Scholes defensive ability

CnutOfAllCnuts

So because he goes over the top and is not the best tackler around, he is no good defensively?

Ignoring the countless of interecptions he makes and balls he picks up due to his excellent positioning?

Julian Denny

A discussion on Scholes' defensive abilities/obligations is about as silly as discussing Bobby Charlton's when he was playing.

Rowem

I disagree.

Although I didnt make any comment about United as a whole, I commented on Scholes. I think he has always done better playing in a midfield 2 than behind a striker.

All 3 United

Thats not what I said, I said he sometimes gets caught either not marking his player tightly enough or not being goal side which results in one of his trademark lunges and if we are being honest, we all take a deep intake of air as he flies through the air!

SATA

I think Scholes often struggled when he was asked to play as a second striker behind Ruud. Took him some time to adapt, and he was fine when he did.

Scholes is fine at his defensive duties. He just can't make any tackle on time.

The Hairdryer

It wasn't a tackle, it was a body check.

All 3 United

I was generalizing there not referring to the specific incident at Wigan (admit. mentioned in my previous post).

The Hairdryer

There was a thread last year which showed his completed tackles were just as good if not better than any other midfielder in our team and comparable to other supposed "defensive midfielders" from other top four teams. Problem is his bad ones are really bad and stand out. Scholes makes a lot of legitimate tackles during the course of a football match, but most uses good positional sense and reading of the game to intercept and to nip in and steel the ball cunningly, which is mainly his speciality.

You don't last long as modern midfielder being a "poor tackler" or a poor "defender". Considering the fact he has been first choice for both United and England before his retirement suggests he knows a bit more about defending and tackling than some make out.

I have a theory that Scholesy stupid tackles are a throw over from his early days at United when he was coming through and competing with the likes of Keane, Ince, Hughesy, Cantona and Butt for positions, all very physically imposing players and strong on the ball and players who believed in using these strenghts to indimated other players. Scholesy, being small often had to go a lot harder into tackles to get the same result as they did.

Basically Scholesy's stupid tackles are to let players know he's about as stated by Redknapp in article I posted in this thread earlier.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

More CNUT bullshit. Do you ever bother to understand what people have posted before you reply?

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Then explain why his best season to date was when he played just behind Ruud.

Simon Adebesi

I dont think that was his best ever season.

Rowem

Urm, explain why think that was his best season to date?

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

He scored the his highest number of goals and it was the one season he was actually a genuine contender for EPL player of the year. If I remember correctly he finished in the top 3. On top of simply being stupendous in a red shirt whenever he played. Topping it all off with a 3 shots 3 goals hat trick at St James Park, our most outstanding attacking performance under SAF till the Roma game. Against a really decent and in form team.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Name a better season that he has had as an individual player.

thoward

I think hes a better tackler than hes given credit for, but he seems to impatient to just jockey players and makes clumsy tackles. He doesn't have the stamina levels of the other central midfield players.

redwhiteblack

hmm...

people are confusing Scholes general defensive contribution with Scholes when he goes to ground trying to win back possession.

when he goes to ground, you can almost guarantee a yellow for him. his timing is so bad it's almost hard to believe.

when he stays on his feet he's fantastic at hassling players. he's like a terrier.

Rowem

Of course he scored more goals, he was in a more advanced position. His overall play wasnt better than before/after and he didnt look comfortable in that position.

CantonaVeron

He was excellent after a slow start to the season but has been consitantly played in midfield at almost all other times so Ferguson clearly see's him as a better midfield player than forward. All this however does not mean he can't defend he clearly has defensive qualities and can more than hold his own in that respect.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Not accurate TBH. Only once did we ever have a center midfield so strong that we didn't need to play Scholes in the heart of it consistently. Resulting in his best season individually. Also Fergie has said repeatedly he believes Scholes to be top draw both in midfield or upfront. So I honestly doubt he prefers him in a particular role out of both.

People also forget the withdrawn striker role is actually his natural and original position. A reason why he as always defended and tackles like a striker whilst in midfield. So its wrong to say he is better midfielder than forward.

He can defend. But like a striker mostly. With erratic tackling. What saves him from being hopeless is his positional sense and tactical awareness. That what makes a natural withdrawn striker like him survive there. He helps keep the teams shape. One of the greatest qulaties any midfielder should posses. That's why I always laugh when people dare claim Gerard is better than him.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

I'm afraid that is not true at all. He was extremely comfortable there. 2002/03 proved it. Scholes had never played as well as that before then. Though he used to score almost as much. & he only ever replicated that 2002/03 form in 2007 (minus the goals though). Playing him just behind Ruud was largely responsible for us getting the title back from Arsenal from a position of being as good as dead and buried in 02/03.

Furthermore 2002, his worst season to date in a United shirt, was the only time he was ever uncomfortable in the role, which was only down simply to a loss of form.

Think about it, when he returned to midfield he never played as well again until we won title back in 2007.

cw1984

Defending is about so much more than tackling and its why Carrick is so good at it also, they have great football intelligence which allows them to intercept a lot of passes so they dont have to slide tackle.

We win the ball back so many times through interceptions. Very clever defending that....

KingEric7

When people criticise Scholes' defensive ability, it's because they think:

Ability to defend = Ability to go to ground and win the ball.


By this logic, Carrick would be an inept defender. Scholes and Carrick are fairly similar in the way that they simply anticipate an opponent's mistakes instead of going to the man. They are both way above average defensively. Carrick's positioning in particular is out of this world.

cw1984

Spot on.

Brwned

That's true for most people who just say Scholes is bad defensively and don't give it much thought. Can't say that's the case for anyone in here though, it seems people have given it some thought and still think he's not all that great defensively.

RedDevilCanuck

Scholes' good enough defensively in any kind of game EXCEPT for a high tempo game like against L'Arse or Liverpool at Anfield. Any other game, he can do the job attacking wise and defensively. If Scholes was a defensive liability, Fergie would not play him, easy as that.

Rowem

He was playing alongside the likes of Smith and Djemba-Djemba for fuck sake!

Alongside Keane at his best Scholes was magnificent. The best I've seen him play.

hotshot2004

His tackle is as good as Vida, only lacks a bit of timing, but he can hurt a lot of players.

Alex

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber