Lampard vs Gerrard - Who was the better player? | BBC Sounds
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 25. 04. 2022
- Can Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer and Micah Richards settle the 'Lampard or Gerrard' debate once and for all?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe and đ to BBC Sounds CZcams: czcams.com/users/bbcsounds?s...
Listen to the full episode here: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0c...
Find more episodes of Match of the Day: Top 10 here: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0...
Match of the Day: Top 10 playlist: âą Match of the Day: Top 10
Fresh on BBC Sounds playlist: âą Fresh on BBC Sounds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#GaryLineker #AlanShearer #MicahRichards
Lampard vs Gerrard - Who was the better player? | BBC Sounds
We are BBC Sounds. The home of binge-worthy podcasts, music curated by music lovers and live radio. - Sport
Let's be honest, If it wasn't Gerrard, Liverpool would have been mid-table team at best, even might have faced relegation. I doubt any other midfielder would be able to do for Liverpool what Gerrard has done. The guy has everything, scores from penalties, with headers, from distance, free-kicks, great defensively and posses outstanding leadership and vision of the game. If I want a midfielder for my team, I would choose prime Gerrard with no hesitation.
also if it wasnt gerrard, liverpool would have won premier league by that time đ
@@muhdaiman3836 not true. The slip wasnât in an deciding game. The failure was Liverpool drawing 3-3 with Crystal Palace which cost the league
@@lmc3307 and also without Gerrard lfc prop wouldn't hav been in that situation of close to a league title in the first place
@@jayansaini7093 not a miracle of Istanbul and fa cup victory in 06
A team doesnât make lampard close to gerrard
People would follow Gerrard into Hell. The guy is a folk hero and led like no other. Dragged mediocre teams to Champions of Europe against some of the elite teams of an era. Swap him with any of the other names and Liverpool don't win a thing.
Take a look at Aston Villa and Everton. With Gerrard at the helm AV are looking with great positivity to the future and Everton are struggling. Both teams needed a leader to gather their strength and pull together in the right direction: Gerrard is by far the better leader, probably someone who will rival his own playing success with managerial success. Not all good players are good managers, Gerrard seems to be one.
@@philipmarsden7104 im from the future Everton came back from 2 down to win talk about having great leadership and testicular fortitude and stayed in the Prem also beat United and Chelsea pushed City all the way at Goodison and away at Anfield after Rafa got sacked for losing away at Norwich...
Hell?
@@abdullahshaibu5274 the place South of Heaven
@@philipmarsden7104 from the future. Gerrard absolutely stunk at Villa and Lampard has somehow managed to regain some form at Everton. And to take the win, Lampard has somehow got Alex Iwobi to play up to his potential and has him carrying Everton every week.
Gerrard for me. I'll never forget the cup final against West Ham. He was phenomenal, whilst the rest of his squad ran around like lemons.
Gerrard ran around like a lemon when he faced 40 years old pirlo in the world cup.. đđđ
@@Spark12429 Gerrard shits on Pirlo and this is coming from a Milan fan. Pirlo was a lazy player
Mate.. it was an Fa cup final against ducking West Ham mateâŠđ.
Look at Lampardâs performances against Barca & Bayern
@@KINGKING10109 Look at Gerrards performance against Real Madrid in the 4-0 in 08/09. Then compare the team Lampard had around him for Chelsea in those game to what Gerrard had. Not to mention Gerrards second half in Istanbul against that Milan team with superstars in every position
â@@rossl5908remember the 2005 ucl final
Gerrard and by a mile, only people with club loyalties say otherwise, Gerrard could do anything, Scholes and Lamps went on to have better careers and won more trophies and if thatâs the question then they win easily but if itâs about whoâs the better player, Gerrard could do it all, every single facet of the midfield play, we were made to watch Gerrardâs clips in the academy, both defensive, attacking and central/holding/ box to box midfielders because he was the one at that time who had it all.
Well said
Scholes was the better player. Better passer and none of these Hollywood passes. Better at controlling the match,, by controlling the tempo, the need for short passing or long, reading the match situation.
Gerrard was the supreme athlete, but had no tactical, positional awareness. Typical of our English players at the time, until Benitez had to drum it in.
â@@zacklatif7184He couldn't tackle so not an all rounder but obviously still a class player
Gerrard, ScholesâŠ.tick. Who the feck is Lampard? đ§ Wasnât he that bloke from âWestemâ that was picked by the London press?
Got it. Bit like âButchâ Wilkins from Chewulsee. He gets ball, he overrates himself, he shoots, he misses and England lose.
Glennoddow was the same. Decent club player; sh*te at international level.
Hey ho! England has always been âLondon Unitedâ. Thatâs why weâve always been sh*te and why so few folk outside the M25 support âem.
đ©
There's a reason why Jose Mourinho want to sign Gerrard at Chelsea when he already had Lampard at his disposal. And Mourinho try to sign Gerrard when he was at Real Madrid as well.
He tried to sign Gerrard wherever he went
He tried to sign him because he was available, Lampard would never have left Chelsea
What is the point? He also said lampard was the best player in the world. So what is your point.
@@glowwurm9365 It would be 10x easier to get Lampard out of Chelsea than Gerrard out of Liverpool
Mourinho also wanted Lampard when he was at Inter Milan during the treble winning season what's your point?
Chelsea fan since 96, Steven Gerrard wins this one easily for me. If players swapped clubs during their playing time then Liverpool would have been a lot worse off. Gerrard took so many games by the scruff of the neck and you could argue he's defensive game is better and he was a stronger captain. Both could pass, finish, create and take set peices. Lamaprd arguably had the better technique, but Gerrard's overall game was stronger and he influenced games where Liverpool had no right winning.
Big respect
Well put phil.
I wasnât trying to make my comment about the clubs its about there overhaul game that I believe Gerrard had the edge.
Lampard and scholes where great players mind.đ
Thank youuuuu im a chelsea fan and he killed us at times theres so much bias and stat boys
Your a disgrace son
Lamps better technique???
Both were definitely great players and very well decorated, Lampard in particular. Gerrard did have a number of decent and good players around him during his career, but he was definitely the key man at Liverpool from the time of Rafa Benitez until Luis Suarez' final season with Liverpool... Not only was Gerrard the better athlete in terms of pace and explosiveness, but he was a true box to box midfielder who would play any role in midfield and also as a second striker, he had great technique with the ball at his feet and he had such an extraordinary range of passes as well...
Lampard was a very intelligent and highly disciplined player with excellen positional sense who played his role excellently. While he did not have those explosive runs with the ball, beating several defenders with pace and power to finish off a shot or lay a great assist for a clear-cut chance for a teammate, he had good ball control, excellent short passes, and was very effective at not turning the ball over. He was a better and more instinctive goal scorer than Gerrard, who considered himself a defensive midfielder at heart, while Lampard was an offensive midfielder who played mostly in the centre or slightly left.
On the whole, I go with Gerrard, because individually, he was more capable of influencing and taking control of a game than Lampard was.
Lampard is highest midfielder for goals in the league, and 3rd for assists. U can say Gerard is better but donât dismiss Lampard like heâs didnât have an amazing record
Would Chelsea have been worse with Gerrard in the team rather than Lampard? No chance.
Would Liverpool have been better with Lampard in the team instead of Gerrard? Never.
You Think Gerard could help Chelsea win the CL in 2012?
thats a pretty solid argument.
@@demonedante1148 Yes quite easily
Would Chelsea be worse without their all time record goalscorer? Silly question isnât it?
If you think Gerrard could score as many youâre deluded. Weâve seen Gerrard surrounded by world class players in the England team and he was shite.
Weâve seen Lampard in an average team at West Ham and he was brilliant.
But donât let facts get in your way.
@@triniSOCCERdude1 Itâs a solid argument for a layman. Lampard was literally the core in the Chelsea team along with Terry and Drogba⊠he played every game five years straight..
Yes, Lineker just said it! Why can't any England coach back then move out of a 4-4-2?! If Lampard can play successfully with Ballack in a 4-3-3, he can play well with Gerrard in that formation too!
Because at the time, they had to also fit in the celeb captain, Beckham.
Or like Shearer's FFS comment was bleeped out đ€Ł Spot on man.
Some player can attack, some player can assist, some player can score, some player can defend and some player can motivate their team, bu Gerrard can do all those.
Only way to answer this question is, could Lampard or Scholes do what Gerrard did in lfc? I think not.
Gerrard defo could have done it in Chelsea and utd what them players did in their respective teams.
ofcourse they cant do the slippy trophy
U can't compare scholes with Gerrard, different players
You are dismissing the highest scoring midfielder in prem history and Scholes who makes any team he plays in a level better because Gerrard achived less with less it makes no sense to me.
Sure based on pure talent Gerrard is better but on merit Lampard blows both of them out of the water
That's such an unfair argument. Gerrard spent most of his career at Liverpool and in doing so got the opportunity to prove he could carry a team. Whereas Lampard and Scholes played for Chelsea and United where they were surrounded by other quality players and didn't get to standout and always be "the man" for years on end. Objectively, I think all three were world class players and would've replicated what the others did at their respective clubs. Yes Gerrard would've won titles playing for a team like Chelsea but Lampard would've stepped up and been seen as "that guy" for Liverpool. He didn't get 15 years of being "that guy" to create that aura about him but ability and mentality wise he absolutely would've carried Liverpool just like Gerrard did. And I'm guessing he wouldn't have slipped when it mattered most đ
Win 0 PL titles. Yeah. Can Gerrard dictate the tempo and be the main playmaker midfielder of an 11 PL title winning Man Utd team like Scholes, I don't think so.
Lampard influences in big games are very underrated, yes hes got the better team, but even though he is surrounded by superstar, he is always the one who brings the win or the orchestrator.
his goalscoring records always overshadowed his other ability, he is more than that.
Comparing Lampard with Gerrard is like comparing an silent assassin with a general.
On how many occasions did Lampard or Scholes pick a team up on there own and win games???
Gerrard could play any position on the football pitch and heâd still be world class.
This really has never been a debateâŠâŠ
Well Lampard at 34 completely overturned the game with one pass at Camp Nou to win it against prime Barcelona. 300+ goals from midfield. Amazing performance in the final vs Bayern too. Masterclass to knock out Liverpool the day after his mother passed. CL final goal in 2008, unlucky in that one.
Gerrard obviously had Istanbul and FA cup miracles, great player, but also slipped in arguably the most iconic moment of his career and didnât perform against Crystal Palace, and the man united red card too.
@@GiampaoloPazzini7
Did you read my comment properly ??
Iâm not saying in anyway Lampard or scholes werenât great players!
I said you could put Gerrard in any position on a football pitch and heâd still be word class.
Both Lampard and scholes could never have done that as good as they were.
As for the Gerrard slip, your just being childish me old mate.
Read before you comment you silly boy.
@DW Thatâs my education light weightâŠ..đ
@DW oh sorry I meant to ask!??? Does DW stand for - Dim witâŠ..đđđ
@DW No itâs idiots that make it easyâŠđ€đ€đ€
Its a tight one but I would have Gerrard in my team ... He is an all action midfielder ..can shoot can tackle can assist and can lead the team by example
Love both. Absolute beasts im their day but Gerrard for me just had more. Lamps was goals in a very talented chelsea teams. Gerrard gave you not as many goals but did score, assist, make something out of nothing in Liverpoolâs mediocre days. Tbh lamps played with freedom to go forward.
Yet lamps has more assists and the record for chances created by an English player in a Pl season
The distinctive point that Gerard is more of versatile player. He can paly anywhere. Plus he has a great leadership character!
Gerrard was a heroic captain who single-handedly carried that mediocre Liverpool team to cup success ....He led from the front... Lampard would not be able to play to his max in a mediocre team....
Got relegated with West Ham as well
Haha..lampard menang liga lagi byk drp gerrard..sumbat gol pn lg byk..haha.
How do you know? So you have 20 years of games for both to look at and you're going to decide who's better not by objectively looking at what they did in games but on a hypothetical that Lampard wouldn't be able to do what he did if he'd played for Liverpool. That's a completely baseless claim.
If you gave each Premiership Manager a choice between prime Scholes, Lampard or Gerrard to go straight into their team, I believe most of them would pick Gerrard, especially mid-table and bottom-table teams. Gerrard could play almost all positions at a high level. Scholes and Lampard could only play as attacking mid or second striker well (though it has to be said perhaps better than Gerrard in these positions). But in all other positions, it's not even close.
Bro said Scholes could only play as attacking mid or second striker well.đ Just say you don't watch football. The statement is true for Lampard. He scored a lot of goals and played upfront more.
But Scholes was literally the least attacking of the 3. He literally played as a deep lying playmaker for the most part of his career. Dictating the tempo, controlling the game, spraying passes all over the field. He's famously likened to players like Pirlo or Xavi due to this very reason. They were deep lying playmakers, dictating the tempo.
It's widely known that, Lampard -> Best attacking mid, goal scorer.
Gerrard-> Best box-to-box all round player.
Scholes-> Best technician, passer and tempo controller.
I'm not even rooting for Scholes as the best of the 3. I'd probably choose Gerrard too. But at least get your facts straight. You sound like you're just making opinions based on youtube highlights.
@@Henry-sd7vd Scholes was actually an attacking midfielder for most of his career
I always love discussions that are based on "what if", "I know for a fact, because "reasons"". The fact is, Lampard played at Chelsea, Gerrard played at Liverpool. And although some similarities were present, they played in specific systems in specific teams. Lampard leads in terms of goals and assists, Gerrard was more mobile, and more oriented on the center of the field. Discussions like "would that team be better with Lampard/Gerrard" are pointless per se, because both of them played where they played, the rest is pure speculation with 0 proof and vague arguments like "I know for sure".
Exactly lol, it's the same retarded arguement that people make when discussing pep vs klopp. Acting like they know for sure klopp would have made city better or even as good as pep has.
But then we would never be able to make comparisons, ever. We make minimum assumptions with the facts at our disposal and debate it over. I completely take your point though but then we would never be able to indulge in such conversations simply because football is a team sport and better teammates do in fact make it look better for the player under scrutiny.
@@piyushkapaley1620 â Then its for the better, because the point of "comparison" is to "prove" that somebody is worse/better (under aged kids are practically in need of this, otherwise they loose their meaning of existence), and not to enjoy the game they play. Somehow I have been a football fan for more than 20 years, and lived happily without making bullshit comparisons, while it seems other people can't live a day without them, although how on earth you can compare a team dependent and influenced skill set, is beyond me.
vs AC Milan in Istanbul Gerrard play 3 position in single match, midfiled then on the second half switch to central forward and then in extra time swith to rightback
Gerrard was the better player đ
Lampard has the better career đ đ
So Which one is better for you
Frank Lampard was a great player in his own right but it's Steven Gerrard all day every day. The closest player you'll ever see to Roy of the Rovers.
Started off as a right back, turned into a brilliant box to box midfielder, won PFA player of the year playing on the right wing and as a number 10, then finished off his career as a brilliant number 6. A freak footballer.
Okay lampard played for a better team, but he also was frequently the best player on the pitch for those great teams. He's the first name in chelseas 11 from any fan
Itâs pretty easy for meâŠGerrard is better all day every day and twice on a Sunday! Iâm with Micah on this, he nearly says it, itâs not even a debate!
I'm a united man! And ima say Gerrard Gerrard had heart and passion!! Midfielder goals scorer and could defend!!!!!!! And lead a team even though I like lampard it's gerrard
This debate only ever happened AFTER their time in the premier league. If youâre objective and ACTUALLY watched both of them Gerrard is easily the better player. Shameless debate in my opinion.
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
Actually i grew up during those times. There WERE heavy debates predating back to 2002. They were the golden generation, wore the same number, sam position, similar names lol. The answer is unequivocally gerrard tho. That much never changed
Waffle
You all said Gerrard. Itâs not a debate
Lampard was definitely better, Gerrard just looked better cause he ran around a bit more. Lampard's passing was better, he was a MUCH better goalscorer (one of the PL all time top scorers, as a central midfielder ffs), he was better positionally, and also much better defensively than he's given credit for.
Heâs no where near Gerrard ability wise, Lampard was a second striker basically Gerrard would offer a lot more
That's cause he had a team full of better players to make him look better and didn't have to worry about tracking back and didn't have to carry a team on his own like Gerrard did
@@daviddbell1987 horrible argument.
Gerrard never played in teams even close to as good as Lampard has. You canât say Lampard for goals. Lampard played further forward to Gerrard and Gerrard still bagged a lot of goals and assists. If Gerrard played in Lampard role or vice versa, Gerrard would be miles ahead of Lampard
Lampard didnt play further than Gerrard at all, showing your inexperience here
tf liverpool fan, ur team has xabi alonso mascherano, torres , carragher, riise, pepe reina and u said doesnt even close đ€Ł
@@muhdaiman3836 goalkeeper & left back lmao was decent. Never good enough. 3 world class players in that team. Lampard had 10 in his
Prove Gerrard would have done good at Chelsea. U do realise that's not how football works. Just because a player performs in a worse team doesn't guarantee him doing the same or close to the same in a better one. This argument is đ
They both CMs you helmet. Yeah sometimes Lampard played as an AM in a diamond and sometimes Gerrard played more defensively but they both played in the same position more often than not. And that Chelsea team is renound for being pretty defensive aside from Ancellotti's time in charge. If Lampard had played under an attacking manager his numbers would be even more ridiculous. That 09/10 season under Ancellotti was his best stats wise he got 27 goals and 16 assists. If he'd played under a Klopp/Pep/Ancellotti for the majority of his career instead of someone like Mourinho it would've been absolutely ridiculous. Like the De Bruyne comparisons that are currently happening would have far less merit.
Gerrard. A goalscorer; tackler; leader. Closest player I've seen to Bryan Robson. Lampard a fine goalscoring midfielder but Gerrard dictated games. As for Scholes the most talented of the lot and would've had 120 caps and statues built if he'd been Argentinian or Italian.
cambiasso doesnt have statues and hes the exact same player as scholes
Itâs criminal how people forget Lampardâs other attributes just because of how good a goalscorer he was
Gerrard the closest thing to Robson? Gerrard was 1 million times a better player than Robson. Robson wasn't good enough for Liverpool 's reserves and Bob Paisley told Fat Ron that back in 1981 when Robson was at West Brom. That is why Robson joined Man United. Robson was never getting a start in Liverpool's first team either, they were European Champions in 1981. Would Gerrard have started alongside Souness in 1981? 100%.
Riquelme doesnât have any statues and imo better than Scholes. All 3 over rated, especially Lampard.
@@stedros Toe sucker and Fatso are over -rated. Gerrard wasn't.
Micah Richards, a premier league winning professional, a NEUTRAL in this debate with no ties to either Liverpool or Chelsea, who has played and trained with both Gerrard and Lampard live, therefore would have the best insight and better insight than any of us, who has played at a higher level than any of those Chelsea twitter nerds will ever play at, has just said its chalk and cheese when comparing the two and said Gerrard is better, end of debate, not like there ever was one.
Ppl will say Gerrard is better because he didnât have a team around him as good as Chelsea. Lol but when they played each other back in them days it was always battles, and who did Liverpool really have in them seasons who wasnât world class, plus this isnât a question about how they played with their team itâs individual so if we are going on stats Lampard
Gerrard is the best individual player of the three. He could do everything. Score, assist, tackle, free kicks, leadership, play in a DM role, the CM, box to box, a 10, on the wing. More individual iconic moments. Scholes was the best passer of the three. And Lampard was the best goal scorer. But Gerrard had way more to his game than the other 2.
True
Gerrard was a poor dm
@@TrevorParsnips And yet when England played all 3 of Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard in midfield they asked Gerrard to do the DM role because the other two couldn't do defensive roles and didn't have Gerrard's versatility. Gerrard was a good DM in his younger days pre-2004. He played DM/deep lying playmaker after 2012 but his legs were gone then and he could barely run so he was a poor DM at that age. Great quarterbacking playmaker tough.
@@vlnakajr2346 incorrect, old bean! Lamps and Gerrard both played box-to-box for England those days, it was a farcical decision by the English management. And no Liverpool manager EVER played Gerrard as a dm and delivered any kind of success
@@vlnakajr2346 also, Scholes played the pirlo role for utd to great success
Gerrard more dynamic, better defensive ability, athletic, can give you a worldly at random
Lampard smarter/decision making, better scorer, better positionally, more effective and consistent
Lamps my fav so little biased but gerrard would fit better in more formations but if I was picking a team I could have lampard purely because heâs too damn effective and consistent. U will get more 7-8/10 performance from lampard where gerrard would dip here and there but would give u a handful of 10/10 performancesâŠ.. plus gerrard makes more mistakes
Idk about defensive ability. Gerrard tackled better but Lampard read the game better and positioned himself better. 80% of being a CDM is positioning. Gerrard struggled there and often ran like a headless chicken for the 3 Lions
@@erikpuka2627 exactly 100!! I always said that gerrard was a bit too erratic but his ability to actually tackle was decent. Lamps was more disciplined and kept shape well and had amazing stamina to track back⊠also most of the times itâs about delaying the attack long enough to make the play go stake vs actually having to stop the attack yourself
If you have Keane in the midfield then Lampard is the best, if you have Scholes in the midfield then Gerrard is the best!
Secanrio. England vs Germany. All subs used. England's right back comes off injured, can't replace. Midfield is lamoard, Gerrard and scholes. Who would you move to RB so they can do at least a solid job.
Jose M wanted Gerrard / Alex F wanted Gerrard⊠Yet each manager had Lampard / Scholes at the time đ€
For me Iâd say Lampard. Lampard beats him in every stat possible. More Goals, Assists & Trophies.
eye test matters as well, when gerrard was not putting in output stats he still was effective in defensive duties: tackles, recoveries, aeriel duels, etc.. and he was picking out passes as well, I love lampard but i feel that gerrard gets disrespected too much
@@nabylad2194 I donât think Gerrard gets disrespected at all. People praise him all the time and the majority of people choose him over Lampard. If anything I would say Lampard is the player people donât respect as much.
Before making ur decision look at the team the two were playing ,Lampard was playing attacking all the time coz he was having a legendary team who help him in defensive midfield, but gerard played all the role of midfield coz of the team he was, there were no many class players there
@@yukeyzerostudio2090 he played alongside some world class players with Suarez, Owen and Torres. He had one of the best midfielders Xabi Alonso partnered with him in midfield. And at times Gerrard was played upfront as a striker. So I would have to disagree with that. I think Lampard in that Liverpool team would of easily scored and assisted more that Gerrard
@@LetsGoBoxing gerrard was not played upfront as a striker and the seasonwhere he played as a number 10 he hot 20+ goals, if rafa didnt force him out as a right midfilde and played him a 10 he would easily get more goals than lampard and the world class midfield was truly world class for one season, our best players kept on leaving and we never were able to replace them whereas chelsea could easily replace what they sold, Lampard wouldnt do shit in the liverpool squad gerrard had
This is a very difficult comparison and honestly there is no wrong answer, one thing I always think works in Gerrards favour is that he had hollywood moments playing in an average team that make people perceive him as better. Lampard played in better teams so was never the stand out individual.
For me the hardest thing to do in football is score goals, and to get a guaranteed 20 goals from midfield every year is outrageous, he'd win the golden boot this year with his 09/10 numbers, ahead of Son, Kane, KDB, Salah etc. It's because of that for me he edges it, but I'd never say anyone is wrong for picking Gerrard, an absolutely phenomenal player
You are so wise champ
Gerrard could do what lampard did for Chelsea lampard couldnât do what gerrard did for Liverpool
What's this average team myth? Riise, torres, alonso, carragher, reina, Liverpool always had a deep squad
Gerrard scored 21 Non-penalty goals for England and gave 24 assists. Lampard scored 20 non-penalty goals and provided only 11 assists for England. This with Lampard playing the entire 108 caps as attacking center midfield role. Gerrard literally played DM, LM, RM, CM, AM in his caps. He routinely showed up at every big tournament when no other star name showed up. Lampard only showed up at Euro 2004 and was awful in every other tournament.
Great points and comparison.
Gerrard no debate reached elite heights with much inferior squads . Scholes and lampard are class but so were 8 other players in their teams . Stevie G only had about 2 or 3 at max besides him best English midfielder in the prem .
Gerrard not even a debate
Gerrard by far the most complete player ever - he would pick Liverpool on dead days and make daunting runs through the middle ending up with some great screamers. 2004 Olympiakos - vs Rivaldo, he took the game away and mind you then we had zero world class players in the team.
Gerrard would pickup the toughest battles on the pitch, unlike Lampard who was a brilliant No10 cum 8 but nothing close to Gerrrrrrrrrard
Gerrard for me, it's not even a debate
Totally agree
I go by what scholes said; "i was a good player in a great side", "Gerrard was the big match winner in his side" "gerrard could probably do what i did at united" "i could never do what he did at Lpool".
Q.E.D đ§đ§đ§đ§
Lampard of course. I always thought that Gerrard was overrated, same as Michael Owen because Liverpool is the most famous team in England.
Gerrard overrated?
Clearly you didnât watch him week in week out
Man really called stevie G overrated
Gerrard is the most complete footballer I've ever seen. He was great at every facet of the game - scoring, passing, tackling, leading, good in the air, etc...
Nah. He overraged
Strengths
He was box to box
Strong
Fast
Long pass
Relatively good cross
Longshot
Weaknesses
Football IQ
Timing
Controlling the pace and tempo
Defensive positioning (couldn't play CDM)
Dribbling
Short passing
Just overrall his technical ability was and football IQ was somewhat questionable
Could tackle but sometimes too footed challenges refs swallowed the whistle
His positioning was not consistent
Ran like a headless chicken for England
Bollocks
How scholes even gets into this debate is crazy.
He could pass. Thatâs it.
Gerrard could pass just as well and had better vision
Didnât you see his goals
Bit harsh on Scholes as he was a world class player, and boiling him down to just 'he could pass' is pretty disingenuous, would you say that about Xavi or Pirlo? Not to mention he was a very good finisher in his younger days. That said, Gerrard was easily the better player.
Scholes all day
Gerrard is all time the best midfielder in EPL!
Last time i checked its the gols that wins matches ..I'll give it Gerrard for that UCL win that was phenomenal...but lampard consistently kept chelsea in the top 4 and carried to our 1st UCL win in 2012... Not to mention the most gols scored by a midfilder period.
Xavi and Iniesta and Silva existed in their prime at that time... and that is one of many reasons why they never got remotely close.
Newcastle fan - Gerrard easy.
If you see Ronaldo now at crumbling Man U, you would pick Gerrard everytime on this debate
People and rivals always undermining Gerrard's effect on liverpool. In reality, he's the blood, he's the one that always been depended on, and he's always creating miracle
What utter nonsenseâŠ. How is that the sameâŠronaldo is 37 and you are making judgment in this season,,,Gerrard in his early 30 was at la galaxy âŠhe wasnât carrying lfc then
@@ZakirHussain-fs1rf you definitely mistook my whole entire opinion's meaning.
What i was saying, take a look at Ronaldo now in MU. See? Everywhere and everytime, his goals, figure of lead, always give Man U hopes. UCL, check. Hat-trick, check.
Unironically, what those Man U fans feel now, is what liverpool fans felt under 17 years of Gerrard's service. Mr. Liverpool, Reliable Captain, irreplaceable figure in the club.
There ya go.
@@Dz73zxxx perfectly put.
@@ZakirHussain-fs1rf Since when was 35 early thirties?
I'm neither a Chelsea nor Liverpool fan. My favourite team is FC Barcelona but as a fan of the game I can confidently say that Gerrard is the better player. Gerrard was in a team with very little stars whereas Lampard was surrounded by superstars in a Chelsea side led by Mourinho. Gerrard at times won games single handedly for Liverpool.
I watched Gerrard play every outfield position like he owned it. He could score goals with both feet and his head. He could ping a ball sweetly from 5 yards to 65 yards. He could defend, attack, go past players, he could tackle. Stevie G didn't have world class players around him throughout his Liverpool career either. There was periods when he did but not regularly like lampard and scholes had.
Stevie G in my opinion was the complete player. He could do it all. Even Messi can't do all that I've described Stevie G of doing.
Lampard and scholes could not do all of that.
Nobody debates it, from an arsenal fan if you are neutral and not a chelsea supporter itâs obvious gerrard is the better player, ex pros mostly say gerrard, pundits often say gerrard. Even now they are both managers gerrard is better. Steven gerrard all day long apart from a few chelsea fans who donât like to admit it.
100% spot on
Stevie G
I have this feeling that Mourinho would have gotten it right with Gerrard and Lampard. Sven and Fabio just made a mess out of them by their (managers) style or playing system. 442 or diamond didn't work for them.
Gerrard all day long his all round game was better and he was a true leader
Gerrard
I think this is easy to figure out. Switch the two players and see how theyâd handle the pressure in each others shoes. Would Lampard have had the ability to overcome an AC Milan team in the CL Final like Gerrard did? Doubt it. Would Gerrard be able to contribute to Chelsea in the same way Lampard did? I think so. I donât think there were any situations Lampards been in that Gerrard couldnât handle. I donât think Gerrard is WAY better than Lamps, but I do believe there is a difference between the two.
According to me, Frankie Lampard is not only better playmaker than Steven Gerrard, but heâs arguably the most completed midfielder in football history! Lampard had a brilliant technique, finishing ability, accurate passes, amazing long shots, scored so many decisive goals for Chelsea! Most of the people donât know, but Frankie is the top goal scorer in Chelseaâs history - heâs got 212 goals, despite being number 8! There have played so many great strikers through the years : Didier Drogba (110 goals), Diego Costa (60 goals), Fernando Torres (45 goals), Andriy Schevchenko (22 goals)!! Lampard surpassed all of them, so heâs definitely the best midfielder in Premier league!!
Heâs playing as a second striker of course he had lots of goals
You said that lampard was the most completed midfielder but you only mentioned an attacking ability and there is no a defence ability is a mindblowing
@@ws2wswqws947 He always performed perfect in defence, I donât have to mention his defensive abilities!
Steven Gerrard any day any time because Liverpool havenât replaced him in 25 years but Lampard still a world glass player and played 218 England games together and 50 goals between them incredible players.
Gerrard on any day sure...
Iâm Nigerian , we call him Steven general . He a general on the pitch
Stevie G isn't in Lampard debate,people just like being polite by quoting Lamps in the same bracket
Gerrard had everything Scholes and Lampard had but Gerrard in his prime was a stronger and quicker athlete, better defender and a better captain
Gerrard is like Lampard and Scholes merged into one. Complete, but confused.
Maybe there isn't a better player. Maybe you need to choose what you want. Lampard scored more goals, all day long. Lampard also won more. But Gerrard was mad.
Stevie carried liverpool so long time on his own, never really had a chance to be among so many great players or to be managed by great managers like mou, fergie, etc. Still he could prove his worth especially in the range of 2004-2012 (before bad injury). In his prime, almost all the great manager all over the world would love to see him in their squad as it would obviously turned every team to be the better side. Unfortunately, his loyalty made him not able to lifted the trophy. If you say that he was worse than player like lamps scholes and keane just because he never won trophy, he would just won every trophy if he joined chelsea, inter, madrid and bayern as he turned them all down. That logic also make nonsense as so many player like anderson, fletcher, essien won more trophy than stevie. But still it cant be the reason they are a better player than stevie.
meanwhile lamps, keane and scholes surrounded by great player over his time. Keane scholes lamps would just looked shite if he played for liverpool in those era.
The last thing, if you say lampard is better than gerrard because of the goals and assist, then by that logic scholes and keane is way worse than gerrard regardless of he still managed to contribute to the defensive areas(box to box player).
Those players are great, just different type of plays,teams and a bit of era. So enjoy their legacy rather than comparing each other especially by those stats.. :)
Gerrard didn't have Drogba and Ballack or peter Cech in his mediocre squad ,and he leads the team to win UCl final against that scary Ac Milan team .
Just search for Gerard longshots only Wayne Rooney can do topspin like that most of Frank Lampard goals were tappings and penalties plus he was not even half as good in defence and Pace on the ball
U do know lampard has more goals outside of the box than gerrard right
@@unnknown8546 you do know lampard played as a second striker right?
Gerrard just had it all and was the only one of them 3 players that could of played in any position apart from keeper and done a good job playing there.
They could have got 2 world cups easily together. Maybe the God's of football didn't want that to happenedđ€·đŸââïž
I'm a united fan.
But both were class
It's Stevie G all dayđŻ the man had it all
@@Ryanshaw6778 what about him??? He couldn't tackle and no pace
@Abdul Raheem bro don't bother wasting your time with people who talk shit
@@Ryanshaw6778 scholes faster than gerrard?đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
Take either Scholes or Lampard and put them in the Liverpool team Stevie played in⊠would they still be the legends they are
If Gerrard werenât scouse it would be easier for people to admit that heâs easily the best. Could do it all, could play right back and be the best player on the pitch.
Only Chelsea fans would say Lampard. Gerrard was an all round brilliant and better player
and u must be liverpool fan for saying that đ€Ł
How did the Golden generation miss???? Simple ...the fact that Beckham was captain, says it all. The Golden generation were just the spice boys #2...all about celebrity.
Underrated comment. Imo JT should have inherited the armband from Becks (and Owen before him) a year or two earlier. John was no saint, but even as a newcomer and one of the fresher faces he knew how to Captain better than the rest of that squad, and he was more truly committed about his football and the national team than David ever was.
It's a pity too that John shortened his own Captaincy with bad behaviour and didn't get to pass it straight to Stevie, but unlike the former example that was his own fault and not that of McLaren & his staff.
@@pendafen7405 Sol Campbell should have been made captain, as he was established as one of the best defenders in world at the time (how people forget) and ALSO because he was the captain of the arsenal Invincibles...and I say that as a liverpool supporter. If not campbell, then perhaps Neville or outside odds with Micheal owen BUT NEVER SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN BECKS. In regard to JT, it was definitely the correct decision to take his captaincy away after his disgraceful conduct in so many things.
Bar Scholes, and even then it's arguable, Gerrard is bar far the greatest midfield talent England has produced, people forget Chelsea wanted him, Real Madrid wanted him, but he stayed loyal, and with all due respect to his teammates at Liverpool, without Gerrard, some of those sides are mid table at BEST, he was the difference, Lampard was fantastic, but for me Gerrard is in a different tier altogether
Lampard played in a superior team. Gerrard carried a team. If Gerrard went Chelsea Liverpool wouldn't be where they are now. Liverpool would of gone downhill Gerrard kept us a float. Gerrard in a Chelsea team would of destroyed it. All the big teams wanted Gerrard Madrid Munich inter Chelsea
Itâs a shame Gerrard never signed for Chelsea, if he had Mourinho would have made the case for exactly how to play them in a 4/3/3
#10 Shearer #14 Henry
#11 Giggsy #8 Lamps #4 Stevie G CR7
#3 A. Cole #5 Ferdinand #15 Vidic #2 G. Neville
#1 Schmeichel
I think Gerrard stood out more based on being in a less star studded team.
None of them touch Gerard all great but he was a bloody icon
Itâs pretty clear to most unbiased observers that Gerrard was the better player. Re Scholes, he controlled games. Gerrard won them.
Answer for who would be better for England is obvious it's best to play Lampard Gerrard and Scholes Hargreaves holding but England was stuck in their ways and it would mean playing either a diamond or 4231 ironically they did it in friendlies and it was ok but when he came to the big games didn't want to drop Joe and the Beckham in the stupid 442 evolved into 4141!
They are all elites players
But
Gerard can play and give best performance in more positions than Lampard or Scholes
Ask Pep how he could integrate the three maestros
It's clear that...
Liverpool became better than before when he (Gerrard) left, in opposite Chelsea became worse than it was when he (Lampard) left the club that means Lampard better than Gerrard simply
Gerrard all day long
As a Chelsea fan whoâs unbiased it has to be Gerrard
All this talk about gerrard changing the course of a match, ofcourse he did the team was built around him... Just because lampard didnt shout and scream and give it the biggun he doesnt get a look in? Look at the stats, goals, trophies, also the amount of matches lampard would play in a season compared to gerrard considering when he was in the squad because chelsea would be in all 4 comps late on into the year. Youd be better off with a reliable lampard all day.
The comments all saying 'if Gerrard moved to Chelsea he'd have pulled miles ahead'--maybe, but he had the chance to do exactly that and turned it down. Both Lampard & Terry courted him heavily during England camps, plus R0man is known to have showed interest, so Stevie had more or less a guaranteed spot. If Liverpool's 2000s mediocity held him back and kept him in this debate, then, ultimately it's his fault and his choice. Stevie could have jumped ship, Grealish-style, at least five years before he aged out of his prime as a player.
Gerrard because I think he still didn't fulfil his potential he had more to give under a better manager and in a better team
The media love Liverpool and hate Chelsea, If Lampard played for Liverpool people would say Lampard is better.