholes was brilliant while just being a spoke on the wheel.
Whether he was playing next to Keane, Butt, Phil Neville, Carrick or Anderson he had his job and made us tick which helped us win a bunch of trophies. We never built the team around Scholes, we just knew he was great and would do his job. I do think teams were built around Gerrard and Lampard to maximize their strengths and cover their weaknesses. If you are a good player and things are built around you that allows you to be the star man, you will do well. Everton did it with Ross Barkley and Tottenham did it with Dele Ali and they produced insane stats for a brief period.
If you plugged Gerrard or Lampard in the United teams, they wouldn't have done as good as Scholes. But if you put Scholes in the same situations as Lampard or Gerrard, I think he would better them.
Whether he was playing next to Keane, Butt, Phil Neville, Carrick or Anderson he had his job and made us tick which helped us win a bunch of trophies. We never built the team around Scholes, we just knew he was great and would do his job. I do think teams were built around Gerrard and Lampard to maximize their strengths and cover their weaknesses. If you are a good player and things are built around you that allows you to be the star man, you will do well. Everton did it with Ross Barkley and Tottenham did it with Dele Ali and they produced insane stats for a brief period.
If you plugged Gerrard or Lampard in the United teams, they wouldn't have done as good as Scholes. But if you put Scholes in the same situations as Lampard or Gerrard, I think he would better them.
Scholes was the better central midfielder. It's not even close. Lampard basically never played that position, while Gerrard actually spent most of his career there and was capable of absolute brilliance but was always way too inconsistent. It was always obvious he should have been getting played in a more attacking role.
Gerrard and Lampard were better attacking midfielders. To rank those two is difficult as Gerrard didn't actually play in that position all that often so Lampard would win on the basis of consistency, but when Gerrard was there he was capable of a level that Lampard wasn't.
I always worried that Liverpool would come to their senses a lot earlier than they did as Gerrard had everything needed to truly be one of the best players in the world. Thankfully they basically 'wasted' most of his potential by playing him deeper for the majority of his career.
Gerrard and Lampard were better attacking midfielders. To rank those two is difficult as Gerrard didn't actually play in that position all that often so Lampard would win on the basis of consistency, but when Gerrard was there he was capable of a level that Lampard wasn't.
I always worried that Liverpool would come to their senses a lot earlier than they did as Gerrard had everything needed to truly be one of the best players in the world. Thankfully they basically 'wasted' most of his potential by playing him deeper for the majority of his career.
It's not true at all; you'd have a hard time trying to find someone who rate him higher than the other two. I've been watching tons of football shows and online debates and I've never seen his name brought up in a discussion about great players of the period or his position. He was never considered very impactful in United around here until maybe 2007/2008, and even then nothing close to the prestige of guys like Pirlo(who was highly rated even in that era of more direct football), Kroos or Modric, or even guys like Deco, Fabregas, Toure, Vieira and Seedorf.
Last edited:
I'd have to agree, Lampard was almost a second striker for most of his career, he played quite high up the pitch. Pairing him with Scholes would need a 3rd man in behind to handle the defensive work.
I was just trying to fit in Lamps, Gerrard and Scholes. If we want to add Becks in 04 something like this is the only option -
.............Rooney.......
.....................Gerrard.......
Lampard...Butt....Scholes.....Beckham
Lampard in a nominal LM role but more of an AM in possession. Ashley Cole would be encouraged to be very aggressive with the overlap.
I don't particularly like it but it could work. Much better than a Gerrard Lampard midfield 2.
Yeah Scholes was just never the deepest iirc. He either played in a double pivot, box to box and earlier in his career as a 10
Yeah a Hargreaves or Carrick in there would work but you’d still be missing out some width trying to shoehorn both Gerrard and Lampard into the same team, or you’ll lack serious balance in midfield, as was often the case during that period for the NT.
Well he was the deepest in a double pivot alongside Carrick which is why I think he could work well as a single pivot - that said I take your point.
Yeah one of the biggest conundrums for England during that “golden generation” - how to shoehorn lampard and Gerrard into the side, when the right thing would have been to drop one. Lots of national teams had similar issues - overly stacked in 1 position but the right way is to just select the one in form and/or the best fit for the team.
SGE even shifted Scholes out to the left to accommodate them ffs.
Could have always gone Beckham as an experimental wing back if you want to cram those 3 in. He certainly had the work rate and stamina for that role. Of course we're both leaving Owen out now.
...................James...............
.......Rio.....Campbell.....Terry
Beckham......Butt...............Cole
..........Scholes.....Lampard
..................Gerrard
................. Rooney
Edit: Can always move the exact position of the 3 central defenders around a bit. Put it like that to have the 2 best passers on the outside. Always thought Campbell was very strong if isolated one-on-one so him on Beckham's side might have been better with Rio in the middle. Not as much worry on Cole's side when it comes to the wing backs getting caught out of position.
Last edited:
In possession I think that wouldn't be too dissimilar to my suggestion. I would have though put Gary Neville at RCB. He would be perfect for that position.
Scholes played a nominal LM role for Utd very well. Giggs played off RVN with Beckham RM. Scholes on the left was never the problem. It was the lack of a genuine CM in midfield- Lampard and Gerrard CM combo was horrible.
Memory’s probably shot my side, but I hardly ever recall Scholes playing LM - especially in his older day!
Scholes was a better football. It’s definitely true that Gerrard had some qualities over him though. Lampard’s consistency in goal scoring can’t be underestimated but the other 2 were better players.
Lampard always annoyed me a lot when we faced Chelski. Gerrard was.. meh.
Scholes are way above those two at his peak though. Basically a one man midfield.
Scholes are way above those two at his peak though. Basically a one man midfield.
I didn't see why they didn't just pair them both in a proper 433 with a sitter behind them. That's what Mourinho attempted to do. By the mid-2000s, the flat 4-man midfields were getting over-run by the extra man in the middle. A good manager would have found a way to make it work. And if the manager didn't want to play that shape, Gerrard was flexible enough to play in 3-4 different roles to a high standard. Some of England's best football around 2003 was with him off the left in a diamond midfield, eg I think they played this against Turkey:
Butt
Beckham - Gerrard
Scholes
scholes can score goals and control the tempo of the game, neither lampard or gerrard was capable of doing that.
No, it was Scholesy behind Ruud in 2002/03 and he scored 20 goals in all comps that season.
Yeah the diamond was the obvious solution to try and fit them all in and it could have solved a problem in that England had no real world class left winger (I think Joe Cole, who was very good, was their best option off the left?).
Yeah that’s how I remember it. Thought I was going mad here.
He did play there but also as a nominal LM. He switched a quite a bit with Giggs. There is also a quote from Scholes somewhere where he says playing LM was absolutely fine and he had no problem with it.
The best judges will be fans from non-United, non-Chelsea, non-Liverpool backgrounds. You pose the exact same question in a United forum and a Liverpool forum and a Chelsea forum and the answers will be all different.
Also, midfield is an extremely broad term that encompasses so many different skill-sets, some essential to midfield play, some not. People tend to rate the "best on the eye" player more than others. In that regard, Scholes was clearly superior than the other two. And he won so much more than Gerrard, which is why Gerrard is probably the third of the three. History admires winners.
Lampard scored and assisted better than the other two. Gerrard was a better midfield orchestrator. Scholes was similar in his playing style and playing position to Scholes than Lampard, who usually played in a more advanced position. It is like comparing between Xavi and Iniesta when they were so different from each other - makes no sense comparing apples and oranges.
Also, midfield is an extremely broad term that encompasses so many different skill-sets, some essential to midfield play, some not. People tend to rate the "best on the eye" player more than others. In that regard, Scholes was clearly superior than the other two. And he won so much more than Gerrard, which is why Gerrard is probably the third of the three. History admires winners.
Lampard scored and assisted better than the other two. Gerrard was a better midfield orchestrator. Scholes was similar in his playing style and playing position to Scholes than Lampard, who usually played in a more advanced position. It is like comparing between Xavi and Iniesta when they were so different from each other - makes no sense comparing apples and oranges.
i think you're mistaking the way Giggs playing with his position there, yes giggs was a left-footed left winger but he was not really a traditional winger whose job is to get to byline and chip in some cross into penalty box. Giggsy's biggest strength was his ability to dribble in tight position, he possesed skill to dribble the ball inside a congested penalty box, and he was brilliant in it (I'd say Bernardo Silva is someone that is close to Giggs right now), that's why we often see him roaming around centrally and SAF would often switched position of his players during the game, temporarily. Anyway you can make argument why we often struggle to break low-block team right now is because we lack a player of Giggsy's skillset.
2001-2003 were my first few years as proper United supporters i still remember those years just like yesterday
Yea I think he's made a typo.
Thank you, was about to do this myself.
Gerrard couldnt adapt to the deeper role the way Scholes could. Scholes in his late 30s was dominating players half his age just with little feints 1-2s and top class passing.
Gerrard and Lampard didn't have that in their locker like Scholes did, which is why the conversation is bogus.
Yeah 34 years old Paul Scholes helped United to win CL while 34 years old Gerrard had already played in MLS, that should be enough to conclude the debate for good.
Its funny how the type of player Gerrard was is being used to discredit him but the most valuable midfielder in the world today is Bellingham and he's in the mould of Gerrard.
He isn't a dictating midfielder, so what? Other people are there for that role like Alonso was.
Kevin De Bruyne is another player very similar to Gerrard. Not every midfielder had to be like Xavi, Scholes or Modric to be top class.
Like Scholes said they could both do things the other couldn't. While Scholes could dictate a game way better, Gerrard's through balls were far better. He was a better athlete and could also take set pieces.
I think they're about even just depends on what style you prefer.
He isn't a dictating midfielder, so what? Other people are there for that role like Alonso was.
Kevin De Bruyne is another player very similar to Gerrard. Not every midfielder had to be like Xavi, Scholes or Modric to be top class.
Like Scholes said they could both do things the other couldn't. While Scholes could dictate a game way better, Gerrard's through balls were far better. He was a better athlete and could also take set pieces.
I think they're about even just depends on what style you prefer.
Oh defo (regarding first bit), Benitez realised that and quickly removed him from the deeper part of midfield in favour of Alonso and Mascherano.
As I said that's for me why it's not a fair comparison, they're 2 fairly different players.
Different players kind of players. Scholes is one the best long passers in history and sublime all around when it comes to passing. Unlike some greats he couldn't really dribble or tackle. Gerrard and Lampard where in reality more attacking midfielders. Bias aside i wouldnt be able to choose. They excelled at different things.