Originally posted by Bicnarok
Whats with Theo Walcott? surely if your good enough your old enough or was he injured?
he's not good enough...
As for Gerrard/Lampard... I personally prefer Gerrard, I think playing alongside Lampard has forced him to take a less attacking role which doesn't suit him 100%, but Gerrard brings alot more to a team if allowed to do his thing imo.
I disagree with your Gerrard v Lampard analysis. Lampard plays well for Chelsea but up till yesterday did nothing for England. He played well yesterday though. But Gerrard is in a different league imo, he has the full package.
#Tackles better.
#Defends better
#Passes better
#Has more fighting spirit
#Heads the ball better
#Has a better feel for when he can have a run at goal.
As for shooting, ok they have both excellent technique and are both footed. Although lampard tends to just welly any ball which comes near him when he´s in the vicinity of the goal, and now and again some go in.
each has a different style of play which won´t fit into the team if they play together.
I can´t see England, qualifying for the EM next year as long as McLaren is the Manager.
Gerrard hasn't really done a great deal for England either though, when it's really mattered. Although, I'd prefer him to Lampard (if both were at their peak) too, for the reasons you've listed. There's not a huge gap between the two by any means, but Gerrard is a technically superior footballer and far more versatile. Either way, it's painfully obvious to everyone except Mclaren that the two should not play together (it can't be a coincidence that Lampard's first goal/halfway decent performance occured whilst Gerrard was out). He needs to settle on one of the two (going on current form only, Lampard), and give them free reign of the midfield in front of Hargreaves. Simple, but the man is actually a moron. Two words: Kieron Dyer. No, no, no.
Also, surely England would be better off with Shaun Wright-Phillips on the right rather than Beckham? They can't evolve if they're still relying on Beckham to make things happen from deadballs and the occasional hopeful cross.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I disagree with your Gerrard v Lampard analysis. Lampard plays well for Chelsea but up till yesterday did nothing for England. He played well yesterday though. But Gerrard is in a different league imo, he has the full package.#Tackles better.
#Defends better
#Passes better
#Has more fighting spirit
#Heads the ball better
#Has a better feel for when he can have a run at goal.As for shooting, ok they have both excellent technique and are both footed. Although lampard tends to just welly any ball which comes near him when he´s in the vicinity of the goal, and now and again some go in.
each has a different style of play which won´t fit into the team if they play together.
I can´t see England, qualifying for the EM next year as long as McLaren is the Manager.
Where do you get the idea that he does all those things "Better"? Statistics have continually proven Lampard to be the better player.
The problem is indeed that people "prefer" Gerrard. This doesn't make him better.
That "fighting spirit" is bs. Gerrard gets credit for shit by assumption. If all the players play well; "Gerrard spurred them on.". If they play shit "Gerrard wasn't there.". It's ridiculous, you might as well pull the man's pants down and say "May I?".
Statistically Lampard has almost always topped Gerrard ever season. It's not an area you can disagree in, it's fact.
Too many idiots.
How many seasons of statistical superiority will it take to prove Lampard is clearly the better player? People are just too sucked into believing Gerrard is better by the press, or believing that preferring him makes him better.
-AC
No, I forgot the site but I was linked to them by somebody.
Possibly VVD, or maybe not. Someone did. Unfortunately I cannot remember, so you'll either have to trust me or someone will have to back me up, but they exist, I have no reason to lie.
It was more than goals per game. It was successful passes, tackles made etc.
Let's not pretend that every game Gerrard plays he's noticeable.
-AC
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Gerrard's more charismatic. Mainly because Lampard looks like a human-rhino hybrid and also because his name's Frank, poor bloke.
😆 😆
Oh well they are both great players in their own right.
Statistics prove nothing though, the only thing that matters in football is goals.
What decides matches, beautiful play, 1 on 1 % of balls won, shots at goal, corners??
Goals! thats what decide matches. Greece could sing a song about that after winning the European Championship, they played boring destructive football, were dominated by Portugal in the final then they got a corner near the end and... well the rest is history.
Crouch has got an excellent goals per game ratio for England, but most people keep going on about "why is he playing for England" etc mainly because he looks weird. But he´s effective.
As for SWP on the right, well I´d prefer Lennon. One things for sure though Becks has got to go.
Rooney and Crocuh up front, with Walcott coming on to counter attack and finish the apponents off. As England have a habit of loosing touch after going a goal up.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
😆 😆Oh well they are both great players in their own right.
Statistics prove nothing though, the only thing that matters in football is goals.
What decides matches, beautiful play, 1 on 1 % of balls won, shots at goal, corners??Goals! thats what decide matches. Greece could sing a song about that after winning the European Championship, they played boring destructive football, were dominated by Portugal in the final then they got a corner near the end and... well the rest is history.
Crouch has got an excellent goals per game ratio for England, but most people keep going on about "why is he playing for England" etc mainly because he looks weird. But he´s effective.
As for SWP on the right, well I´d prefer Lennon. One things for sure though Becks has got to go.
Rooney and Crocuh up front, with Walcott coming on to counter attack and finish the apponents off. As England have a habit of loosing touch after going a goal up.
Statistics prove nothing?
Do you want to clarify that statement? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a mistake.
Statistics are proof, hence their existence, so you couldn't have meant that they prove nothing. They do not prove entertainment, which is why you are confusing who is better. Gerrard doesn't have the statistical, factual edge, but he is more preferred.
"Statistics prove nothing.", truly unbelievable.
Lampard beats Gerrard on factual statistics a lot, so technically he IS the better player. More enjoyable? To you, apparantly not. That does not give you the right to rubbish the stats.
Arsenal played some of the best football last season, some of the most successful, technically. It doesn't amount to much if you don't finish the chances, but the FACT is that they were the best at passing, for example. You can't rubbish fact away because it doesn't coincide with your preference.
-AC
Football isn´t a scientific mathematic thing you can break down and analyze.
For example Peter Crouch has had 20 games for England and scored (12) goals. Thats 0.6 goals a game.
Rooney on the other hand has 38 games & 12 goals. Thats 0.31 Goals per game.
This mean statistically that Crouch is twice as good a striker Rooney?
This is of course rubbish like all statistics.
There are some players who win hardly any 1 on 1´s, are slow, don´t see much of the ball, have few assists but have the extra sense when it comes to being at the right place at the right time, and score many goals.
Statistically the chances of there being a bomb on your airplane when you fly on holiday is say a million to 1. So if you take your own bomb on board then the chances drop even more, and if you and your family take a bomb each on board then the chances are virtually null that a bomb will go off on board (because your not gonna set yours off are you)
This is also rubbish, if theres a bomb on board its there no matter if you or all the passengers take a bomb with them, it´ll go off.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Football isn´t a scientific mathematic thing you can break down and analyze.For example Peter Crouch has had 20 games for England and scored (12) goals. Thats 0.6 goals a game.
Rooney on the other hand has 38 games & 12 goals. Thats 0.31 Goals per game.
This mean statistically that Crouch is twice as good a striker Rooney?
This is of course rubbish like all statistics.
No, let's get something straight. Making a pointless over generalisation based on your own extrapolation of statistics is dumb. Currently, those statistics prove that Crouch is a better striker than Rooney, CURRENTLY. He's a more successful striker, he's scored more goals in less games, what other conclusion is there to be drawn? We're supposed to say that Crouch isn't on better form and isn't currently a better striker, despite stats proving so, just because it's Rooney? No, that's dumb. If someone said "Play Rooney or Crouch.", I would look at the fact that Rooney, despite being felched by everyone, has not scored for a ridiculous amount of time, where as Crouch has scored more.
Crouch isn't better than Thierry Henry, but if he had scored more recently, he'd be the more on-form, successful striker at the time.
I don't like Crouch, I think he's lame, but the facts are facts. I'm not saying Lampard will forever be more successful than Gerrard statistically, I'm saying that he consistently has been, and that makes him, technically, the better player currently.
You saying "Statistics prove nothing." is completely idiotic. Their existence is to be proof, that's why stats exist, to BE proof.
Because you lack the comprehension to separate tongue stimulation of Gerrard with the FACT that stats prove Lampard to be the better player, doesn't mean you have the right to actually throw those stats out of the window. They exist and they are fact, or were fact. It may be different now, and if it is I'll acknowledge it.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
There are some players who win hardly any 1 on 1´s, are slow, don´t see much of the ball, have few assists but have the extra sense when it comes to being at the right place at the right time, and score many goals.
What's your point?
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Statistically the chances of there being a bomb on your airplane when you fly on holiday is say a million to 1. So if you take your own bomb on board then the chances drop even more, and if you and your family take a bomb each on board then the chances are virtually null that a bomb will go off on board (because your not gonna set yours off are you)This is also rubbish, if theres a bomb on board its there no matter if you or all the passengers take a bomb with them, it´ll go off.
If you'd like to stop talking utter shit for a second, let's review the point;
Statistically Lampard has been the better, more successful player more often than not, against Gerrard. Whether you like this or whether you DISLIKE it, it is fact, or was fact. It doesn't matter if Lampard is noticeable better, what matters is that recorded data shows he has been.
Do you have trouble with that notion? Like it or not, it's fact.
-AC
Insults and "silly" ramblings?
Do I need to remind you of the classic quote: "Statistics don't prove anything."? Do I really? I'm prepared to crack out that gem anytime you want, Bic.
So you can either reply to my post, which was entirely civil save for calling you an idiot for saying stats aren't proof (Which is idiotic), or you can just move on and be quiet.
-AC