Best players of the noughties? ( 2000 - 2010 )

Chelsea and Liverpool did well in the UCL, but I just don't remember Lampard nor Gerrard playing at a greater level than Gaizka Mendieta did for Valencia in 1999-00 & 2000-01, for example. More often than not, my impression was that Lampard played for a Top 3 team in the world or that Gerrard played for an in form team, as opposed to the narrative that would have you believe that those specific midfielders were the one thing that made everything else work.

In the EPL, other recent examples are Santi Cazorla and Mesut Ozil, both of which adapted to the EPL with relative ease, and neither of which has enjoyed the benefits of playing for clubs as dominant as Chelsea 2004-11 or Manchester United 2006-13.

 

I don't have a problem with the idea that La Liga midfielders doing well in the EPL. There are countless examples. You can throw David Silva, and Mata in there as well. Even none Spaniards who came from La Liga has done well, such as Yaya Toure.

I am not as sure about the hypothesis that the EPL is an easier league for midfielders. It's certainly a league that worships all-action midfielders though, that's quite obvious.

Lampard and Gerrard are interesting cases. In the case of Gerrard, Liverpool was rarely ever great in the league, but Gerrard was always voted into PFA TotY, which suggests he, himself, was actually good. In the UCL, Gerrard is defined by his magical moments, such as that night in Istanbul. After the arrival of Xabi Alonso, Gerrard was no longer the guy who made everything tick, but he was still clearly the team's best and most important player.

Lampard, no matter what competition he played in, is defined above all by his consistency. That Chelsea side was 'mechanized.' The greatness of Lampard is in his abilities to do his job well game after game after game. No, you wouldn't get as many inspired moments out of him as you would a Gerrard or another contemporary like Riquelme, but Lampard's consistency was unmatched.

To say that the EPL made someone like Lampard looked good is a bit unfair, imho. True, Lampard's role in Chelsea was not as central to the team's style as Mendieta, but very few could do what Lampard did. Most goal-scorers can barely put in a defensive shift for 90 minutes. Lampard did it for dozens of games in a roll.

 

I'm not saying that it is an 'easier' league for midfielders; I'm saying that midfield-wise we don't see the Cristiano Ronaldo 2007-08 & 2008-09 variance, where he was clearly superior the one year, with a predictable decline in the next. (A more recent example of that variance, would be Hazard 2014-15 & 2015-16. Or Leicester's Mahrez 2015-16 & 2016-17, perhaps serves as a better example.) Midfielders tend to stay at more or less the same level for spells of 3-5 seasons at a time, compared to forward players who tend to vary a lot more in the EPL. My point is: I think Gerrard and Lampard benefited from the fact that they are English, they get to play in one of the Top 2 leagues of the world, they also get to enjoy certain factors that are typically reserved for the home boys, and they don't appear to be as affected by the factors that tend to affect forward players.

Imagine Pavel Nedved 1999-03 playing for the dominant Chelsea 2005-10? He was never as defensive as Lampard, but I'm convinced that Chelsea with Nedved instead of Lampard, would've still been a dominant force in the EPL and also in the UCL. Nedved's years at the very top would've also been greater in quantity, purely down to the fact that Chelsea 2005-10 was a more dominant team than Juventus was at any point in Nedved's spell (or Lazio at any point in the late 1990s). In other words: playing in your home country will tend to make you a more consistent player - you have your family close by, you have no language barrier, etc. And whilst Lampard's consistency is ultimately unquestionable, I do believe that not many of the other top midfielders of the 2000-10 period, enjoyed that highly unique advantage of playing in arguably the most competitive league in the world, for one out of the two dominant teams in the league - consistency will probably be even better than it otherwise would be without such highly unique conditions.

 

For the noughties, I don't have as much of a top-10 as a kind of best XI, based on players who peaked during the decade and did well overall across the time period as well, IMO. Also added are the deep major international tournament runs for the starting XI.

Casillas (2 CL, 1 Euro, 1 WC)
Alves (2 UEFA Cup, 1 CL, 1 CA)
Nesta (2 CL (1F))
Puyol (2 CL, 1 Euro, 1 WC)
Cole (2 CL-F)
Deco (1 UEFA Cup, 2 CL, 1 Euro-F)
Pirlo (2 CL(1F), 1 WC)
Ballack (2 CL-F, 1 WC-F, 1 Euro-F)
Riquelme (3 Libertadores, 1 CA-F)
Ronaldinho (1 WC, 1 CL)
Henry (1 CL(1F), 1 WC-F, 1 Euro)

Bench - Buffon, Carvalho, Zanetti, Xavi, Gerrard, Sneijder, Etoo
Manager - Mourinho

Might have missed a few names, but I think this gives a fair idea of whom I'd see as the top players who played across the noughties.

 

To be fair, a lot of great midfielders benefit from the same circumstances as Lampard. It doesn't bring down the likes of Xavi and Iniesta and Schweisteiger, who I'd argue enjoy even more benefits since their team was even more dominant, and the style remain relatively unchanged. If we give a premium to proving oneself at multiple clubs, then Xabi Alonso should be rated as the best Spanish midfielder of his generation.

I'm also not sure midfielders are more consistent than forwards in the EPL. Shearer was consistent. Henry was consistent. Nisterooy was consistent. Aguero has been consistent. Kane is on track to his 3rd 20+ goals/season in a roll, and he's only 23 years old. Van Persie, once he finally got over his injury, was consistent. Suarez, if he had stayed, would most likely prove to be a consistent forward as well. Going back to the start of the EPL, Ian Wright, by his late 20s and early 30s, still proved to be a consistent striker for 5 seasons for Arsenal.

I think the wide-forward role is just prone to seasonal inconsistencies. With the very rare exceptions like Messi and CR7, many great wide forwards aren't that consistent from one season to another, even if they can seem consistent throughout an entire career. Sanchez scoring was inconsistent at Barcelona, so was Pedro. Robben's scoring rate changes quite a bit during his time with Bayern as well. Even the great Ronaldinho had a sub-10 goal season in 04-05, flanked by two seasons of 15 and 17 goals.

 

I get what you're saying. Maybe both players exploited space much better than they created it. They didn't have a lot of flair and guile, and maybe that's what held them back in International tournaments at times? (assuming with them it wasn't a matter of being off form, injured or out of touch/confidence, as it was a recurring pattern that they didn't shine to a great level in such tournaments).

On the other hand, I suppose we should credit players for what they did to an outstanding level, and also I was looking on the 'positive' side for reasons to argue they could be in a general top class of players (even though I doubted it myself in comparison to Kaka and yes would say the same re: Nedved - re: him I'm sure Puck would tend to agree with you there too from what I know anyway!). The PL has been a top league (not the best perhaps but one of the best at least) during that timeframe and they had a big impact in it. Although there is some trade-off and I would instinctively prefer players not to shoot from long range when they have other options at times perhaps, the amount of goals from outside the box each scored (Lampard 40+ I think, Gerrard also among the top few in the PL with more than 30 - this was a question posed by Sky recently I saw with the answer provided by them in the form of a top 5 that also included Hasselbaink, Beckham and Shearer and all but Hasselbaink had beenin the 6 I had had in mind as had been Le Tissier and C.Ronaldo as possibilities but they had less) stands out even if playing for so long helps of course (and beginning their careers when the PL had already started). Gerrard did drive his teams forwards as well as becoming quite a good provider for the likes of Torres when he started playing more advanced. Lampard as has been said combined a 'normal' midfield role with that of a quite prolific scorer. And the PL does have a lot of foreign stars, plus they were effective in European football. Of course you know all this, but yeah I was just thinking from the other side of the argument, without necessarily saying I would have them as locks for a top grouping myself (and even hinting I wouldn't probably, although it depends exactly what weighting longevity and 'body of work' has and it wouldn't be too insignificant for a best of 10 years selection I guess, and it depends how many players would make it and if the likes of Ronaldinho and Henry just have a * against their name rather than getting put a tier above or something).

 

Yeah, I should maybe clarify that I think Owen's case is more clear cut (95-05 and no other period surely) wheras Beckham's best case would seem like 95-05 too but I guess if some players appear in two extended lists he can be in for 00-10 too (unless that honour is held back a bit for obvious cases maybe) - he still had a lot of his best qualities to a high level even playing on loan at AC Milan I guess, but yeah 95-05 does seem the best fit to me.

 

Gerrard is only consistent if you judge him across the entire decade. Lampard was much more of a game-to-game consistency type.

 

Somewhat disagree with the above conclusion. I mean, a good number of the top European midfielders do benefit from similar if not identical factors, however, very few of them fail at NT level as consistently as Lampard & Gerrard failed at NT level. Both of them consistently underperformed at NT level, compared to Xavi & Iniesta whom proved their worth without Messi and by playing in a substantially different system. More or less the same goes for Pirlo, who proved his worth in a majority of the NT tournaments that he played. Or Nedved with his Euro 2004.

Lampard and Gerrard are among the few (relative to the given time-frame) who never really came close to scratching on what they could do at club level. I think that should count against them, and especially so when added to the fact that England had more than enough talent for those two to have produced something far better. And don't get me wrong: I think that Gerrard and Lampard did enough to deserve an entry into such a list, they deserve something better than an honorable mention, but then I'd find it difficult to explain how Francesco Totti isn't good enough to be included, or how Riquelme isn't good enough to be included (if only as part of the bottom portion of the included names), etc.

That's an excellent point.

 

i would say his absolute peak from 1993-1996. Of course he was world class for 25 years

 

lampard is better than gerrard. England problem at that time is they couldn't solve Lampard-Gerrard pair

 

agree to disagree

 

we judge playmaker through goal?

if goal assist, it make sense

but still not fair if you have an average striker up front

it is not that simple

but majority of us love using the simple method

 

That was my initial impression as well. It's probably correct imo.

Had Riquelme been Danish, he would've been developed by a far inferior league, he would've not starred in the Champions League nor the Copa Libertadores at 21 years of age, and he probably wouldn't have developed the technique that he already had at an early age. He might not be your style of footballer, but to completely disregard that he was developed by a competitive Argentine league, by a competitive Argentine club (the same one that later developed Carlos Tevez), and that he proved his worth at an early stage of his career vs. Real Madrid and then the following year vs. Bayern Munich - and well it's just arrogant to act as though 3 Copa Libertadores and 1 Champions League Semi Finals (with a club that wasn't supposed to be there), is somehow not better than 1/10th of some Danish player called Eriksen.

To put it in different terms: Francesco Totti enjoyed far more chances at the Champions League, with demonstrably better teams than Riquelme's Villarreal 2005-06, and Totti never had the impact that Riquelme 05/06 had on the Champions League. I think that says a lot about Riquelme's ability and mentality - that on his better days, he could be the best vs. Real Madrid 2000 (with Figo in his prime), vs. Inter Milan 05/06, vs. Barcelona 04/05, vs. England 2005, etc., in a way that Totti just could not match; Totti was better in different ways, but Totti often was reduced to a side-note by the top Serie A teams. Players whom at 21 years of age, show that they can upset Real Madrid - will tend to get some hype at 21 years of age, and if they do it again at 26 years of age and again at 27 years of age - that hype will tend to circulate.

In conclusion: I completely fail to see how Riquelme benefited from special treatment (that a Danish player would not get), when in fact he was consistently disregarded by both FIFA and France Football, not to mention his absence from the Argentina 2002 World Cup team which was eliminated in the group stage, etc. I think there's a great world of difference between rating Riquelme 'not nearly as highly' as other posters, and not even rating him at all e.g. "he wouldn't have enjoyed 1/10th of the fuss had he been Danish." I mean, you're more or less saying that the best player from a highly competitive Argentine league, was not really better than a hypothetical best player from the vastly inferior Danish league - if we assume that a Danish player at 21 years of age would still be playing somewhere in Denmark, and not upsetting Real Madrid.

Riquelme is probably one of the worse players to reduce to stats. Similar to Iniesta, his level of play is never truly reflected by stats such as assists and/or goals. There are a good number of good performances by Riquelme in 05/06, that ended up being draws, and it wasn't because Riquelme wasn't as good as the previous season, but rather more of a case of Villarreal's other players (especially Forlan) not showing the form of the previous season - perhaps the UCL ended up working against their Liga form.

On the other hand, I agree with your statement about 19 games vs. 28 games - that will indeed tend to devalue the season of any player.

 

EDIT:

Riquelme had, in reality, at least 3 assists in 10 Champions League games - and he played 10 games, not 12.

1. Home game vs. Inter.

2. Honorable mention: header-assist vs. Rangers, in the away game. The reason why this was not an assist, was because the player who was supposed to score the easy goal, allowed another Villarreal player to score the easy goal. (Video below.)



3. Honorable mention: should have had an assist vs. Inter in the away game - and it was a good skill by him, followed by a good pass by him, that created the goal. Basically, what should have been the assist ended up being a save by Inter's GK, but the deflection (by the GK) was poached by Forlan. (Video below.)



4. Honorable mention: his long ball vs. Benfica, largely created the Penalty Kick that he scored. Not an assist technically-speaking, but in reality it ended up being just as valuable as an actual assist - that PK doesn't exists without Riquelme's passing ability. (Video below.)

1:47 / 2:09 -- Riquelme's long ball largely creates the PK, and Riquelme scores the PK.


5. Honorable mention: created a very easy one-on-one chance vs. Lille's GK, but Villarreal failed to convert that relatively easy goal. (Video to be posted soon.)

For a central playmaker, those numbers aren't bad at all - and particularly so when you consider that 2 assists out of 2 games vs. Inter is quite remarkable to do when you play for Villarreal. Also, the above data is one of the many reasons as to why statistics are misleading when it comes to Riquelme's Villarreal career - a lot of assists aren't assists because Villarreal doesn't have a lot of world class finishers, and a lot of the Penalty Kicks are largely generated by Riquelme's passing ability (so it isn't a case of him benefiting from PKs that were largely or completely created without his involvement).

 

villareal 3 barcelona 0
riquelme was voted man of the match over ronaldinho, xavi, deco, eto'o, puyol without score any

 

real madrid 3 villareal 3
riquelme was voted man of the match, again, without score any

 

For me the international tournaments showed the limitations of both as players. Gerrard needed an entire team built around him with very specific world class players to cover all his weaknesses (tactically weak, far too selfish). In fact, I'd argue both Xabi Alonso and Mascherano were more important and the reason Gerrard looked good for a couple seasons. Unlike Gerrard they are both much more well rounded players, smarter tactically and much more capable of playing in a variety of tactics as shown by their different roles for different clubs and country. Whenever he played for England he got exposed for his actual level which was quite limited.

Lampard was smarter player a bit less selfish but he also benefited from playing his whole career in a team well suited to his exact playing style. Another advantage was he rose to prominence at the first modern sugar daddy club and he constantly had world class players complementing the tactic he worked best in.

The problem is neither Lampard nor Gerrard had the skillset to excel outside their comfort zone at all. Especially when you compare to someone like Riquelme who had to move across the world, deal with a culture shock and adjust without entire support networks, etc. Gerrard and Lampard had every club advantage in the world in their favor in ways that no South American player ever gets to benefit from in Europe and they still could only excel in limited occasions.

This is why I would rate Xabi Alonso and Mascherano above both of them as well for the 2000-2010 period even though they different types of players. I've seen comments on players like Xavi for instance never playing outside a specific system, but for me that criticism applies ten fold to Gerrard and Lampard because they both look mediocre at best when removed from their specific favorite system.