Beckham Stands Down As Captain

[9 to 5]

Has to be Terry in my opinion. I prefer the captain to be a defender or a central midfielder for a start. Plus he has around 5 good years at least playing for England which would rule Neville out as he would of been another good choice for me.

I don't think Gerrard quite has the quality as a captain as terry does for an England side somehow.

[Turbo Yannis]

Purely from a Chelsea point of view, I really hope that John Terry gets it. He's just the complete captain. Didn't he get the armband in the Ecuador game when Beckham went off?

[Visionary]

If Owen plays again i imagine he would be a strong candidate for the armband too since his is vice captain at the moment, although i would prefer to see it go elsewhere. Though i guess his injury means he may miss the boat so to speak.

[TMM]

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!

OK, terribly bad wording there with the "planning". I don't really know how to put it across. It's sort of like, you know as soon as Lampard gets any space near the goal, he's going to shoot, almost without fail he will shoot and, yes, probably score a lot of them. But with Gerrard it's not so simple, I'm not saying he meticulously plans it, just more that he can create space better for himself then Lampard can because he is a better player.

And performances? Gerrard has been playing almost non-stop football for a full-year, and I don't really recall him having a bad game. During the World Cup, no he wasn't at his best, but at times (especially in the Portugal game) Lampard was our worst player.

[fineintent]

You can't remember him having a bad game, as it is impossible to remember every match. I'm sure there have been matches where Gerrard has been poor, same with Lampard. Even Ronaldinho was quiet this World Cup. Lampard has been starting almost every game since he left West Ham, of course he'll be tired.

[Liam]

Indeed, Lampard went and broke the Premiership (or maybe it was general) consecutive appearances record not too long ago, so I don't doubt that he is as shattered from the consistent football as Gerrard would be.

Lampard was at times our worse player, I agree, but at least I seemed to be aware of his presence, Gerrard was invisible for long stretches of it (aside from the goals, but as I stated before, that would let Beckham off the hook if you allowed people for just goals/assists for goals). You can argue it's because he is being played out of position, or whatever, but he still was pretty ordinary. Lampard only gets levied with having a worse World Cup because he was actually getting more into the game and was more prominently not playing to his best, weirdly enough.

[Thomas]

Terry would be the best choice for next captain.

Gerrard is better at striking a long range ball than Lampard, but Lampard is still very good.

Here are the right answers for those of you who have been unnecessarily arguing.

[Visionary]

Lampard is allowed to play more in his position for England then Gerrard is. When Gerrard is allowed to get forward he does offer a threat. This is backed up be the fact Lampard had the most shots in the World Cup so far and Gerrard is England's top goal scorer. Gerrard is a better defender and at least equal to Lampard going forward and therefore in my eyes the better player. Gerrard can also switch to the left if needed. I believe Lampard should be dropped and Gerrard and Hargreaves should be played central. Plus Gerrard's season started earlier with the European Cup Qualifiers remember so that should help negate that argument too.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Visionary

[Liam]

Lampard is allowed to play more in his position for England then Gerrard is. When Gerrard is allowed to get forward he does offer a threat. This is backed up be the fact Lampard had the most shots in the World Cup so far and Gerrard is England's top goal scorer. I believe Lampard should be dropped and Gerrard and Hargreaves should be played central. Plus Gerrard's season started earlier with the European Cup Qualifiers remember so that should help negate that argument too.

Gerrard scored 2 goals and did fuck all else, thats a pointless argument (as I've stated before) since Beckham related incidents got us through three matches yet people still slag him off. Then you complain about Gerrard being played out of position, yet then want to drop Lampard to play Hargreaves out of position.

Oh, and as was stated before, Lampard has the record for the most consecutive Premiership appearances, which covered something like 3 seasons (135 games, which I just checked out), so whether Gerrard's season started earlier or not is put into perspective by Lampard playing probably the most games of any English player over the last 3 years.

[therockbox]

Lampard had breaks in between though, Gerrard has been playing for 12 solid months.

Although arguing about who is fitter is silly, they're not exactly old and out of shape.

[Liam]

Yeah, I know he has played for 12 solid months (even though he has also sat out matches due to this, which Lampard hasn't had to do), but its the people who liked Gerrard who stated it, and I was just stating (well, with fineintent) that over the course of the past 3 years, breaks or not, Lampard has probably played more games than any English player, and therefore probably more than most other players due to the nature of the English game. I wouldn't be surprised if either of them are shattered or knackered mentally or physically after those kinda stretches.

If Wikipedia stats are anything to go by, Lampard since joining Chelsea has played 33 or so matches more since 2001, out of interest.

Oh, and Gerrard may have played for 12 solid months, but he only actually played 3 more matches than Lampard this season, meaning that Lampard actually did more in a smaller time period, if that makes sense. Naturally, Lampard did get more of a rest though at the start of the season.

Edited July 3, 2006 by liamwannabe

[Visionary]

I wanted to play Hargreaves out of position because he proved he can play that tenacious role and hold in order to let Gerrard go forward.

And the idea of either being tired is perhaps fruitless as stated. As i think both are both around the same area in that respect.

[Turbo Yannis]

The thought of dropping Lampard for Hargreaves is laughable.

He has two good games and all of a sudden he should be playing instead of Lampard.

Very good.

[Visionary]

The fact it is Hargreaves is a mute point. Replace Hargreaves with whoever the hell you want, the point is either Gerrard or Lampard need to be dropped because they have consistantly proved they can't play together, in my view it should be Lampard who is dropped.

Also, what does a player have to do to be given another chance in an England shirt for you then? How could you justify dropping Hargreaves after his preformance against Portugal?

Edited July 4, 2006 by Visionary

[TheArsenal]

Hargreaves was undoubtely one of our best players at the World Cup.

I'e read in newspapers, seen on TV, and on the internet that most pundits are saying the only players who really played well for us during the WHOLE tournament and ALL of EVERY match were Ashley Cole, Owen Hargreaves and Steven Gerrard. Now there may be aguments for others, Joe Cole for example, but I think people like Lampard and Crouch, and more often than not John Terry, were the worst England players for some years. To say Lampard should not be dropped is ridiculous. Players should be picked on their performances and form, not because "they're Frank Lampard". That's what's fucked up England's chances in the last few tournaments.

[Liam]

Seriously, what papers do you read? Now, since all I do at my work is read newspapers and watch Sky Sports News, I'll break it down for you.

Lampard got slaughtered, Gerrard got slaughtered for the most part aside from when he scored, as most newspapers called him on doing fuck all else, Terry got ripped for two matches (Ecuador and Sweden, though he got absolutely bummed for his performances against T&T and Portugal) but otherwise that was it, so to call him one of the worst World Cup players in ages is bullshit, Joe Cole got pretty much universal love as did Ashley Cole and Owen Hargreaves...and Crouch only got panned by...surprise, surprise...a lot of the fans who still can't accept him in an England shirt. Oh, and naturally Beckham got slaughtered aside from when he scored against Ecuador, as most called him on his poor performances aside from the assists and the goal.

If you wanna drop people for not performing in all the matches, you could have dropped 8 or 9 of our first team realistically, but weirdly enough, form doesn't consist of playing two or three matches well, it is a consistency thing. The England squad, though some of the choices were a little off, got chosen because they are the best in their position consistently over the last god knows how long.

Edited July 4, 2006 by liamwannabe