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...
@@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.
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.
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.
Well put phil. I wasn’t 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.👍
@@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
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 that’s the question then they win easily but if it’s about who’s the better player, Gerrard could do it all, every single facet of the midfield play, we were made to watch Gerrard’s 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.
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.
Gerrard, Scholes….tick. Who the feck is Lampard? 🧐 Wasn’t he that bloke from ‘Westem’ that was picked by the London press? Got it. Bit like ‘Butch’ 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 ‘London United’. That’s why we’ve always been sh*te and why so few folk outside the M25 support ‘em. 💩
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.
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.
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.
Would Chelsea be worse without their all time record goalscorer? Silly question isn’t it? If you think Gerrard could score as many you’re deluded. We’ve seen Gerrard surrounded by world class players in the England team and he was shite. We’ve seen Lampard in an average team at West Ham and he was brilliant. But don’t let facts get in your way.
@@triniSOCCERdude1 It’s 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!
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.
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 😉
@Henry-sd7vd Henderson has a PL title as a captain. Therefore Henderson > Gerrard using your logic... see how stupid using trophies to compare players is?
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....
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.
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.
Lampard is highest midfielder for goals in the league, and 3rd for assists. U can say Gerard is better but don’t dismiss Lampard like he’s didn’t have an amazing record
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.
@@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.
@@VINAKA_Jr 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
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
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 he’d still be world class. This really has never been a debate……
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 didn’t perform against Crystal Palace, and the man united red card too.
@@GiampaoloPazzini7 Did you read my comment properly ?? I’m not saying in anyway Lampard or scholes weren’t great players! I said you could put Gerrard in any position on a football pitch and he’d 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.
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.
To understand Lampard, one has to see football differently. I have seen both of them and their full careers. Lampard was more than a mid. He did not stop where 99% midfielders used to stop and think, my job is done here. He always used to take 'that' chance which made him who he is. Imagine talking about a midfielder only because of his goals. He made goalscoring so strong that people forgot that he used to do what other midfielders do anyways (assist more than Gerrard and Scholes). Its easy to say Gerrard play with lesser players. But we change our narratives as and when it pleases us. Because we dont say that Scholes played with some world class players hence it was easier for him to spray the balls around. Chelsea are yet to find a replacement for lampard and its been 10 years. Liverpool are better after Gerrard is gone. So, overall Lampard, for me, is one of a kind player who you will see in a lifetime.
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.
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
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
Gerrard never played in teams even close to as good as Lampard has. You can’t 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
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 🗑
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.
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.
@@Lm10QR 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.
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 Liverpool’s mediocre days. Tbh lamps played with freedom to go forward.
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.
Nobody debates it, from an arsenal fan if you are neutral and not a chelsea supporter it’s 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 don’t like to admit it.
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.
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.
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%.
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
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 don’t 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 don’t 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
Ppl will say Gerrard is better because he didn’t 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 wasn’t world class, plus this isn’t a question about how they played with their team it’s individual so if we are going on stats Lampard
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.
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
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
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 🧐🧐🧐🧐
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
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.
Gerrard can play with any team in the world. I can say this because every world-class players left him alone over and over. He was never in the best team like Chelsea that got plenty of great players. You can’t say oh Gerrard played with Torres, Suarez, Alonso and never won anything. For god’s sake, please look at Chelsea’s Drogba, Shevahenko, Costa, Gudjohnsen, Petr Cech, Cavalho, Terry, A.Cole, Ivanovic, J.Cole, Ballack, Makelele, Hazard, Oscar, Mata, Essein, Robben, Ferreira, Wright-Phillip, Malouda, Deco, Bosingwa, Alex etc. So Super Frank Lampard is the best along the best. Gerard the best among rubbish, but still be in high professional. Respect for him. For me Gerrard is the best English midfielder of all time.
@@nihal6514 I already thought there will be people like you saying Alonso, Suarez and Torres something like this. It’s like you didn’t read my post properly.
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 nonsense…. How is that the same…ronaldo is 37 and you are making judgment in this season,,,Gerrard in his early 30 was at la galaxy …he wasn’t 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.
Lampard many more goals (177), more assists (102), more penalties (43), more goals/game rate, more goals than any midfielder outside the box (41) and way more trophies. Lampard was POTY 2x to Gerrard's 1x. Won 3 Prems, to Gerrard's none. Gerrard had his chance and slipped (I'm not trying to be funny but factual). Both played with huge heart (something Gerrard supporters seem to only say about him and not Frank). Frank was huge in all the big games and even has a better stat record for England than Gerrard. Easy really. Gerrard was great, but barely won anything by comparison and falls short on almost all metrics that help a team win and achieve 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 he’s 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 performances….. 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 it’s about delaying the attack long enough to make the play go stake vs actually having to stop the attack yourself
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.
Not even a contest. Stevie g by a mile, all great players but his all round game makes him a clear winner. Even better than messi and ronaldo, stevie g would do a job up top but them 2 would struggle in the middle of the park. My logic is undeniable. GOAT
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 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 .
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.
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.
According to me, Frankie Lampard is not only better playmaker than Steven Gerrard, but he’s 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 don’t know, but Frankie is the top goal scorer in Chelsea’s history - he’s 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 he’s definitely the best midfielder in Premier league!!
Why ‘all around better’? Who cares that you’re a gooner. I’m United and can clearly understand Gerrard was better than Lampard! Talk all day about Lampard scoring goals etc…he played advanced MF his entire career. Gerrard played RW, DM, CM and controlled/dictated games from every position.
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.
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
Spain used to field David Silva, Alonso, Iniesta, Xavi, Busquets in the same team at ago. In 2010 final they used Alonso, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Pedro in their starting line up. I wonder why England failed to field Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes together. And if they had to eliminate one, it should have been between Lampard and Gerrard because they're almost similar. Scholes was different from the two.
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.
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.
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.
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
The same reason Gerard is a better manager because when he was a player he had a better management over the game in terms of being a better captain, he can read the game better and just pushed the team better with the players he had around him. Lampard wasn’t good at any of that. But he was a great player in terms of individual skills. But Gerard is better is every aspect of the game.
A player like Steven Gerrard is rare and hard to find especially in this modern football. But their are many players out there today like Lampard and Scholes. Score crazy amount of goals and likes passing and controlling midfielder. Gerrard is one and only player who can score, pass , dictate, play left back right back , dm, cm , attacking midfielder, he could hit with both left foot right foot from 40-50 yards and most importantly he can tackle and defend. Steven Gerrard is most complete player of them all. He's strong, quick and powerful strike 💪🏻
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!
I'm Italian, so I don't have any skin in the game which cannot be said for almost any pundit these days, but I believe that first of all, in an England national team context the real question should be, could have they played together? I know they did but they were hardly as effective as in their respective clubs, IMHO Scholes was a phenomenon and probably my personal favorite, but it pains me to say that he wasn't as adaptable as the other two. He seemed to be the kind of player that only really works in a club and possibly in his own town, stats with the national team seem to prove that so I would have favored Gerrard and Lampard in the national team and to be frank I don't think the 3 of them together really worked.
At times I find myself having to only blame the British media for putting unjustifiable pressure on that golden generation between 2000-2010, for not even getting close to silver in three world cups and three euros! Simply because I couldn't find any other excuses 😂😂
Steven George Gerrard is and was by far the greatest english midfielder to have ever graced a football pitch. The lad could just do everything, single handedly turn the match around against arguably the greatest team ever assembled in AC Milan, btw he did it at the age of 23. 23 years old going against Titans. Thats pretty much tells you lot.
Gerrard the far superior footballer to Lampard, Lampard was basically a second striker in and around the box most of the time Gerrard offered a lot more than that and was a better leader does Lampard win what Gerrard did at Liverpool? Not in my opinion
I doubt lamps or scholes would have carried pool to lifting the CL but then I can’t see gerrard dictating play like scholes did. I then can’t see either scholes or gerrard scoring the amount of goals lamps did. In all they suited the teams they played for a did a job for them. They all had a midfield partner who did work which elevated them and perhaps why they didn’t do so well with England
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.
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 😂
@@muhdaiman3836 not true. The slip wasn’t 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 doesn’t make lampard close to gerrard
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 wasn’t 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.👍
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???
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.. 😁😁😁
@@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 mate…😑.
Look at Lampard’s 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
@@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 that’s the question then they win easily but if it’s about who’s the better player, Gerrard could do it all, every single facet of the midfield play, we were made to watch Gerrard’s 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.
@@zacklatif7184He couldn't tackle so not an all rounder but obviously still a class player
Gerrard, Scholes….tick. Who the feck is Lampard? 🧐 Wasn’t he that bloke from ‘Westem’ that was picked by the London press?
Got it. Bit like ‘Butch’ 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 ‘London United’. That’s why we’ve always been sh*te and why so few folk outside the M25 support ‘em.
💩
Tbf there are loads of people who only say Gerrard because he didn't play for Chelsea
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?
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.
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 isn’t it?
If you think Gerrard could score as many you’re deluded. We’ve seen Gerrard surrounded by world class players in the England team and he was shite.
We’ve seen Lampard in an average team at West Ham and he was brilliant.
But don’t let facts get in your way.
@@triniSOCCERdude1 It’s 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 🤣 Spot on man.
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 😉
@Henry-sd7vd Henderson has a PL title as a captain. Therefore Henderson > Gerrard using your logic... see how stupid using trophies to compare players is?
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.
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.
Lampard is highest midfielder for goals in the league, and 3rd for assists. U can say Gerard is better but don’t dismiss Lampard like he’s didn’t have an amazing record
no dismissed him him he is a great goal scorer from midfield
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.
@@VINAKA_Jr 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
@@VINAKA_Jr also, Scholes played the pirlo role for utd to great success
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
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 he’d still be world class.
This really has never been a debate……
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 didn’t perform against Crystal Palace, and the man united red card too.
@@GiampaoloPazzini7
Did you read my comment properly ??
I’m not saying in anyway Lampard or scholes weren’t great players!
I said you could put Gerrard in any position on a football pitch and he’d 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 That’s my education light weight…..👌
@DW oh sorry I meant to ask!??? Does DW stand for - Dim wit…..😂😂😂
@DW No it’s idiots that make it easy…🤭🤭🤭
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.
To understand Lampard, one has to see football differently. I have seen both of them and their full careers. Lampard was more than a mid. He did not stop where 99% midfielders used to stop and think, my job is done here. He always used to take 'that' chance which made him who he is. Imagine talking about a midfielder only because of his goals. He made goalscoring so strong that people forgot that he used to do what other midfielders do anyways (assist more than Gerrard and Scholes).
Its easy to say Gerrard play with lesser players. But we change our narratives as and when it pleases us. Because we dont say that Scholes played with some world class players hence it was easier for him to spray the balls around.
Chelsea are yet to find a replacement for lampard and its been 10 years. Liverpool are better after Gerrard is gone.
So, overall Lampard, for me, is one of a kind player who you will see in a lifetime.
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.
@Henry-sd7vd Scholes was actually an attacking midfielder for most of his career
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
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
Gerrard never played in teams even close to as good as Lampard has. You can’t 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 🤣
@@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 🗑
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 was the better player 👏
Lampard has the better career 👏 👌
So Which one is better for you
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.
@@Lm10QR 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.
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 Liverpool’s 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
@@Tonishogokay? James Milner has the most ever assists in a champions league campaign. Is he better than pirlo or how about platini?
@@Tonishogand even still ypur chatting bollocks it was Henry who has 20 and then it got broke by de bruyne 😂
@@OfficialDixonMayaz yeah because Milner has done that+ everything else lampard has done, plonker
@@OfficialDixonMayaz I said “English player” maybe you need your eyes checked fella
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.
The distinctive point that Gerard is more of versatile player. He can paly anywhere. Plus he has a great leadership character!
It’s pretty easy for me…Gerrard is better all day every day and twice on a Sunday! I’m with Micah on this, he nearly says it, it’s not even a debate!
Nobody debates it, from an arsenal fan if you are neutral and not a chelsea supporter it’s 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 don’t like to admit it.
How scholes even gets into this debate is crazy.
He could pass. That’s it.
Gerrard could pass just as well and had better vision
Didn’t 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. 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
It’s criminal how people forget Lampard’s 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 doesn’t 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.
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
If you have Keane in the midfield then Lampard is the best, if you have Scholes in the midfield then Gerrard is the best!
For me I’d 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 don’t 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 don’t 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
You all said Gerrard. It’s not a debate
Gerrard had everything Scholes and Lampard had but Gerrard in his prime was a stronger and quicker athlete, better defender and a better captain
Ppl will say Gerrard is better because he didn’t 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 wasn’t world class, plus this isn’t a question about how they played with their team it’s individual so if we are going on stats Lampard
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.
Only Chelsea fans would say Lampard. Gerrard was an all round brilliant and better player
and u must be liverpool fan for saying that 🤣
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.
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 couldn’t do what gerrard did for Liverpool
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
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 🧐🧐🧐🧐
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
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.
0:44 he’s so right Gerrard could do everything Lampard could do and more
Gerrard can play with any team in the world. I can say this because every world-class players left him alone over and over. He was never in the best team like Chelsea that got plenty of great players.
You can’t say oh Gerrard played with Torres, Suarez, Alonso and never won anything.
For god’s sake, please look at Chelsea’s Drogba, Shevahenko, Costa, Gudjohnsen, Petr Cech, Cavalho, Terry, A.Cole, Ivanovic, J.Cole, Ballack, Makelele, Hazard, Oscar, Mata, Essein, Robben, Ferreira, Wright-Phillip, Malouda, Deco, Bosingwa, Alex etc.
So Super Frank Lampard is the best along the best.
Gerard the best among rubbish, but still be in high professional.
Respect for him. For me Gerrard is the best English midfielder of all time.
Costa didn't play with lampard. So your just chatting shit
Best among rubbish? Don't insult Alonso, Torres, Suarez, Owen, Riise, Caragher and most importantly, the god EMILE HESKEY!
@@nihal6514 so you didn’t want to mention Spearing, Koncheski, Babel, N’Gog, Downing, Aquilani, Balotelli, Jovanovic, Aspas, Poulsen, Adam, Markovic, Carrol, Cissockho, Diomede, Assadi, Nunez, Cheyrou,Diouf, Dundee, Paletta, Degan and Ziege?!!!
@@nihal6514 I already thought there will be people like you saying Alonso, Suarez and Torres something like this. It’s like you didn’t read my post properly.
@@hellomotherfk5331 even they had suarez kolo toure was in defence lmao
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 nonsense…. How is that the same…ronaldo is 37 and you are making judgment in this season,,,Gerrard in his early 30 was at la galaxy …he wasn’t 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?
Lampard many more goals (177), more assists (102), more penalties (43), more goals/game rate, more goals than any midfielder outside the box (41) and way more trophies. Lampard was POTY 2x to Gerrard's 1x. Won 3 Prems, to Gerrard's none. Gerrard had his chance and slipped (I'm not trying to be funny but factual). Both played with huge heart (something Gerrard supporters seem to only say about him and not Frank). Frank was huge in all the big games and even has a better stat record for England than Gerrard. Easy really. Gerrard was great, but barely won anything by comparison and falls short on almost all metrics that help a team win and achieve 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 he’s 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 performances….. 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 it’s about delaying the attack long enough to make the play go stake vs actually having to stop the attack yourself
Stevie G isn't in Lampard debate,people just like being polite by quoting Lamps in the same bracket
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.
The biggest myth Lampard can't dictate a game. Lampard has more assists than him.
Your in the minority pal
Who’s got more game winning tackles? Ever think of that win
It amazes me how Lampard is ever talked about on the same level as Scholes and Gerrard, he wasn't anywhere near that level
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 didn’t watch him week in week out
Man really called stevie G overrated
Not even a contest. Stevie g by a mile, all great players but his all round game makes him a clear winner. Even better than messi and ronaldo, stevie g would do a job up top but them 2 would struggle in the middle of the park. My logic is undeniable. GOAT
Jose M wanted Gerrard / Alex F wanted Gerrard… Yet each manager had Lampard / Scholes at the time 🤔
It’s 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
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.. :)
Lampard was more successful, but I'd have Gerrard all day long. That man had heart like no other.
Agree with Gary, Alan and Micah?
Read the comments bro 😉
Newcastle fan - Gerrard easy.
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 .
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.
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.
According to me, Frankie Lampard is not only better playmaker than Steven Gerrard, but he’s 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 don’t know, but Frankie is the top goal scorer in Chelsea’s history - he’s 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 he’s definitely the best midfielder in Premier league!!
He’s 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 don’t have to mention his defensive abilities!
Lampard for me I'm a gooner and Lampard was just all round better for me I actually come to like him so much more as he got older
Why ‘all around better’? Who cares that you’re a gooner. I’m United and can clearly understand Gerrard was better than Lampard! Talk all day about Lampard scoring goals etc…he played advanced MF his entire career. Gerrard played RW, DM, CM and controlled/dictated games from every position.
All round better, what a joke
All round better? Are you joking?
It's Stevie G all day💯 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?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
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.
He’s 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 is a far superior player. The only reason they throw Lampard into the debate is because of his goals.
Gerrard for me, it's not even a debate
That's like comparing fillet steak to a decent enough burger. Stevie G is the best English player of all, yes, all, time...
Oof, all time is a different debate but yeah I agree Stevie G is the best of the three, and I’m a blues fan so
Im a soton fan. Gerrard is the best central midfielder in the premier league era. As for the best english player of all time? Behave!
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 .
I’m Nigerian , we call him Steven general . He a general on the pitch
Lampard no questions about that
Spain used to field David Silva, Alonso, Iniesta, Xavi, Busquets in the same team at ago. In 2010 final they used Alonso, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Pedro in their starting line up. I wonder why England failed to field Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes together. And if they had to eliminate one, it should have been between Lampard and Gerrard because they're almost similar. Scholes was different from the two.
No bias involved it’s just gerrard. Scholes and lampard had their specialities but gerrard had it all
I think Gerrard stood out more based on being in a less star studded team.
What about Regi Blinker?
They could have got 2 world cups easily together. Maybe the God's of football didn't want that to happened🤷🏾♂️
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.
Gerrard not even a debate
Totally agree
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.
Gerrard different gravy.if he was in that chelsea side he would easily won 3 or 4 UCL.scoring more than 300 goals.never a debate !!
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.
Gerrard could have done what Lampard did for Chelsea. Lampard couldn't have done what Gérrard did at Liverpool.
100% agree with this
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?
The same reason Gerard is a better manager because when he was a player he had a better management over the game in terms of being a better captain, he can read the game better and just pushed the team better with the players he had around him. Lampard wasn’t good at any of that. But he was a great player in terms of individual skills. But Gerard is better is every aspect of the game.
Better manager, let's see Aston villa next season they have been awful this season
You still backing your better manager claim?
A player like Steven Gerrard is rare and hard to find especially in this modern football. But their are many players out there today like Lampard and Scholes. Score crazy amount of goals and likes passing and controlling midfielder.
Gerrard is one and only player who can score, pass , dictate, play left back right back , dm, cm , attacking midfielder, he could hit with both left foot right foot from 40-50 yards and most importantly he can tackle and defend. Steven Gerrard is most complete player of them all. He's strong, quick and powerful strike 💪🏻
Gerrard all day long his all round game was better and he was a true leader
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!
Gerrard heads n shoulders above.
I'm Italian, so I don't have any skin in the game which cannot be said for almost any pundit these days, but I believe that first of all, in an England national team context the real question should be, could have they played together? I know they did but they were hardly as effective as in their respective clubs, IMHO Scholes was a phenomenon and probably my personal favorite, but it pains me to say that he wasn't as adaptable as the other two. He seemed to be the kind of player that only really works in a club and possibly in his own town, stats with the national team seem to prove that so I would have favored Gerrard and Lampard in the national team and to be frank I don't think the 3 of them together really worked.
At times I find myself having to only blame the British media for putting unjustifiable pressure on that golden generation between 2000-2010, for not even getting close to silver in three world cups and three euros! Simply because I couldn't find any other excuses 😂😂
English media
Steven George Gerrard is and was by far the greatest english midfielder to have ever graced a football pitch. The lad could just do everything, single handedly turn the match around against arguably the greatest team ever assembled in AC Milan, btw he did it at the age of 23. 23 years old going against Titans. Thats pretty much tells you lot.
Ask Pep how he could integrate the three maestros
Gerrard the far superior footballer to Lampard, Lampard was basically a second striker in and around the box most of the time Gerrard offered a lot more than that and was a better leader does Lampard win what Gerrard did at Liverpool? Not in my opinion
I doubt lamps or scholes would have carried pool to lifting the CL but then I can’t see gerrard dictating play like scholes did. I then can’t see either scholes or gerrard scoring the amount of goals lamps did. In all they suited the teams they played for a did a job for them. They all had a midfield partner who did work which elevated them and perhaps why they didn’t do so well with England
This
Actually lampard did captain Chelsea to the 2012 champions league
Lmao gerrard dictated Liverpools play what were u watching
@@na-hc1ms alonso?
Gerrard did it when he went too
None of them touch Gerard all great but he was a bloody icon