All I know he was fecking amazing at one point playing behind Ruud, (2003) and after his eye injury, he came back completely rejuvenated. Then he retired. Then he came back, and he was still fecking amazing.
Last edited:
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
Genius. Less than Giggs.
Ready? FIGHT.
Ready? FIGHT.
Excellent midfielder, who had an exceptional career. Probably our second or third best midfielder ever after Sir Bobby depending on how you rank Keane and Robson.
What Xavi did between 08-12 is on a completely different level though.
What Xavi did between 08-12 is on a completely different level though.
I think it would've been better for us long-term if we'd sold him to Blackburn in 1994.
Best midfielder I've ever seen.
He was not better than Xavi. At all.
Heading and goalscoring aside, he has nothing on him. Xavi wasn't a bad finisher himself. But he liked to stay deep
Scholes was unfortunate that we were pretty dire in Europe between his late 20's and 32 (when we became an elite European side).
Heading and goalscoring aside, he has nothing on him. Xavi wasn't a bad finisher himself. But he liked to stay deep
Scholes was unfortunate that we were pretty dire in Europe between his late 20's and 32 (when we became an elite European side).
Tina Turner - Simply the best.
I appreciate your opinion but I don't agree with it. Out of curiosity what did Xavi do that was on a different level that Scholes couldn't do when Scholes was in his 30's.
What makes you think that? Obviously, I know it's all subjective, but I've never seen Xavi do anything that Scholes couldn't do. In fact I've seen Scholes do things that Xavi couldn't do.
Dominated club and world football like rarely anybody has before? He was the best midfielder in the world for around 5 years straight.
Do you think there was any period of time, where Scholes was the best midfielder in the world?
He was my favourite player from the Fergie era. The season he came out of retirement in January a lot of people on social media mocked us. I remember being on another united forum and someone made a thread about how it was embarrassing for the club, et cetera. I was over the moon, I got to see him play for another few months. We then went on an 8 win streak but ultimately lost the title on goal difference. I am practically convinced we'd have won the title that year if we had Scholes from the start. He might be an irritating pundit with his snide comments but he loves this club and always drove the team forward to win.
Erm because Xavi dominated the big games constantly. He was man of the match in them constantly. Scholes wasn't.
And Scholes wasn't amazing behind ruud. He didn't even want to play there or enjoy it because it meant defenders were more aware of his runs.
You're right he dominated all of football for a time. But not by himself. Scholes could have did it too had he Iniesta, Busi, Messi et all playing with him. In a system that would have suited Scholes down to a tee.
I've never seen Scholes have a season like 08/09. 30+ assists in one season from a controlling position.
Scholes assisted 49 goals in total for United. That puts everything into perspective.
I've seen Nani do things Beckham could only dream about. It didn't make him a better player or on par.
Yes because Scholes had bad players like Giggs, Keane and Beckham next to him. He didn't dominate when he was next to them like Xavi did.
Didn't have two of them, and Iniesta wasn't 'as good' when he won Spain the Euros in 2008 and was Man of the tournament. In fact, the 2008 Spain team and the style they played was very different to the one most associate with one adopted by Guardiola and then Del Bosque.
^^And like Bojan said, Scholes' also had some all time great players.
Yeah didn't Scholes get into double figures in behind Ruud. That's what I remember. Could be wrong though. I am open to correction.
In my mind Scholes also dominated games constantly. Big or small. From watching Scholes, I've personally never thought a game passed him by. As with Xavi admittedly.
How good was Scholes he asks then immediately shits on Scholes. Nice.
Also feck Xavi
Also feck Xavi
Forgive me mate, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. I will try to reply as fast as I can when I find out though.
No. He obviously didn't but United didn't play possession football they? Henceforth Scholes couldn't stand out as much as Xavi.
On a serious note, I think he was a wonderful player. Difficult to say whether he was better than Xavi, since I think Xavi played in a team that suited him perfectly (at least at his best). Think Scholes would've looked quite amazing had he played for Barca in 2011 too, perhaps even more than he did playing for United.Terrible wum
Er, I immediately shat on Scholes?
Feck. I'd like to think Scholes was better than Xavi. A local lad from Manchester being one of the best midfielders to ever grace the pitch? How fecking dare we put him on that pedestal. I just asked what people thought of Scholes and yet most posters jumped how Scholes is better than Xavi.
Yes he did. He won more league titles than Xavi who played in the greatest team ever. Greatest team. Why didn't he dominate before Messi and Iniesta came to the scene?
I must question how old you are and if you saw Scholes play pre-2006 (before his eye injury). To quote Xavi himself "If he'd been Spanish he might have been rated more highly. Players love him."
Best United player since Charlton and Best.
Think he got 20 that season.
Well not being better than Xavi doesn't stop him from being that. You can still be great, like really great but that doesn't mean someone else can't be better.
I can't remember other than my memory but I'm under the impression he scored about 4-5 goals against Newcastle alone that season.
Scholes was excellent, but certainly inferior to Pirlo and Xavi imo.
I feel like he's never truly dominated a competition or starred in a final like Pirlo or Xavi did.
Plus through no fault of his own, he didn't excel with England.
I feel like he's never truly dominated a competition or starred in a final like Pirlo or Xavi did.
Plus through no fault of his own, he didn't excel with England.
Iniesta was better throughout that time imo.
Xavi was great but Messi, Iniesta and Scholes are match winners.
As for scholes being the best mdfielder in the world ... I dunno. Its a team game and the team around him wasn't great when he was at his best
His best years were after the 99 team had begun to break up and keane was getting on and before Ronaldo really got going.
2008 was an indian summer for him but still not up to his standard from a few years previously
Anyway i loved him. Was a joy to watch and scored some incredible goals during his time here
About as good as Modric. Some systems he'd be better. Some systems he'd be worse.
As a Premier League player he was plenty better than Luka though. Would have been interesting to see Scholes in Spain.
As a Premier League player he was plenty better than Luka though. Would have been interesting to see Scholes in Spain.
@Skills
No. Of course it's nothing to do with where a footballer is from. I'm just saying that it's not that unlikely that I'm elevating Scholes since he's a local lad that plays for his local team that I support.
No. Of course it's nothing to do with where a footballer is from. I'm just saying that it's not that unlikely that I'm elevating Scholes since he's a local lad that plays for his local team that I support.
He's an amazing player, wouldn't traded him for Xavi cos Scholes suited our system and vice versa. However Xavi will be seen as the better in the history books.
Luca Modric started out as an attacking midfielder around 12 years ago for Zagreb but him and Scholes virtually hold no parallels at any point of their careers.
I can see how Modric moved deeper as his career went on but nowhere near Scholes's level. That's just my opinion.
Sir Alex wanted to sign Xavi from what I remember.
Loved him.
I think with this kind of players you hit a ceiling, things Xavi did, Scholes could do too with his own style.
The only thing that puts Xavi above Scholes for most people is international success, but it's not Scholes fault that England played like poop for 10 years. You need to be lucky (like Xavi, who could've been out of the 2008 Spanish squad had Luis Aragones been a pushover and calling Guti like 50% of the country wanted, he just had a better season than Xavi that year).
Scholes was insanely good, you have to be that good to play for 20 years in what was arguably the best team in the world of that era
The only thing that puts Xavi above Scholes for most people is international success, but it's not Scholes fault that England played like poop for 10 years. You need to be lucky (like Xavi, who could've been out of the 2008 Spanish squad had Luis Aragones been a pushover and calling Guti like 50% of the country wanted, he just had a better season than Xavi that year).
Scholes was insanely good, you have to be that good to play for 20 years in what was arguably the best team in the world of that era
I question how biased you are. Scholes didn't dominate European football like Xavi. He never did. Even in the big matches against Arsenal in the 90s it was Keane who was running the midfield, so I question how old you are.
Scholes won more league titles. Xavi won more champions league, Euros and world cups. What's your point? Cleverley won more league titles than Gerrard. Not sure what point you trying to make with that one. Also Xavi basically retired at 35. I'm sure he could have stayed at Barca, be on the fringes and win a few more league titles to satisfy you like Scholes did in the latter part of his career.
Of course Xavi and other players are going to be complimentary about him. That doesn't make Scholes better than Xavi.
Out of curiosity, how did Spanish pundits/players see Scholes as? I know we've all seen the quotes from Alonso, Xavi and Zidane but what did your average fan think of him?
Scholes was just unlucky he was English. No point comparing him to players who have come from countries that value technique for a long time. By the time England caught up with the ball on the ground football- scholes was near the end of his career and still he was class.