Gareth Barry was great for us in that role. Much under appreciated.
PL's best midfielders
- Thread starter VJ1762
- Start date
Is this thread a subtle excuse to have another Gerrard v Scholes v Lampard debate?
They usually end well
They usually end well
Robbo has to be up there . I liked Tony Currie also. Gazza was one of the best.
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.
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
Paul Scholes
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.
Yep. He was part of my three but I think he wins this.
Keane Scholes Viera Gerrard all miles better players than Lampard . He played more as a second striker with his runs he was free to make . I'm sure of you ask any of the named players who they would rather not play against Frank would be way down the list . But I suppose it's a matter of opinion
I do not see how Lampard cannot be considered in the top bracket; his goal scoring and assists stats are ridiculous for a midfielder, particularly around his peak.
609 games 177 goals and 102 assists.
His passing was brilliant; his finishing was quality; his long shots were quality; he was quality on the ball; really good at freekicks and great at penalties. He even put in a good shift defensively, on top of that. I think some people forget how good he was at his peak. The guy had everything. People seem to think that he only scored goals, but he created a ton of them as well.
It is ridiculous that people use it as slight that he played further up the pitch when he was doing his job perfectly well. How is that bad?
For me, Gerrard, Lampard, and Scholes were pretty equal in quality. I am not sure why people are so obsessed with determining who the best is.
609 games 177 goals and 102 assists.
His passing was brilliant; his finishing was quality; his long shots were quality; he was quality on the ball; really good at freekicks and great at penalties. He even put in a good shift defensively, on top of that. I think some people forget how good he was at his peak. The guy had everything. People seem to think that he only scored goals, but he created a ton of them as well.
It is ridiculous that people use it as slight that he played further up the pitch when he was doing his job perfectly well. How is that bad?
For me, Gerrard, Lampard, and Scholes were pretty equal in quality. I am not sure why people are so obsessed with determining who the best is.
Last edited:
No.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Cesc lads. I wish we managed to sign him with Van Persie.
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.
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 wasn't shuffled out of position for Veron. Scholes started his career as a forward, was exceptional in the role and thrived in it whilst Veron, who was a renowned central midfielder, was supposed to come in and supplement midfield with his patented engine and dynamic contributions he had made his name off of in Italy and for his NT.
Scholes, like Gerrard or Lampard is going to be a liability in a 4-4-2 at world class level without a godly anchor, there's no denying that, but his understanding of the game and his competence at everything to do with the role other than the aforementioned was top percentile . If you want to control a game of football and you've got to put one of those 3 in central midfield alongside a mighty anchor, you've hit your head if you don't choose Scholes.
I'd like to have a read of your thread by the way. Link would be great.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
But more than that (versatility), it's that exceptional reading of the game, playmaking ability and passing range which is my reason for going for Scholes. For me he's the best PL CM and only behind Xavi among all I've seen.
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.
I do forget how devastating Scholes was in his early seasons in that regard, mind.
For a while, Yaya Toure was a level above anything else ever seen in the PL. So him.
First of all I must say, great post(as usual) from a great poster. But there are some parts I can't agree with. First and foremost, the notion that Gerrard didn't become a world class player as a CM, is something that goes against pretty much every opinion performance and things that were stated at the time.
First of all is the definition of football intelligence, and the way it's spoke of, I can't agree because football intelligemce doesn't just encompass being a great defensive midfielder, why isn't football intelligenc, talked up in terms of attacking patterns and movements? What I mean is why, is the ability to drift in behind defenders, be in the right place to provide assists, and score goals from midfielde not included in the definitions of football intelligence? Put Viera in an attacking position and he doesn't look an intelligent player, he wouldn't be able to make the right runs, make the right movements or facilitate attacks, this is intelligence also, we can't just look at 'football intelligence' from the paradigm of being defensively astute, the likes of Lampard and Gerrard showed plenty intelligence in being top assist makers and goal scorers from midfield countless of times, which Keane and Viera never showed capable to do for multiple seasons.
Also is wort noting that Viera and Keane played in completely different eras to Gerrard, yes they excelled in two man midfields, but for all the premier league dominance, Viera never won the CL and Keane made it to a grand total of one CL final playing in teams far far dominant to Gerrard who made it to two? Why is that? Maybe to do with your exact point, playing in two man midfields was good enough for them domestically in the 90's but when encountered by the very best of Europe many who played with 3 man midfield it wasn't enough, even for superhuman Keane and certainly not enough for Viera.
This is the thing, the points about Gerrard not hacking at CM is he would have been better in a 3 man midfield, but that point is actually relevant to every single player you named, and if it wasn't Sir Alex wouldn't be benching Scholes into big Champion league games to go with a more solid team man midfield in Butt and Keane, the same point is even relevant to Xavi and Pirlo, both midfielders I consider better than any of the named, both midfielders who needed the right setups to get the best out of them, put either in two man midfields and they would sink not swim, in fact I've seen both players get overrun at different parts in their career.
What is truth though is, Gerrrard won more honours as a CM as he did in any other position, but 02 when Sir Alex had said he was the most influential player in the land above Viera he was a CM, when Mourinho fought tooth and nail to bring him to Chelsea he was a CM, he won PFA player and young player of the year as a CM, he spent only a couple years as a AM and on the right, he won 4 trophies in 2001 and helped Liverpool to 2nd place as a CM, he was already world class there before Benitez saw fit to move him into different positions, to adapt to the times and his overall view of football.
The DM part isn't overstated either, he was 34 when he lead Liverpool to their best ever title pursuit in his career, he made the most assists that season, was top 5-6 for key passes, and generally as a passer proved he could easily play that position, of course he was limited by a lack of defensive quality and the losing of his legs, but he proved he could fulfill that role, at least on the ball, and quite easily actually. To me his lack of intelligence gets overstated, he was an intelligent player, if he wasn't he wouldn't have been a success in every position he played.
He actually did, what was Scholes best seasons as Cm by the way, just out of interest?
It's not strange logic, it's actually a great point to bring up.
Why has the best mid ever scholes never made the list for world poty
Keane has
Lampard has
Gerrard has
Toure has
Kante has
Etc
Why not him ????
Keane has
Lampard has
Gerrard has
Toure has
Kante has
Etc
Why not him ????
Can't post properly until later. Will be back in with a bit of waffle then!
Are we talking about peak season or overall quality? I think the latter.
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.
They won a CL each and both did really well to do that of course. But a bit of weird point to make that they went up against the cream of Europe and dominated as others didn't, given that never actually happened. I mean, Lampard's CL win as wonderful an achievement as it is for anyone was the worst CL win I've ever seen.
I'm biased of course, but I think that if Gerrard was played in his best possible position for most of his career (free roaming AM in front of two disciplined midfielders) he'd be regarded as the best of the lot. I remember when Gerrard was young everyone thought he was going to be a new Keane/Vieira, but he was in reality always more suited for offensive play. A Frank Lampard on steroids if you will. The only season he played as an AM during his prime years he scored every other game in the league.
If you look at it in a "Football Manager game", attributewise - he simply ticks more boxes than the rest. Strong, fast, good tackler, fantastic passer of the ball, finisher, header, crosses...he's got the whole package. "Restraint" being the only thing he lacked really.
If you look at it in a "Football Manager game", attributewise - he simply ticks more boxes than the rest. Strong, fast, good tackler, fantastic passer of the ball, finisher, header, crosses...he's got the whole package. "Restraint" being the only thing he lacked really.
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.
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.
I think he would get more recognition if he played elsewhere; Manchester United fans criminally undervalued him.
Particularly when he was playing next to Giggs in midfield.
It's what I'll always believe, but others have their own impossible to shake views too.
Scholes seems to be played down by other fans for a number of reasons.
- Being a "dirty" tackler
- Not winning individual awards
- Not being the "best" player in the United team at any stage.
- Playing next to Keane (although they'll then try and play down how good Keane was in other conversations)
- Sometimes being rotated
What they do seem to ignore, is that he was bossing the Premier league in his late 30s in a 2 man midfield. The word of the likes of Xavi and anyone who was at United, saying Scholes was the best player there.
How he started much further forward and scored loads.
That in "Those" days, you didn't stay as a starter at United for so long without having exceptional quality.
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 liked Essien, but if he'd played for United 1998-2002 he would have started every game on the bench.
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.
Basically with those two, you'd be able to dedicate 4 players full time to attack because you'd have the power in midfield to cope with any opposition, even with just two men. It's a ridiculous advantage that I'm sure Sir Alex would have taken advantage of.
The fact you said "PL" rules out loads.
My pick would be Robbo.
He would kick the living shit out of attackers and make an absolute fool of defenders!
What more do you want?
If we are going PL only then it's a toss between Keane and Gerrard.
I'm not basing this on ability, I'm basing it on what they could say to a group of players to make them perform better than their abilities.
Keane for obvious reasons demanded that players meet his standards (a bad pass was a crime)
But unfortunately I have to give the scouse square head the same credit. He dragged average teams to a very good standard over and over again.
Look at the 2005 CL winning team vs that Milan side. He did that.
We all give Keane credit for the Juventus game but to be fair, Gerrard deserves the same for Istanbul.
Agree??
My pick would be Robbo.
He would kick the living shit out of attackers and make an absolute fool of defenders!
What more do you want?
If we are going PL only then it's a toss between Keane and Gerrard.
I'm not basing this on ability, I'm basing it on what they could say to a group of players to make them perform better than their abilities.
Keane for obvious reasons demanded that players meet his standards (a bad pass was a crime)
But unfortunately I have to give the scouse square head the same credit. He dragged average teams to a very good standard over and over again.
Look at the 2005 CL winning team vs that Milan side. He did that.
We all give Keane credit for the Juventus game but to be fair, Gerrard deserves the same for Istanbul.
Agree??
Please not this.
He got out of retirement. Against all odds looks marvelous because he can still pull a decent level for united. But technically above all midfielder?
Because the position is not really a simple position...
I see your point, but some of those midfielders played in the same positions as Lampard throughout their careers.
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.
What's is also overlooked is, Lampard scored many penalties (He was very good at it)
In 609 PL games, he scored 177 league goals, 134 from open play. 4.5 games per goal
In 499 PL games, Scholes scored 107 league goals, 106 from open play, 4.7 games per goal. He played as deeper player from 2006-07 season at least.
Best ever goal scoring midfielder in PL wasn't all that better than Scholes in goal scoring from open play. Scholes played in midfield 2 almost all his career and from 2006-07 as deeper player.