Did Paul Scholes underachieve relative to his talent?

[mancan92]

He was our best player for about a decade from a couple of years before Keane left. You must have a different idea of what “best” means. As I said those of us who rate him as one of the best ever (and there are a quite a few of us) don’t claim any more than an opinion.

As i said Scholes was my favourite player. But at no point in his career was he the tailsman or best player. He was a great player in a great team.

 

[OrcaFat]

As i said Scholes was my favourite player. But at no point in his career was he the tailsman or best player. He was a great player in a great team.

Not talisman - that’s more a personality thing. He sure was the best and most important player in the team though. I refer you to the several, most excellent, posts by Fortitude in this thread which hit the nail on the head.
He’s your favourite player and yet you don’t even see half of what he gave to us (which must lessen your enjoyment somewhat).

 

[Berbasbullet]

I used to like when Fergie would sub scholes on to see out the win and he would just take the absolute piss and keep possession at an unreal standard.

 

[RiqCantona]

Nah... he achieved a lot. There's no trophy that he hasn't won for United. But to some he's probably not rated as high as a Zidane or Pirlo or Xavi. I suppose there are a couple of things which would make some neutrals question his achievements:
- He only played in one club (team rather) all his life. He probably needed to play for another team in another league to cement his place as a great. He also retired way too early from international football - it could've done him well if he had managed to get a few more landmarks to his name for England.
- He's a very underrated footballer still with a very simple image. He didn't have the luxury cars or that showmanship that many others had. He kept things simple - and did the simple things amazingly.

I think Scholes is a United and England legend. But he deserved to be a world football legend.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

He's literally one of the most decorated players in British football history, so...

 

[Bobski]

One thing I would state that may count against him with some, his best performances tended to be reserved for PL matches rather than Europe. I always felt we were more reliant on Giggs in Europe and Scholes domestically. Not that Scholes did not have great games in Europe, he did, just not as frequently, and not so many against the top teams. Not starting either of the 09 or 11 final was probably a mistake from Fergie in hindsight, but fully justified given his form in both seasons.

 

[OrcaFat]

Scholes in 1999 was not the player he was later on. Due to the dynamics of the team he did not hold a regular place in the 1999 team. The midfield needed to be stronger in the away match at Juve, and plus Scholes was also on a yellow. Butt and Keane were the obvious choices with Becks and Giggs on the flanks.

He was a regular in 1999, he didn’t play every game but he was part of the best 11. Very much was made at the time about the fact that both Keane and Scholes were unavailable for the 99 CL final. It’s a bit of a miracle we won that game without them as the team was all over the place with Giggs on the right and Beckham basically being asked to play the Scholes role in the middle.

 

[McGrathsipan]

I really dont see the point in these threads.
Debating the merits of how a player was 20 years ago.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

As i said Scholes was my favourite player. But at no point in his career was he the tailsman or best player. He was a great player in a great team.

Agree, and despite scoring some truly great goals, he was never a flashy player. He was the ultimate team player.