Did Paul Scholes underachieve relative to his talent?

[Raees]

'Best central midfielder of the past 15-20 years'... Xavi

It is crazy to suggest that the 'Ginger Prince' to some extent underachieved relative to his talent but how else do you explain the fact that the supposed 'best central midfielder' of the past 15-20 years's' according to Xavi, only had 2 UCL win's in his resume (one campaign in which he didn't feature in the final and was rotated with Nicky Butt) and a host of international exits before the semi-final stage, despite being part of two 'golden generations' by English standards.

When you break down the various phases of Scholes' career and the sheer range of attributes he demonstrated over the course of it - you're struck by how complete he was, outside of his defensive fallacies and an inability to strike a set piece. This was a man who could control the tempo of games against elite opposition (towards the end of his career), possessed the movement of an elite second striker (in the early phase of his career) and had the composure and finishing technique of a top striker encompassing chips, volleys, headers (in the middle phase of his career). Yet in truth, he never really managed to combine all these elements to a world class standard at the same time.

Why did this happen? well it could just be that unlike guys like Zico, Platini... Scholes was learning on the job. He was constantly developing new aspects of his game and did not arrive fully formed in terms of what was his best position and his overall approach to any given game - unlike the former duo who knew they were number 10's from Day 1. Furthermore in Fergie, he had a manager who whilst he had a lot of appreciation for the Ginger Prince's talent, did not fully grasp what type of player Scholes was tactically and who, in Fergie's defence, was a peculiarity in the British game.

Tactically Scholes was always having to adapt his natural game to United rather than being afforded the opportunity or guided towards being a classical number 10 who can run the game and score goals in equal measure. Unlike Juve and Platini, United never changed their style and set up to bring out the best of Scholes - he was simply one down to earth talented player in a team full of grounded stars.

Finally there is the psychological aspect which could be cited as a major factor as to why Scholes didn't hit the heights he could have. He had a well-documented distaste of the limelight and whilst that in turn made him a 'loveable' cult figure - to some extent it explains why Scholes never really maximised his talent to become the untouchable star of both his club side and internationally. He was happy to score goals but he did not want to be the 'heir' to Gazza or prove that he was better than Beckham... and in hindsight it meant especially for England, he was pushed to the sidelines when he was entering his prime - see Euro 2004 for example where Lampard and Gerrard's greater ego's required massaging by Sven. Paradoxically, being made a mere support member and a left sided midfield player during those Euro's ignited the fire in Scholes and he ended up walking away. Thus demonstrating that he was a man who could not help being the heartbeat of his respective sides and secretly craved being at the centre of the action yet almost equally feared being the best player on the pitch because he'd have tonnes of media attention on the back of it.

Your thoughts on Scholes' legacy.. did he underachieve? where does he rank in the annals of English football history... where does he rank amongst the world's all time registas?

@Gio @harms @Enigma_87 @Invictus @Šjor Bepo @Fortitude @Joga Bonito @golden_blunder

 

[b82REZ]

A team is the sum of its parts, not all down to an individual.

 

[Raees]

A team is the sum of its parts, not all down to an individual.

Completely agree but I do think that out of all of Fergies players in the 1999 side... Scholes was the player who was not at his optimal performance under Fergie from a tactical perspective. Scholes hit his tactical peak during the 06-08 era but he was a diminished player in many respects outside of dictating the tempo.

I can’t imagine Beckham being as effective outside of Fergies set up, likewise Keane and Giggs but Scholes potentially might have hit an even higher peak had he developed in Spain or Italy.

Goals wise he might have scored less goals but his overall legacy potentially might have been even more reputable.

I think the Veron signing in some respects robbed Scholes of some vital years as a central midfield playmaker at his pomp although I agreed with Fergie that we needed a extra body in the midfield. Perhaps in hindsight someone more attacking - leaving Scholes deeper would have led to a further CL victory?

Keane Scholes
Beckham Nedved Giggs​

As a 5... arguably could have brought the best out of Scholes imo.

 

[edcunited1878]

When you consider his smaller frame compared to other midfield contemporaries, his asthma, coming back from a knee or that eye issue, and how he was highly skilled and successful from an individual stand point playing 3 different central midfield roles at near elite or elite status shows how great he was. Him not seeking the limelight was always a personal choice and as such, was always going to be his own person on his own terms.

How he was or wasn't used by Fergie didn't go unnoticed by players, especially those on the continent where it was much more advanced and progressive in the 90s and early 00s when there was a stockpile of genuinely class central midfielders in Europe

 

[11101]

He was never at an elite level when playing further forward. He was often rotated and subbed in his early years when playing those positions.

It was only when he dropped back to a traditional CM position that he really began to stand out, as his ability to set tempo and recycle possession came to the fore. Once he got that down he was able to create the space he needed to play the passes he was famous for.

In truth, he was world class for only half his career, but during that time he was up there with the very best in the game. On that basis I dont think he underachieved too badly.

 

[Ali Dia]

2 European cups isn’t bad for a lad with asthma and who had sight issues. What a player. You just knew when he was coming onto it outside the box it meant danger. He’d some power for a little fella.

 

[tjb]

Completely agree but I do think that out of all of Fergies players in the 1999 side... Scholes was the player who was not at his optimal performance under Fergie from a tactical perspective. Scholes hit his tactical peak during the 06-08 era but he was a diminished player in many respects outside of dictating the tempo.

I can’t imagine Beckham being as effective outside of Fergies set up, likewise Keane and Giggs but Scholes potentially might have hit an even higher peak had he developed in Spain or Italy.

Goals wise he might have scored less goals but his overall legacy potentially might have been even more reputable.

I think the Veron signing in some respects robbed Scholes of some vital years as a central midfield playmaker at his pomp although I agreed with Fergie that we needed a extra body in the midfield. Perhaps in hindsight someone more attacking - leaving Scholes deeper would have led to a further CL victory?

Keane Scholes
Beckham Nedved Giggs​

As a 5... arguably could have brought the best out of Scholes imo.

The truth is Fergie found it difficult finding a place for Scholes, but Scholes was so good that he forced his way into the 1999 midfield. At the time, in Fergie's ideal world, Scholes would have been more of a box to box midfielder in the way Keane was and due to not fully appreciating Scholes' full game, Fergie put him in an attacking box to box role. I do not believe Scholes simply became a better player from 2004 onwards when he dropped deep, I believe he was always that type of player, it just took Fergie a longer time to understand this, especially as there had not been any previous examples of a scholes type player in the league previously.

 

[Ali Dia]

In a way having Scholes let us not have to buy classy defenders (or midfielders, our old glaring when are we going to invest position) on the ball as they’d just pop it off to Scholes. Obviously Rio was great on the ball but I mean the likes of Jones and Smalling more so

 

[Giggsy13]

I don’t think I’m permitted to post GIFs as a newbie but insert dude eating popcorn GIF to this ridiculous thread.

 

[Freak]

Looks like we are running out of ideas for threads.

 

[Skills]

I think he maximised his talent. He wasn't tall, quick or strong. He wasn't an elite dribbler, yet he was still a fantastic player because of his passing, shooting coupled with footballing intelligence and timing.

Someone like Giggs on the other hand, had way more god given talent in his locker (unreal pace and unbelievably dribbling ability for one).

 

[Cassidy]

Big fat no

 

[Baneofthegame]

The truth is Fergie found it difficult finding a place for Scholes, but Scholes was so good that he forced his way into the 1999 midfield. At the time, in Fergie's ideal world, Scholes would have been more of a box to box midfielder in the way Keane was and due to not fully appreciating Scholes' full game, Fergie put him in an attacking box to box role. I do not believe Scholes simply became a better player from 2004 onwards when he dropped deep, I believe he was always that type of player, it just took Fergie a longer time to understand this, especially as there had not been any previous examples of a scholes type player in the league previously.

Agree with this.

 

[Raees]

I don’t think I’m permitted to post GIFs as a newbie but insert dude eating popcorn GIF to this ridiculous thread.

I think you're misunderstanding the gist of the thread. It is not saying Scholes was rubbish - quite the opposite. Clearly a great player, an undoubted United legend... but could he have been a Bobby Charlton level player in terms of all-time recognition if he managed to combine all facets of his game at the same time. In some ways his game was reminiscent of a Platini but difference was that Platini brought it all together at the same time whereas Scholes showed different aspects of his game at different phases of his career. If you think the answer is no - he did maximise his talent as per @Skills - then that is fair enough.

Perhaps you and @fps could instead offer an opinion as to whether his failures with England were purely down to management issues or whether he was partly to blame?

 

[fps]

Nah he was brilliant and played brilliantly in brilliant teams. This whole obsession with “individual performances” just doesn’t reflect the game as it is truly played, it’s a team game and it’s about the team winning. Scholes did that as well as anyone.

 

[Bilbo]

No he didn't underachieve. I think he was the best player he could have been, and had a highly decorated career playing for the club he wanted to play for. I mean, in life terms, that a top 1 percentile kind of situation there.

A better question would be 'was Scholes under-appreciated (spoiler: Yes) and if so why?'. The way that Eriksson marginalised him was nothing short of criminal. Scholes was a better player than Gerrard and Lampard. That England team should have been built around him.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Considering he’s blind with chronic asthma he’s probably the greatest player ever.

 

[Sandikan]

I think he maximised his talent. He wasn't tall, quick or strong. He wasn't an elite dribbler, yet he was still a fantastic player because of his passing, shooting coupled with footballing intelligence and timing.

Someone like Giggs on the other hand, had way more god given talent in his locker (unreal pace and unbelievably dribbling ability for one).

Scholes had the talent, talent is his whole thing.
Giggs had natural athleticism on top.

 

[Neil_Buchanan]

‘only two champion leagues’ as if that’s not an incredible achievement. Up until Barca/Madrids recent domination the list of players who had won the champions league 3 or more time was quite short.

 

[17Larsson]

Underachieving with two CL medals? Jaysus you have high standards

 

[Raees]

Underachieving with two CL medals? Jaysus you have high standards

IMO Paul Scholes was the most talented out of the 1999 UCL winning squad. He is one of England's finest ever players, arguably in the top 5-11 (Banks, Moore, Charlton, Gazza, Edwards, Matthews, Rooney, Robson, Hoddle, Scholes, Finney - in no particular order) and in modern terms with respect to the regista role, only Pirlo and Xavi could be seen as equals or superiors (depending on your perspective on the topic). Considering the fact that those two players excelled domestically, on the european stage (in a more dominant manner than Scholes) and on top of it won World Cups.. then yes, there is a debate to be had as to whether he underachieved assuming you share my opinion he wasn't all that inferior to those two and in many respects had more to his game i.e. get forward and score 15 plus goals a season.

Guys like Zidane and Xavi saw something incredibly special in Scholes - so yes we should hold him to the highest of standards because these guys won it all.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

...but could he have been a Bobby Charlton level player in terms of all-time recognition if he managed to combine all facets of his game at the same time.

Maybe. Close enough, he'd be one hell of a player - but he would still lack something both in terms of finishing and the ability to beat a man (Charlton started out as a winger - and a bloody good one at that). He'd lack something as the primary playmaker too, the main driving force behind attacks, the...man.

And - crucially - stacking up Scholes' best features, over several phases of development as a player, and making a neat package out of 'em...well, it just doesn't work. Because in reality he lost something when he gained something else. He simply wasn't a complete package at any stage - and I don't think you can make a case for it being plausible (through different managerial choices, or specific coaching) either.

Short answer: Fergie knew Scholes better than anyone. And he kept playing him pretty much ideally, through said phases, all the way up to his retirement (and then un-retirement). I think Scholes was just as good as he seemed. Which was bloody good. But not Charlton level good.

 

[Maluco]

There are more naturally gifted footballers who have won a lot less. I think at that level of the game, a lot of it is luck. How good is that generation of talent, what other teams are out there at the time, what managers and setups did you play under and just the roll of the dice in certain games.

He has won a lot more than most and I don’t think he will personally feel like he could have done anymore.

 

[Class of 93]

'Best central midfielder of the past 15-20 years'... Xavi

Tactically Scholes was always having to adapt his natural game to United rather than being afforded the opportunity or guided towards being a classical number 10 who can run the game and score goals in equal measure. Unlike Juve and Platini, United never changed their style and set up to bring out the best of Scholes - he was simply one down to earth talented player in a team full of grounded stars.

I think the point here is the most critical in looking back at Scholes and his legacy. Scholes by definition was an anomaly in the English game. At a time teams played a rigid 4-4-2 with banks of players, Scholes was by definition a 'between-the-lines' player. Someone who could either play between the midfield and the striker up top to score goals and provide assists, or drop deep as a regista and dictate the game. In a weird way, he was the best of two magnificent European traditions, the Trequartista or #10 and the regista or #6. That's why he's so revered by people like Zidane, Xavi and Pirlo as a "complete player": he could do both of those roles that are radically different on par with the best in the world!

That also explains why he relatively under-achieved relative to his talent, and arguably so did United in Europe particularly in the late 90s. At a time when Italian teams in particular, were playing formations with a lot of players between the lines, we were still stuck to a 4-4-2 that dominated the English game. Ironically, we had the player that would have enabled us to control games but we didn't realize that until Carlos Quieroz came in and built a new side in the 2006-2008 period which tellingly is our most accomplished period in Europe by a margin.

To summarize: I would argue Scholes overachieved based on circumstances but underachieved on raw talent as he was world-class despite playing a box-to-box role that didn't suit his style. If he had been played either as a Regista or permanently as a second striker he would have gone down as an ATG, and the late-90s United as a side would have also gone down in history the way the Barca team of 2009-2011 did. It took Fergie way to long to realize that our style needed to change to succeed in Europe (mainly because it was so successful at home). And then he bought Veron instead of realizing he had the answer in front of him...

 

[Plant0x84]

Seems odd to ask ’did scholes underachieve’ and start the post ‘it’s a crazy suggestion‘.

As has been suggested elsewhere Scholes was part of a team, a cog in the machine. He has an incredible trophy cabinet as part of that team.

As for England he was stupidly overlooked by a succession of managers in favour of Lamps and Slippy, and had he been selected instead we may have been more successful as a nation.

 

[sillwuka]

Over achieved considering his physical attributes. What a player!

 

[Skills]

Scholes had the talent, talent is his whole thing.

I sometimes get confused, by what people even mean by talent around here. Talent to me is something inherent/natural that gives you an edge over everyone else - something that can't be taught.

In sports in general, that's things like pace, size and strength (which fall under the banner of athleticism). But in football, I'd also argue it's the dexterity and co-ordination it takes to control/dribble a ball - especially when moving quickly. Everything else is pretty much things you learn/hone over the course of your development.

 

[Sandikan]

I sometimes get confused, by what people even mean by talent around here. Talent to me is something inherent/natural that gives you an edge over everyone else - something that can't be taught.

In sports in general, that's things like pace, size and strength (which fall under the banner of athleticism). But in football, I'd also argue it's the dexterity and co-ordination it takes to control/dribble a ball - especially when moving quickly. Everything else is pretty much things you learn/hone over the course of your development.

Talent in football is your touch, your ability, it all coming naturally.
That's Scholes.

Being tall and fast are physical characteristics and not necessarily talent at all.

That's why no-one calls Jerry Mina or Walcott "talented" as opposed to having exceptional gifts in the respective areas above

 

[Gazza]

Nah he was brilliant and played brilliantly in brilliant teams. This whole obsession with “individual performances” just doesn’t reflect the game as it is truly played, it’s a team game and it’s about the team winning. Scholes did that as well as anyone.

This.

 

[baskinginthesun]

Won it all at club level and then some. I don't think he can be criticized for what he achieved in the England squad as most English squads have struggled. Plus, he never really seemed up for playing for England.

His contribution to United is where it mattered. Gave it all on the pitch and stayed out of trouble off it. Arguably, one of the most professional players to ever play for us. The fact that he had asthma and eye problems and still achieved what he did with that kind of longevity is incredible really.

 

[Skills]

Talent in football is your touch, your ability, it all coming naturally.
That's Scholes.

Being tall and fast are physical characteristics and not necessarily talent at all.

That's why no-one calls Jerry Mina or Walcott "talented" as opposed to having exceptional gifts in the respective areas above

Yeah but what ability are you specifically saying that comes naturally?

Size itself isn't a talent, but when it's coupled with dexterity then you have the freakish talents like Zlatan/Pogba. Because they're capable of foot work/nimbleness which is more natural for smaller players, which gives them a huge advantage. Same with pace, dribbling at pace is a lot harder to do and a lot harder to defend against.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

It does make me think, what was Scholes' peak as a player? I'd say 2006-08 but that might be relative recency bias. Both him and Giggs had weak spells in the middle of their careers before picking it up again with an indian summer at the end.

 

[starman]

As a individual, stats wise, probably yes, but Fergie would not have tolerated it and nor was Scholes ever that player chasing personal glory.

England is where the question mark will always be, as the team should have been built around him to flourish as much as possible, where it seemed he was always made to accommodate other players

 

[Rozay]

No. He had a great career, and won everything in that time.

 

[GoldanoGraham]

For me the the most gifted player England has produced - he was so good in the big games, scored such big goals, bossed so many midfields - the reason he wasn’t decorated was the following:
1. He was English
2. He was Small
3. He was Ginger
4. He didn’t talk to anyone

n this day and age what would he cost?

Remember - Paul Scholes - He Scores Goals

he was the best of that famous Class of ‘92

 

[Sandikan]

Yeah but what ability are you specifically saying that comes naturally?

Size itself isn't a talent, but when it's coupled with dexterity then you have the freakish talents like Zlatan/Pogba. Because they're capable of foot work/nimbleness which is more natural for smaller players, which gives them a huge advantage. Same with pace, dribbling at pace is a lot harder to do and a lot harder to defend against.

Football ability. He was a natural, where others have clearly had to work at it a lot more.

 

[PeteManic]

Easy answer is yes. Due to his personality. And possibly his asthma condition. But he did it all with United and is probably one of the top 15 players of all time at the club.

 

[Skills]

Football ability. He was a natural, where others have clearly had to work at it a lot more.

 

[Big Andy]

If Scholes was a bronzed Adonis with an 8 pack and cheekbones to die for, he’d have been as much of a show off as Beckham.

The fact he was a small, ugly ginger bloke from Oldham probably meant he shied away from all that sort of shite.

 

[Offside]

Well he was a pasty ginger who was very humble and not arsed about fame. If he looked and acted like Becks he’d be considered the greatest English midfielder of all time without any daft debates.