Gentleman Jim
It's absolutely amazing! Perfect even.
Gareth Barry was great for us in that role. Much under appreciated.I must admit I was struggling for a third pure defensive midfielder.
Gareth Barry was great for us in that role. Much under appreciated.I must admit I was struggling for a third pure defensive midfielder.
The other CM were more consistent at a higher level as we became the strongest in Europe. Keane and Vieira were dominant in the Prem so it would go to them for consistency and longevity. For ability you could argue the latter players as the level clearly went up and we were making CL finals and these guys were consistently the better performers in CL competition against Europe elite. Never hear Lampard or Gerrard give an interview like Keane after Bayern "We just aren't good enough etc"Keane and Vieira were so far ahead of everyone else in the PL for such a long time it has to be one of them. They dominated their positions with a style and consistency that I don't think has been matched since and also were key captains in historic achievements for their clubs. The captain of the Treble winners and the captain of the Invincibles. Their consistency was unmatched.
Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Yaya, Kante, De Bruyne, Essien, Cesc all deserve mentions. They didn't perhaps do enough in terms of longetivity but peak Ince and Petit were absolute class at times and could dominate games.
I'll go with Keano though
See my above comment. The second group operated at a higher level as the EPL was suspect in the 90s and 2 leagues were stronger at the time.I'd say the following were in the top bracket. Two were the most complete all round CMs you can find - passing, technique, tackling, energy, leadership, drive, physicality everything. And the third is the most complete playmaker in PL history. Scholes' intelligence and understanding of the game was phenomenal. He was a magnificent passing midfielder whether attacking or deep lying, and was also superb as a second striker when he played that role. Just a generally brilliant footballer.
Keane
Scholes
Vieira
Next lot would be there I guess. All terrific footballers but wouldn't make my top 3.
Lampard
Gerrard
Silva
Makelele etc
It's not why. Ginola was an exception and should of gone to a United player. Gerrard consistently won both domestic and overseas accolades and would be in the world 11 alongside Xavi who was also not flashy. It all points to one big paradox. You are correct in Scholes playing in great teams but so did any top player. Lampard and Xavi too and both were serial accolade collectorsGerrard had a flashier style and generally was the best player in his team by a long way.
Scholesy on the other hand wasn't flashy and played in some great teams.
Things like this are why you got scenarios like Ginola winning the 99 player of the year.
Don't know what you're on about. KDB, Silva, Lampard, Gerrard etc are better than Keane and Vieira because they were apparently immense in Europe. I mean, when exactly was this? Keane was as good in Europe as then all, and KDB and Silva have done nothing of note in the CL as well. As far as PL football goes the United Arsenal rivarly was of an extraordinary level. Two magnificent teams. The league had more money in it without doubt when the second group played however it's a weird methodology to analyse really. Keane and Vieria aren't responsible for the quality of their league which was bloody hight Btw.The other CM were more consistent at a higher level as we became the strongest in Europe. Keane and Vieira were dominant in the Prem so it would go to them for consistency and longevity. For ability you could argue the latter players as the level clearly went up and we were making CL finals and these guys were consistently the better performers in CL competition against Europe elite. Never hear Lampard or Gerrard give an interview like Keane after Bayern "We just aren't good enough etc"
See my above comment. The second group operated at a higher level as the EPL was suspect in the 90s and 2 leagues were stronger at the time.
It's not why. Ginola was an exception and should of gone to a United player. Gerrard consistently won both domestic and overseas accolades and would be in the world 11 alongside Xavi who was also not flashy. It all points to one big paradox. You are correct in Scholes playing in great teams but so did any top player. Lampard and Xavi too and both were serial accolade collectors
Yep. He was part of my three but I think he wins this.Paul Scholes
Not only the best goal scorer from midfield, but also the 2nd most assists from midfield in PL history. Football fans tend to mistake style for substance a lot of the time; a player that does a pass that looks incredible on the hawkeye camera will be seen as better than one that contributed to the match in a more decisive and tangible fashion.
No.But wasn't everyone awful for England though?
More so Gerrard and Lampard emulated their domestic performances in Europe as well. The premier league was stronger in the noughties onwards and our teams were able to beat Europe's elite. Keane teams got to one European final and Vieiras made zero. This suggests they could not compete with Europe's elite. How often were they in team of the tournament?maybe only Keane in 99.Don't know what you're on about. KDB, Silva, Lampard, Gerrard etc are better than Keane and Vieira because they were apparently immense in Europe. I mean, when exactly was this? Keane was as good in Europe as then all, and KDB and Silva have done nothing of note in the CL as well. As far as PL football goes the United Arsenal rivarly was of an extraordinary level. Two magnificent teams. The league had more money in it without doubt when the second group played however it's a weird methodology to analyse really. Keane and Vieria aren't responsible for the quality of their league which was bloody hight Btw.
I have a documented history on here of actually standing up for Gerrard when people were saying he was this and that, but the undeniable truth is he got shuffled around the pitch for a reason - both so he could better hurt the opposition, but also to be less of a liability for his own team.Gerrard excelled in anumber of roles, he was world class as a right midfielder, world class as a CM and AM, and had good seasons at both end of his career as a DM. For example in his 2nd to last season he played as a Deep lying playmaker, at 34, made it into the team of the year and on the ball did his best impression of a Scholes Pirlo lite, he was one of the best Dms in Europe that season, as he was at 20-21 breaking through.
As I stated already, Scholes the CM had flaws and was carried by Roy Keane in terms of legs, engine and positional lapses. I don't excuse him for that and I am certainly objective enough to point it out. On the other hand, everything else you want in a CM in terms of controlling a game, passing, movement, one and two touch, composure, goals, ghosting, etc. etc. Scholes had in spades. He's a more unique case as a CM because he has no engine to get around, was no more than average on the defensive end and needed an anchoring partner, but at the same time invaluable to a team. Exactly like Xavi in some aspects, and perfect for a midfield 3, which makes his work there even more spectacular given it was in an attacking 4-4-2.Scholes being world class in each role is a contentious issue and had a whole thread on it. Scholes the world class CM was left out of the 1st team in some of our most vital games in 99 (champions league quarters away vs Inter, champs league semi away vs Juve) and was shuffled out of position for Veron. Gerrard was actually world class in his various roles and won countless individual accolades on both domestic and European stages, often making team of the season in both categories.
There are clear distinctions between an attacking midfielder, a central midfielder and either a DM or a DLP sitting deep.Which is?
It's just a role variation. He's only great as attacking CM. Dont tell me he can do a box to box or a proper defensive midfielder duty. Keane was the more versatile, he can be everything to a good degree. Scholes would make a lousy DM
And how many final did Lampard and Gerrard reach? Two each? What about Casemiero? I guess he's the best we've ever seen, or something.More so Gerrard and Lampard emulated their domestic performances in Europe as well. The premier league was stronger in the noughties onwards and our teams were able to beat Europe's elite. Keane teams got to one European final and Vieiras made zero. This suggests they could not compete with Europe's elite. How often were they in team of the tournament?maybe only Keane in 99.
Gerrard never reached Scholes' level as a CM. His strength laid in attack and his allall action and hence the whole attacking midfielder/second striker thing was him at his best. I don't know what 'world class' means. You'd never pick him in any football team as CM over the likes of Xavi/Keane/Vieira/Scholes who were genuinely brilliant as central midfielders (except if you're a clownish England manager). Gerrard was like Lampard - an attacking midfield. Excellent going forward, not exceptional as a CM. So yeah, Scholes who was also terrific in attack but also somebody who could dictate the game as a CM wins over him. Henry was right.Scholes being world class in each role is a contentious issue and had a whole thread on it. Scholes the world class CM was left out of the 1st team in some of our most vital games in 99 (champions league quarters away vs Inter, champs league semi away vs Juve) and was shuffled out of position for Veron. Gerrard was actually world class in his various roles and won countless individual accolades on both domestic and European stages, often making team of the season in both categories.
True. DLP, CM and second striker are three very very different roles and he performed at all three are very high level. Still remember the way he played behind RVN, particularly the hat trick at Newcastle which really felt like us hitting our stride in what was my favourite title race of all.There are clear distinctions between an attacking midfielder, a central midfielder and either a DM or a DLP sitting deep.
Scholes performed admirably in all 3; they are not role variations, hence why you can make 4 lists of players entirely incapable (or at best average) of playing the other 3 roles, despite being world class in their own.
If you have prime Roy Keane as your DM or AM, you've simply mis-used him. If you have Keane as an AM at all, you've probably got a team that has no better options.
I agree, and the way he was used, he wasn't meant to be a game-controlling central midfielder. He had an incredible engine, was excellent tactically following instructions and inspiring others and was a player no other team liked facing because they knew he could kill them like a striker. He's one of the best players in PL history, like or lump Chelsea - although some are taking a more all-round approach to selecting their midfielders, someone has to score goals from there, and he's one of the best ever at it.Goals win games. He has 100 plus assists too.
I have a documented history on here of actually standing up for Gerrard when people were saying he was this and that, but the undeniable truth is he got shuffled around the pitch for a reason - both so he could better hurt the opposition, but also to be less of a liability for his own team.
Gerrard was Roy Of The Rovers without team or positional awareness a lot of the time. As an individual, his technique, drive and game looked splendid, but within a team construct, it took him a long time to understand the game like the company he is being mentioned alongside; of the quintet: Keane, Scholes, Vieira, Lampard and Gerrard, he'd be the bottom rung for 'footballing intelligence' so, the definition of 'world class' across numerous positions comes down to whether you look at him as Roy Of The Rovers, gallivanting all over the place, leaving holes to exploit, where he should've been, whilst sometimes going on to be the heroic winner of the game , or, the one making it a lot easier for the opposition that it should have been, is a matter of how you want to look at what constitutes exceptional central midfield play. An example being the FA Cup final verses West Ham, where he was all over the place both positively and negatively, but it becoming 'irrelevant' to the fans en masse because of his magnificent goals.
Keane and Vieira are set a class apart as CM's to the others mentioned for the fact they were so-rounded, so aware and so capable on both sides of the ball, they're the two you can put alongside any other in the list and try and make a proper central two-man midfield; it is impossible to do with Lampard, Scholes or Gerrard, hence why it was stated Lampard and he (Gerrard) could not play in the same midfield for England without either an anchor or one or the other being taken out of their preferred roles.
Gerrard alongside Xabi Alonso and Mascherano becomes a world class asset because they give him the platform to perform with his patented reckless abandon; Gerrard the individual quickly becomes an attacking player, either on the right or in attacking midfield where his positional lapses are not a concern.
Gerrard the DM is being massively overstated, and certainly no par with, Scholes the DLP, the position from which all that latter-day praise and plaudits came from.
If I'm making a Premier League xi, Gerrard only gets in the side if Keane or Vieira are anchoring. As an AM you open up to a myriad of players not mentioned (by me) who have a solid claim.
On a showreel or highlights package, Gerrard looks like the most amazing, dynamic player of the lot, but break it down to consistency, awareness, understanding, composure and all the other vital tenants of literal central midfield, and again, he is the worst of the 5 and much more suited to attacking the opposition and focusing on that side of the game than the complexities of proper two-way play (not just bombing all over the place).
As ever, with statements like these, they're not to do the player a disservice, rather, they are to highlight that in this kind of company, there are degrees of separation and a clear hierarchy when things are broken down as they should be.
He actually did, what was Scholes best seasons as Cm by the way, just out of interest?Gerrard never reached Scholes' level as a CM. His strength laid in attack and his allall action and hence the whole attacking midfielder/second striker thing was him at his best. I don't know what 'world class' means. You'd never pick him in any football team as CM over the likes of Xavi/Keane/Vieira/Scholes who were genuinely brilliant as central midfielders (except if you're a clownish England manager). Gerrard was like Lampard - an attacking midfield. Excellent going forward, not exceptional as a CM. So yeah, Scholes who was also terrific in attack but also somebody who could dictate the game as a CM wins over him. Henry was right.
It's not strange logic, it's actually a great point to bring up.And how many final did Lampard and Gerrard reach? Two each? What about Casemiero? I guess he's the best we've ever seen, or something.
Very strange logic. Both of those players were never part of teams that dominated Europe's elite. Lampard won the CL once in the most undeserved win I've seen in the competition. Gerrard won it once on the back of a great comeback against a Milan side that absolutely shat themselves. It was hardly a case of peak Barcelona /Madrid dominating most before them.
Are we talking about peak season or overall quality? I think the latter.He actually did, what was Scholes best seasons as Cm by the way, just out of interest?
Great point? When did Lampard and Gerrard dominate Europe's elite? It's a terrible point which isn't even grounded in reality. You'd think they were Xavi and Iniesta destroying every midfield.It's not strange logic, it's actually a great point to bring up.
I was going to mention Essien. At his best almost unplayable. If I had to build a midfield three from the PL I’d find it very hard to look past him.In fairmess to these three players they deserve a mention
Alonso
Carrick
Essien
As far as the best midfielder ever in the league? Keane for me.
Carrick and Scholes were different players. Carrick was far superior defensively. I also think Carrick is massively underrated and should be considered amongst the top midfielders. There is no coincidence we reached three CL finals--should have been four--in four consecutive seasons.Scholes is mentioned by everyone, and rightly so, the best midfielder I have watched live.
But..... considering the chants of "Carrick....you know....hard to believe it not Scholes", if it is so hard to believe, why is Carrick not mentioned by anyone? BTW: the worst United chant of all time, unless it was an obvious pee-take, as Sholesy was endless levels above Carrick.
It's what I'll always believe, but others have their own impossible to shake views too.Let's not forget that Scholes came out of retirement at what, 34? and instantly looked like one of, if not the best centre mid in the prem. The guy was technically a level above every midfielder on this list.
It depends on the criteria. If you're looking at career impact, then you'd have to overlook him due to the myriad injuries. But if I had to pick one PL player to run my midfield for a single match, my first choice is peak Essien.I was going to mention Essien. At his best almost unplayable. If I had to build a midfield three from the PL I’d find it very hard to look past him.
I liked Essien, but if he'd played for United 1998-2002 he would have started every game on the bench.It depends on the criteria. If you're looking at career impact, then you'd have to overlook him due to the myriad injuries. But if I had to pick one PL player to run my midfield for a single match, my first choice is peak Essien.
Perhaps this is blasphemous, but I have never seen a single player completely dominate a midfield the way he used to in his pomp (including Keane and Vieira). Pace, technique, absurd physicality, passing, insane shots from distance, positional awareness, defensive aggression - he had literally everything in his locker.
Whenever that question on twitter regarding which athlete's career you'd like to see repeated injury-free gets bandied about, my answer is always unequivocally Essien. Same for when anyone wonders who the best XI of 11 copies of a single player would be.
I would respectfully disagree. If you could partner Keane with peak Essien that would have been the best midfield duo of all time. Scholes was obviously a brilliant player who did so much for the team in terms of intelligence and distribution, but having Essien / Keane as a platform to build from would have been completely unfair on the competition. Imagine a side where you could play 4-2-4 instead of 4-4-2 from the off - having Keane and Essien in the middle would allow that to happen. Beckham would never have to track back and could stay high and wide because Essien / Keane would mop up behind him.I liked Essien, but if he'd played for United 1998-2002 he would have started every game on the bench.
Please not this.Let's not forget that Scholes came out of retirement at what, 34? and instantly looked like one of, if not the best centre mid in the prem. The guy was technically a level above every midfielder on this list.
Because the position is not really a simple position...What's the point of dividing a simple position into 35 different roles, and then naming one player for each?
I see your point, but some of those midfielders played in the same positions as Lampard throughout their careers.Then Pogba is easily better than Kante as Pogba has more goals and assists than Kante in PL?
Lampard played in midfield 3 in most attacking role, players like Scholes played in midfield 2 in almost all their careers. Gerrard was moved all over the place.I see your point, but some of those midfielders played in the same positions as Lampard throughout their careers.