to evaluate Lampards contribution to England you only have to look at the World Cup. And you will find he had more shots on goal than any other player in the tourney. He squadered chance after chance. Given the license to run free. In contrast Gerrard took 8 shots on goal at the World Cup and was Englands top scorer. Look back at when England were last playing as a team when Lampard when we beat Germany so convincingly on German soil.

you want to question why Gerrard has never performed for England? Well he has, anytime Lampard is not in the same team the team plays well. I am pleased for Barry because he has always been a good lad kept his gob shut and when given the chance he has seized it. As opposed to Hargraves who has never been consitaint and was fortunate enough to be a shining star in a dark cloud of England rubbish. I would say that Hargraves and Lampard should be used to push Gerrard and Barry to keep their form at Club level so they keep their place in the England Team. I have always said that Gerrard and Lamps should not be played together it should be one or the other.

the fact is that Gerrard hasn't particularly performed great in the last 2 games against crap opposition, WITHOUT Lampard. Gerrard is supposedly a World Class player, isn't he? you can't blame another player for his below par performances, it's bollox.

and to go back to the England-Germany game all those years ago is laughable, because either side of that game, before and after England were rubbish and struggled to qualify. (does that sound familiar?) so what does the one game against Germany signify, exactly?

your obvious hatred of Lampard and your lauding over and wetting your pants over Gerrard clearly shows your bias. anyone who doesn't care one way or the other has called it as it is.

it's obviously impossible for Liverpool fans to hear any kind of comments about Gerrard that aren't coming to the conclusion that he's the 21st Century human embodiment of Johan Cruyff, Diego Maradona, Pele, George Best, Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, Kenny Dalglish, etc, etc, etc.

Gerrard's a good player for England, but he is not a great player and he is not irreplaceable by any means. The fact he sees himself as so important to the team that he has to play through an injury sums up the kind of man he is and the same goes for Michael Owen and David Beckham too. They think the walls of England will come tumbling down without them. They won't.

If you replace the name Lampard with Gerrard then you're talking about yourself!

Or perhaps he see's playing for England as the important thing.

you're right, I've taken a dislike to Gerrard of late.

as for England being 'the most important thing' - what, more important than his fitness? more important than the people that pay his wages? they are selfish (Owen and Beckham in particular) - they must think no one can do the job for England as well as them. Arrogant, frankly.

You've taken a dislike to SG of late???


So if he makes himself available he's selfish but if he pulls out for an injury he shouldn't be allowed to wear an England shirt again.

spot on Scouser

I can't take you seriously MTTC because obviously you hardly rate Gerrard. You spend a bit of time riding the lad IMO and to me its just a bit of Jealousy. I see you touting King and Dawson but Carragher and Gerrard aren't right for England. I see you saying Defoe should get the nod But Owen is selfish. Who picks the Team Gerrard? Owen?

transparent.

The thing is Gerrard was not sub par or bellow standards as you may suggest. He is a very unselfish player and do you think that Barry had so much time on the ball because Gerrard was Rubbish? How do you watch a game? Did you see the pin point passes Gerrard made to Heskey and Owen and Joe Cole? No because they were not in the highlights reel you must have missed them. Anyone who watched the game will be pleased with the team and the only sub par performance that I saw was that of Rio. I felt everyone did what they were supposed to. The fact is that it was nice to finally see some new blood in the England team and some players playing for England.

Now with England in a do or die sittuation really needing to get 6 points from the last 2 matches, for you to call Gerrard selfish for playing on a broken toe is a bloody joke. Obviously you want to call him a nancy boy when he is not fit and selfish when he plays through injuiry. Instead of aplauding the job he did for his country you want to take every shot you can. You may not rate him but need you slate him every chance you get.

No one said if he pulls out he shouldn't play for England ever again. Well I certainly didn't, that's for sure. Who said he shouldn't play for England if he pulls out, that's the most stupid thing I ever heard.

If a players injured then he's injured, he shouldn't play on regardless. In the long run they'll only do themselves more damage.

The reason for dropping players is poor performance, and not getting the right standard of play out of a player.

And yes of late (the last year or so, since reading his autobiography) I've taken a dislike to him. I think he's the epitome of the modern footballer, selfish, arrogant and spoilt. These players are just out to get what they can from the game. Like, for example, Beckham's obsession with getting the 100 caps for England.

This is the complete anti-thesis of what you want from a player, a perfect opposite of this is Gary Lineker, knowing when it was time to call it a day, just one goal behind Bobby Charlton's England goal scoring record.

Ona, in this very thread I 'touted' Joleen Lescott and NOT Michael Dawson to replace Rio Ferdinand, instantly negating the bollox you're spouting right now.

I never called Gerrard a nancy boy for pulling out of a squad. I've always said that if a player's injured then he should not play. I have said this since World Cup 2002, when Owen and Beckham played on through injuries, and then afterwards used it as an excuse for playing below par. I find it selfish.

And it is selfish for Gerrard to play on, just because of the situation England find themselves in, Gerrard must think there's no other midfielder who can replace him. Which is not true, as I said, there are 10-a-penny midfielders who could have played as Gerrard did against Israel and Russia. He was not special. He was not World Class. He was merely adequate, and did a job. A Kevin Nolan could have done exactly the same job.

despite the fact that I dislike him, that doesn't mean I don't rate him either. I think he's excellent for Liverpool, merely not so much for England, if that's ok with you? is it?

It was OK for Lumpard to play for England with a bad toe.....Oh yes and the Great and wonderful Gary Lineker!!!!

No matter how you slice it, the combinations of Gerrard/Barry and Owen/Heskey provided an improved effort, style, and result for England. They won two consecutive matches against decent sides and went from 4th in the group to being in control of their own destiny to win it.

IMHO, it seems kind of silly to be fighting over which element(s) had the grea-*test*-('") affect on that improvement.

Perhaps a little credit is due to the oft-maligned Ginger boy for trying something a bit different. If Heskey and/or Barry had flopped, you lot would be calling for McLaren's head!

only because Dawson is not fit and you would have no basis for an Argument. But i recall last season and even in the summer you rated Dawson much higher than Lescott. I think it is a matter of fact that as you said you feel you know Gerrard better than we do. I did not read his auto biography so I will not comment on it. But with all the football I doubt he read it himself all the way through.

No one came on here saying how Gerrard was outstanding and changed the game. But you did come on here rubbishing his performance why? Did he play poorly? Everything I saw was very team oriented so for you to call him self centered and everything you hate about the modern footballer is really laughable.

Let's see the lad plays in any possition the manager tells him, knowing his best possition is AM for both club and country. He turned down a move to Chelsea that would have given him the big money and EPL title only to stay with his boy hood club and try to achieve things where he started them. Sure he still got big money but he is not chasing personal glory. If you think that then you just have not figured it out. If you watched the lad train you would be eating your words. He does not shine in every game because he is a team player. He is not waistful as you suggest, he is not anything you make him out to be in footballing terms. Steven Gerrard and Michael Owen are complete professionals and they should be aplauded for their efforts to stick to football.


Are you disputing his class? It sure sounds like it to me. You seem to think Stevie is just a media darling but he is a model pro and that is why the media fancies him. In a day and age when footballers are constaintly tied up in off field drama Gerrard keeps his nose to football.

Gerrard bleeds for England just as he does for Liverpool. Why do you want to slate the lad for doing his job?

Lol!

True!

I still am!

just wait until he drops Barry then you will be seeking not just calling for it

well for what it's worth, I too think if Stevie G shouldn't have played for england.. he's not played for liverpool since the game against Chelsea and he was obviously not 100% match fit , nor was he fully over his injury ..

BUT

Mclaren INSISTED that he played simply because he knows what a player stevie g is.. and steven himself ( even at the risk of antagonising Rafa) WANTED to play and give his all for the ENGLAND cause..

so for anyone to say that steven is arrogant, selfish and spoilt really means that they have absolutely no idea about the lad or no idea what they're talking about ! :<!--emo&DUMMY--><!--endemo-->

On the LFC boards , a minority of fans are up in arms as to how he has played and risked further injury when we're supposedly in with a shot a the title.. whereas a minority of english fans are crucifiying him whether he plays for his country or not.

so what is the lad to do?? I personally wish he does a carra and retires from international football to tell you the truth , but he won't do that. He wants to achieve success in every game he plays, he's born winner and he wants to help England win a major trophy.

as for articles from a national newspaper , after the INDEPENDENT, here's one from the TELEGRAPH

England partner-up at Wembley
By Henry Winter
14/09/2007



Steve McClaren wanted his England players to become united, but no one was quite expecting friends re-united. Michael Owen and Emile Heskey, Steven Gerrard and Gareth Barry, Micah Richards and Shaun Wright-Phillips: partnerships now abound throughout England's ranks.

Heskey and Owen enjoyed playing together at Liverpool and, for a while, under Sven-Goran Eriksson with England. As the new boys to the squad at Euro 2000, Gerrard and Barry were given a shared living room in their hotel at Spa, becoming good friends. Richards and Wright-Phillips, while not close mates, know each other from Manchester City. Kinship bonds England. "You need partnerships all over the park,'' reflected McClaren after the 3-0 Euro 2008 qualifying defeat of Russia on Wednesday night.


Credit where it is due: McClaren has listened to the mood music in the dressing room, and realised he must build around potential match-winners like Owen and Gerrard who need specialised partners. Owen clearly wanted Heskey restored to the international fold, and McClaren certainly obliged.

An erstwhile England centre-forward once remarked to a newcomer partner that "your job is to make me look good'', and if Owen would never be selfish as that, it is pretty obvious that Heskey's job is to make Owen look good. Owen certainly enjoyed his night at the flicks with Heskey on Wednesday, scoring twice at Wembley. "There was no doubt that the two together would cause problems,'' McClaren said.

He stressed that Wayne Rooney and Owen can also be a partnership yet it will be fascinating to see how - or whether - McClaren accommodates the Manchester United striker when he is fully fit after his la-*test*-('") metatarsal misery.

If England's head coach was prepared to rely for width on his flying full-backs, Richards and Ashley Cole, he could omit either Wright-Phillips or Joe Cole and introduce Rooney behind the Heskey-Owen alliance in a 4-3-1-2 configuration. Yet, as the last few encouraging days have confirmed, England's players prefer 4-4-2.

for those of us who had long feared McClaren would never get the best out of Gerrard, either restricting him to the right or tempering his attacking instincts by linking him with Frank Lampard, it has been uplifting to see England's head coach erecting a stage for the Liverpool virtuoso. Gerrard is central to England's fortunes in every respect.

Lampard is a magnificent attacking midfielder, but so is Gerrard; to borrow Joey Barton's memorable phrase "they needed a ball each'' when in tandem. Like a first-time film director, McClaren had to stop being dazzled by the stars, and impose his belief in what works best for the collective.

He was rewarded fully for pairing Gerrard with Owen Hargreaves against Andorra and particularly with Barry against Israel and Russia. Barry is a more creative player than Hargreaves but still a selfless pro who dovetails well with his friend Gerrard. Some of England's most crucial penalty-area tackles on Russians were made by Barry.

Yet it was Lampard's injuries that forced McClaren's hand, and only when everyone is fit and fresh will we discover whether the coach remains in thrall to stellar reputations. Those listening to McClaren yesterday were left with the indelible impression that he now understands Gerrard works better with someone like Barry or Hargreaves than with Lampard.

McClaren praised "the blend'' of Barry and Gerrard, and pointed out how impressed he had been watching the Aston Villa captain in harness with Nigel Reo-Coker against Chelsea on Sept 2. "He [Barry] played in the two,'' recalled McClaren, "and if you'd have seen him in training with Stevie G during the week you'd have seen that the blend and the balance was perfect.''

The proliferation of options is also hugely significant. "Who knows when we come to the next squad who's going to be injured, and what kind of form they're going to be in,'' said McClaren as his thoughts pondered the assault course of club matches his players must negotiate before reuniting for the Euro 2008 qualifiers against Estonia, at home on Oct 13, and Russia in Moscow on Oct 17.

Richards' pairing with Wright-Phillips has also deservedly earned praise over the past few days, but if David Beckham really is disappearing down Sunset Boulevard, Gary Neville is not ready to be written out of the Three Lions script. His leadership qualities and defensive nous will still be needed; Richards could do worse than spend time in Neville's company around the England hotel, absorbing lessons, and the reminder that there is significant competition for places.

Wright-Phillips could do with grabbing a Beckham video in how to cross the ball so it beats the first defender. Talking generally about England's disappointing crossing against Russia (apart from Barry's excellent delivery for Owen's first), McClaren said: "Absolutely right. We've got into good crossing positions and we have hit the first man, we've not stood it up. We've had players in the box but we've not had that decisive ball.''

It was a minor quibble. England otherwise excelled against Russia on a hugely satisfying night for McClaren, who was also vindicated for keeping faith with Paul Robinson. "He looked very assured,'' said McClaren. "He's my No 1 goalkeeper. He's been that since I started and I always believe in him. People have blips and make mistakes and sometimes you have to stick with them. We've done that.

"We have got the talent in that dressing room, in this country. We have to play as a team.'' Against Israel and Russia, England really started playing as a team, strengthened by friends re-united.


and another one from THE GUARDIAN

Now all McClaren has to do is bench Rooney


With England finally purring, how does Steve McClaren tell England's missing senior players that they're not needed?


Richard WilliamsSeptember 14, 2007 12:10 AM

One way and another, that was not a bad night for Steve McClaren. Before his own eyes and those of the Football Association international board, Guus Hiddink was revealed not to be the omniscient Sun Tzu of football coaching. And over in Lisbon, Luiz Felipe Scolari ended the evening by landing a left jab on the cheek of a Serbian player after watching his own Portuguese team surrender points at home for the second time in four days. As McClaren calmly shook hands with the defeated Hiddink, those FA blazers must have been thinking that perhaps they hired the right man, after all.

Now all McClaren has to do is figure out a way to tell Wayne Rooney that there will be no place for him in the starting line-up when England return to Wembley to face Estonia next month. And then he will have to deliver the same message to Owen Hargreaves, to Frank Lampard and - if they recover their fitness in time - to those two old friends, David Beckham and Gary Neville.

With six points tucked away from two crucial games, six goals in the bag and a pair of clean sheets, McClaren must be rubbing his eyes at the wonder of it all. He deserves credit of course, particularly from those of us who have regularly questioned his right to the job of England's head coach, for reacting to adverse circumstances by making two decisions that turn out to have been extremely astute.

First, he reacted to the injuries to Lampard and Hargreaves by inserting Gareth Barry alongside Steven Gerrard in the position from which he has been captaining Aston Villa under Martin O'Neill. Two excellent captains of big clubs next to each other in the central midfield is not a bad foundation.

Second, he refused to heed the claims of Everton's Andrew Johnson and Tottenham's Jermain Defoe to partner Owen when the Liverpool forward Peter Crouch was suspended for last Saturday's Israel match, instead courting ridicule by reaching back into the past and recalling Emile Heskey on the basis of his current form for Wigan Athletic and his familiarity with Michael Owen.

Amply rewarded, McClaren can congratulate himself both on his shrewdness and his luck. No doubt he always had belief in the former. The latter, however, will have come as a pleasant surprise.

So at least his recent successes will have given McClaren a measure of personal authority as he confronts the problems posed by returning players. There will be a degree of pain and unhappiness on the faces of those he must disappoint, but he will be making his pronouncements from a position of relative strength.

How, though, does he break the news to the most talented English footballer of his generation, to the only man who performed with true distinction in the last World Cup, to the player who can be relied on to score 20 goals a season for his club from midfield, to the world's most famous footballer, and to the most loyal of servants?

Taking them in ascending order of difficulty, Neville will surely be the easiest to placate, not least because, after such a long period out with injury, he is probably the furthest from match fitness. The Manchester United captain has seen for himself what his Manchester City rival can bring to the side, and he also knows that an injury to either of the established central defenders would mean a switch to the middle for Micah Richards.

Beckham, too, has the excuse of sporadic recent activity to help him rationalise a place on the bench. During his time at Real Madrid he showed that he was not above accepting such a decision and continuing to give his best. Even a couple of minutes as a sub, of course, would allow him to get nearer to the personal goal of 100 caps.

As for Lampard, he will probably remind McClaren that he scored England's only goal against Germany last month. His long history of failing to perform in tandem with the undroppable Gerrard, however, is more than enough justification for inviting him to sit on the sidelines.

The only real injustice will have to be done to Hargreaves, so outstanding in the disastrous campaign in Germany, so committed and so thoroughly professional in everything he does. Having established his niche in the team, he must now accept that England have a midfield which has achieved enough in two games to deserve a further chance to -*test*-('") itself. Fate being what it is, his chance will come again.

And, finally, comes Rooney, the player whose name was the last thing on the lips of the departing Sven-Goran Eriksson, with a stern injunction to look after the country's most valuable footballer. Of course the £30m Rooney is a better player than Emile Heskey. But he is not a better player alongside Michael Owen, whose three goals against Israel and Russia restated the Newcastle United striker's importance to the national team.

Rooney's own scoring record for England would be unacceptable in a less gifted player, but he has yet to compensate with the kind of contribution that brings the goals out of his team-mates. To leave out Chelsea's Joe Cole - after one humdrum performance in a position he has worked hard to master - and to put Rooney out on the left would be to tinker unnecessarily with a line-up that, as things stand, appears to have the right balance for McClaren's purposes
*******************************************************************


Many of us see the games from differening angles.. I thought Steven had a fantastic game against Russia, he covered well, took the sting out of the russian attack and some of his passing and bursting forward to assist the attack was just like he does at Anfield. Watch the game again and see for yourselves.

but let's play lampard instead... eh?

believe me MANY LIVERPOOL FANS WILL REJOICE



KD

again, I never said it was ok for Lampard to play with a broken toe. your reasoning there is child like 'it was ok for Lampard to do it, so my boy Gerrard will do it too! ner ner!'

for any player to play with an injury is retarded at best in the long term, as Lampard's finding out now he's missed the last two games with an injury, great eh?

as for Lineker he would never have put himself ahead of the good of the team and the country. he could have carried on his international career and beat Bobby Charlton's record if he was selfish enough, but he called it quits while he was ahead.