A bit of a leading question?

In terms of the comparison that is normally made (i.e. Gerrard and Lampard), I think Gerrard is consistently overrated and Lampard consistently underrated.

For the supposed golden generation, he would still have probably ranked below both the others though (including Scholes). He contributed a much bigger goal threat, and offered more assists as well. But I think the other two were overall better footballers.

Edited by OknotOK (02 Feb 2017 12.11pm)

Not sure why we always need to play one player off against another like the Messi / Ronaldo argument. Why can't we accept they are brilliant individuals in their own right?

In any case re: the Lamps / Gerrard comparison. Although Lampard scored more and won more honours, Lampard was a cog in a very good team but Chelsea would have still been succesfull without him. Gerrard carried that Liverpool team for years and his performances in 04/05 winning the champions league were sublime, i'd go as far as to say he won the champions league single handed, that was a bang average Liverpool team.

Scholes was the overrated one

I couldn't disagree with this any more.

For starters, Lampard and Gerrard have been the pair that for me ultimately demonstrate the myth of the Premier League. Massive stars at their clubs, banging goals in for fun, winning trophies. Yet takeaway the likes of Alonso, Ballack, Makelele etc and come international tournament time they're exposed. England can't keep the ball and we're reduced to watching Lampard unable to influence the game, and Gerrard spunking it 80 yards into the front row or shooting every time he gets the ball.

Scholes on the other hand had class, vision and an ability to play the game that few English players have. His reward for this was to be shunted out to the left in Euro 2004 because he didn't have the profile that the others did. Lampard and Gerrard were the icons of their teams so got way more attention in the media. Scholes is the only one who would compare to someone like Xavi.

I wish we could have seen more of an England midfield which had Scholes and a fully fit Owen Hargreaves together. That would have been a combination miles better than Gerrard and Lampard.

Edit: Also worth noting that Liverpool were 3-0 down to Milan in that final before Dietmar Hamann came on to partner Alonso.

Edited by Username (03 Feb 2017 3.29pm)

I couldn't disagree with this any more.

For starters, Lampard and Gerrard have been the pair that for me ultimately demonstrate the myth of the Premier League. Massive stars at their clubs, banging goals in for fun, winning trophies. Yet takeaway the likes of Alonso, Ballack, Makelele etc and come international tournament time they're exposed. England can't keep the ball and we're reduced to watching Lampard unable to influence the game, and Gerrard spunking it 80 yards into the front row or shooting every time he gets the ball.

Scholes on the other hand had class, vision and an ability to play the game that few English players have. His reward for this was to be shunted out to the left in Euro 2004 because he didn't have the profile that the others did. Lampard and Gerrard were the icons of their teams so got way more attention in the media. Scholes is the only one who would compare to someone like Xavi.

I wish we could have seen more of an England midfield which had Scholes and a fully fit Owen Hargreaves together. That would have been a combination miles better than Gerrard and Lampard.

Edit: Also worth noting that Liverpool were 3-0 down to Milan in that final before Dietmar Hamann came on to partner Alonso.

Edited by Username (03 Feb 2017 3.29pm)