Ducklegs
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,761
He was one of the best midfielders of his generation, a great player.
I remember that one against Spain, he was absolutely magnificent that game.
I remember Scholes having some great performances against Real Madrid back in the day.
This. Questioning Xavi's legacy is borderline moronic, because he had almost the perfect career. He answered every critic while he was playing, yet people still insist on bringing dumbass arguments.Why is there an insistence on denigrating Xavi's legacy to praise Scholes? 'Easily the best midfielder of his generation', 'he would easily overshadow him (Xavi) by a country mile', some of you don't half engage in hyperbole. Xavi wasn't just a modern great of the game - in historical terms, you could realistically place him as the greatest central midfielder of all time with the likes of Didi or Matthäus or Rijkaard or Falcão (albeit in a varied function). Xavi didn't just benefit from Barcelona's system - in his own inimitable way, he was the fundamental presence behind Barcelona's system because his shadow loomed large over almost everything they did - the evidence for that lies in the deterioration of their midfield passing game since his retirement, and increased reliance on Suárez + Messi + Neymar to bail them out of trouble instead of being decisive from the center of the pitch. Iniesta is still Iniesta, but he cannot control games in the way Xavi did, and for all his breathtaking grace on the ball, Xavi will still go down as the better midfielder.
Scholes was irreplaceable. If he played in the hole other then one season, he'd have scored more goals. I think he was mismanaged by England and under appreciated. They should have made the team around him not put him on the wing....
Nah. He wasn't better than his own midfield partner.Best United player since Charlton and Best.
Xavi is massively overrated on here, it's actually becoming a joke.
World class player for about 5 seasons, the longer he's gone the more people are making him out to be even better than he was. Iniesta was better than him during that period.
Anyway.. Scholes in my opinion was the 2nd best midfielder of all time, just behind Zidane.
I think it would've been better for us long-term if we'd sold him to Blackburn in 1994.
Terrible wum
It was amazing I remember many good games, by Scholes, but not a single one that spring to mind as being 'watch this game'. What would people say are his best performances?
Xavi isn't overrated here in isolation. He's rated on a god tier almost everywhere.Xavi is massively overrated on here, it's actually becoming a joke.
Incorrect. He wasn't world class for 5 seasons. He was world class for close to a decade, but for a period of 5 seasons - he dominated the possession oriented central midfielder position unlike any player before or since at both club and international level - scheming, probing, conducting entire matches - that's what elevates him to stratospheric levels. Without going so far as to say he fundamentally redefined the position, what he did was indeed unprecedented and he set an all-time level benchmark like Matthäus for box-to-box midfielders, or Rijkaard for defensive midfielders. From here on out, every midfielder of that nature will be compared with Xavi as the reference point - until someone truly surpasses him, just like every box-to-box will be compared with Matthäus (West Germany and Internazionale) and every defensive midfielder with Rijkaard for his exploits with the Netherlands and Milan.World class player for about 5 seasons, the longer he's gone the more people are making him out to be even better than he was. Iniesta was better than him during that period.
Was expecting better from someone who pointedly criticizes the collective Caf userbase. Zidane wasn't even the best midfielder for France - Platini was, or for Juventus - again Platini, let alone the best of all time. And most (if not all) French/Juventus posters and observers will corroborate that.Anyway.. Scholes in my opinion was the 2nd best midfielder of all time, just behind Zidane.
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).
He retired early to spend more time with his family and then rejected an appeal to come out of retirement.The best English player i have seen, a player who wouldn't look out of place at the club i support and a player i feel was underappreciated by his national team.
Would you say that Xavi grossly overrated him also ? They say never meet your heroes. Standing on the Old Trafford touchline, head with curtain fringe darting side-to-side, 18-year-old Xavi Hernández was about to show his what he could do. "Paul Scholes! A role model," he told The Guardian in 2011. "For me, he's the best central midfielder I've seen in the last 15, 20 years. He's spectacular, he has it all: the last pass, goals, he's strong, he doesn't lose the ball, vision."Brilliant player, grossly overrated by our fans. Which is some achievement, given how good he actually was.
Always being played out of position to accommodate the lampard/gerrard midfieldIn what way was he badly treated?
Scholes' long range passing was head and shoulders above Xavi's. That is to some extent probably down to Barcelona preferring to play a short passing game, but it doesn't take away the fact that Scholes was far superior in that regard. Coupled with his ability to dictate the tempo of a game just as well as Xavi or any other, his long range shooting, goal threat and heading, there is a case for Scholes being better.
Especially considering that this isn't true
Again, credit to the amazing @Mrs Smoker
On the point of the thread - he wasn't better than Xavi. He also wasn't better than Iniesta, even though Iniesta played a slightly different role.
I would put Scholes on par with Pirlo, the latter was much better internationally but Scholes' grit and all-roundness elevate him to Pirlo's level in my opinion.
Not an all-time great midfielder, but one of the best midfielders of his generation and a one who have a genuine claim on the spot of 2nd best midfielder in United history (it's impossible to separate him from Keane and Robson, with them being so different yet all so brilliant).
So you don't think Scholes' long range passing was superior along with his finishing?I think you'll find that only United fans would make that case. It's pretty clear to any neutral or unbiased fan who the better player was overall.
Would you say that Xavi grossly overrated him also ? They say never meet your heroes. Standing on the Old Trafford touchline, head with curtain fringe darting side-to-side, 18-year-old Xavi Hernández was about to show his what he could do. "Paul Scholes! A role model," he told The Guardian in 2011. "For me, he's the best central midfielder I've seen in the last 15, 20 years. He's spectacular, he has it all: the last pass, goals, he's strong, he doesn't lose the ball, vision."
So you don't think Scholes' long range passing was superior along with his finishing?
Always? He played 3 tournaments in central roles before Lampard and Gerrard really came into the picture. Scholes was played out of position to accomodate Lampard and Gerrard for a handful of games and with it England looked stronger than in previous tournaments at the Euro 2004 until Rooney got injured. Then Scholes quit without fighting for a place in his best position.Always being played out of position to accommodate the lampard/gerrard midfield
Scholes' long range passing was head and shoulders above Xavi's. That is to some extent probably down to Barcelona preferring to play a short passing game, but it doesn't take away the fact that Scholes was far superior in that regard. Coupled with his ability to dictate the tempo of a game just as well as Xavi or any other, his long range shooting, goal threat and heading, there is a case for Scholes being better.