Got to agree with Carragher!!

vinnymarsden

Much as I'm no fan of Liverpool FC I have read Jamie Carraghers column in the Mail today and he has got it spot on.
What is wrong with a sporting organisation that they cannot recognise the value of retaining one of, if not the most influential player they have ever had..alongside DogLeash there is no one that has pumped Liverpool through their blood like Gerard..he might not have been the most talented/naturally gifted flair player ever but the one thing that always stood out was his passion for his club…a rarity nowadays, with contracts being broken before the ink is even dry!
Look at Lampard's behaviour with MCity and New York…he signed a contract to go to NYC, and now he's reneging on it, supported by everyone at the Etihad, mind you I guess it helps that MCFC have some interest in the NYC team too, but it still smacks of Frank having no sense of loyalty or honour to fulfil what he's agreed to do.
Gerard has been feted by almost every big club in the world over his career, and throughout he has remained loyal to LFC, and their reward??? No offer of any extended playing/coaching contract to ease him into their management structure, so the lad feels a bit hurt I bet, but in the classy way he has always carried himself for the team, he decides to play on, but NOT against Liverpool, he says himself it wouldn't be right.
I DONT like Liverpool, I never have, but just occasionally there is a player/sportsman that transcends his position and actually demonstrates some of what has been lost in sport,integrity and good old fashioned values.
I hope he goes to America and lights up their league, their game is growing and it can only grow quicker with that quality of sportsman on board.Good luck to Gerard from a NONE Liverpool fan.

pblakeney

I agree with you sentiment, but a couple of points.....

Kenny Dalgleish does not have Liverpool through his veins.
Chelsea were finished with Lampard, he did not choose to leave.

cornerblock

Couple of more points..

Gerrard is a good player no doubt, but he is also the most overated player of a generation. How he has become this so called legend is beyond me, all built around half a game in Istanbul and some might say a fortuitous cup win against West Ham. Yes he has sprayed some wonderful passes around, although even they seem to miss their intended target a lot lately. The only thing of note he has done recently is miscontrol a pass leading him to him slipping and thereby saying goodbye to his teams only real title opportunity in a long long time. Aside from that what has he actually done.

Which brings me to Lampard, a player who beats Gerrard in all departments hands down. More goals scored, more honours, more assists, more chances created, more international goals in less games, goals to clinch Premier League titles, also captaining a team to Champions League final. And yet still some people will have you believe that Gerrard has been the better player. Not for me, then again I'm probably a bit biased. A bit like all those ex- Liverpool players now working as pundits I suppose.

As for Frank and Chelsea, he was offered another another year on a reduced deal but turned it down. To comply with FFP Chelsea could not pay the kind of money he was on for a player who was going to be sat on the bench most of the time, and no doubt he already knew of a far better offer elsewhere. The New York deal has been a sham all along just to get him to City and thus getting around the FFP rules. I never could understand the 'fat Frank' jibes, perhaps 'greedy Frank' was more appropriate.

Anonymous

Before Stevie G, Liverpool had Michael Owen. Before him Fowler. Before him Ian Rush and King Kenny. Before him Kevin Keegan.

Point is, Liverpool will find someone else to fill the gap. Thats football. The world keeps turning.

DeVlaeminck

Agree with the above that Lampard was probably the better player at the highest level - I think Sacchi summed up Gerrard pretty well - great physical and mental attributes but lacking that football brain that the best players have. Of course our media expect us all to buy into the hype surrounding Liverpool.

finchy

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Stevo_666

Cornerblock wrote:

As for Frank and Chelsea, he was offered another another year on a reduced deal but turned it down. To comply with FFP Chelsea could not pay the kind of money he was on for a player who was going to be sat on the bench most of the time, and no doubt he already knew of a far better offer elsewhere. The New York deal has been a sham all along just to get him to City and thus getting around the FFP rules.

Anyone else think it's slightly ironic that City are using underhand tactics to get around financial fair play rules?

cornerblock

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves. While to some it might seem like loyalty that Gerrard hung around at a club who were not in contention for the top honours, others might see it as a similar scenario to Matt Le TIssier, a good player who should have moved on to prove he was a great player. The comfort zone if you like.

You can't blame Gerrard for the fact that so many have bought into this over the top praise for an ok decent footballer. You can however blame the heavily biased media in the football industry, three quarters of whom are ex- Liverpool and the rest who are terrified of upsetting the Liverpool public.

I know this might sound like I've something against Gerrard, I haven't, he's a good footballer and does come across as a decent bloke. However he's had a decent career but let's get it right, he ain't no Great!

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

As for Frank and Chelsea, he was offered another another year on a reduced deal but turned it down. To comply with FFP Chelsea could not pay the kind of money he was on for a player who was going to be sat on the bench most of the time, and no doubt he already knew of a far better offer elsewhere. The New York deal has been a sham all along just to get him to City and thus getting around the FFP rules.

Anyone else think it's slightly ironic that City are using underhand tactics to get around financial fair play rules?

Maybe one (or both) of you would care to explain how this was a 'sham/underhand' or why this is a way to 'get around' the FFP rules?

This, I have to hear!!

cornerblock

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

As for Frank and Chelsea, he was offered another another year on a reduced deal but turned it down. To comply with FFP Chelsea could not pay the kind of money he was on for a player who was going to be sat on the bench most of the time, and no doubt he already knew of a far better offer elsewhere. The New York deal has been a sham all along just to get him to City and thus getting around the FFP rules.

Anyone else think it's slightly ironic that City are using underhand tactics to get around financial fair play rules?

Maybe one (or both) of you would care to explain how this was a 'sham/underhand' or why this is a way to 'get around' the FFP rules?

This, I have to hear!!

I'm sure you would not believe it from my lips so..

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/footba ... r-man-city

If you can't be arsed reading it then what it's saying is that the relationship (same owners) between your club in Manchester and your club in New York has been used to get around the rules. I think sham and and underhand are valid.

verylonglegs

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves. While to some it might seem like loyalty that Gerrard hung around at a club who were not in contention for the top honours, others might see it as a similar scenario to Matt Le TIssier, a good player who should have moved on to prove he was a great player. The comfort zone if you like.

You can't blame Gerrard for the fact that so many have bought into this over the top praise for an ok decent footballer. You can however blame the heavily biased media in the football industry, three quarters of whom are ex- Liverpool and the rest who are terrified of upsetting the Liverpool public.

I know this might sound like I've something against Gerrard, I haven't, he's a good footballer and does come across as a decent bloke. However he's had a decent career but let's get it right, he ain't no Great!

Not in contention for top honours? They finished 2nd in the league 3 times whilst he was there and won one Champions league final and lost another. Comparing his situation to Le Tissier doesn't add up in this respect, he wasn't playing for potentional relegation candidates.

Also have you considered it's not always the players who determine where their careers go, but the offers they receive. He could never play for Man Utd as a scouse red so that left either Arsenal or Chelsea who were the other powers at the time, if they didn't show any interest where was he supposed to go?

city_boy

Cornerblock wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

As for Frank and Chelsea, he was offered another another year on a reduced deal but turned it down. To comply with FFP Chelsea could not pay the kind of money he was on for a player who was going to be sat on the bench most of the time, and no doubt he already knew of a far better offer elsewhere. The New York deal has been a sham all along just to get him to City and thus getting around the FFP rules.

Anyone else think it's slightly ironic that City are using underhand tactics to get around financial fair play rules?

Maybe one (or both) of you would care to explain how this was a 'sham/underhand' or why this is a way to 'get around' the FFP rules?

This, I have to hear!!

I'm sure you would not believe it from my lips so..

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/footba ... r-man-city

If you can't be arsed reading it then what it's saying is that the relationship (same owners) between your club in Manchester and your club in New York has been used to get around the rules. I think sham and and underhand are valid.

I have already read it, and it doesn't say that at all! Maybe it was you who couldn't be arsed reading it
What rules has it been used to get around?

ballysmate

Surely we don't over hype players in this country?

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

What rules has it been used to get around?

Below is the most relevant bit - not sure if the point about fair value was followed up but it's certainly a grey area that City have used to potentially (a) help boost its financial result and (b) reach its quota of 'home grown' players for the CL. Would New York City really have lent Lampard to City and let him stay after the start of their season if the hadn't been owned by the same outfit that owns City?

"Due to the aforementioned ownership link between Man City and New York FC (sharing the same parent company), UEFA would be likely to regard the clubs as related parties and thus the loan deal for Lampard as a related party transaction under the FFP Rules and, as such, are empowered to assess whether or not the deal stuck between the clubs was at ‘fair value’.

If UEFA deemed the Lampard deal to be at an undervalue, they could adjust the club’s break-even calculation, which would result in City’s expenditure, and potentially the club’s losses, being artificially inflated.

Although we are not privy to the full terms of the settlement agreement referred to above, we do know that it contains restrictions on the amount of expenditure City is able to incur on new player registrations and limits on the extent of losses it is able to make over the next two seasons. If the club is close to breaching these terms and UEFA then deems the Lampard deal to be at undervalue, there is a risk that such an adjustment could put City in technical breach and, as such, could result in the club being sanctioned by UEFA."

cornerblock

City Boy wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

As for Frank and Chelsea, he was offered another another year on a reduced deal but turned it down. To comply with FFP Chelsea could not pay the kind of money he was on for a player who was going to be sat on the bench most of the time, and no doubt he already knew of a far better offer elsewhere. The New York deal has been a sham all along just to get him to City and thus getting around the FFP rules.

Anyone else think it's slightly ironic that City are using underhand tactics to get around financial fair play rules?

Maybe one (or both) of you would care to explain how this was a 'sham/underhand' or why this is a way to 'get around' the FFP rules?

This, I have to hear!!

I'm sure you would not believe it from my lips so..

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/footba ... r-man-city

If you can't be arsed reading it then what it's saying is that the relationship (same owners) between your club in Manchester and your club in New York has been used to get around the rules. I think sham and and underhand are valid.

I have already read it, and it doesn't say that at all!
What rules has it been used to get around?

Yes it does, you just refuse to accept it. You are not the only club doing it. Club A signs player and then loans him to Club B who were in no position to offer expensive contract to said player but because they own club A anyway it's fine as all the money comes from the same place anyway. You have to give it to City, there's a loophole there and they've exploited it.

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

What rules has it been used to get around?

Below is the most relevant bit - not sure if the point about fair value was followed up but it's certainly a grey area that City have used to potentially (a) help boost its financial result and (b) reach its quota of 'home grown' players for the CL. Would New York City really have lent Lampard to City and let him stay after the start of their season if the hadn't been owned by the same outfit that owns City?

"Due to the aforementioned ownership link between Man City and New York FC (sharing the same parent company), UEFA would be likely to regard the clubs as related parties and thus the loan deal for Lampard as a related party transaction under the FFP Rules and, as such, are empowered to assess whether or not the deal stuck between the clubs was at ‘fair value’.

If UEFA deemed the Lampard deal to be at an undervalue, they could adjust the club’s break-even calculation, which would result in City’s expenditure, and potentially the club’s losses, being artificially inflated.

Although we are not privy to the full terms of the settlement agreement referred to above, we do know that it contains restrictions on the amount of expenditure City is able to incur on new player registrations and limits on the extent of losses it is able to make over the next two seasons. If the club is close to breaching these terms and UEFA then deems the Lampard deal to be at undervalue, there is a risk that such an adjustment could put City in technical breach and, as such, could result in the club being sanctioned by UEFA."[/quote

Lampard was available on a free transfer as he was out of contract, so wouldn't have cost City a transfer fee if they signed him directly. City are also paying his full wages during the loan period, so there is no financial or FFP benefit there. If we had signed him directly there would have been no breach of FFP, so why would be need to go the route we have?

Maybe you or Cornerblock can explain what rules we have gotten around?

By bringing him in via NYC, there would be areas that UEFA could look at in terms of joint ownership and fair value, and as the article says it is extremely likely that it would be deemed that all requirements in this regard would be met.

If anything, bringing him in via such a loan deal would potentially carry a greater risk regards FFP than signing him directly so to suggest it was done in an underhand manner to circumnavigate the rules (again, what rules?) is somewhat misguided.

finchy

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

city_boy

Cornerblock wrote:

Yes it does, you just refuse to accept it.

No it doesn't, you're just failing to understand it

Cornerblock wrote:

Club A signs player and then loans him to Club B who were in no position to offer expensive contract to said player but because they own club A anyway it's fine as all the money comes from the same place anyway. You have to give it to City, there's a loophole there and they've exploited it.

But City can, and are in a position to pay him his 'expensive' wages!

reds99

On an international level, did either of them achieve anything?

reds99

City will soon be able to get round FFP, due to stadium expansion. All the new empty seats will soon pay for themselves...

cornerblock

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

Who's arguing? It's an opinion. I'm not that bothered who anyone thinks is the better player, I know who I think is and it isn't just based on goals scored. I do not accept that Steven Gerrard is this amazing player that the media would have us believe. He's been a good player but great? Not for me.

ballysmate

Class act indeed!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/200 ... ict-affray

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Maybe you or Cornerblock can explain what rules we have gotten around?

I explained it above. Also as the article was published last September it is out date after Lampards stay at City was extended to the end of the English PL season - see point 5 below.

Anyway, let me try to explain again how I see it:-
1. FFP places limits on the level of losses that a club can make in a year. That is the key rule here.
2. The cost of buying/selling player and also their wages are part of the profit/loss calculation for the purposes of point 1 above.
3. FFP allows UEFA to adjust the cost of these transactions if they are not carried out at 'fair value' (i.e. the value at which independent parties would do the deal)
4. Man City and New York FC are not independent parties as they have the same owner.
5. It is highly unlikely that New York FC would have lent their star player to another club so that the player missed a good part of the MLS season without getting substantially compensated for that (on top of City paying the wages, which is a given as he is playing for City).
6. City are only paying Lampards wages, they did not give NYFC any compensation over and above paying his wages.
7. Therefore the transaction is not at fair value and the result is that City's loss for the year will be lower than if they paid the market rate to NYFC in the circumstances.
8. See point 1 above - if this transaction makes the difference between City making a losses within the FFP threshold and exceeding the threshold, then City will have have artificially got around the FFP rules.

Clear enough for ya?

rrsodl

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Much as I'm no fan of Liverpool FC I have read Jamie Carraghers column in the Mail today and he has got it spot on.
What is wrong with a sporting organisation that they cannot recognise the value of retaining one of, if not the most influential player they have ever had..alongside DogLeash there is no one that has pumped Liverpool through their blood like Gerard..he might not have been the most talented/naturally gifted flair player ever but the one thing that always stood out was his passion for his club…a rarity nowadays, with contracts being broken before the ink is even dry!
Look at Lampard's behaviour with MCity and New York…he signed a contract to go to NYC, and now he's reneging on it, supported by everyone at the Etihad, mind you I guess it helps that MCFC have some interest in the NYC team too, but it still smacks of Frank having no sense of loyalty or honour to fulfil what he's agreed to do.
Gerard has been feted by almost every big club in the world over his career, and throughout he has remained loyal to LFC, and their reward??? No offer of any extended playing/coaching contract to ease him into their management structure, so the lad feels a bit hurt I bet, but in the classy way he has always carried himself for the team, he decides to play on, but NOT against Liverpool, he says himself it wouldn't be right.
I DONT like Liverpool, I never have, but just occasionally there is a player/sportsman that transcends his position and actually demonstrates some of what has been lost in sport,integrity and good old fashioned values.
I hope he goes to America and lights up their league, their game is growing and it can only grow quicker with that quality of sportsman on board.Good luck to Gerard from a NONE Liverpool fan.

Although I have always admired Gerard I don't see it as a problem that he is leaving now. He probably has ambitions to carry on playing for a couple of years and it would be difficult to do it at LFC. Also, he might one to go on a high and not when he is spending most of his time on the bench. So from that point of view I wish him all the best.

Gerard is probably the only player that has always shown respect and passion for his club. I remember when he was hours away from signing for Chealsea and changed his mind. That was brilliant to see. On the other hand, as a Manchester Ute supporter, it pi$$is me off to see Rooney still at the club. He has no love for the club but his pay cheque. He is not the only player that does that, hence my respect and bigger admiration for Gerard.

You obviously resent Lampard playing for Man City but Chealsea let him go and he probably never thought he would end up at City. Good for him I'd say.

finchy

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

Who's arguing? It's an opinion. I'm not that bothered who anyone thinks is the better player, I know who I think is and it isn't just based on goals scored. I do not accept that Steven Gerrard is this amazing player that the media would have us believe. He's been a good player but great? Not for me.

I meant argument as in debate, not angry argument. Like I said earlier, I would put Gerrard and Lampard in the same category - club legends, not England legends.

cornerblock

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

Who's arguing? It's an opinion. I'm not that bothered who anyone thinks is the better player, I know who I think is and it isn't just based on goals scored. I do not accept that Steven Gerrard is this amazing player that the media would have us believe. He's been a good player but great? Not for me.

I meant argument as in debate, not angry argument. Like I said earlier, I would put Gerrard and Lampard in the same category - club legends, not England legends.

I see, fair enough. I agree about the England legend part, barring the obvious 1966 lot has there ever been any? The original point I intended to make was not really to debate who was the better between the two but to question the high esteem Gerrard is held in by some.

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Maybe you or Cornerblock can explain what rules we have gotten around?

I explained it above. Also as the article was published last September it is out date after Lampards stay at City was extended to the end of the English PL season - see point 5 below.

Anyway, let me try to explain again how I see it:-
1. FFP places limits on the level of losses that a club can make in a year. That is the key rule here.
2. The cost of buying/selling player and also their wages are part of the profit/loss calculation for the purposes of point 1 above.
3. FFP allows UEFA to adjust the cost of these transactions if they are not carried out at 'fair value' (i.e. the value at which independent parties would do the deal)
4. Man City and New York FC are not independent parties as they have the same owner.
5. It is highly unlikely that New York FC would have lent their star player to another club so that the player missed a good part of the MLS season without getting substantially compensated for that (on top of City paying the wages, which is a given as he is playing for City).
6. City are only paying Lampards wages, they did not give NYFC any compensation over and above paying his wages.
7. Therefore the transaction is not at fair value and the result is that City's loss for the year will be lower than if they paid the market rate to NYFC in the circumstances.
8. See point 1 above - if this transaction makes the difference between City making a losses within the FFP threshold and exceeding the threshold, then City will have have artificially got around the FFP rules.

Clear enough for ya?

See PL thread in BB, thought it best to carry on debate there

finchy

Cornerblock wrote:

I see, fair enough. I agree about the England legend part, barring the obvious 1966 lot has there ever been any?

Er, I suppose Gary Lineker might qualify - top scorer in Mexico '86. What about Alan Shearer? Peter Shilton? And that's just about as many as I can think of who might be considered worthy of the tag, although I'm a bit young to remember the '80s lot.

Such a shame about Gascoigne.

verylonglegs

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

Who's arguing? It's an opinion. I'm not that bothered who anyone thinks is the better player, I know who I think is and it isn't just based on goals scored. I do not accept that Steven Gerrard is this amazing player that the media would have us believe. He's been a good player but great? Not for me.

I meant argument as in debate, not angry argument. Like I said earlier, I would put Gerrard and Lampard in the same category - club legends, not England legends.

I see, fair enough. I agree about the England legend part, barring the obvious 1966 lot has there ever been any? The original point I intended to make was not really to debate who was the better between the two but to question the high esteem Gerrard is held in by some.

He's held in high esteem because of his achievements whilst still adhereing to his loyalities. Why does this agitate you so much? You're a football fan ffs, how the f*** do you not relate to this? Flip the coin, if he was a player for your team who'd come up through the ranks as a boy but buggered off just to win trophies you'd be singing abusive songs about him all day long.

cornerblock

verylonglegs wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

Who's arguing? It's an opinion. I'm not that bothered who anyone thinks is the better player, I know who I think is and it isn't just based on goals scored. I do not accept that Steven Gerrard is this amazing player that the media would have us believe. He's been a good player but great? Not for me.

I meant argument as in debate, not angry argument. Like I said earlier, I would put Gerrard and Lampard in the same category - club legends, not England legends.

I see, fair enough. I agree about the England legend part, barring the obvious 1966 lot has there ever been any? The original point I intended to make was not really to debate who was the better between the two but to question the high esteem Gerrard is held in by some.

He's held in high esteem because of his achievements whilst still adhereing to his loyalities. Why does this agitate you so much? You're a football fan ffs, how the f*** do you not relate to this? Flip the coin, if he was a player for your team who'd come up through the ranks as a boy but buggered off just to win trophies you'd be singing abusive songs about him all day long.

Agitate me? It doesn't. To be fair you're the one who sounds as though they are getting a bit agitated with the f***'s, but hey it's a passionate game. As for singing abusive songs at matches, not really my thing to be honest. The esteem I'm referring to is in regards to his abilities as a footballer. As I said further back, he seems like a decent bloke, and yes he's stayed loyal to Liverpool, yippee do! Players do that sometimes, it doesn't change their ability. I just am baffled that he is spoken of as a 'great', my opinion, others obviously differ. I mean he would not make my all time best Premier XI, probably not even the bench! Yet for some he'd be first on the team sheet. All about opinions. Now I'm gonna **** off and put the kettle on.

shortcuts

verylonglegs wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It's difficult to compare Lampard and Gerrard. Lampard had far better players around him for most of his Chelsea career and Gerrard was (probably out of necessity) more of a box-to-box player. He also tended to play a bit deeper for England, so wouldn't get as many goals and assists. Both players were absolutely fantastic for their clubs, but I don't think they hit quite the same heights for England.

Not that difficult, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts are you talking about and what is your argument? Are you trying to say that Lampard is a better player than Gerrard because he scored more goals and won more?

If so, I would disagree and say that they are at about the same level and wouldn't go down the lines of saying that more success = better player. If you followed the "what's he won" line of argument you could say that Stephane Guivarc'h was a better player than Alan Shearer.

Who's arguing? It's an opinion. I'm not that bothered who anyone thinks is the better player, I know who I think is and it isn't just based on goals scored. I do not accept that Steven Gerrard is this amazing player that the media would have us believe. He's been a good player but great? Not for me.

I meant argument as in debate, not angry argument. Like I said earlier, I would put Gerrard and Lampard in the same category - club legends, not England legends.

I see, fair enough. I agree about the England legend part, barring the obvious 1966 lot has there ever been any? The original point I intended to make was not really to debate who was the better between the two but to question the high esteem Gerrard is held in by some.

He's held in high esteem because of his achievements whilst still adhereing to his loyalities. Why does this agitate you so much? You're a football fan ffs, how the f*** do you not relate to this? Flip the coin, if he was a player for your team who'd come up through the ranks as a boy but buggered off just to win trophies you'd be singing abusive songs about him all day long.

Loyalty?? Are you having a laugh?? He tried to leave LFC a couple of times over the years due to the clubs under achievement in terms of winning trophies and only withdrew transfer requests after serious pressure from yob fans. Some who issued death threats to him and his family should he move on. So don't delude yourself as to his 'loyalty'!