Rank these midfielders in an order.

[The holy trinity 68]

Not at international level he wasn’t…..

So Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Owen, Rooney, Terry etc were all not great players, just because England always underperformed?

 

[Gio]

Makes sense from that point of view but I would've for sure bet on extreme possession as that extra physicality & defensive presence is negated by the difference in playing style. Can't really see Gerrard gelling well with Xavi & Iniesta, while Scholes or Pirlo (the latter would probably be a more natural choice) would be able to replicate Busquets role at least to some extent.

For what it's worth, I've been shitting all over Gerrard in this thread, but if we were picking a goalscoring central midfielder into a more direct set up, I'd pick him ahead of everyone on this list bar Lampard maybe (it's a coin-toss between those two), with Scholes being third and Iniesta right behind him (he never scored enough, but I'd imagine that he'd be great in this role as well).

Yeah I agree. You either have to sacrifice some defensive solidity with a Scholes or Pirlo figure or a stylistic mismatch (long v short passing) with Gerrard.

On the second point, yes Lampard and Gerrard aren't really a natural part of this discussion as their role was generally quite different from the other midfielders.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Disagree. The memory of Iniesta playing in the World Cup final like he was having a leisurely kickabout in the backstreets of Fuentealbilla remains with me. The biggest game of them all.

Would also give the edge to Iniesta because of his ability to dribble and pass incredibly well.

I mean, Xavi was the MOTM in 2 separate Euro finals. Both times providing the game winning assist. Xavi was arguably better than Iniesta throughout that WC too(while Iniesta was better in the subsequent Euros).

Once Xavi waned, that Spain/Barca side couldn't dominate the midfield as they did with him.

He doesn't have the iconic goals Iniesta does in big games, but he probably trumps him in memorable big game performances.

Iniesta can dribble better than Xavi(at least in terms of taking players on), but Xavi was more press resistant IMO(his pirouette was superb). He's a better passer, covers more ground and was more consistent than Iniesta throughout the season.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Messi became even more involved in build-up once Xavi fully declined in that Barcelona team.

 

[Hammondo]

Xavi


Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric







Scholes
Kroos

Gerrard

Lampard

The gap between that top 4 & the other 4 (world class players themselves) is significant.

This is exactly how I feel.

 

[Hammondo]

Who would you choose as your midfield three?
Xavi Pirlo Scholes in their primes together would have been a sight to see

It would not work, you cannot have 3 players trying to dictate play.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

It would not work, you cannot have 3 players trying to dictate play.

Not sure about Pirlo, Xavi and Scholes because I think Pirlo was maybe the weakest in defence and needed a stopper with him the most, like Gattuso or Vidal. But Modric Xavi and Scholes could work if you chose younger Scholes as your Scholes rather than older Scholes, younger Scholes could play box to box and score regularly.

 

[Hammondo]

Iniesta could dribble past anyone, had a great understanding of space and knew when to attack and when to be cautious, I think he would great anywhere.

I think that is what seperates these two and Thiago. Thiago is every bit as talented, but he lacks the understanding of the game at the level Iniesta and Xavi did.

One of the few players I have seen beat players without touching the ball, just with body movement and feints. He was able to do it so consistently.

 

[Hammondo]

Not sure about Pirlo, Xavi and Scholes because I think Pirlo was maybe the weakest in defence and needed a stopper with him the most, like Gattuso or Vidal. But Modric Xavi and Scholes could work if you chose younger Scholes as your Scholes rather than older Scholes, younger Scholes could play box to box and score regularly.

Scholes does fit into a creative position more naturally. When we had Carrick and Scholes, Carrick dictated play more and Scholes was more the creative force, worked well. Modric though likes to dictate play still.

 

[youngrell]

So Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Owen, Rooney, Terry etc were all not great players, just because England always underperformed?

It seems a strange recent phenomenon to reduce Scholes to some really poor player on the international stage, which is far from the truth. He was good for England, he just chose to retire because he was being shunted out wide in a rubbish set up. Subsequent managers tried to get him to return, even as late as the 2010 WC.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

It would not work, you cannot have 3 players trying to dictate play.

Agreed. Although young 98-02 goal scorer Scholes would work with one of them.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

It’s a weird one because the 2 I listed with the least ability (Gerrard & Lampard) are the two most likely to win their team a game single handedly. It most depends on how you view it I suppose. Gerrard in the mid 2000s before he got some help with Torres was winning Liverpool games on his own on a regular occurrence.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

It seems a strange recent phenomenon to reduce Scholes to some really poor player on the international stage, which is far from the truth. He was good for England, he just chose to retire because he was being shunted out wide in a rubbish set up. Subsequent managers tried to get him to return, even as late as the 2010 WC.

Yeah Scholes played better in centre midfield in a midfield 2 than the other two, during the 2002 World Cup with Nicky Butt. England were good in that tournament, just lost to champions Brazil in the quarter-finals due to an unusual goal by Ronaldinho. If they had Germany's side of the draw, they probably would have made the final. He was decent in the 1998 World Cup, scored a hat-trick in qualifying for Euro 2000 and scored twice against Scotland in the playoffs for that tournament.

From the end of that World Cup to the end of Euro 2004, his form dipped for England, but that was also when Lampard emerged and got in his way. But he still played 66 times for England and had some good moments before 2004.

 

[JPB]

As I said in my initial post I expected a whole lot of overrating of Scholes and underrating of Gerrard and your post manages to take it further than I expected. If Gerrard played for us instead of Scholes all those years, we'd still have the same number of trophies so that means little to me.

The United fans that claim Scholes is on another level to Gerrard are just lying to themselves really.

Ask Thierry Henry mate. He'll tell you how it is. I'm sure he knows more about football than you. Probably the best attacking player after Ronaldo who has ever played in the prem, and he values Scholes above all others. A blind man could see that Scholes was on a different level. Yet you can't seem to notice it. He is the best midfielder to ever play in the Premier League.

 

[berbatrick]

Iniesta
Xavi

Pirlo
Modric
Scholes
Gerrard
Lampard
Kroos

Iniesta above Xavi is a bit unfair on Xavi, who did more , but the one season Iniesta was injured, Pep's Barca were outplayed and beaten in the CL (he was missing vs Inter), and in that awful grind that was the Spanish run in the 2010 World Cup, he was a difference-maker. Magic over consistency I guess.

Kroos was the Xavi to Modric's Iniesta, but he never felt as crucial as Xavi (or Pirlo) did. And didn't have the goalscoring edge of Gerrard or especially Lampard.

 

[OleTheGreat]

Lampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric, Kroos, Scholes.

Based on their ability, performances, peak, influences, achievement and overall.

Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Scholes
Pirlo
Kroos
Gerrard
Lampard

 

[wrepdrep]

Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Kroos
Lampard
Scholes
Gerrard

Not sure about Scholes. I didn't pay as much attention to him as the rest, but from the little I remember he was better than Gerrard at least.

 

[432JuanMata]

Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Kroos
Lampard
Scholes
Gerrard

Not sure about Scholes. I didn't pay as much attention to him as the rest, but from the little I remember he was better than Gerrard at least.

Even though I’m a United fan he definitely was better than Kroos and while Lampard/Gerrard will always get more media due to being more advanced so scoring more etc I still rate Scholes higher. I would definitely put him behind Xavi/Iniesta and Modric, it’s close with Pirlo for me.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Ability:
Iniesta
Xavi
Scholes
Pirlo
Kroos
Modric
Gerrard
Lampard

Achievement:
Xavi
Iniesta
Kroos & Modric
Pirlo
Scholes
Lampard
Gerrard

Peak:
Iniesta
Xavi
Scholes
Pirlo
Mordric
Lampard
Kroos
Gerrard
Performances:
Xavi & Iniesta
Gerrard
Scholes
Lampard
Pirlo
Modric & Kroos


Overall:
Xavi
Iniesta
Scholes
Pirlo
Modric
Lampard
Gerrard
Kroos

 

[Infordin]

Sorry no, the opposite - I rate Di Maria slightly above Toure, De Bruyne, Fabregas and Gerrard, and then all of them above Lampard.

Ah, I fully agree with that opinion.

Di Maria is often a very disrespected player. He’s one of the best players of the 21st century.

 

[owlo]

I feel Redondo was better than all of them, deep Lying like Pirlo, a dribbler like Iniesta, and a controller like Xavi. The absolute complete midfielder.

Saw him in one of my first united games live and he absolutely annihilated us. Would be interested to know where @harms would place him on this list.

 

[Sant1ago]

Tier 1: Xavi, Iniesta
Tier 2: Pirlo, Modric, Lampard, Gerrard
Tier 2.5: Scholes
Tier 3: Kroos

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Because I honestly think Modric is just a little bit better than Iniesta.

I don't think it's a crazy view but I definitely disagree. Modric was brilliant but he's more at Scholes' level for me. Higher peak but lesser consistency wnd versatility. One has to remember that while Madrid have had the best midfield in football during their CL domination years, I wouldn't say the midfield completely dominated games during that time. Other than their midfield quality it was the sheer depth in attack that they had - for example players like ADM and Isco often being bench players. Their CL ties always felt helter skelter and I don't think completely grabbed those games.

That's where Xavi and Iniesta are a step above. Their ability to boss football matches was something else. The opponents were far more helpless against them for me.

That's why I can't look past those two. Football matches have never been controlled in my time following the game the way Xavi could. And Iniesta 's ability to carry the ball and make others (other than Messi) was just absurd.

As for the perfect midfields among these option, I don't think anyone is good enough defensively. You'd have to have Busquets in there for balance.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Lampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric, Kroos, Scholes.

Based on their ability, performances, peak, influences, achievement and overall.

Ability- pirlo, Iniesta, Scholes, xavi, modric, Gerrard, kroos, lampard

Peak- Scholes, Iniesta, pirlo, Gerrard, Modric, Xavi, kroos, lampard

Overall- Xavi, Pirlo, Modric, Scholes, Iniesta, Gerrard, kroos , lampard

 

[sherrinford]

Ah, I fully agree with that opinion.

Di Maria is often a very disrespected player. He’s one of the best players of the 21st century.

That's due to him consistently being played out of position - Di Maria is not a winger. United acquired him off the back of a season in which he was probably Madrid's best player in a role that was near perfect for him. And to be fair, that was evident at United too, where he was the best player in the league initially before Van Gaal began interfering with his position and grinding down his wonderfully direct and adventurous approach to the game (as well as other issues outside of his football no doubt affecting him too) .

 

[harms]

I feel Redondo was better than all of them, deep Lying like Pirlo, a dribbler like Iniesta, and a controller like Xavi. The absolute complete midfielder.

Saw him in one of my first united games live and he absolutely annihilated us. Would be interested to know where @harms would place him on this list.

In the second tier amongst Scholes/Pirlo/Modrić. Not sure on the exact position.

 

[elmo]

Good post but Gerrard is far more adaptable than Lampard. In fact Gerrard has had PFA team of the year seasons as a DM CM and AM. Before Lampard even came onto the fold it was Gerrard as a DM winning PFA young player of the year and having performances like the one for England against Germany, it was actually Lampard who upset the balance of a young Gerrard/Scholes partnership which was pretty decent.

More like he wasn't trusted to cement a proper position in midfield because he kept on drifting out of position. There's a reason why Rafa had to have Alonso and Maschenaro in the team despite having a 'world class' midfielder in Gerrard.

 

[owlo]

More like he wasn't trusted to cement a proper position in midfield because he kept on drifting out of position. There's a reason why Rafa had to have Alonso and Maschenaro in the team despite having a 'world class' midfielder in Gerrard.

Gerrard had it all, except a brain. Put his ability with Xavi's brain and he'd have been damned close to a goat.

In the second tier amongst Scholes/Pirlo/Modrić. Not sure on the exact position.

Don't buy this if we're talking on ability alone. Objectively speaking Xavi stands above, but Redondo could do what both Pirlo and Iniesta could do, almost as well as both.

 

[harms]

Don't buy this if we're talking on ability alone. Objectively speaking Xavi stands above, but Redondo could do what both Pirlo and Iniesta could do, almost as well as both.

No, he couldn't do what Iniesta could do, not even close. And I'm also not talking about ability alone.

Redondo wasn't as dominant in terms of his playmaking as, say, Pirlo or Scholes — his role was a bit different to both though, as he was significantly better in the defensive phase of the game.

 

[Ole'sattheWheel]

Lampard
Gerrard
Kroos
Pirlo
Modric
Iniesta
Xavi
Scholes


order of height

 

[NasirTimothy]

So Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Owen, Rooney, Terry etc were all not great players, just because England always underperformed?

Not as good as the best of their generation, no.

 

[NasirTimothy]

It seems a strange recent phenomenon to reduce Scholes to some really poor player on the international stage, which is far from the truth. He was good for England, he just chose to retire because he was being shunted out wide in a rubbish set up. Subsequent managers tried to get him to return, even as late as the 2010 WC.

He might have been solid but he wasn’t as good as some of the others on that list for his country.

 

[Suedesi]

1. Xavi Hernández: reached the highest ever level for a central midfield architect, and the driving force behind Barcelona and Spain's historic successes (including his expertise in their defensive strategem); best overall passer on all three levels, and the greatest central-ish midfielder of all time with Matthäus and Rijkaard.
2. Andrés Iniesta: probably the best needle midfielder in football history, one of the most effective and elusive dribblers of all time even if you include forwards and wingers, and his unselfishness made him an immaculate complementary weapon. Also boasts a glittering resumé in key moments. Not much between him and the likes of Zidane or Laudrup, all things considered.
3. Andrea Pirlo: archetypal deep-lying midfielder and accomplished at practically every level of the sport. Best player of the U-21 European Championship, key cog in Milan's European dynasty from the 2000s, established a new domestic dynasty with Juventus in the 2010. The third most important Italian player in the 2006 World Cup and subsequently led them to the 2012 European Championship final.
4. Luka Modrić: astonishingly complete central midfield playmaker — press-resistant and a good counter-presser, snake-like dribbler, neat and effective passer (though obviously not comparable to the masters), committed to his teams' defensive game-plans and possessed a great engine, et cetera. Came alive on several significant grand occasions...which adds gold-dust to his profile.
5. Paul Scholes: probably the most technically sublime English midfielder of the last 75 years with Charlton and Gascoigne; and the understated but hugely effective schemer behind United's modern successes. Also one of the greatest and most precise long passers of all time with the likes of Günter Netzer. Could have reached an ever higher individual zenith in a team that was properly built around his remarkable possession play.
6. Toni Kroos: somewhat flawed but a largely accurate passer with metronomic qualities, and also fairly effective from set pieces. A lesser version of Scholes in my view, and it's no wonder that the “Ginger Prince” loves this guy...

7a and 7b. Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard: trickiest assessments of the lot. Both of them were very good, no doubt about that; but neither could consistently regulate the flow of the game for their teams. Rate the former at a slightly higher level because he was more fundamentally sound, consistent over the years, simpler to integrate into the whole and more disciplined in possession or off the ball. Gerrard's propensity for turning in one-man-army performances obviously led to a lot of highlight moments, but also made him a liability at the worst of times — Liverpool just didn't care for the most part because he was their knight in shining armor and the difference-maker-in-chief for some less than stellar outfits.

Largely agreed

 

[Spoony]

Pirlo has always been highly rated...he was one of the best players in the world pre 2010. Got to love revisionism.

 

[Winzaghi]

Iniesta
Pirlo
Xavi
Scholes
Modric
Lampard
Kroos
Gerrard

Scholes and Modric are my personal favorites though.

 

[youngrell]

He might have been solid but he wasn’t as good as some of the others on that list for his country.

Well yeah, he retired at 29 and was an even better player afterwards so it’s not really a fair comparison.

 

[Spoony]

Not at international level he wasn’t…..

Like Messi...

 

[NasirTimothy]

I mean, Xavi was the MOTM in 2 separate Euro finals. Both times providing the game winning assist. Xavi was arguably better than Iniesta throughout that WC too(while Iniesta was better in the subsequent Euros).

Once Xavi waned, that Spain/Barca side couldn't dominate the midfield as they did with him.

He doesn't have the iconic goals Iniesta does in big games, but he probably trumps him in memorable big game performances.

Iniesta can dribble better than Xavi(at least in terms of taking players on), but Xavi was more press resistant IMO(his pirouette was superb). He's a better passer, covers more ground and was more consistent than Iniesta throughout the season.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Messi became even more involved in build-up once Xavi fully declined in that Barcelona team.

I don’t think Xavi is a better passer than Iniesta.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Like Messi...

Messi was better than Modric at international level. Scholes wasn’t.