He was good to position himself both defensively and offensively, and although he wasn't a great defensive player he wasn't a liability. It has to be said that when Scholes was at his prime most teams did play midfield 2 with wingers iirc, so it was not as crowded with several inverted wingers and 3 midfielders as it is today, and it was more open in the middle of the pitch.
Passing, vision, passing, ability to read the game, passing, volleying, passing and ironically (given the timing of his tackling), great timing to get to the penalty area and on the end of crosses.
Because he worked hard, put players under pressure and had great positioning. You dont always need to make a tackle.
I literally almost cried watching these and especially the last one, also showing the styles and type of football we used to play.
Also, he only came to playing frequently in a midfield two after Carrick arrived. They were at the time able to tiki-taka like Barcelona, and place precise balls up the lane that didn’t come back at them. And they both had great positioning both in and out of posession.
Look, Scholes is a United legend - he'll always be my favourite player and I'll always rave about him to whoever will listen.
I don't think many would. For me, though - alongside Iniesta - he's the best midfielder I've ever seen live.
Not agreed. Scholes played in midfield 2 most of his career. He started out as a striker, 2nd striker but was moved to midfield 2 even though he was more like an AM, still that was a midfield 2. When Veron came, he was moved to 2nd striker role behind RVN to accommodate Veron. But after Veron left, he was back to midfield 2. Queiroz came during this period (or slightly earlier) and SAF started be play a more continental style formation like 4231.
Because it didn't matter when you had the passing, vision, ball retention and shooting ability he had. In his later years he was just the definition of midfielders that control the tempo of the game
We really could’ve used a prime Scholes right about now. Bradford I think.He could do it all. Came in to see if anyone had posted those Dyer quotes
I remember that Villa volley well. He had another spectacular volley from a direct corner, it touched the keeper on the way in. Anybody remember who it was against?
what catching my attention the most from paul scholes is not his long range goal but it's his quick one-touch play and ability to pass the ball everywhere he wants , he was literally anti-pressure, luis figo describe him as someone no one can catch on the field,
Nope, that goal certainly didn’t touch the keeper
I may have worded the description badly, the goal wasn’t in the corner or anything, just hit hard directly from a corner and the keeper got a hand on it but couldn’t keep it out. Fulham.Nope, that goal certainly didn’t touch the keeper
What a player
That’s the one! Thank you, sir!
Zidane, Pirlo, Xavi some other greats that were poor at tackling as well. cant be much great midfield players for you
How great of a tackler did you think Xavi was? Iniesta, Kroos, Modric, Busquets and just about most great European midfielders?
That's the part that I don't understand with the Xavi argument. No team in the history of the game supported their midfield as much as that Barcelona team. The amount of movement and options to every player at all times was higher than any other team. Scholes was playing in a footballing culture that is entirely different where midfielders stood out thanks to their stamina and box to box contributions. Obviously Xavi was also an essential part in making that team tick which makes him an all time great but the comparison is just so silly.
I don't buy these time period arguments. Scholes wouldn't have done well in most of the older years because the level of footballers was lower and no one could keep up with his passing and movement. Robson would bomb in the Barca team as technically not good enough (despite being good in that area) but that doesn't take away from how great he was in his era and for the teams he played in.
