Scholes, Gerrard or Lampard


Status
Not open for further replies.
Scholes.

Gerrard was a great player but the obsession with him and Beckham stopped us getting the best out of Scholes. At a time that we had a lack of left sided players but lots of great centre halves and central midfielders it seems crazy that England didn’t go to 3 at the back with Ashley Cole left wing back, Gerrard right wing back, Beckham in the middle as he was later in his career, and Scholes and Lampard behind the front 2.
 
Scholes.

Gerrard was a great player but the obsession with him and Beckham stopped us getting the best out of Scholes. At a time that we had a lack of left sided players but lots of great centre halves and central midfielders it seems crazy that England didn’t go to 3 at the back with Ashley Cole left wing back, Gerrard right wing back, Beckham in the middle as he was later in his career, and Scholes and Lampard behind the front 2.
People would have gone mad if Gerrard had have been used as a wing back and Beckham in the middle. Beckham on the right certainly wasnt the problem. It was, as you've pointed out, the inability to find someone suitable on the left. Square pegs in round holes summed it up with Gerrard DM and Scholes LM. Gerrard only played a small percentage of his games for england in his true 'number 8' role. Horrendously mismanaged, at that level, in the prime of his career.
 
Scholes.

England should have played with a playmaker and someone who did the grafting alongside him. Instead they just picked the best club players and tried to make a system fit around that.

Hargreaves would have been that ideal player to play alongside Scholes but for injuries.

I never really rated Lampard as an international quality player, although he was a very good club player. I'd put Gerrard above him in terms of quality but I think international level was a step too far for him as he never looked as comfortable and I think that was demonstrated by him trying too hard to replicate his club form: sprayed a lot of balls all over the place for England that didn't work, I always thought he was trying too hard.

Scholes the best player of the three.

In the defence of all three of them, I don't think England had many world class players in that period, players who could step up to international level and look the same player, with the same quality, as they were for their clubs. Only Seaman, Ferdinand, Neville, Owen (pre injuries) and Shearer were good enough to play in a world cup winning team in my opinion. The measure of a top class player is being able to step up to international level and look just as comfortable and/or have the same impact. Shearer 1996 semi-final: just a nod-in from about 6 or 7 yards with no one around him and it doesn't look like much, but he has to lose two experienced centre halves in a crowded area to get into that position; Owen quarter-final 2002: one half a chance and it's in the back of the net. That's what world class footballers do: they deliver on the highest stage in the biggest games. I never felt Gerrard or Lampard were capable of doing that, and to be fair Scholes didn't prove that either: but I think he would have done played in his natural position with someone to do the hard graft alongside him.
 
I did the stats on this at Uni for a research project. When you take away pens &free kicks Scholes dicks all over Gerrard and Lampard. But as said before different players, different careers. Scholes played for the best team in the country for 20 years. Gerrard never played for the best team in country. Lampard scored shedloads but he had 2 defensive mids doing his graft for a decade.Scholes is 5ft7 asthmatic with dodgy knees and bad eyesight whilst Gerrard looked like a super middleweight boxer. Lampard went from fat Frank to a beast. Its nonsense to compare Scholes to them as physically they were in a different league. So to sum up Scholes by a country mile
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top