Surely it's not just about raw numbers. If you're playing a team with a midfielder who's a serious goal threat, you may need to change tactics from when you play against a team with no extra goal threat outside of the stirkers. Having someone with the ability to score regularly from midfield can change the entire dynamic of the match, even if they don't score.
It does not only change the dynamic of the match, it changes the entire tactical form of Lampard's own team. Therefore, if the opposition knows how to cancel Lampard's goal scoring threat, and Chelsea invests a lot of creative license precisely on Lampard's goal scoring ability—does the investment truly pays off? Your conclusion is the same as me saying: having someone who is an expert on ball retention can change the entire dynamic of the match, even if they don't score. It's basically a true conclusion for practically any midfielder who specializes in a specific area. But in my opinion, the flaw in high scoring midfielders is that they condition their own teams, so when their expected goal doesn't happens, the team is less efficient in terms of finding another goal scoring threat who isn't a striker but who also isn't THAT specific midfielder—in games against clearly inferior opposition, that doesn't tend to matter much (albeit of course difficult games can at times happen when a clearly superior team plays against a clearly inferior team), but in difficult games it tends to show when a team invests far too much creative license in an ability that arguably isn't worth what it costs: the cost of entry is overpriced and overrated, in my opinion.
lothar matthaus Zbigniew Boniek 3.)luis suarez[for inter Milan during the 60s where he played as a deep lying playmaker similar to xavi/pirlo] ill be looking for the fourth but for now all these players were high scoring midfielders with 120+ club goals each,all played at the highest technical level and most importantly all contributed a significant goal threat to their respective sides.
Thanks for the data. Lothar Matthaus is one I've almost finished by now. Luis Suarez playing in the 1960s, is a name I don't feel comfortable with, as I am not very educated nor informed when it comes to 1960s and 1970s football.
I'm restarting the thread from scratch, because it just makes more sense to also include the Champions League data, to offer a more complete seasonal context. My criticism will consist of the following 3 metrics: 1. First metric: if the goals of the player are ruled out, and the team still won, then the goals did not directly nor indirectly contributed to a win. If the goals of the player are ruled out, and the team does not win without said goals, then the goals did directly and/or indirectly contributed to a win. Same principle for draws. 2. Second metric: similar to the first metric, but this metric, if the goals are ruled out and the team still wins by a margin of just one goal, then the goal or goals will be credited as point-goals. (The point-goals are, of course, the type of goals that can directly or indirectly be credited for a gain in points.) 3. Third metric: if the second metric creates an additional 4 point-goals, then the third metric ignores 50% of said 4 point-goals. The third metric discards 50% of the inflated or additional value that the second metric will tend to produce.
If you wanted to explain the game at it's most basic terms you would say it involves scoring more goals than the opposition. So how can a goal scoring midfielder be overrated? They are worth their weight in gold. There isn't a manager in the game who wouldn't want to have one in their team. This thread title is strange.
They are worth their weight in gold, and yet, Spain never produced one (World Cup 2010, Euro 2008 and 2012), Barcelona didn't have one (Champions League 2010, 2011, 2015), Real Madrid didn't have one (Champions League 2014 and 2016), Germany didn't have one (World Cup 2014), Italy didn't have one (World Cup 2006), France didn't have one (World Cup 1998, Euro 2000), England never played even a Final (1998 to 2016), Germany did not win any Final (1998 to 2012), etc. The game in its most basic sense involves scoring more goals than the opposition, but then, why exactly has Real Madrid won only one Liga over the past 9 seasons? One league title out of 9 league titles, is not exactly "unlucky" is it? And yet Real Madrid is better (than Barcelona) at scoring goals, but worse at playing football i.e. football is too complex and multifaceted to be reduced to one so-called pure state. No "pure state" exists in football. Scoring more goals than your opponent often has more to do with defending better than your opponent, than it has to do with being better at scoring goals. Again: football is a lot more complicated and interesting, than your very simplistic (very convenient) conclusion. How many high scoring midfielders have won a World Cup or an Euro? Lampard, Ballack, Nedved, won zero such titles. Why? In my opinion, because difficult one-game-per-opponent games (such as the games that are played with very little rest, against equal-tier opponents, which happens specifically at the World Cup and the Euro) are not tactically easy enough for these midfielders to "prove their weight in gold." When you analyze those players, you will notice that a huge chunk of their goals are scored against clearly inferior league opponents. For example, Frank Lampard after 6-7 consecutive seasons, barely registered an open-play goal against a Top 4 club (only counting the English Premier League). And yet, Lampard is (conveniently) defined as a midfielder who, "will score one goal, every 4 games." Well except when Lampard scored literally ZERO open-play goal out of 24 games against Top 4 clubs. That's a huge decline, from a midfielder who scores 1 goal per every 4 games, to a midfielder who scores ZERO goal per every 24 games. How do you rationalize the fact that Lampard scored zero goals out 24 games against Top 4 clubs? It's only in the format of the Champions League, that Lampard scored open-play goals against Top 4 clubs. The Champions League format provides a scenario where big clubs play two quick games: the home game, and the away game, in quick succession. If the aggregate is in favor of one specific team, that means that the other team will go all out in the second game, which will invariably increase the chances of scoring goals - hence why Lampard can score open-play goals against Top 4 clubs in the Champions League, but then scores ZERO open-play goals out of 24 games against Top 4 clubs in the English Premier League. Different formats. The World Cup and the Euro, same as the English Premier League, is one game per every one game, not a two-quick-games per opponent format: hence why high scoring midfielders over the past 20-25 years, have not been successful at the World Cup nor at the Euro. My conclusion is that high scoring midfielders have a fundamental inability to score goals in the games against the better opponents: that is, better opponents are likely to concede goals scored by strikers and forwards, but very unlikely to concede goals scored by high scoring midfielders. Could you please provide a relatively modern example (say, the last 20 years) that disproves or at least challenges my opinion on this highly specific subject?
Obviously I'm taking about scoring more goals than the opposition on a game by game basic and not talking about goal difference over a season. By pointing out how many teams don't have them you've backed up my point. Any manager would love to have a goal scoring midfielder in his side. They're rare but who wouldn't want an extra goal scoring threat?
Agree to disagree, mate. I pointed out winning teams that didn't have them: Spain 2008-2012, Italy 2006, France 1998-2006, Germany 2014, etc. I also pointed loosing teams that did have them: England 2002-2014, Germany 2002-2006, etc. (Admittedly, though, Pavel Nedved played for the Czech Republic, which isn't expected to win anything). High scoring midfielders are rare, more or less for the same exact reason that Iniesta or Valderrama are rare - it's difficult to score lots of goals when you are a midfielder. (With Iniesta and Valderrama, that translates to - it's difficult to offer both amazing ball retention and good defensive ability simultaneously.) That's not the argument here, however. The argument here is that an ability that is difficult and rare, is not necessarily an ability that isn't overrated. Iniesta is rare, Zidane is rare, Pirlo is rare, Xavi is rare, Valderrama is rare, Gerrard is rare, Scholes is rare, Pires is rare, Riquelme is rare, etc. The difference is that Xavi and Iniesta showed their rare strengths many times in many big games - the likes of Ballack and Lampard more often than not looked unimpressive and/or even uninspired in the big games. When I think of Chelsea, I think of Drogba's and Terry's big game moments - I don't really think of Lampard. When I think of Valderrama, I instantly remember his consistent ball retention mastery vs. Argentina 1991-1997, vs. Brazil 1989-1991, his moment vs. West Germany 1990, his excellent performance vs. a defensively solid Cameroon 1990, etc. I just don't get that sense of consistency with midfielders like Lampard and Ballack - these midfielders, when they play against teams like Argentina or Brazil or Germany or Italy, they just "do enough" to perhaps be subtle-but-good, but they aren't memorable, they aren't great, and they aren't even consistent in any meaningful sense. So who wouldn't want an extra goal scoring threat? If it was as simple as that, I would definitely not be having this discussion with you right now. Nobody in their right mind would oppose to an extra goal scoring threat that offers the threat without any inevitable negatives. Of course, that just doesn't seem to be the case with a majority of high scoring midfielders. The obvious problem here is that Lampard is a potential "extra goal scoring threat" only when you create the proper specific tactics for him to fully exploit his goal scoring ability, which is a tactic that inevitably (creates the negative that) minimizes the goal scoring ability of other midfielders, therefore it isn't "an extra goal scoring threat" in any consistent sense. Again, I point out the demonstrable fact that Lampard played 24 games against Top 4 Premier League Clubs (in the league format, not the Champions League format), without scoring one single open-play goal. A legitimate "extra goal scoring threat" should really score at the very least 3 open-play goals per every 24 games against Top 4 league clubs. Lampard doesn't do that, because Lampard is not an extra goal scoring threat in any consistent sense. A huge chunk of Lampard's goals are Indirect Free Kicks and Penalty Kicks - you need to win good free kicks and also penalty kicks for him to score lots of goals. Again I ask: do you have a concrete example instead of just your opinion? .
Lothar Matthaus 1988/1989 (Andreas Brehme) - Serie A Home vs. Pisa / 4-1 / 4-1 win (Home vs. Pisa / 1-1 / 4-1 win) Away vs. Pescara Calcio / 2-0 / 2-0 win (Away vs. Lecce / 2-0 / 3-0 win) Away vs. Fiorentina / 1-0 *PK* / 3-4 defeat Away vs. Roma / 1-0 / 3-0 win Home vs. Calcio Como / 2-0 *PK* / 3-0 / 4-0 win Away vs. Bologna / 1-0 *PK* / 6-0 win Home vs. Napoli / 2-1 *FK* / 2-1 win Home vs. Atalanta / 1-1 *PK* / 4-2 win (Home vs. Atalanta / 4-2 / 4-2 win) Total: 9 goals / 4 open-play / 4 penalty-kicks / 1 free-kick (Total: 3 goals / 3 open-play / 0 penalty-kick / 0 free-kick) Not one of Matthaus' open-play goals, could be directly linked to a victory (a gain in points). Matthaus scored as many PK goals, as he scored open-play goals. Moreover, Andreas Brehme scored just 1 less open-play goal. Lothar Matthaus 1988/1989 - UEFA Cup Matthaus scored no goals, out of 5 games. Inter Milan was eliminated in the Round of 16. Lothar Matthaus 1989/1990 (Andreas Brehme) - Serie A (Home vs. Cremonese / 2-1 *PK* / 2-1 win) (Away vs. Lecce / 2-1 *PK* / 2-1 win) Home vs. Juventus / 1-0 / 2-1 win Home vs. Roma / 1-0 / 3-0 / 3-0 win (Home vs. Roma / 2-0 / 3-0 win) (Home vs. Lazio / 2-0 *PK* / 3-0 win) (Away vs. Cesena / 2-1 *PK* / 3-2 win) Home vs. Udinese / 1-0 / 2-0 win Home vs. Bologna / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 / 3-0 Home vs. Sampdoria / 1-0 *FK* / 2-0 / 2-0 win Away vs. AC Milan / 2-0 *PK* / 3-1 win Home vs. Atalanta / 2-0 / 7-2 win (Home vs. Cesena / 1-0 / 1-1 draw) Away vs. Udinese / 3-2 / 3-4 defeat Total: 15 goals / 8 open-play / 6 penalty-kicks / 1 free-kick (Total: 6 goals / 2 open-play / 4 penalty-kicks / 0 free-kick) A total of 15 goals, out of which 3 can be credited as goals that could be directly credited for 3 victories (6 points). Lothar could've potentially inflated his stats to 19 goals, had he scored the 4 PK goals scored by Brehme. Meanwhile, Brehme scored 6 goals, out of which 1 can be directly credited for 1 draw (1 point), and including his PK goals, his goals could be credited for 1 draw (1 point) and 3 wins (6 points), which is literally better than Matthaus' total (also including his PK goals). Lothar Matthaus 1989/1990 - Champions League Matthaus scored no goals, out of 2 games. Inter Milan was eliminate in the first round. Lothar Matthau 1989/1990 (Andreas Brehme) - World Cup Group Stage vs. Yugoslavia / 1-0 / 3-1 / 4-1 win Group Stage vs. United Arab Emirates / 4-1 / 5-1 win (Round of 16 vs. Netherlands / 2-0 / 2-1 win) Quarter Final vs. Czechoslovakia / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win (Semi Final vs. England / 1-0 / 1-1 draw) (Final vs. Argentina / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win) Total: Matthaus scored 4 goals out of 7 games. (Total: Brehme scored 3 goals out of 6 games.) Brehme scored 3 goals, out of all 3 can be credited for 3 wins, including the win in the Final. On the other hand, Matthaus scored 4 goals, out of which only one Penalty Kick can be credited for one win. Of course, Matthaus was a lot more than his goals, but his open-play goal scoring ability (as so often is the case with high scoring midfielders) was a large non-factor overall, and his most influential goal was a PK goal, and a defender (Andreas Brehme) was better in terms of open-play goal scoring ability. Lothar Matthaus 1990/1991 (Andreas Brehme) - Serie A Away vs. Atalanta / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw Home vs. Pisa / 4-1 *PK* / 5-3 / 6-3 win Away vs. Juventus / 1-2 *FK* / 2-4 defeat Home vs. Parma / 2-0 *PK* / 2-1 win Home vs. Napoli / 1-0 *FK* / 2-1 win Away vs. Cesena / 2-1 *FK* / 5-1 win Home vs. Fiorentina / 1-1 *PK* / 1-1 draw Home vs. Genoa / 1-0 *PK* / 2-1 win Home s. Lecce / 2-0 / 3-0 *PK* / 5-0 win (Home vs. Lecce / 1-0 / 5-0 win) Home vs. Juventus / 1-0 / 2-0 win Away vs. Napoli / 1-0 / 1-1 draw Home vs. Bari / 1-0 *PK* / 5-1 win Home vs. Cesena / 2-0 / 2-0 win Away vs. Lecce / 2-0 / 2-0 win Total: 16 goals / 6 open-play / 7 penalty-kicks / 3 free-kicks (Total: 1 goal / 1 open-play / 0 penalty-kick / 0 free-kick) Of Matthaus' open-play goals, only 1 could be directly credited for 1 draw (1 point), the majority of his open-play goals came in 6-3 wins, 5-0 wins, etc. Being a lot more generous to him, another 3 of his open-play goals could be credited for 3 wins (6 points). Which still is pretty average, for instance, Carlos Valderrama 1990/91 scored 2 open-play goals, and each 2 of the goals could be directly credited for 2 wins (4 points). Furthermore, Matthaus literally scored more PK goals, than open-play goals. Fernando Hierro in his 1992-1998 days could easily do that. Lothar Matthaus 1990/1991 - UEFA Cup Round 1 Away vs. Rapid Wien / 1-0 / 1-2 defeat Round of 16 Home vs. Partizan / 1-0 / 3-0 win Round of 16 Away vs. Partizan / 1-1 / 1-1 draw / 4-1 aggregate win Quarter Finals Home vs. Atalanta / 2-0 / 2-0 win / 2-0 aggregate win Semi Finals Home vs. Sporting / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 win / 2-0 aggregate win Final Home vs. Roma / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 win Total: 6 goals / 4 open-play / 2 penalty-kicks / 0 free-kick Of Matthaus' open-play goals, only 1 could be directly credited for 1 win, and the rest of his important goals are Penalty Kicks. Andreas Brehme was an excellent PK taker himself, and just as he had recently demonstrated at the 1990 World Cup - he could've easily scored those decisive PK goals. Brehme also was an excellent FK artist, but again, Matthaus getting all the Free-Kicks cancels that out. In conclusion: Matthaus' PK goals and FK goals are not truly "extra goals" that you would not also get if Brehme was allowed to take them. Matthaus' open-play goal scoring ability was a large non-factor in the UEFA Cup (as so often is the case with high scoring midfielders). Lothar Matthaus 1991/1992 (Andreas Brehme) - Serie A Away vs. Roma / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win Away vs. Juventus / 1-2 *PK* / 1-2 defeat (Home vs. Genoa / 1-0 / 2-2 draw) Home vs. Foggia / 1-0 *PK* / 2-2 draw Home vs. Lazio / 1-0 *PK* / 1-0 win Total: 4 goals / 0 open-play / 4 penalty-kicks / 0 free-kick (Total: 1 goal / 1 open-play / 0 penalty-kick / 0 free-kick) Not one single open-play goal by Matthaus, and again, a defender (Brehme) did better than him in terms of open-play goal scoring. Lothar Matthaus 1991/1992 - UEFA Cup Matthaus scored no goals, out of 2 games. Inter Milan was eliminated in the first round. The most Lothar Matthaus ever scored in a Serie A season, was just 8 open-play goals - Iniesta has done that (2010/11). Matthaus has also scored ZERO open-play goals in a Serie A season (1991/92), which Iniesta curiously has also done (2014/15). Overall, it becomes self-evident that Lothar Matthaus was not a high scoring midfielder in the same sense that Pavel Nedved was, or that Frank Lampard was. Matthaus was a good FK taker, but arguably no better than Andrea Pirlo, if at all as good as Pirlo was at both assisting and scoring from free kicks. Lampard was better than Matthaus in some regards in my opinion, definitely in terms of FK efficiency, definitely in terms of open-play goal scoring ability, and probably also in terms of PK ability. Matthaus, however, I consider to be a more skillful/impressive "industrious" midfielder than the likes of Lampard or Ballack - more dribbling ability, more innate ability, more personality, more confidence in himself, and overall a greater legend for the right reasons.
Xavi and Iniesta did show their ability and for many years looked outstanding in a system built around there good possession. I think possession based player is much easier to classify than the goal scoring midfielder. Its much harder to pin down and define the qualities they have as it having a knack for timing to get in the box, just seemingly be in the right place at the right time. I am no huge Lampard fan but for that I would give him credit for. He had a knack for making good runs and being dangerous. Your statistic regards him not scoring in big games is a fair one to point out but as a manager you must surely have to trust that the player is a threat and can score in any match? It may well be the case that has he developed his repuation as a difference maker he may well have been marked even closer in these big matches but ultimately helping his teammates get more space. Regards setting tactics up for players like this and thus taking away from other potential goal scoring options. Firstly a player like him has been selected ahead of others for having that knack, its an elusive quality. Someone like him or Ballack as you pointed out also offer a good all round performance. Sure they're not stand out like the skillful playmaker, like some of the names you listed but they go a long way in gaining control in a game. Would you consider Totti a goal scoring midfielder? He was many things in his career, inside forward, classical 10, inventor of the false 9, striker. Earlier in his career he certainly was a threat from attacking midfield although its true his goal stats skyrocketed as the false 9. I understand football is very complex, Im just saying that when you have a decent all round player of the likes of Ballack, Lampard (good examples) who can grab goals thats not something to look past. They wont fit into every system but then thats what makes the game as interesting as it is, its the diversity...it would be boring if everyone was juts a possession based player firstly.
I'm correcting a rather massive mistake/detail here. EDIT: Lothar Matthaus 1990/1991 - UEFA Cup Round 1 Away vs. Rapid Wien / 1-0 / 1-2 defeat / 3-3 aggregate win Round of 16 Home vs. Partizan / 1-0 / 3-0 win Round of 16 Away vs. Partizan / 1-1 / 1-1 draw / 4-1 aggregate win Quarter Finals Home vs. Atalanta / 2-0 / 2-0 win / 2-0 aggregate win Semi Finals Home vs. Sporting / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 win / 2-0 aggregate win Final Home vs. Roma / 1-0 *PK* / 2-0 win Total: 6 goals / 4 open-play / 2 penalty-kicks / 0 free-kick Of Matthaus' open-play goals, 2 could be directly credited for 2 wins, and the rest of his important goals are Penalty Kicks. Andreas Brehme was an excellent PK taker himself, and just as he had recently demonstrated at the 1990 World Cup - he could've easily scored those decisive PK goals. Brehme also was an excellent FK artist, but again, Matthaus getting all the Free-Kicks cancels that out. In conclusion: Matthaus' PK goals and FK goals are not truly "extra goals" that you would not also get if Brehme was allowed to take them. Matthaus' open-play goal scoring ability was a large non-factor in a majority of the UEFA Cup (as so often is the case with high scoring midfielders). But nonetheless, there's no denying that his open-play goal in the Round 1 (vs. Rapid Wien) was decisive. The bottom line (in the quoted post above) remains essentially identical, however.
I'm not sure if "possession based" is the best category for it, but yes, "ball retention based" midfielders are easier to admire/classify, because it's used all the time - compared to goals, which come and go a handful of times per game. I'm also not sure, though, if "easier to measure" is true for ball retention ability, because measuring the difficulty of a goal is a lot easier than measuring the difficulty of several ball retention skills added into one "match rating." I'm not denying that, but I'm arguing if that "rare ability" is overrated, because in the big games in the league it never showed up, and in the non-big-games in the league it really doesn't offer much besides increasing already comfortable leads, and in the big games in the Champions League it also doesn't do much either (Pavel Nedved 2002/03 being one big exception to that debatable rule). Which is basically overrated, in my opinion. Pavel Nedved 2002/03 is one player, similar to Lampard in some ways, that I would say consistently made it count (a) in the important games, and also (b) in the normal league game. I just don't think that Lampard and Ballack ever reached the level that Nedved 2002/03 reached. So I'm not saying that all the midfielders who aren't Iniesta-great in terms of ball retention, must therefore be inherently overrated. That's not what I'm saying... I'm saying that Lampard and Ballack don't offer enough besides the goals and the "work hard" mentality. On the other hand, players like Nedved, Mendieta, Matthaus, Deco, offered goals, work hard mentality, and also dribbling ability, to a degree that a majority of "high scoring midfielders" do not offer. That's my underlying point more or less. Deco was not as good as Iniesta in terms of pure ball retention ability, but I'd take Deco over Lampard, and if the context is right, I might also take Deco over Iniesta. Moreover, I also prefer Beckham's superior passing ability, over Lampard's superior goal scoring ability: I think Beckham's passing ability is a more consistent ability, than Lampard's main strength is. If you think I'm wrong, I'd definitely appreciate a concrete example that might help me see the error of my ways? Please take note of the fact that I believe that Zidane is overrated, and yet I rate Zidane as a definitive Top 20 all timer. In other words: being overrated does not mean that a player is great or very good. Totti could've been a goal scoring midfielder, but he was good enough in terms of ball retention, that his ability would've been arguably wasted in the midfield. A player with that ball retention, with that goal scoring ability, will almost always be relieved of midfield duties, so that he can put his better strengths to better use. On the other hand, I prefer participative midfield-playmakers like Valderrama/Iniesta, over intermittent "classical tens" like Totti. So when I say that Totti's "better strengths were put to better use" I'm speaking in contextual terms, of course. I tend to prefer participation over efficiency: efficiency is overrated in my opinion. Couldn't agree more: it would be boring if everyone was just another "ball retention" wizard. It would take the uniqueness and the beauty away from the game. However, I'd still take Nedved, Deco, Mendieta, Gerrard, over players like Lampard or Ballack. And more importantly: I still think that high scoring midfielders are almost always overrated to some degree. And to be clear: that last sentiment, does not necessarily mean that low-scoring midfielders are inherently better than high-scoring midfielders, it more specifically means that goals are an inherently overrated measure to be used for or against midfielders.
in other word, the player suppose to master its original duty rather than others duty the funny thing, some of these footballer fans admire so much player like lampard that scored tons of goals, but only a bit good as a midfielder but they condemn harshly player like ramos that scored many crucial goals for real madrid because he is only a bit good as a defender
Not sure if I can agree with this. Lampard never really looked inferior to Xavi and/or Iniesta when playing against Barcelona in the mid-late 2000's. Chelsea had an entire series of games against Barcelona from 2005-2009 (8 in total I believe), and Lampard was never outclassed. Lampard scored in the 2008 final too. At the time, Manchester United were dominating. He (kind of) turned the tide and momentum in the game. He hit the crossbar in extra-time too.
No offense, but the above is fairly misleading. 1. Iniesta 2011/12 thoroughly outclassed Lampard, even though Chelsea 2011/12 eliminated Barcelona. Lampard 2011/12 did looked comprehensively inferior to Iniesta, at the very least. 2. Lampard played vs. Barcelona 2004/05 (Xavi pre-prime and Iniesta pre-prime), Barcelona 2005/06 (Xavi pre-prime and Iniesta pre-prime), vs. Barcelona 2006/07 (Xavi pre-prime and Iniesta pre-prime), vs. Barcelona 2008/09 (Xavi and Iniesta in their prime), vs. Barcelona 2011/12 (Iniesta in his prime thoroughly outclassed Lampard). Long story short: Lampard played against prime Xavi and prime Iniesta a handful of times, 4 times at the most, and at the very least Iniesta 2011/12 thoroughly outclassed Lampard. (I don't have a clear recollection of the 2008/09 Semi Finals, but I do know for a fact that Iniesta 2011/12 was clearly better than Lampard.) In conclusion: how much importance should we place on just 2-4 games? 3. Lampard's Final vs. Manchester United 2007/08 is arguably or clearly inferior to what Xavi and Iniesta produced against Manchester United. 4. Xavi's NT career and Iniesta's NT career, are both comprehensively superior to Lampard's underwhelming NT career. 5. Iniesta scored 1 goal vs. Chelsea 2008/09 - Lampard scored no goals vs. Barcelona 2008/09. Iniesta scored 1 goal vs. Chelsea 2011/12 - Lampard scored no goals vs. Barcelona 2011/12. In his prime, Iniesta scored 2 goals out of 4 games vs. Chelsea - Lampard scored ZERO goals in those same 4 games. What does this prove, if anything? 6. Iniesta scored in the 2010 World Cup Final, to win the World Cup. Iniesta scored in the 2008/09 Champions League Semi Finals (vs. Chelsea), to eliminate Chelsea. How much importance should we place on important goals in important games? I just fail to see how Lampard ever reached the level that prime Xavi and prime Iniesta reached. So many facts need to be willfully ignored to even begin to entertain that idea, in my opinion.
NOTE: -Iniesta was 22 years old in season 2005/06, 23 years old in season 2006/07, etc. Lampard in his prime should not look inferior to a midfielder in his early twenties. -Xavi 2004-2007 was playing a different role and a different system. In contrast, Lampard 2004-2007 was playing his signature role.
To be fair, Lampard was 34 in 2012. That's the same age Xavi was in 2014 and Iniesta will be in 2018, so he was clearly not in his prime anymore. Despite that, he provided an very good assist through-ball for Ramires which helped turn the tie in Chelsea's favour. I agree that Xavi and Iniesta are clearly a level above him, but Lampard was usually good in big games (at least at club level). His NT career really does count against him though, as it does for Gerrard and Scholes. It's not like Nedved, who played for an NT which wasn't expected to win anything. England during Lampard's prime (2004-2010) had quality players in every position. Their stars just never delivered for some reason.
A 34 year old frank Lampard was ranked by whoscored as a better performer than prime iniesta and prime Xavi in both legs of the 2011/12 champions league semifinals Which source claimed iniesta throughly outclassed Lampard in the 11/12 semis or any other direct encounter they had in the champions league? Note: Iniestas goal vs Chelsea in 2009 was assisted by Messi and pre assisted by Øvrebø so I’m not sure how much credit be should awarded for that