Lampard/Gerrard/Beckham/Scholes vs. Zidane/Vieira/Malouda/Makelele (2006)

Roughneck

Registered User
Oct 15, 2003
9,609
1
Calgary
Visit site
England had a pretty strong collection of attacking midfielders, definitely deeper than France's IMO *(though Zidane at the top end is all you'd need since you only need one). But if I'm making a team with these players, you need somebody who can get them the ball. Lampard, Scholes and Gerrard would be walking all over each other.

There's a reason France won and made a World Cup Final over 3 tournaments and England were always underachieving. They couldn't really effectively use all their best players because many played the same position.

Makelele and Vieira would stifle that group pretty quickly, get the ball to Zidane who'd have all the room in the world to work with.
 
Last edited:

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
62,133
8,584
France
No contest to me.
And among attacking midfielders were guys like Ribery. Already a better option than any England had.
 

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560
Talent wise it's probably very close. The composition is no contest though. Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard and Beckham just don't work all that well together.
 

Cassano

Registered User
Aug 31, 2013
25,610
3,818
GTA
53d630c1c5f16.jpg


0d7c9d093e5fe6864a04404607db9be9.jpg
 

Cassano

Registered User
Aug 31, 2013
25,610
3,818
GTA
No contest to me.
And among attacking midfielders were guys like Ribery. Already a better option than any England had.

I dunno, Lampard's 2005 season was brilliant. At the time I think it was fair to claim he was better than any midfielder in the world besides Dinho...
 

Savi

Registered User
Dec 3, 2006
9,282
1,866
Bruges, Belgium
I agree with Evilo.

I've always found Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham to be vastly overrated. Scholes was pretty good tho
 

Wee Baby Seamus

Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Mar 15, 2011
14,917
5,889
Halifax/Toronto
Lampard/Gerrard/Scholes were all far too similar as players to really click. Not to mention that that England midfield lacked strong defensive options, whereas France had both Vieira and Makelele. Speaking as a Chelsea fan, I'm really not fond of Florent Malouda, who is a clear weak link looking at that France midfield (mind you, I am too young to remember 2006 beyond the final).

In regards to other statements, I think it's easy to forget that in 2005 Lampard and Gerrard were something like 2nd and 3rd in Ballon d'Or voting. Obviously that's not the be all and end all, but those guys were both top top midfielders.

However, take everything I say in regards to this with a grain of salt, as I really started to get into the sport in 2012, and thus am taking a very hindsighted look at this.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,188
7,612
LA
Gerrard was the best player on two teams that went to CL Finals when they were most certainly not the most talented team in Europe. In one of those they knocked off a Juve team that featured many players who could be argued were the best players at their position in Europe at that time. Not overrated at all, unless someone is saying he's as good as Zidane, in which case they're a moron.

Also, to answer the question, France.
 

East Coast Bias

Registered User
Feb 28, 2014
8,362
6,422
NYC
Scholes retired from International Comp in '04. Mostly because he was played out of position at LM to accommodate for a Lampard/Gerrard CM partnership (that sucked).

Scholes was the only complete MF in that crew.
 

les Habs

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,239
3,967
Wisconsin
Definitely the French contingent here if you're looking at them as a group. Much greater balance that's missing from the England group. If you ever watched Lampard and Gerrard together it never really worked well.

Were this down to me though I'd take the English players. Then I'd immediately sell them and buy better players.

Talentwise it's very close?



:laugh: No

Not sure what he meant and you can say there's different ways of considering talent, but it is close. Makelele was talented at what he did, but what he did was read the game well and have great positional sense. He wasn't a dribbler, a goalscorer or even that much of a gifted passer. Still great at what he did though and you'd have to be a Madridista (or Madrid President) not to realize that. :D And Malouda wasn't that great either. Of course Zidane and Vieira make up for that.

That said I think the English contingent was in general overrated. Lampard in particular seemed to get a lot of praise back in that day.
 

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560
Lampard is actually the only one in that group I'd consider generally overrated. But yes as a group it would be the French by a mile I think but in terms of actual individual talent it's much closer if not even.
 

Ceremony

blahem
Jun 8, 2012
113,243
15,504
Zidane, Vieira and Makelele are all better than every English player listed. No contest.

Presumably Malouda wandered into the thread by accident.
 

Vasilevskiy

The cat will be back
Dec 30, 2008
17,886
4,692
Barcelona
France's better but it's closer than some here make it to be (talent-wise).

As a group is France easily, Vieira and Makelele alone would destroy any team, add there Zidane and uh... that's really good
 

Bubbles

Die Hard for Bedard 2023
Apr 16, 2004
8,497
7,734
BC Teams:Nucks,Juve
One of the major failures of the English manager during that period is that he could never find the right formation to take advantage of those players. He let the personalities take over and let all of the play at once, instead of letting one sit.
 

Halladay

Registered User
Feb 27, 2009
65,152
7,835
H Town
Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard never played at World Cup all together. That 2002 English team was quite good.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad