Did Paul Scholes underachieve relative to his talent?

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,406
Location
Inside right
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.
Without Paul Scholes, the side you're talking about literally does not function. He was easily the most important single component in that team as he dictated and controlled our game; linked from the back and supplied the front line. He was deferred to by the entire team and was there to kill the oppositions thrust in the first 20 or so minutes before effectively taking over the game. Ronaldo, Rio, Rooney and Vidic earned rightful plaudits for their superb contributions, but Scholes was the brains and heart of the unit.

There's a reason why that Scholes earns the most plaudits of all incarnations and that's because he was the mesh for the entire team.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
9,662
This idea of being the "Man" is such an American concept, along with interminable GOAT lists and rankings, putting the individual before the team. Scholes(and Giggs) adapted his game for 20 years to be what the team needed for them to keep winning. If they were more individually focused, legacy obsessed, perhaps they seek alternative roles which allow greater individual acclaim, quite possibly sacrificing team success.
 

POF

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
3,795
Without Paul Scholes, the side you're talking about literally does not function. He was easily the most important single component in that team as he dictated and controlled our game; linked from the back and supplied the front line. He was deferred to by the entire team and was there to kill the oppositions thrust in the first 20 or so minutes before effectively taking over the game. Ronaldo, Rio, Rooney and Vidic earned rightful plaudits for their superb contributions, but Scholes was the brains and heart of the unit.

There's a reason why that Scholes earns the most plaudits of all incarnations and that's because he was the mesh for the entire team.
They functioned just fine in 2007/08 and 2008/09 winning titles both seasons when he played in just over half of the league games.

In that era, United were not creative from midfield and had minimal penetration through the centre. The attack was down to individual quality and the absolute genius of Ronaldo.

Of course the midfield was better when Scholes was there than without him. He was an excellent player. But it was a functional area of a team that was built on a rock solid defence and individual brilliance in attack.

It fulfilled a similar role to Liverpool's this season.
 

Renegade

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,393
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.

Essien Keane
Scholes

Wasn’t Nedved more effective from a inside left position?
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,406
Location
Inside right
They functioned just fine in 2007/08 and 2008/09 winning titles both seasons when he played in just over half of the league games.

In that era, United were not creative from midfield and had minimal penetration through the centre. The attack was down to individual quality and the absolute genius of Ronaldo.

Of course the midfield was better when Scholes was there than without him. He was an excellent player. But it was a functional area of a team that was built on a rock solid defence and individual brilliance in attack.

It fulfilled a similar role to Liverpool's this season.
You're playing him down in a way I bet you wouldn't with Xavi and reducing his role to that of a bit-part player instead of the fundamental cog and conduit in the team.

He was par the greatest retainer in football during that period, a fundamental cog in what was considered our great team because of the control he had over proceedings. Killing the opposition's lustre and desire to even press was all Scholes, and the threat of him opening up the field when not pressed left opposing midfields with a conundrum as to what to do with regard press, or sit off in anticipation of where the ball was going. By keeping so much of the central core of opposing sides honest, the space ahead of him, for others in our team, became something else entirely.

Scrambling for victories and muddling through is nothing like having the control and class to dominate, which is something else Scholes brought to that team - control and class in equal measure.

A side winning through is not the only measure of them, which is why we can clearly differentiate the vintage and pedigree of them by how the victories were achieved.

Scholes at his best during that period made United a side for the ages. By naming those around him and not the heartbeat of the team itself, you're creating a break in logic.
 

POF

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
3,795
You're playing him down in a way I bet you wouldn't with Xavi and reducing his role to that of a bit-part player instead of the fundamental cog and conduit in the team.

He was par the greatest retainer in football during that period, a fundamental cog in what was considered our great team because of the control he had over proceedings. Killing the opposition's lustre and desire to even press was all Scholes, and the threat of him opening up the field when not pressed left opposing midfields with a conundrum as to what to do with regard press, or sit off in anticipation of where the ball was going. By keeping so much of the central core of opposing sides honest, the space ahead of him, for others in our team, became something else entirely.

Scrambling for victories and muddling through is nothing like having the control and class to dominate, which is something else Scholes brought to that team - control and class in equal measure.

A side winning through is not the only measure of them, which is why we can clearly differentiate the vintage and pedigree of them by how the victories were achieved.

Scholes at his best during that period made United a side for the ages. By naming those around him and not the heartbeat of the team itself, you're creating a break in logic.
Of course I wouldn't because that Barcelona team was completely built on possession and midfield dominance, to which Xavi was the key.

The United team was not.
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,406
Location
Inside right
Of course I wouldn't because that Barcelona team was completely built on possession and midfield dominance, to which Xavi was the key.

The United team was not.
So what are you putting forth? That we played how? Because you seem to be omitting the cornerstone (literally) of how we asserted ourself during that period, which, I have to say, completely plays down the role Paul Scholes played and the absolute deference and reverence there was to him in that team by everyone in it.

'Best' can come down to a lot of things, but most important, as in, what makes the team function, narrows the field significantly.

EDIT: Let's add Pirlo to this, beings as they're the triumverate most readily associated for both the era they played, and delivered, in. So accepting the notion of Xavi in a total possession-based team, what would you state Pirlo's influence over his teams to be in relation to what Scholes did?
 
Last edited:

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
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.
 

The holy trinity 68

The disparager
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
5,790
Location
Manchester
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?
That is a perfectly valid question, but is easily answered. I would only have Keane ahead of Scholes because even though Scholes was more talented, Keane had the grit, determination, work ethic and never say die attitude that got the best out of everyone around him. Keane was also a top technical player, beyond the mental attributes that I have never seen replicated , he was a brilliant passer always moving the ball forward, was a brilliant box to box player in his younger days and was a superb ball winning midfielder as well. He wasn't all just bravado, hard man and work ethic he was more than that.

What Scholes was as a player especially in his later years was sheer genius, but Keane would win you more games in my opinion. In the last 20 years you could find similar players to Scholes in Xavi and Pirlo and to a lesser extent Modric. But there was no one like Keane.
 

Isotope

Ten Years a Cafite
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
23,554
People might argue that Schweinsteiger is as good as Keano. Also none is similar to Scholes too, if you include his goalscoring ability. Xavi, Pirlo, and Modric just don't have that.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,903
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
That is a perfectly valid question, but is easily answered. I would only have Keane ahead of Scholes because even though Scholes was more talented, Keane had the grit, determination, work ethic and never say die attitude that got the best out of everyone around him. Keane was also a top technical player, beyond the mental attributes that I have never seen replicated , he was a brilliant passer always moving the ball forward, was a brilliant box to box player in his younger days and was a superb ball winning midfielder as well. He wasn't all just bravado, hard man and work ethic he was more than that.

What Scholes was as a player especially in his later years was sheer genius, but Keane would win you more games in my opinion. In the last 20 years you could find similar players to Scholes in Xavi and Pirlo and to a lesser extent Modric. But there was no one like Keane.
IMO that makes Keane a better player. Its like when people say players who rely on physical attributes are not as good as more technical ones. The reality is which attributes are the most important"? or perhaps Scholes strengths are not more important than Keane so maybe we need to value Keane's higher. Scholes was more technical than Vieira and more of a genius but Vieira was widely regarded the better CM at the time (cue lots telling me he wasn't because Vieria said Arsenal feared him).

By the way did you say Scholesey was better than all the others or just more talented?
 

Needham

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
11,747
Amazing this thread was allowed to stand. I've started far dafter ones that incurred warnings.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
Maybe the question should be did he over achieve considering his size and asthma?

I think maybe look at his goal record compared to Lampard and Gerrard and think "why was he so good" but the way united played was rarely through the middle directly.

He supplied the passes to Giggs/Beckham/Cantona/Yorke etc who then got the assist directly. He was the pre assister so to speak.

Anyway this is why I'm not a huge fan of stats in football, you only need to see how he played and the influence he had on the game. For him to take a poor touch or misplace a pass you'd genuinely be in shock. I wish we had a young Scholes now, would love to see Liverpool/City try and press him :lol:
 

freeurmind

weak willed
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,883
Underacheive compared to who? Pirlo also has 2 UCLs, Zidane one. I suppose you could say to Xavi who has four but he played alongside the player most consider to be the best of that generation if not all time.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,519
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa

'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
He never under achieved. He just didn't have the king of game that breeds regular Balon for wins. It also never helped his cause that United never dominated Europe as a team. Plus England flattered to deceive.
 

jeff_goldblum

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,917
Underachieved isn't the right word, I think underutilised would be a better way to put it.

Simply put, none of the teams Scholes played in were set up to utilise the full range of his talents, and he certainly would have looked better in teams that were. Xavi is widely considered to be the best midfielder of his generation and one of the best of all time, but there's absolutely no chance he'd be in that conversation had he been playing for Fergie's United and England instead of Pep's Barcelona and Spain. To be clear, that's no slight on Fergie, his job was to set up teams which won, not teams which suited the playstyle of 1 player out of the 11 on the pitch.
 

Devil81

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
6,646
Loved the young Scholes me, the guy who wasn't getting the headlines Beckham and co were getting but kept scoring for fun whenever given an opportunity. Remember going away with my dad to Boundary park and watching him bag two in what I think was his breakthrough season.

Anyone saying he underachieved is insane as well, his list of honours is insane and two Champions league medals is more than most can say they've achieved.
 

0le

Full Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
5,806
Location
UK
Not at all. He won everything at club level and international football is a poor indicator of whether a player is successful or not. Winning "just" two CL trophies is an achievement, not an underachievement. Zidane and Davids won one CL and Pirlo won 2. Winning 11 titles is incredible, given the challenge from Arsenal, Chelsea and later City.

Scholes record:
PL x 11
FA Cup x 3
League Cup x 2
CL x 2
 

Pretzels81

Not Salty…
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1,766
With the NT, for sure.

But not with Utd. He was instrumental in the Leagues of 99-01 and gave us the direct ticked to the 2008 UCL final.
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
Look, the guy was a great player but honestly, he never had the ability to be that 'great' of a player. At the end of the day he's a central midfielder, that can keep and pass the ball well. He's not some mythical genius like a Gascloigne who'd take over games.

Players like him have become fashionable so overrating him is easy. Xavi, Modric, Scholes, Falcao and Pirlo were all really great players. Achieved a great deal in the game but they all have limitations that true playmakers don't/didn't have.

All this talk about him being used out of position is excuses. He was a great player well before Gerrard and Lampard became relevant and his weaknesses on that scene were all on show at tournaments like Euro 2000 where real magicians like the likes of Rui Costa would stroll past him without second thought.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,332
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
The plaudits he gets from players are an insult. He should have been a zidane instead he turned out to be a hipsters choice. He had more talent in his little toe than Keane had in his whole body, but I never saw him grab a game by the scruff of the neck like Keane did. We had bad midfield problems when Keane went to Celtic and Scholes was still playing. A player who was purported to be as good as him should have shored things up. His attempts at commentary and footballer management have shown him to be very ordinary.
Judging his footballing ability on his performance while carrying out two completely unrelated tasks? :confused: :lol:
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,332
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
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."
These are quotes based on what Fergie thought Gerard's potential was.

He never became that type of player though, he was never a Keane or Vieira so it's irrelevant.
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,852
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.
Most players are ‘only’ world class for half their careers in truth. There is a reason why we used to talk about players peaking from 27-31. Nowadays players expected to be at their best from 21-30. Look at how players like De Bruyne and Salah ‘failed’ at Chelsea and then developed into World Class players.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,903
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
These are quotes based on what Fergie thought Gerard's potential was.

He never became that type of player though, he was never a Keane or Vieira so it's irrelevant.
Doesn't make sense. He was saying that at that moment Gerrard does more than what Vieria does and is currently the most influential player in the country at the time of the statement.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
Look, the guy was a great player but honestly, he never had the ability to be that 'great' of a player. At the end of the day he's a central midfielder, that can keep and pass the ball well. He's not some mythical genius like a Gascloigne who'd take over games.

Players like him have become fashionable so overrating him is easy. Xavi, Modric, Scholes, Falcao and Pirlo were all really great players. Achieved a great deal in the game but they all have limitations that true playmakers don't/didn't have.

All this talk about him being used out of position is excuses. He was a great player well before Gerrard and Lampard became relevant and his weaknesses on that scene were all on show at tournaments like Euro 2000 where real magicians like the likes of Rui Costa would stroll past him without second thought.
That's exactly why you don't put somebody who struggles to run on the flipping wing :lol:

Scholes was never the fastest but he was the quickest in his mind and his feet. Thats' what makes a good midfielder, not how strong or fast you are.

Why do people like Xavi / Zidane etc need to talk about Scholes? because they respect him and rate his ability and the way he played football.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,332
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Doesn't make sense. He was saying that at that moment Gerrard does more than what Vieria does and is currently the most influential player in the country at the time of the statement.
This was in 2004, wasn't it, when Gerard was a rising star. Keane and Viera weren't in the PL for much longer after that.

Gerrard was never the same type of player as those two so the quotes are odd.

I'm not sure what his game was at the time but he's also on record that as saying Gerard wasn't a 'top top player' so there's that.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,105
I remember one of our coaches once said about Scholes: If he had played for a smaller club at 14 (I think he mentioned Oldham as one example), Paul Scholes would never have made it as a footballer because he was small and had asthma. They never would have given him time to develop, so I agree with the guy above who said he actually over-achieved
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,903
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
This was in 2004, wasn't it, when Gerard was a rising star. Keane and Viera weren't in the PL for much longer after that.

Gerrard was never the same type of player as those two so the quotes are odd.

I'm not sure what his game was at the time but he's also on record that as saying Gerard wasn't a 'top top player' so there's that.
Rising Star? Gerrard was more as rising STAR during their weak treble in 2001. He was established by 2004 since he won the CL the very next season.

Fergie's comments about him not being top sound more like hating on a rival team much like Souness as he tried to sign Gerrard twice and vitually every professional home and abroad regarded him a top top player. Fergie also claimed only 5 of his players were world class which was nonsense. Also 2004 was Arsenal and Vieira's invincibles season so for Sir Alex to make these claims during a time Arsenal were supposedly invincible...........
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
That's exactly why you don't put somebody who struggles to run on the flipping wing :lol:

Scholes was never the fastest but he was the quickest in his mind and his feet. Thats' what makes a good midfielder, not how strong or fast you are.

Why do people like Xavi / Zidane etc need to talk about Scholes? because they respect him and rate his ability and the way he played football.
He wasn't on the wing at the time, he was in the middle. You totally missed my point, Scholes was great long before Lampard and Gerrard. He had plenty of time to make the center of midfield his own. He didn't cause he had his weaknesses.

Physicality plays a big role in pretty much all the positions on a football pitch. As I said, Rui Costa and the likes could tread him with disdain but couldn't do the same with someone like Vieira. There's a reason he was sometimes left out of big games by Sir Alex.

All great players have great quotes from other great players. It one of the perks that comes with being just that.
 

King7Eric

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
3,077
Location
Cardiff
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned in this thread is how our style of play evolved over the years and how it affected Scholes' role in the team. Before the arrival of RVN, we usually went with a 4-4-2. Although neither of Cole or Yorke were slow per say, our style of play didn't require opposition defenders to be vary of someone running in behind (other than Giggs). We were more dependent on getting the ball wide and recycling it whilst allowing our forwards to run in the channels. Other than our famed counter-attack, our primary source of attacking was often overloading the box and this placed more creative emphasis on the likes of Giggs and Beckham than it did on Scholes. In such a team he was an important but not indispensable part. The energy of Keane to go from box to box and carry the ball with him and pass to our wide men was perhaps more important.

When we signed RVN we essentially shifted away from the traditional 4-4-2 (though we'd still use it often) and played a 4-4-1-1 where Scholes played as the SS, and though he was productive in this role, it certainly wasn't the best use of his talents.

It was only when we got in the likes of Rooney, Ronaldo, Saha, Nani and so on, players who had pace to burn and against which the opposing defenders had to drop deep out of necessity, did we really start to see the best of Scholes. Against such a forward line the traditional English helter skelter approach could not work and we had teams sitting deep, which allowed the likes of Scholes and Carrick (neither of whom was really someone who could carry the ball with them, ala Gerrard) to control games and show their creative passing prowess. It was in this position that Scholes made every player in the team look better by his mere presence because the opposition once they had settled in deep were scared to come out and press him because he easily pick a pass too exploit that space. This took a lot of pressure off our CBs and FBs as well because the opponents were pegged in to be able to make rapid strikes against us, whilst naturally the forward line flourished due to his ability to keep the ball until he could pick out one of their runs and disrupt the opposition's defensive positioning.

It was in his last 5-6 years where I believe we finally utilized Scholes in a role that maximized his ability.
 
Last edited:

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
52,592
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
It wasn't Ruud's arrival that altered the formation and tactics, it was plugging Veron into a set midfield dynamic. With no Veron there's no need to fit Veron into the side thus Scholes stays deeper in midfield with license to roam and it's Ole partnering Ruud. But SAF wanted to change tactics as he was salivating for another European Cup or two or three. And that's also why he hired Queiroz the following year and brought him back.
 

King7Eric

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
3,077
Location
Cardiff
It wasn't Ruud's arrival that altered the formation and tactics, it was plugging Veron into a set midfield dynamic. With no Veron there's no need to fit Veron into the side thus Scholes stays deeper in midfield with license to roam and it's Ole partnering Ruud. But SAF wanted to change tactics as he was salivating for another European Cup or two or three. And that's also why he hired Queiroz the following year and brought him back.
You can argue it was Veron rather than RVN that caused the change, but the effect on Scholes was the same. He was pushed further up the pitch, a position he did very well in, but didn't necessarily bring the best out of him.
 

King7Eric

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
3,077
Location
Cardiff
He was great in the league in that 2003 season.
Yes he was. Got 20 goals if I'm not mistaken. But still playing in that role wasn't the best use of his talents. Similar to how Rooney in the 09/10 got 34 goals playing as an out and out #9, but playing in that role wasn't the best use of his talents.
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
10,211
Location
Loughborough university
Scholes is my favourite player of all time my first ever united shirt one of our greatest players.

But his post retirement overrating is weird. He was never out best player and never our most influential player at any point. We won many things when he wasn't even in the starting line up and never performed for England even without lampard or Gerrard.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
Scholes is my favourite player of all time my first ever united shirt one of our greatest players.

But his post retirement overrating is weird. He was never out best player and never our most influential player at any point. We won many things when he wasn't even in the starting line up and never performed for England even without lampard or Gerrard.
He was our best player for many years and did perform very well for England too but retired from international before his peak and would have been far better for England in his latter years if played in CM with, say, Hargreaves. I don’t think he is overrated at all.

These are all just opinions but it’s clear that among pro players and managers etc he is generally regarded as one of the finest midfielders ever to play the game. There’ll always be some who disagree but I’ve been amazed at how many posters on here come out with “he was ok”, “we did better without him”, “he was never top class”. What horse shite.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
9,662
Scholes is my favourite player of all time my first ever united shirt one of our greatest players.

But his post retirement overrating is weird. He was never out best player and never our most influential player at any point. We won many things when he wasn't even in the starting line up and never performed for England even without lampard or Gerrard.
I agree, he was a great player, but some of the talk as if he was up there with the likes of Zidane and Xavi doesn't really fit my memories of him. I watched his entire career, he wasn't the passer or game controller he became in his late 20's 5 years earlier. That was not because of misuse, but improving areas of his game with experience and know how. He really didn't solidify his starting place in the team until he was 23/24.

Scholes's reputation has massively improved in retirement while Giggs has gone the other way. Give it another few years and Scholes will be seen as some Charlton/Xavi/Iniesta/Zidane hybrid while Giggs will be Jason Wilcox with longevity.
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
10,211
Location
Loughborough university
He was our best player for many years and did perform very well for England too but retired from international before his peak and would have been far better for England in his latter years if played in CM with, say, Hargreaves. I don’t think he is overrated at all.

These are all just opinions but it’s clear that among pro players and managers etc he is generally regarded as one of the finest midfielders ever to play the game. There’ll always be some who disagree but I’ve been amazed at how many posters on here come out with “he was ok”, “we did better without him”, “he was never top class”. What horse shite.
When was he our best player? When was he even the Bruno?

There were always more talismanic players in the team.
 

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,031
One of our best ever players, ran the show in midfield, 5ft 8ish asthmatic guy.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
When was he our best player? When was he even the Bruno?

There were always more talismanic players in the team.
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.