MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Lol Bailey a good poster, come on mate, that guy has me snoring after his second sentence of about 900. I never get past the second paragraph. :D Nikica mate. You are set in your own agenda and think you're right all the time. You don't rate Gerrard you don't rate Cristiano Ronaldo. That is clueless! Edited April 27, 2014 by MiguelCotto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue 250 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Gerrards been the driving force behind Liverpool teams for years............sadly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Lol Bailey a good poster, come on mate, that guy has me snoring after his second sentence of about 900. I never get past the second paragraph. :D Nikica mate. You are set in your own agenda and think you're right all the time. You don't rate Gerrard you don't rate Cristiano Ronaldo. That is clueless! Bailey is a great poster (this invites 'brown nose' comments from Blue). It's not his fault that you have ADHD and can't read beyond two lines. I respect people who put effort into their posts. I don't rate Gerrard or Ronaldo? Now is that the best straw man ever or what?! I don't think Gerrard was ever world-class, and I don't think Ronaldo is a top ten player of all time. If you think that equates to not rating them then your grasp of English is as poor as your grasp of football. "Gerrards been the driving force behind Liverpool teams for years............sadly!" He hasn't though mate - that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. I've explained why previously. He hasn't driven them anywhere. He's a Roy of the Rovers type who's never been able to control games. Edited April 27, 2014 by Nikica Bailey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Bailey is a great poster (this invites 'brown nose' comments from Blue). It's not his fault that you have ADHD and can't read beyond two lines. I respect people who put effort into their posts. I don't rate Gerrard or Ronaldo? Now is that the best straw man ever or what?! I don't think Gerrard was ever world-class, and I don't think Ronaldo is a top ten player of all time. If you think that equates to not rating them then your grasp of English is as poor as your grasp of football. "Gerrards been the driving force behind Liverpool teams for years............sadly!" He hasn't though mate - that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. I've explained why previously. He hasn't driven them anywhere. He's a Roy of the Rovers type who's never been able to control games. I have ADHD? Come on mate. You need to up your dose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) I have ADHD? Come on mate. You need to up your dose. It was a joke comment, a jibe. Why do you have a problem reading detailed posts? As for 'upping my dose', is this where you start to make fun of me for suffering from mental illness? Great stuff, but I'm used to the stigma so don't bother. Edited April 27, 2014 by Nikica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 It was a joke comment, a jibe. Why do you have a problem reading detailed posts? As for 'upping my dose', is this where you start to make fun of me for suffering from mental illness? Great stuff, but I'm used to the stigma so don't bother. I wouldn't have even made the comment if you didn't say I had ADHD which is you making fun out of a mental illness. I don't mind reading detailed posts if it good. But you can only read so much tripe before you don't even bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I wouldn't have even made the comment if you didn't say I had ADHD which is you making fun out of a mental illness. I don't mind reading detailed posts if it good. But you can only read so much tripe before you don't even bother. That's a fair point. I apologise. What you call tripe others may not. That's the point. I read comments which I consider tripe, but I try and explain why during the debate. Most of the time you don't bother - you just tell people they're clueless yet make little effort to argue your case - and on the occasions when you do try and argue it, you mention pointless, hype-fuelled things such as Man of the Match awards and stats which obscure more than they illuminate. You need to look beyond the obvious sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) also on the world stage arguement. Ronaldo and Messi have hardly lit up the world stage, compare them to Pele and Maradona and they are miles away, but in terms of ability they must match them surely? But then Ronaldo, Messi and Gerrard have all won the Champions League. Ronaldo and Messi don't match Pele and Maradona at all. Ronaldo especially is nowhere near either of them - it's an insult to Maradona to say that Ronaldo matches him. Ronaldo has the numbers, but Maradona was far more talented and played football in an era and league which was far more competitive than what Ronaldo has. If Maradona had been born in 1985 or 1987, and been brought up in modern football terms, he'd be a false 9 right now and scoring at the same rate as Messi. Serie A of the 80s was a far stronger league than the PL or La Liga which Ronaldo has played in, and Maradona wasn't playing for one of the top two teams in it either. Pele played in Brazil at a time when the best Brazilians stayed at home (the planet wasn't globalised) and the regional championships were very strong. His Santos team pissed all over Europe's best on tours of the continent. As for the CL, and the contemporary view that it's stronger than the World Cup and the ultimate test of a player's ability (you didn't say that but others have and you're teetering on it) - I consider that nonsense for many reasons. I don't believe the overall quality of the CL is any higher than that of the World Cup. I think it's something modern football fans say because it allows them to indulge their little fanboy crushes i.e. arguing that Messi and Ronaldo are the two best players ever. Edited April 27, 2014 by Nikica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 That's a fair point. I apologise. What you call tripe others may not. That's the point. I read comments which I consider tripe, but I try and explain why during the debate. Most of the time you don't bother - you just tell people they're clueless yet make little effort to argue your case - and on the occasions when you do try and argue it, you mention pointless, hype-fuelled things such as Man of the Match awards and stats which obscure more than they illuminate. You need to look beyond the obvious sometimes. How is a Champions League man of the match award not a good argument against someone saying "he doesn't turn up in big matches" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Cotto's a bit sensitive when you venture beyond Political Correctness!!! You should know that! Anyway, watched a great clip of the Stevie G team huddle after the city game...'don't let this fuckin slip...'. If you seen the game today, well, how ironic!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Cotto's a bit sensitive when you venture beyond Political Correctness!!! You should know that! Anyway, watched a great clip of the Stevie G team huddle after the city game...'don't let this fuckin slip...'. If you seen the game today, well, how ironic!!! You an Nikica are definitely a parody. Same type of personality. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) How is a Champions League man of the match award not a good argument against someone saying "he doesn't turn up in big matches" Because it's a bollocks award. Shite like that is informed by hype, stories etc (e.g. it's romantic to give the award to Liverpool's boyhood fan who scored a goal, rather than the foreigner who came on and altered the game by plugging the gaps said boyhood fan was leaving, or the foreign 'keeper who kept them in the game and was great in the shootout). I can't even remember if you're talking about the fans' award or the official award (or both), but either way it's utterly pointless. It's like saying Kyle Walker is brilliant because he once beat Sergio Aguero to Young Player of the Year. Anyone with sense knows he only won that award because it was convenient to give it to a young Englishman. Pundits and fans aren't exactly known for analysing the game in great detail, so it's easy to say 'Gerrard is the hometown boy who dragged them through with sheer spirit (how do you even judge something like spirit?!), so give him the award'. In both examples above, the awards are pointless - they mean fuck all to anyone prepared to think for themselves. He was average against West Ham in 2006 too btw, but the two late screamers altered the thinking. He has won games with screamers, but why did he have to do that in the first place? Because he couldn't control them. Instead of raving about him being the 'key part' of the comeback in 2005, why don't you question why they were 3-0 down in the first place? Cotto's a bit sensitive when you venture beyond Political Correctness!!! You should know that! Anyway, watched a great clip of the Stevie G team huddle after the city game...'don't let this fuckin slip...'. If you seen the game today, well, how ironic!!! Thought that myself. He's going to look a right dildo if he costs Liverpool the title after that little huddle. Well, more of a dildo than he already looks. Edited April 27, 2014 by Nikica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Because it's a bollocks award. Shite like that is informed by hype, stories etc (e.g. it's romantic to give the award to Liverpool's boyhood fan who scored a goal, rather than the foreigner who came on and altered the game by plugging the gaps said boyhood fan was leaving, or the foreign 'keeper who kept them in the game and was great in the shootout). I can't even remember if you're talking about the fans' award or the official award (or both), but either way it's utterly pointless. It's like saying Kyle Walker is brilliant because he once beat Sergio Aguero to Young Player of the Year. Anyone with sense knows he only won that award because it was convenient to give it to a young Englishman. Pundits and fans aren't exactly known for analysing the game in great detail, so it's easy to say 'Gerrard is the hometown boy who dragged them through with sheer spirit (how do you even judge something like spirit?!), so give him the award'. In both examples above, the awards are pointless - they mean fuck all to anyone prepared to think for themselves. He was average against West Ham in 2006 too btw, but the two late screamers altered the thinking. He has won games with screamers, but why did he have to do that in the first place? Because he couldn't control them. Instead of raving about him being the 'key part' of the comeback in 2005, why don't you question why they were 3-0 down in the first place? Thought that myself. He's going to look a right dildo if he costs Liverpool the title after that little huddle. Well, more of a dildo than he already looks. No point in discussing it now mate. You have your views and I have mine. I rate Gerrard highly in terms of the last 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 You an Nikica are definitely a parody. Same type of personality. Lol Nah, you're just sensitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 No point in discussing it now mate. You have your views and I have mine. I rate Gerrard highly in terms of the last 10 years. I rate him fairly highly too. Just not 'top of the game' highly. I was gonna say the same anyway - let's drop it. We will never even reach a middle ground or consensus here, so it's pointless continuing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Nah, you're just sensitive. Oh you big softy, come here Nik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Gerrards been the driving force behind Liverpool teams for years............sadly! There's no 'r' in diving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I think we can all agree, by the way, that while he's been a very good player (nobody disputes that), his placing in that all-time XI on the Guardian poll was a mass WUM by the red half of Liverpool. We can also agree that the comments in reaction to his placing are pure comedy gold (if anyone has bothered to read them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue 250 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 There's no 'r' in diving. That very true.Not the most honest of players is he! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManUtdFan18 Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 If theres one word that could describe Steven Gerrard, it would be overrated. Is he talented? Obviously he is but he doesn't belong anywhere near the league of real legends such as Xavi, Pirlo and Scholes. He is incredible at grabbing attention, and he has tendency to do something incredible every now and then but he could never control the game for 90 minutes week in week out like Xavi or Scholes did. You can argue all you want how he has been the driving force behind Liverpool, but what have they achieved in that period? They would have been better off if they had any one of the players i mentioned above instead of Gerrard during that period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cake Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Gerrard has stood out in some pretty average Liverpool teams over the years, sometimes for the wrong reasons (cheating, whining, influencing Clattenberg referees.....) and although he's also contributed to some decent Liverpool team performances it must be a Huyton trait as the other gobshite from there, Joey Barton, has also been made to believe he is better than he actually is. You can blame the Liverpool meme for Gerrard believing this because that's what Liverpool FC is founded and thrives on. However, for Scholes to be mentioned in the same post as and compared with Xavi and Pirlo is a step too far..... Edited April 29, 2014 by Cake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Scholes was a better player than xavi and pirlo. Simple as that. The best midfielder of his type that England have produced. Funny that he retired because of the Gerrard/lampard bullshit. Matt and pete0 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Scholes was definitely a level or two above Gerrard, but better than Xavi and Pirlo? Nah. Those two have performed on the very highest stage - something Scholes never did. What has Scholes ever done to say he's better than Xavi and Pirlo? Man United - with Scholes in his prime - never dominated Europe the way Xavi's Barca or Pirlo's Milan did. With he and Keane as their midfield they never convinced in Europe. If you replaced Xavi with a prime Scholes in the Spanish team would they have won three tournaments in a row? Certainly not. There's a reason why Barca's decline has coincided with Xavi's decline. Scholes was a great player but he's sort of overrated by those who rate him the most -he never truly controlled games against the very best teams and he gave the ball away more than Xavi and Pirlo as well. People seem to be blinded because he sometimes played a nice cross-field pass - Xavi and Pirlo do that too. Scholes seems to be a player who's underrated and overrated in equal measure. I don't remember him being this highly rated in his prime. It seems like the English media is overcompensating for that. World-class player yes, but not as good as Xavi and Pirlo - or Iniesta for that matter. People talk about Scholes being misused for England - and that's true to an extent. But what people overlook is that he had plenty of time to play CM before Gerrard and Lampard's emergence, and he didn't impress. This isn't an effort to put Scholes down - we can compliment him without saying he's better than a couple of the best midfielders of the last two decades. Scholes was a world-class midfielder but I think there are some myths around him. Saying he's better than Xavi and Pirlo is going way OTT. Other than that I agree with everything Man United fan above says. And before someone starts rolling out the quotes - that's called an appeal to authority and is a logical fallacy. Edited April 30, 2014 by Nikica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManUtdFan18 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I'd rate Scholes over Pirlo, but not over Xavi. It is very difficult to compare these players, for sake of argument even if I agree that Scholes didn’t dominate top teams, question is, could Xavi and Pirlo do better job in Scholes shoes against? Remember unlike Xavi and Pirlo who always had two world class midfielders paired with them (such as Iniesta, Bouquets, Vidal, Seedorf, De Rossi, Guttuso), after Keane, Scholes never had player of that caliber to play along, and he always operated in midfield of two. As for replacing Xavi with Scholes in Spanish team, you could say United would not have had so much success under Fergie without Scholes, United’s decline coincides with Scholes too. I am not suggesting Scholes is better or even equal to Xavi but he certainly is closer to Xavi level than any other similar-style midfielder is. Scholes didn’t struggle against top teams, a bit of a ridiculous suggestion. Case and point, Xavi and Iniesta played both legs against United in 2008 Champion’s League semi-final, it was Scholes’ goal that knocked them out of the tournament. It wasn’t Scholes’ fault that United were not as dominant in Europe as Milan or Barcelona. United had a chance to do that after winning in ’99 but we screwed it up by failing to replace Schmeichel and Stam. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Scholes was definitely a level or two above Gerrard, but better than Xavi and Pirlo? Nah. Those two have performed on the very highest stage - something Scholes never did. What has Scholes ever done to say he's better than Xavi and Pirlo? Man United - with Scholes in his prime - never dominated Europe the way Xavi's Barca or Pirlo's Milan did. With he and Keane as their midfield they never convinced in Europe. If you replaced Xavi with a prime Scholes in the Spanish team would they have won three tournaments in a row? Certainly not. There's a reason why Barca's decline has coincided with Xavi's decline. Scholes was a great player but he's sort of overrated by those who rate him the most -he never truly controlled games against the very best teams and he gave the ball away more than Xavi and Pirlo as well. People seem to be blinded because he sometimes played a nice cross-field pass - Xavi and Pirlo do that too. Scholes seems to be a player who's underrated and overrated in equal measure. I don't remember him being this highly rated in his prime. It seems like the English media is overcompensating for that. World-class player yes, but not as good as Xavi and Pirlo - or Iniesta for that matter. People talk about Scholes being misused for England - and that's true to an extent. But what people overlook is that he had plenty of time to play CM before Gerrard and Lampard's emergence, and he didn't impress. This isn't an effort to put Scholes down - we can compliment him without saying he's better than a couple of the best midfielders of the last two decades. Scholes was a world-class midfielder but I think there are some myths around him. Saying he's better than Xavi and Pirlo is going way OTT. Other than that I agree with everything Man United fan above says. And before someone starts rolling out the quotes - that's called an appeal to authority and is a logical fallacy. Scholes had a pair of average strikers in front of him when he was in his pomp, shouldn't judge a single player on his teams ability overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Scholes had a pair of average strikers in front of him when he was in his pomp, shouldn't judge a single player on his teams ability overall. I'm not judging him by his teams' abilities. I'm saying I don't think he could have did as well as Xavi has had he been born in 1980 and been the heartbeat of Barca and Spain. I've watched Scholes all his career and he is not as good at dictating games as Xavi was imo. The difference is clear when you watch both players. People can say that Man United play counter-attacking football and Barca possession play, which could be in favour of Scholes. However, we can only go on what we've seen. Xavi will go down as one of the greatest midfielders of all time due to his body of work. I'd rate Scholes over Pirlo, but not over Xavi. It is very difficult to compare these players, for sake of argument even if I agree that Scholes didn’t dominate top teams, question is, could Xavi and Pirlo do better job in Scholes shoes against? Remember unlike Xavi and Pirlo who always had two world class midfielders paired with them (such as Iniesta, Bouquets, Vidal, Seedorf, De Rossi, Guttuso), after Keane, Scholes never had player of that caliber to play along, and he always operated in midfield of two. As for replacing Xavi with Scholes in Spanish team, you could say United would not have had so much success under Fergie without Scholes, United’s decline coincides with Scholes too. I am not suggesting Scholes is better or even equal to Xavi but he certainly is closer to Xavi level than any other similar-style midfielder is. Scholes didn’t struggle against top teams, a bit of a ridiculous suggestion. Case and point, Xavi and Iniesta played both legs against United in 2008 Champion’s League semi-final, it was Scholes’ goal that knocked them out of the tournament. It wasn’t Scholes’ fault that United were not as dominant in Europe as Milan or Barcelona. United had a chance to do that after winning in ’99 but we screwed it up by failing to replace Schmeichel and Stam. You make points which don't go overlooked, and it's a good post overall. I had written a long post, but I've edited it now out of respect for Scholes, and to not go off on a tangent when the thread pertains to Gerrard. I did counter many of your points, but we should just accept that you rate Scholes slightly more highly than I did. I will keep in this part though: Barca in 2008 were all over the place, in terms of team spirit and their season. They still dominated the games against United, despite this. You played very deep (or to use the crude term, parked the bus). Ironically, Scholes did in that second leg what we're all criticising Gerrard for - failing to control the game but winning it with a screamer from range. People always mention Scholes yet geniuses like Redondo and Nedved are barely known by British media. I find it bizarre. My opinion is Xavi, then Pirlo, then Scholes. I would say that Scholes and Gazza are the two best British players of the last twenty five years, though. Hope you keep posting mate. You've produced some interesting and well thought out posts so I am hoping you stay. I've given you a green arrow for presenting your case well. Edited April 30, 2014 by Nikica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Anyway, back on Gerrard...he's been a fine player throughout his career, but his all-action style isn't my thing. Edited April 30, 2014 by Nikica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_Lewit Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 I know this thread is meant to be about Gerrard but just felt the need to share this abstract piece of art, I think it's a beauty myself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I know this thread is meant to be about Gerrard but just felt the need to share this abstract piece of art, I think it's a beauty myself... 2 grand! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c1982 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 2 grand! Lol I don't think you get the joke! (There's at least 4 clues.) (It's not a real piece of artwork). Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.