haha...show me where i said that you Timmy TrollAren't you the guy that basically said that Gerrard never inspired Liverpool?
Hope you've taken your meds by now.
Your lack of intelligence shows you up.
haha...show me where i said that you Timmy TrollAren't you the guy that basically said that Gerrard never inspired Liverpool?
Hope you've taken your meds by now.
He wasn’t conceived until about 10 years after Gazza left Rangers but thinks he can sit and discuss his quality. “Mentally weak”, the guy shine at a World Cup for a nation notorious for being mentally weak as a unit. Sometimes it’s better to admit you’re pig ignorant and just bow out and get back to your homework.
So a handful of games? I remember him playing well against Netherlands but so did Sheringham, so did Shearer. He got 6 goals for England I believe. If you think that's enough for a player of his ability then we wouldn't agree on the colour of shite.
haha...show me where i said that you Timmy Troll
Your lack of intelligence shows you up.
That's right. Penalties wasn't it? And what was he crying over then? (Genuine question)
Because he got booked and would miss the final.
Yes, they were drawing 1-1 at the time.
While that’s wildly remembered, in England he’s also well remember for the Cruyff turn against the Netherlands, the sublime cross for Platt’s winner against Belgium and the equally sublime pass for Linekar in the lead up to the winner against Cameroon. He lit up that tournament and reducing it to his tears is reductive.
I'm talking about the Holland game Italia90.
Have a read at John Motson telling you why Gazza was the best England player he commentated on.
Impossible comparison, completely different players.
haha...why don't you just let rip with Sevcoooo? Then go back to Scotland on Sunday. You did well.You know you did. I'm not closed to being arsed to start browsing back in a thread to quote you just to prove you wrong and myself right.
So even if he was one of the tournaments better players, does that make him an England legend? To me 50 something (56?) caps only proves that for the talent he had his career wasn't quite what it could and should have been, both for club and on the International stage.
Probably because he was an enigma. A hugely gifted one.
He didn’t achieve everything huge could/should have that’s beyond dispute.
What’s also beyond dispute is that he’s an absolute legend in England. Seen as a flawed genius. I lived in England for years and every football fan loves/admired him.
Actually scored 10 goals for England in 57 caps.So a handful of games? I remember him playing well against Netherlands but so did Sheringham, so did Shearer. He got 6 goals for England I believe. If you think that's enough for a player of his ability then we wouldn't agree on the colour of shite.
So you think that Gazza genuinely made the most of his ability and out of his career then? Take his sack out your mouth for a moment and be sensible.
So basically I would chose Gerrard over Gascoigne due to having more tools to his game and also being far more dependable, and mentally different gravy.
I've said that Gascoigne, brilliant as he was and if you're talking about talent alone there are few better, didn't make the absolute most out of his career for different reasons. I've also said he struggled mentally which is completely true and obviously a well known fact, and that's genuinely a big part of why he never became the player he often threatened he could become. 'Legends' of the game do it season after season for 10-15 years, not a few.
I'm still waiting for someone to attack my argument and opinions instead of just insulting me because he's a Rangers legend.
He didn’t due to a variety of circumstances, but that’s not the issue and it doesn’t change the fact he’s the most gifted footballer England have produced in a number of decades and you reducing his fame to crying at italia 90 and being “thick as pig shit and mentally weak” speaks volumes about you, both your lack of knowledge of Gascoigne’s career coupled with your lack of knowledge and sensitivity where mental illness and addiction are concerned, as well as your complete lack of respect for a Rangers legend.
The fact that you even asked someone to name a game where Gazza turned things around with a stellar individual display is fucking embarrassing coming from a ‘Rangers fan’. Given you seem completely unaware of one of the most iconic Rangers performances of all time and think he’s only remembered for crying at a World Cup at which he absolutely shone and marked himself out as a superstar, coming home with a level of a fame few England players have ever experienced, endorsements and money thrown at him left, right and centre, it’s no wonder you’re now having Timmy jibes thrown your way.
That's all well and good. I didn't see Italia 90 so can't comment myself on how good Gascoigne was. I'm happy to take people's word for it though that he was a sensation.
Now can come one make a realistic case for Gazza being a better player than Gerrard without just mentioning 'skill' ? Because the whole thread was based on the question who was the better of the two.
Maybe Stewart Pierce also picks him as the best player he ever played with as he is an enigma also.
Gazzamania it was called after Italia 90, he was a superstar.
I don’t remember Gerrardmania or Lampardmania after the 2002 or 2006 world cups where England did their usual of boring everyone to death before crashing out to the first decent team they met.
It’s ludicrous to claim Gazza isn’t an England legend.
That's all well and good. I didn't see Italia 90 so can't comment myself on how good Gascoigne was. I'm happy to take people's word for it though that he was a sensation.
Now can come one make a realistic case for Gazza being a better player than Gerrard without just mentioning 'skill' ? Because the whole thread was based on the question who was the better of the two.
Stuart Pearce was hardly the brightest lamp on the street was he? His nickname was Physco for God's sake. Fair enough, he's entitled to his opinion. But it doesn't hold any weight as it's just that at the end of the day. He was a team-mate of Gazza too - He never played with Gerrard as he was before Steve's time.
So you have no idea what the %^*& you are talking about then? How can you argue for so long and then admit you never even seen him at his best?
Pierces opinion doesn't hold weight but yours does over near enough everyone else on this thread?
Gazza pre knee injury was the best England had ever produced. Wasn't quite the same player after that, still one of the very best we have ever had though.
So all these replies and not one actual argument that Gascoigne was a better (more complete) player overall than Gerrard yet. I should probably rest my case.
So he was a more complete player than Gerrard was for Liverpool then you're saying?
Go on Youtube , click a video of gazza in his Tottenham days then come back and try to claim he wasn't a fantastic player.
Not more complete but definitely more of a flair player.
But where have I once said he wasn't a brilliant player? I'm actually getting confused now.
You said he wasn't an England legend and that's just plain wrong. Plenty England fans still wear the Gazza 19 shirt from Italia 90 because of the very fact he is an England legend.
Brliiant player? Gazza was world class
What does more complete player even mean? Gerrard was better than Gazza because he could tackle? Zidane didn't tackle, was he better than him? Messi? Gazza was a better footballer because he could do things with a ball that Gerrard couldn't dream of. That's the argument. Not who had the best career or the most caps or show me your medals. Longevity? How long did we have peak Maradona? 3 or 4 years? George Best was done at 27.
Gerrard was a tremendous player, world class, but there's an argument that he's not even the best England midfielder of his own generation. Maybe not even second best.
As for the argument that the current England team is better than the 2000s, probably only Raheem Sterling would even get in it and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
What does more complete player even mean? Gerrard was better than Gazza because he could tackle? Zidane didn't tackle, was he better than him? Messi? Gazza was a better footballer because he could do things with a ball that Gerrard couldn't dream of. That's the argument. Not who had the best career or the most caps or show me your medals. Longevity? How long did we have peak Maradona? 3 or 4 years? George Best was done at 27.
Gerrard was a tremendous player, world class, but there's an argument that he's not even the best England midfielder of his own generation. Maybe not even second best.
As for the argument that the current England team is better than the 2000s, probably only Raheem Sterling would even get in it and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
What does more complete player even mean? Gerrard was better than Gazza because he could tackle? Zidane didn't tackle, was he better than him? Messi? Gazza was a better footballer because he could do things with a ball that Gerrard couldn't dream of. That's the argument. Not who had the best career or the most caps or show me your medals. Longevity? How long did we have peak Maradona? 3 or 4 years? George Best was done at 27.
Gerrard was a tremendous player, world class, but there's an argument that he's not even the best England midfielder of his own generation. Maybe not even second best.
As for the argument that the current England team is better than the 2000s, probably only Raheem Sterling would even get in it and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Even then it’s obviously an argument being made by a boy who hasn’t watched Gazza.
Gazza?
Passing? Check
Dribbling? Check
Quick? Check
Set pieces? Check
Goal threat? Check
Big game performances? Check
The only thing he doesn’t have is a problem free, injury free career and subsequent longevity.
You can rate Gascoigne, but I genuinely think you want him inside you or something. If you think Gascoigne was a better passer and also quicker than Gerrard, and also performed in big games like Gerrard didn't, then I'm genuinely worried about you and your mental state.
You can rate Gascoigne, but I genuinely think you want him inside you or something. If you think Gascoigne was a better passer and also quicker than Gerrard, and also performed in big games like Gerrard didn't, then I'm genuinely worried about you and your mental state.
I think if Gazza never played for us a lot more people would be saying SG.
So many games for us.Yeah, it wasn't his quality that won games for Liverpool. Just hard work and a bit of elbow grease...
Name me a game where Gazza virtually won a game by himself for his team as Gerrard did against West Ham in the FA Cup Final?
I'm almost 50. I really hope that you are a tim cos if you are the new breed of Rangers fan we are all doomed.Pretty sure in one of my first posts here in the thread that I could only go by what I've seen myself. We're not all 30/40+ years olds. But a tournament is only a handful of games all said and done.
Id rather take home the one with the brainTo simplify things. The way I see these two players, and admittedly I've seen much more of Gerrard than I have Gascoigne, it's like two lovely looking lasses standing next to each other. One of them has got an absolutely stonking rack. The ones on the other lady are fine, don't get me wrong, but those breasts just don't compare. However, the other lady has longer legs. A nicer ass. A prettier smile... Just overall the more complete package, and definitely the one you would take home to meet your parents.
To me, and it's only an opinion, Gascoigne is the lass with the mesmerising rack.