Paul Scholes, Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard?

[Tony Moanero]

Agree with others it's a bit of a silly question, and asking it in a national newspaper is basically akin to asking "which team do you support?" Of course I think Gerrard is the best of the three, but I can't say for sure whether or not me being a Liverpool supporter is a factor in my opinion. I think the Guardian poll will place Gerrard in third place. Is it possible to view the results out of interest, doesn't seem to be?

Have you voted?

 

I have and can see them.

 

Scholes 46%

Gerrard 48%

Lampard 6%

 

Poll closes in 12 hours.

 

It's between Stevie and Scholes with Lampard nowhere, as Liverpool and United have much bigger fanbases than Chelsea.

[castle_red]

Have you voted?

 

I have and can see them.

 

Scholes 46%

Gerrard 48%

Lampard 6%

 

Poll closes in 12 hours.

 

It's between Stevie and Scholes with Lampard nowhere, as Liverpool and United have much bigger fanbases than Chelsea.

Yeah voted on my phone so maybe that's why.

 

I didn't expect Lampard to get that low a vote. As you say, far more Liverpool and Utd supporters than Chelsea, but I thought Frank would benefit from a large proportion of the neutral/southern/ingurlund vote. I do have quite a bit of respect for Lampard in the sense that his natural gifts don't compare to the other two, but through sheer determination he's carved himself into a top class player. Similarly to Carra.

[The Guest]

I don't even get how it's a question.

 

Scholes and Lampard are obviously two of the best midfield players of the past 20 years but they aren't Gerrard.  They haven't got everything that he had when he was at his peak.  Nobody has had such a variety of skills to such a high standard.  You've got players like Ronaldo and Messi who are that good at scoring and creating goals that they are better than Gerrard.  Gerrard as an all round player has a more varied skillset than both of them though.  If you were to clone a load of Gerrard's to make a team they would probably be the best team of all time.  If you were to clone any of these other players and make a team the side would be lacking in so many other skills.

 

The fact that Messi and Ronado are so good at winning games is it what makes them the two best players of all time and ahead of even Gerrard.

 

Scholes and Lampard aren't that good.  They are fucking good but not that good.  The fact of that matter is that they are great players who have operated in great teams.  It's nothing to be ashamed of and it doesn't detract how good they actually are but what it does mean is that when you list off their stats eg trophies or total goals they actually don't justify anything.  Supporters views of the ability of these players is skewed because of their achievements in the game.

 

It simply comes down to if you put the three players on the pitch in a game of football who is better.  It's Gerrard every day of the week.  Gerrard has played in good teams also.  Not as good as Lampard and Scholes did but good teams.  They challanged for trophies at the top end and Gerrard was the focal point of it.  He also played in some pretty average teams.  Teams still with good players sprinkled around but still average.  Those teams were still in the mix because of Gerrard, because he was doing everything.  Not because he was stupid or tactically naive as some suggest these days but because he could do and he fucking had to otherwise we were nowhere.

 

This is not some strange thing restricted to Gerrard.  Players win their teams games all over the world all the time.  The difference with Gerrard is he was doing it at the top end of the game nearly every fucking week for years on end.

 

Scholes and Lampard were never required to do this, ever but if they were I have no doubt that they couldn't have done it.  It's not in their make up physically or ability wise.  They have not got the all round skills to be able to save your team at one of the pitch and win it at the other.  Something that the whole world seen in Istanbul in 2005.  They both had the ability to do it going forward at different points in their career but didn't have it at the other end.

 

Scholes retreated to a deep lying role later in his career.  I'm not sure if this is because he wasn't needed at the other end of the pitch, wasn't good enough there any more, or was required in the deep lying role only Ferguson could tell you that.  I would guess it was a combination of all three.  I doubt you would ever get that as an answer from Fergie though.  All this talk about Scholes controlling games, something which apparently Gerrard has never done, is another strange one.  It's surely very easy to "control" a game when Ronaldo is banging in 40 goals a season or you're playing in a midfield with Beckham and Giggs in their pomp alongside Keane killing everything in sight.  Somehow being better, debatably, at  making a 10 yard pass to another player makes you a better player is now the fashionable thing so no wonder Scholes gets the plaudits.

 

I could pick the Lampard argument to pieces as well but if you think Lampard is better than Gerrard you aren't worth wasting the time on.

[tenner]

Gerrard is much better than any other midfielder of his generation. Surprised how close the vote is between Stevie and Scholes and that Lampard is so far behind Scholes. Stevie's is different class with a better range of passing and has kept Liverpool in games on his own with his drive and passion.

[Funkasy]

I like watching everyone of them play, all great fucking players and its strange that england havent dominated more matches with those 3 all playing at the same time. 

[Code]

I like watching everyone of them play, all great fucking players and its strange that england havent dominated more matches with those 3 all playing at the same time. 

 

 

You like watching Lampard and Scholes play?

 

Disturbing.

[William Morris]

Lampard's status is inevitably enhanced by his ability to score goals, always a useful trait to have of course, like David Platt before him and John Wark when playing for us. But it enables the ignorant dickheads who make up most of the football reporting media in this country to either miss, or mask the other deficiencies in his game.

He's great against shite, especially for his club who have been better than most for a fair chunk of his career. But against good teams for both club and, especially country, more and more his main function has been to occupy space to basically get in the way of the opposition and help his team defend. Which requires discipline, especially from someone whose natural inclination is to attack. So fair play to him for that, but although he has been a very good player, I've never felt he was quite as good as the press he gets.

 

Scholes has been brilliant for the Mancs but once went about 3 years without doing anything at all for England, and because of who he plays for, it took that full 3 years before anyone started saying anything about it. You only knew he was there when he got frustrated then started diving in with "those" tackles, often ending up with a yellow card and on one occasion a red.

He also has had plenty making excuses for him for his sub standard England performances, pointing out how he gets played out of position. But it was only towards the end of his International career when this was the case. He was supposedly at his peak and in his favoured position when he went through that long barren spell.

Did really well the way he reinvented himself to prolong his Man U career.

The main thing I personally hold against him isn't actually his fault. Well it is really but, it's not just the disgraceful tackles, more the fact he never gets called to account for them, in fact for reasons I don't understand, his career threatening lunges are usually regarded as being funny "ha ha ha, oh what's he like that Scholesy, he just can't tackle".

It's not fucking funny.

 

Gerrard for me hasn't been quite as good as Kenny, Souness or Barnes, but if anyone wants to put him top of their list I wouldn't really argue with them. They are very much entitled to their opinion as he really has been that good.

I suppose he could have been better for England but, it's telling that the "played out of position" arguments/excuses that were made for Scholes are seldom seen on behalf of Gerrard, except in places like this of course, yet they are far more valid in his case.

For me he is way ahead of the other two with Scholes second and Lampard 3rd.

[fowler9]

put Stevie anywhere on the pitch and he'd be brilliant, put Scholes and Lampard anywhere but centre mid or behind the striker and they wouldn't

 

thats pretty telling as to who is better in my opinion

[Boss]

Scholes and Gerrard are on the same level, Lampard is not in the conversation. I don't judge a player based on what they win, i judge a player based on my eyes and what they're capable of doing.

 

Gerrard can pass like Pirlo, tackle like Veira, has an engine like Kuyt, and is probably the most reknown long range shot specialist in football.

 

Scholes had great movement, great passer, poor tackler, but had a great footballing brain, he could also score goals.

 

Lampard can't tackle, never helps out defensively, is a decent passer of the ball, doesn't have a great engine, but has great positioning and can score goals regularly.

 

Gerrard, Scholes >                      Lampard

[Boss]

The mancs always use the argument that Pep Guardiola said he'd love to manage Scholes. The question he was asked was "which MANCHESTER UNITED player would you have in your side?"  I'm sure if he was asked "which liverpool player would you have in your side" he'd say Gerrard without a seconds pause.

 

They overrate Scholes, the truth is Keane was their best midfielder and has been for the last 20 years. They refuse to give him the credit he deserves because he's let a few home truths out about whiskey nose and they can't take it.

[Captain]

This one isn't even open to debate. Anyone going with Lampard or Scholes need their fucking head tested.

[Jairzinho]

Fascinating discussion going on in the comments section of that article.

 

Well, it might be if 98% of all posters weren't United fans.

[moof]

Have you voted?

 

I have and can see them.

 

Scholes 46%

Gerrard 48%

Lampard 6%

 

Poll closes in 12 hours.

 

It's between Stevie and Scholes with Lampard nowhere, as Liverpool and United have much bigger fanbases than Chelsea.

Lampard is nowhere because he's in a completely different class to the outstanding Gerrard and Scholes. Gerrard is slightly ahead of Scholes but they're the best two English players of the past 20 years.

[JermainePennant]

Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes.

 

I used to be on lampards back a few years ago but he has proved year after year he is a top player, if there is a player who can consistently get long shots on target as much as frank I haven't seen them.Also after that west ham fan forum thing they showed on his 100th cap made me gain further respect for him, its clear he had to work his arse off for all he got

[Section_31]

Gerrard's the most complete midfielder of his generation. Scholes was class and Lampard isn't anywhere near the other two in terms of ability, not a chance. He's a one trick pony whose masked his lack of all round ability by being a prolific goalscorer for a midfielder.

 

I've never seen a player who can get a team and a game by the scruff of the neck, against any opponent, completely at will the way Gerrard could in his pomp. He was the best short and long passer of the ball, had the best engine of any player in the league. When he played at right back, he was the best right back in the league. Awesome player.

 

The point made about the other two having been surrounded by great players is an excellent point too. Scholes had players like Keane protecting him and Yorke, Giggs and Beckham moving intelligently and offering him people to pass to left, right and centre. Lampard never looked like a potentially top class player when he was at West Ham, whereas Gerrard would have done.

[dennis tooth]

Only one of them can tackle.

[lifetime fan]

Scholes can tackle. He's just a deliberately dirty little fucker.

 

 

Gerrard obviously, followed by Scholes and Lampard a distant third.

[Phoenix]

All three different types of players  and not really comparable.

 

Gerrard is the most complete. Effectiveness does not need completeness though.

[G Richards]

All excellent players. I would rank them 1. Stevie 2. Scholes 3. Lampard

 

Lampard had the knack of arriving in the box and getting goals.

Scholes did this earlier in his career, then in later years he sat back and dictated the tempo of the game in a very continental way.

 

Gerrard? He did/does all of that, and more besides. He is the most athletic of the three, the best at a dead ball situation, the best crosser, the most versatile, and the plus points of the other two players are also in Stevie's locker.  

[FanchesterCity]

It's a total myth that Scholes can't tackle.

You don't get to that level, esp in midfield without being able to.

 

However, he's used that myth to his advantage which has afforded him a fair few dirty tackles in his career and it's been passed off as a 'clumsy challenge'. Much like Fellaini and his elbows are due to his gangly stature, or Crouch and his handball with his stature. Convenient excuses really.

 

I'm not saying it was ever Scholes' strong point. Far from it, but he can tackle clean when he needs to.

 

Is Gerrard the best tackler in the game? no

Is Gerrard the best passer in the game? probably not

Is Gerrard the best 'arrive late to the box' player? probably not

Is Gerrard the best leader ever? maybe not

 

However, he's bloody close to the top in all the above, and therefore streets ahead of the other two 'all round'.

 

I honestly think Gerrard could play ANY position and hold his own. Obviously, he's not going to be the world's best left sided winger, or fullback, or even striker, but he could play those roles if he had to (I think).

 

For me, that's what makes him such an admirable player, and he's going to be very difficult to replace.

[The Guest]

It's a total myth that Scholes can't tackle.

You don't get to that level, esp in midfield without being able to.

 

However, he's used that myth to his advantage which has afforded him a fair few dirty tackles in his career and it's been passed off as a 'clumsy challenge'. Much like Fellaini and his elbows are due to his gangly stature, or Crouch and his handball with his stature. Convenient excuses really.

 

I'm not saying it was ever Scholes' strong point. Far from it, but he can tackle clean when he needs to.

 

Is Gerrard the best tackler in the game? no

Is Gerrard the best passer in the game? probably not

Is Gerrard the best 'arrive late to the box' player? probably not

Is Gerrard the best leader ever? maybe not

 

However, he's bloody close to the top in all the above, and therefore streets ahead of the other two 'all round'.

 

I honestly think Gerrard could play ANY position and hold his own. Obviously, he's not going to be the world's best left sided winger, or fullback, or even striker, but he could play those roles if he had to (I think).

 

For me, that's what makes him such an admirable player, and he's going to be very difficult to replace.

 

I think it's the other way around now.  People are starting to make out as though Scholes could tackle when he couldn't.  When people say he couldn't tackle they don't mean he couldn't actually put his foot out and stop a player running past him.  They mean he couldn't tackle like a ball winning centre mid, which he couldn't.  Can you honestly ever remember him winning a 50/50 ball?  Or throwing in one of those Gerrard style ones from the side or even behind, where it's a genuinely good tackle?  The only tackle he ever made were fouls from behind to break up the play.  Every player does them sometimes because they are necessary.  It's not him doing them that meant he couldn't tackle.  It was the fact he never actually did those 50/50's or other types.

[FanchesterCity]

I think it's the other way around now.  People are starting to make out as though Scholes could tackle when he couldn't.  When people say he couldn't tackle they don't mean he couldn't actually put his foot out and stop a player running past him.  They mean he couldn't tackle like a ball winning centre mid, which he couldn't.  Can you honestly ever remember him winning a 50/50 ball?  Or throwing in one of those Gerrard style ones from the side or even behind, where it's a genuinely good tackle?  The only tackle he ever made were fouls from behind to break up the play.  Every player does them sometimes because they are necessary.  It's not him doing them that meant he couldn't tackle.  It was the fact he never actually did those 50/50's or other types.

 

Hmmm, I can sort of see where you're coming from there.

 

My point was more 'of course he can tackle' - just not at a standard as high as the best, but still well and truly above the likes of you and me! otherwise, he'd never have got through the schools / youth systems, let alone into United's team.

 

The other thing too, is that for a good part of his career, he had Keane at his side, and he really was a fine tackler (putting aside my loathing of the guy, and his penchant for some truly filthy tackles too), which, arguably allowed Scholes to go forward and be the 'distributor'. Once Keane left, more onus was put on Scholes, and he was a poor substitute (in the tackling dept).

 

I still think this 'lousy tackler' reputation worked in his favour. He always had that "lousy timing / poor tackler' excuse rather than "you just took him out of the game and knew what you were doing". I think a lot of refs let things go when they wouldn't have with other people - simple because he had that "nice lad, wouldn't hurt a fly, just can't tackle' image.

 

A lot of this stuff too, depends on the team you're playing in. Lampard's been in a team where they've been on the front foot most of the time, so his tackling would be far less than a midfielder in an average team. Same with Scholes really. That's not to say they never had to tackle, but in the grand scheme, I think they probably spent more time on the ball than chasing it.

 

Not so sure about Gerrard. Still in a fine team, but (I'd say) he had to a lot more chasing in his time at Liverpool than those two did with Chelsea and United.

 

I honestly can't remember him winning 50/50 balls - the ginger git was too busy winning everything under the sun trophy wise and I couldn't stand to look!

[Gym Beglin]

If you asked me who the best midfielder was, I'd say Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard.

 

If you asked me who the best player was, I'd say Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard.

 

 

Lampard's goals make him the top midfielder of the bunch, you can't get away from that, it's an incredible record and he's still two years older than Gerrard.

But Gerrard's versatility make him the top player of the bunch.

 

Scholes is the best of both worlds, versatile and potent, but without the athleticism.

 

 

It's an interesting question, but a vital factor in the armoury of a world class central midfielder is the goals they get. Assists, yes, forcing the play, yes, but goals have to be a part of their game, and it's interesting to look at the best midfielders in the world in the last 20 years and their games/goals.

 

Lampard - 812 games/244 goals

Gerrard - 635 games/159 goals

Scholes - 718 games/155 goals

Kaka - 516 games/171 goals

Zidane - 681 games/125 goals

Ballack - 587 games/144 goals

Xavi - 745 games/85 goals

Iniesta - 572 games/52 goals

Pirlo - 616 games/61 goals

Schweinsteiger - 479 games/58 goals

Vieira - 651 games/58 goals

Keane - 625 games/75 goals

 

Allied to that, I don't really want to drag the likes of Hamann, Mattheus, Dunga, Carrick, Alonso, Makelele, into this arena because it's not their domain to score goals. You could argue that I shouldn't have listed Pirlo and Vieira as well. And there's loads I obviously could have added, but it's all semantics really.

 

But it's clear that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard have been very, very special players. Which makes it all the more reprehensible that the England team could not adapt to a formation to build on those kind of players.