His legs couldn't take all the running by the late stage of his career.
Did Paul Scholes underachieve relative to his talent?
- Thread starter Raees
- Start date
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..
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 Kurokoonly 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.
The thread title is proving provocative for some due to its bluntness, but if you think of it more along the lines of 'Could Fergie and England managers have used Scholes differently to get better output from him individually, in a way that may have benefited the team particularly against European/World opposition?' there is surely a debate to be had. The below post summaries my thoughts well; Scholes was a continental 'between the lines' player in more rigid English systems, he was great at various times throughout his career but rarely got to play those pure #10 and #6 roles in his prime:
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?
He was a bit of a victim of his own talent. He could have played in other positions that would have boosted him individually and meant that he was remembered like Gerrard/Lampard but he had a clear talent also in what they could not do to his level which was controlling games and I think SAF saw that as an integral part of his side/how they would dominate. So underachieving in terms of what he won as a collective? No. As an individual? Probably.
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.
Quotes such as the Xavi one in the OP kind of answers the question. Scholes has been mentioned by some of the best footballers of the last 25 years in interviews when quizzed on who their top rated players are. I believe Scholes was always underrated by the media/public and revered by managers and players alike. It's a bit unorthodox, but I'd say that makes him more successful.
Being English (and only partially representing the national team), a local lad playing around the corner from where he grew up, and happy to shy away from the media for his entire career probably doesn't bode well for his popularity outside of United fans. Scholes for me is one of the greatest players I've ever seen play. The calming, almost effortless ability he brought to United was so beautiful to watch. Then he'd pop up with a worldie of a volley out of nowhere. Look at how awful we were when he retired - he came back and instantly improved our squad after time away and with further age.
Unselfishly sacrificing himself positionally on multiple occasions for the betterment of the team should never be understated as well. He was surrounded by phenomenal players when younger which didn't make him stand out as much. His switch to CM and becoming the heart of the team with age is why he was regarded as world-class later on.
Would kill to have a 30 year old Scholesy forever.
Being English (and only partially representing the national team), a local lad playing around the corner from where he grew up, and happy to shy away from the media for his entire career probably doesn't bode well for his popularity outside of United fans. Scholes for me is one of the greatest players I've ever seen play. The calming, almost effortless ability he brought to United was so beautiful to watch. Then he'd pop up with a worldie of a volley out of nowhere. Look at how awful we were when he retired - he came back and instantly improved our squad after time away and with further age.
Unselfishly sacrificing himself positionally on multiple occasions for the betterment of the team should never be understated as well. He was surrounded by phenomenal players when younger which didn't make him stand out as much. His switch to CM and becoming the heart of the team with age is why he was regarded as world-class later on.
Would kill to have a 30 year old Scholesy forever.
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.
Scholes was a one-off and easily the best of his kind Man Utd and England have ever had, but Keane was more influential on the pitch in central midfield without any doubt.
Scholes was definitely superior to Gerrard and Lampard but Liverpool fans will argue how come Gerrard was voted into the PL team of the year 8 times, while Scholes was only voted in twice. I think that probably comes down to the fact Gerrard carried Liverpool on his own for many years similar to how Bryan Robson carried Utd on his own in the 80's, whereas Man Utd had so many stars who could win a game on their own on any given day. And Scholes was more of a Pirlo/Xavi type who controlled the tempo as opposed to the traditional English Roy of the Rovers box to box type.
Scholes major weakness being tackling of course, but in terms of controlling the tempo in central mid, England have never had, or may never have a player of that level again.
Scholes was definitely superior to Gerrard and Lampard but Liverpool fans will argue how come Gerrard was voted into the PL team of the year 8 times, while Scholes was only voted in twice. I think that probably comes down to the fact Gerrard carried Liverpool on his own for many years similar to how Bryan Robson carried Utd on his own in the 80's, whereas Man Utd had so many stars who could win a game on their own on any given day. And Scholes was more of a Pirlo/Xavi type who controlled the tempo as opposed to the traditional English Roy of the Rovers box to box type.
Scholes major weakness being tackling of course, but in terms of controlling the tempo in central mid, England have never had, or may never have a player of that level again.
Last edited:
Caf paralleling The Simpsons. Reminds me of the episode where Homer predicts the end of the world (sounds familiar) and in heaven he yells at Dean Martin "Screw you Dino! You squandered your gift!". Martin responds with a surprise "Squandered my gift? I made 68 albums.".
First two paragraphs are absolutely spot on.
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
I am a huge Scholes fan and this seems pretty accurate and fair. Great post.
Scholes was a very good player in an excellent side who played to his strengths. When he played for England, although still played exceptionally well, something was slightly lacking compared to playing for Utd. The fact he was moved about and couldnt lock a CM place down didnt help. In my opinion he achieved at club level, slightly under achieved at International. Was he the best at Utd? Thats up for debate, but if Robbo had have been 5-6 years younger, either he or Keane wouldnt have been there imo.
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.
If you were looking for the player you would replace Keane with, it's Gerrard, without question," Ferguson told The Sunday Times. "He has become the most influential player in England, bar none.
"Not that Vieira lacks anything, but I think that Gerrard does more for his team than Vieira does.
"To me, Gerrard is Keane; he is now where Keane was when Roy came to us in 1994. I've watched him quite a lot, and everywhere the ball is, he seems to be there.
"He's got that unbelievable engine, desire, determination. Anyone would take Gerrard.
"Vieira has done that job for Arsenal for two or three years. But you can see Gerrard rising and rising."
except when Fergie preferred to play Nicky Butt and Roy Keane was first on the team sheet.
Both Keane and Vieira were higher rated but its all opinions. Some like the hipster stance.
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.
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 games
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?
The Elephant in the room but I feel Xavi's comments have thrown people off
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.
Perhaps some credit should go to Queiroz?
Perhaps he helped convince SAF of this from a continental/tactical perspective.
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).
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.
Well, we’ll have to differ there, opinions and preferences on unprovable things.
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.
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.
Spain too. Once Xavi retired it was over
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.
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.
@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.
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.
I agree with the view that Fergie did not know or did not use him to his best ability. To me Scholes would have been brilliant in a diamond with him on top of the diamond. But United did not play that way. Playing that way he would have the chance to arrive late in the box, to create those chances and also shoot from long range. Fergie tried to play him as the second striker which was not a natural position for him. He though played very well in a deep lying position, his tackling was atrocious and he was a small man and have asthma so his engine was never good enough to play in that position.
As for England, Sven was in awe of Beckham, but he should have been either dropped or Gerrard put on the left with Lampard in the holding position and Scholes pushed forward. I would say a stronger manager would have got all four of them to play in the same team without putting Scholes on the left.
As for England, Sven was in awe of Beckham, but he should have been either dropped or Gerrard put on the left with Lampard in the holding position and Scholes pushed forward. I would say a stronger manager would have got all four of them to play in the same team without putting Scholes on the left.
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.
I wonder why he said that!!!
Probably the same reason as Keane said Brian Clough was the best manager he ever played for.
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.
Gerrard 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.
very reasonable post sir
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 believe Paul Scholes won 10 league titles with United, 2 Champions Leagues, 3 FA Cups and I don't know about other trophies. Some haul..
Himself and Keane were the best midfield pair I have seen for United.
He didn't underachieve.
However England never got the best out of him as England managers never played him in his best position imo.
They played Gerrard & Lampard in the middle with Scholes wide.
Of course as an Irishman I don't mind that in the slightest!
Johnny Giles, who is a fair judge of talent, included Paul in his best English XI which is no mean compliment.
A little genius the Ginger Prince.
Himself and Keane were the best midfield pair I have seen for United.
He didn't underachieve.
However England never got the best out of him as England managers never played him in his best position imo.
They played Gerrard & Lampard in the middle with Scholes wide.
Of course as an Irishman I don't mind that in the slightest!
Johnny Giles, who is a fair judge of talent, included Paul in his best English XI which is no mean compliment.
A little genius the Ginger Prince.
Fair 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 disagree about Butt being better all around. Scholes > Butt at all times IMO
But the point is I don't recall Gerrard, Xavi or Lampard being left out for "tactical reasons". if they are fit, they should play. Why is it nitpicking? Should your best Midfielder (or the GOAT) not play in all important games against other top sides?
The point is out of all our midfielders, around that time, Scholes was the most expendable and we won a league title when he was out injured for a while. 1996 and 97 Butt played more league games. Beckham was the superstar, Keane the talisman, Giggs the wizzkid (although by then he was no kid).
The Gerrard Lampard experiment for England became tiresome and showed a lack of tactical nous. They all kept saying "of course they can play together". really they could of done Carrick, Hargreaves and Lampard with Gerrard on the right like he played for Liverpool. They tried scotty parker as well.
It pains me to say but I think Gerrard impressed me most of the 3 you mentioned and the cnut has scored 5 times at Old Trafford against us (all penalties though)! He also popped up with key moments in finals as well which makes him a clutch player.
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.
What kind of setup do you think would have allowed him to knit it all together?
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.
Keane
Ronaldo Nedved Scholes Giggs
Ruud
Keane Scholes
Ronaldo Rivaldo Giggs
Ruud
Or 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
Scholes
Ha ha! Yes I’m sure there’s truth in that, there’s bad blood between those two.
(Having said that, Clough was exceptional. Still regarded by many as the best manager England never had.)
Good stuff. I like two B2B setup least as the link between the midfield and front three might not be the best.
One more point on Scholes. In the Veron era I'm pretty sure he played on the left on occasions with Giggs in behind Ruud. It would be interesting to see what his playmaking was like in that position when he was that bit deeper.