Barclays Premier League 2013/14

Carragher says a Liverpool player is better. = Biased. Neville says a Man Utd player is better = outstanding punditry.

Neville's rubbish anyway. Came across as totally smug and smarky.

Carragher was asked a question, he gave an answer and explained it.

Neville was the one who started talking about his former club and supplied a lot of anecdotes and didn't offer a fact. At least Carragher didn't start talking about Liverpool's philosophy being of possession football and counter attacking. Neville also makes the point of playing with all three, ignoring that Carragher has as well.

Well there's your problem. Neville's points were perfectly valid, Paul Scholes won football matches because he was excellent at keeping possession and controlling matches and that theres more to football that simply scoring goals (despite the fact that Gerrard and Scholes numbers for United and Liverpool are very similar even with Scholes playing deeper for probably his last 10 years here), if you disagree with that point you might as well give up watching football. The argument that it was poor punditry to say that in training with Scholes on your team you won is a bit of a nonsense, it illustrates the point well.

Carra's response was the nonsensical arguments that Sven shifted Scholes to the left so that shows he's rubbish, which Neville countered easily and the even worse argument about Veron which was laughed at.

You've completely made up the 'point of playing with all three' Neville just said that he's played with a lot of good players and Scholes was the best, if you think about it he's also including the likes of Rooney, Ronaldo, Cantona, Giggs, Keane, Beckham and every other player he's played with at England or Manchester United. He didn't 'forget' that Carragher had too, because he wasn't using it as a stick to beat Carragher with. You, however, have conveniently ignored that Carragher agrees with him and says 'Scholes was the best player I've played with by a mile', apparently that doesn't undermine his point but there you go.

You're also ignoring subtlety of what Neville actually said. He didn't like to compare the three players because although they were all world class they were all good at different aspects of football in different ways. So your blanket statement to start with that thinking that Carragher's baseless ramblings were worse punditry than Neville's far more measured response was somehow the result of bias on my part because Neville said that Scholes was the better player and I agreed with that is wrong, because Neville never made that claim.

Absolutely spot on. Couldn't agree any more with this. If the lazy staff would add a reputation system (positive only) then I would be giving you a rep about now

Why don't you kiss his arse instead?

Anyway, can't be bothered to read though all this but for me Gerrard is the better of the 3. He's one of the best players i've seen in my lifetime easily.

Jack. Fucking. Wilshere.

Come back in 15 years and then we'll see.

Says a lot about some of the people on this site when the discussion after the game is about the pundits.

He actually says Scholes is unique in his ability to control a game.

If Liverpool lose today and Newcastle win, Newcastle can go top of the League