-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2011-12
- Thread starter Johnners
- Start date
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
My opinion is obvious. My point with citing Vieira himself and Ferguson is to show that the player in question, and the other one's manager, both rated Gerrard highly or higher than the players GF is arguing for. It is not to be definitive, it is to suggest that my opinion is not unreasonable at all. It is, as Pup has stated, seemingly taken that I am arguing that someone like Carrick is better than the aforementioned players. It isn't; it is Gerrard.
I can argue my opinion all day, but who cares about it really? LOL Gerrard had it all and as a single player is unmatched IMO. The fact that his peers also rated him amongst or the best outright is something I value. Because I am a Liverpool fan and undoubtedly biased, I acknowledge that.
Last edited:
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
If you have a problem with it, then demonstrate why you believe such views are false. Basing your justifications on opinions or views expressed by others is a very lazy way of attempting to argue your point.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Keane in Turin >>>>> Gerrard in Istanbul. By miles.
Liverpool won that final on the back of 10 crazy minutes. The first half was the most one sided thrashing I've ever seen dished out in a European final, 3-0 flattered Liverpool at half time.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to jizz over Gerrard having an inspirational ten minutes, not after the performance put in by Roy Keane in Turin.
And the comparison with Cardiff is just laughable. It was against West Ham for **** sake. Keane's performance was against the finest club side of his era.
Liverpool won that final on the back of 10 crazy minutes. The first half was the most one sided thrashing I've ever seen dished out in a European final, 3-0 flattered Liverpool at half time.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to jizz over Gerrard having an inspirational ten minutes, not after the performance put in by Roy Keane in Turin.
And the comparison with Cardiff is just laughable. It was against West Ham for **** sake. Keane's performance was against the finest club side of his era.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Euro 2012 subbie tbh.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
In his early 20s Vieira was at the heart of a title winning midfield. This whole argument seems to be based on completely ignoring what any other player accomplished in his career.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Too many exams, brain malfunction. Desperately need a burrito.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
It's also worth pointing out than in 2003 Gerrard gave an interview where he said he believed Vieira was categorically the better player.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I am by no means a football expert but isnt a big criticism of Messi and Ronaldo that they havent been particularly great when playing for their respective countries?
Well if we applied the same criteria to Gerrard, he'd be regarded as a pretty ordinary player "at the highest level" and barely deserving of a place in the squad
Viera, on the other hand, was consistently excellent for the most part
IMO, I dont think there is much comparison between the 2 and merely look upon Viera's remarks re Gerrard as those of a classy guy who didnt want to say "I'm the best"
Well if we applied the same criteria to Gerrard, he'd be regarded as a pretty ordinary player "at the highest level" and barely deserving of a place in the squad
Viera, on the other hand, was consistently excellent for the most part
IMO, I dont think there is much comparison between the 2 and merely look upon Viera's remarks re Gerrard as those of a classy guy who didnt want to say "I'm the best"
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Yes, but the "**** at international level" is such a massively flawed argument.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dont really see why if it is CONSISTENTLY the case
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Well it's flawed because the greats of the past are largely rated on international exploits as that's the only time people generally saw them.
It also doesn't take into account people in poor teams.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Fair enough. I'll try to break down my thoughts on each player and why I rate Gerrard higher than them or at least comparable.
Keane had the brute strength, mentality and short passing game to dictate a game in the middle, but apart from the occasional goal was not a constant threat at the other end of the pitch. In terms of 1v1 duels in the middle he was very adept at overawing his opposing number. But ask him to carry a weaker side without much of an attack and he'll come up short. He just doesn't have the game to do it. He was one of the last of the old school midfielders - the Souness type - and I generally think the game in England is much more technical now than it was then which is why I rate Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard higher when reflecting about that.
Scholes has great vision, great movement and awareness, and the ability to read the game on both ends of the pitch. He is a bit more adaptable and earlier in his career played high up the pitch and scored a lot of goals. But other than through the middle, you wouldn't play him elsewhere because he didn't have the physical attributes to beat players or to defend. His game is cerebral and it has translated into a long career because of it. He's probably better placed in the modern game of possession football than the past where getting by without physicality was tougher because of the nature of the game and interpretation of the rules.
-
Lampard was the best in terms of consistent output of them all in terms of goals and assists. His late runs, clever movements and freak lung-capacity made him a very hard player to mark but it has also meant he has been less involved in dictating the way his team played. That's probably why people perceive Lampard as the lesser of these midfielders despite his awesome stats; he could be anonymous and then pop up with a goal or an assist. He's also a player you wouldn't ask to play very deeply nor wide. I don't think his running with the ball is good enough to play just behind the striker; he generally relies on passing and moving into space which there is less of the closer you get to the opponent's goal. I think that's the draw-back with Lampard; his game is wonderful for the position he has played and the teammates he has had, but he is the least adaptable player of them all.
Vieira in style was more similar to Gerrard in that he seemed to be as involved in his own half as he was in the oppositions. He had better vision in terms of going forward than Keane, even though Keane tended to pop up with more goals. I think he was also more adaptable as he had the physical attributes to play wider if need be and could drive well with the ball at his feet. He, with Keane, dominated the period until around Gerrard emerged but I generally rate him and Keane less because the league didn't have the same quality back then. It was really from mid-2000 that English football came back and the league got to be the best in the world again.
Gerrard was all of them in one. He had the lungs and goal-threat of Lampard, the ability to play the physical game like Keane, the vision to pick out passes like Scholes, and consistently had notable affect on both areas of the pitch in the same game like Vieira. They may have been better than him at the thing they were great at, but he wasn't far behind them in those facets and he had all of them. Any position he was asked to play, he did it, and was the best or one of the best in it. I've never seen a player play all over midfield to such a high standard as Gerrard. In any league or at any time.
More than just the technical and physical ability he had, he could lift a team on his own through sheer will far more consistently than the aforementioned who were usually surrounded by the best the league had to offer. When he drove forward with purpose, it seemed like a juggernaut and the rest of the team would hop on board for the ride. I think the fact that he has scored so many long range wonder goals is somewhat symbolic - he's had to do it on his own, often with no build up play or help, scoring the kind of goal that didn't need his teammates to do anything. I do think often Gerrard the saviour role is overplayed - earlier in his career his team was very good IMO and for a couple years when we had Mascherano and Alonso he also had the tools to properly challenge. It's no coincidence that his best years in the league came with those teams.
But there is no doubt he has carried the team through seasons - in a way none of the others had to do. He also stepped up far more often than sometimes you would believe. What makes him incredible IMO is he did it when it counted, especially in the big games or the finals. He is comic book superhero material. I'm a Liverpool fan, so I am biased, but if you had this kind of player how could you not be? Gerrard's influence on the club and his team is so deep that despite the lack of league titles a lot of Liverpool fans - notable or not - consider him on par or better than many players who won pretty much everything there was to win at club level - e.g. Kenny, Souness, Keegan, etc.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
At the time Milan was as comparable, if not better than the Juve you're talking about with Keane. Milan went to 3 finals in 5 years and won 2. Juve went to 3 finals in 3 years and won 1. Moreover, United were a far better team that year than Liverpool were when we went to the final. Ours was truly a David v Goliath final.
The fact that you think it was only 10 minutes is telling. Gerrard played 3 positions in that game, CM, SS and then played the rest of the game as RB to keep Serginho quiet. He scored one and won the penalty for the other. We were 3-0 down to a team that at 0-0 was expected to win easily. That comeback is the greatest I've ever seen in football and arguably of all sports. Keane wishes he could have influenced a game like that.
Last edited:
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There are certain exceptions e.g. Lampard and Gerrard cant play together so discount their international form
IMO, that is such a crock of ****
The reality is that they were probably nowhere near as good as the press/club fans would have you believe
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Of course, not that he had the combined effect of all of them put together. But that he could play any of their roles comfortably and to a standard comparable to them. Whereas each of those players weren't as adaptable.Just when you think you've seen it all. Gerrard was Keane, Scholes, Vieira and Lampard all rolled into one?