Lampard vs. Gerrard analysed

DS wrote:If Gerrard had a left foot he would be an option on LW but he doesnt really have one so he is very predictable in coming inside , neither is he going to beat his man through his dribbling trickery, RW yeah he can play there , he can outpace his opponent ,go outside come in.

Yeah. I think Walcot will become a supersub once J Cole is back... gerrard could take the RW role. At least, that is one option I can see Capello using. Rooney as a support striker with Lampard behind him works - their undertanding is reaching a whole new level.

Parks lives wrote:I took away the assist after considering the goal he cost us when he decided to miss an open goal when a more measured approach could of seen him scored or a more unselfish approach could of seen him set up a team mate.

Spanker I hate to tell you simple things again but NO footballer in the world would have passed in that position

The only thing he did wrong was miss the chance

Paul Ince to Brian McClair, 94 FA cup final against Chelsea.

One point to make. As annoyed I am that Bridge gets called (think Warnock and Shorey desaerve a go) he played better than Cole did on sat. The third goal came from him carrying the ball to deep into the opposition half. He provided good width for most of the game.

COTR wrote:

Glenn Hysén wrote:are we? I thought the argument was that they can't play together in central midfield in a 4-4-2

Heskey and Rooney looks like a thumbs up, Walcott and Barry have played their way into the team which means it's a straight fight between Cole, Gerrard and Lampard for the final 2 places.

I don't think Walcott has played his way into the team at all. In fact Capello should really be thinking about putting gerrard in his place when Joe cole comes back

Barry's place is also far from safe as he hasn't played well for a while now. A fit hargreaves would do a better job than him but I guess that is like saying a fit Harry Kewell would have been a superstar

Wherever Gerrard was played yesterday it seemed to work because he was able to link up with rooney close to the belarus box which is really where he struts his stuff

NO NO NO NO NO!

NO!

COTR wrote:

Parks lives wrote:I took away the assist after considering the goal he cost us when he decided to miss an open goal when a more measured approach could of seen him scored or a more unselfish approach could of seen him set up a team mate.

Spanker I hate to tell you simple things again but NO footballer in the world would have passed in that position

The only thing he did wrong was miss the chance

Jan Vennegoor have Hesselink?

Jimmy Floyd of Hasselbaink?

Parks lives wrote:I think Bluenine just wants to prove that the Great Capello can even get Gerrard and Lampard playing well together.

Our midfield was abysmal for most of the game last night, Belarus, yes Belarus were running rings round us for most of the first half.

Good to see someone else not buying all the hype.

It was a truly awful performance from the England team and it was only Rooney's amazingness that made it looked what it wasn't. Lampard was particularly horrible in that he would positively demand the ball in good CM positions only to pass back to one of the defenders or hoof the ball away. It was just unmatchable.

All the people that are saying its OK because England won can f@ck off. Its what they said last time round. The team would apparently play well in the WC without having ever played well previous to it.

And its not Just playing good attacking football. Its Capello, I know that ain't gonna happen, but I expect a controlled solid game. Something that will never happen with those two fake CMs playing. Belarus were running around the ball playing easy football. If they had good defenders and a good striker they would have easily won.

Them playing well while Gerrard is on the left is meaningless, because he won't stay there. Would you pick him there ahead of Cole or Young? No. And even if he did stay there he would only whinge about it.

shazlx wrote:

Parks lives wrote:I think Bluenine just wants to prove that the Great Capello can even get Gerrard and Lampard playing well together.

Our midfield was abysmal for most of the game last night, Belarus, yes Belarus were running rings round us for most of the first half.

Good to see someone else not buying all the hype.

It was a truly awful performance from the England team and it was only Rooney's amazingness that made it looked what it wasn't. Lampard was particularly horrible in that he would positively demand the ball in good CM positions only to pass back to one of the defenders or hoof the ball away. It was just unmatchable.

All the people that are saying its OK because England won can f@ck off. Its what they said last time round. The team would apparently play well in the WC without having ever played well previous to it.

And its not Just playing good attacking football. Its Capello, I know that ain't gonna happen, but I expect a controlled solid game. Something that will never happen with those two fake CMs playing. Belarus were running around the ball playing easy football. If they had good defenders and a good striker they would have easily won.

You are ridiculously OTT in your negativity Shaz unless you are prepared to accept that there are no teams anywhere in world football who meet your standards

No international teams go to places like croatia and belarus and perform any better than england did

I'm not saying they are the best team in the world, rather they have returned to the level they were at from the sven days ie top 8 in the world and can beat any team on any given day but will fall agonisingly short when the next major tournament comes around

I can't remember a qualification campaign where we have qualified with games to spare. Whatever you think of our 'performances' it's hard to deny that this time it looks likely that we will. That'll do for me.

COTR wrote:

shazlx wrote:

Parks lives wrote:I think Bluenine just wants to prove that the Great Capello can even get Gerrard and Lampard playing well together.

Our midfield was abysmal for most of the game last night, Belarus, yes Belarus were running rings round us for most of the first half.

Good to see someone else not buying all the hype.

It was a truly awful performance from the England team and it was only Rooney's amazingness that made it looked what it wasn't. Lampard was particularly horrible in that he would positively demand the ball in good CM positions only to pass back to one of the defenders or hoof the ball away. It was just unmatchable.

All the people that are saying its OK because England won can f@ck off. Its what they said last time round. The team would apparently play well in the WC without having ever played well previous to it.

And its not Just playing good attacking football. Its Capello, I know that ain't gonna happen, but I expect a controlled solid game. Something that will never happen with those two fake CMs playing. Belarus were running around the ball playing easy football. If they had good defenders and a good striker they would have easily won.

You are ridiculously OTT in your negativity Shaz unless you are prepared to accept that there are no teams anywhere in world football who meet your standards

No international teams go to places like croatia and belarus and perform any better than england did

I'm not saying they are the best team in the world, rather they have returned to the level they were at from the sven days ie top 8 in the world and can beat any team on any given day but will fall agonisingly short when the next major tournament comes around

Good to see some level headed comments here!

So...

Was Belarus's goal better than Argentina's at the world cup?

Same number of passes I think and more of Belarus's were close to the box

Tweedle wrote:So...

Was Belarus's goal better than Argentina's at the world cup?

Same number of passes I think and more of Belarus's were close to the box

I think the Argie one was better coz of more one-touch passing, but the belarus one was a beauty too

I'll see the game tomorrow. Like the Kazakhstan match I also saw later it is great to read what people say on here before watching the game. If the home side's goal was that good and it brought them back in the game then England as a side had to of done something right even in midfield to come back and win. If you think Gerrard and Lampard are expected to both play the same way like at their clubs you must have a screw loose. But if they can produce for others and also pressure and score once in a while in a winning game then the job is done.

Brian2468 wrote:I'll see the game tomorrow. Like the Kazakhstan match I also saw later it is great to read what people say on here before watching the game. If the home side's goal was that good and it brought them back in the game then England as a side had to of done something right even in midfield to come back and win. If you think Gerrard and Lampard are expected to both play the same way like at their clubs you must have a screw loose. But if they can produce for others and also pressure and score once in a while in a winning game then the job is done.

I suspected it for a while that parky has a screw loose

We often get outpassed by teams like Belarus, even Kazackstan were comfortable for long periods of the first half last week, AT HOME. Yes we went on to win the games but mainly as these teams are full of part timers who get knackered after 1 half of football. Yes we did well against Croatia who are much better outfit but even then it was 1-1 before they got a man sent off.

Our last 3 games have pretty much been thanks to Rooney and Heskey imo. The fact we are even conceding against these teams is bad representation of the midfield and defence. Soon as we come up against a really good side with that midfield I think we'd struggle to get any control in the game and we'd be far too reliant on the front 2 to get us out of jail.

Kazakstan were part timers and the result, although good on paper, really wasn't what we were all expected.

Personally I thought we did very well against Belarus though. As Bluey identified - this isn't the equivalent of Man Utd playing Dinamo Minsk, or even Dinamo Kiev. This is the selection of the best 11 players in their country from their own league as well as many others. And there were some very good players in that squad. Their goal was of the highest calibre and if Argentina had scored it in a world cup it would surely have been placed amongst the best ten goals of all time.

We were never great ball retainers but we're far better under Capello than we have been for a long time.

I'm sure we've all got in our head the midfield that we'd like to see play (I'm guessing we're all pretty much agreed on the back four and strikers now) but I trust Capello's decisions. He's been there and done it, and if he truly thinks that Gerrard and Lampard can play in the same team, with Gerrard on the left, then I'm willing for him to give it a go - as long as we still keep getting the results.

FYI, Tweedle's dream midfield would be something like this:

SWP----Barry---Hargreaves----Young = lots of pace faclitated by two ball winning DMs

Tweedle wrote:

FYI, Tweedle's dream midfield would be something like this:

SWP----Barry---Hargreaves----Young = lots of pace faclitated by two ball winning DMs

No leader (in football terms) in that midfield, someone who can, to use a horrible cliche, take the game by the scruff of the neck.

Not enough big game experience...only Hargreaves plays in the CL.

No goal threat or creativity from central midfield, meaning opposition teams can shut down a lot of the threat by simply focusing on Young and SWP, because they know it'll always go wide to these two. To try and overcome that and create something through the middle, Rooney will have to drop deep and that then reduces his effectiveness by taking him further away from goal and Heskey.

One of Lampard and Gerrard must play in any flat 4 midfield for the England team.

kas wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

FYI, Tweedle's dream midfield would be something like this:

SWP----Barry---Hargreaves----Young = lots of pace faclitated by two ball winning DMs

No leader (in football terms) in that midfield, someone who can, to use a horrible cliche, take the game by the scruff of the neck.

Not enough big game experience...only Hargreaves plays in the CL.

No goal threat or creativity from central midfield, meaning opposition teams can shut down a lot of the threat by simply focusing on Young and SWP, because they know it'll always go wide to these two. To try and overcome that and create something through the middle, Rooney will have to drop deep and that then reduces his effectiveness by taking him further away from goal and Heskey.

One of Lampard and Gerrard must play in any flat 4 midfield for the England team.

Barry and HArgreaves aren't the equivalent of Lee Carsley Kas. Barry got over ten goals last season I think. IF you like you can throw Joe Cole or David Bentley in there

Tweedle wrote:

kas wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

FYI, Tweedle's dream midfield would be something like this:

SWP----Barry---Hargreaves----Young = lots of pace faclitated by two ball winning DMs

No leader (in football terms) in that midfield, someone who can, to use a horrible cliche, take the game by the scruff of the neck.

Not enough big game experience...only Hargreaves plays in the CL.

No goal threat or creativity from central midfield, meaning opposition teams can shut down a lot of the threat by simply focusing on Young and SWP, because they know it'll always go wide to these two. To try and overcome that and create something through the middle, Rooney will have to drop deep and that then reduces his effectiveness by taking him further away from goal and Heskey.

One of Lampard and Gerrard must play in any flat 4 midfield for the England team.

Barry and HArgreaves aren't the equivalent of Lee Carsley Kas. Barry got over ten goals last season I think. IF you like you can throw Joe Cole or David Bentley in there

were not most of barry's goals penaltys by any chance?

I like barry but he was the worst midfielder in the last couple of games, and hargreaves has been injured a lot and cannot even get into the manu team.

110% wrote:
were not most of barry's goals penaltys by any chance?

SHHH!!!!

I like barry but he was the worst midfielder in the last couple of games, and hargreaves has been injured a lot and cannot even get into the manu team.

Are you saying that neither should play? If that were the case we'd be back to the wonderous Lampard-Gerrard axis

Tweedle wrote:

kas wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

FYI, Tweedle's dream midfield would be something like this:

SWP----Barry---Hargreaves----Young = lots of pace faclitated by two ball winning DMs

No leader (in football terms) in that midfield, someone who can, to use a horrible cliche, take the game by the scruff of the neck.

Not enough big game experience...only Hargreaves plays in the CL.

No goal threat or creativity from central midfield, meaning opposition teams can shut down a lot of the threat by simply focusing on Young and SWP, because they know it'll always go wide to these two. To try and overcome that and create something through the middle, Rooney will have to drop deep and that then reduces his effectiveness by taking him further away from goal and Heskey.

One of Lampard and Gerrard must play in any flat 4 midfield for the England team.

Barry and HArgreaves aren't the equivalent of Lee Carsley Kas. Barry got over ten goals last season I think. IF you like you can throw Joe Cole or David Bentley in there

But is Barry going to play the final through ball for Rooney to latch onto and score?

Is he going to make runs into the box and/or play 1-2s with Heskey to finish past the keeper?

I'd also say...is he going to dribble past a man to try and make space for a shot or pass to a striker, which I feel is a key requirement of any attacking midfielder, but Lampard/Gerrard themselves can't do that very well so it doesn't matter in Barry/Hargreaves case.

This is MY formation Kas. As I've said - there's little or no chance of it being played so we just won't know.

Instead we should be discussing the permutations that capello has chosen to play.

Croatia - no Gerrard. Wn 4-1
Kazakstan - 3 prongued with Gerrard and Lampard advanced. Wn 5-1
Belarus - Gerrard on left.

I think we can all agree that the KAzakstan tactic was a mistake. The issue is:

- With Gerrard should be dropped.
- Whether Gerrard should play on the left at the expense of Cole.
- Whether Gerrard should play on the right at the expense of Walcott/SWP
- Whether Capello might (god forbid) play them as a central midfield pairing.
- OR maybe Gerrard could play in a 4-3-3 alongside Rooney and off HEskey

Shall we also get this year a debate between the best English midfielder and Gerrard?

No point. Gerrard is no longer a midfielder. Keep up Ricardo.

Six wrote:No point. Gerrard is no longer a midfielder. Keep up Ricardo.

Did I say somewhere he is, if he's not?

So you like comparing players who don't play in the same position?

Is Lampard better than Casillas?

Six wrote:So you like comparing players who don't play in the same position?

Is Lampard better than Casillas?

You guys love to debate about it, don't shoot the messenger mate...

Ricardo Wetzel wrote:

Six wrote:So you like comparing players who don't play in the same position?

Is Lampard better than Casillas?

You guys love to debate about it, don't shoot the messenger mate...

Seems you love it more, bumping a 9-month dormant thread!