Lampard 29 goals for England.... Gerrard 21 There's an opening stat especially as neither have been regular penalty takers over their England careers
England
- Thread starter paddyc
- Start date
Slime
Tour Winner
Of course you can't ............................. because you don't want to because you think he is crap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27750205
Oh, and I didn't write that!
Oh, and it was Sturridge that missed the sitter!
Slime.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Traore,Pearce
Come on Phil this is getting embarrassing now. Just say you believe gerrard is the better player in your opinion & that's fine.
But obviously the stats say otherwise :thup:
Traore isn't even English so what does he have to do with a discussion about the England team?
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
So scoring more goals make someone a better midfielder ?
What about all the other aspects of playing CM ? What about stuff that can't be put into stats ?
richy
Journeyman Pro
End of the day there's 4 attacking places up for grabs and let's be honest Welbeck isn't good enough to get one of those places. Is he better than Sturridge, no. Is he better than Rooney, no. Is he better than llalana, no. Is he better than Sterling, no.
I wish he had more quality because it would only be good for the team. My opinion of him doens t have an alterior motive I just think there's lots more players better suited for the role he's trying to get.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
It's highlighting that just because someone wins more medals than someone else doesn't automatically mean they are better.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Traore,Pearce
Come on Phil this is getting embarrassing now. Just say you believe gerrard is the better player in your opinion & that's fine.
But obviously the stats say otherwise :thup:
Have already said that :thup:
So these stats ?
What do you reckon someone like Bryan Robson thinks ?
I would suggest Robson thinks he is better than Gerrard. More goals which is what counts. It's all about what happens with the ball. To use your argument, Robson and Gerrard were both used as holding midfield players to let others around them go forward. Robson still proved more effective
Im loathe to agree with Phil lol.
But goals aren't everything op unless comparing two players that play exact same postions.
I mean eat who's the better cm, Makelele or Cleverley?
Slime
Tour Winner
In your opinion.
For me it's no, no, yes and yes.
I guess we'll find out soon enough what Hodgson thinks, although he does have the advantage of seeing them in training.
??????????
Where the hell did that come from? I really never saw that one coming!
Slime.
Robson and Gerrard did play the same role. Again why throw in non English players into a debate about the English team. If you want to open the thread out into world class midfielders then I would argue that with the exception of Gazza in terms of out and out skill, and Beckham for delivery, we haven't produced too many to compare with the likes of Germany, Spain, France, Argentina to name four over the last twenty yars
i hinestly believe that welbeck warrants a place on the plane (as Rodrigues got injured). Does he deserve a place on the pitch? Depends what Hodgson wants. If he wants a workhorse who will do well defensively. If it's for offence, then he certainly isn't better than the four mentioned. Or Barkley for that matter.
A striker who scores 1 goal in a season albeit two years ago isn't someone to pin your hopes on.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Sorry but the job of a CM is more than just scoring a goal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...errard-better-Frank-Lampard-Paul-Scholes.html
That's what Robson says - in there he highlights all the key areas of a CM - something stats can't and never will show.
richart
Major Champion
Seem to remember that Makelele was a useful midfield player, and not sure he scored too many. You can not just judge midfield player by his goals. Some are attacking, some defensive, some play wide, but to me the best are ones that can get forward, score goals, but also have an engine to get back defensively, can tackle, and actually help out in defence and not be a liability. Gerrard is the best I have seen for England in the last ten years. Roy Keane the best I have seen in the last 20 years in the Premiership.
On the question of Welbeck, he looks great when he does something instinctively, but give him time to think and he becomes a headless chicken. He beat two men with a nice change of pace, and then instead of getting his head up to look for a pass, tries to outrun a defender who is standing five yards off him. To many England players can not play a final ball.
richy
Journeyman Pro
So Danny Welbeck is currently a better quality footballer than llalana and sterling. Your judgement really is clouded by the loyalty to your team isn't it?
i was pointing out that Gerrard and lampard played different roles. And therefor goals weren't necessarily how they should be compared. As we're talking about the current team.
I used Makelele as England haven't has a ball winner of any note to use as an example. When comparing midfielders of different sorts.
Im not gonna go over my thoughts on gazza again, but I agree. We haven't had anywhere near as many truly world class players as our counter parts. Although I believe both scholes and Gerrard make the list.
Not gonna say he's right or wrong as it's his opinion, and only an opinion. But I'm not surprised as Gerrard is a Roy of the rovers like he was.
In today's game, I know who'd fit better in the current world champions team though.
Hint, its neother of our current players.
richart
Major Champion
Scholes ?
