Nice profile on the man in question here http://premierskills.britishcouncil.org/en/learn-english/yaya-toure-player-profile After seeing Toure in midfield for Man City. Arsenal obviously miss this kind of player. Do you think that Toure is a more complete player now than Vieira ever was?? Funny how Vieira works for Man City now!
Both different types of midfielders, Vieira was much more of a defensive minded player, as where as Yaya is more of a Box to Box type of player...Yaya Toure is the most complete of the 2 without a doubt. Although that doesn't mean to say Yaya is a more valuable player, just capable of doing more, and being more versatile.
I think the circumstances are too different to make a call here. Vieira played at a time when 2 man midfield was the default so he had to be more dynamic. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Yaya has more final products. His finishing is better and the Man City team is built around that. Yaya very often play behind the striker(s), and is expected to attack the box, even when there are 2 strikers up front. Whether Man City play with 1 or 2 strikers, their wide men are always creator first, scorer second. So the goals come from the middle, where Yaya plays. Vieira was completely different. Vieira played in a 2 man midfield so he had more defensive duties, and was easily one of the most dynamic player in EPL history. He was equally good at both end, defensive domination combining with power and artistry going forward. People forget how good Vieira was with the ball. His close control was very good, allowing him to surge forward with pace and power, and also retain the ball very well. People often forget or underrate how important Vieira was to the way Arsenal play. He was not just some bruiser who wins the ball and lay it off to the artists in the team. He didn't play for the technicians, he played with the technicians, because he was himself, a technician. Vieira never had as much chance to score as many goals. Not because he had two strikers ahead of him. It was because Arsenal goals from midfield came from the widemen like Pires and Ljungberg. Augero and Henry are both 30 goals strikers (if they can remain fit) but Silva, Nasri, Navas, and Milner combined don't even score as many goals as Pires, let alone Pires and Ljungberg. So the way the team was set up was very different. While both teams main goalscorers were the strikers (and they both had great strikers) the difference in the goals scored can be explained by Yaya's superior finishing (not to mention freekicks) but mostly by the way the teams are set up differently. I think going forward, Yaya is the better attacker. Both have the pace, power, and ball control to be the driver and ball-controller from midfield, but Yaya adds final products to his toolkit as well. In terms of box-to-box versatility though, I think it's a non contest. Vieira is easily the better one. I think at his peak, Yaya is probably the better footballer (not necessarily player, since it's hard to quantify some qualities like leadership and such.) However, over the course of their career, I don't think Yaya has been as consistent as Vieira. In my humble opinion, in this regard, it's similar to the Ronaldinho vs Zidane debate. Ronaldinho at his peak was even better than Zidane, but the Brazilian has got nothing on Zidane, who was for about a decade, in every discussion regarding "best player in the world." In conclusion, I don't think they're that similar. Attributes wise, obviously they have similar tool kits, with Yaya better going forward, but Vieira the more well-rounded. If you were building an all-time EPL team, it would come down to what you'd expect from your midfield. Personally, I think they are a product of their time. In a one striker team, having a goal scoring midfielder like Yaya is probably better. However, if you already have a team of goalscorers, as Vieira was a part of with Arsenal, Vieira is easily the better option.