Greatest English midfielder of the modern Era?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by pane123
I don't really know what to say to most of this. I still don't really understand what a football 'hipster' is. Are you saying that Guardiola won 14 trophies in 4 years by going against popular opinion? Or that he only won what he won because he copied other managers? I'm miffed.
He changed the system at Bayern because he is boss now. Do you really expect him to come in and continue using another manager's system? If Bayern are good enough to play on autopilot, do they even need a manager?
I think you are letting your opinion of Guardiola's personality cloud your judgement.
He changed the system at Bayern because he is boss now. Do you really expect him to come in and continue using another manager's system? If Bayern are good enough to play on autopilot, do they even need a manager?
I think you are letting your opinion of Guardiola's personality cloud your judgement.
When did I say that Guardiola is a poor manager or doesn't know about football? If you want to say something about what I wrote, at least read what I wrote properly. If you didn't know what to say about what I wrote and then what you write about what I've wrote is very misinformed, then there's probably a simple reason that you didn't know what to say about most of it. I think you may know the reason why.
When did I say that he only won because he copied other managers? He had his own ideas, but he wasn't really a revolutionary as people say, since Barca were playing that possession football for years, he just tinkered with it a bit and improved the players work rate.
He could use another managers system if he wanted to. How many managers do you see doing that? Ancelotti has changed a bit at Madrid but for the most part they rely on their strength in counter attacking, which was what Mourinho instilled to them. Chelsea the same story post Mourinho, Barcelona the same story post cruyff.
In fact, the final sentence about bias clouding judgement is exactly what I'm alluding to with Guardiola and what he says about his best players. Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something. That's all I'm trying to say wrt Scholes.
Original post by manchesterunited15
Jam, stop sitting on the fence. Say how you really feel
Lol, I choose Gerrard, although it's close and depends on the system you play.
You'd probably want a guy who pops up with goals and assists but can also control a game. Lamps obviously ****s on everybody stats wise but can't control a game as well, although he was essentially a second striker to pick up on poor clearances and get into goalscoring positions via surging late runs.
Gerrard could do what Lamps did, but he spent most of the game setting up Torres with Alonso via over the top balls or weighted through ball passes and he was in a ****ter team so would get less goals and assists via the lack of personnel alone.
Scholes was playing in a 4-4-2 system, he needed to save the energy for defending as well as attacking, it's no surprise he didn't score as much as Lamps/Gerrard did especially in Scholes latter years.
So I think that by default, gerrard probably has the balance between Lamps and Scholes. So I choose Gerrard for this reason.
Inb4 somebody uses international level.
Original post by jam277
When did I say that Guardiola is a poor manager or doesn't know about football? If you want to say something about what I wrote, at least read what I wrote properly. If you didn't know what to say about what I wrote and then what you write about what I've wrote is very misinformed, then there's probably a simple reason that you didn't know what to say about most of it. I think you may know the reason why.
When did I say that he only won because he copied other managers? He had his own ideas, but he wasn't really a revolutionary as people say, since Barca were playing that possession football for years, he just tinkered with it a bit and improved the players work rate.
He could use another managers system if he wanted to. How many managers do you see doing that? Ancelotti has changed a bit at Madrid but for the most part they rely on their strength in counter attacking, which was what Mourinho instilled to them. Chelsea the same story post Mourinho, Barcelona the same story post cruyff.
In fact, the final sentence about bias clouding judgement is exactly what I'm alluding to with Guardiola and what he says about his best players. Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something. That's all I'm trying to say wrt Scholes.
When did I say that he only won because he copied other managers? He had his own ideas, but he wasn't really a revolutionary as people say, since Barca were playing that possession football for years, he just tinkered with it a bit and improved the players work rate.
He could use another managers system if he wanted to. How many managers do you see doing that? Ancelotti has changed a bit at Madrid but for the most part they rely on their strength in counter attacking, which was what Mourinho instilled to them. Chelsea the same story post Mourinho, Barcelona the same story post cruyff.
In fact, the final sentence about bias clouding judgement is exactly what I'm alluding to with Guardiola and what he says about his best players. Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something. That's all I'm trying to say wrt Scholes.
When did I say that you said that Guardiola is a poor manager? If you want to say something about what I wrote, at least read what I wrote properly.
This could go on forever and you seem up for an argument. Anyway, after your rather long posts, I still don't know what a hipster is, or why Guardiola is one. Are you going to tell me what it is or not?
Have all your posts just been a long winded attempt at saying, "Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something."?
Read two pages of the same posts. The question might as well be which team do you support?
Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool.
Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool.
Original post by whydoidothis?
Read two pages of the same posts. The question might as well be which team do you support?
Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool.
Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool.
Arsenal is my favourite English team. Not everyone in here supports one of those 3 clubs, but you are correct to an extent.
People saying Lampard - for CLUB I'd agree but the second he puts on an England shirt he becomes utter pants, so there's no way he can be considered.
Original post by jam277
When did I say that Guardiola is a poor manager or doesn't know about football? If you want to say something about what I wrote, at least read what I wrote properly. If you didn't know what to say about what I wrote and then what you write about what I've wrote is very misinformed, then there's probably a simple reason that you didn't know what to say about most of it. I think you may know the reason why.
When did I say that he only won because he copied other managers? He had his own ideas, but he wasn't really a revolutionary as people say, since Barca were playing that possession football for years, he just tinkered with it a bit and improved the players work rate.
He could use another managers system if he wanted to. How many managers do you see doing that? Ancelotti has changed a bit at Madrid but for the most part they rely on their strength in counter attacking, which was what Mourinho instilled to them. Chelsea the same story post Mourinho, Barcelona the same story post cruyff.
In fact, the final sentence about bias clouding judgement is exactly what I'm alluding to with Guardiola and what he says about his best players. Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something. That's all I'm trying to say wrt Scholes.
When did I say that he only won because he copied other managers? He had his own ideas, but he wasn't really a revolutionary as people say, since Barca were playing that possession football for years, he just tinkered with it a bit and improved the players work rate.
He could use another managers system if he wanted to. How many managers do you see doing that? Ancelotti has changed a bit at Madrid but for the most part they rely on their strength in counter attacking, which was what Mourinho instilled to them. Chelsea the same story post Mourinho, Barcelona the same story post cruyff.
In fact, the final sentence about bias clouding judgement is exactly what I'm alluding to with Guardiola and what he says about his best players. Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something. That's all I'm trying to say wrt Scholes.
I get what you're saying, but it's not just Guardiola. It's so many top players. Are they all football hipsters?
Original post by jam277
Lol, I choose Gerrard, although it's close and depends on the system you play.
You'd probably want a guy who pops up with goals and assists but can also control a game. Lamps obviously ****s on everybody stats wise but can't control a game as well, although he was essentially a second striker to pick up on poor clearances and get into goalscoring positions via surging late runs.
Gerrard could do what Lamps did, but he spent most of the game setting up Torres with Alonso via over the top balls or weighted through ball passes and he was in a ****ter team so would get less goals and assists via the lack of personnel alone.
Scholes was playing in a 4-4-2 system, he needed to save the energy for defending as well as attacking, it's no surprise he didn't score as much as Lamps/Gerrard did especially in Scholes latter years.
So I think that by default, gerrard probably has the balance between Lamps and Scholes. So I choose Gerrard for this reason.
Inb4 somebody uses international level.
You'd probably want a guy who pops up with goals and assists but can also control a game. Lamps obviously ****s on everybody stats wise but can't control a game as well, although he was essentially a second striker to pick up on poor clearances and get into goalscoring positions via surging late runs.
Gerrard could do what Lamps did, but he spent most of the game setting up Torres with Alonso via over the top balls or weighted through ball passes and he was in a ****ter team so would get less goals and assists via the lack of personnel alone.
Scholes was playing in a 4-4-2 system, he needed to save the energy for defending as well as attacking, it's no surprise he didn't score as much as Lamps/Gerrard did especially in Scholes latter years.
So I think that by default, gerrard probably has the balance between Lamps and Scholes. So I choose Gerrard for this reason.
Inb4 somebody uses international level.
Scholes has 107 in 499. Gerrard has 111 in 471. That's a pretty small difference tbh.
Original post by whydoidothis?
Read two pages of the same posts. The question might as well be which team do you support?
Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool.
Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool.
Even Chelsea fans don't normally say Lampard
Original post by manchesterunited15
Even Chelsea fans don't normally say Lampard
This is true. I asked a few of my friends the other day and they said Gerrad. Frank didn't even get a mention. Though he has a prolific goal scoring record, I've never really rated him.
Original post by Over2you
This is true. I asked a few of my friends the other day and they said Gerrad. Frank didn't even get a mention. Though he has a prolific goal scoring record, I've never really rated him.
Lol.
Lampard was a class act and the definition of consistency, don't get it twisted.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Deshi
Lol.
Lampard was a class act, don't get it twisted.
Lampard was a class act, don't get it twisted.
Soz forgot to add, as highly as people do.
Original post by jam277
the whole Lahm at DM thing was first started by Mourinho, who did that with Coentrao in the 2011-12 season.
Not really related to the discussion (in which btw, Gerrard will become the clear winner when he wins the league this year, and is the winner regardless) but Coentrao's ability to play in midfield was heralded when he was signed. He was signed as a very versatile player, a defensive floater, capable of playing defensive mid with Alonso, as well as both fullback positions and as a left wing. It was already known from his time at Benfica that he could play in midfield.
There was a Goal.com article on it - Mourinho played a versatile player in one of his many positions, it's nothing special. This is not the article that I'm referring to, but it also has Madrid playing Coentrao in midfield - written less than a week after he signed for them. Likewise this article. I know it's a minor point but it's one that you've made in another thread as well, so thought I'd step in. I can't find the actual article I'm thinking of but it might be that second one - either way both are evidence of Coentrao's versatility, and him playing in midfield wasn't a Mourinho invention.
That said, I don't rate Guardiola's moving of Lahm into CDM as particularly groundbreaking. For sure it utilises a very clever and all round perfect player in a role that benefits the team better, but I don't think it's new or revolutionary in terms of football as a whole. Again, it's worked for his team and hipsters will go ham about it, but it wasn't a Mourinho invention.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Stalin
Owen Hargreaves
He's Canadian.
Original post by manchesterunited15
I get what you're saying, but it's not just Guardiola. It's so many top players. Are they all football hipsters?
Scholes has 107 in 499. Gerrard has 111 in 471. That's a pretty small difference tbh.
Scholes has 107 in 499. Gerrard has 111 in 471. That's a pretty small difference tbh.
With the other people, I appreciate their opinions, he was a very intellegent player who could control the game, but it all depends on what you wanted from the player. E.g. do you think he'd have been as influential as Lampard was at Chelsea being the prime goalscorer from 2004-2010?
I was talking assist and Goals, not just goals because they have a similar goal tally. I think that the whole Scholes appreciation only happened after his England retirement and England were consistently underperforming.
Goal wise they're the same but assist wise Gerrard has over double the amount of assists in less appearances. In the prem, Gerrard has 95 assists and Scholes has 45.
http://www.statbunker.com/alltimestats/AllTimeCompetitionMostAssists?comp_code=EPL
Gerrard ****s on him in the assists tally so is therefore more effective stats wise.
Lampard obviously ****s on both assist and goals wise but he couldn't control a game as well. As much as I'd hate to say it, Gerrard has the best of both worlds and because of this, Gerrard wins.
Original post by matchdayG
Not really related to the discussion (in which btw, Gerrard will become the clear winner when he wins the league this year, and is the winner regardless) but Coentrao's ability to play in midfield was heralded when he was signed. He was signed as a very versatile player, a defensive floater, capable of playing defensive mid with Alonso, as well as both fullback positions and as a left wing. It was already known from his time at Benfica that he could play in midfield.
There was a Goal.com article on it - Mourinho played a versatile player in one of his many positions, it's nothing special. This is not the article that I'm referring to, but it also has Madrid playing Coentrao in midfield - written less than a week after he signed for them. Likewise this article. I know it's a minor point but it's one that you've made in another thread as well, so thought I'd step in. I can't find the actual article I'm thinking of but it might be that second one - either way both are evidence of Coentrao's versatility, and him playing in midfield wasn't a Mourinho invention.
That said, I don't rate Guardiola's moving of Lahm into CDM as particularly groundbreaking. For sure it utilises a very clever and all round perfect player in a role that benefits the team better, but I don't think it's new or revolutionary in terms of football as a whole. Again, it's worked for his team and hipsters will go ham about it, but it wasn't a Mourinho invention.
There was a Goal.com article on it - Mourinho played a versatile player in one of his many positions, it's nothing special. This is not the article that I'm referring to, but it also has Madrid playing Coentrao in midfield - written less than a week after he signed for them. Likewise this article. I know it's a minor point but it's one that you've made in another thread as well, so thought I'd step in. I can't find the actual article I'm thinking of but it might be that second one - either way both are evidence of Coentrao's versatility, and him playing in midfield wasn't a Mourinho invention.
That said, I don't rate Guardiola's moving of Lahm into CDM as particularly groundbreaking. For sure it utilises a very clever and all round perfect player in a role that benefits the team better, but I don't think it's new or revolutionary in terms of football as a whole. Again, it's worked for his team and hipsters will go ham about it, but it wasn't a Mourinho invention.
Didn't say it was a Mourinho invention, just was saying that many people have done this before and that's the most recent example I could think of.
Same way Benitez used Luiz as a DM. Or how Sterling plays behind the striker.
Original post by pane123
When did I say that you said that Guardiola is a poor manager? If you want to say something about what I wrote, at least read what I wrote properly.
This could go on forever and you seem up for an argument. Anyway, after your rather long posts, I still don't know what a hipster is, or why Guardiola is one. Are you going to tell me what it is or not?
Have all your posts just been a long winded attempt at saying, "Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something."?
This could go on forever and you seem up for an argument. Anyway, after your rather long posts, I still don't know what a hipster is, or why Guardiola is one. Are you going to tell me what it is or not?
Have all your posts just been a long winded attempt at saying, "Don't take what somebody says as gospel, just because they're good at something."?
That first statement is embarrasing on my behalf. I'm not saying that he went against popular opinion or that all he did was copy other people's ideas. He had his own ideas and tbh new ideas spark from old ones. I just don't think he's as innovative as people like to make him seem. He just built on a system at Barcelona. I think that's why he's changed the system totally at Bayern.
A hipster is basically somebody who goes against what is normal for the sake of being different, even if it is to the detriment of what he's trying to do. So say in 2011-12, Guardiola has won a double playing some of the best football in the planet, he then decides to tinker with the system and play 3atb, play fabregas on the wing and other weird systems for the sake of it. Now he plays Lahm in central midfield, plays Javi Martinez at CB(although he did that for bilbao) despite having an excellent season in central midfield, makes that Bayern team play possession football when they're more suited to their old counter attacking style and he basically does what he wants, rather than what needs to be done.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by matchdayG
Not really related to the discussion (in which btw, Gerrard will become the clear winner when he wins the league this year, and is the winner regardless)
Can you explain this part to me? I don't really understand this argument because Scholes and Lampard have won many league titles and been just as
Influential in the campaigns as Gerrard has this season (Lampard more so in 04-06).
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jam277
With the other people, I appreciate their opinions, he was a very intellegent player who could control the game, but it all depends on what you wanted from the player. E.g. do you think he'd have been as influential as Lampard was at Chelsea being the prime goalscorer from 2004-2010?
I was talking assist and Goals, not just goals because they have a similar goal tally. I think that the whole Scholes appreciation only happened after his England retirement and England were consistently underperforming.
Goal wise they're the same but assist wise Gerrard has over double the amount of assists in less appearances. In the prem, Gerrard has 95 assists and Scholes has 45.
http://www.statbunker.com/alltimestats/AllTimeCompetitionMostAssists?comp_code=EPL
Gerrard ****s on him in the assists tally so is therefore more effective stats wise.
Lampard obviously ****s on both assist and goals wise but he couldn't control a game as well. As much as I'd hate to say it, Gerrard has the best of both worlds and because of this, Gerrard wins.
I was talking assist and Goals, not just goals because they have a similar goal tally. I think that the whole Scholes appreciation only happened after his England retirement and England were consistently underperforming.
Goal wise they're the same but assist wise Gerrard has over double the amount of assists in less appearances. In the prem, Gerrard has 95 assists and Scholes has 45.
http://www.statbunker.com/alltimestats/AllTimeCompetitionMostAssists?comp_code=EPL
Gerrard ****s on him in the assists tally so is therefore more effective stats wise.
Lampard obviously ****s on both assist and goals wise but he couldn't control a game as well. As much as I'd hate to say it, Gerrard has the best of both worlds and because of this, Gerrard wins.
Only because you're looking at it in that way. You could also look at it as he can't control a game like Scholes, and he can't post the stats that Lampard can, so he loses in both ways.
But anyway, there's not much in it between Scholes and Gerrard.
England should've done much better with those three. A 4-2-3-1 with Lampard being the middle one in the 3 maybe could've worked.
Rooney
Cole (?) Lampard Beckham
Scholes Gerrard
Cole (?) Lampard Beckham
Scholes Gerrard
In fact, with the defence we had as well, that's a pretty incredible team. Bloody Sven
If Seaman was 5 years younger and Giggs was English we'd have won something.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by TRS-T
He's Canadian.
Original post by jam277
So what, SAF was the best ever premier league manager, yet came out with ridiculous comments that United are a contender for the title while 10-15 points behind Liverpool this season..
Because Manchester United never overturned a 12 point deficit in the title race?
It is never over till it's over.
Original post by Zürich
They are hipsters. The same people who call from the rooftops about Pirlo to see who's listening, naturally anybody who rates Pirlo must know about football. That's not to say he isnt brilliant but just the obsession certain people have with these kinds of players. If someone says ''that Cristiano Ronaldo can play a bit'' then these people would guffaw probably
They are hipsters. The same people who call from the rooftops about Pirlo to see who's listening, naturally anybody who rates Pirlo must know about football. That's not to say he isnt brilliant but just the obsession certain people have with these kinds of players. If someone says ''that Cristiano Ronaldo can play a bit'' then these people would guffaw probably
A real hipster answer is Bryan Robson or David Platt. Scholes is too mainstream.
Though I agree. As much as Scholes endeared himself, and as great a footballer as he was, I can't say he had the tackling ability nor the natural drive and leadership that could make him THE best midfielder.
Ultimately the two are quite different midfielders. I don't think it's possible to chose a definitive best, if I really had to chose, I'd go with Gerrard simply because I believe he could do more in a poorer team, and was a natural midfielder (Scholes was also a forward dropped into midfield).
Original post by pane123
Definitely Gazza, then. Perhaps not as decorated as other players, but in terms of natural talent he's the best there was.
Not as decorated? He has more league titles than Gerrard tbf
Had he continued that form after the 1991 injury, rather than having a mixed time in Italy and then going to the SPL, yes. But his injury in 1991, and pre-existing issues, destroyed him. He once called himself one of the greats but he never was.
His career was still a relatively short time ago, so his greatness is still fresh in peoples minds. But in 50 years time he'll be little more than a footnote and that's very sad.
Original post by River85
Because Manchester United never overturned a 12 point deficit in the title race?
It is never over till it's over.
It is never over till it's over.
Or threw away an 8 point lead in March
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by River85
Because Manchester United never overturned a 12 point deficit in the title race?
It is never over till it's over.
It is never over till it's over.
While that's true, the tone in which Fergie said it. He conceded that Arsenal, City, Everton and Chelsea were contenders for the title, but not Liverpool.
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/455867/Sir-Alex-snubs-Liverpool-but-claims-Man-Utd-still-one-of-five-or-six-who-can-win-title
That's clearly a bitter mentality.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Which former players would excel in today's game?
- What do I need to consider when I move to the UK?
- Who is the best ALL ROUND footballer at the moment?
- Which country has the best literature?
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- A-Level English Literature essay
- Is Messi now the undisputed greatest of all time?
- English literature Tempest essay
- What 3 albums would you take if you were going to be stuck on a desert island?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Era
- art history
- How is the supernatural presented in Macbeth?
- GCSE English Literature Macbeth Ambition essay
- 1989 (Taylor’s Version) sold 693,000 copies on vinyl in its 1st week
- aqa gsce english literature
- Halal jobs for Muslims in Finance or IB
- How to narrow down history course?
- History coursework ideas
- Need help with choosing a topic for dissertation
- Anyone else applied for History MA at UCL?
