TheMagnificent11's Contributions

I agree that Scholes does not have Gerrard or Lampard's ability to score goals. Though the title of the blog is "Who is the more valuable midfielder?" I think a midfielder that can dictate play is more valuable than one who scores more than the average midfielder. My reason is that players who can do this are crucial to a team's success. Teams that have won World Cups and Champions Leagues almost always have this sort of player. If you think a midfielder's goal scoring ability is a more crucial component, well I guess you're entitled to that opinion. In my opinion players like Scholes, Wilshire, Britton, Xavi, Modric etc are more valuable than those like Gerrard and Lampard.

Is Lampard or Gerrard the more valuable midfielder?

7 Feb 2012

I agree that Gerrard has the ability to take game by the scuff of the neck and win it, but Lampard camnot. Gerrard can dribble, has speed, has a great long range shot and is great in a tackle. He's better at those things than both Lampard and Scholes. Lampard can pop-up and score you an unlikely winner out of nowhere, but he's not going to boss a game. Scholes can't take the game by the scruff of the neck either but he can certainly give you more control in midfield, which is probably more important. And, I support United because my grand-dad did. He supported them because he lived there in the 60s.

Is Lampard or Gerrard the more valuable midfielder?

7 Feb 2012

Liverpool have been around 6th for most of this season and Gerrard has missed a least half of it. So can you say that they really miss him? The UCL success is would not have been possible without Gerrad...he brought them back from the dead against Olympiakos in final group stage game and then again in the final. He definitely scores some cracking crucial goals but I think but most of them have been against "smaller" teams. When Liverpool pushed Man Utd all the way for a couple of seasons was Gerrard the most crucial player? He had Alonso, Mascherano and Torres. As for Lampard, all of his success has been for Chelsea in a very expensively assembled squad. Did he make the team tick? No, other midfielders provided the spark, Lampard provided the finishing touch. Would Chelsea have won without him, possibly not because he either top and second top scorer for them. On the other hand, take Scholes out of United midfield in the 90s and early 2000s and Beckham and Giggs don't get to deliver as many assists because they don't get the ball in space as much. Would they have won as much with just Keane and Butt? I don't think so. They would have definitely been up there. Take him out the 2008 team, they probably don't win the UCL. Take him out of the current team, they seam to struggle (when Cleverley has been injured). At the end of the day it's a team game. I think the service that players like Scholes provides is harder to come by. Not as many players have that talent. It's also crucial to winning games because the more you have the ball the harder it is for the opposition to score. Lampard and Gerrard do less creating. Take Scholes out of United and replace him with Lampard or Gerrard, I don't think they win as much. As for the Lampard v Gerrard thing; Gerrard obviously has more talent but Lampards goals have been more crucial to Chelsea. And, he gets injured less so he gives you more bang for your buck.

Is Lampard or Gerrard the more valuable midfielder?

7 Feb 2012