PL's best midfielders

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Neither Gerrard or Lampard could dictate the pace of the game which is odd for so called top class midfielders. Keane, Scholes & Vieira all could.

To be fair, that wasn’t either of their jobs.

Lampard looked best when Makelele was around. Gerrard looked best when Masherano or Alonso was around.

The key point of difference for me is that Keane was Roy of the Rovers Gerrard at a young age. Scholes was goal scoring midfielder Lampard in his early years.

Both Keane and Scholes became different versions of themselves across their careers. The other two didn’t.

Both Gerrard and Lampard were excellent footballers. But I can’t imagine in any scenario picking them above Keane or Scholes in an all time PL 11.

Also interesting that people shy away from calling Alli a midfielder, but include Lampard and Gerrard in this debate. They were both terrible in a two, and didn’t control games in a midfield three. They were impactful advanced midfielders. Neither were complete, at any point in their career. And that’s absolutely fine.

 

[TheReligion]

You dont grasp what im saying.
His peers didnt vote for him when they could have. His fans didnt. The pfa didnt. Neither did the journalists.

No I totally grasp that you're trying to suggest Scholes wasn't as good as others by using his lack of personal awards to try and justify your view. That's fine but you can't ignore that his peers did acknowledge him, and by peers you're talking about some of the best talents in the world, as shown in the quotes you've been shown. It's also worth mentioning that Scholes won more in his career than Gerrard and Lampard. He was also a one club man unlike either if those two. Lampard wasn't even a Chelsea product.

 

[Pow]

To be fair, that wasn’t either of their jobs.

Lampard looked best when Makelele was around. Gerrard looked best when Masherano or Alonso was around.

The key point of difference for me is that Keane was Roy of the Rovers Gerrard at a young age. Scholes was goal scoring midfielder Lampard in his early years.

Both Keane and Scholes became different versions of themselves across their careers. The other two didn’t.

Both Gerrard and Lampard were excellent footballers. But I can’t imagine in any scenario picking them above Keane or Scholes in an all time PL 11.

Also interesting that people shy away from calling Alli a midfielder, but include Lampard and Gerrard in this debate. They were both terrible in a two, and didn’t control games in a midfield three. They were impactful advanced midfielders. Neither were complete, at any point in their career. And that’s absolutely fine.

Eh ? Franks best season was 09/10 when maka was long gone.
27(22) goals 18(16) assists overall (in the league alone)

Absolutely staggering numbers.

He wasnt terrible in a 2 either still had great numbers. During his latter career we had mata at 10. Won a few trophies including both european cups couldnt have been that bad.

 

[Pow]

No I totally grasp that you're trying to suggest Scholes wasn't as good as others by using his lack of personal awards to try and justify your view. That's fine but you can't ignore that his peers did acknowledge him, and by peers you're talking about some of the best talents in the world, as shown in the quotes you've been shown. It's also worth mentioning that Scholes won more in his career than Gerrard and Lampard. He was also a one club man unlike either if those two. Lampard wasn't even a Chelsea product.

What ? So what if he was a one club man or lampard being a west ham academy product. Two irrelevant points.
And again those peers werent voting for him when the time came.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Which is why there's so much talk about goals and assist in this thread ignoring that footballers, shock horror, can be different.

It's wrong though, Gerrard in 13/14 was doing exact that, in fact it would be intriguing to see how much passes he was averaging per game in comparison to Keane and Viera at his best, a lot of these arguments revolve around people propagating well known myths that aren't too close to the truth, Gerrard in 13/14 was one of the best playmakers in the league.

 

[TheReligion]

What ? So what if he was a one club man or lampard being a west ham academy product. Two irrelevant points.
And again those peers werent voting for him when the time came.

Career honours;

Scholes
11 Premier League
3 FA Cup
2 League Cup
2 European Cup
2 World Club Cup

Lampard
3 Premier League
3 FA Cup
2 League Cup
1 European Cup
1 Europa League

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not sure what your post is really getting at. That Lampard was a terrific player is beyond question. The post I quoted however made it out to be that Gerrard and Lampard were in fact two dominant forces of European football, which Scholes and Keane never were. Which is just daft. Holding on in a game against Barcelona doesn't make you dominant European players. It actually makes those players dominant given surviving against them was an achievement.

To be honest this is the first time I'm hearing this argument about these two, clearly terrific players, being a step above in the global game. I really do wonder how we became one of the dominant football teams in the world with lesser CMs like Scholes and Keane running the show.

I thought you kind of dismissed their achievements in the CL, which is what my post was getting at; and you mentioned Xavi/Iniesta, and I thought I'd mention Lampard's record was really good against Barca. The bold bit is obviously ridiculous and I'd never defend any such claim.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's wrong though, Gerrard in 13/14 was doing exact that, in fact it would be intriguing to see how much passes he was averaging per game in comparison to Keane and Viera at his best, a lot of these arguments revolve around people propagating well known myths that aren't too close to the truth, Gerrard in 13/14 was one of the best playmakers in the league.

Yes everybody busting your opinion is propagating myths. Convenient. Sorry but I disagree. I would never ever pick Gerrard all these illustrious options as my teams CM playmaker. I'd instead stick him further forward as a second striker if needed, so he can actually do what he's really good at.

 

[Pow]

Career honours;

Scholes
11 Premier League
3 FA Cup
2 League Cup
2 European Cup
2 World Club Cup

Lampard
3 Premier League
3 FA Cup
2 League Cup
1 European Cup
1 Europa League

And. Lampard was far far more integral to chelseas success than scholes was to uniteds.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I thought you kind of dismissed their achievements in the CL, which is what my post was getting at; and you mentioned Xavi/Iniesta, and I thought I'd mention Lampard's record was really good against Barca. The bold bit is obviously ridiculous and I'd never defend any such claim.

Not at all. These are terrific players who performed at every level - except England NT which was a shit hole to be fair. I only mentioned Xavi and Iniesta as the poster I quoted seemed to suggest Gerrard and Lampard as some European forced which our two great CMs which I found laughable, and from an alternate reality. The only midfield I've seen appear 'alien' was that of Pep's Barcelona (aided by Messi).

 

[Righteous Steps]

Yes everybody busting your opinion is propagating myths. Convenient. Sorry but I disagree. I would never ever pick Gerrard all these illustrious options as my teams CM playmaker. I'd instead stick him further forward as a second striker if needed, so he can actually do what he's really good at.

It's a myth please do your research, Gerrard in 13/14 was averaging 68 passes per game that's comparable to Scholes in his passing prime,(09-12)you can check. There's not really any recognised stats that go back further than that though, but would say Scholes was averaging more passes and truly playmaking later in his career no?

Scholes of course is a better playmakers than both Gerrard and Lampard, but they can playmake and they can control games also.

 

[TheReligion]

And. Lampard was far far more integral to chelseas success than scholes was to uniteds.

Well that doesn't really show considering he's well below him in club honours

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's a myth please do your research, Gerrard in 13/14 was averaging 68 passes per game that's comparable to Scholes in his passing prime,(09-11)you can check.

How many does Jorginho make? Or Joe Allen? I'm sure you can use more pointless stats to play down a better footballer/CM than Gerrard.

 

[Pow]

Well that doesn't really show considering he's well below him in club honours

Which goes back to the point that scholes would be well down the list of most important player in the season of those trophies won. Whilst i doubt frank would be lower than top 3.

 

[TheReligion]

Which goes back to the point that scholes would be well down the list of most important player in the season of those trophies won. Whilst i doubt frank would be lower than top 3.

How far down the list would he be then? In each of those seasons? And who is judging it?

 

[roonster09]

It's a myth please do your research, Gerrard in 13/14 was averaging 68 passes per game that's comparable to Scholes in his passing prime,(09-12)you can check. There's not really any recognised stats that go back further than that though, but would say Scholes was averaging more passes and truly playmaking later in his career no?

Scholes of course is a better playmakers than both Gerrard and Lampard, but they can playmake and they can control games also.

Scholes was a bench player by then, he wasn't consistent starter.

Per 90 mins Scholes averaged - 74, 79, 87, 100 passes.
Gerrard in 2013-14 averaged - 68 passes per 90 mins.

Per 90 mins, whoscored average is 81 passes for Scholes, 60 passes for Gerrard.

 

[Righteous Steps]

How many does Jorginho make? Or Joe Allen? I'm sure you can use more pointless stats to play down a better footballer/CM than Gerrard.

I don't know but they both can playmake and control games, especially especially Jorginho it's other parts of their game that isn't sufficient to argue them being up there with the best, but you wouldn't find much better playmakers than Jorginho, his time at Napoli and Chelsea are complete proof of this.

 

[Pow]

How far down the list would he be then? In each of those seasons? And who is judging it?

Well just go off the fans votes for poty
The pfa for toty
The balon dor for a start all that shows ive got a point that hes pretty far down.

 

[Prometheus]

Not at all. These are terrific players who performed at every level - except England NT which was a shit hole to be fair. I only mentioned Xavi and Iniesta as the poster I quoted seemed to suggest Gerrard and Lampard as some European forced which our two great CMs which I found laughable, and from an alternate reality. The only midfield I've seen appear 'alien' was that of Pep's Barcelona (aided by Messi).

I see, my bad. And yeah I agree about Pep's Barcelona.

It actually still blows my mind how incredible that was.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Scholes was a bench player by then, he wasn't consistent starter.

Per 90 mins Scholes averaged - 74, 79, 87, 100 passes.
Gerrard in 2013-14 averaged - 68 passes per 90 mins.

Per 90 mins, whoscored average is 81 passes for Scholes, 60 passes for Gerrard.

Scholes was better than both, I don't think there was a huge chasm between the rest though.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I don't know but they both can playmake and control games, especially especially Jorginho it's other parts of their game that isn't sufficient to argue them being up there with the best, but you wouldn't find much better playmakers than Jorginho, his time at Napoli and Chelsea are complete proof of this.

There's degrees. There's Jorginho the playmaking CM and then there's Scholes the playmaking CM who is on an entirely different level. Gerrard wasn't at that level. That's not to say that he wouldn't contribute to controling matches at all. He's had his moments/spells of course. He was a wonderful footballer after all. But he was a good CM whose game went up a level when he got to focus on attacking. Scholes' on the other hand was a fanatastic CM. Work that's done on the heart of the midfield often can't be measured, it's controlling the tempo of the game, it's spreading out play by switching to the flank, it's dictating how your team plays. And of course in addition to this in a different phase, Scholes also excelled as an attacking CM and as a second striker (see 2002/03 where he was brilliant).

So while I acknowledge that Gerrard and Lampard were cracking attacking misfielders, I'd personally pick Scholes, Keane and Vieira before them given their contribution to the buildup. Most likely Scholes wins in general due to a mix of overall influence, consistency and versatility. But to each their own I guess.

 

[TheReligion]

Well just go off the fans votes for poty
The pfa for toty
The balon dor for a start all that shows ive got a point that hes pretty far down.

Why just go off those though? Because it suits your agenda? Sadly that's not how these things work. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but you can't ignore all of the other factors because it doesn't support the narrative you wish to pedal.

 

[Pow]

Why just go off those though? Because it suits your agenda? Sadly that's not how these things work. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but you can't ignore all of the other factors because it doesn't support the narrative you wish to pedal.

Please tell me these factors.

 

[TheReligion]

Please tell me these factors.

I've mentioned one of them; honours. Scholes is loaded with far more than Lampard. He also had a longer and more successful career in that sense. I've also mentioned the amount of footballing greats that speak very highly of Scholes with many describing him as the best midfielder they have ever seen. Xavi and Iniesta were fighting for his shirt post CL final as an aside.

Really it's you who should be explaining why you're basing your whole opinion on personal awards which are notoriously skewed as evidenced earlier in the thread.

 

[Pow]

I've mentioned one of them; honours. Scholes is loaded with far more than Lampard. He also had a longer and more successful career in that sense. I've also mentioned the amount of footballing greats that speak very highly of Scholes with many describing him as the best midfielder they have ever seen. Xavi and Iniesta were fighting for his shirt post CL final as an aside.

Really it's you who should be explaining why you're basing your whole opinion on personal awards which are notoriously skewed as evidenced earlier in the thread.

The amount of honours like ive said frank was far more important for what he won whilst winning everything also.
The rest is nonsensical.
Awards are a goodway of seeing whose played well even if the winner can be argued at times. The discrepancy he has cannot be ignored.

 

[TheReligion]

The amount of honours like ive said frank was far more important for what he won whilst winning everything also.
The rest is nonsensical.
Awards are a goodway of seeing whose played well even if the winner can be argued at times. The discrepancy he has cannot be ignored.

The issue is Lampard hasn't won all that much compared to Scholes. The gap is huge.

 

[troylocker]

For me it would be peak Yaya. Total machine and an unstoppable train of a box-to-box midfielder.
Keano, Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard, Vieira, KDB and Arsenal Cesc were/is fantastic too.

 

[iHicksy]

What are you talking about. He's playing next to a better midfielder in his 35, he's called michael carrick.

This is a united forum, we all love our ginger prince, but he's not the best midfielder in the league in his 35. Just like Giggs isnt the best midfielder when he's 35.

Don't try and twist what I said.

I said he was the best Technical midfielder in the premier league at 35 still. E.g his passing and range of passing and one touch passing was the best in the league, and asked you to name someone who was better at passing than he. If you think Michael Carrick was a better distributor of the ball than Scholes then you must be high.

 

[Sky1981]

Don't try and twist what I said.

I said he was the best Technical midfielder in the premier league at 35 still. E.g his passing and range of passing and one touch passing was the best in the league, and asked you to name someone who was better at passing than he. If you think Michael Carrick was a better distributor of the ball than Scholes then you must be high.

He was not at 35. That's my point. If you think he's the same scholes at 35 post retirement then you clearly are using a triple rose tinted glass.

 

[Pow]

For me it would be peak Yaya. Total machine and an unstoppable train of a box-to-box midfielder.
Keano, Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard, Vieira, KDB and Arsenal Cesc were/is fantastic too.

Deserves a special mention imo. Was a period in the league where hed run straight through teams.

 

[Pow]

The issue is Lampard hasn't won all that much compared to Scholes. The gap is huge.

Lamps won plenty. Man Utd would have won without scholes.

 

[iHicksy]

He was not at 35. That's my point. If you think he's the same scholes at 35 post retirement then you clearly are using a triple rose tinted glass.

Yes, he really was. Scholes was the best passer and retainer of the ball in the premier league at 35, because age didn't negate his ability to pass a football, only his ability to get around the pitch. Did you actually watch us play? Scholes passing only got better as he got older, not worse.

I don't know how anyone can even argue otherwise. Who in your opinion was better? You cannot possibly think Carrick was a better passer of the ball.

 

[Sky1981]

Yes, he really was. Scholes was the best passer and retainer of the ball in the premier league at 35, because age didn't negate his ability to pass a football, only his ability to get around the pitch. Did you actually watch us play? Scholes passing only got better as he got older, not worse.

I don't know how anyone can even argue otherwise. Who in your opinion was better? You cannot possibly think Carrick was a better passer of the ball.

Sorry. I didnt remember him being the best midfielder in the epl. Or even the best technical passer (whatever that terms means).

You dont get to be the best in (select one aspect of football) only. To be the best in the league you'd have to serve the whole package. It's like saying fellaini is the best midfielder in the control the ball with chest criteria.

Doesnt mean i dont rate scholes. One of my favorite.

 

[iHicksy]

Sorry. I didnt remember him being the best midfielder in the epl. Or even the best technical passer (whatever that terms means).

You dont get to be the best in (select one aspect of football) only. To be the best in the league you'd have to serve the whole package. It's like saying fellaini is the best midfielder in the control the ball with chest criteria.

Doesnt mean i dont rate scholes. One of my favorite.

Honestly, it's like you're incapable of reading. I said Scholes as the best Technically gifted midfielder in the PL even at 35 years of age. You keep harping on about how he wasn't the best midfielder. I didn't say at 35 he was the best midfielder. I said he was the best Technical midfielder, if you don't know what that term means then I don't know what to tell you. Here, i'll break it down for you again. Technical ability wise he was the best. He could pass a football with a range of passing and consistency that was totally unmatched and his one touch football was above every other midfielder in the league (yes at 35).

I'll say it again in a way that you might be able to understand. Paul Scholes was, even at 35. The absolute best Technically able midfielder in the league and still one of the best centre mids precisely because of his technical ability. The fact that you are unable to name someone better is a pretty damning testimony. Comparing the ability to chest a ball down with being able to play 40 yard perfect passes over the heads of defenders every single time are such ridiculously different skill sets in terms of determining a game that your argument (which you don't even seem to be able to grasp yourself) is distinctly lacking.

I'll say it again, please try and respond to the actual question for the 3rd time because you've avoided the question thrice, which indicates you know there wasn't one. Who was a better Technically gifted centre mid than Paul Scholes, when he came out of retirement at 35?

 

[Trezeguet17]

Absolute no surprise this thread transformed to another Scholes vs Gerrard & Lampard discussion.

Btw i would prefer Keane and Vieira over all 3 of them.

 

[Rajiztar]

Scholes had the advantage of greatest ever manager of PL era probably greatest ever of all time to manage his playing career . Lamps and Gerrard didn't have that.

In Gerrard's case,he played mostly under Rafa who is not bad but can't be compared with SAF or Jose or Carlo.

I don't like Gerrard because of Saint status given to him by English press but his teams in hey days were good for cup competitions but not good enough for league. He did win matches on his own hence won all cup competitions but not league.

Lampard was unique in his own way. There was no one better than him as goal scoring midfielder. It's his greatest asset but doesn't mean he was not good enough in his defensive game or passing game. He had highest number of assists and had good number of defensive stats like tackles won,interceptions,blocks if not better.

Scholes well his career was most decorated among three. Scholes one of the consistent performer for manchester utd and effortlessly played multiple roles for that decorated manchester utd team full of champions. He was selected by greatest ever manager ( who not afraid to show the door to players like Beckham and keane) year after year for his winning machine says all about the ability and longevity of scholes.

 

[Buster15]

Neither Gerrard or Lampard could dictate the pace of the game which is odd for so called top class midfielders. Keane, Scholes & Vieira all could.

Well I would say that Gerrard could and often did dictate the pace of the game. Rampaging through midfield and hitting those accurate long passes.
But in my view Keane was the very best of a very good bunch.

 

[Irwin99]

Yaya is an interesting one. He was an absolute monster of player and had unbelievable striking technique but you knew if City played two in midfield (particularly in the latter stages of his career) that he just wouldn't bother to cover the spaces. Probably unlucky not to win a POTY award though, his stats were incredible at times.

 

[Stacks]

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.

Chelsea record in Europe with a Lampard midfield and where they reached -
2004 Semi Final -beating Arsenal invincible on the way)
2005 Semi final (beating Barcelona league champs and losing to Liverpool Ghost goal),
2007 Semi final (beat Barcelona the current European champs in the groups then lost to Liverpool in pens),
2008 Final (beating last year finalists Liverpool),
2009 Semi final (robbed by Barcelona who needed referee assistance despite having Xavi Iniesta and Messi on what was one of the most biased embarrassing ref displays in CL history. Chelsea deserved to go through and their midfield more than impressed against the greatest midfield ever)
2012 Winners (beating both Barcelona and Bayern Munich)

to conclude, a Chelsea midfield with Lampard, very rarely did anything of note against Europe's elite.

Liverpool record vs Europe's elite with Gerrard
2005 Winners - (beating previous finalists Juve and Jose Mourinho unstoppable Chelsea en route before the average Steven Gerrard inspired the greatest comeback in history)
2007 finalists (beating current holders Barcelona another scalp of European elite, before losing to a Star studded Milan in a closely contested final
2008 semi finals (defeated by a rampaging Chelsea side)
2009 quarters (smashing Real Madrid 5-0 aggregate before once again succumbing to Chelsea who were now a European Elite)

To conclude, Gerrard did nout against European Elite

 

[Jibbs]

Whenever we talk about greatest ever midfielders in PL era, Lampard would have to be there in the midfield three. he was as complete a midfielder as they come. Intelligent, great vision and passing range, absolutely amazing goal scoring record.

to qoute Sir Alex...

"Lampard has been unbelievable," said Ferguson. "I don't think a midfield player will be able to do that figure again. It's quite phenomenal.

"Like Bryan Robson, he has had a great knack of timing his runs into the box at the right time. John Wark was another one at Ipswich.

"The other things is I can't remember Lampard ever being injured. When he's not been playing it's because they thought he was past it.

"The guy has had a great career. I must say we looked at him when he was at West Ham as a young player and I maybe regret not having done it.

"Where else could I get 200 goals?"

my three most favorite midfielders in Priemer League are

Lampard, Scholes and Xabi.