EPL Team of the Decade

[sammo62]

I'd definitely have Henry in there. Best player in the history of the premier league for me.

 

[Greenlizard0]

Well Gerrard's obviously going to have less goals and assists in a worse team as you've said for the last decade where Chelsea have been much better than us. Lampards also probably scored many many penalties and freekicks, Gerrard only started taking ours like 2-3years ago?

Lampard has also played a much more advanced role?

That's not true, I've seen Gerrard take plenty of penalties and free kicks in the last decade. And Drogba take lots instead for Chelsea instead of Lampard.

The team above doesn't really differentiate between how far up a player may play compared to another. Stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons. Lampard's a more consistent midfielder than Gerrard.

 

[The Running Man]

I immediately thought thierry Henry and van nistelcheese but not many takers for the latter.

 

[BaZ87]

....

You do realise in that period Gerrard's played as a holding midfielder, right back, right midfield. In fact it wasn't until around 2007 (although he played there in some CL games in 2005) that Gerrard was moved into the attacking midfield role that Lampard's played his entire career.

edit: you may as well compare Vieira and Keane's goals and assist stats too if that's the only way you're choosing between Gerrard and Lampard.

As for the OP, I'd make plenty of changes to that team.

 

[Purdy]

That's not true, I've seen Gerrard take plenty of penalties and free kicks in the last decade. And Drogba take lots instead for Chelsea instead of Lampard.

The team above doesn't really differentiate between how far up a player may play compared to another. Stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons. Lampard's a more consistent midfielder than Gerrard.

Guarentee you more of Lampards goals have come from penalties than Gerrard's.

Gerrard also didn't take them really prior to 07/08 at all? Took one here one there in his early days. A lot of freekicks in his early days not taken either, with Gary Mac, Murphy, Hamman, JAR around. Lampard really only competed with Drogba over the past few years.

Also as you said, Gerrard has played in a ****ter team for pretty much every year over the past 10, meaning less chances and less of his chances probably taken.

Also what do you mean by the team above? I'm talking about when Lamp has played for Chelsea and Gerrard for Liverpool, one has played more advanced for a longer period.

 

[Tom84]

GK: VDS

RB: G.Neville
CB: Ferdinand
CB: Vidic
LB: A.Cole

RM: Ronaldo
CM: Lampard
CM: Gerrard
LM: Giggs

CF: Henry
CF: Drogba

That would be mine, obviously they'd probably get raped as the two midfielders can't play with one another but as midfielders go over the last 10 years I'd say those two have been the best considering the likes of Scholes, Keane and Vieira all had their best days between the mid to late 90's-2004. Same logic applies to the strikers Henry immense between 2000-2005 Drogba immense between 2004-2010.

 

[Caseh]

I don't think there is much wrong with the team, other than the fact they have forgot to put Henry in? He was the first person I thought of when saw the thread title, it's quite ridiculous he isn't in it. He should have been the first striker on that list, never mind left off completely. I'd have also considered Bergkamp over Shearer, not Drogba though.

 

[Alpherah]

I'd thought about that but Keane and Vieira left in 2005 - meaning that in a team of the decade I'd be giving the nod to the likes of Gerrard and Lampard who played much longer.

And besides, i'd take a 04 -> 08 Gerrard over those anyday

 

[Greenlizard0]

You do realise in that period Gerrard's played as a holding midfielder, right back, right midfield. In fact it wasn't until around 2007 (although he played there in some CL games in 2005) that Gerrard was moved into the attacking midfield role that Lampard's played his entire career.

edit: you may as well compare Vieira and Keane's goals and assist stats too if that's the only way you're choosing between Gerrard and Lampard.

As for the OP, I'd make plenty of changes to that team.

That's not the only way I'm choosing them. It's also subjective as all these things are. It's just one way I've chosen to compare them.

Hadn't realised that Gerrard didn't play the AM role until 2007, being that the team above doesn't differentiate that though I was only going for the more general 'CM' role.

And being that he has been moved about a lot it doesn't make sense he's been named as the best CM of the last ten years. Still, the league managers know more than either of us perhaps they too have seen a lot that I haven't.

Guarentee you more of Lampards goals have come from penalties than Gerrard's.

Gerrard also didn't take them really prior to 07/08 at all? Took one here one there in his early days. A lot of freekicks in his early days not taken either, with Gary Mac, Murphy, Hamman, JAR around. Lampard really only competed with Drogba over the past few years.

Also as you said, Gerrard has played in a ****ter team for pretty much every year over the past 10, meaning less chances and less of his chances probably taken.

Also what do you mean by the team above? I'm talking about when Lamp has played for Chelsea and Gerrard for Liverpool, one has played more advanced for a longer period.

The one above, literally in the OP.

 

[Alpherah]

Lampard P548 G179 A109
Gerrard P522 G139 A78

Its amazing what starting the decade at Right Back can do to your stats, huh?

 

[BaZ87]

That's not the only way I'm choosing them. It's also subjective as all these things are. It's just one way I've chosen to compare them.

Hadn't realised that Gerrard didn't play the AM role until 2007, being that the team above doesn't differentiate that though I was only going for the more general 'CM' role.

And being that he has been moved about a lot it doesn't make sense he's been named as the best CM of the last ten years. Still, the league managers know more than either of us perhaps they too have seen a lot that I haven't.

Just because he's been moved around a lot, it doesn't mean he shouldn't be considered 1 of the best 2 cm's over the last decade either. Gerrard's played the holding role in his early days, he's played as a box to box cm and as an out right attacking midfielder, and he's one of the best around in each of those roles.

Also, I assume you're picking somebody to play alongside Scholes? In which case, the only way Scholes would get into the team would have been his form from 2000-06 where he mainly an attacking midfielder, so would you want another attacking CM alongside him in Lampard?

Agree it's subjective, I just found it strange that your justification for why Lampard was a more consistent player was simply his goals and assist stats, when you consider the roles they've performed in that period.

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

I was going to say the people who have voted are far better qualified than us to make this decision but then I thought how many of them even managed in the Premiership last decade? Of those how many managed for the whole decade? Wenger, Fergie and possibly Redknapp!

 

[Greenlizard0]

Just because he's been moved around a lot, it doesn't mean he shouldn't be considered 1 of the best 2 cm's over the last decade either. Gerrard's played the holding role in his early days, he's played as a box to box cm and as an out right attacking midfielder, and he's one of the best around in each of those roles.

Also, I assume you're picking somebody to play alongside Scholes? In which case, the only way Scholes would get into the team would have been his form from 2000-06 where he mainly an attacking midfielder, so would you want another attacking CM alongside him in Lampard?

Agree it's subjective, I just found it strange that your justification for why Lampard was a more consistent player was simply his goals and assist stats, when you consider the roles they've performed in that period.

As said it wasn't only his goals and stats, I used them to illustrate my point that if given Hangtime's choice above, instead of Keane or Vieira I'd prefer Lampard over Gerrard due to the reason I felt in the CM role the Chelsea player was consistantly more attributable to his side's success.

Gerrard is the type of player that will utterly destroy a side, but only so every few games. Lampard will instead give an even run.

Being that as you said Scholes is there however, then I'd easily take the more defensive/cm roles of Vieira or Keane.

 

[BaZ87]

Personally I'd leave Scholes out all together as both Lampard and Gerrard took the attacking midfield role onto a whole new level over the last few years.

 

[HangTime]

I guess the question is whether you want to pick the most consistent XI from the last decade, or simply players from then who've been excellent at one point or another?

I'd say not even the managers that did this know, given that Terry would fall into the first camp, and Ronaldo the second.

I thought about that too but logically there is very little point having a 'team of the decade' if consistency isn't going to be considered. I mean, if you just look at players who have been excellent at one point or another, you could take it to extremes and pick a player based on a single match - lets have Berbatov and Defoe up front, they scored five! Even if you don't take it quite that far, you might go right, I'm gonna have David Seaman in goal because I think he was the best keeper 10 years ago, then I'm gonna have Tony Adams at CB or whatever.

So on my book it should be done on consistency but of course weighted for quality.
To give Ronaldo his due he played here from 2003-9 and had at least 3 very good seasons in amongst that. If he were to be displaced you'd have to find somebody who played longer and had as many exceptional performances, which would be tough.

 

[HangTime]

I was going to say the people who have voted are far better qualified than us to make this decision but then I thought how many of them even managed in the Premiership last decade? Of those how many managed for the whole decade? Wenger, Fergie and possibly Redknapp!

I wondered about that too especially in terms of overseas managers who have only worked here for a few years. I reckon former players who've lived here a long time like Hughes, Bruce etc probably have a fairly good idea what's been going on every if they haven't always managed in the top flight.

 

[Greenlizard0]

^35, That's what I meant. But explained far worse.

 

[BaZ87]

I thought about that too but logically there is very little point having a 'team of the decade' if consistency isn't going to be considered. I mean, if you just look at players who have been excellent at one point or another, you could take it to extremes and pick a player based on a single match - lets have Berbatov and Defoe up front, they scored five! Even if you don't take it quite that far, you might go right, I'm gonna have David Seaman in goal because I think he was the best keeper 10 years ago, then I'm gonna have Tony Adams at CB or whatever.

So on my book it should be done on consistency but of course weighted for quality.
To give Ronaldo his due he played here from 2003-9 and had at least 3 very good seasons in amongst that. If he were to be displaced you'd have to find somebody who played longer and had as many exceptional performances, which would be tough.

It appears to be a bit random if you ask me. On 1 hand you've got VDS, who IMO has not been the best keeper in the league for any of the time he's been here but he's be consistently decent for a long time and on the other hand, you've got Vidic who's been excellent but for only 3 years of the decade. Using VDS as an example, you could easily make an arguement for Hyypia, Campbell or Ferdinand (maybe not as good but played far more) to be included ahead of Vidic, and using Vidic as an example, you could easily make an arguement for Reina (excellent but over a shorter period) to be included VDS

 

[Caseh]

I wondered about that too especially in terms of overseas managers who have only worked here for a few years. I reckon former players who've lived here a long time like Hughes, Bruce etc probably have a fairly good idea what's been going on every if they haven't always managed in the top flight.

With their knowledge, how have they managed to pick Shearer over Henry, when the latter has out-assisted, and outscored Shearer? It's not like either stats are close! I'm not trying to say Shearer wasn't a good player, he was exceptional, but Henry was one of the best the Premier League will ever see IMO.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Meh, for me Lampard over Gerrard, easily, and frankly Cesc over both, without question.

Pires over Giggs, sure Giggs is still playing, he was better, more consistant in the 90's than the 2000's, he hasn't been a hugely high scoring winger at any stage, but his highest goal rate in the 2000's was 8 in the league early on, he hasn't hit over 5 goals since 2004-5 season.

he's solid and the longevity of his career is immense. But this is a guy who in 600 appearances has scored 100 goals. Pires scored 62 goals in 189 appearances. He literally scored from all over the pitch, several from almost the half way line, he played for 6 years and for me was the best left winger this league has seen. Giggs is mostly rated for never really having a particularly bad spell, but he's never had an "epic" season for Utd, not a single out of this world season. The closest thing would be 17 goals in all comps, that was in '93.

Likewise, Gallas has been in the league since 2001, was immense, absolutely immense in defence during Chelsea's first set of titles, versatile, winning mentality, tough as nails and has been at the top of his game his whole time here. Vidic, only been here 5 years, consistantly finds himself making rugby tackles, he's very good, solid but I just can't rate a guy who has made more rugby tackles than any other player I've ever seen, as the best defender around, its laughable.

Shearer, 90's, sure, 2000's not a chance. Henry, Rooney, Bent, Anelka