|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 27, 2015 16:12:09 GMT
If Gerrard could do everything there'd have been no problem with him and Lampard for England as he'd have been able to be the deeper of the two. He never is though because his hero complex wanderlust won't allow it. I find that analysis of Lampard as a bloke who 'just scored and didn't do much else' just a really, really odd analysis of a player who was palpably a lot more than that. But each to their own. Brilliant in the final third but not anywhere else. We already had our "what makes a good midfield player" debate. We have totally different views on that as well which probably explains why you prefer lampard as a player whilst I prefer Gerrard.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 16:13:28 GMT
Jordan Henderson IS a good (not great admittedly) player mate i like the way that you decide a fee apparently ISN'T an indicator of a good player but apparently fans loathing him because he slagged them off in his autobiography is...puzzling logic at best! An autobiography has nothing to do with anything. I'm commenting about views way before he'd made any kind of impact at Chelsea and way before any books were written. Henderson is shite as well. Not a patch on n'zonzi for example. A fee indicates little other than what someone is prepared to pay and doesn't instantly mean you're a good player. Its your logic that's puzzling on that. Bojan must be wank. He only cost 300k. Henderson at 20m is good. N'zonzi at 3.5m must be pretty average in comparison. An 11m transfer fee didn't make lampard a good player. His performances in a Chelsea shirt, as a forward who was classed as a midfielder, did that for him. His goalscoring record is superb but he isn't as good a midfielder player as Gerrard in my opinion. Gerrard could do everything as well as score goals. Lampard was a great goal scorer in a team that meant he didn't have to do an awful lot else. and that's your opinion which i've said from the start, i'm absolutely 100% fine with mate! personally i think you're massively underrating Lampard to quite an insulting degree. and i never said that a fee automatically makes you a good player (YOU'RE the only one that typed those words that you've tried to put into Rob's then my mouth) but i'd say it's far more of an indicator to your level of general talent than what SOME fans think (there are Stoke fans on this very board who say Ric was overrated and that Tuncay was a genius...many disagree with both of those opinions however, you see that's the thing about fans some have 1 opinion and some have an entirely different one. it's unusual however for a top club to fork out what back then was a lot of money for someone who could turn out to be wank though) i find it absolutely staggering however how anyone who watched football could say that Lampard was nothing other than "a great goalscorer in a team that meant he didn't have to do an awful lot else"....a truly staggering comment!!! i'm sure Chelsea were only buying players like Hasselbaink, Drogba, Mutu, Crespo etc. as back up forwards eh????
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 27, 2015 16:20:12 GMT
An autobiography has nothing to do with anything. I'm commenting about views way before he'd made any kind of impact at Chelsea and way before any books were written. Henderson is shite as well. Not a patch on n'zonzi for example. A fee indicates little other than what someone is prepared to pay and doesn't instantly mean you're a good player. Its your logic that's puzzling on that. Bojan must be wank. He only cost 300k. Henderson at 20m is good. N'zonzi at 3.5m must be pretty average in comparison. An 11m transfer fee didn't make lampard a good player. His performances in a Chelsea shirt, as a forward who was classed as a midfielder, did that for him. His goalscoring record is superb but he isn't as good a midfielder player as Gerrard in my opinion. Gerrard could do everything as well as score goals. Lampard was a great goal scorer in a team that meant he didn't have to do an awful lot else. and that's your opinion which i've said from the start, i'm absolutely 100% fine with mate! personally i think you're massively underrating Lampard to quite an insulting degree. and i never said that a fee automatically makes you a good player (YOU'RE the only one that typed those words that you've tried to put into Rob's then my mouth) but i'd say it's far more of an indicator to your level of general talent than what SOME fans think (there are Stoke fans on this very board who say Ric was overrated and that Tuncay was a genius...many disagree with both of those opinions however, you see that's the thing about fans some have 1 opinion and some have an entirely different one. it's unusual however for a top club to fork out what back then was a lot of money for someone who could turn out to be want though) i find it absolutely staggering however how anyone who watched football could say that Lampard was nothing other than "a great goalscorer in a team that meant he didn't have to do an awful lot else"....a truly staggering comment!!! i'm sure Chelsea were only buying players like Hasselbaink, Drogba, Mutu, Crespo etc. as back up forwards eh???? I will bow to you as the voice of reason and sound logical opinion. I'm off out to dinner now.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on May 27, 2015 16:20:51 GMT
If Gerrard could do everything there'd have been no problem with him and Lampard for England as he'd have been able to be the deeper of the two. He never is though because his hero complex wanderlust won't allow it. I find that analysis of Lampard as a bloke who 'just scored and didn't do much else' just a really, really odd analysis of a player who was palpably a lot more than that. But each to their own. Brilliant in the final third but not anywhere else. We already had our "what makes a good midfield player" debate. We have totally different views on that as well which probably explains why you prefer lampard as a player whilst I prefer Gerrard. Yeah it's that first sentence that puzzles me Dave. Fair enough though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 16:38:33 GMT
Good reading that. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 27, 2015 16:50:35 GMT
Great write-up as usual; thanks for them all this season.
I'm really chuffed for Diouf.
You're very right about Stoke shooting at the earliest opportunity. I reckon MH must have told them to go out and enjoy themselves and Adam set down the marker very early.
The spectacular goals by Diouf and N'Zonzi were great, but what was also very pleasing was the way Diouf took his first and Walters his goal; these were real poachers' goals, being in the right place to take advantage of errors. This to me sets out the "natural" goal scorers from the rest. It's all right the media lambasting Liverpool's poor play, but you have still got to take the opportunity when it arises.
Stoke blew Arsenal and Spurs away in similar manner and would have been 4-0 up against Arsenal had not the referee intervened incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by mailman44 on May 28, 2015 1:43:11 GMT
So sick of hearing about Gerrard. This is as boring as his personality...
"We go again" what a profound statement ....
From now on when I hear his name though I will automatically think "6-1" instead of "do I still have my hubcaps?"
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 28, 2015 11:38:15 GMT
Thanks Rob, excellent analysis and entertaining too.
Really interested in the Charlie renaissance. I've long been an advocate of him playing at home, because somehow he makes things happen. But recently he's given us a tactical fluidity that wasn't as apparent before. We were mainly 4-2-3-1, occasionally dropping a bit deeper to go 4-4-1-1.
Charlie and Zonz seem to have got higher up the pitch from deeper recently, and suddenly we look like a team switching to a 4-1-4-1 when we break, with just Glenn sitting and holding. This can also become a 4-5-1 when we haven't got the ball, or a 4-3-3 when Charlie and NZonzi are a little deeper. We have options to tweak this with Bojan or Ireland as the 3rd midfielder.
On the Gerrard/Lampard thing, they are both good players, but not as good as our press would have us believe. Dave's right: we needed an England manager to pick a team built around our best players in their preferred positions. On that basis, Paul Scholes should have been England's attacking centre mid for a decade. In international tournament football, we still pick our favourite "best" 11, and squeeze them in regardless of balance. Virtually no England manager since Ramsay has built a team.
When we lost to Portugal in the semi final of the Euros, they brought on the talented Rui Costa in extra time, and he scored a brilliant individual goal. Sven, in contrast, turned to Darius Vassell. I wish we had a Lampard or Gerrard on the bench at that point to freshen things up.
Also, unfortunately, many English footballers simply lack the intelligence of the foreign counterparts. It's a team game, and good players show tactical discipline. Ours just want to be on the highlights video. Juve's midfield is nearly perfect: Vidal and Marchieso so disciplined, doing a lot of running for Pirlo who plays quite deep, with the athletic and creative Pogba playing further forward. Tevez can even drop back into midfield, and will no doubt be scampering around Rakitic and Busquets in the Champions League final. They work as a unit not 4 or 5 individuals.
Maybe that is the problem with Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham. Big egos that are not quite so happy to be one of the collective.
Apologies for another long winded post!
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on May 28, 2015 12:22:38 GMT
Great read. UPU. Thanks for doing them.
|
|