Beckham Stands Down As Captain

[therockbox]

Gotta agree with Liam here. Gerrard, whilst an excellent club captain, hasen't so much as come close to showing the same kind of form for his country and has done nothing to warrent the captaincy.

[fineintent]

Terry Butcher and Bobby Moore were excellent captains, who led their defensive line brilliantly. Neither blessed with pace, but huge amounts of bravery and I think Terry fits the bill perfectly.

[therockbox]

I have no doubts that Terry would (and probably will) be an excellent captain, it's just personal preference.

[Liam]

Gotta agree with Liam here. Gerrard, whilst an excellent club captain, hasen't so much as come close to showing the same kind of form for his country and has done nothing to warrent the captaincy.

Problem with that is Gerrard has played two and a half games in his best position for England. It'd be like putting John Terry on the left and expecting him to be awesome. He might do alright, but he'd still be nowhere near as good as he is in his best position.

What is his preferred position then? As far as I saw, he plays in midfield and all that seemingly changes between England and Liverpool is how much he is allowed to get forward. Maybe I'm just reading it differently to you.

And I think defenders make as good captains, especially as from the back, they can see the game unfold in front of them and react thusly.

[therockbox]

When he plays with Lampard he's told (or at least seems to be) to sit back, as the 'holding' midfielder. For Liverpool he's given a free roll, the extent of that has changed under Benitez but he's allowed to roam the park.

With Houllier it was almost a case of him running around like a madman because no one else could be bothered. He rescued us countless times in the last 6 months of Houllier's reign. Under Benitez he still has a free role, he just plays a bit 'smarter' - even when he's on the right he'll swap with Garcia, Sissoko etc. and come inside.

For England he could never do that, because Lampard can't. He needed to sit back whilst Lampard bombed up the pitch (IIRC that was one of the main reason's for Scholes retiring, because he was being played out of position). 4-4-2 could work if we had a manager who was willing to drop the poorest out of the two (Lampard by a million miles). Instead, and I've said it before, Gerrard was punished for being an all round better player than Lampard.

Edited July 2, 2006 by therockbox

[Visionary]

Your captain can be in midfield and you'll still need someone to lead the defensive line. Similarly you still need some to lead the attack and midfield if the captain is in defence. I don't think the position you play should really be an issue in choosing the captain.

Edited July 2, 2006 by Visionary

[Liam]

When he plays with Lampard he's told (or at least seems to be) to sit back, as the 'holding' midfielder. For Liverpool he's given a free roll, the extent of that has changed under Benitez but he's allowed to roam the park.

With Houllier it was almost a case of him running around like a madman because no one else could be bothered. He rescued us countless times in the last 6 months of Houllier's reign. Under Benitez he still has a free role, he just plays a bit 'smarter' - even when he's on the right he'll swap with Garcia, Sissoko etc. and come inside.

For England he could never do that, because Lampard can't. He needed to sit back whilst Lampard bombed up the pitch (IIRC that was one of the main reason's for Scholes retiring, because he was being played out of position). 4-4-2 could work if we had a manager who was willing to drop the poorest out of the two (Lampard by a million miles). Instead, and I've said it before, Gerrard was punished for being an all round better player than Lampard.

So basically he plays in midfield for England and for Liverpool? (...going for a wind up, ignore me >_>)

And a form Lampard is better than a form Gerrard, all around player or not.

[therockbox]

Lampard has never picked up a team and basically won a game single handedly, until he does I'll never class him as better than Gerrard. He's also two years older than Gerrard, and is supposed to be in his prime. Gerrard still has a couple of years before he reaches that.

Edited July 2, 2006 by therockbox

[Liam]

There was this argument a little while ago, and everyone pretty much who wasn't a Liverpool fan went for Lampard. Fair enough, his World Cup was shit, but hell, Gerrard's was poor as well, so it evens out.

Lampard, as I've stated before, shouldn't be penalised in your reckoning for the fact that Chelsea have an overall better side than Liverpool so he doesn't have to carry a team on his back. The fact that he was the best player (bar Terry) in a team of multi-million pound players who romped away with the league (two seasons ago he was easily their best, and still one of their best last season), and was also runner-up to only Ronaldinho in the World Player of the year stakes is as important, personally (the latter part less so, but worth a mention).

Edited July 2, 2006 by liamwannabe

[The Third Dukes]

Erm... forgive my American ignorance, but apart from being able to whinge to the referee, is there anything about that armband that isn't symbolic? I mean, at the club level it helps, sure, but when you're talking about an All-Star team, no one needs to be told what their responsibilities are, do they? Everyone who puts on the England shirt is a star at some level; therefore, they all know what they're doing to have gotten onto the national side. (The same thing has come up in Team USA discussions, where basically people feel Donovan should get the armband because he's the face of football, even though Pope or McBride would have seniority; never is it discussed who has the respect of the team, since it's assumed everyone knows everyone else to be the best and therefore respect is due.)

[Liam]

It can be just symbolic, but you do need a player who can motivate, use his initiative and communicate well with the rest of the team. You do need a little bit extra to be the captain, no doubt.

[therockbox]

There was this argument a little while ago, and everyone pretty much who wasn't a Liverpool fan went for Lampard. Fair enough, his World Cup was shit, but hell, Gerrard's was poor as well, so it evens out.

Lampard, as I've stated before, shouldn't be penalised in your reckoning for the fact that Chelsea have an overall better side than Liverpool so he doesn't have to carry a team on his back.

[Liam]

There was this argument a little while ago, and everyone pretty much who wasn't a Liverpool fan went for Lampard. Fair enough, his World Cup was shit, but hell, Gerrard's was poor as well, so it evens out.

Lampard, as I've stated before, shouldn't be penalised in your reckoning for the fact that Chelsea have an overall better side than Liverpool so he doesn't have to carry a team on his back.

They've lost a number of times over the last three seasons, and in most of the big games he's gone missing.

What does them losing have to do with anything? And then I'd arguably state that I'd rather have a player who plays well 9 out of 10 games, even if he is off the odd big game, then a player who may be on for the big games, but isn't as good otherwise.

No doubt in my mind that Gerrard is playing better than Lampard currently, don't get me wrong, but if I had to put one name down in my squad at the start of a Premiership season out of the two, I'd go for Lampard every time. Gerrard gets more headlines for the big games that he takes over, fair enough, but Lampard has played consistently better over the past two seasons (aside from tailing off towards the end of last season, which I'll admit) then Gerrard has.

To be honest, we'll never change each others opinion, but I just remember that you chose Gerrard over Lampard back when Lampard was far and away considered better than the guy (and backing that consensus up). It is a lot closer now, but it seems to me you'd give Gerrard the backing whatever the weather.

Edited July 2, 2006 by liamwannabe

[ClaRK! Kent]

I dunno if Lampard is better than, or as good as, Gerrard. The biggest paradox of this World Cup has been the insistence on Gerrard staying back so Lampard can go and do what is, essentially, an impersonation of the way Gerrard plays.

And, you say you'd rather have somebody who is "off" in the odd big game? Surely, at international level, every game is a big game, and especially in the tournaments? I'd rather have Gerrard because, when it matters, he's always there leading. Look at Neville last night, when he had the armband on, yelling and screaming and organising the team, being a leader. That's the kind of leader we need, and IMO the man for that task is Steven Gerrard.

Whoever said Robinson perhaps has a point too. With Gerrard as captain, Robinson is the ideal figure to marshal the defence, and Terry is great there too. We've got leaders and fighters all over the pitch, it's just a question of finding the person to lead those leaders, and those fighters, and for me it's gotta be Gerrard every time.

Personal preference, perhaps, but there you go.

[Liam]

And, you say you'd rather have somebody who is "off" in the odd big game? Surely, at international level, every game is a big game, and especially in the tournaments? I'd rather have Gerrard because, when it matters, he's always there leading.

My point with that is that I'd rather have a man who plays 30-odd smaller games better than the other player who can rise up to occasion purely for the big games, but isn't as good in general. Not every game is a big game (since I was discussing Gerrard vs Lampard in general, not purely at international level), so him dissapearing in big games (when more often than not, Chelsea have dissapeared as a whole....see the Barcalone matches) isn't the biggest deal to me necessarily, since he makes up for it in his work in the majority of the matches.

I'm not making that part of the discussion about England captaincy, since I'd go for Gerrard over Lampard as a captain.

[TMM]

Lampard isn't in Gerrard's league as a player. Gerrard has more passion, more talent, he's an all round better player. Lampard cannot pass as well as Gerrard, and the majority of Lampard's goal's are "hit-and-hope". I do like Lampard, but for the life of me, I cannot see why anyone thinks he's anywhere near as good as Gerrard.

[Liam]

Hit and hope? Bullshit....you could say that about any player who scores 20 to 30 yard goals. But I'm sure Gerrard's 30 yard strikes are meticulously planned and placed.

And people think he is better than Gerrard because until recently, he plays better than Gerrard.

[TMM]

Hit and hope? Bullshit....you could say that about any player who scores 20 to 30 yard goals. But I'm sure Gerrard's 30 yard strikes are meticulously planned and placed.

And people think he is better than Gerrard because until recently, he plays better than Gerrard.

Gerrard's seem more "planned" or "intended". Lampard always seems to me like 'I have some space, cool *SMASH*'. Sure there's a lot of "hit-and-hope" to 20/30 yarders, but moreso with Lampard, and I'm not the only person who thinks this about him.

Lampard has only been better than Gerrard because he has Makelele there. Gerrard has had to play defensive midfield, attacking midfield, winger, stiker all at the same time in some games, but Lampard's job is to score. He doesn't have to defend. Gerrard does. And personally, Lampard has never been better than Gerrard...ever.

[Liam]

Seriously, how can you argue the planned nature of a 30 yard strike? You can state that Lampard has recently got a few deflections on his which naturally affects it, but other than that, that is it when it comes to long shots. Anyone striking the ball from 30 yards or more is pretty much hitting and hoping, no matter how spectacular the end product is.

And as I've stated time and again, why judge Lampard based on who is around him? He still has to turn up and perform. At times, Kevin Nolan carries single handedly Bolton, doesn't mean I'm going to turn around and start saying he is as good or better than Gerrard just because he does that. Lampard may have all the backing in the world player wise to allow him to do good, but he still has to go out there and actually do it....especially considering he is in a team where any serious dip in form results in an extended stay on the bench and a transfer out of there/or a player being bought in for you.

The only real way you can argue this is to see how Lampard would do in a team that he has to single handedly carry at times and how Gerrard would do in a team that could potentially do without him due to thier quality. Frankly, in both situations I think they'd do well.

The FIFA World Player of the Year is a football award given annually to the male and female player who is thought to be the best in the world, based on votes by coaches and captains of international teams. In a voting system based on a type of a Borda count, each coach gets three votes, worth five points, three points and one point, and the winners are ordered based on total number of points. The award started in 1991 for men and 2001 for women.

The award's youngest winner is Ronaldo, who won at the age of 20 in 1996. He won it again in 1997 and along with Ronaldinho is the only male player to have won twice in a row (Mia Hamm and Birgit Prinz have both achieved this feat in the women's section). Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane and Birgit Prinz are the only three-time winners, with Prinz the only one to have won three consecutively.

Just added this in because I wasn't giving that much bearing on Lampard being runner up in this....but when some of the top coaches and captains chose you as the 2nd best player in the world, that has to mean something, surely? Considering this was also in the year that Gerrard helped Liverpool to European success, so it wasn't as if he wasn't getting his fair share of the limelight at the time.

I'm not suggesting that Lampard is the second best player in the world by any means, before anyone calls me on that.

Edited July 2, 2006 by liamwannabe

[Summers]

Yes.

Gerrard booting the ball into the top corner from 30 yards is planned to the inch.

Whereas Lampard, he doesn't plan to score them at all, no.

Only Gerrard plans that.

What sense you make!