Who is better: Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard?

Why Gerrard and Lampard could have worked for Chelsea, but won't for England

You're in the playground with 20 of your mates lined up against the wall. It's not often you and your best friend, Fabio, get to pick the sides.

You already know that Fatty Arbuckle, the lovable yet slightly uncoordinated misfit, is going to be the last choice and he will be stuck between the jumpers. ("Sorry Fatty, no rush goalie in this game. Just lie down and hopefully the ball will hit your body and cannon to safety").

But also in the line-up are Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard. You can only pick one, so who do you go for?

You want somebody who is going to get you goals, so let's look at the stats: in the last three seasons Lampard has scored a total of 72 times in all competitions for Chelsea and England, including five in the current campaign. Gerrard has hit the net 65 times for his club, Liverpool, and his country, four of them this season. Not much in it there.

How about the discipline - you want somebody who is not going to be sent to the bike sheds in disgrace. Over the same period, Lampard has accumulated 22 yellow cards and one red, as opposed to Gerrard's 13 yellows and one red. So perhaps the Liverpool midfielder has the edge.

In your guise as The Gaffer you also want to assert your authority and tell your players what to do. Gerrard's penchant to drift from side to side and romp forward at every given opportunity may go against the strict orders you have given him to hold, whereas Lampard's selflessness has endeared him to each and every one of his club and national managers. Advantage Lampard?

What about their overall effect on their team-mates? Lampard is hardworking and respected but Gerrard's inspirational attitude forces those around him to up their game to another level. His late and important goals are what the term "never-say-die" was invented for. It must be the Red.

But wait, current form has to be taken into account. No more is the school yard a place where the right wing slot goes to "Lefty" Patterson just because he carried your tray in the dining hall.

So what happened in their last game? Martin Samuel described Lampard's display in Chelsea's 2-0 victory over Aston Villa as "one of the great individual performances of the season to end any debate over who should be at the centre of the midfield action for the national team."

Gerrard, on the other hand, was quiet early on until a tactical switch helped him drive Liverpool's tremendous comeback from 2-0 down against Manchester City to their 3-2 win.

Sorry, too late. The bell has gone and all you have to look forward to is double home economics and whether to make blowfish sushi, which delights the palate when cooked correctly but could kill you with its poison, or meat and potatoes, which never fails to deliver. Which will you choose?

Vote in our poll below and let us know why you think Lampard or Gerrard is the better player.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Comments

[Mad Dave]

It is a tough one...Lampard has finally managed to show SOME discipline in the last few games. Personally, when the two played together, I always saw Lampard playing alongside the strikers and Gerrard in the centre-circle. I must have been watching different matches from the media, or maybe it looks different when you are down south?!

Gerrard can play in a disciplined role- but, he is the type of player who responds to the crowd. When they urge him forward he obliges- when the pace is slow, he obliges. Lampard doesn't have that- and it is something that you really need when you are against it or are losing in a knockout tie. I can only think of two big matches that Lampard has turned around- Champions League final (awful defending from Man U, unfortunate slip by Van Der Sar) and Champions League quarter final against Arsenal 2004 (probably Jens Lehmann's worst moment). So yes he is a lethal midfielder, but to change the tempo of a match, grab it by the scruff of the neck and really give a standout performance? Has to be Gerrard. And you need that- I can't remember one team that has one an international tournament without a few scares along the way. We need a player like that. Now if Lampard is going to just offer a defensive/central midfield position, and do the job better than Gerrard then yes he should be the preferred player. But why, oh why, should he then get in the team? There are far better players at doing this- Hargreaves, Carrick and Barry all spring to mind. So if Gerrard isn't in the team, i.e. we don't want a central midfielder who is too attacking, and we don't want to shunt a non-wide player on the wing, then there simply isn't room for either player in the starting 11. And before anyone argues that either should play behind Rooney, let us put that one to bed. Rooney has shown that he should play in the centre- that much is clear. He was phenomenal last season for Man U when he was actually played there (4-6-0, with his movement was a joy to behold) before Fergie started playing Ronaldo in the centre (did anyone else notice how Man U couldn't perform for more than half an hour after this started happening?) And he is producing the goods.

[Jonny Riches]

One of them should be dropped in favour of a holding midfielder. I would prefer Gerrard, he is more of a complete player but more importantly for this role, is a better attacking midfielder. More explosive, better creativity in terms of starting moves and accurate through balls, possibly less patience than lampard which is bad when the game is tight, but overall, is more effective as an attacking midfielder.

[Brett]

Alatar's post is a beacon of intelligent observation relative to the grimy fog of most of the posters here. Conclusions one could draw from reading your drivel:
1) The Poll says Gerrard so it must be right.
2) All of Lampard's goals were deflections
3) Better players single-handedly save their teams
4) Liverpool players shouldn't play for England anyway
5) Lamp[ard 'refuses' to play anywhere but CM so I guess n orange is the same as an apple.

Take a look at yourselves. And then run along to the Daily Mail.

[Ben Speller]

Lampard quietly goes about the unsung work very effectively and understands his place in the team. Gerrard charges about trying to win the match single-handed which gets him more attention but is not so effective. It tells you something that he doesn't even get picked in central midfield for Liverpool and they've struggle to find a partner there for him also. Lampard works effectively with whoever is along side him at Chelsea (even Ballack who many considered was too similar when Chelsea bought him). Remember everyone; TEAM GAME...

[mark harrison]

Someone needs to say it....I am a Liverpool fan and I don't give two hoots about the England team. Liverpool have had some dreadful displays this season but we have not once booed our team. The England 'fans' do and it is disgraceful. One minute you are a waste of space and the next a worldbeater. Some of the most unintelligent people must attend these games and Gerrard is well out of it if you ask me. Incidentally, the abuse Lampard has received is shocking and typical of England fans.

[zekk67]

Funny that Chelski fans keep raving about the last England game against Croatia and how Lampard is like "totally awesome". They seem to forget that just a few months back, the partnership of Gerrard and Barry was touted to be the best choice for England. Some say "why not put them both in a 4-2-3-1 formation and drop Rooney" I have nothing against Rooney being dropped but realistically, as we have seen in every England game with Gerrard and Lampard playing, we won't see Gerrard in that position as Lampard will probably defy instructions and bully Gerrard into covering his arse (just by staying forward and not defending).
Every time Gerrard and Lampard plays together, the coach claims that they will alternate positions which almost definitely never happens. Gerrard makes his trademark runs forward and ends up having to make the dash back to cover the back four when Lampard screws up.
This is no longer a debate of who's better. Both are equally good, but Gerrard gets criticised more, due to him being out of his favourite position most of the time and the worldwide pro-Man U propaganda. This is now a question of the people making their minds up and Capello picking the best team not with all of his best players. If Lampard is playing well, then play him, keep Gerrard on the bench. If Gerrard is fired up, put him on. Simple as that.
People have been criticising Capello for playing Gerrard out of position on the left, but now once Lampard and Barry are doing well, why have you people started changing their minds about this? We all know only Joe Cole or Stewart Downing can fit into that role, now all of a sudden, in order to accomodate all of ENG's best players, Gerrard "works best on the left" now??
The bottom line is, you want to see the best from your player, play him in the right position. You can't accomodate for two, then drop one. You can't place a player out of his position and then criticise him for not trying!
PS: On the last comments by Capello on Gerrard to play as "part of the team", I would say Gerrard has always been playing as part of the team, he has never demanded to be the centre of attention. Capello is not giving enough credit to his contributions to the country, so I think, there is no point for Gerrard to play for England, at least not when Capello is still in charge.

[topcorner]

Gerrard by miles. Lampard cannot defend with menace .Gerrard is much more of a complete player. I think the solution is to put Gerrard as a free role player just behind Rooney. Allow him to run wherever he wants to run. He can support in midfield when required and be a potent link between midfield and attack.

[DAN]

2 of the best centre midfileders in the world! I think Gerrard may just edge it but it's very close. Bot immense for their clubs and can do practically anything. Lampards play making is second to none, Gerrards match winning ability is second to none. Both have amazing shots, passing range, good tackling, decent headers of the ball, both actually very good dribblers altough they dont always have to run at defenders so you dont see it as much.. Both complete players.. Both world class!

[Robert Hillery]

I think both are excellant players but, if I had to pick which one is better then I would say Gerrard.
Technically their is nothing to chose between them, it is a draw when it comes to fitness, the work both players put in for their teams is world-class. Both players have an excellant mentality, Lampard showed his strength against Liverpool last season taking that penalty, Gerrard has been the leader for Liverpool and lead the way for years. Both players have an excellant application to training and both are very professional. They are both match-winners which the stats show and both effect their teams play on the pitch. The one area that Gerrard gets ahead on is Tactical application. Gerrard is far more flexible then Lampard, he has played right, left, behind the striker, as a holding midfeilder and central midfeild during his career, he has been effective in all these postions. Lampard can only really be effective in central midfeild with a holding midfeild player and that is why Gerrard is better.

[steve]

I think there is no point comparing them because it's clear that both of them are able to give life to a game. It's surprising to see that it's never a foregone conclusion with this kind of player. They can kick a goal at anytime and make their team win. Besides it's meaningless to see who of them is the best in sofar as they don't really play at the same position. It depends on the team configuration and the team spirit. As far as Chelsea is concerned, they tend to recruit to many world famous players so that the team spirit is not as so developped as in Liverpoold where the strategy is far more consolidated. We can even talk about cohesiveness for the reds. They know each other by heart.

[Ken Moore]

Gerrard is more spectacular, Lampard is more consistent. The tortoise beats the hare.
Usually. Gerrard has the European Cup but wants the league title....Lampard has a cpuple of league titles but wants the European Cup.
Not a lot in it.....is there?

[Daniel]

The better player? Gerrard.
The better player for Fabio Capello's England? Lampard.

When Gerrard is on song he's phenomenal and able to single-handedly win matches. But to do that he needs to be able to do his Roy of the Rovers schtick and charge about the pitch. And that means making concessions in the rest of the squad to accomodate his maverick play.

In a Capello setup, Lampard is much better suited to being given a job and doing it well. When Gerrard has the reins put on him, he ends up being anonymous.

[Stephen Lane]

I do not think it is a question of who is better, they are both world class, it is a question of who is right for the team and for now that must be Lampard. He showed against Croatia that he can forge a good partnership with Barry in the holding position, he keeps it simple and retains possession, which Capello insists on, and can make crucial forward runs in support of Heskey and Rooney. Gerrard is less disciplined, doesn't hold his position and tries too many ambitious long balls. Great to have to bring on after 70 minutes.

[Rodney]

The eraser is a Rank Plonker! Lampard is now worth 100m after renewing his contract. Gerrard not more than 20m

[KeZ]

Put it this way... They are both mega.

People who say Lampard is rubbish clearly do not know that much about football. As a play-maker he is one of the best in the world along with Kaka, Deco etc. His performances for Chelsea this season just keep getting better and better!

Gerrard changes games, there is no doubt about that... his shooting ability is unbelievably brilliant and his ability to connect with a striker is epic.

But for England...Lamps w/o Gerrard works better than Gerrard w/o Lampard.

[Greg Spencer]

Steven Gerrard is my vote for the middle if I had to choose one and here's why

The facts speak for themselves but forget about facts their rubbish, Frank Lampard plays in a 3 man midfield last time Frank Lampard tracked someone back and made a last ditch saving tackle answers on a postcard.

In a 4-4-2 Lampard struggles for England, because more work is required of him in his own half which he is not prepared to do. Stevie G is all action the complete midfielder tackles, scores, creates, drives he is the complete midfielder in my opinion.

So in summary play a 4-3-3 with both because no manager has the meatballs to drop any of these when both fit, debate over nothing hope I’m proved wrong.

[HUGH]

They are too different for one to be better. SG floats in and out of a game often with devastating effect late on. More energetic and disciplined FL influences the game throughout. They must be allowed to play as attacking midfielders. That means as they do for their clubs having a holding midfielder behind. Look at Chelsea/ManUtd/LPool success in Europe with that formation. Put bulldozing Rooney wide left out of their way, pacey Walcott on right Joe Cole sub for all four. No Beckham headless chicken moves inside that close space and we can get best from both FL and SG. Attacking fullbacks against the minnows a further justification for 4-1-4-1. Change formation to solve the problem Capello.

[Giordano Bennetti]

Either - but not both. I think Lampard fits into a team's system better. Gerrard seems to be a better individual player - but it is a conundrum as to where best to play him.

I'm not sure either of them are "great". Robson performed much better than either of them on the international stage.

[David Taylor]

Will we ever be free of this question? If both are on form and deserve a place, stick Lampard in the middle then Gerrard on the wing. If no Frank, then put Gerrard in the centre of the park. You simply have to have Steven Gerrard on the pitch, he can win a game in an instant.

End of. Please.

Saying that, if Capello can make them both work in the centre somehow, he'll probably get knighted.

[John]

Have just read an fact on this debate.
Gerrard has played 68 times won 44 drawn 16 and Lost 8

Lampard 64 times W 36 D 15 L13

Together the Record reads 40 Games W 24 D 8 L 8.

Gerards record without Lampard Played 28 W 20 D8 L0

Every time Gerard has lost with England he has played with Lampard. they cant play together

[Derek]

Gerrard is at his best when he plays the middle, but neither he nor Lampard play well when paired together in the middle. Hence, the problem. But you can't drop either player - that's just foolish

The best solution is probably some form of 5 man midfield - either a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-2-1 - where Lampard plays a central mid defending role behind Gerrard with Barry, Cole and Walcott on the wings.

Honestly, it's a nice problem to have - but McClaren and SGE never figured it out. Hopefully Capello does.

[Mike Sheard]

There is a great link here from the bbc showing the merits of Gerrard and Lampard playing either on their own, or together.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7656414.stm

...here is a quote... "Claims that Gerrard has the edge over Lampard when he plays with another partner in centre midfield are backed up by results in 25 games since the 2006 World Cup.

Largely based on a successful partnership during Euro 2008 qualifying with Gareth Barry, the Liverpool midfielder helped England win six out of eight games when he has been given more licence to attack.

Contrast that with Lampard who helped England win 50% of the 12 matches where he had the central role. It should be noted, however, that Gerrard played in another midfield role in eight of those.

The worst scenario, in terms of results anyway, is that the pair play centrally together. When this happened England won only 40% of their games. "

I personally believe that if you are going to try and attack a team you need to have Gerrard in it, wherever you can fit him in. Also, people seem to forget that the 'Gareth Barry has to play' debate began from him playing so well next to Gerrard. My own preverence would be to have all three - Lampard, Gerrard and Barry (certainly against Kazakhstan) with a front three of Rooney, Hesky and Walcott/SWP.

[Rik]

I think the results of the vote say it all!
Gerrard is a far better player. This is proved by the fact he can play just about anywhere, which is why he gets played all over the place and not always in his favoured central role. Lampard is excellent at that role too, but that's his only role. This is the cause of all the problems for me.
I know who'd I've have in my team if I could only pick one, sorry Frank!
If they were any other nationality, you can bet they would both be playing all the time and there would be no debate about who was better. Just pick both of them and get on with it!

[Paulc77]

Just wondering, have any of lampard's 70+ goal's mentioned here NOT hit off at least one defender's arse before looping in? It's just I've never seen him score any other type of goal......

The English have always been great value for a laugh re their international team, and the current set-up is no exception. You have two of the most naturally gifted footballers in the WORLD in Rooney and Gerrard and what happens? You haven't a clue where to play one and debate as to whether the other should even get a game!!

The England team is the only reason I maintain anything resembling an interest in boring boring international football, but it's purely in a shadenfreude sort of way. Keep up the good work fellas!

[Tim H]

This debate should really be limited to non Chelsea or Liverpool supporters. There's so much bias on here that most of it is basic lies about the unfavoured player.

I am a Liverpool supporter so I'm always going to choose Gerrard (and because he's the best! ha ha!) However, Gerrard is still on 70+% of the votes so this is not even close.

You can safely assume that England supporters are made up of fans of a range of club teams and yet they boo Lampard off the pitch half the time. Not so long ago they were singing 'You're the only one that's good' to Gerrard during a game.

As for Gerrard having a bad game against Croatia when we got eliminated for the Euros, I seem to recall him making a goal saving tackle when Croatia were through 3 on 1. That game was lost by the goalkeeper - simple as that. Two long range shots which you'd expect any decent keeper to stop. We still scored two goals which was a good haul against Croatia any other time - the fact that we conceded three was not the fault of anyone apart from Carson and our statuesque defence. And don't forget that the one amazing thing to come out of that result is that we got rid of Steve ('shtop, you are not ready') McLaren.