People who don't rate Scholes don't understand football.
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
World class.
Not the best example to use when Keane (and Scholes) missed the final. There's a big difference between Beckham, Keane, Scholes and Giggs and the midfield that played the final of Blomqvist, Butt, Beckham and Giggs.
The final was one of United's worst performances of the tournament because their midfield was severely weakened and unbalanced through suspension. The midfield was the clear strength of that team.
Remember the build up and some thinking that Ronnie Johnsen might play midfield alongside Butt, could keep Giggs on the left, Beckham on the right, but Fergie opted for Beckham in the middle for the passing option. Never his position though, especially as he and Butt had rarely played as a pair in the first team. Still wonder how the game would have gone if he had put Giggs alongside Butt, kept Beckham right.
Watched that game back a few years ago and it was a much tighter affair than I had recalled. Had this memory of Bayern controlling the game, creating chances but Utd played better than I had remembered. Had a number of half chances, Giggs gave Tarnat a really tough night at LB. Bayern should have killed it on the counter late on but Schmeichel redeemed a poor season by his standards(along with that key penalty save against Bergkamp)
If Scholes went on to other clubs like RM or Barcelona, we might have won Ballon dor.
Staying at United and becoming a legend has its beneficiaries, but moving around the top teams get you more recognized as footballer.
Giggs Scholes will always be underrated imo.
Staying at United and becoming a legend has its beneficiaries, but moving around the top teams get you more recognized as footballer.
Giggs Scholes will always be underrated imo.
what I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to is, if scholes was so great why was he benched for Nicky butt in his prime?
I was happy with the team selection at the time. Beckham was a much better central midfielder than that version of Giggs. Stam and Johnsen was definitely the best defensive pairing so I was glad he didn't break that up.
It was just such a shame. After going to Munich and playing them off the pitch in the group stages, having to play the final with a patched up midfield was a pity. But it made the finale even more sweet.
He wasn't. Scholes' prime was 02/03 by which time it was four seasons since Butt/Johnsen had sometimes taken his place for away games.
well okay i could have phrased that better. he was 25 and getting benched for Nicky butt?
Occasionally yes.
doesn't that mean that either a) he wasn't in that top tier of players with zidane and xavi or b) he was in that tier and sir froggie still chose to bench him?
Even though he played in a 2 next to Keane, he was more a forward than a midfield player at the time. He couldn't tackle, lacked athleticism and was suspect defensively. Against top quality opposition Butt played to make the team more solid.
He got better defensively with experience and it was a credit to him that he could play with Carrick in a 2 with forwards like Ronaldo on the wing. He still couldn't tackle though.
right, and he was a great player. but not on the level of zidane and xavi.
Agreed.
Scholesy was excellent. I have seen many times when Football pundits were asked who is better among Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes, and everybody has different picks ( some just evade to answer saying all are different type of players).
For me, It is outright choice - Scholesy. He could control the tempo of the match in a way that others just dream of. His vision and long range passing were awesome, and he was one of the keys to success of our 4-4-2 system where he use to distribute the ball wide and regularly bring our wide players into action.
Regarding comparison to Pirlo and Xavi, they will always be regarded better because of their success in international football.
Overall, IMO, Xavi was slightly better than both Scholes/Pirlo ( i think he was more tactical). I have seen Scholes and Pirlo giving away ball more than Xavi. Though Xavi does not use to play long balls as often as Scholes or Pirlo, it was more his choice than limitation.
For me, It is outright choice - Scholesy. He could control the tempo of the match in a way that others just dream of. His vision and long range passing were awesome, and he was one of the keys to success of our 4-4-2 system where he use to distribute the ball wide and regularly bring our wide players into action.
Regarding comparison to Pirlo and Xavi, they will always be regarded better because of their success in international football.
Overall, IMO, Xavi was slightly better than both Scholes/Pirlo ( i think he was more tactical). I have seen Scholes and Pirlo giving away ball more than Xavi. Though Xavi does not use to play long balls as often as Scholes or Pirlo, it was more his choice than limitation.
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally don't rank him alongside those two, but the answer to a) is not necessarily since players tend to develop at different rates in different ways. In fact Xavi and Zidane at 25 had yet to hit their own prime (or Zidane was just hitting his), while Scholes' second best season came when he was 32.
Also a young Nicky Butt was an excellent player, as a youth player he was considered the better prospect and compared to Bryan Robson.
At that time he wasn't. That's why Butt was brought in against teams that would over run Keane.
The guy was a sensation.
Manchester United has become synonymous with great wing play over the years and many of these wingers that have a huge reputation have Scholes to thank for what he could do for them.
People see a long pass and throw them all into the same bracket. But Scholes was unreal in his passing. He allowed absolute flying machines like Giggs and Ronaldo to just take off full speed down the wing, knowing full well that he would ping that ball onto the tip of their toe in full stride. Absolutely wiping out the midfield and fullback. It really was an art.
It's one thing playing a long ball that somebody has to stop and control, but he could do it with such accuracy that they could just run full speed into space. I've not seen many do it over the distances that Scholes covered with his passing, yet he did it with 100% consistency and often first time passes. You can't teach it.
Seriously I miss the tackles on Sunday. Had there been Scholesy on the pitch, I dnot think result would have been different, But we would have surely seen some "late tackles". He was small but he use to play pretty fiercely on big games.
The most disappointing period of the game was when they hold on to ball towards the corner flag for like 4-5 minutes straight. Its a fecking derby, why not take him out when they are taking a piss at us.
He was world class. Not as good as Xavi but certainly at least on par with Modric and Kroos. (For me better) If you seen him live you appreciated him more he always had so much time on the ball. He would walk into a current PL team. How is this even debated? He missed out on some big games to Nicky Butt when he was younger because he was more of an attacker then, and Fergie brought Butt in to make things more solid.
He was absolutely amazing.
Surprised nobody has posted this:
2:30 onwards.
Without any hesitation, the coach of Xavi, Iniesta and that little team called Barca saying this.
2:30 onwards.
Without any hesitation, the coach of Xavi, Iniesta and that little team called Barca saying this.
Whit all the next Ronaldo, next Messi, next Neymar videos floating around this is what we need.. The next Scholes! Sign him up!
https://youtu.be/FvFrWN4lhf4
Join the link can't embed yet.
https://youtu.be/FvFrWN4lhf4
Join the link can't embed yet.
Last edited:
Zidane is a very special case. Xavi, I am not sure how can you compare? I personally don't know because he played his entire career in a system that is a midfielder's dream. Full backs making auxiliary wingers, high line, wingers tucking in, false nines. Every time he had the ball, he had significantly more passing options and movement around him than any midfielder in the planet. I consider Xavi one of the time greats and he was essential in making Barcelona and Spain the force they were but it also goes the other way around. When Scholes played in a similar role for us in his later years, he was asked to spread the ball as quickly as possible for our pacey forwards; Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney when we were playing a much more direct style of football. Let's put it this way, put Xavi in a midfield two with Carrick or Fletcher in a system with two old fashioned wingers and a defence that sits deep like Vida and Rio did, and I'd be amazed if he did better than Scholes. Same goes for Pirlo by the way. I view those 3 as the best at what they did with Xavi having been provided the best platform to elevate his game from an A to an A+
I think Scholes got away with some of the bad tackles simply because he was Scholes, likewise Rooney got away with some of his yelling at ref simply because he was Rooney. I think our tackles on Sunday was OK, just the passing was inaccurate except for the one went to Rashford. Major problem was on clearance which Lukaku got 2 on his tag, and I think we missed Jones + Bailey for their stability on set pieces. Without a stable back we were never in the theme of high pressing and counter-attack. Had Pogba been available Lukaku won't need to defend so deep, but this is life.
And which year would he have had a chance?
Exactly. The front four/five players didn't necessarily have to be able to 'beat their man'. Which meant the opposition was by default always forced to set up more defensively, which meant less pressure on our defenders and so on and so forth.
He was like a playstation character during those latter years.
Just look at what the other players say about him. That's the only guide you need tbh.
This sums up the thread.
If ever in doubt about who is a 'great' footballer and who is merely 'good' look at how his fellow professionals talk about him.
People remember his long passing but his one touch play was just amazing to watch at times. He could drag teams around to create spaces to exploit. At the peak of the his abilities you couldn't press him high up the pitch because he would just drag you around and pass around you into the spaces behind, but sit too deep and his long passing would start hurting you. It was a case of choose your poison.
One of my favourite quotes about Scholes is Schmeichel saying that his measure of a player is not how high their ceiling is, but how they play on an off day. He said that with Scholes you'd barely notice an off day, as his bottom level was so extraordinarily good.
Then add to that that his overview was world class, his passing at all ranges was world class, his first touch was world class... I'm inclined to agree with the gent in this thread that says that people who don't rate Scholes don't get football.
Then add to that that his overview was world class, his passing at all ranges was world class, his first touch was world class... I'm inclined to agree with the gent in this thread that says that people who don't rate Scholes don't get football.
Me too.
Ok give me what you saw of Paul Scholes. Your probably right.
Paul Scholes has amazing football brain. Incredible passing. Long and short. Amazing vision. Great goal scoring player.. Remember him scoring 20 goals in a season playing behind Ruud circa 2003 iicr. He's was complete player despite being a scrawny ginger with asthma. I really don't know what else to say. He was just sensational.
Too bad he wasn't born 10 years later. Would have stolen some Ballon D'ors from Messi and Ronaldo. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand football.
That's just stupid. Players like Scholes, very rarely win Balon dor. Nedved is last player that comes to mind.
Yeah, but it's Paul Scholes you know.
Maybe he wouldn't have won it, but that's because voters are stupid.
Suffered from being English and having bad marketing during his playing career. If he'd be South American he'd be rated alongside Pele and Maradona.