The Stat to end all Stats

Lampard has always been the perfect midfielder for a 4-3-3 playing system. His abilities are deceptive because his game hangs on the element of surprise, arriving late catching the opposition off guard.

Technically he's never been close to the likes of Gerrard and Scholes, his footballing brain is tailored to that one piece of movement on the edge of the box, but boy hasn't it worked for him down the years. Last weekend, arriving late to convert Mata's cross. It's the same thing every time.

If he could just concentrate on his passing and positional play a little bit more (not that he's a mug at those things what so ever), he'd have a chance of remaining solidly in our first team abit longer.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

I still remember missing open goal against Liverpool in CL SF at Bridge

Hope he made up for that by spending 10 hours putting ball into open net

Although he is/was a very ordinary player he made the most of what he had.

----------------------------------------------------------

Are you for real ?

Ordinary players don´t score 149 goals from central midfield.

Look at all the records Lampard has broken before you call him ordinary.

He is anything but and there is a very good reason that Chelsea fan call him Super Frank.

Think about it.

Lampard is an example that if you apply yourself you can achieve almost anything. He has a fair amount of natural talent but has more practiced/learnt talent than any player I can think of.

-----------

Valencia?

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Although he is/was a very ordinary player he made the most of what he had.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch these 25 goals from Lampard and then try and tell me that he is ordinary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPwdH_t4DTA

Congratulations to Frank. I may have been critical of some of his performances this year, but there's no doubt his place as a Chelsea legend is assured.

But touching on some of the points already made, I think it does raise an interesting debate about what makes a player great.

I completely agree that, although Lamps clearly has talent, he is more mechanical than a Gerrard or a Scholes, with their more natural flair. But isn't sport all about results and sometimes doesn't quiet efficiency actually beat those occasional moments of sublime skill?

In 2009 Lampard was voted by OPTA as the Premiership player of the decade, using wins, goals, assists and completed passes as their criteria. Now people may write off statistics, complaining that it doesn't measure such things as inspirational qualities or because it rates a simple tap in alongside a 30 yard screamer. But over a long period of time, don't those stats show that Lampard is (or was) better than anyone else at producing things that actually influence the game?

Of course we all love those players that can turn a game with a piece of skill that leaves us gobsmacked, but personally I'm just as happy with the 'boring' player who delivers week in week out rather than those with more natural flair but who do have the tendency to blow a bit hot and cold.

Changing sports to snooker, I think few would doubt that Ronnie O'Sullivan has (or had) more natural talent that Stephen Hendry. And yet a quick glance at their trophy cabinets shows that Hendry sits head and shoulders above O'Sullivan. That's just one example of mechanical beating flair when it matters, and I think Lampard is another.

comment by The Blue Kenyan ¡Viva Sturridge! (U1641)
posted 3 hours, 57 minutes ago
Lampard is an example that if you apply yourself you can achieve almost anything. He has a fair amount of natural talent but has more practiced/learnt talent than any player I can think of.

-----------

Valencia?
--------------------------
Good one

BK you must be joking