Zidane was the most technically gifted AM of his generation but no one was as consistently good as Paul Scholes was. In my opinion, the latter was the best of his generation.
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
His one twos are just mindblowingly good. We simply don't have anyone like that anymore in the modern game.
This champions league argument is fairly weak. It is alot tougher to win it now compared to the European cup days. You're playing more games in comparison and the likely chance of bumping in to a top side before the final is high. Look at Real Madrid last season, they played Dortmund and Spurs in the group stages, PSG, Juventus, Bayern leading up to the final. Forest played Malmo in the final, how many players can you remember from that Malmo side?
I believe the reason why United did not reach as many CL finals in the 90s and 00s was down to just bad luck. They should have beaten Dortmund and Monaco, 2 teams they outplayed, but just struggled to score against, Leverkusen too and poor offside decision cost them against Porto.
I believe the reason why United did not reach as many CL finals in the 90s and 00s was down to just bad luck. They should have beaten Dortmund and Monaco, 2 teams they outplayed, but just struggled to score against, Leverkusen too and poor offside decision cost them against Porto.
Yes we were the Panathanaikos of world football. Nice hole your digging for yourself here.
Why would that be a legitimate barometer of whether United were one of the best sides in Europe? What would it have to do with Paul Scholes when he didn’t play in those competitions?
I’m picking time periods Paul Scholes played in. Because that’s what prompted the whole bloody discussion. You also asked when the Premier League was one of the top leagues in Europe. I picked a fairly long period when it was demonstrably one of the best. And United were the best team in that country. Hence Paul Scholes played for one of the best sides in Europe. Bayern haven’t made a final in 5 years so clearly they haven’t been one of the best in Europe over that period? Balls.
Unbelievable control and vision in tight spaces. Perfectly understandable why Xavi admired him so much.
IMO EPL sides were fairly uncompetitive in Europe up until our golden years of 2005-12 so I refute the claim that it was indeed demonstrated. From our return to European football until our golden era of 2005 onwsrds, Serie A produced 21 European finalists, La Liga 12 and the EPL produced 6 finalists (including only 1 in the champions league). Our teams were fairly meh in Europe and proved little outside it, thus being the best EPL did not translate into being one of the top sides in Europe as that is the proof. Obviously the PAOK reference I was being hypobolic but my belief stands and I don't see how you can argue otherwise. I believe in part we were set back by the ban.
EDIT - I feel Bayerns time has past and do not consider them contenders for the competition so no.
Ever seen Panathinaikos play?
Zidane played with the best players on the planet and often looked considerably superior. Scholes played with England and Man Utd players (levels below) and did not outperform or raise his game higher than his teammates enough. It's this kind of exaggeration I have issue with. Not the fact he was a great player. Makes me think people are just looming at YouTube clips but do not remember the playing days. Funny enough,this thread is full of YouTube compilations
You asked for a time period it was one of the best leagues and you were given it. How was it not demonstrated? Because you want to use a different time period?
A team that has been in four of the last five Champions League semi finals is not one of the best in Europe? It’s ok to admit you’re wrong you know.
And as I pointed out, his role was diminished in this side.
From 2005 to 2012? Was England one of the best leagues in Europe then? Are Bayern Munich one of the best teams in Europe?
What about his role in the other years? Are we ignoring he started in the final we won?
United fans will tell you Scholes was the best midfielder ever. I think this is largely because they combine all incarnations of him into one. The quarterback Scholes didn’t score 20 a season, and the one that scored 20 a season didn’t control games.
He was a great player, but he’s not even unanimously accepted as the best PL midfielder of all time, yet on the caf he’s much, much more than that. Overrated to me, for that reason, although he’s definitely one of the league’s best ever midfielders.
He was a great player, but he’s not even unanimously accepted as the best PL midfielder of all time, yet on the caf he’s much, much more than that. Overrated to me, for that reason, although he’s definitely one of the league’s best ever midfielders.
Scholes won 11 leagues titles as opposed to Zidane's 3 league titles. Scholes won 2 CLs as opposed to Zidane's 1 CL. Sure Zidane played with bigger names then Scholes. However I wouldn't say that United of that period were a level below Juve or Real.
I haven't really watched Zidane enough pre Juve times. However journalists used to say that he was brilliant but a bit inconsistent. Which is fair enough considering what he produced in his first year at Juve. TBH things improved after that but he was still inconsistent by the end of his tenure there and Juventus fans were as saddened to watch him leave as they were for Pogba (Zidane was 3 times the player though). At Real he kept improving but still that inconsistency was there.
Scholes is different. From day 1 his career looked doomed. He was thought to be too small to make it in the EPL. When that hurdle was finally beaten he developed asthma. Then when he got his lucky brake Cantona returned with his full pomp. When Cantona was showing signs of decline which should have given Scholes an opening, the former retired early forcing SAF to buy Sheringham as Scholes was considered too inexperienced to take that role. Then he was moved in CM. When he made it there, SAF decided to spice things up by bringing in JSV. Then he found out similar competition with England with Lampard and Gerrard etc. What really amazes me about Scholes was his ability to change role and still remain consistent. He started off as a striker, then he moved as no 10, then as an attacking midfielder to finish his career as a deep lying playmaker. The only other player I can think off who made such transition a success was Pirlo. There again the latter did it out of necessity since he was pretty average as a forward.
So why Scholes isn't treated at par with the greatest of football?
There are two problems with Scholes
a- He lacked that va va voom characteristic that you associate it to him. Giggs had that blistering pace and dribble. Gaz had his leadership and determination. Beckham had his freekicks and crosses. There's nothing you can associate Scholes with. He's not physically imposing, his technique is good but he's not Ronaldo. His passing is great but he's no Beckham etc. All he had was his consistency.
b- Scholes played in one of the most badly managed England in history. That team should have gone to high places but failed to do so. Zidane on the other hand played in a national team that ticked all the right boxes. At the bottom line Zidane won the WC. Scholes was part of an England that underachieved. That has an impact on both reputations.
Don't take me wrong, in terms of talent Zidane was the better player. When in form Zidane was unstoppable. However as said, in terms of consistency no one beats Scholes. Which explains why he easily fended off opposition from JSV (considered the second most rated playmaker in the Serie A after Zidane) and why Barcelona uses Scholes videos to teach their kids how a midfielder should play. So if you ask me whom I would want in my team if I want to win the league then I'd go for Scholes. Well, his trophy cabinet kind of answer why.
I'd agree with all of this. Good post.
You make a very solid case, one of the best so far and I can definitely get behind what you say.
My only fault is that Scholes played in a different league than Zidane so their title wins are kind of unrelated. The likes of Giggs and Scholes could never come close to Ronaldinho or Maradona in raw footballing ability but have 10 times as many league trophies. If you play in a less competitive league then you have more titles. Serie A was a bitch in the 90s with all the money spread to 6 or so potential title challenges. A bit like EPL today. But its not very important when comparing players in different countries. Scholes had more longevity. Consistency is debateable and hard to measure because Zidane has had some great seasons and CL campaigns where he actually looked like one of the best players on the continent unlike Scholes. In 1997 Zidane played 10 CL games and bagged 2 goals and 6 assists. In 98 it was 11 games 3 goals 8 assists. Both times Juve got to the final and Zidane a stand out player. This is the kind of thing that got Kaka the best player award. you have to be the best when competing with/against the best or stand out in the biggest competitions which Zidane did on too many occasions. In terms of ability, Zidane was simply better. Zidane has played in 3 CL finals for the record.
Career by numbers Scholes contributed 0.28 goals per game to Zidanes 0.4.
Obviously Zidane played more attacking roles so as an AMC Zizou contributes a goal every 0.46 games (goals and assists) and as a LM it was 0.666 per game (consistency). Add to this that when Zidane is on the pitch, everyone plays better, even if they aren't that good themselves. I wouldn't choose Scholes over Zidane to win a league because too many other factors play a part in how a team wins titles and I also feel Zidane is more likely to settle the big crunch games.
I loved Ronaldinho and in my opinion Maradona is the best player football had ever seen. The latter won Napoli the league pretty much by himself at a time when football was still brutal and the heights of the catenaccio football. I'd love to see the likes of Messi performing his magic against the likes of Baresi and Maldini let alone the true bruisers of football ie Gentile and the butcher of Bilbao. However, both players had their own demons, the Argentinian more then the Brazilian. You can't really blame Giggs and Scholes for that. Quite the contrary, I applaud their ability to remain good for so many years despite playing in a more physical football. It shows great professionalism but also a level of intelligence to adapt to changes like age.
Its true that the EPL was vastly inferior to the Serie A during the late 80s and early 90s. However, its also true that things shifted during the late 90s. Giggs in particular literally humiliated Juve defences numerous times, even attracting Lippi's attention who sarcastically once said that 'he thanked God Giggs was ill that day' as a response to SAF's previous tactical bluff which placed Giggsie's presence in doubt prior to the game. Sure Zidane was unlucky at Juventus not to win more CLs. However its also true, that Giggs and Scholes would have probably lifted the cup at least 1-2 more times if only the club didn't go skint mode by replacing legends like Schmeichel, Irwin and Stam with Aldi like signings like Bosnich, Silvestre and Blanc. Zidane was blessed in playing with 2 clubs which saw the CL as the holy grail of football. I don't think United gave as much importance to the competition as Juve or Real did and still do.
Another key issue to consider is that unlike Zidane who was central in Juventus/Real/France plans, United had never bothered building the team around Scholes. In the beginning the spotlight was Cantona, then its shifted on Giggs, then Beckham, Ronaldo and finally Rooney. In many ways Scholes was the cinderella of the club, ie the player who was expected to change position and his style to accommodate the club's new style of football. He was also the only member of the class of 92 who faced outside competition from a truly world class player (JSV).
As a non British supporter I always find it fascinated how incredibly underrated Scholes and Giggs are. For most football people outside Britain we consider both as truly WC at par to many many players of their generation. This mentality was perfectly captured by Sky when they asked Henry if there were any current or former players he wished he played with. Henry mentioned Paul Scholes with no hesitation whatsoever much to the meltdown of Carra. Id suggest you watch that interview, from an unbiased outsider, who clearly pinpoints Scholes quality in a nutshell. Its a shame that the likes of Giggs, Rio and Scholes weren't Italian as they would have won the WC but also they would be treated the way they deserve.
I don't know. We signed Veron, RVN and Forlan in one Summer, Rio the year before for record amounts at the time (would love to see against inflation) and we did not win it so I am unsure if our money was the issue. Also broke the record for Rooney the year after.
Says a lot then doesn't it? If your own manager, the greatest in the country, does not feel you are the one to build a team around. I mean as you pointed out, he looked for something more and went for Seba. Why do you think Scholes was one of SAF reliable's but never felt to make him his Star? I feel the same With Giggs, he was one of SAF trusted lieutenants but as soon as a Ronaldo emerged, it was "make way for this guy, he is the one I will build the team around and conquer the World" SAF knows his players and what they were capable of.
Could be down to the coverage and exposure as the EPL is one of the most broadcasted leagues so you will be exposed to our players a lot more and hence hold them in higher regard. Also take Henry comment with a pinch of salt. earlier in this thread he has described Gerrard as the best player in the world. Zidane says Gerrard is up there as top 3 in the world, Messi says Gerrard is best English player of all time.
Last edited by a moderator:
The transfer summer following the treble was a disaster. Bosnich on a free, Taibi from some random Serie A crap hole, Djordic, Fortune from A Madrid's B and Silvestre from Inter's reserves. These sort of transfers were more appropriate to a team like Bolton rather then the treble winners. The summer after we only bought Barthez. In 2001 we brought 2 major signings (one of which a luxury signing). However we also went on selling Stam which was the only top quality defender left in that defence only to replace him by yet another player who was plying his trade in Inter's reserves. People complaining of the current state of defence don't remember the Gaz----Wes-----Blanc------Mickey defence who was in my opinion worse to the current lineup. Wes was constantly injured (:cough: overrated :cough
, Mickey was a disaster waiting to happen while Blanc was old (ancient). I guess even SAF could outrun him in a race and I am referring to current SAF.Not really. There are two reasons why the club build a squad around a player. Either it lack the talent to do otherwise (ex Le Tissier at Southampton or Shearer at Newcastle) or that's the only way to get the best out of a given player. Either way its not the ideal situation as it makes the team look predictable. I still remember Lippi's reply in the early 90s when asked whether United are a difficult team to play against. His answer was no, simply because you only have to block Cantona and Giggs to pretty much kill off their creativity spark. I think that interview influenced SAF greatly. In fact the treble side was so unpredictable simply because it didn't rely on anybody in particular.
I don't really give weight to what former players say especially when talking about players who had just retired. I mean no one will go on and say, eh well Gerrard wasn't that great on his retirement day wouldn't they? However, this interview is a bit different because Henry was asked which player he wished he had played with and he didn't. He could have chosen any player but he went for Scholes.
I assure you mate, that many many non British neutrals can't understand the fuss behind the Scholes-Gerrard-Lampard. For them its like comparing Baggio-Zola-Di Canio. The gap in talent is quite evident for everyone.
I don't think you can speak for all foreigners especially when Gerrard and Lamps were lighting it up at the highest level and are being endorsed by the likes of Ronaldinho. Many neutrals actually pick Gerrard as the best because of his CL exploits. Bryan Robson (United legend) actually opted for Gerrard. Henry was more of a personal preference after being on the opposite side many a timeThe transfer summer following the treble was a disaster. Bosnich on a free, Taibi from some random Serie A crap hole, Djordic, Fortune from A Madrid's B and Silvestre from Inter's reserves. These sort of transfers were more appropriate to a team like Bolton rather then the treble winners. The summer after we only bought Barthez. In 2001 we brought 2 major signings (one of which a luxury signing). However we also went on selling Stam which was the only top quality defender left in that defence only to replace him by yet another player who was plying his trade in Inter's reserves. People complaining of the current state of defence don't remember the Gaz----Wes-----Blanc------Mickey defence who was in my opinion worse to the current lineup. Wes was constantly injured (:cough: overrated :cough
Not really. There are two reasons why the club build a squad around a player. Either it lack the talent to do otherwise (ex Le Tissier at Southampton or Shearer at Newcastle) or that's the only way to get the best out of a given player. Either way its not the ideal situation as it makes the team look predictable. I still remember Lippi's reply in the early 90s when asked whether United are a difficult team to play against. His answer was no, simply because you only have to block Cantona and Giggs to pretty much kill off their creativity spark. I think that interview influenced SAF greatly. In fact the treble side was so unpredictable simply because it didn't rely on anybody in particular.
I don't really give weight to what former players say especially when talking about players who had just retired. I mean no one will go on and say, eh well Gerrard wasn't that great on his retirement day wouldn't they? However, this interview is a bit different because Henry was asked which player he wished he had played with and he didn't. He could have chosen any player but he went for Scholes.
I assure you mate, that many many non British neutrals can't understand the fuss behind the Scholes-Gerrard-Lampard. For them its like comparing Baggio-Zola-Di Canio. The gap in talent is quite evident for everyone.
Looking at the new chaps in their pomp, Pogba, De Bruyne, Hazard, pah these lads aren’t even on the same page as Scholes. Loyal and never had his head turned by a big money offer. Always played every game with the desire to win and give his all for the team. Game after game passed the ball within an inch of where he wanted it to go
A true legend and midfield genius. It’s amazing how people talk about Gerrard and Lampard over Scholes. Not for me Clive.
A true legend and midfield genius. It’s amazing how people talk about Gerrard and Lampard over Scholes. Not for me Clive.
Joking?
I haven't yet met anyone who said so though. When they speak of top midfielders of that generation they go for Pirlo, Xavi, Scholes, Iniesta and Zidane, never Steve G.
Half of that invincibles side all say scholes was who they feared the most. And an opponent will have a more valid understanding of a player than a neutral watching from afar
They are all better than Scholes for me. Even the much maligned Paul Pogba. But again, Scholes was an exceptional player, at all stages of his career. But only round here would you see real arguments that he was better than fecking Zidane and Xavi. I’ve never seen an argument suggesting Gerrard or Lampard were better than Zidane, yet Scholes is not even unanimously accepted as being better than those two.
My all time favourite footballer. He dictated the game at his own pace. He was the best passer iv ever seen. He could play the short game and the long game. Could play one two’s. He was able to score great goals, and important goals. And as much as people would say, that he couldn’t tackle, he was a fiesty player, who actually did put a shift in defensively. With age he was able to change his game to suit the type of footballs required from him. He was simply brilliant.
Because Gerrard was more of an attacker than a midfielder. Lampard wasn't even a midfielder, he played as an almost 10 behind Drogba.
Even Zidane played in from the left and could roam.
Back then I think we were all very basic in terms of formation etc. Lampard was a midfielder and that was that no matter how or where he played and that confuses the argument.
Is Isco a midfielder? Silva? Mata? Coutinho?
Scholes actually played in midfield. He never needed sitting players to cover his flaws, actually built play from the centre of the pitch etc etc.
Some very bizzare posts on here. Are some people really comparing Scholes to frickin Zidane? As in Zinedine? Arguably the greatest midfielder of all time. Damn! Don’t know what to say. Facepalm
Two observations to make to various posters -
No 1 - Paul Scholes was a small, slight football player playing in a tall and very physical English Premier League.
He still managed to be one of the best midfielders England has every produced and no he is not being over-rated here or anywhere.
No 2 - Ryan Giggs was never under-rated by European clubs and Europeans. Nor anywhere else in world football. At times the Italian, German and Spanish giants were interested in him but of course he never wanted to go.
Giggsy being Welsh meant he never had the chance to showcase his enormous talents on the world stage of the World Cup.
No 1 - Paul Scholes was a small, slight football player playing in a tall and very physical English Premier League.
He still managed to be one of the best midfielders England has every produced and no he is not being over-rated here or anywhere.
No 2 - Ryan Giggs was never under-rated by European clubs and Europeans. Nor anywhere else in world football. At times the Italian, German and Spanish giants were interested in him but of course he never wanted to go.
Giggsy being Welsh meant he never had the chance to showcase his enormous talents on the world stage of the World Cup.
Ahh, I get it now.
I thought you were just debating whether Scholes was good or great but now I see you're wumming? Right?
Was never debating whether Scholes was good or great. He was a great player. He’s not the only great player ever though.
Yep. One time Xavi said Scholes was brilliant you see.
Scholesy was a better passer than Gerrard and Lampard, his vision was better and he didn't have their physical attributes which should have given them an advantage over him.
However, credit to Gerrard and Lampard - despite their being criticized for England failing to win the World Cup during the 'Golden Generation' time. England's problems mostly have been about managers' wrong tactics and failure to use the talent at their disposal to its best outcome. I always remember seeing Steve Gerrard busting his guts as a box to box midfielder in World Cup games and shaking my head at how the manager at the time was playing him as if this was a Premier League game.
Last edited:
Scholes needs a few tattoos. Then he'll be world class.
Wait, did someone say that Pogba is better than Scholes?
Consistency on a football pitch worth so little to some people I suppose.
I mean, Pogba is better than Xavi too you know? There’s no way Xavi could ever dream of replicating some of the things that Pogba can do, very few midfielders could. But I’d take Scholes, let alone Xavi over Pogba any day of the week if I were building a side.
Consistency on a football pitch worth so little to some people I suppose.
I mean, Pogba is better than Xavi too you know? There’s no way Xavi could ever dream of replicating some of the things that Pogba can do, very few midfielders could. But I’d take Scholes, let alone Xavi over Pogba any day of the week if I were building a side.
However good you think Scholes was, he was better.
Pogba is underrated and excessively criticised. His inconsistency is massively overplayed, and I would suspect that any spells of poor form and misplaced passes etc from Paul Scholes are all forgotten by you.
I look at the player in isolation, and I cannot help but think that if Pogba was in a better unit, one that his talent deserves, he would be far more revered. Even now, I think he has a strong claim to being the best midfielder in the world, and certainly in the best few. Of course, much of his story is yet to be written, but if I were building a team, I’d have Pogba first.
And while I appreciate that the Pogba one will get a lot of disagreement, I think it’s easily as ludicrous to say Scholes was better than De Bruyne and Hazard.
Last edited:
Yeah but the bit about those players being better than Scholes, that's wumming yeah?
Oh go away.