Frank Lampard

[LDN Blue 7,903]

As Lamps did for Chelsea on soooo many more occasions AND he got on the stat sheet.

So if Scholes play never was about goals and assists, why did he lost his starting spot when his assists and goals became fewer and fewer. If he never was about scoring, why did everyone in English press always hailed him for his 1 goal every 4 games average? If scholes did dictate the game so well, why did he win a lot less titles than Lampard in an comparable space of time? If Scholes was ever so great why did he never collect the awards like other great midfielders did?

Mr Magic Lamps,

The reason Scholes isn't among the goals and assists is because that's not what his role was. Scholes is a fantastic little football player, he's technically superb, he reads the game like no other. His peripheral vision is simply amazing, the way he played the game was like he saw what would happen 2 steps after he'd touched the ball. He didn't get many "assists" because his role was to start the attack. What I mean by this is, he was the one who played the ball to the guy who would get the last pass into the striker.

His game was at the heart of the pitch, in the middle of the park. He wasn't about the long-ball (although believe me, he could play that pass all day long), he was about passing to the right player in the right type of attack.

You say Scholes hasn't earned his plaudits?

"My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder."

- Zidane

"Out of everyone at Manchester United, I would pick out Scholes – he is the best midfielder of his generation. I would have loved to have played alongside him." - Pep Guardiola

"Why isn’t he playing for England? It is crazy. Only in England. Scholes is a great, great player. So experienced and still, for me, one of the best in the world in midfield. Manchester United are lucky to have him."

- José Mourinho

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1355726/Xavi-interview-Paul-Scholes-best-midfielder-20-years.html

[Magic Lamps 11,692]

Mr Magic Lamps,

The reason Scholes isn't among the goals and assists is because that's not what his role was. Scholes is a fantastic little football player, he's technically superb, he reads the game like no other. His peripheral vision is simply amazing, the way he played the game was like he saw what would happen 2 steps after he'd touched the ball. He didn't get many "assists" because his role was to start the attack. What I mean by this is, he was the one who played the ball to the guy who would get the last pass into the striker.

His game was at the heart of the pitch, in the middle of the park. He wasn't about the long-ball (although believe me, he could play that pass all day long), he was about passing to the right player in the right type of attack.

You say Scholes hasn't earned his plaudits?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1355726/Xavi-interview-Paul-Scholes-best-midfielder-20-years.html

"your are the best player in the world" Mourinho to Lampard

"Frank Lampard is currently the best and most complete player in the world" Matthias Sammer

"myvote for World Player of the year award will go to him" - Luiz Felipe scolari about Frank

Why did I not include these quotes into my argumentation? Cos they are no arguments themselves.

I could dig out quotes about any dork in world football that make him sound like he had achieved division by zero.

When many experts come together and vote, the outcome is intersubjective and hence way more valuable.

It is nothing special to play the pass to assist. Lamps does it often enough, too.

Scholes might have been a good player for some years in his career. But I see nothing in this "complete" compilation of him, what a hell lot of other player can't do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3AHuFCoybo

[LDN Blue 7,903]

"your are the best player in the world" Mourinho to Lampard

"Frank Lampard is currently the best and most complete player in the world" Matthias Sammer

"myvote for World Player of the year award will go to him" - Luiz Felipe scolari about Frank

Why did I not include these quotes into my argumentation? Cos they are no arguments themselves.

I could dig out quotes about any dork in world football that make him sound like he had achieved division by zero.

When many experts come together and vote, the outcome is intersubjective and hence way more valuable.

It is nothing special to play the pass to assist. Lamps does it often enough, too.

Scholes might have been a good player for some years in his career. But I see nothing in this "complete" compilation of him, what a hell lot of other player can't do.

That wasn't really my point though, I only put those in because you claim his fame has gone unnoticed.

YouTube won't show you anything, because it wasn't the one off incidents Scholes was acclaimed for, it was the overall game. He, indeed, dictated the pace of the game, gave control to the midfield.

Now what I will say it, Scholes' superiority was more in the 90's and early 00's.. This is probably why you won't be inclined to agree with me. There's nothing wrong with that, in the last decade it has been a case of Lampard > Scholes. But what the way Scholes played in his era, defined him at England's greatest of all time.

This argument cannot go any further, because I'm failing to explain what makes Scholes' so unique. But I'm going to stress my final point; I'm not saying Lampard isn't one of the best players of all time, he's certainly up there. Scholes' was simply a different class above the legacies of Lampard & Gerrard.

[The only place to be 11,313]

"your are the best player in the world" Mourinho to Lampard

"Frank Lampard is currently the best and most complete player in the world" Matthias Sammer

"myvote for World Player of the year award will go to him" - Luiz Felipe scolari about Frank

Why did I not include these quotes into my argumentation? Cos they are no arguments themselves.

I could dig out quotes about any dork in world football that make him sound like he had achieved division by zero.

When many experts come together and vote, the outcome is intersubjective and hence way more valuable.

It is nothing special to play the pass to assist. Lamps does it often enough, too.

Scholes might have been a good player for some years in his career. But I see nothing in this "complete" compilation of him, what a hell lot of other player can't do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3AHuFCoybo

Youtube videos.... :lol2: :lol2:

We get it...you really like Frank Lampard but this is getting a little silly now. It's like listening to a One Direction fan slag off Led Zep and pointing to their lack of Brit Awards.

[Kezza 1,965]

Yay yay yay

[Magic Lamps 11,692]

That wasn't really my point though, I only put those in because you claim his fame has gone unnoticed. YouTube won't show you anything, because it wasn't the one off incidents Scholes was acclaimed for, it was the overall game. He, indeed, dictated the pace of the game, gave control to the midfield. Now what I will say it, Scholes' superiority was more in the 90's and early 00's.. This is probably why you won't be inclined to agree with me. There's nothing wrong with that, in the last decade it has been a case of Lampard > Scholes. But what the way Scholes played in his era, defined him at England's greatest of all time. This argument cannot go any further, because I'm failing to explain what makes Scholes' so unique. But I'm going to stress my final point; I'm not saying Lampard isn't one of the best players of all time, he's certainly up there. Scholes' was simply a different class above the legacies of Lampard & Gerrard.

Youtube videos.... :lol2: :lol2: We get it...you really like Frank Lampard but this is getting a little silly now. It's like listening to a One Direction fan slag off Led Zep and pointing to their lack of Brit Awards.

No it is not, cos opposite to Paul Scholes, the numbers speak for Led Zep. No awards, no stats, no videos... just some warm words... sry when that does not convince me. I'd say legacy is a completely different story. Lampard incented an era of success at Chelsea, he captained the club to both big European titles, is topscorer of the club...scholes, well there are at least 2 guys singing his praises on a Chelsea forum... Scholes as well as Lampard has been a box-to-box midfielder. For me a box-to-box midfielder is all about his effectivity. 271 goals and more than 150 assists speak for themselves. So whatever these feats of your Stone-Age-Scholes might be. As there is obviously only folk memory left of it (ah that's what you call legacy), I struggle to retrace...leave it at that.

[Jase 43,479]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DO1TjLjlo0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMOziy9jM4Q

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Surely Lampard would be willing to have just an average salary if it meant playing for a club so dear to him?

LOL

[Jase 43,479]

Indeed, Mourinho doesn't really need to care about the costs and so he won't. If the Guardian was right in suggesting Lampard dropped his demands and still got £120,000/week it begs the question what the initial demands were.

Let's not think that the reported 120k p/w wages is the right amount. The English media, after all, did report that Hazard was supposedly on a 175k p/w wages when in reality, he's only earning about 110k p/w as mentioned by the Belgian and French media. Even if he's earning 120k p/w, that could include the bonuses he will be earning based on appearances, goals etc into the whole package.

On the other hand, I don't know why people are making a fuss of what Lampard earns here. Yes, I know he's turning 35 years old soon but based on what he has done for the club for the past decade, he probably deserves it. His contribution is gonna be vital both on and off the pitch. Moreover, we will be letting quite a number of players leave this summer and that clears up the wage bill a lot especially when you consider one player that hasn't done a lot for us at all is earning reported 90k p/w wages here!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That wasn't really my point though, I only put those in because you claim his fame has gone unnoticed.

YouTube won't show you anything, because it wasn't the one off incidents Scholes was acclaimed for, it was the overall game. He, indeed, dictated the pace of the game, gave control to the midfield.

Now what I will say it, Scholes' superiority was more in the 90's and early 00's.. This is probably why you won't be inclined to agree with me. There's nothing wrong with that, in the last decade it has been a case of Lampard > Scholes. But what the way Scholes played in his era, defined him at England's greatest of all time.

This argument cannot go any further, because I'm failing to explain what makes Scholes' so unique. But I'm going to stress my final point; I'm not saying Lampard isn't one of the best players of all time, he's certainly up there. Scholes' was simply a different class above the legacies of Lampard & Gerrard.

Mate, you're trying to change the very nature of football fans, here. The guy, like Gomez for example, who in 90 mins makes 5 passes has one shot and scores a goal will always all the glory while the guy who makes 60-70 passes at a 90% accuracy and controls the whole game gets overlooked. It's so difficult to explain to people how important things like passing, tactical awareness..etc are. The argument is always "Anyone can make a pass" and no one realizes how difficult it is to get that pass right 9 times out of 10.

Football fans, even 'pundits' have always and will always judge players on individual incidents rather than overall performances. Talk to someone about Fellaini and he will bring the utd game into the discussion. Any Falcao discussion will inevitably include the hat-trick he scored against us..etc.

I love Frank as much as the next Chelsea fan, but Scholes is on a different level. In terms of tactical awareness, defensive work rate, footballing IQ..Paul is miles ahead. He's also, undoubtedly the best passer in the history of this league.

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

Let's not think that the reported 120k p/w wages is the right amount. The English media, after all, did report that Hazard was supposedly on a 175k p/w wages when in reality, he's only earning about 110k p/w as mentioned by the Belgian and French media. Even if he's earning 120k p/w, that could include the bonuses he will be earning based on appearances, goals etc into the whole package.

On the other hand, I don't know why people are making a fuss of what Lampard earns here. Yes, I know he's turning 35 years old soon but based on what he has done for the club for the past decade, he probably deserves it. His contribution is gonna be vital both on and off the pitch. Moreover, we will be letting quite a number of players leave this summer and that clears up the wage bill a lot especially when you consider one player that hasn't done a lot for us at all is earning reported 90k p/w wages here!

Its sort of matters in this new world of financial play rules. And him getting a new contract means that his wages are now put in front of direct ffp scrutiny when i comes to Chelsea's spending. For someone who should be at best a squad layer, £120,000 is way too much considering that the likes of Mata, Luiz and even Hazard earn less then him despite being far more important to our performance this season and contributing the most. It also gives us the potential uncomfortable situation of these players demand bigeer wages on new contracts of threatening to demand a transfer (just what Lampard ad Terry both did n 2008 and 2009)

[Strike 7,478]

Let's not think that the reported 120k p/w wages is the right amount. The English media, after all, did report that Hazard was supposedly on a 175k p/w wages when in reality, he's only earning about 110k p/w as mentioned by the Belgian and French media. Even if he's earning 120k p/w, that could include the bonuses he will be earning based on appearances, goals etc into the whole package.

On the other hand, I don't know why people are making a fuss of what Lampard earns here. Yes, I know he's turning 35 years old soon but based on what he has done for the club for the past decade, he probably deserves it. His contribution is gonna be vital both on and off the pitch. Moreover, we will be letting quite a number of players leave this summer and that clears up the wage bill a lot especially when you consider one player that hasn't done a lot for us at all is earning reported 90k p/w wages here!

120 is a drop in wages after all? Financial situation has improved regardless of whether it's 100 or 120.

Time to edit wage and transfer budget.

[The only place to be 11,313]

The problem we have is that no-one knows what he is actually earning, and how that money is actually made up. Is it a flat weekly wage or is it dependent on appearances, goals etc.

Is the money itself coming out of the general wage budget or is it made up of his image rights and other such things. Lamps is still a very visible player in terms of our marketing (although he was left off the new kit ads for whatever reason) and he's a fantastic ambassador for this club. I've been conflicted about re-signing him because my head sees the 35 year old player who doesn't quite fit our system week-in and week-out.

But for my heart, it's an easy decision. When you see him interviewed, he's just a fantastic guy and sometimes that's worth keeping around for a bit longer.

He's also had five months where he's been able to sign with another team and there hasn't been a massive rush, whilst he's also proclaimed his desire to stay here. In terms of negotiating he's put himself in a rather weak position and the market hasn't exactly helped him. The club aren't fools - I suspect they've got him on a deal that reflects his actual market value.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

I am EXTREMELY skeptical over the reports of 120k a week. I'm sure it is much closer to half of that.

If they are even close to the real contract though, it finally makes sense why it was such an ordeal to get him a contract, if he was demanding about twice what Mata earns (almost all reports say 70k a week). Not to mention I've heard Ivanovic earns under 40k a week.

Surely Lampard would be willing to have just an average salary if it meant playing for a club so dear to him? I mean, he is about to be closer to 40 than 30 in a few months...

£8.24 an hour?

[Jase 43,479]

Its sort of matters in this new world of financial play rules. And him getting a new contract means that his wages are now put in front of direct ffp scrutiny when i comes to Chelsea's spending. For someone who should be at best a squad layer, £120,000 is way too much considering that the likes of Mata, Luiz and even Hazard earn less then him despite being far more important to our performance this season and contributing the most. It also gives us the potential uncomfortable situation of these players demand bigeer wages on new contracts of threatening to demand a transfer (just what Lampard ad Terry both did n 2008 and 2009)

I'm sure the club would have taken that into account when they agreed to a new contract with Lampard as opposed to just blindly agree whatever he wants...

The likes of Mata, Hazard, Luiz etc are all still relatively new to the club and their wages will likely to increase as it goes along. And yes, while the performances of those said players may have been more important than Lampard this season, let's not totally discount the goals and impact he had on (and off) the pitch as well on these young players. Moreover, somebody like Hazard, a player that we have bought just this season and is only 22 y/o, is already earning 110k p/w wages, only 20k less than Lampard. Isn't that a bit too much as well for someone that just came in especially when some of the more senior players at the club are earning a lot less than him?

And if you really want to compare the wages, Benayoun is earning 90k p/w wages at the club here while the more important players like Mata, Ivanovic, Ramires etc are all earning less than him! Also, I'm not sure if the players, in the future, can really demand high wages in the case you pointed out there with the FFP coming in.