Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard

[Zatman]

Been a bit of debate in media about this in last few days mainly from Jamie Carragher who rates both ahead of Scholes though his reasons are appalling

 

Its hands down Scholes for me but for other people?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DQjvYFOozgY

 

 

Jamie Carragher has provoked the ire of the keyboard warriors today by writing in his Daily Mail column that he rates Frank Lampard ahead of Paul Scholes but behind Steven Gerrard in his list of English Premier League midfielders.

Now, a debate such as this inevitably goes down tired tribal lines but let’s take a look at Carragher’s reasoning.

I know Barcelona’s Xavi described Scholes as the best midfielder of the last 20 years but Frank has influenced more big games — his goals clinched Chelsea’s first title in 2005, he has won them an FA Cup final and scored in a Champions League final.

He has also played more and scored more for England, and his tally of 166 Premier League goals — the highest by a midfielder — outstrips the 107 Scholes scored.

It’s a safe bet that Paul Scholes’ goals – back when he was a goalscorer played some part in the eleven Premier League titles he won during his career. Lampard did indeed score in a Champions League final – a final Chelsea lost to Scholes’ Man United and Scholes also scored in an FA Cup final, another stat that Carragher uses as a measurement.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Carragher uses Lampard’s astonishing tally of 166 Premier League goals as another barometer, that is perfectly reasonable, but Lampard’s 166 goals not only outstrips Scholes’ 107 but utterly eclipses Steven Gerrard’s 98. We are not given any reasons as to why Gerrard is Carrgher’s no:1, we are just meant to take his word for it.

This isn’t meant to take a position on which of these three deserve to be top of the pile, it’s a argument that has all the fun sucked out of it by maniacs but in week where England labored in the Ukraine and nearly a decade has passed in which they’ve been built on a Gerrard/Lampard axis, it’s disconcerting that a pundit of this influence appears to have no idea of the nuances that different players bring to a team and how these players “influence big games”

The overbearing influence that the English game has over here insures we follow them blindly and the prevalent thought that a “box to box” midfielder who gets goals will always be rated ahead of a schemer will only harden.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Zatman

[AVFCforever1991]

Scholes is better than both of them, no doubt. Different types of players, all three of them. But I would still take Scholes.

Edited September 17, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[coda]

Scholseh was the best of the three but I think it's a blot on his career retiring from England at 29. 

 

Yes, I know England weren't going to win anything anyway.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Scholes all day.

[TrentVilla]

Carragher is an idiot, Scholes every day of the week.

[BOF]

Carragher is an idiot, Scholes every day of the week.

Two completely separate statements and I agree with both of them.

[Keyblade]

Absolutely no contest. Scholes is far ahead of both of them, and is in my top 3 favorite players, if not my favorite. An absolute genius, and Neville hit the nail on the head. It's always a joy watching someone as diminutive as him absolutely control a match singlehandedly.

[villarule123]

Whoever asked that question deserves a medal, it was always going to provide frosty answers

[villa4europe]

IMO he's right, gerrard is the best "premier league" midfielder, in that he is the one best suited to the style of play we see every week, the pace he plays at, his shooting, tackling, long passing, aggression etc all epitomise what our league is all about, never agreed with this "world class" or "could play for any team in the world" though, he's suited to the prem, think he can impose himself at European / international level every now and then

 

lampard is a better player though and scholes is better than both, both of them would have been hugely successful in they'd moved to Europe, scholes especially could have played anywhere in the world

[Guest av1]

Zidane says hi.

 

For  there many factors that need to be taken into account, Gerrard has undoubtedly carried plop for many a year so maybe stands out as the most "important" to his club, but importance to a club doesn't mean best,  god I know scum fan's still mourning the loss of robbie savage (I'll take 5 points for incorporating Gerrard and the chav in the same sentence) its all subjective,  but for me.

 

SG has been a monumental figure in a average side.

 

FL has been a monumental figure In a side set up to his strengths

 

PS has been a monumental figure in the most dominate side in the country.

 

 

The latter for me every day of the week.

Edited September 17, 2013 by av1

[BOF]

I don't understand v4e. You open by saying Gerrard is the best Premier League midfielder and then say Lampard is a better player and Scholes is better than both. So I take it what you are actually opening with is that Gerrard is limited to the Premier League whereas the others aren't. Which means Gerrard is 3rd out of 3 as a footballer.

[AVFCforever1991]

Gerrard is a tactical liability..

Edited September 17, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[Mr_Dogg]

Seems to be the kind of biased opinion Sky would not appreciate from one of their pundits

[Guest av1]

On a side note, a few years ago a remember reading/watching/listening to something (I can't quite remember what) the subject  being why scholes is (in their opinion) underrated, and someome suggested the fact that he was ginger and not the best looking in the world. Completely stupid of course, but imo, he was certainly underated, never got why.

[villa4europe]

I don't understand v4e. You open by saying Gerrard is the best Premier League midfielder and then say Lampard is a better player and Scholes is better than both. So I take it what you are actually opening with is that Gerrard is limited to the Premier League whereas the others aren't. Which means Gerrard is 3rd out of 3 as a footballer.

 

Yeah I think he's limited to the prem, I think gerrard is skys perfect advert for the premier league, he plays the style of football that we are constantly told that the premier league excels at and no other league can do, but no one ever seems to question why no one else does it, if we'd have built the team around scholes rather than gerrard and shoe horning everyone else around him then we would have been a better national team

 

I agree with AVFCforever too, think he's been a tactical liability for England for years, too eager to play roy of the rovers stuff, when we played rooney up front with gerrard playing off him it was horrendous, both of them dropping deep to pick the ball up off the CBs

[Zatman]

I think for me the main reason he never really got the credit was he played in the team with Beckham who got all the attention in that United midfield from the media

[Guest av1]

Gerrard is a tactical liability..

 

Not sure what your basing this on. He has been brilliant for his only club. If your referring to england I'd suggest the ineptitude

Of our national managers.

[BOF]

Seems to be the kind of biased opinion Sky would not appreciate from one of their pundits

He said worse w.r.t. bias last night. He referred to Liverpool as 'we' at one point in a pre-match interview with Rodgers. Everyone giggled but it was an awkward moment at the same time. Worse than that, at half time when talking about how one of the Liverpool goals came about, he gleefully said something along the lines of 'I don't care, it went in'. He's not capable of being unbiased in the way Neville has managed it. He doesn't have the emotional control to stay reasoned. He gets excited too quickly and that's not always a funny endearing quality.

Last night I think he went the wrong side of unprofessional. The way he made the argument about fullbacks being failed wingers or centre backs and that no-one grows up wanting to be Gary Neville. Yeah it was funny at the time and you could see the point he was trying to make but it showed a considerable lack of class and was the wrong side of insulting. Mocking a fellow pro who has more trophies than you have brain cells. It showed that he had to resort to a simpler English to get his point across because he simply isn't articulate enough for the job. He has a long way to go as a pundit before he'll become respected and if he keeps going down the road he has started on to date, he'll be nothing but a liability and a loose cannon and you're right, that's not the kind of thing Sky like to have on their broadcasts.

[Voinjama]

For England, Gerrard has easily been the best of the 3. But they are without doubt the 3 best English midfielders of the last 20 years.

[Pongotastic]

I cannot abide Jamie Carragher. He encapsulates everything about the Scouse hypocrisy which has riled me throughout years of watching football.

 

As for his point, how can he compare 3 very different players? It's a nothing article. His whole basis of his argument is that Gerrard and Lampard have scored more goals than Scholes. What does that tell us? How many of those were free kicks/penalties. He doesn't even mention contribution to overall play. Assists, pass completion rate etc. That's quite apart from the fact that Scholes has won more than both of them put together.