comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 30 seconds ago
Numerous player of the year awards from Central midfield, PL young player, PL player of the year, CL player of the year, many team of the years PL and CL, all before systems changed and he was moved to help put the team elsewhere. Detriment to the team
Winston clearly on the WUM. Had a few beverages have you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there’s the classic TOOR.
Revert to individual awards.
He won most of those in a role that wasn’t in a two man central midfield.
If it wasn’t to the detriment of the team, why did he get moved to the right and then to the 10 role?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't talking about the ones he won after he moved. I was only talking about the ones when he played in a two. As I said he could play second, third, fourth, fifth position better than most could play their first and therefore continued to be excellent individually in other positions before moving back after Benitez left and continuing to win awards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn’t give a fack about individual awards, though I know that some of your claims are false.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever, he wouldn’t have been moved to make the team successful.
You can try as hard as you like, you will never be able to argue that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's just simplistic thinking that somebody who doesn't understand football would think. It's a team game, you play players where you think it's best for the team, whether their best position is central midfield or not, especially if they're so good and so versatile.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 30 seconds ago
Numerous player of the year awards from Central midfield, PL young player, PL player of the year, CL player of the year, many team of the years PL and CL, all before systems changed and he was moved to help put the team elsewhere. Detriment to the team
Winston clearly on the WUM. Had a few beverages have you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there’s the classic TOOR.
Revert to individual awards.
He won most of those in a role that wasn’t in a two man central midfield.
If it wasn’t to the detriment of the team, why did he get moved to the right and then to the 10 role?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't talking about the ones he won after he moved. I was only talking about the ones when he played in a two. As I said he could play second, third, fourth, fifth position better than most could play their first and therefore continued to be excellent individually in other positions before moving back after Benitez left and continuing to win awards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn’t give a fack about individual awards, though I know that some of your claims are false.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever, he wouldn’t have been moved to make the team successful.
You can try as hard as you like, you will never be able to argue that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's just simplistic thinking that somebody who doesn't understand football would think. It's a team game, you play players where you think it's best for the team, whether their best position is central midfield or not, especially if they're so good and so versatile.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand football a lot better than you.
And I can tell you now, if you’re one of the best central midfielders ‘ever’ (third best player this century according to you ) then you don’t get moved from your position to accommodate others.
Laughable comment.
Well it was a fun thread while it lasted
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read back.
The comment above is about Scholes.
You’ve had a drink and you’re making a fool of yourself.
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read back.
The comment above is about Scholes.
You’ve had a drink and you’re making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Scholes was a detriment to the team in a two? Apologies I've read this all wrong. I thought I read you saying Gerrard was.
I've seen the light.
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 4 minutes ago
Well it was a fun thread while it lasted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another fairly interesting article ruined by Winston, it's a real shame for the rest of us.
comment by Willie Dyer (U1734)
posted 43 seconds ago
Booooooooring
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than a Scotland 0-0
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read back.
The comment above is about Scholes.
You’ve had a drink and you’re making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Scholes was a detriment to the team in a two? Apologies I've read this all wrong. I thought I read you saying Gerrard was.
I've seen the light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the Scholes who played in a midfield two and won the lot.
You’re drunk TOOR.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started because you have made multiple negative comments about Scholes.
You’re drunk and making a fool of yourself.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
Fack me, we need to save this thread.
England isn't a nation, it isn't a nation ffs!!!
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll say literally anything.
So, Liverpool moved one of the best central midfielders ever to a different position and signed a new central midfielder in order to improve.
It’s just a brilliantly ridiculous narrative that doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny at all.
We all saw it in the CL final.
Gerrard was a detriment in that role and he was better used elsewhere.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started because you have made multiple negative comments about Scholes.
You’re drunk and making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err I don't think I made any negative comment about Scholes unless you count when I said he moved back when his legs were gone which I cavaeted by stating he also excelled in that role?
This started when you made stupid comments about one of the best central midfielders of all time nit being able to play in...err central midfield.
Don't try to spin it on to me, it's all there I'm afraid.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started because you have made multiple negative comments about Scholes.
You’re drunk and making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err I don't think I made any negative comment about Scholes unless you count when I said he moved back when his legs were gone which I cavaeted by stating he also excelled in that role?
This started when you made stupid comments about one of the best central midfielders of all time nit being able to play in...err central midfield.
Don't try to spin it on to me, it's all there I'm afraid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you check back then, you drunk fool.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 8 minutes ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Thing is, as a neutral, I think Man U fans overrate Scholes more than Liverpool fans overrate Gerrard.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll say literally anything.
So, Liverpool moved one of the best central midfielders ever to a different position and signed a new central midfielder in order to improve.
It’s just a brilliantly ridiculous narrative that doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny at all.
We all saw it in the CL final.
Gerrard was a detriment in that role and he was better used elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Liverpool already had a central midfielder on the bench but moved Gerrard to the right as were we struggling for goals and brought Sissoko in next to Alonso. Gerrard scored 23. Justified decision? Sissoko got a bad injury and we moved to the Valencia system Benitez had planned, bringing in Mascherano to play Sissoko's role next to Alonso and played Gerrard ahead of them, to great effect behind Torres where again he excelled.
You won't be allowed to rewrote history I'm afraid. At least not on my watch.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, one of the main reasons Scholes got his breakthrough to regular first team football was based on necessity, due to the Cantona ban. I don't think he even played as advanced in the youth teams, though stand to be corrected on that as I didn't watch youth football back in those days.
So yeah I agree that necessity can dictate the position in which a player is selected and if a player has the attributes to fulfill multiple roles, they'll be used in the position of most necessity at any given time
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 5 minutes ago
Of the trio of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard, the underrated one was Lampard. Was more tactically disciplined than Gerrard and better defensively than Scholes, and his ability to time those late runs to the edge of the box to finish is something that hasn't been seen since. A threat to score in every facking game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy who played at the head of a three man midfield, compared with Scholes who played in a two man midfield?
Okay then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholes in the 90's and early 2000's often played as a 10 or second striker ahead of the likes of Keane, Nicky Butt and later Veron. I remember when Man U won the title in '02/03, he was often deployed behind Van Nistelrooy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are talking out of your backside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is totally true, Winston, and you can't refute one word of it. I was a kid, but I have pretty vivid memories of the 02/03 season and Scholes was deployed behind Van Nistelrooy for much of it that I can remember.
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, one of the main reasons Scholes got his breakthrough to regular first team football was based on necessity, due to the Cantona ban. I don't think he even played as advanced in the youth teams, though stand to be corrected on that as I didn't watch youth football back in those days.
So yeah I agree that necessity can dictate the position in which a player is selected and if a player has the attributes to fulfill multiple roles, they'll be used in the position of most necessity at any given time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see this is where I said I'm not claiming to be more of an expert than Winston in regards to why things happened. I never knew that but was simply stating the facts re the positions he played as somebody else had highlighted this and Winston had incorrectly shot him down.
Sign in if you want to comment
Most overrated player
Page 10 of 20
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 30 seconds ago
Numerous player of the year awards from Central midfield, PL young player, PL player of the year, CL player of the year, many team of the years PL and CL, all before systems changed and he was moved to help put the team elsewhere. Detriment to the team
Winston clearly on the WUM. Had a few beverages have you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there’s the classic TOOR.
Revert to individual awards.
He won most of those in a role that wasn’t in a two man central midfield.
If it wasn’t to the detriment of the team, why did he get moved to the right and then to the 10 role?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't talking about the ones he won after he moved. I was only talking about the ones when he played in a two. As I said he could play second, third, fourth, fifth position better than most could play their first and therefore continued to be excellent individually in other positions before moving back after Benitez left and continuing to win awards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn’t give a fack about individual awards, though I know that some of your claims are false.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever, he wouldn’t have been moved to make the team successful.
You can try as hard as you like, you will never be able to argue that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's just simplistic thinking that somebody who doesn't understand football would think. It's a team game, you play players where you think it's best for the team, whether their best position is central midfield or not, especially if they're so good and so versatile.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 30 seconds ago
Numerous player of the year awards from Central midfield, PL young player, PL player of the year, CL player of the year, many team of the years PL and CL, all before systems changed and he was moved to help put the team elsewhere. Detriment to the team
Winston clearly on the WUM. Had a few beverages have you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there’s the classic TOOR.
Revert to individual awards.
He won most of those in a role that wasn’t in a two man central midfield.
If it wasn’t to the detriment of the team, why did he get moved to the right and then to the 10 role?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't talking about the ones he won after he moved. I was only talking about the ones when he played in a two. As I said he could play second, third, fourth, fifth position better than most could play their first and therefore continued to be excellent individually in other positions before moving back after Benitez left and continuing to win awards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn’t give a fack about individual awards, though I know that some of your claims are false.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever, he wouldn’t have been moved to make the team successful.
You can try as hard as you like, you will never be able to argue that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's just simplistic thinking that somebody who doesn't understand football would think. It's a team game, you play players where you think it's best for the team, whether their best position is central midfield or not, especially if they're so good and so versatile.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand football a lot better than you.
And I can tell you now, if you’re one of the best central midfielders ‘ever’ (third best player this century according to you ) then you don’t get moved from your position to accommodate others.
Laughable comment.
posted on 23/3/24
Well it was a fun thread while it lasted
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read back.
The comment above is about Scholes.
You’ve had a drink and you’re making a fool of yourself.
posted on 23/3/24
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
posted on 23/3/24
Booooooooring
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read back.
The comment above is about Scholes.
You’ve had a drink and you’re making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Scholes was a detriment to the team in a two? Apologies I've read this all wrong. I thought I read you saying Gerrard was.
I've seen the light.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 4 minutes ago
Well it was a fun thread while it lasted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another fairly interesting article ruined by Winston, it's a real shame for the rest of us.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Willie Dyer (U1734)
posted 43 seconds ago
Booooooooring
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than a Scotland 0-0
posted on 23/3/24
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR and Winston... Scholes v Gerrard.... This could be an all timer thread lads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He will post something that blames me and then runs away.
Obviously this has nothing to do with me being more of an expert on how United set up in the 90’s, as TOOR knows everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not about to claim I'm more of an expert on how United set up in the 90s. However I'll certainly claim Scholes started off up front, went back into an attacking midfield role, later a double pivot with Keane in the best four man midfield the PL ever had with Giggs and Beckham either side before moving deeper when his legs are gone. I'll certainly accept you know more of the ins and outs than I do but all of the above is 100% true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak of his career was in a central midfield two alongside Keane.
Try and move the goalposts as much as you like. You cannot argue the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I never stated differently. Gerrard was also at his peak when playing in a two. Got CL player of the year from there where he was the best in the world that year. Somehow only finished third. Although to be fair Ronaldinho won it that year who also was excellent and somehow Lampard sneaked in ahead of Gerrard who also had a great year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you banging on about Gerrard?
You’re drunk, aren’t you?
You started by going on about Scholes playing in other positions.
You’re a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm banging on about Gerrard in reply to your talking absolute nonsense about Gerrard.
I factually stated where Scholes played as he progressed through the years. I didn't say whether he was better at any of them, only gave my opinion that I preferred the more advanced Scholes than the deep one after his legs had gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re replying to a post about Scholes, you drunk fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was replying to your Gerrard comment initially. Read back before you dig yourself into a whole you can't get out of again, fail to admit you were wrong and then bang on about it for days whilst everybody else has moved on. For your own sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read back.
The comment above is about Scholes.
You’ve had a drink and you’re making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Scholes was a detriment to the team in a two? Apologies I've read this all wrong. I thought I read you saying Gerrard was.
I've seen the light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the Scholes who played in a midfield two and won the lot.
You’re drunk TOOR.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started because you have made multiple negative comments about Scholes.
You’re drunk and making a fool of yourself.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
posted on 23/3/24
Fack me, we need to save this thread.
England isn't a nation, it isn't a nation ffs!!!
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll say literally anything.
So, Liverpool moved one of the best central midfielders ever to a different position and signed a new central midfielder in order to improve.
It’s just a brilliantly ridiculous narrative that doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny at all.
We all saw it in the CL final.
Gerrard was a detriment in that role and he was better used elsewhere.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started because you have made multiple negative comments about Scholes.
You’re drunk and making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err I don't think I made any negative comment about Scholes unless you count when I said he moved back when his legs were gone which I cavaeted by stating he also excelled in that role?
This started when you made stupid comments about one of the best central midfielders of all time nit being able to play in...err central midfield.
Don't try to spin it on to me, it's all there I'm afraid.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 6 seconds ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. However as football fans are the way they are, they prefer to find negatives in the opposition player, rather than put forward the pluses of their player.
Surprised Winston is one of them considering his more balanced views on everything else. Think he may be drunk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started because you have made multiple negative comments about Scholes.
You’re drunk and making a fool of yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err I don't think I made any negative comment about Scholes unless you count when I said he moved back when his legs were gone which I cavaeted by stating he also excelled in that role?
This started when you made stupid comments about one of the best central midfielders of all time nit being able to play in...err central midfield.
Don't try to spin it on to me, it's all there I'm afraid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you check back then, you drunk fool.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 8 minutes ago
I think the vast majority of football fans would agree that both Gerrard and Scholes were versatile players and earned all their plaudits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Thing is, as a neutral, I think Man U fans overrate Scholes more than Liverpool fans overrate Gerrard.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll say literally anything.
So, Liverpool moved one of the best central midfielders ever to a different position and signed a new central midfielder in order to improve.
It’s just a brilliantly ridiculous narrative that doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny at all.
We all saw it in the CL final.
Gerrard was a detriment in that role and he was better used elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Liverpool already had a central midfielder on the bench but moved Gerrard to the right as were we struggling for goals and brought Sissoko in next to Alonso. Gerrard scored 23. Justified decision? Sissoko got a bad injury and we moved to the Valencia system Benitez had planned, bringing in Mascherano to play Sissoko's role next to Alonso and played Gerrard ahead of them, to great effect behind Torres where again he excelled.
You won't be allowed to rewrote history I'm afraid. At least not on my watch.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, one of the main reasons Scholes got his breakthrough to regular first team football was based on necessity, due to the Cantona ban. I don't think he even played as advanced in the youth teams, though stand to be corrected on that as I didn't watch youth football back in those days.
So yeah I agree that necessity can dictate the position in which a player is selected and if a player has the attributes to fulfill multiple roles, they'll be used in the position of most necessity at any given time
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 5 minutes ago
Of the trio of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard, the underrated one was Lampard. Was more tactically disciplined than Gerrard and better defensively than Scholes, and his ability to time those late runs to the edge of the box to finish is something that hasn't been seen since. A threat to score in every facking game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy who played at the head of a three man midfield, compared with Scholes who played in a two man midfield?
Okay then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholes in the 90's and early 2000's often played as a 10 or second striker ahead of the likes of Keane, Nicky Butt and later Veron. I remember when Man U won the title in '02/03, he was often deployed behind Van Nistelrooy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are talking out of your backside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is totally true, Winston, and you can't refute one word of it. I was a kid, but I have pretty vivid memories of the 02/03 season and Scholes was deployed behind Van Nistelrooy for much of it that I can remember.
posted on 23/3/24
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
As I said, anybody who things Gerrard in midfield was to the detriment of the team doesn't understand football.
Many of the best players throughput history have played seasons out of position to help the team, because they're top players and can. Messi played centrally, Ronaldo played on the right, left, central. Iniesta played deeper, Rooney(who I think was underrated) often played out of position to help the team. There are numerous examples.
Some players were even better in their newly adopted positions than their original, doesn't mean they were to the detriment of the team in their original position. I think TAA will be an example soon. Lahm, Maldini, Kimmich etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except saying it doesn’t mean you’re right.
Gerrard was moved from a central two man midfield because it made the team stronger. It made the team stronger because for all his qualities, he has weaknesses that were exposed in that role.
If he was one of the best central midfielders ever then he wouldn’t have spent the peak of his career being moved out to the right.
You’re wrong TOOR, and I will enjoy showing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it made the team stronger as we were lacking goals and had no top right sided player yet. We stuck in a relatively inexperienced defence midfielder in Sissoko next to Alonso and out Gerrard to the right, where rather than play the traditional role of getting to the line and crossing it, he cut inside and played in midfield, in possession. The manager who made the decision has talked about this. Go read it if you don't believe the person trying to educate you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, one of the main reasons Scholes got his breakthrough to regular first team football was based on necessity, due to the Cantona ban. I don't think he even played as advanced in the youth teams, though stand to be corrected on that as I didn't watch youth football back in those days.
So yeah I agree that necessity can dictate the position in which a player is selected and if a player has the attributes to fulfill multiple roles, they'll be used in the position of most necessity at any given time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see this is where I said I'm not claiming to be more of an expert than Winston in regards to why things happened. I never knew that but was simply stating the facts re the positions he played as somebody else had highlighted this and Winston had incorrectly shot him down.
Page 10 of 20
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15