September 24, 2008 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. Martin Samuel _______
