EPL Team of the Decade- CM's

Spiritoftheseventies

Mr Alan wrote: »

gerrard is not at the top tier of players. **** sake, i've heard it all now. lack of a premier league title is irrelevant.

yes its that old chesnut again. George best allegedly was not world class because he never played in a world cup. for Nuzzero To claim Gerrard is not in top four is just nonsense on strength he had not won a league.

parker kent

Mr Alan wrote: »

actually he's has played in an orthodox CM role a bit over the last couple of seasons and been excellent in it. He is an attacking midfielder now, no doubt, but he still deserves his place in this team.

He has been on the right or behind Torres for 2 seasons. Alonso and Mascherano have been in central midfield for Liverpool, and now Lucas this season. Alonso has been Liverpool's best midfielder this decade, he should have been on the list here. Gerrard can do the dramatic, but not control a game. He does not do what top central midfielders do. His best attribute is his shooting. He does not have the footballing brain central midfielders need. Whenever he does play in midfield, watch how often he drives the ball 40-50 yards forward instead of doing the right thing, retaining possession etc. I could go on and on about this...

Best midfield of the decade for me is Vieira, Lampard and Makelele. I'd prefer they lined out with 3 in the middle, given that's how the best midfields lined up in the decade. The 3 I've picked would suit that style too. Alonso, Scholes, Edu and Carrick deserve recognition too. Fabregas was too young for most of the decade, Keane too old.

Edit: A bit more about Gerrard, most of the decade has seemed to be about the debate to move Gerrard into the middle, Benitez in particular has not seemed keen to play him there. Hamman, Alonso, Lucas and Mascherano have been Liverpool's CMs this decade in the main. Gerrard has been there every now and then, but not that much either. Plus generally when he has, Liverpool have not done well. Best example, 1st half against Milan in Istanbul versus 2nd half and extra time. Gerrard moved out of the middle and things improved no end.

d22ontour

CHD wrote: »

The bias in you is strong my child.

Hardly.

I don't know why anyone is comparing Keane/Essien/Viera with attacking midfielders like Gerrard/Scholes/Fabragas anyway.My opinion is that Scholes is the best AM of the decade, how is that biased ?

nullzero

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

yes its that old chesnut again. George best allegedly was not world class because he never played in a world cup. for Nuzzero To claim Gerrard is not in top four is just nonsense on strength he had not won a league.

Not having won a league isn't the main argument I'd make against Gerrard, it's just an aside really.
He is a great player, he's just not a great central midfield player in the same way the likes of Keane, Viera, Makelele etc are/were.
Liverpool fans will look at the amount of goals and heroic pefromances Gerrard produces and deduce that he's an amazing player, obviuosly he is, I never said he wasn't. The probelm with Gerrard is that he doesn't have the mentality you'd expect of a central midfield player. He brings a lot to the table but he's not as complete a player as the others mentioned in this thread.
So yes Gerrard is a great player, he's just not a better central midfield player than Roy Keane was, or Patrick Viera or even Frank Lampard. And while he's often the hero for Liverpool he's still to equal the achievements of the three players I mentioned above, ie win that troublesome league title. Keane Viera and Lampard functioned as the fulcrum in successful sides and demonstrated all the attributes you need from a top class central midfielder. I think Gerrard in the right team with proper managment could reach the next level and win the league, but then you could say the Matt Le Tissier could have been the best player in the world had he gone to a big club, it's all "what if"?

I think I'm right in saying that this topic is about who was the best central midfield player in the Premier League over the last ten years, I would have thought that consistency and success in the Premier League would both count quite highly in determining who that was. Gerrard has been consistent, albeit it in a relativley poor side compared to those he's up against. While he's a huge force at Liverpool he's still just behind those equally talented yet more successful players I mentioned. I'm sorry if that puts Liverpool fans noses out of joint but it's just the way it is. Had Liverpool been winning titles all through the past decade players from other clubs would be behind Gerrard and rightly so, but things didn't work out that way. So I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious and making myself and target for Liverpool fans vitriol, I'm not trying to slag off your club or belittle your favoritte player, I'm just pointing out the facts. Saying Gerrard was the best central midfielder of the last ten years is like a United fan saying that Brian Robson was the best central midfielder of the 80's, he was a United hero and a great player he won cups, but he was behind the stars of the all conquering Liverpool side of that era, it's just tough.

aidan24326

d22ontour wrote:

Laughing at what exactly?

Who you put in your top 2/3 of central midfielders is your choice of course, but if you can't recognise that Lampard warrants serious consideration then you really don't know what you're talking about.

nullzero

aidan24326 wrote: »

Laughing at what exactly?

Who you put in your top 2/3 of central midfielders is your choice of course, but if you can't recognise that Lampard warrants serious consideration then you really don't know what you're talking about.

I cant stand Lampard at all, I don't like him and cant warm to him, but he's a very very good footballer. Great football brain, very effective in the final third, probably the best all round midfielder in the Prem right now over all, even though it pains me to say it:rolleyes:

SlickRic

the flak Gerrard and Lampard are getting in here is f*cking ludicrous.

easily two of the best.

rival fans aren't really dismissing Scholes even though he's waned a lot over the last 2/3 years.

or Keane considering;

1) he was only in the Premiership for 3 years this decade, ad;

2) he wasn't at the peak of his powers, or even close.

so the fact he's winning is an embarrassment.

Gerrard, until Torres arrived was a midfielder, end of story. and one of the best, having the best teams in the world looking at him, as a midfielder.

Lamps is a regular 20 goal a season midfielder, has come 2nd in the WPOY awards, has barely ever been injured, and for most of the decade was Chelsea's most important player bar none.

i think Al said it earlier in another thread, this place is turning into a mad house lately.

d22ontour

aidan24326 wrote: »

Laughing at what exactly?

Who you put in your top 2/3 of central midfielders is your choice of course,

Indeed which makes what you said next all the more puzzling.

aidan24326 wrote: »

but if you can't recognise that Lampard warrants serious consideration then you really don't know what you're talking about.

So if i named 3 midfielders who i think were better in the decade, that somehow equates that i don't know what i am talking about ?

He isn't at the same level as the other 3 midfielders 'in my opinion' i named hardly means that.I know what Lampard has done and what he can do , but , sure as fook if i don't rate him as highly as the others, well then i can lol @ him being in a shortlist.

flahavaj

Gerrard and Scholes for me. Lampard just edged out of it.

List is quite awful though. Whither Makelele and Viera? And if Fabragas gets on Essien should too.

Johner

Lampard and Gerrard.

Jazzy

flahavaj wrote: »

Gerrard and Scholes for me. Lampard just edged out of it.

List is quite awful though. Whither Makelele and Viera? And if Fabragas gets on Essien should too.

no, he had retarded reasons for this. read the thread!!!!

flahavaj

Jazzy wrote: »

no, he had retarded reasons for this. read the thread!!!!

I read enough to hurt my eyes. The reasons given were even worse than the list.:pac:

CHD

Lampard and Gerrard are better than Scholes.

Spiritoftheseventies

Yes at this stage I have absolutely no problems starting this thread up again. How Gerrard is not in top two is beyond me. And agree about Lampard too. Scholes a very good player over the nineties but think Lampard would have got the nod this decade. But what will be will be as they say

Boggles

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes at this stage I have absolutely no problems starting this thread up again. How Gerrard is not in top two is beyond me.

What do you think it is the Lisbon Treaty?

If your just going to keep doing it until you get your way, what really is the point.

Just stick up a poll with the 2 players you want to win, you can't lose that way.

Spiritoftheseventies

Boggles wrote: »

What do you think it is the Lisbon Treaty?

If your just going to keep doing it until you get your way, what really is the point.

Just stick up a poll with the 2 players you want to win, you can't lose that way.

Dont have much beef with rest of the team but i think Gerrard has a very good case for inclusion here. Anyway poll officially closed now. Keane and Scholes go through. Gerrard goes on the bench.

All_in_Flynn

CHD wrote: »

Lampard and Gerrard are better than Scholes.

As centre mids? Are you sure?

Paul Scholes is one of the best cetre mids of his generation. Whenever you ask a current United player who is the best player they have ever played with? The majority say scholes.

Patrick Vieria was once asked which player did he hate playing against the most. His answer was again Paul Scholes, highlighting that he never knew how to play against him cause his one touch passing was so good.

For what its worth, Lampard is alot better in CM than Gerrard. Gerrard has not played in this position to any great extent in the last couple of years and when he has he has looked off the pace. He is an impact player. He comes up with moments of genius.

Players like Scholes et al, control games and make it move to their pace.

Scholes and Lampard for me in CM.

nullzero

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes at this stage I have absolutely no problems starting this thread up again. How Gerrard is not in top two is beyond me. And agree about Lampard too. Scholes a very good player over the nineties but think Lampard would have got the nod this decade. But what will be will be as they say

Shades of taking your ball and going home in that statement.
Sour grapes?

Spiritoftheseventies

nullzero wrote: »

Shades of taking your ball and going home in that statement.
Sour grapes?

no. Gerrard should be in. He has been in most peoples polls and as late as last year was in world team of year.

ShiverinEskimo

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

no. Gerrard should be in. He has been in most peoples polls and as late as last year was in world team of year.

Well it looks like he isn't in according to this shambles of a thread. Vieira should at least be on the bench.

Spiritoftheseventies

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Well it looks like he isn't in according to this shambles of a thread. Vieira should at least be on the bench.

Vierra will be on bench along with Gerrard. That will be our two cms. How many for subs.the traditional five or seven for a non competive game?

All_in_Flynn

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Well it looks like he isn't in according to this shambles of a thread. Vieira should at least be on the bench.

You honestly believe Gerrard is a better CM than all of the people on the poll?

Embarrassing.

abelard

Lampard definitely getting one vote. Missed less than 30 league games throughout the whole decade and scored in or around 100 league goals, on top of everything else he does for the team he plays in.

Dunno bout the other, leaning towards Gerrard, but maybe Scholes too...

pajodublin

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Vierra will be on bench along with Gerrard. That will be our two cms. How many for subs.the traditional five or seven for a non competive game?

has to be 7
CL and All pro english leagues now have 7

Spiritoftheseventies

abelard wrote: »

Lampard definitely getting one vote. Missed less than 30 league games throughout the whole decade and scored in or around 100 league goals, on top of everything else he does for the team he plays in.

Dunno bout the other, leaning towards Gerrard, but maybe Scholes too...

will set up a seperate thread for bench tomorrow. Team of Decade to be announced on Friday.

pajodublin

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

You honestly believe Gerrard is a better CM than all of the people on the poll?

Embarrassing.

i didnt vote (too late)
but i would have picked Keane and gerrard
IMO Gerrard is a much better player than scholes
again, just MY opinion

Iago

Speaking as a United fan, Keane shouldn't be in this team. I voted Scholes & Gerrard, because frankly Gerrard has been more of an influence on Liverpool this decade than Keane was for United. Ultimately that would leave my team very unbalanced and I think Keane benefited from the fact that there are no other def midfielders in the poll.Both Viera & Makalele played as many games and seasons as Keane and were closer to their peak years at the time.

had they been available I'd of selected Makalele in place of Gerrard. If you build a midfield full of ball players but no destructive force you end up just like Arsenal have been for the last 4/5 seasons. Great to watch, everyones favourite second team but not really challenging the way they should be.

abelard

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

will set up a seperate thread for bench tomorrow. Team of Decade to be announced on Friday.

uh yeah, I kind of realised how late I was to the party just after I posted. Should really have checked in on the thread more often

Mitch Connor

Iago wrote: »

Speaking as a United fan, Keane shouldn't be in this team. I voted Scholes & Gerrard, because frankly Gerrard has been more of an influence on Liverpool this decade than Keane was for United. Ultimately that would leave my team very unbalanced and I think Keane benefited from the fact that there are no other def midfielders in the poll.Both Viera & Makalele played as many games and seasons as Keane and were closer to their peak years at the time.

had they been available I'd of selected Makalele in place of Gerrard. If you build a midfield full of ball players but no destructive force you end up just like Arsenal have been for the last 4/5 seasons. Great to watch, everyones favourite second team but not really challenging the way they should be.

I agree with this.

Went for Gerrard and Scholes myself, but on paper it is very unbalanced. i'd probably go for Vieira in a balanced side (don't know who'd i'd go for beside him, probably Scholes as I'd favour him in a 442 over Gerrard) over Makelele as while I think Makelele was an excellent DM, thats pretty much all he was (and all he needed to be) and wouldn't be a great choice in a 442. For me, I see Makelele very much as a player for a 3 man midfield.

Xavi6

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

You honestly believe Gerrard is a better CM than all of the people on the poll?

Embarrassing.

Gerrard for me is the most complete midfielder of the last decade and should be a certainty in this team.

Sadly he's not.

Spiritoftheseventies

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I agree with this.

Went for Gerrard and Scholes myself, but on paper it is very unbalanced. i'd probably go for Vieira in a balanced side (don't know who'd i'd go for beside him, probably Scholes as I'd favour him in a 442 over Gerrard) over Makelele as while I think Makelele was an excellent DM, thats pretty much all he was (and all he needed to be) and wouldn't be a great choice in a 442. For me, I see Makelele very much as a player for a 3 man midfield.

Dont worry have Mick McCarthy to manage team so that will leave a late slot open in midfield

Iago

Mitch Connor wrote: »

i'd probably go for Vieira in a balanced side (don't know who'd i'd go for beside him, probably Scholes as I'd favour him in a 442 over Gerrard) over Makelele as while I think Makelele was an excellent DM, thats pretty much all he was (and all he needed to be) and wouldn't be a great choice in a 442. For me, I see Makelele very much as a player for a 3 man midfield.

I can see where you're coming from and it's a valid point, I guess I'm looking at it from the point of view that with Makalele in your midfield you're free to play a very free form flowing game.

You can afford to give your full-backs the freedom to bomb up and down the wing without ever leaving yourself too exposed, whereas with Viera he would often be up top and in the mix. This means your full-backs have to play a more contained game, and pick their spots for overlaps as opposed to being free to advance at will. It also means that Scholes in particular would be free to play a far more advanced role without resorting to last ditch challenges to stop the opposition breaking.


If your midfield has Scholes, Giggs & Ronaldo you really don't need a fourth midfielder for an attacking role

Mitch Connor

true.

I reckon you could go Scholes and Vieira in midfield with balance, could go Makelele and Gerrard in midfield with Makelele, and be balanced there too.

You also need to look at the fact Fergie played with either two proper CMs or a 3 man midfield to accommodate Ronaldo's lack of defensive play and positioning.

ShiverinEskimo

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

You honestly believe Gerrard is a better CM than all of the people on the poll?

Embarrassing.

No. Read what I said again.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Vierra will be on bench...

*implodes*

leninbenjamin

Mitch Connor wrote: »

while I think Makelele was an excellent DM, thats pretty much all he was (and all he needed to be) and wouldn't be a great choice in a 442.

Wrong. He was actually Chelsea's deep lying playmaker, even though people did not realise it. He won the ball, he played it short to Lampard or a winger and an attack started. He controlled the game, dictated the tempo. He was vital to both Chelsea's defensive and attacking prowess. And it's not just me who thinks that:

Coleman said: "Every time we play against Chelsea or every time we watch them play, everything goes through Makelele and he starts the attacks.

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/premiership/fulham/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/06/03/20/SOCCER_Fulham_Coleman.html&TEAMHD=fulham

Mitch Connor

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Wrong. He was actually Chelsea's deep lying playmaker, even though people did not realise it. He won the ball, he played it short to Lampard or a winger and an attack started. He controlled the game, dictated the tempo. He was vital to both Chelsea's defensive and attacking prowess. And it's not just me who thinks that:



http://www.sportinglife.com/football/premiership/fulham/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/06/03/20/SOCCER_Fulham_Coleman.html&TEAMHD=fulham

indeed - he linked the defence to the midfield, but not with any creativity. I maintain he is very much a DM and little more. He offers very little from an attacking point of view - unlikely to open a defence up with either a run or a pass. He tackled, got the ball, and gave it to someone else in blue better suited to actually using it.

His role was vital to how chelsea and madrid played, but I don't think there was enough to his game to have him in CM in a 442, if the other player is also balanced.

TonyD79

If Makelele was just a defensive midfielder then whats the point in having defenders in this EPL team of the Decade? You cant have Gerrard and Lampard in the same team of a 4-4-2 otherwise your logic would mean England would win every match. I know its not real but you pick the team around the same system as the best teams of the decade operated and they all needed a deep lying player to function.

Mitch Connor

TonyD79 wrote: »

If Makelele was just a defensive midfielder then whats the point in having defenders in this EPL team of the Decade? You cant have Gerrard and Lampard in the same team of a 4-4-2 otherwise your logic would mean England would win every match. I know its not real but you pick the team around the same system as the best teams of the decade operated and they all needed a deep lying player to function.

the teams that opperated in such a manner did so with a 3 man central midfield. We are on a 442, so i think that has to come in to it. otherwise we are just picking the two best cetrally located midfielders from the decade, in which case Lampard and Gerrard are a perfectly fine pick.

I did go for Scholes and Gerrard, and I have admited it is unbalanced

as for having defenders in the team of the decade, why is that hypocritical in terms of what I have said about Makelele. the primary job of the back 4 is to defend, so we pick defenders. who are you suggesting we pick in the back 4? Ronaldo?

If you want to vote for Makelele, go ahead. I didn't because I feel he wouldn't offer enough going the other way in a 442 (though beside Gerrard it might not be needed, in fact Makelele would possibly be the best pick beside him) and I feel that is important for a CM. You are free to disagree.

aidan24326

Mitch Connor wrote: »

His role was vital to how chelsea and madrid played, but I don't think there was enough to his game to have him in CM in a 442, if the other player is also balanced.

I'd agree. Makelele was very good at what he did, breaking up the play, winning back the ball, keeping it simple when he did get it. He did the unglamourous stuff and did it very well. But I also don't think there was enough to his game overall to be picking him in any team of the decade. He was a really good player to have within a certain system, but not enough quality on the ball to really be classed a great central midfielder.

In going for Lampard and Gerrard I went with who I thought were simply the two best of this decade (with Scholes very close). Who said anything about it having to be balanced? It's not a team that will ever actually play. It should be about picking the best players in their positions, not necessarily about fitting them into a formation.

Jazzy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Vierra will be on bench along with Gerrard. That will be our two cms. How many for subs.the traditional five or seven for a non competive game?

theres a bench?

lol team is lol

ShiverinEskimo

Jazzy wrote: »

theres a bench?

lol team is lol

At this rate there'll be a youth setup and full scouting network.

Spiritoftheseventies

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

At this rate there'll be a youth setup and full scouting network.

There will be a manager, technical Director (some poster from here who will shaft the manager ala Avram), and a ref as well.

JimsAlterEgo

at least you don't need a poll for the manager? Arise Sir Alex:p

Spiritoftheseventies

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

at least you don't need a poll for the manager? Arise Sir Alex:p

Keane wont play under Alex. Has to be someone else. Thinking David Moyes or Martin O'Neill.

CHD

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Keane wont play under Alex. Has to be someone else. Thinking David Moyes or Martin O'Neill.

This is funny because you are serious

Spiritoftheseventies

CHD wrote: »

This is funny because you are serious

Okay Sir Alex for manager but only if team wears white suits

JimsAlterEgo

CHD wrote: »

This is funny because you are serious

I actually agree with you

Spiritoftheseventies

CHD wrote: »

This is funny because you are serious

whats even funnier that you are taken the position of manager so seriously.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

whats even funnier that you are taken the position of manager so seriously.

If your not going to take one of the facets of these awards seriously, what's the point in doing it at all?

A manager is just as important to a team as the players.