Good question
I agree. I actually really enjoy 00s U2, as it has a special place in my heart for getting me hooked on U2 in the first place. However, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that the bashing probably comes from a fear that U2 have lost the ability to make groundbreaking music in a studio setting. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are not transcendental like War, UF, JT, AB and Pop are (in many opinions). However, perhaps if U2 can prove that 00s was experimentation, not scraping the bottom of the bucket for all thats left, then the U2 community can forgive them and appreciate them in their own right. We can enjoy them, rather than just feel disapointed by them.
So, yes, I really think it would help to know that they've still got it.
"War" was a continuation of the sounds U2 established on "Boy" and "October".
JT was a continuation of the sounds U2 established on UF.
"Pop" imitated everything from Chemical Bros. and Prodigy to George Harrison.
U2 have had very creative periods. Some of their best work does appear on "War" and JT, but I would call them nothing more than refining a sound U2 already discovered. Does that make them "transcendental"? I guess it depends on your definition. In my world, it does not.
U2's 00's work succeeded in that U2 wanted to make albums where "every song could be a hit". Granted, not every song was and there are quite a few songs I question being on those albums. But as a collection of songs, U2 succeeded very nicely.
As albums, though, U2 didn't quite reach the heights of "War", JT and AB.
As for "Zooropa" and "Pop", I appreciate the work U2 did in experimenting in new directions. And even though there is quite a bit that didn't work on those albums, some songs were brilliant. Still, those albums came across as somewhat self-indulgent - experimentation for the sake of experimentation. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but one does have to be careful. Is the experimentation leading to great music? As those albums show, the answer is not always.
The 00's music does seem safer - and that comes out of the "every song is a hit" mentality. In some ways, this was also experimental for U2. If I listened to JT today as if it was a brand new album, nothing on it would leap out as a hit single. I might think the "slow love song" aspect of WOWY could work (as slow love songs are often hits), but I never would have predicted "Streets" or "I Still Haven't..." be to hits. Yet, of course, they were. U2's 00's work was the first time U2 actually tried to write bit hit songs. The irony is that U2 still stood out for their time.
That fact is ultimately U2's charm. This is also why "Pop" didn't quite succeed. U2's charm is that they produce music that is out of step with everyone else. AB succeeded in an era of grunge. JT succeeded in an era of hair bands. ATYCLB succeeded in an era of bubblegum pop. They stood out as unique. "Pop" tended to blend in too much with the times.
I won't dismiss any of U2's 90's work. Even if it some of it wasn't wildly popular, it allowed U2 to remain an active band - not one forgotten come the turn of the decade (as so many 80's bands faded in the 90's). Likewise, while I do feel U2's 00's work is overall more "safe", it has allowed U2 to work on song structure, something we saw bits and pieces of in the past, but never to this extent.
Therefore, both eras stand out, despite some weaknesses. In an ideal world, I'd combine the best of "Zooropa" and "Pop" into one album. I'd also combine the best of ATYCLB and HTDAAB into one album. Of course, what is the best is very subjective.
Nonetheless, let's hope U2 have found a way to combine the best of the 80's overall album design, the best of the 90's experimentation and the best of the 00's song development on the next album. It's a tall order, but if this is truly U2's more "complete and radical" album, it will have to do just that.
