Didn’t you say in a previous post that Jonjo Shelvey was the new Paul Scholes?
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
I rate Scholes for what he was. A very consistent at a high level midfielder, who was outstanding at keeping the ball under pressure and a fantastic passer with great vision.
He had his flaws, like most players and he displaced passes and made mistakes, but overall he was incredibly consistent and his bottom level was a lot higher than Pogba’s.
I have no idea where to begin comparing Hazard and Scholes, it doesn’t make any sense to me.
De Bruyne could go on to become one of the greatest midfielders of all time, who knows, Pogba could too, but they’re not yet in a position to be compared to players who did it for so long at the highest level, Modric and Kroos are.
Lol no. Not in a million years. But to be fair to shelvey, he’s probably the best player available to England at the moment, in that kind of position.
Yea, I’m all for opinions tbh. I think I see footy in a bit of a non-conventional way. Like, I’m not as big on longevity as most. I do value it to a degree, like I’m not going to use a 3-6 month purple patch to call someone a GOAT, but I don’t necessarily think every player needs to be held to a 10 year litmus test. Perhaps this is why I think R9 is the best player ever. And was so by the time he was about 22.
Anyway, I think by current football conversation standards, Pogba needs to leave United to be discussed in the manner I’m suggesting. He needs to win CL titles and league titles and be a key part. Short of that, his brilliance will never be appreciated. But for me, he’s better than Modric and Kroos, both of whom I personally find overrated as individuals. But the habitat in which they play their football has increased their status. If the exact same players were part of a less successful Real side, they wouldn’t be rated as highly.
With regards to Scholes, I appreciate most would disagree. I think as two individuals, Pogba is better personally. But any great United player in the team/era Scholes player in would be hard to put beneath a great player from the current United. The narrative around them is just different. Massively different. I’m also not that concerned by ‘bottom level’. Why would comparitive ‘bottom levels’ be what is used to differentiate between players where we are more interested in what they are GOOD at? Scholes’ ‘bottom level’ was far less relevant anyway, as he played in a team who could easily win games without him at his best. The emphasis on Pogba’s bottom level or poor performances are much more magnified as they represent the difference between the result of the game for us. I also maintain that Pogba does not play poorly anywhere near as often as people love to suggest.
I agree that it makes little sense to compare Hazard and Scholes, but I was responding to someone who did, who of course claimed Scholes was better. They are not the same type of player, but Hazard is still a better footballer, as is De Bruyne in my opinion. And I also believe Pogba is too. People only see that as some sort of insult because of the way morons talk about Pogba in this country, and the weakness of the team he plays in. It’s not a slight in my mind. Pogba is a fabulous, fabulous player. If he and Modric had swapped teams for the last 3 years, i.e, Pogba player for Real and Modric played for United - not a chance the current consensus on both players stands in my opinion.
When Zidane played for arguably the worst managed French side in modern history, he stepped up, took everything in his hands (I'm talking about off the pitch actions as well) and led them to the World Cup final.
Scholes was more consistent, that's a fact. But not a better player over the course of their careers.
I agree.. Scholes was the better passer, and he could dictate a game, which Gerrard and Lampard couldn't do. He should have been in the middle of the park.
Gerrard was more versatile than Lampard, so he could have played from the left with Lampard as the no 10. And then you had Beckham on the right. That's how it should have been.
Is that a yes then?
I may be open to debating the merit of my view vs yours with you, but I’m not going back and forth with you about whether I meant something I clearly wrote. I don’t need you or anyone to offer me the opportunity to retract my opinion. If all you have to say is ‘you’re taking the piss right’, then all I have to say is ‘go away’. Or something stronger, but in my head.
I personally think a Paul Scholes would be more appreciated in this era of super tight packed defenses and park the bus football. A good quote from Harry Redknapp is "Scholes was playing tiki-taka football when nobody in England knew what it was"
He had everything but the press-resistant dribbling that is a key part of such a game. Scholes wasn’t one to beat one or two in tight spaces, and most of the great tika-take midfielders had that. Without that, you have Fabregas, who is not the full package of a tika-take midfielder.
I personally wished we had tried hard to get in Fabregas to replace Paul Scholes thouigh he would have been perfect but it was never meant to be and his heart was set on Barcelona, although I don't know if we were even interested in him.
One thing often overlooked.
The man came out of retirement and still bossed it at the highest levels.
Who else has done that in recent times?
The man came out of retirement and still bossed it at the highest levels.
Who else has done that in recent times?
Rationalise why all of them were better than Scholes then.
I rate Pogba (check the threads - even when he was getting grief, my view was he's a very good player being misused by Jose... posiiton, structure and tactics) but he's no Scholes.
Players like De Bruyne have shown they're very good players - he's been a part of an all conquering PL team but that's in a "money's no object" team and over a relatively short space of time. Similar, Pogba looked good in an all conquering Juve team with a midfield around him that took loads of the work/pressure off him (as above, a formation I think United need to aim for to get the most out of him) and pretty decent tbf in the WC, again with some very good teammates and a structure that suited.
imo
Scholes has never had a season as good as De Bruynes last season, and he’s never reached the “best player in the league” heights that Hazard has at the moment and in the past. He was never that highly regarded by his peers when he was playing. Furthermore, Hazard and De Bruynes performances in the last World Cup far exceed anything Scholes ever did for England. Still a great player though.
Pogba better than Scholes?
"Is he the best in the world? He might not get the attention of [Lionel] Messi and Ronaldo but, yes, I think he just might be," Zidane said. "If you don't have a player like Steven Gerrard, who is the engine room, it can affect the whole team.
"When we were winning league titles and European Cups at Real, I always said Claude Makelele was our most important player. There is no way myself, [Luis] Figo or Raúl would have been able to do what we did without Claude and the same goes for Liverpool and Gerrard.
"He has great passing ability, can tackle and scores goals, but most importantly he gives the players around him confidence and belief. You can't learn that – players like him are just born with that presence."
Zidane on Gerrard.
Scholes is unique I'll grant him, in that he's given rise to his own unique school of player evaluation that applies only to Paul Scholes. Player quotes and YouTube compilations blended into a mythical player that never actually existed during his playing career.
Agree with this.
Well I think it’s a bit hard to say ‘why’ you think a player is better than another, especially in this position, but I’ll give it a go.
I’ll start with Kevin, as even in your post above you can hardly say that you have made a strong, reasoned argument as to why he is NOT better than Scholes. Except for the obvious fact that he hasn’t done it for as long, which will apply to a comparison with any current player in their mid-twenties. I don’t think a player needs to retire before they can be compared to a retired player.
Anyway, Kevin. I think he’s better just because despite him being in this all-conquering team full of stars (which also applies to Paul Scholes by the way) - he was head and shoulders better than all of his teammates for me. He was more decisive than Scholes throughout the game. Like Scholes (one incarnation of him anyway) could score goals from midfield, I don’t deny. But for me, Kevin is a more constant threat to the opponent throughout a game. He possesses the ability to score goals too, great goals like Scholes, even with his left-foot, not like Scholes (although Scholes scored that beauty against Liverpool with his left) - but he is always creating direct scoring chances too. Scoring aside, it seems like a matter of time in every game before Kevin registers an assist, always very last-ditch stretches to cut out wicked balls that were heading straight to the forward.
Scholes was not a creator of chances at anywhere near the same level. You could say he ‘dictated the game’, but this is one incarnation of Scholes. The one who could be compared to Kevin from an attacking midfield and goal scoring perspective did not dictate games, he played further forward, and when he did, he did not create chances like De Bruyne does.
Then there’s other things like the power Kevin has. He can drive with the ball, wrestle opponents off the ball too. Scores free-kicks. I just think that being RedCafe, a claim that Kevin was better than Scholes will be quickly dismissed and laughed off, but in reality, as much as footy is about opinions, I think it will be more difficult to put a strong argument across that Scholes is/was better than Kevin that doesn’t resort to ‘titles won’ and ‘years at the top’ once the opening point of ‘short passing ability’ has been made.
Now for Pogba. I think this one is more debateble. It’s also a bit of a harder comparison to make than Kevin because with Kevin there are certain factors that don’t get in the way and level things out, such as the relative strength of the teams both played in and their overall dominance on the league. That said, I’ll give it a try.
Scholes for me, was a better ‘dictator’ of the game. Short-passes, pass completion stats - that sort of thing. Again, that is largely one incarnation of Scholes (the latter years) that was more of a game controller anyway, but I still think he had higher success in this area for as much of his career as I can remember. Long passing, as much as the caf likes to say that any footballer who is good at long passes would ‘make Scholesy proud’ - Paul Pogba is better, in my opinion. It’s splitting hairs, I know, as both are fabulous at it, but Pogba does it left foot, right foot which shades it for me.
Sticking with passing for a bit, I think we can go a bit more detailed. Scholes has a fantastic long pass, usually a left-to right switch, or a diagonal. Pogba for me, has a far more creative pass. Even in this team with much maligned attacking movement, Pogba creates clear goalscoring chances, from long range and short range, usually fecked up by his teammates. Scholes wasn’t really a chief assist maker as such. He will more likely play a diagonal out to Neville, Becks or Giggs who will then provide the assist. Pogba, without even looking at stats, probably creates as many chances as anyone in the league. Consistently too, which is a word often used against him.
Moving on, I think Scholes, again, at least one incarnation of him, was a bigger goal threat than Pogba. Pogba, for me, should score far more often than he does. Technically, both can strike the ball cleanly, but I don’t think Pogba has the killer instinct Scholes had.
Physically, Pogba is of course superior, and he knows how to use it too. He has the strength to hold off many players. He is faster, and can carry the ball from back to front regularly. He’s also a far better dribbler than Scholes, which helps him get away from opponents.
There are many non-tangibles though. This is no computer game. Things like mentality may mean Pogba doesn’t always use superior assets well. There is also the relative strength of both teams. I don’t think Scholes had what it takes to carry THIS Manchester United team the way Pogba often does.
Anyway, I’ve given it a go, and I know comparison is more complicated than this, but you did ask! Of course, it’s all opinions, and harder with Pogba as I feel you have to extract the current player from his current situation to really appreciate him.
And I take it you are no longer questioning me saying Hazard is better than Scholes?
Just saying
Zinedine Zidane: My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder. Scholes is undoubtedly the greatest midfielder of his generation.
My point is: quotes are irrelevant and disproportionately applied to the special case of Paul Scholes.
well there's a difference between the phrase 'he just might be' and 'undoubtedly' just saying.
I've yet to meet a neutral non British fan who would place Steve G ahead of Scholes. For many the difference is quite staggering. Oh well.
Not a difference that makes hashing out quotes worthwhile.
As for the latter paragraph, you obviously don't get out much.
I do actually. My job entails travelling alot + I come from a country were half of us are Italian club supporters while the other half of us are EPL clubs supporters. Don't take me wrong Steve Gerrard was a great player and god only knows how much the current United team would need someone like him around. But seriously, he's nowhere near to PS. Its really like comparing Zola to Baggio or Fowler to Shearer if you know what I mean.
Which is why Henry's interview wasn't surprising at all.
If you had Keane, Beckham and Giggs you'd always be in fear u being over shadowed.
I rate Giggs the highest of the class of 92 but as a player id have wanted to play with Scholes
I rate Giggs the highest of the class of 92 but as a player id have wanted to play with Scholes
Problem with Gerrard was, he was a media hype at best imo. He was never trusted in centre midfield. Rafa always preferred Alonso and Sissoko/Mascherano there. Perhaps Zidane should have payed more attention to Alonso, when Alonso left, so did Liverpools and Gerrard noticable existence. They went from top 4 to top 7, made the latter stages of the CL to not qualifying from the group stages. Alonso never got the credit he deserved. As soon as he left, so did Gerrards last minute heroics and saviours. If you don't believe me, have a look at Liverpool between 04-09, when Alonso was there to the 2009/2010 season. Their dive in form was evident as soon as Alonso left.
Alonso was the only player that left that summer, he was Liverpools piano and made Gerrard look better than what he actually was. Gerrard was a headless chicken who covered ground, when you don't have a player like Alonso who plays the perfect pass to create chances and attacks for others, then standing on the edge of the area and wishing for the best counts for nothing.
Last edited:
So in short, Steven Gerrard was not a particularly good football player?
Gerrard was a very good football player, just overhyped. He was different to Scholes in terms of roles for the club, Scholes was a playmaker. So I have never understood the comparison, it is like comparing Juan Mata to Xavi, 2 different types of players and given different roles being compared.
If you look in to where Gerrard played, in his prime it was behind the the main striker as a number 10, similar to Rooney. But obviously that does not look good on Gerrard because Rooney scored more goals. Another notable thing is removing the penalities Gerrard scored, Scholes outscored him. Gerrard had more of a free role compared to Scholes.
Scholes only played behind the main striker during the 2002/2003 season from when he was fully established as a first team player. He played as a striker at the start when he was bit part and in the youth team. He went on to score 20 goals during the 2002/2003 season. So he was more than capable of doing what Gerrard did, Gerrard just was not good enough to do what Scholes could do, that was to dictate play. Thats why Rafa played Alonso there.
Not Sure Rafa played Alonso because Gerrard was incapable of anything, more a case of him playing Gerrard in a way that will help the team more. Getting the best out of Gerrard was important for the team.
And if you want to say Gerrard spent most of his career in some sort of Rooney role, that’s just false anyway. Gerrard didn’t spend his entire career playing off the striker, otherwise he wouldn’t be recognised as a midfielder! Just as Rooney isn’t recognised as one.
He and Scholes were both forward thinking central midfielders. Scholes was no Xavi, and only adopted that sort of role in his later years. Before that, he was very much a player known for his attacking play. Otherwise he wouldn’t have just been put behind the striker in 2002/2003! You don’t just one day decide to play Xavi behind the striker, and where he played that season is not where Gerrard played during his career. When Alonso and Mascherano were around Gerrard had his best season playing on the right.
Gerrard only played on the right during the 05/06 season. I agree he did a good job there. The reason why Scholes was placed behind the striker in the 02/03 season was because thats where he played in the youth team and the start of his United career. When he became a established first team player, he played centre midfield and a playmaker. He did roam forward, but dictating play was his primary role.
I have to disagree in regards to Gerrard being a central midfielder, if that is the case, why were Alonso and Sissoko/Mascherano playing central during his prime. Gerrard played behind the main striker for 6 years, he played there in the champions league final in 05 during the 2nd half, when Hamann came on and Gerrard pushed forward, all because Gerrard and Alonso were getting over run in midfield.
His best position were right wing and behind the main striker. Thats where he excelled, thats not a central midfielder. If Rafa needed other players to get the best out of Gerrard, then surely Gerrard was heavily reliant on these players to look good. That moves on to my point in regards to Alonso. There is no denying how much Gerrard missed Alonso when he left. He just did not look the same player and Liverpool suffered without him.
The reason I compared him to Rooney is because they both played behind the main striker for large parts of their prime and were given a free role and covered ground alot.
Last edited:
Perhaps I’m biased but for me he’s the best playmaking MF I’ve ever seen. His ability to spray the ball over the pitch was second to none. Xavi was elite and all but he also played in a setup tailor made to his abilities whilst playing alongside Iniesta and Messi.
If Scholes was named “Paulo” and played for Barca, he would’ve received similar plaudits.
If Scholes was named “Paulo” and played for Barca, he would’ve received similar plaudits.
Played the simple game simple and to great effect. Couldn't tackle a chip butty but wow what a player. What would he be worth in today's market?
And then when it came to the national team, the whole country cooked up a debate about playing both Gerrard and Lampard in central midfield, without anyone having realised that one of them is actually a forward and plays there every week for his whole career? Why on earth would it even have occurred to play him in midfield then? It was an issue that Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes couldn’t all play CM together, yet all were centra midfielders.
And Scholes was no more defensively sound than Gerrard in any case. In fact, I’d say Gerrard’s physical gifts gave him an edge there, as he could chase back and muscle people off the ball. We regularly played either Park or Hargreaves on one ‘wing’ (i.e, a 3 man midfield) to provide a lot of the running.
For what it’s worth, I’m not saying Gerrard was a better midfielder than Scholes. I just respect that it’s a debate, and not a debate I’ve cooked up in my head either. A common one. Personally, I think it depends on who you’re teaming them up with who to pick. But my point is, the caf likes to champion Scholes as the greatest midfielder ever, better than Zidane, better than Xavi etc - whereas he’s not even unanimously accepted as the best ever English midfielder, or the even the best ever English midfielder from the PL era. Whether we like it or not, it is not an uncommon view that Gerrard or Lampard were better than him, while nobody says those two were better than Zidane. And this is just in comparison to the English PL midfielders, before we start including the likes of Keane, Vieira and Toure to the conversation. One would basically think the best 6 or 7 midfielders of all time all played in the PL then.
Playing Lampard and Gerrard in central midfield was the main reason why they flopped on the international stage. It just did not have any balance. Sven picked his best 11 rather than pick a system that suited a starting 11. He once picked Hargreaves, Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard in the same game. Where's your balance? Reason why Rafa played Mascherano and Alonso, with Gerrard behind the main striker, it was because it created balance and it worked. Shoving Scholes on to the left just to accomodate Lampard and Gerrard was a shocking decision. England had one of the best squads on the international stage, they had Rio, Terry, King, Campbell, Neville, Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Hargreaves Joe Cole, Beckham, Owen, Rooney to choose from. No other nation matched that, yet incompetent Sven wanted to play Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard, Hargreaves in a 4-4-2 formation.
I agree with that. My point was that J never saw an international manager who just played Andy Cole in central midfield. Steven Gerrard was played in midfield for England because he plays in midfield for Liverpool. Obviously there were a few English midfielders and England’s manager tried to play them all. That was wrong. But Gary Neville wasn’t part of that. He was a right back.
Basically, if you ask anyone what position Gerrard played in, you will be told he’s a midfielder. Not a striker.
The point I am making is Gerrard never played central midfield during his prime for Liverpool. You said it yourself, he played right wing one season and he did well. He played behind Torres in the 2008/2009 season, along with numerous other seaaons and played well. He never had a proper central midfield role. If I asked you who were Rafa's midfield duo, you would probably answer with Alonso and Sissoko at the start and then Mascherano and Alonso after. Who was Gerrards midfield partner during his peak? People think of Vieira and Petit, Vieira and Silva, Scholes and Keane, Robson and Ince, but you never hear about Gerrard having a midfield partnership with anyone. Thats because he never played in central midfield. It was always Alonso alongside Mascherano or Sissoko. Gerrard did not have the discipline to play there, that's why Rafa preferred Alonso and someone else. It was never Alonso and Gerrard or Mascherano and Gerrard.
So picking someone to play central midfield for England, when Alonso and Mascherano were Liverpools central midfield duo was a mistake imo.
Last edited:
For those that dont know. Watch a game of his. The best passer I've seen by far. An Englishman with passing and technique like golden generation Spaniards.
Football knowledge has gone to shit. There are some that say Pogba and Hazard are both overrated.
Probably because people look at goals scored compared to Messi and Ronaldo. Two great player whose stats are over inflated by playing in a two team league surrounded by superstars feeding them passes.
Football knowledge has gone to shit. There are some that say Pogba and Hazard are both overrated.
Probably because people look at goals scored compared to Messi and Ronaldo. Two great player whose stats are over inflated by playing in a two team league surrounded by superstars feeding them passes.
The England set up of Gerrard and Lampard was not the reason Scholes was shunted to the left.
Actually Gerrard should have played on the left with Scholes in the centre
Sven was in awe of Beckham and that's the reason why Gerrard never played on the right.
Sven messed up the whole team. A midfield of Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard would be much better than the Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard midfield.
Actually Gerrard should have played on the left with Scholes in the centre
Sven was in awe of Beckham and that's the reason why Gerrard never played on the right.
Sven messed up the whole team. A midfield of Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard would be much better than the Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard midfield.
Alternative option is to tweaked the system like maybe play a diamond in the middle or something.
---------------Lampard (AM)--------------
------Scholes(LCM)----Beckham(RCM)--
----------------Gerrard(CDM)--------------
Or change it to 5 midfielders, with a natural left winger joining 'em four.
But naah, flat 4-4-2 is the thing back then, a precious tradition.
Which is strange because Gerrard was recognised by the footballing community as one of the best players in the world at the time of playing, much like Barrio and Shearer and the 3 were handpicked in various seasons for the accolades available, where as Scholes was never voted for as the best player in the EPL, let alone Europe during his playing days so your comparison, by the actions of the footballing community (coaches, captains, EPL players) would actually have the roles reversed.
Thats the problem with playmakers in England, They never get the recognition that they deserve. Look at David Silva, he has not won any accolades, yet people call him one of the best creative midfielders in the PL era. If he was a attackng midfielder like Gerrard and scored goals more often, then he would recieve recognition. That is what English football mindset is built on. Gary Neville said it best, we prefer electric guitars to pianos when it comes to football players, whilst the Spanish and other nations prefer both.