elmo
Can never have too many Eevees
His legs couldn't take all the running by the late stage of his career.Yes these rather left his game which was surprising given how cleanly he struck the ball and his early attacking instincts.
His legs couldn't take all the running by the late stage of his career.Yes these rather left his game which was surprising given how cleanly he struck the ball and his early attacking instincts.
And having 11 league titles, 3 cups, 2 league cups, club world champion, intercontinental cup, 5 charity shields and only 2 CL. This is more than a most teams in the league have collectively. But yeah underachieved..Underachieving with two CL medals? Jaysus you have high standards
He is asthmatic - not a trivial condition for top sportspeople. I don't know if you have included this in the 'physical challenges'. Under the circumstances, 499 EPL appearances and 107 goals is pretty good.This is actually a good thread - dare to point out things critically about Scholes which tend to be downplayed, and generally will get mocked as we see here except those who really ready OP carefully and think about it well.
Scholes is a really peculiar player.
If we only look at his talent alone, he should be among the best and definitely should be the "leading man" in any team. But then at United nor international level, he didn't or rather chose to not be one despite easily capable to be that kind of player. He's not even the "second" player leading the team. It's down to his personality in making others shine more than him while he is easily satisfied doing his part, away from the limelight, hiding in the shadow so to speak. He was never the worse player not almost always seek to be the best, but often among the very best performers, except there's almost always one player that shines more than him, often this is by his designed. There are only very few games where arguably we can say he's motm, by popular votes. He will also tend to step-up only when it matters, more of a team player that makes the team perform more, and not to use the team to make himself looks more good.
Liken this with anime, then he is like Kuroko only fewer people in comparison will appreciate and notice his importance to the team, and genius with football.
Only looking at his talent, I think he underachieved. Because he can easily become the "main guy".
But if also consider his personality and other "issues", then I would say he over-achieved.
Credit should also be given to the manager SAF himself. Managing this strange player with physical "problems/challenges" and certain "mindset/mental state" to achieve those top achievements he made is just great. I bet different manager would find problems in how to manage Scholes. He was very delicate. SAF also never scolded Scholes, many players have came out to reveal about that. I think most manager would not risk playing the kid Scholes at all especially in this physical league, and would just give up (this is before he build up his good reputation at United).
TLDR/
Purely talents -- underachieved.
Overall, consider all -- overachieved.
If you find questioning Fergie and Scholes as a player too painful surely the disgraceful wasted opportunity that was the last 18 months of his international career is worthy of discussion?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...
That sounds like it should be true but he was actually our best player for several years and all those other guys you mention had Scholes to thank for much if what they achieved. Defending and goal scoring is easier if your midfielder controls the game, doesn’t give the ball away, has the opposition chasing shadows and Travellers them out, and delivers quality into dangerous areas. Scholes did all that for years even if people preferred to talk about someone else.He was a really good player over a long period of time but was never the key man, a leader or the talisman for any of his teams.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions, even if I completely disagree with yours!That sounds like it should be true but he was actually our best player for several years and all those other guys you mention had Scholes to thank for much if what they achieved. Defending and goal scoring is easier if your midfielder controls the game, doesn’t give the ball away, has the opposition chasing shadows and Travellers them out, and delivers quality into dangerous areas. Scholes did all that for years even if people preferred to talk about someone else.
The people who name Scholes as the best they’ve played with, or against, have nothing to gain by picking him out over any other player. And the fact is they say it without hesitation. The endorsement that sticks out for me is Ian Wright who played with and against Scholes and named him instantly as the best he’s ever seen.
I’m not fussed who made the headlines, Scholes was absolutely key for over a decade.
First two paragraphs are absolutely spot on.What a crazy thread! My favourite part is the insinuation that Fergie didn't utilise him well or make the best of his talents! That is gold!
Fergie set a midfield up so that a short, slow, asthmatic kid with no athleticism, defensive instincts or any ability to tackle was able to play central midfield in a 4-4-2 in possibly the best midfield combination in Premier League history.
Why didn't Scholes play as a deep lying playmaker in 1999? Because Keane was far better at controlling tempo than him at that stage of his career and Scholes was useless defensively. With maturity, he developed his understanding of controlling the game and his positioning defensively and in that time period the game changed and became less physical which allowed him to play deeper.
It's all well and good having these quotes from Xavi and Zidane about how great he was but Scholes is quoted as saying that throughout his career the only genuine interest he had from an overseas club was from Inter, who were a poor team at the time. Strange that for one of the greatest players in EPL history.
I loved Scholes as a player. I always thought he was extremely underrated during his career, but the overrating he's had since he retired is incredible.
Technically, he was excellent but he didn't really have the personality or leadership quality to take ownership of a game. He developed the ability to control tempo later in his career but even then when he was the main man in midfield, it was a team built on a top class defence and the individual brilliance of the forwards. Midfield was the weak link of the team.
I think you hit the nail on the head mostly. some will tell you Scholes was the GOAT and he had great talent but as you said, he was constantly adapting his game to Fergie's needs so I feel he didn't master one position. Other fans mistakenly believe Scholes was striker, b2b, Registra all at once when in fact he was learning on the job and played a different role at different points of his career. I feel he achieved what was expected of him and is relative ability in his position/role. Whether you think he would of been more should he been allowed to develop one position, thats another interesting theory. put it simply though, he wasn't the best midfielder of the last 15 years since he wasn't number one in his own team
'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
I am a huge Scholes fan and this seems pretty accurate and fair. Great post.
'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
If Roy Keane was United's main man in midfield and our own manager said this about Gerrard, then why can't Gerrard be lumped in with Scholes? This delusion that Scholes was on another level to the likes of Gerrard and Lampard is a major part of the problem.Most talented player of his generation.
Third most decorated player in the English game.
3rd in all time United appearances.
He’s underrated I think, not by United fans but the wider English football community. Gerrard and Lampard where never in the same class as Scholes and it irks me when they get lumped in there with him.
The only thing he ever underachieved at was international level but then again who didn’t?
except when Fergie preferred to play Nicky Butt and Roy Keane was first on the team sheet.Underrated. Genius.
Best midfielder of the Premier League era in my opinion. There are players who have reached levels close to him but he would be the first name on a midfield team sheet for me, and was for Fergie more often than not.
I don’t think he underachieved, certainly not domestically.
England should have realised what they had with him and built the team around him, without a doubt in my mind, if it meant benching Gerrard or Lampard or whoever else then it should have been so.
Its a phenomenon. No one doubts his quality but he is the only player I recall that was routinely dropped by his manager for other players in his position but was better than everyone in his position simultaneously.What a crazy thread! My favourite part is the insinuation that Fergie didn't utilise him well or make the best of his talents! That is gold!
Fergie set a midfield up so that a short, slow, asthmatic kid with no athleticism, defensive instincts or any ability to tackle was able to play central midfield in a 4-4-2 in possibly the best midfield combination in Premier League history.
Why didn't Scholes play as a deep lying playmaker in 1999? Because Keane was far better at controlling tempo than him at that stage of his career and Scholes was useless defensively. With maturity, he developed his understanding of controlling the game and his positioning defensively and in that time period the game changed and became less physical which allowed him to play deeper.
It's all well and good having these quotes from Xavi and Zidane about how great he was but Scholes is quoted as saying that throughout his career the only genuine interest he had from an overseas club was from Inter, who were a poor team at the time. Strange that for one of the greatest players in EPL history.
I loved Scholes as a player. I always thought he was extremely underrated during his career, but the overrating he's had since he retired is incredible.
Technically, he was excellent but he didn't really have the personality or leadership quality to take ownership of a game. He developed the ability to control tempo later in his career but even then when he was the main man in midfield, it was a team built on a top class defence and the individual brilliance of the forwards. Midfield was the weak link of the team.
I was going to post former players quotes on Gerrard but they were even more cringey and I don;t wanna come off as a Gerrard fanboy but guys like Ronaldinho claimed Gerrard was up there with Ronaldo and Messi! it's mad. Quotes by players are worth more than International and Champions League performances nowadays. actual gamesScholes is better best because xavi said so.
It's so cringey. He's throwing a compliment, which is complimentary coming from xavi but let's not use it as "xavi says so it must be true"
Scholes for me is underrated and overrated at the same time. Those that doesnt rate him kinda tend to think he just a midfield. Those that rates him seems to think he's pirlo and platini rolled into one.
For me scholes is a brilliant midfielder, suits our tactics to a tee, and the whole chemistry with giggs beckham butt keane carrick plays to his strenght.
But goat category midfielder he's not.
He is both underrated and grossly overrated at the same time. I do query why you value him the best of the lot but then wouldn't pick him ahead of the others? does that make sense?Under rated by fans of every other club and over rated by most man united fans.
He was an amazing player and it is an insult seeing social media top 10 CM’s of the PL era etc and seeing Scholes near the bottom behind Keane, Gerrard, Lampard, Viera, KDB. For me Scholes was better than all of them, but I would still probably have Keane in my team before Scholes.
United fans on the other hand tend to go a bit OTT and speak about him like he was better than Bobby Charlton or Johann Cruyff.
The Elephant in the room but I feel Xavi's comments have thrown people offIt was nothing to do with that. It was because they were talismanic players who were pivotal to the team's success and how the team played.
Xavi was always in Barcelona's top 2 players and the key man for Spain. He was the embodiment of how both teams played. Pirlo was the fulcrum of that Milan team under Ancelotti with the midfield diamond and seen as a key element of the Juve and Italy teams.
Zidane (while I believe was massively overrated) was always seen as the marquee player or key attacking weapon for Juve, Real and France.
For United, in the title battles vs Arsenal it was Keane vs Vieira or Van Nistelrooy vs Henry. In the treble winning season it was Yorke and Cole or Beckham's delivery. In the next great United side it was the defensive unit and Ronaldo/Rooney in attack.
He was a really good player over a long period of time but was never the key man, a leader or the talisman for any of his teams.
Xavi wouldn’t have been picked ahead of Iniesta or Messi, it really has given those players an aura they otherwise wouldn’t have had, excellent though they are.It was nothing to do with that. It was because they were talismanic players who were pivotal to the team's success and how the team played.
Xavi was always in Barcelona's top 2 players and the key man for Spain. He was the embodiment of how both teams played. Pirlo was the fulcrum of that Milan team under Ancelotti with the midfield diamond and seen as a key element of the Juve and Italy teams.
Zidane (while I believe was massively overrated) was always seen as the marquee player or key attacking weapon for Juve, Real and France.
For United, in the title battles vs Arsenal it was Keane vs Vieira or Van Nistelrooy vs Henry. In the treble winning season it was Yorke and Cole or Beckham's delivery. In the next great United side it was the defensive unit and Ronaldo/Rooney in attack.
He was a really good player over a long period of time but was never the key man, a leader or the talisman for any of his teams.
Perhaps some credit should go to Queiroz?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.
Completely agree. I don't think Fergie previously had the confidence in doing it to test it out on his own without a guy like Queiroz. Furthermore like a previous poster stated, Keane declining played a big part in that decision, even though I disagree with the notion that Scholes was not as good as Keane deeper at that point. For me, Keane peaked in 2001 and even though his decline was slow, it was still there. If given the chance, we could have used Scholes deeper then and possibly won the title in 02 as well instead of shunting him behind Ruud ( where he was still really productive-possibly even better here than as the attacking box to box midfielder).Perhaps some credit should go to Queiroz?
Perhaps he helped convince SAF of this from a continental/tactical perspective.
Nonsense. Xavi was the single most important player in that Barcelona era. The revolution started under Rijkaard when Messi and Iniesta weren't even in the team.Xavi wouldn’t have been picked ahead of Iniesta or Messi, it really has given those players an aura they otherwise wouldn’t have had, excellent though they are.
Anyway they are all wonderful players and these kinds of comparisons always end up dragging someone down which I don’t really like. I do think winning the World Cup makes a player who is already excellent a little overpraised sometimes, but each of these players was a joy to watch.
Well, we’ll have to differ there, opinions and preferences on unprovable things.Nonsense. Xavi was the single most important player in that Barcelona era. The revolution started under Rijkaard when Messi and Iniesta weren't even in the team.
You can see the difference in the way the team played as soon as Xavi left. They changed the style of play almost completely because nobody else could dictate the game in that way, even with Iniesta and Messi still in the team.
Spain too. Once Xavi retired it was overNonsense. Xavi was the single most important player in that Barcelona era. The revolution started under Rijkaard when Messi and Iniesta weren't even in the team.
You can see the difference in the way the team played as soon as Xavi left. They changed the style of play almost completely because nobody else could dictate the game in that way, even with Iniesta and Messi still in the team.
There is always a lot of discussion over styles of play and which style is more effective in various eras.Well, we’ll have to differ there, opinions and preferences on unprovable things.
Completely agree.Spain too. Once Xavi retired it was over
Fabulous player, loved watching him. All these players we’re discussing, they’re ones who seem to picture the game in ways I’ll never understand.There is always a lot of discussion over styles of play and which style is more effective in various eras.
To me, a style is only as successful as those that implement it by carrying it out on the pitch. Tiki taka was dominant in both club and international football as Barcelona and Spain dominated and changed the outlook of how football should be played in that era.
Tiki taka would not have been effective at the top level without Xavi. He was the absolute master of it.
What is provable is how Barcelona and Spain couldn't continue with that style after he left/retired.
Completely agree.
Yeah, that’s not accurate. We lacked depth in midfield at times and SAF had to adapt personnel and tactics depending who we played but has nothing to do with how good Scholes was. SAF named him as the only world class CM he ever had - now, his opinion could be “wrong” but I’ll take it over yours.Everyone's entitled to their opinions, even if I completely disagree with yours!
The United midfield was substandard for many years while Scholes was first choice. There was a period where United had to change system for every big game and add a Fletcher or Gibson in midfield because otherwise the first choice 2 would get completely overrun.
From the time Keane left the club to the end of Fergie's tenure the midfield was the weakest area of the team. The only period that was arguable was before Vidic was signed when the defence was equally shambolic.
I wonder why he said that!!!Yeah, that’s not accurate. We lacked depth in midfield at times and SAF had to adapt personnel and tactics depending who we played but has nothing to do with how good Scholes was. SAF named him as the only world class CM he ever had - now, his opinion could be “wrong” but I’ll take it over yours.
There was talking off Xavi being sold(mainly to us actually) but Guardiola convinced him to stay and assured him to be a central part of his team.Nonsense. Xavi was the single most important player in that Barcelona era. The revolution started under Rijkaard when Messi and Iniesta weren't even in the team.
You can see the difference in the way the team played as soon as Xavi left. They changed the style of play almost completely because nobody else could dictate the game in that way, even with Iniesta and Messi still in the team.
Gerrard and Lampard were both arguably as good as Scholes but different types of player.If Roy Keane was United's main man in midfield and our own manager said this about Gerrard, then why can't Gerrard be lumped in with Scholes? This delusion that Scholes was on another level to the likes of Gerrard and Lampard is a major part of the problem.
very reasonable post sirGerrard and Lampard were both arguably as good as Scholes but different types of player.
I can understand SAF enthusing about Gerrard - he was amazing - but he lacked Keane’s positional intelligence and was not as effective as Viera either as a CM against top teams. Rafa preferred to play him on the right but probably he was more suited to a midfield three.
Gerrard was the antithesis of Scholes, all dynamism, power and force of personality, generally more eye catching and, for sure, difficult to leave out.
However, in the years after Scholes retired from England he got better and better and a CM pairing of Hargreaves and Scholes with Gerrard and Lampard coming off the bench would have been much more suited to international football against the best teams. Hell, Capello tried to bring Scholes back at 36.
But them’s all ifs-and-maybes. In the end, I think you could say Scholes should have been a bracket above Lamps and Gerrard but based on what actually happened, you can barely split the three of them.
I get that and its a fair point but what about in 1999 when Scholes was left out of the starting line up in both games in Italy versus Juve and Inter?@Stacks
Sure but there’s always a call for required rotation. Scholes was in another stratosphere to Butt (who I actually rate highly) and Keane was the captain and Scholes was younger coming through so no surprise Keane started almost every game in that period, he was our talisman... But again Scholes was unquestionably more talented and went onto have a more decorated career than both combined most likely.
A player so good that SAF brought him back out of retirement willingly and he had a great spell (as expected) so that was a masterstroke. Not many players could do that, retire and then come back with the world of scrutiny on you for doing so, then proceed to be the complete baller you always were.
Single biggest wasted talent by England by a country mile. At a time where England had an embarrassment of riches in midfield, I would have sacrificed half of them to make sure Scholes was on the pitch before anybody else.
Fair points in this post and others as well.I get that and its a fair point but what about in 1999 when Scholes was left out of the starting line up in both games in Italy versus Juve and Inter?
He was 25 and they were 2 of our most critical games of the season and he wasn't trusted to start. He came on and bagged 2 goals vs Inter but surely that wasn't the master plan?
It just seems weird that everyone claims he was the GOAT when often he was the one sacrificed (benched or subbed) and then the International career leaves little to talk about. He should of been the talisman for both club and country by the way people rave about him now. He is talked about in the same breath as Xavi and placed levels above Lampard and Gerrard which I feel is unjustified and hyperbolic if you really think about their roles for club and country
I disagree about Butt being better all around. Scholes > Butt at all times IMOFair points in this post and others as well.
Butt was the first from that famed group to cement a place in the first team*. Butt from 95-00 was arguably the better all-around player to Scholes. Scholes went to have a far better career and become the much better player by some distance. That's not the argument, of course.
The 99 knockout round away matches were clearly tactical as Scholes started both home legs against the Italian clubs, taking a 2-0 lead in the QF and a 1-1 draw in the SF. Nitpicking on the away legs leaves out obvious reasons. That version of Scholes was nowhere near the finished midfield product he came to be by 2006ish but I'm sure you know that. Also, he scored the loan goal in the away leg vs Inter, not two goals, which ended Inter's fading hope and sent United through.
He is better than Gerrard and Lampard for me. Gerrard had more "energy" and persona but was also a known glory-hunting hero type that sometimes pulled it off but also put his side at a disadvantage at times (and had a massive penchant for diving). If we swap Lampard and Scholes there's probably not much difference for Chelsea, a better creator/passer for sure though Scholes likely doesnt take the PKs that helped "up" Lampard's goal tallies. A goal is a goal no doubt but any player would add to his goal numbers if taking/converting penalties.
As for England, any manager worth a damn should have known in advance that Gerrard-Lampard could not hack it as a duo. Gerrard-Scholes or Lampard-Scholes would have have been disaster at the time.
* I don't count Giggs as part of the Class of 92 - he made 38 league and 51 overall appearances in 91-92. It's just shoehorning Giggs into that famed youth class for obvious reasons. Not that my opinion counts but Giggs was a class or two ahead of that group. Argument for a different thread.
I think that 2001-2004 period was where Scholes could have knitted it altogether.Great vid.
One quibble, I remember the dispute with Veron being with Keane rather than Scholes. Keane was the main man in midfield rather than Scholes so it was really a Keane Veron dispute. I also remember Veron being better alongside Butt too which I think strengthens the point.
I think the ideal role for Scholes at his physical peak would have been in a three man midfield with a DM and hard working attacking 8/10. Something like --
Nedved Scholes
Butt
It would allow him to dictate the play and also give him freedom to attack. Whether he would have been able to combine all his versions into an all conquering hybrid I'm not sure, but this I think would have been the best platform for it.
What kind of setup do you think would have allowed him to knit it all together?I think that 2001-2004 period was where Scholes could have knitted it altogether.
During this phase he has elements of Iniesta and Xavi and a Bergkamp as ridiculous as that sounds. He’s super nimble, his not charging around like a mad man.. there’s more composure in his play and his goalscoring was at its peak.
Yet paradoxically it coincided with the worst use of him from a club perspective (although statistically it was his best period - I just think we didn’t allow him to utilise his regista skillset enough and over focused on his goal scoring contributions) and whilst Sven used him well initially - he wasted him at Euro 2004.
I think the one you mentioned was a good shout.What kind of setup do you think would have allowed him to knit it all together?
Ha ha! Yes I’m sure there’s truth in that, there’s bad blood between those two.I wonder why he said that!!!
Probably the same reason as Keane said Brian Clough was the best manager he ever played for.
Good stuff. I like two B2B setup least as the link between the midfield and front three might not be the best.I think the one you mentioned was a good shout.
Scholes needed a tall rangy CDM who could be the legs for him, as defensively he was lesser than a Xavi due to positional lapses and also he had a greater tendency to get forward.
So Hargreaves or Carrick let season just say in an ideal world and in that 2001-2004 era, Keane or Butt will suffice.
Now we all know that two man midfield was simply not strong enough to consistently win the elite encounters in CL so we definitely need another body in there. Furthermore as I mentioned in the video Beckham was becoming more and more egocentric and wanted to be at the centre of things and thus there was no longer width down the right which affected Scholes as he was not able to run the show without interference so perhaps selling Becks earlier might have also helped.
The character and style of that third body is key because it needs to be someone who can complement Scholes without overshadowing him and affecting his natural game. If you put a Zidane there, I think it hinders Scholes who would suffer from an inferiority complex and Zidane roams around too much and is also a playmaker.
That is why Nedved who wasn’t really a playmaker but was an all action AM who was industrious too would have gelled well with Scholes and also Nedved wasn’t a big ego either so I think Scholes would have appreciated that.
Another player who could have combined well is a Rivaldo, who didn’t interfere with the regista aspect and was more direct than Scholes in final third but had the flexibility to gel with other stars.
KeaneOr you could play two box to box midfielders behind Scholes and that way he’s allowed to roam around without defensive responsibility but the key difference is that he keeps the responsibility to run the entire team from a playmaking point of view.
Ronaldo Nedved Scholes Giggs
Ruud
Keane Scholes
Ronaldo Rivaldo Giggs
Ruud
Essien Keane
Scholes