Scholes or Gerrard?

Don't normally come on 'general' forums, you'll find me in the afc section every day though..

Just wanted the forum's opinion on this vote.

Thanks.

Gerrard at his best v Scholes at his best. Vote.

Scholes for me. In his prime, he could thread a camel through the eye of a needle. Blindfolded.

Samuel: He doesn't come to the General Section often, but when he does he posts threads that don't belong there.

:vagi:

Stevie G
Scholes may be better technically, but stevie plays with heart and soul and pours everything he has into liverpool.

who can ever forget 2005? He made Djimi Traore a champions league winner!

Scholes for me.

Gerrard was great, but I feel he is too undisciplined to play in center midfield and have to be played as almost a second striker because of this.

So, his famed all around game, it wasnt really what I think it is percieved as. Yes, he can tackle, pass, shoot, run and so on, but he has to play so far forward just to have a fully functional team and when thats the case, you dont get that all around game.

Scholes mastered his position and he is really easy to use and put in your team.

I am not really sure when Scholes was at his best though, was it early in his career when he had less overall touches per game but got into the box and scored goals...or when he limited his runs forward but emphasised a great control over the game?

Scholes is overrated since Zidane called him "the best". He was a good player, but nowhere near Stevie or even Lamps. McManaman was better than all of the IMO.

At their best, I prefer Gerrard. But Scholes has been more consistent for a longer period of time.

zece wrote:Scholes is overrated since Zidane called him "the best". He was a good player, but nowhere near Stevie or even Lamps. McManaman was better than all of the IMO.

id agree with that, but obiously the rest of your post is nonsense

At 16, you probably havent even seen Scholes in his prime..you shouldnt even have an opinion.

When was his prime? Next to Keane I'm guessing....If so I have no comment.

Stevie is different though.....him and Ballack are the most complete midfilders I personnaly have ever watched, and to me Stevie brings more dynamism, passion and moments of magic.

Good point on him being too indiscipline, I'll say it's true....but I'll also say it was more out of a desire and belief to do everything than than emerging from a sort of tactical indiscipline.

It's become a joke now....but the best box to box player of his generation.

I am not really sure, its almost like 2 seperate players...pre 28 Scholes and Post 30 Scholes.

I agree about Stevie, other than best box to box...thats PV4.

Defensive box to box: Viera
Moderate box to box Ballack
Attacking box to box : Gerrard.

Seems about right.

Imagine that as a 3 man midfield.

Someone has to hold, wont work.

But yes, your right...but overall, in order, I go Ballack, Patrick and then Stevie.

I am a gerrard fanboy, but i think I will give the vote to Scholes because at his best, he was something else. His passing still is a joy to watch and the way he controlled the play from deep and set the tempo. He is right up there with the likes of Pirlo,Riquelme,Xavi.

The Franchise wrote:Someone has to hold, wont work.

But yes, your right...but overall, in order, I go Ballack, Patrick and then Stevie.

is that ballack ahead of patrick...

The Franchise wrote:Someone has to hold, wont work.

But yes, your right...but overall, in order, I go Ballack, Patrick and then Stevie.

5-3-2 :dance:

Sorry RG, I think so. Cant ignore the difference in goalscoring.

Still wont work rag..cant leave the backline free of protection.

All 3 of them played with a holder to make their runs work. Someone wont be playing their usual game.

That's the thing...you're thinking they need to run at the same time.

Viera..
.........Ballack.
..................Gerrard



.....................Viera
..........Ballack.......
..Gerrard..............

It's all about deferring defensive responsibility by each accomodating for the others runs.

Viera goes forwad Gerrard and Ballak drop back and vice versa...

The central centre back will play just ahead of the other two and be given the tasks of interceptions and distribution.

zece wrote:Scholes is overrated since Zidane called him "the best". He was a good player, but nowhere near Stevie or even Lamps. McManaman was better than all of the IMO.

Good Lord.

No, I am not. But football doesnt work so simply.

There wil be times in the game when they are all out of position because none of them will be protecting the defence, because they is bound to be confusion about timing of runs.

Look at Lampard and Gerrard for England when they played together, everyone said they would take turns to attack, everyone said they will figure it out, they said they would...but they never did.

The Franchise wrote:At 16, you probably havent even seen Scholes in his prime..you shouldnt even have an opinion.

I saw some matches of him from 96-04(downloaded them), and that's my opinion.

I still dont understand why people compare these two players. I dont see anything that common apart from the fact that they are English to have a very solid argument.

Both are very different players, I respect both of them in their own positions and contribution to the team.

Gerrard for me, the guy is class and always have been a fan.

I'd have Scholes in my team at his peak over Gerrard everyday all day.