Martin Samuel responds: can Lampard and Gerrard play together?

On Monday, our Chief Football Correspondent asked whether the two could perform to their best together in the England midfield. Here is his response to your many replies.

The argument that Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard cannot play together only started during the World Cup, mainly because Lampard’s goals dried up. Olly.

MS: Yes, but Lampard’s goals dried up largely because of the change in striker; it was nothing to do with the midfield partnership. His dip in form coincided with a string of injuries to Michael Owen, who was mobile, and feared, and created the space into which Lampard ran. Emile Heskey did the same in Croatia and Lampard would have scored there, too, albeit his goal was harshly disallowed. When England began relying on Peter Crouch it had an impact on Lampard’s game. There were, however, concerns about Gerrard and Lampard’s compatibility before 2006. I can remember writing articles about the issue after England were eliminated from the European Championships in 2004.

Fabio Capello must be willing to make more than one of England’s finest players redundant. England cannot include all of its talent on the pitch. The problem is not limited to Lampard and Gerrard, because those players also operate in the hole that Wayne Rooney is trying to carve out. J.P.

MS: It is a myth that Lampard operates in Rooney’s space. He runs through it to get to his objective which is the penalty area, or six-yard box.

Gerrard is often played on the left or defensively and therefore cannot contribute in attack. By comparison, Lampard is often non-existent and cannot defend at all.

Gerrard is obviously better than Lampard, so for the good of the team, Lampard should be dropped in favour of Heskey, who can play alongside Rooney or Owen, with two wingers and a defensive midfielder, giving Gerrard the capacity to attack. John.

MS: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Gerrard is not often played on the left, he has been used there in two matches by Capello. Far from being non-existent, Lampard was England’s best player in Andorra and pretty damn close to it in Croatia. He is a better defender than Gerrard because he holds his position; it is not all about making eye-catching, courageous tackles having chased back 20 yards to get to where you should have been in the first place. If my response reads like a condemnation of Gerrard, this is not the intention. His strengths greatly outweigh his failings, I would just like to move away from this idea that one of Gerrard and Lampard is superior to the other when, in reality, they could both do so much for the England team.   

Gerrard has never played as well for England as he does for his club; Lampard has been even more nondescript in many internationals. Gareth Barry has been sublime in all of his appearances, cool, clever, skilled and with a beautiful array of accurate passes. Big names mean nothing. Not once have I seen Gerrard and Lampard play a great game together and complement each other. How many more times does it have to be tried? They are oil and water, but still dense managers try it. Toff.

MS: Oh, give it a rest. Barry had a dismal game against the Czech Republic in August and would have lost his place to Owen Hargreaves in Andorra, had he been fit. He was ordinary during Croatia’s win at Wembley, too, at fault for Spain’s goal in a friendly at Old Trafford last year, shall I go on? He has had a number of outstanding games, too, but this idea that everything Barry does is wonderful, while Gerrard and Lampard are always poor is nonsense. As for all these dense managers that try to play Gerrard and Lampard, I am sure a good many would like to be one trophy behind Capello, or Jose Mourinho, who wanted to pair them at Chelsea.

Playing Gerrard and Lampard together is only a serious problem in a 4-4-2 where both are in central midfield. In other systems, Gerrard can play in a number of positions without having him alongside Lampard. I am a huge Liverpool fan and believe Gerrard to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but to be able to get the best out of him you need to do either one of two things. Drop him from the team and make him work his way back. This may sound sacrilegious, but he is still very good on the wing, and if his choice was not playing, or playing wide, he would play there happily. Alternatively, you build the team around him. He has shown at Liverpool that he can push an ordinary bunch of players much further then they should go. I would give anything to see one of those class Gerrard performances in a Three Lions shirt. Taymur.

MS: So these are our options: drop him or canonise him? Look, why don’t we just play him, in every game, in a position that benefits the team. This may be starting wide and coming inside, but it is surely better than ignoring him because to resolve the issue is too much hard work. Also, the best thing since sliced bread? What, even toasted?

The trouble is that Gerrard does not look like he actually wants to play for England but is too afraid of the grief he would get if he came out and said it. Chris Forte.

MS: I think the opposite, Chris. I think he really wants to play well for England, and the pressure weighs heavily on him.

It is surely about discipline. Gerrard can play in pretty much any position in the front six and the fact he moans about not getting to play where he wants is sad. It is a shame he does not have Phil Neville’s attitude to versatility which guaranteed him a place in the squad for years when there were better players in specific positions. Gerrard is an incredible player, but maybe missing the 4-1 win in Croatia is what he needs to add a bit of detached reality to his role? Dave N.

MS: I said after the victory in Zagreb that the long-term worth of the result is that it gives Capello the freedom to look at the players who were not there, most particularly Gerrard and Hargreaves, and ask whether they want in on this ride or not. And that means playing in the role the team needs. If Zinedine Zidane can start left and come inside for France, I am sure Gerrard can be as selfless for England.

Gerrard and Owen should both be used as impact substitutes. The players who won in Croatia deserve to keep their places and perhaps we could go down the route of using intelligent replacements who influence a game rather than just interchange with better, tiring legs, as happens with Stewart Downing and David Bentley. Owen replaces Rooney around the hour mark, Gerrard on for Lampard. We may have a chance of building a settled, balanced side and can then begin to blend in players like Ashley Young and Dean Ashton. Nick.

MS: How will we, Nick, if two substitute places are reserved for Gerrard and Owen? One cannot plan a match this precisely. Luis Aragones used Cesc Fabregas in a deliberate way during the European Championships, but he had four options in midfield. It was not simply a case of putting Fabregas on for the same player all the time; all impact is lost if that is the case.

I'd like to remind you of how well Spain did at Euro 2008 despite Fabregas starting on the bench. The best players together do not always make the best team. Joe.

MS: Yes, but Fabregas was not left out due to some cunning tactical ploy. Aragones assessed fitness levels and thought he had been exhausted by the Premier League season. He then changed his 4-5-1 formation, without David Villa, to a 4-4-2, with Villa, but without Fabregas. It worked so well in the group stages that he stuck with it. 

Let's face it, Lampard is only in the team because of the London factor. There is an unwritten law that the London press, who pick the England team, will always favour the London clubs despite all evidence that Cockney players tend to be flaky, emotionally unstable and certainly not who you'd want next to you in the trenches. It won't change and it's a major factor in England's lack of success. Burnley Bob.

MS: Congratulations to Bob, who wins the star prize for the Half-Baked Northern Conspiracy Theories letter of the week, which is a lifetime supply of ferrets dipped in mushy peas and housed in a cloth cap. Nice try, Bob, I almost fell for it. Now if you will excuse me I’m going to stick Chas and Dave on the stereo and take a cold bath in some jellied eels. Altogether now: ‘Let’s all go down The Strand, have a banana…’

Surely the choice has been made for the manager. A great performance and result means the men in possession of the shirts should keep them. Colin Blues.

MS: Until what, they lose? Surely a good manager anticipates this and tries to improve on a winning team before it tastes defeat.

In club football there would be plenty of criticism for a manager who tried to accommodate superstars into a side, and sacrificed the team ethic. Even world class talent becomes obsolete if the two players cannot work together. What if the solution is to simply play one of them? Why keep trying something that doesn't appear to work? Josh Dickson.

MS: I can see your point, Josh, but I don’t think Capello has had a sufficient crack at this yet. Considering the impact he made in ten days with the players the last time, I would back him to resolve this problem, given more opportunity; or to be the one that makes the bold decision to which you refer, if it does not come off.

This question of whether you can play Lampard and Gerrard together is not that straightforward. If they always need a holding player, does this mean that if Hargreaves or Barry are injured you draft someone else in, such as Jermaine Jenas, to play between them? Bugsy.

MS: Yes. When Chelsea lost John Obi Mikel and Michael Essien, the manager, Luis Felipe Scolari, did not abandon the idea of a holding midfield player because the personnel had changed. He knew it was required to bring the best out of Lampard, Deco, Michael Ballack and Joe Cole, so he brought in Juliano Belletti as a stop-gap. And he did well. English football will only advance when we are able to adapt to these challenges; if not we are always one injury away from disaster.

I don't think the major problem is playing Lampard and Gerrard together, but playing those two with Rooney. Lampard and Gerrard with a holding player would fit, but both would then be looking to push forward, eating up the space in which Rooney flourishes. It would also leave the wide area unfilled. The answer is either: a) to play one of the two and give Rooney the free role to drop deep centrally b) to play Rooney on the left wing, cutting inside, with Ashley Cole overlapping c) to drop Rooney or
e) to play Rooney as a lone striker. Chris.

Unfortunately, Chris, the best option is probably d) the one you failed to mention. Jim Regan.

MS: Yes, I wonder if in years to come Chris’s option d) will be looked upon like one of those legendary lost albums, hidden in the vaults unreleased, that would have changed history and popular thought had the record company, or the artist, only had the courage to pursue the vision. And then years later, the songs come out as bonus tracks on a greatest hits CD and they turn out to be crap.   

Gerrard and Lampard are instinct players who have free reign at their clubs, with others filling in for them. When they play together they lose this, by having to think of each other all the time. That is why they are not effective. Dave Lemming.

MS: Absolutely, Dave. The myth about Gerrard and Lampard is that they are both charging into the same space all the time. The opposite is true. When they play together they are so worried about that happening and leaving a big space at the back, that they become inhibited, neither wanting to go forward until he is sure he is covered. The end result is that they both stay back, or one goes when it is too late. You are right that at club level this is solved by the presence of a dedicated holding midfielder. England’s problem has been finding someone with the discipline for that role, because if the holding player is trying to push on, too, it defeats the object.

Do you ever wonder what would have happened had Mourinho got Gerrard. Maybe they would be playing well together by now. Mpho.

MS: Yes, and Liverpool would have been mid-table for the last three seasons.

Gerrard should be on the bench. He lacks the finesse and discipline for international football and his ball retention is appalling. Apart from his performance in Andorra last year he has never hit the heights for England. Lampard is better suited to 4-4-2 and England's style of play. Unlike Gerrard, he can hold his position, pass accurately and is a goal threat. If it is Gerrard versus Lampard, my vote goes to Frank. James U.

MS: There have been a lot of posts with this theme, yet I cannot help thinking that, a few games ago, the argument would have been to drop Lampard and keep Gerrard. All on the back of the odd good game, bad performance or missed match. We have to use something more tangible than the last decent game; there has to be a strategy.

Gerrard and Lampard cannot play together as the middle pair in a flat four midfield. They have done so on numerous occasions and it has never properly worked. They have also played together as part of a midfield five for England, both advanced, with a holding player in between them behind and this didn't work, either. With Theo Walcott in such good form, Gerrard would have to play on the left at the expense of Joe Cole, who has been one of England's best players over the last three years. The only logical conclusion is to drop Lampard who, until the Croatia game, had not played well for England for four years, even when on form for Chelsea. Chris B.

MS: These four years would include the World Cup qualifying campaign, in which Lampard was England’s top goalscorer with five goals? The two seasons in which he won England’s player of the year award, voted for by England fans. And now, when he is getting back to that form, with strong performances against Andorra and Croatia, you want him dropped. Yes, it is all about the logic, that one.

Other countries have dropped good players because they upset the balance of the team, so why shouldn’t we? England’s best performances recently – the Croatia win and the string of 3-0 victories at Wembley under McClaren – were with only one of Gerrard or Lampard in the side. Strange, I'm sure you were against them playing together not so long ago. Matt.

MS: Must have been somebody else, Matt. I’ve always advocated an accommodating solution rather than this baby out with the bath water tactic that excludes one of the most influential midfield players in world football.

You say: “There is no reason why Gerrard and Lampard should not work together.” Except they haven't. Ever. They didn't throughout Sven Goran Eriksson and McClaren’s tenures and there is absolutely no evidence that they will work well together now. Surely if they really were world class internationals, they would have won something by now. Anyone would think that you've never seen an England international. Joe.

MS: Nor you, Joe. Worked together for most of the European Championships in 2004, the World Cup qualifying campaign and in the international against Brazil at Wembley, for instance. Worked together against the United States in a friendly, when Gerrard scored, last season. As for winning something, I presume Lampard’s two league titles or Gerrard’s European Cup does not count in the forging of a world class player, then, because they are club honours. So does this place Stephane Guivarch or Frank Lebouef on a higher plane because they have World Cup winners medals?

Why should anyone care? England are a southern based team who from now on will only play their home fixtures at Wembley. Robert Balmain.

MS: It’s the capital, pal. Get used to it.

Why should Gerrard be the one to drift wide? I think you are missing the point. It has been tried many times, and was with Paul Scholes. Please can we not force our best player into retirement again. AJ.

MS: Scholes was being asked to stay wide to stretch the play. Gerrard is not. Big difference.

Eriksson was a very good manager. He was unable to get them to play together and I have faith in his experience. Andrew.

MS: “Can Gerrard or Lampard play as a holding midfield player? They can both do it but it is a question in their heads. Do they like to do it? Are they prepared to do it? We have never talked about it.” Sven Goran Eriksson, August 2005. And that is your problem right there. A relationship a sophisticated as the one between central midfielders needs coaching, and Eriksson had little inclination to coach. I am glad Andrew had faith in him because, to my mind, his inertia is the root of this problem.

I thought Capello may have come up with the solution, with Gerrard starting wide, but the player poured cold water on that possibility with his very public complaints about not playing in a free role in the middle. Victor.

MS: You are presuming that Capello listens to moaning players, Victor. Does he really seem that type?

If we are still asking the question five years on then surely the answer is no. Barry plus one, for me. Richard Smither.

MS: Ah yes, Richard, but times, and more importantly managers, change.

Gerrard, remember, scheduled an operation to clash with a vital qualifier, in order not to hinder his club. He should be given back to his first love, Liverpool, where the manager is happy to build the team around the way he likes to play, a selfish style which would be unlikely to find success against world-class defenders on form. Paul, Bermondsey.

MS: Gerrard’s style has worked against plenty of world-class defenders, regardless of form, Paul, but failing to inform England of his impending operation was a demerit, I agree. By the way, folks, the best pie and mash in London is in Paul’s manor, Bermondsey, and can be found at Manze’s on Tower Bridge Road. As Burnley Bob knows, me and all the southern media get in there with our favourite Cockney players while we decide on Fabio Capello’s England team and have a right old Pearly King knees-up. Altogether now: ‘Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner…’

The question is the same as asking whether two left backs play at left back at the same time. Leigh Rogers.

MS: No it isn’t, although in answer to that question, when England won 1-0 in Macedonia, Ashley Cole played left-back, Stewart Downing as a form of left wing-back because the threat of the opposition came down one flank. So anything is possible.

I think the important fact is that England do not need to play both players to have a winning team. Look at what happened when Carlos Alberto Parreira tried to stick Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka and Adriano in the same Brazilian team. Football is about creating a working machine. You know this Martin, so what is your obsession with grafting these two players together? Ph.

MS: Yes, but what happened when Scolari played Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Rivaldo, which people said would never work? Brazil won the World Cup. No, football is not just about playing a collection of stars, but the first question for all England managers should be how many world class players can we get into this team without affecting the balance. I look at Gerrard and Lampard and both are major match winners. I’m sorry, but it has to be worth the effort to make them fit together.

Comments

[gazal]

england can't afford to rest stevieee we should some how adjust our formation to keep him in the team

[kek]

One name: Michael Essien. Any where he plays for chelsea : world class. If both had that attitude, problem solved. Lampard showed great discipline against Croatia playing as a second holding midfielder. Gerrard needs to show the same. If he is played on the right stay on the right. The lack of discipline is the root of all failure

[steve]

The way I see it, after watching many matches and reading all these comments is that Steve Gerrard is by far and away the most talented of the English players; the lack of ability found in Lampard and Rooney and their utter inability to function in any role but one, constantly means that Gerrard's natural game is sacrificed for the benefit of these misfiring giants. Not a fan of Barry, but he compliments Gerrard well.

[jack milner]

Hi,
Remember " Sir Alf " ?. Pick
the best team not the best
players, look for a young
jimmy bullard.
Jack

[William Esler]

I agree that there is no reason why a centre midfielder like Gerrard cannot start out wide for England.

As a Northern Ireland fan, look at Steve Davis, probably our best centre attacking midfielder who has deployed on the left wing a number of times to allow Damien Johnson to be partnered along with Chris Baird or Sammy Clingan as a holding midfielder, and this has worked well, even against some of the bigger nations.

Probably the ideal solution may be:
Hargreves

Walcott Lampard Gerrard Rooney

Heskey

The problem is that Rooney is pushed out of his best position and it perhaps leaves the left side open to attack. However, with Rooney working the space deep on the left, (as he did a lot against Chelsea at the weekend) and Lampard and Gerrard making runs into the box to feed off Heskey's knockdowns it may work

[Andy Watt]

Play 442.

Heskey and Rooney up front. Sorry little Mikey, but Heskey is better at making space for the others.

Walcott, Hargreaves, Lampard and Gerrard in the midfield.

Walcott plays on the right and MUST hug the line to provide width. Hargreaves and Lampard through the middle in their normal positions. Gerrard has license to roam...sometimes on the left, sometimes switching with Walcott, sometimes bombing forward. He's not roaming because he's too arrogant to fulfill his defensive duties; he's doing it because it creates havoc in defenses. (LFC scored more points than any other team in the last 15 games of last season because Torres and Gerrard basically played up front together).

A key to making this work is to have a left back (Cole) that is very comfortable getting into advanced positions, filling the space that might be vacated by Gerrard and therefore maintaining the team's shape.

This is basically playing 5 in midfield and would scare the bejesus out of most teams with the pace and mobility.

gerrard is great he put great in to briton goggle all ihis goals you silly boys

[Oz Adams]

One aspect often forgotten about in this age-old debate is that of pace. Not only of the two players involved but in the context of the England teams they have played in. When Owen was bang in form and stretching defences with his pace, areas opened up for Gerrard and Lampard to utilise. With the use of Crouch, this was lost, and further compounded by Beckham's presence on the right wing. England lost flexibility and spaces to operate in were minimised. We saw in Croatia with Walcott what a catalyst pace, and the threat of it, can do to the opposition, pulling the pitch wider, pushing defences deeper and thereby maximising the options England's midfield (and Rooney) had. Rarely did both Lampard or Gerrard play in an England team with effective, pacey players around them.
Liverpool and Chelsea both have players that offer more pace than Gerrard and Lampard and therefore like England's best performances offer different angles and approaches of attack bringing the best out of them.
Both read the game well, so there is no reason to suggest with sufficient coaching time with the manager, something that Eriksson always fought for, that they cannot both be accomodated. The other players around them help define the context in which they play, so the way in which fullbacks, centrebacks and wingers are utilised is vital; Ferdinand could easily step up to fill space in front of the back four when needed as his reading of the game and technical attributes are first class. However, perhaps the worries around Terry's lack of pace underline the continued percieved need for a defensive midfielder.
Like Martin I believe, like them or not, they are Englands best two centre midfielders and with the right tactics and players to complement them they can be highly effective together, after all, Arsenal have started the season pretty well without a strict defensive midfielder, yet Fabregas and Denilson have been employed by Wenger to both be aware of their defensive responsibilities, a task they have executed very well.

[Richard smither]

I remember France winning the World Cup with Cantona and Ginola not even in the squad.

Baggio used to keep Mancini out of the Italian side.

Lots of good teams have put star players on the bench to create the best 11.

For me I would probably alternate between the 2 based on form.

Previously it would have been Gerrard every time but he's blotted his copy book with the operation timing and Lampard looks his old self now the Barca speculation has finally gone.

You could play Gerrard on the left but the chances of him staying there are slim....

To the bench!

[Big Stan]

I hope Gerrard does keep getting played, out of position or with Lampard, and then be criticised for it by the press and fans alike, he might then retire early and be able to play where he appreciated and without distraction....as a Red, it makes me cringe to believe he can be so readily criticised by supposed sports journalists and fans....not only is he meant to carry the whole team, but do it out of position and make up for the absolute woeful England managers/tactics that have been used for nearly the last decade. If you had any idea of his ability, day in day out, and not just the 5mins most of you lot see out there on MOTD, you would understand playing him to his strengths is important to get out of him what Liverpool does...How on earth can he does the things he does for Liverpool if he's out on the left, or playing the holding role, or in a team were no player has a clue what their role is...I dont see your logic if you think you can.

Now I am not anti-Lampard neither...he's an awesome player, and thank God Gerrard never went to Chelsea that season, because I'm sure a decent manager and half a brain would have made it work where that midfield would have destroyed any in europe for many years....but put Lampard in the last few Liverpool Squads, and honestly tell me he could saved the day or dragged overpaid crap out of their self made holes as many times as Gerrard...I don't think he could have......

Please feel to criticise away, your loss is our gain.

[Mark Mead]

This debate should be about who joins Lampard and Gerrard in the England starting line-up, and not if either of them can effectively influence the game without a "holding midfielder" in tandem. I do not recall anybody spouting the fact that you could only play Bryan Robson for instance with someone who consistently broke up the play behind him. Wilkins was often his partner, but not exactly reknown for his robust defensive qualities. What is missing from the make-up of the England side is a forward who can retain posession and provide a constant outlet allowing Lampard to run past the line, and Gerrard to join when on the offensive. A forward with the physical attributes of Drogba, the touch and vision of Bergkamp, and the goal scoring instincts of Van Nistleroy would suffice. If you spot a qualifying player when out at a game this weekend, I am sure Capello would be interested.
Until such a player arrives, Lampard and Gerrard will spend much of their international careers chasing the game and not dictating the result.

[EF]

I don't think they should play together in the same team- the dynamic doesn't seem to work. But I think them not playing together could be a real positive. I think you tell them- I'm going to start the one with the best form. Then you bring the other off the bench. We often seem to go out of competitions after extra time- so to have say a fresh Gerrard at that point would be a real plus. It becomes more so when you consider Lamps age at the next world cup, and the swealtering heat.

[True Blue Terri]

Thank you your continued sensible attitude to this question. It amazes me the amount of vitriol directed at such a talented player as Frank Lampard. It strikes me that given more time with his full squad (you could see a massive improvement when they spent 10? days together) Mr Capello will be able direct the players to play much more effectively together.
By the way could you explain to Burnley Bob that I don't think it's possible to hear Bow Bells in Romford!

[Joel]

You can't fit Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney into the same team if you play all 3 centrally. Rooney needs a man alongside him up front. Gerrard and Lampard need a holding player alongside them in midfield. Of course you could play Gerrard/Rooney out wide in a 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 formation with Lampard playing alongside a holding player in CM. But then Capello would have to sacrifice Cole or Walcott/SWP/Bentley and is the inclusion of both Lampard and Gerrard really worth the loss of pace, trickery and delivery from SWP, for example? Personally I don't think Lampard is as good a player as Gerrard so think he should be the man to make way BUT if you're going to play them both then you have to put Gerrard on the right. And we all know what the vast majority of the media thinks about Gerrard and the right hand side.

[Bryan]

The answer to the riddle is easy - play Gerrard at right back, a position in which he excels. And play 4 3 3.

Brilliant

[Chris]

It's like trying to play 2 goal keepers because they're the best in the world, like having 2 main courses for dinner because you can't decide. It's just too much!
Try to fit them in as long as you like, the team will always be more balanced with one of the two pulling the strings in middfield.
And I don't think that Gerrard or Lamps on the left is better than JC, or better than TW on the right for that matter. There's no room, deal with it!

[Martin]

Its probably too late to comment on this article, but I think everyone is underestimating the importance of Owen Hargreaves as the holding midfield player behind Gerrard and Lampard.

They have only started 7 games together for England, but in those seven games England have won 5 drawn 2 and conceded 0 goals!

This shows that the two can play together provided they have a competent holding player behind them, as shown also by the three impressive results in Autumn 2005 (including the 3-2 defeat of Argentina) when Ledly King was holding behind the two.

[Jo]

Can Gerrard and Lampard play together? Yes. Can Gerrard and Lampard play effecticley together? No. Gerrard and Lampard are both too similar players to be effective in the same team. Last year when Lampard was injured and Barry stepped in everyone was calling for Lamps to be dropped as Gerrard was playing well. Now when Gerrard was out Lamaprd steps in and does well and everyone is calling for Gerrard to be dropped. The only way I can see the two being effective is be deploying a 5 man midfield, but then the problems lies with the attack - England do not have Drogba or Toni type forward, Rooney isnt effective as the lone striker he plays better behind the main striker. 4-4-2 would be more effective for England with Rooney off a central striker - and either Lamps or Gerrard in the middle. We don't have to play everyone at the same time.

[Michael Lappin]

There is no question that they can play well together. As far as I can see both perform well in their clud sides along sied at least two other "central midfielders". The problem is that within the England set up no manager has had the inclination, wit or balls to get them performing together. I would think that any team would be intimidated by Gerrard and Lampard working together at the height of their form. Now that would be a world class midfield to be proud of.