Saying Scholes retired from England because he couldn't get in the team is slightly dishonest. The entire England team was mismanaged and continued to be after he retired. He wasn't the only player to massively underperform for England...in fact, nearly every England player at that time under performed.
Scholes was a key part of a United team that was recognised as one of the best in the world, on more than one occasion was the best in the world. He did that over a period where the team was rebuilt several times, which also makes the idea he came into an already succesful side somewhat dishonest. The two worst seasons the team had in that period happened to coincide with the two Scholes spent a lot of being injured. When United won the league foor the first time in 3 years in 2007, it coincided with Scholes returning from injury and being probably the most important player outside of Ronaldo. Not a coincidence.
Scholes went from playing alongside Keane, Butt, Giggs, Beckham, Veron etc...to Carrick, Fletcher, Hargreaves etc. He still showed the same abillity to dictate games. He coud even do it alongside John O'Shea. I'm not doubting Xavi could do this, but it doesn't fit in very well with the idea that Scholes couldn't possiblly hold his own with someone like Xavi.
As for football intelligence, very recently Xavi was harping on about his time at Barcelona, and dismissing any team who don't play like Barcelona as teams who don't play football. That is just complete ignorance rather than intelligence. Particularly when a team from his own country who play very differently to Barcelona have deservedly won the last two European cups and basically dominated world football for 4 years. Scholes hardly comes across as insightful when he opens his mouth but I've yet to hear anything as daft as this from him. The point being, you can't measure in game intelligence from the bollocks an ex player spouts after they retire.
This isn''t a dig at Xavi but just callling up some miisguided stuff. I don't know who was better of the two. I don't really care. I would say Scholes but because I watched him more. They guy was not only amazing at football, but had basically an 8 year spell of never ever having a bad game...playing at pretty much the highest possible level.I don't have anythhing to discredit the idea Xavi did the samme apart from that I didn't personally watch him do it every week so can't testify to it.
They'll both go down as great players as they were great player for their teams, at a time when those teams were great teams. There isn't really much point in belittling one to try and big up the other. If you asked them what they thought of each other as players I doubt you'd get anything less than complete respect and appreciation.
I loved Paul Scholes as a footballer. During his career I always felt he was very underrated and I rated him a lot higher than the general public and media. He was an outstanding player who was fantastic in two different positions for the club over a decorated career. But much like Rio Ferdinand, I think his career is remembered more fondly in hindsight than it was at the time.
On the national team, I do agree he was mismanaged and much like Carrick was drastically underused in favour of more high profile players (Gerrard and Lampard). But, if he was one of the greatest midfielders of all time, would he have been dropped or played out of position? Would any Spain, France or Italy manager drop Xavi, Zidane or Pirlo when they were at their peak?
Scholes did come in to an already successful side. He was in and out of the team in 1999 when the club won the treble, so much so that Keane being suspended for the final was a huge story and Scholes missing it was hardly even news.
I don't agree that he dictated the play in all of those teams. When he played with Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Butt and Veron he was an attacking midfield player. Keane was the one who controlled the tempo of that team - to the detriment of Veron actually. Scholes was a far superior technician to Keane with much better range in his passing but Keane was better at managing and controlling a game than Scholes.
He did play more of a controlling midfield role later in his career next to Carrick, Fletcher etc but the midfield was very much the weak link in that side. The success of the team was based on Ronaldo (with Rooney and Tevez) and the best defence in the league. Yes, he was an excellent player in that side but nowhere near the level of influence of Vidic or Ronaldo.
Yes, Xavi showed a blinkered view of football and feels it should be played a certain way. Maybe that is ignorance or maybe it's a steadfast belief that the principles he had to be the heartbeat of one of the best ever teams are the best. It might mean he will never be able to manage Stoke but it meant he could run the midfield at Barcelona.
I have no doubt Xavi has great respect for Scholes and vice versa. Scholes was a great player, similar in style to Xavi and was a major influence for United over a long period of time. Maybe if he was Spanish and played for Barca he would have been as good as Xavi. But he isn't and he wasn't.
In a 7 year spell, Xavi won 5 titles, 3 champions leagues and 3 major international tournaments and was in the best 2-3 players in all of those sides. He was absolutely pivotal to how those team played.
Scholes was a fantastic player for United over a long period of time but never had the same level of influence over the team that Xavi had at Barca.
I am in no way running down Scholes to praise Xavi. Just stating my opinion of both as footballers. Scholes was great but Xavi was an elite level player.
