Fair point
What year specifically do you consider to be playmaker Scholes' peak? 2006-07?
Scholes vs Lampard vs Gerrard
- Thread starter CapeTownRed
- Start date
What year specifically do you consider to be playmaker Scholes' peak? 2006-07?
I'm hardly a brit thoughI dunno, certainly you brits have seen more of them to make the comparison. On the other, you brits don't really know football, so...
Why does Sergio Ramos have more individual awards than Diego Godín, even though the latter is comfortably a superior centerback?
Why does John Terry have more individual awards including 3 UEFA Club Defender of the Year titles, when compared with Rio Ferdinand?
Individual awards don't always represent a player's level, and there are so many intangible things that go into voting. Lampard was the obvious star player at Chelsea because the wide players were ok to good without being excellent (Duff, young Robben - who went in and out, Cole, Malouda, Kalou), the midfield was functional and brought the best out him (Makélélé, Essien), and Drogba was a great striker - but didn't score that many goals (oftentimes, as many or fewer than Lampard).
Scholes had to compete with players who were more obvious stars - Yorke + Cole combo, Beckham, Giggs, peak Keane. Then Ruud, and the emergence of Ronaldo and Rooney. Plus, he didn't really have the team built around him, and the way we counterattacked didn't always bring the best out of him in possession (until later in his career when he transitioned into the DLP). Gerrard and Lampard are touted for their volume of goals, but in the one season where Scholes has freedom like they did, he scored 20 goals (still no Ballon D'Or votes in a year where Jan Koller got one and Nihat got three). Plus, unlike Lampard and Gerrard - who took loads of penalties, and were often de facto free kick takers, Scholes gave way to Beckham, and later Ronaldo.
Some players shine at the right time to claim awards - case in point, Jamie Vardy finishing 8th in the Ballon D'Or. Not to say Lampard is comparable to him, but just to illustrate how he claimed a greater individual height than better contemporary strikers. At no point of his career was Lampard the 2nd best player in the world - which the Ballon D'Or thing erroneously conveys.
Posting from the phone. Anyways, it was a joke
Exactly. Aslo Scholes has better goals per game than Gerrard if you count non penalty goals and very similar record to Lampard.
Probably from 2006 and so on. He was absolutely crucial for that 07/08 side, scoring the most important goal in that CL campaign too.
Because that is completely false. Ramos and Pique would easily look as good as Godin if they were as protected as he was at Atletico. On the other hand, Godin struggles when playing in a high line.
Yeah, I got that
It's clear for me that Scholes and Lampard were very close level, I'd personally say Scholes edges it mainly because of the titles.
Keane 3rd followed by Gerrard. I just can't put Gerrard up there without having won a league.
Keane 3rd followed by Gerrard. I just can't put Gerrard up there without having won a league.
That's a bit like hammering Keane for scoring an own goal against Real Madrid in the Champions League in 2000 or for going loco at the 2002 World Cup.
As Harms said, it more reflects the nature of their roles on the park. Although I do find it hard to reconcile the general view on here that Scholes was clearly better than Gerrard and Lampard when Gerrard has 8 PFA Team of the Year nominations (while Scholes has 2) and Lampard got such clear recognition in Europe through the Ballon D'Or 2nd place and 3 ESM Team of the Year nominations (to Gerrard's 1 and Scholes' 0).
Prove it.
at the end of the day, i think CM is the hardest position to compare because it's the one position that relies the most on the context of the team(players, system, playing style)
for example, would xavi have been as effective on a team that played catenaccio?
and on the other hand...the truly great CM usually are the players teams are built around.
This is also why strikers and #10 are seen as more important/better/more valuable than other positions. Because they're the players who can be more easily taken out of their team's context
for example, would xavi have been as effective on a team that played catenaccio?
and on the other hand...the truly great CM usually are the players teams are built around.
This is also why strikers and #10 are seen as more important/better/more valuable than other positions. Because they're the players who can be more easily taken out of their team's context
Lampard and Gerrard were excellent players but i'd have to give it to Scholesy too. He has UCL, several titles and cups.. definitely a winner. He controlled that midfield for ages and ran bonkers against many teams. He's the ultimate mid-fielder.
Has he struggled? Never seen it and his performances over the best part of a decade now have been a clear cut above Ramos and Pique.
Scholes/Keane
Vieira/Lampard
Gerrard
That's how I would rate the top 5 midfielders of the PL era personally. I can't seperate Scholes and Keane as, along with Iniesta, they are the greatest midfielders I've seen live, and I think Vieira and Lampard were pretty neck and neck in terms of how instrumental they were to their respective teams winning what they did. Don't get me wrong, Gerrard was an amazing player, too, but his lack of a PL title and costing his team one takes him below the likes of Vieira and Lampard for me.
Vieira/Lampard
Gerrard
That's how I would rate the top 5 midfielders of the PL era personally. I can't seperate Scholes and Keane as, along with Iniesta, they are the greatest midfielders I've seen live, and I think Vieira and Lampard were pretty neck and neck in terms of how instrumental they were to their respective teams winning what they did. Don't get me wrong, Gerrard was an amazing player, too, but his lack of a PL title and costing his team one takes him below the likes of Vieira and Lampard for me.
Agree with this 100%
The way I see it a peak Gerrard would win you games by himself, a peak Scholes wins you leagues.
Precisely. There's a predictable tendency in these debates to go full cliche, with Scholes emerging as the underappreciated, untypical, continental and even «mysterious» maestro the sluggish English fans and pundits never quite got.
Keane was a simpler player, ergo he was - and remains - more highly rated.
Bullshit thread. Compare lampard to Gerrard only because Scholes pisses all over the other 2. Gerrard failed to win the league and frank won things because of the defence and Drogba. Not to say they are bad players because they're very good but Scholes was clearly superior. Better technique, game management and by far more influential. He also had plenty of 'Hollywood' moments.
Also just to set the record completely straight, Roy Keane was better than all 3.
Also just to set the record completely straight, Roy Keane was better than all 3.
It was like we suddenly had a different squad when Scholes returned from his retirement, so not sure why he isn't making players around him better in your example.
Yet count their titles.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that earlier in his career, Scholes was very much an attacking midfielder, at times a second striker.
He used to score a lot, and like Gerrard, his goals would win matches for us. It was later in his career he settled into the deeper role, not really a defensive midfielder, but more of a deep lying playmaker.
He used to score a lot, and like Gerrard, his goals would win matches for us. It was later in his career he settled into the deeper role, not really a defensive midfielder, but more of a deep lying playmaker.
I'm sorry but you cannot even try to underestimate the huge part Lampard played in Chelseas success, no Frank = a lot less titles.
Objectively I don't think any one of the 3 "pisses all over" the other. A strong case can be made for any of them. And lampard was very much the heartbeat of Chelsea for almost a decade. The thing that made Chelsea so competitive since mourinho's first stint was that they had a strong spine. Lampard, along with cech, Terry, and drogba were the spine of that team and were equally important to all their success.
One match doesn't define a footballer's career. He had many big performances in big matches.
Nah Viera was above them. Far more important to the arsenal side than either of them were to ours. Honestly, if they were both better than him we would have been able to walk all over that arsenal side and we definitely weren't.
No one player wins you team titles, its always a team effort. You simply cant rate a player better cause he played in a better side, it makes no sense.
A lot less titles? They won feck all anyway. An aging Scholes was winning titles over them. I'm not underestimating Lampard at all, I'm just pointing out he wasn't near Scholes as a player. No shame in that though.
Inferior players central to their less successful teams is what they were. I mean Lampard was probably more important to Chelsea than Iniesta for Barca but it's obvious who the better player was.
I'm sick of the underrating of our players. We were the most successful team in premiership history for a reason. Scholes is no Xavi but he's much better than the other 2.
They won three between 04-10, with Lampard finishing as their top scorers in two of those three seasons.
So he gets to be higher in the list because he played for a worse team? Despite not being a better player than those you have ranked below him? Wow! Logic 101 mate
True although his goalscoring figures were never anywhere near Lampard's: he only managed to get more than 10 league goals in one season, while Lampard was doing it every year. That's not a slight on Scholes, of course, because his scoring figures were still very impressive, and his passing and ability on the ball was by far the best part of his game anyway.
Scholes returned in January. We blew a comfortable lead over city. Not a great example
And Scholes won many many more over a longer period of time. Simply a better player than both.
For me Viera was up there with Keane and Scholes.
Im not a big fan of stats and all this well such n such won this and that. Football is a team game and a truly great player adapts to what is best for the team.
Personally I think greatness stems from thier mind, how they can adapt to fit into the system on any given day, knowing what is needed at the right times to change games, all the while not becoming a defensive liability.
As good as Gerrard was he was a liability as a CM as part of a two. He would be forever chasing back after being caught out of position as he wasnt disciplined enough and his game was all about busting a gut and trying brute force his way thru.
Dont get me wrong, if I was a manager with these 3 to pick Gerrard would be getting games, as he was fantastic for certain occasions, but for me Scholes was a man for all occasions, he knew when to keep it tight, when to get it forward and was disciplined enough to hold back and make sure everything was going to the game plan and adapting his game to the teams needs.
Some will say "yeah but he couldn't tackle". Which is kinda true, some of his 'tackles' still make me smile, I cant help but think half of his mistimed challenges werent actually mistimed, they were done on purpose. I.e. Taking a yellow for the team when a counter was on, or just purely coz he was an evil little ginger bollocks who wouldnt be shy of giving a player who fancied himself a bit too much a kick in the shins to put him off his game.
Most of the time though he didnt need to tackle as he would be in the right place to hold a players route to goal up, giving the team time to get organised or giving a team mate the chance to disposses the opposition.
Look at the influence he had when he came out of retirement, even by his own addmission he says he was too fat, but still he bossed it.
I honestly believe Scholes is as big a legend as utd EVER had, like top bracket, same level as Fergie and Charlton and Im not a Utd fan.
Im not a big fan of stats and all this well such n such won this and that. Football is a team game and a truly great player adapts to what is best for the team.
Personally I think greatness stems from thier mind, how they can adapt to fit into the system on any given day, knowing what is needed at the right times to change games, all the while not becoming a defensive liability.
As good as Gerrard was he was a liability as a CM as part of a two. He would be forever chasing back after being caught out of position as he wasnt disciplined enough and his game was all about busting a gut and trying brute force his way thru.
Dont get me wrong, if I was a manager with these 3 to pick Gerrard would be getting games, as he was fantastic for certain occasions, but for me Scholes was a man for all occasions, he knew when to keep it tight, when to get it forward and was disciplined enough to hold back and make sure everything was going to the game plan and adapting his game to the teams needs.
Some will say "yeah but he couldn't tackle". Which is kinda true, some of his 'tackles' still make me smile, I cant help but think half of his mistimed challenges werent actually mistimed, they were done on purpose. I.e. Taking a yellow for the team when a counter was on, or just purely coz he was an evil little ginger bollocks who wouldnt be shy of giving a player who fancied himself a bit too much a kick in the shins to put him off his game.
Most of the time though he didnt need to tackle as he would be in the right place to hold a players route to goal up, giving the team time to get organised or giving a team mate the chance to disposses the opposition.
Look at the influence he had when he came out of retirement, even by his own addmission he says he was too fat, but still he bossed it.
I honestly believe Scholes is as big a legend as utd EVER had, like top bracket, same level as Fergie and Charlton and Im not a Utd fan.
Scholes and Lampard can be one or two if you're ranking them.....but Stevie Me is a far and distant and slippery third.
If I had to chose a player for one season only, Gerard and Lampard at their peaks were better than Scholes. If I had to chose one of them to have an entire career in my team, I would pick Scholes
Scholes > Lampard > Gerrard.
Don't care too much for stats and not one bit for trophies/awards when comparing players.
But Scholes is simply untouchable when it comes to consistently producing absolutely stunning and world class moments on a football pitch against teams across the spectrum, not to mention his ability to control/influence games was far ahead of either Lampard or Gerrard.
Anybody who thinks Scholes is not the best out of the three needs to get their heads checked. On the ball, he was easily the best out of all the PL mids.
All one needs to do is just look at the very high esteem he's held in by footballers and managers, past and present. And I don't mean the run-of-the-mill quotes people come out with when players retire.
But Scholes is simply untouchable when it comes to consistently producing absolutely stunning and world class moments on a football pitch against teams across the spectrum, not to mention his ability to control/influence games was far ahead of either Lampard or Gerrard.
Anybody who thinks Scholes is not the best out of the three needs to get their heads checked. On the ball, he was easily the best out of all the PL mids.
All one needs to do is just look at the very high esteem he's held in by footballers and managers, past and present. And I don't mean the run-of-the-mill quotes people come out with when players retire.
You missed the Honorary Fellowship awarded to Gerrard by the Liverpool John Moores University.
I've no issue with your belief Scholes was superior, it's your claim that Lampard was successful only due to Chelseas defence and Drogba that was hugely incorrect.