Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Gareth Barry or Frank Lampard
Everyone's bigging up Gareth Barry at the moment. Our midfield does look loads better with Barry rather than Lampard, but I think it's more a case of it working better with 4-4-2 with wingers, a defensive-minded central midfielder (i.e. Barry and formerly Hargreaves/King when they've taken up the role and got similar plaudits) in order to release Gerrard/Lampard - and the success is the product of a better system that suits the team as a whole rather than because Barry is an immense player.
Playing him at left back just to keep him in the team is a ridiculous thing to do; Shorey is a better option at left back. Also, sticking Barry in at left back spells the return of that oh-so-effective 3 men in midfield and the return of Gerrard/Lampard +1, no width, and crap performances.
Playing him at left back just to keep him in the team is a ridiculous thing to do; Shorey is a better option at left back. Also, sticking Barry in at left back spells the return of that oh-so-effective 3 men in midfield and the return of Gerrard/Lampard +1, no width, and crap performances.
Hargreaves shows a lot of spirit and high number of tackles (lots of fouls and bookings too) but just hasn't got the technical ability or talent.
For England to move forward we need the passion with technical ability or we will always be a nearly team.
For England to move forward we need the passion with technical ability or we will always be a nearly team.
if people were rated world class on their performances for England then Lampard would be playing for Accrington Stanley by now! But the reason everyone is saying how great Barry played is because of the " another man of the match performance" John Motson said he gave.
when he was 18 he was given his first cap and it was a very good performance from him but when Sven took over England that time he was never heard of until McLaren called him up, he is a very good and determining player, he do as he is told he gives his partner in Central midfield more options and he can create so well, if i was the manager i would keep him, he is very good
Think of it more of an implication rather than a statement then.
thanks for the historical background :) My argument really is that the media (especially John Motson) are getting carried away with Barry's recent GOOD performances and are bigging him up too much. My other argument is that Hargreaves is better than Barry and would have played the same role as him if he was fit. Can we also take into account that Estonia and Russia are not world class opposition:)
excuse me Russia were good, especially with Arshavin as their playmaker
I agree with most of what you've said. I don't think it's a straight comparison with Barry and Hargreaves though as they bring something different. Barry's more comparable with Carrick imo and, on current form, far more use to England than Carrick is.
yes but should Lampard be dropped so that Barry and Hargreaves can stay
(edited)
(edited)
agreed. Carrick has not been playing well and Barry deserves to play ahead of him right now.
Barry and Hargreaves wont be playing in the same team. It would be a choice between the two unless Barry fills in at left back.
Lescott would do better at left back.
I think the team, barring cole should be kept the same, more the midifeld though, that 4 works, so keep it, if Gerrard was unavailable put lampard in, barry unavailable, put erm, hargreaves preferable against Russia.
I think the team, barring cole should be kept the same, more the midifeld though, that 4 works, so keep it, if Gerrard was unavailable put lampard in, barry unavailable, put erm, hargreaves preferable against Russia.