Steven Gerrard

Remove this Banner Ad

Bojan KantKick said:
That transfer request never happened in your eyes did it :oops:
Or that time he beat up a DJ for not putting on his favourite song :$
Or that time he said he was leaving Liverpool because he can't handle being a role player :$:$:$:$:$:$:$:$:$

oh wait, they all happened :eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

He threatened to leave because he wasn't offered the contract he was promised. Chelsea was a bargaining chip.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thought I'd bring it in here as I didn't want to disrupt the youth football discussion going on in the On Topic Thread.

Cooksen said:
It shows Gerrards weakness he was a blood and guts, thunder and lightning player he could not adapt in old age nor could his ego handle the fact that his body slowed down.

Scholes was scoring against Barca and being a key member of a side that won 3 titles in a row and had 3 very good champions league campaigns as a 34 year old.
Click to expand...

Depends how you want to frame the discussion I suppose. I thought that we were talking about the entire careers of these players, not just the last season or 2? But, if you want to shift the goalposts I'm happy to go along!

He suffered a devastating groin injury when he was 31 and was wrecked physically from that point on - having to completely reinvent himself as a deep lying CM. No doubt he's been a shadow of his best since that time, but to say he's been utter tripe as someone else said is utter bollocks.

Gerrard made the PFA TotS, was short listed for the PFA PotY award and was 1 of the best midfielders in the league last season aged 33/34. He was also named in the UEFA Team of the Tournament at Euro 2012 aged 32 playing that deep lying playmaker role.

He's not been able to keep up this season and that's to be expected, Father Time catches us all at some stage, but I don't think it's tarnished his legacy much at all given how completely dominant he was for 7-8 years through the peak of his career.

'Blood and thunder' is often used as a stick to beat him with but I'm not sure why, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat and certainly more than 1 way to dominate a game from midfield. Scholes' patient passing, vision and ability to orchestrate his attack is no more or less impressive than Gerrard's speed, skill, power and ability to break open defences before blasting a hole though the back of the net or threading an inch perfect pass to the striker. They're different players but both can claim to have consistently made a huge impact on their respective sides, and can boast performances which have stood out amongst the very best in the game on some of the biggest stages in football.

In the end it essentially comes down to personal taste as to which of those particular styles you like when determining who you prefer of the 2. It certainly isn't a clear cut or obvious choice either way as suggested by some.
 
I think if you switch Scholes and Gerrard. We dont win nearly as many trophies in the past 10-12 years. But Gerrard at United, wouldnt have made any difference, replacing Scholes. United still would have won a ton of trophies, maybe even more with Gerrard in the middle.

I guess what im trying to say it that whilst Scholes was a great player, there are some players who can win matches on their own. Scholes controls a game and brings his teammates into it, he is like a conductor, organising an orchestra. Gerrard is like Jimi Hendrix, just him and his guitar, ******* owning s**t.

Gerrard was always the man for the big occasion, it's why ive always ranked him higher than Scholes or Lamps.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jod23 said:
Gerrard was always the man for the big occasion, it's why ive always ranked him higher than Scholes or Lamps.
Click to expand...

He has also bottled the big occasion quite a lot as well.
 
jod23 said:
I think if you switch Scholes and Gerrard. We dont win nearly as many trophies in the past 10-12 years. But Gerrard at United, wouldnt have made any difference, replacing Scholes. United still would have won a ton of trophies, maybe even more with Gerrard in the middle.

I guess what im trying to say it that whilst Scholes was a great player, there are some players who can win matches on their own. Scholes controls a game and brings his teammates into it, he is like a conductor, organising an orchestra. Gerrard is like Jimi Hendrix, just him and his guitar, ******* owning s**t.

Gerrard was always the man for the big occasion, it's why ive always ranked him higher than Scholes or Lamps.
Click to expand...

You rate him higher because you are bias.

Everyone is towards their own players.

I hate the fouling sniping dirty ginger gnome....but I rate him higher than Gerrard.

And don't use Liverpool puff pieces as rational for arguments.

"Reaching great individual heights with a stellar team, as Giggs and Scholes did, is one thing. Reaching them with a side which so often been modest and moribund is something quite different. Supporters will chant and laugh and mock but Gerrard’s accomplishments are greater than those of Giggs and Scholes – whose names they laud"

Totally overlooks the fact that Scholes was a main reason that Man United reached such heights.

Liverpool a modest (gee so modest spending £700 million net on players since Gerrard made his debut)
and moribund (seriously? moribund? Liverpool have been dying/declining/stagnating the whole of Gerrard's career?) side? We should all be so poor as to make two European Cup finals, uefa cup finals, FA Cup finals and fighting for league titles

Poor widdle Stampy G, the sheer effort of carrying such a poor, limited, inadequate and struggling club like Liverpool for his entire career is totally the reason his individual achievements should be rated higher than Scholes and Giggs. :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
 
Last edited:
I find it difficult to split Lampard and Gerrard, but for me Scholes was the best of the three.

Can't stand the campaigner and his 'oops I didn't see you there' style of sniping, but * Scholes was good. Too damn good.
 
jod23 said:
I think if you switch Scholes and Gerrard. We dont win nearly as many trophies in the past 10-12 years. But Gerrard at United, wouldnt have made any difference, replacing Scholes. United still would have won a ton of trophies, maybe even more with Gerrard in the middle.

I guess what im trying to say it that whilst Scholes was a great player, there are some players who can win matches on their own. Scholes controls a game and brings his teammates into it, he is like a conductor, organising an orchestra. Gerrard is like Jimi Hendrix, just him and his guitar, ******* owning s**t.

Gerrard was always the man for the big occasion, it's why ive always ranked him higher than Scholes or Lamps.
Click to expand...

Fair comparison. Jimi Hendrix choked on his own vomit and died and well Gerrard just chokes.
 
Jod's head gets deeper in Gerrard's groin after every post. I get people are biased and have favourite players but it should not mean any form of objectivity is removed altogether.

Gerrard was by no means a poor player. He often stepped up on big occasions and definite ya major factor that his side won so many trophies. But to suggest he had poor players around him and it was a struggle for him is ridiculous. Owen, Fowler, Torres, Suarez, Alonso, Hyypia, Mascherano, Hamann, Berger and so forth were hardly poor players. So let's spare that pile of horseshit argument for starters.

I don't think it's as clear cut as saying x > y, either. Both (Scholes and Gerrard) had their faults and perks. But it says a lot about Gerrard not being able to adapt after he started to age. I personally think Scholes was the best of the three (if we are including Lampard), but it's not easy to split them and anybody would have been happy with either of them in their side.

I think Scholes was the best technically, Lampard the most consistent (10 seasons of 10 goals or more in the league wasn't it), and Gerrard the best physically with a great desire to win.

Having said all that, Scholes is my pick personally.
 
ADL9798 said:
'Blood and thunder' is often used as a stick to beat him with but I'm not sure why, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat and certainly more than 1 way to dominate a game from midfield.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this, it has such a negative connotation these days but it is most definitely a compliment in Gerrard's case as the way he physically imposed himself on games was absolutely world class. This is also why I hate when the comparisons between Gerrard and Scholes spring up as they're such different players who influence their sides in vastly different ways.
 
Shoei said:
You rate him higher because you are bias.

Everyone is towards their own players.

I hate the fouling sniping dirty ginger gnome....but I rate him higher than Gerrard.

And don't use Liverpool puff pieces as rational for arguments.

"Reaching great individual heights with a stellar team, as Giggs and Scholes did, is one thing. Reaching them with a side which so often been modest and moribund is something quite different. Supporters will chant and laugh and mock but Gerrard’s accomplishments are greater than those of Giggs and Scholes – whose names they laud"

Totally overlooks the fact that Scholes was a main reason that Man United reached such heights.

Liverpool a modest (gee so modest spending £700 million net on players since Gerrard made his debut)
and moribund (seriously? moribund? Liverpool have been dying/declining/stagnating the whole of Gerrard's career?) side? We should all be so poor as to make two European Cup finals, uefa cup finals, FA Cup finals and fighting for league titles

Poor widdle Stampy G, the sheer effort of carrying such a poor, limited, inadequate and struggling club like Liverpool for his entire career is totally the reason his individual achievements should be rated higher than Scholes and Giggs. :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
Click to expand...
How was Scholes the main reason Man United reached such heights? I nearly spit out my coco pops. There was a bloke on the sidelines named Alex Ferguson that I think could take the most credit. Scholes also had Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Rio, Vidic, RVN, Ronaldo, Rooney, Yorke, Cole, Stam, Schmeichel, the list goes on and on and on.

Gerrard simply never had that kind of support around. That's obviously a compliment to United and a criticism of Liverpool, that over the years even with the money we had we could never put enough great players around Gerrard. We managed to get close a couple of times, the Torres, Xabi, Masch days but that quickly fell away as all three moved on. Then we got close again with Suarez but then he moved on.

The key is not to get close, but to get to the top. If we climbed the mountain, those players dont leave or at least are much more likely to stay. Then we bring more good players around those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top