*Official* English Football Season 2010-11

[Tom Halsey]

BTW, what did you disagree with in the bolded part?

That Gerrard's goal ratio is almost the same as Lampard's. It isn't. Even if we look at exclusively the period since Torres arrived, when Gerrard played quite a lot as a second striker, something Lampard hasn't done, Lampard's scoring ratio has still been better.

P.S. Giggs didn't deserve the PFA award, Gerrard who was runner-up deserved it more. It was more a life-time achievement award that year than anything.

This is my point. You can’t use PFA awards for Gerrard to back up your argument if they’re suddenly undeserved when someone else wins one, even if you’re right that it was undeserved.

I'm a 'Pool fan, but I am not English. I think Gerrard is underrated more than anything. Would have loads of titles if he played for United, for example, and it would be undeniable in that sense. The stuff he's done for Liverpool just couldn't have been done by any other player. Despite being in such an average (at best, at times) squad he's won everything bar the league - twice runner up. Also, the people I mentioned who praised Gerrard (Hiddink, Kaka, Henry, etc) weren't English.

But I generally disagree about how good English players are. I hate to read crap like "Rooney isn't world class", "Gerrard and Lampard aren't world class", etc. English players do get hyped to a certain extent, then they hit a certain ceiling where they become targets for even the English fans themselves to take the piss out of.

English media extends to the media of any country whose primary football league that they follow is the English one. This, I’m guessing, includes Australia. It’s not that they overhype English players anyway, it’s that they overhype the players in the mould that Gerrard fits into perfectly – the stereotypical English Lion, giving 100%. Being English on top of that, and playing in the English league, helps.

If there were so many world class English players, you’d have thought they might have won something in the past 45 years. Or got to a final. Or even qualified at all, in the case of Euro 2008. There have been some questionable tactical decisions, but ultimately they have been managed by some managers who have excellent track records elsewhere, so the blame must go mostly to the players.

 

[Uppercut]

There's a lot of myth about Gerrard's passing though. True, he does try some hollywood balls and it does stick in the mind when he does...but his passing completion rate is usually 75-80% depending on the season. That's what the likes of Lampard and even Fabregas hover around, even if a little bit higher.

That's not really the point I'm making though. I've never even really bought the whole hollywood ball thing. He just doesn't really link up attack and defence very often, or very effectively. When Liverpool come under pressure in games and he's forced to drop deep, he's nowhere near as effective. That's a big difference between him and Fabregas or Lampard. AFAIC his strengths in the final third more than make up for it, which is why Benitez played him further forward and used Xavi Alonso- who was one of the best in the world at it- as the orthodox central midfield player. Liverpool controlled games much, much better with Alonso there than they did when Gerrard played in a two-man midfield.

Gerrard was a different player to both Keane and Vieira in a big sense though. He was not only the muscle in the middle, he was the conjurer of goals. In Liverpool, Gerrard had the onus of being the matchwinner. In Arsenal and United, there were plenty of them going around. Gerrard had to make things happen. Often, that leads to jaw-dropping brilliance, and other times...row Z balls.

Yeah, I completely agree.

 

[vcs]

That's not really the point I'm making though. I've never even really bought the whole hollywood ball thing. He just doesn't really link up attack and defence very often, or very effectively. When Liverpool come under pressure in games and he's forced to drop deep, he's nowhere near as effective. That's a big difference between him and Fabregas or Lampard. AFAIC his strengths in the final third more than make up for it, which is why Benitez played him further forward and used Xavi Alonso- who was one of the best in the world at it- as the orthodox central midfield player. Liverpool controlled games much, much better with Alonso there than they did when Gerrard played in a two-man midfield.



Yeah, I completely agree.

This. Though I would argue that controlling games from the centre of the park is not Lampard's strength either. Neither of them do the simple things well enough and often enough (a la Xavi) to be world class central midfielders and they don't have Roy Keane's raw strength of personality, drive and leadership or Vieira's unique blend of physicality allied with technique to make up for it. As attacking midfielders, I'd put them roughly in the same class as Kaka/Sneijder. Even though they don't have the technique and vision of those two, they make up for it with their fitness, longevity and long-range shooting.

 

[Jarquis]

Xavi Alonso.

What a player he'd be.

 

[Furball]

I think Gerrard is underrated more than anything.

wat

 

[Jarquis]

Poole Town vs Torpoint Athletic - FA Vase QF
Torpoint being the only Step 6 side left in the competition. Carn.

 

[Jarquis]

Dammit Dempsey

 

[Ikki]

That Gerrard's goal ratio is almost the same as Lampard's. It isn't. Even if we look at exclusively the period since Torres arrived, when Gerrard played quite a lot as a second striker, something Lampard hasn't done, Lampard's scoring ratio has still been better.

Gerrard has 0.25 goals per game.
Lampard has 0.29 goals per game.

Lampard essentally scores 4 more goals per 100 games. I'd say that is similar enough. Especially considering Gerrard hasn't always taken penalties at 'Pool and has played almost every position under the sun, whereas Lamps has played in his favourite, and that he has had a much superior squad for most his career.

I had said they were almost the same (I meant close) I think they clearly are.

This is my point. You can’t use PFA awards for Gerrard to back up your argument if they’re suddenly undeserved when someone else wins one, even if you’re right that it was undeserved.

Just because Giggs won it somewhat undeservedly doesn't mean Gerrard did as well. When he won the PFA young player, PFA player and FWA awards he deserved them all. That's like saying just because Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize neither did Martin Luther King, Jr..

English media extends to the media of any country whose primary football league that they follow is the English one. This, I’m guessing, includes Australia. It’s not that they overhype English players anyway, it’s that they overhype the players in the mould that Gerrard fits into perfectly – the stereotypical English Lion, giving 100%. Being English on top of that, and playing in the English league, helps.

If there were so many world class English players, you’d have thought they might have won something in the past 45 years. Or got to a final. Or even qualified at all, in the case of Euro 2008. There have been some questionable tactical decisions, but ultimately they have been managed by some managers who have excellent track records elsewhere, so the blame must go mostly to the players.

Generally, as an Australian we aren't really backing your English sportsmen . I respect the players though. Teams win and don't win for several reasons. It often isn't because they are not good or world class. The tactics the manager uses can be crucial. I also think England made a huge blunder giving the job to both Sven and Steve. The former because his style of play and man management wouldn't resonate with the players, the latter because he simply wasn't good enough. Those two managers took 6-7 years, the prime, of these class players. And they still kept getting knocked out by penalties and a fluke goal (IMO Ronaldinho didn't mean it). I think one of the stupidest decisions England made was playing Gerrard everywhere bar his best position. While Gerrard can be a fantastic player in pretty much every position in midfield...he could win you titles given the same role he had in Liverpool.

But with all that said, knock-out tournaments that come every 4 years and of which there are a handful of games in should not decide whether players are world class or not. There are plenty of other games to do that. It'd be like saying Greek players are better than the English because they won the Euros.

That's not really the point I'm making though. I've never even really bought the whole hollywood ball thing. He just doesn't really link up attack and defence very often, or very effectively. When Liverpool come under pressure in games and he's forced to drop deep, he's nowhere near as effective. That's a big difference between him and Fabregas or Lampard. AFAIC his strengths in the final third more than make up for it, which is why Benitez played him further forward and used Xavi Alonso- who was one of the best in the world at it- as the orthodox central midfield player. Liverpool controlled games much, much better with Alonso there than they did when Gerrard played in a two-man midfield.

Can't disagree with the above; you're right both those players do pick the ball up better from deep and get things going.

 

[sledger]

Blimey Milan are average.

 

[Furball]

You'd have thought Spurs beat Inter 5-0 in the group stages the way the pre-match chat went on about it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Really classy from the Inter fans there..

 

[GIMH]

Eh up Gattuso

 

[Tom Halsey]

**** me Gattuso is a ****wit. Milan are completely and utterly average.

 

[GIMH]

Souness sticking the boot in here!

**** it anyway, White Army

 

[Jarquis]

Gattuso, wag.

On edge for tonight.

 

[Jarquis]

Barca had the better of the half and Villa took the goal well, even if they're a bit lucky when they go through the legs like that.
We've had chances though, even if we've been slightly less fluid than Barca in the middle of the park.
Wilshere and Walcott have done well even if the latter faded slightly towards HT.

 

[wpdavid]

Barca had the better of the half and Villa took the goal well, even if they're a bit lucky when they go through the legs like that.
We've had chances though, even if we've been slightly less fluid than Barca in the middle of the park.
Wilshere and Walcott have done well even if the latter faded slightly towards HT.

I thought Fabregas & Van Persie were disappointing in the final third or so. Interesting game insofar as Barca could be 3-0 ahead, but it could also have reached HT at 1-1. Clearly Arsenal could score tonight, but you just don't see their defence keeping out Barca. 3-1 to the visitors for mine.

 

[Jarquis]

I thought Fabregas & Van Persie were disappointing in the final third or so. Interesting game insofar as Barca could be 3-0 ahead, but it could also have reached HT at 1-1. Clearly Arsenal could score tonight, but you just don't see their defence keeping out Barca. 3-1 to the visitors for mine.

They've both been far from perfect but they've both shown glimpses. The early RVP had after Cesc's little chipped through ball shows what they can do. Other than that I'm not sure how many chances van Persie has had, there was one he blasted wide but other than that there was a header that Abidal just cut out (which Cesc could've put his foot through) and a header from 16 yards out which looped over.
Nothing clear cut.

 

[Furball]

Koscielny has been really good tonight.

 

[GIMH]

Arsenal looked good second half deserve a goal IMO