No. Otherwise that's a lot, lot of players we're casting as 'failures'. Trophies seems to help the view in the modern age, though I don't think it should. Players be judged on individual merits when it's a team game.
Much as I hate to admit it, Gerrard has been Liverpool's greatest servant the last 2 decades, regardless of their barren premiership status. Pampered would be in the same boat if Roman hadn't shown up with his money(except Lampard left). Zola didn't win the premiership, neither did Le Tissier. Doesn't make them failures now, does it?
Its a question I always wonder what the best answer is to.
If I had been a top class player,, would I rather have been a player who moved about to the better teams, won a lot of medals, but would probably in long run be forgotten in a mix of many trophy winning sides they have over the years.
would I rather be the best player at my chosen club winning less medals, but becoming a legend who 20-30-40 plus years down the line will still always be remembered as one of the best players ever to fans of that club.
abit like the Le Tiss aspect where he has very little at all in terms of personal achievements, but he will always be remembered at that club whereas he could have moved elsewhere, but would just have become one of many.
I think I'd actually rather be the legend, you get a lot more respect down line.