Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC" part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samandsam said:
Yeah, take away Lampards 177 goals from midfield and he’d be average. I’ve often said that of Messi and Ronaldo too, take away their hundreds of goals and they’d be pretty average too. Bit of a silly statement to say that of a goal scorer midfielder like Lampard.

Lampard’s tally of 177 Premier League goals places him fourth on the all-time list – while he is the only midfielder to feature in the top 15. He hit double-figures for 10 straight seasons in the league, while his total 22 in 2009-10 put him only behind team-mate Didier Drogba (29) in the standings. The haul began at West Ham United and finished at Manchester City for Lampard, but 147 of those 177 strikes came during his 14-year spell with Chelsea.

He also had more assists and more goals than Slippy. Take away his 177 goals, he still had 102 assists in 607 Prem apps. More assists than Slippy. So yeah, take away his 177 goals, he did little else. Wish we had a midfielder who did nothing, but just score loads of goals.
Click to expand...

QED his goals. His all-round play was nowhere near as good as Slippy. He would have that many assists, because it is obvious he was a midfielder who played well forward (the horrible expression 'No. 10' in today's parlance). Slippy worked all over the midfield area, area to area. Pains me to say it, Slippy was the best of his time, but stupidly used out wide by England most of the time.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Better player, debateable. More effective? No. Because Carragher was a total snide of a player who got away with a hell of a lot of things (Clattenburg Derby for instance, and the number of times he clattered someone in the penalty area at home and got away with it scot free) when he took a chance, which meant he ultimately was more effective for his team than Ferdinand was for his. Can't really understand all this 'love-in' for Ferdinand to be honest...
Click to expand...

Cant really understand your love in for Carragher.

You seriously think its "debatable" if he was a better player than Ferdinand? Holy cow. I read some tripe in the EU thread, but that is gold.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
No surprise you holding the contrary view to me, FLHD. Not even going to try to begin to reply to the above...
Click to expand...

Eh? Not bothered if you choose not to defend your view but leave out the intimation that I’m being deliberately contrary because it’s you ffs.

Surprisingly your view that he was bang average isn’t shared by seemingly anyone. 6 league title medals over a decade btw. BANG AVERAGE lol
 

Old Blue 2 said:
QED his goals. His all-round play was nowhere near as good as Slippy. He would have that many assists, because it is obvious he was a midfielder who played well forward (the horrible expression 'No. 10' in today's parlance). Slippy worked all over the midfield area, area to area. Pains me to say it, Slippy was the best of his time, but STUPIDLY used out wide by England most of the time.
Click to expand...

Stupidly? Wasn’t Slippy’s most productive season for the RS when he was played out wide? Hardly stupid to use him out there.

You also made something up about Ferdinand getting the runaround off Torres in a game to back up your argument that Rio was average, when it was actually Vidic.

To suggest Lampards all round play was NOWHERE as good as Slippys when it was actually (statistically) just as good is, again, a little bit silly. Both attacking midfielders bar Slippys final season or 2, and Lampard beats him for goals and assists.

Many experts, Sir Alex amongst them, said Slippy didn’t have the tactical discipline to play a CM role. Benitez thought the same.
 
Always thought Ferdinand was way overrated myself, but average..no way. A very good player who had a great career.

Maybe I've selective memory but I do think he often gifted us goals or opportunities with brainfarts in the defence. My recollection of him is that he was very prone to lapses in concentration, but that type of footballing defender unless they are of the absolute top level are often prone to those.
 
Backs to the wall and riding your luck to get a point then carragher is your man, league titles and cups with ease then it's Ferdinand all day for me, defence into attack in a split second.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Better player, debateable. More effective? No. Because Carragher was a total snide of a player who got away with a hell of a lot of things (Clattenburg Derby for instance, and the number of times he clattered someone in the penalty area at home and got away with it scot free) when he took a chance, which meant he ultimately was more effective for his team than Ferdinand was for his. Can't really understand all this 'love-in' for Ferdinand to be honest...
Click to expand...
Mate, it's not debatable, you are in a minority of one, I'm not in love with ferdinand, I think he could be bullied if he didn't have a Vidic or Campbell (also better than carragher) alongside, but when he did he was very very good in those partnerships, and played at a higher level than carragher who just about scraped by at the level he was at. I'm amazed anyone outside side of anfield thinks this is a debate at all to behonest
 

Walken said:
Mate, it's not debatable, you are in a minority of one, I'm not in love with ferdinand, I think he could be bullied if he didn't have a Vidic or Campbell (also better than carragher) alongside, but when he did he was very very good in those partnerships, and played at a higher level than carragher who just about scraped by at the level he was at. I'm amazed anyone outside side of anfield thinks this is a debate at all to behonest
Click to expand...

Its a very strange war to start, thats for sure. I think even the GREAT Carra Lad would agree with you.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Better player, debateable. More effective? No. Because Carragher was a total snide of a player who got away with a hell of a lot of things (Clattenburg Derby for instance, and the number of times he clattered someone in the penalty area at home and got away with it scot free) when he took a chance, which meant he ultimately was more effective for his team than Ferdinand was for his. Can't really understand all this 'love-in' for Ferdinand to be honest...
Click to expand...
Stop talking wet....you're embarrassing yourself
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Duncan Edwards was a multi-positional player. One of his best positions was centre half. He was also a fine midfielder, with the capability to score as well. He really was before his time. One of the greatest tragedies in football of all time when he died following that crash...
Click to expand...
There’s a documentary about that disaster, very touching it is. People who saw him play say he was absolutely brilliant
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top