Engalnd didn’t have a natural left winger then, and they still don’t.
The closest to it was Joe Cole, who was a talented but inconsistent and quite crooked player.
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
The closest to it was Joe Cole, who was a talented but inconsistent and quite crooked player.
Gerrard in CDM would be a recipe for disaster. He played there during the 13/14 season and Liverpool got over run at times. Liverpool conceded 50 goals that season, his reading of the game and interception is extremely poor. Hargreaves would be a best fit. 2 of Lampard/Gerrard or Scholes just ahead, with Gerrard roaming up ahead. Joe Cole and Beckham outwide with Rooney up top. Thats what it should have been, but Sven preferred 4-4-2. Even with 4-4-2, he should have played Gerrard behind Rooney and Hargeaves along with Scholes/Lampard just ahead in centre mid.
That team Sven played just lacked balance.
Yes, he should’ve played with Rooney up top and 3 midfielders.
I suppose it was hard to drop Owen who was still a big name, and perhaps Rooney wasn’t quite ready to lead the line on his own then.
Not sure, never rated Sven, what a fine group of players he had though.
Actually agree with that. I think Rooney already showed in 2004, that he was capable of leading the line alone. It always looked to me like Eriksson pushed all the star players in without thinking of the balance.. He did a terrible job with the quality he had at his disposal.
its not a problem and that's a broad statement. Its just not true. Cesc Fabregas, Ryan Giggs (2009 when playing as a playmaker), Wilshere, David Silva, Mata have all been voted into the PFA team of the season on more than one occasion. Just because you don't win "player of the year" does not mean you haven't been recognised. its a tough racket. In any case, there would be players who perhaps were a bit better than Silva in various seasons. for example, he has only been voted Man city players player of the season once, and that is his own teammates who would know and appreciate his talents more than anyone. Cesc has been voted Arsenal player of the season on 2 separate occasions, once when he only scored 5 goals so it us unlikely there is some conspiracy against playmakers. Gary Neville doesn't know it all.
I understand what you're saying, but isnt that the point I am making as well. Fans do not recognise what these players bring because the English media rarely have them in the limelight. Alonso was the piano at Liverpool and as soon as he left, everything went downhill for the scousers. From top 4 finishes to finishing 7th, from doing well in the CL to not getting out of the group stages. He pulled the strings and was the puppet master. Yet only Gerrard and Torres got the appreciation. Put Silva in that Barcelona team and he will be recognised better than what he is currently is doing. Giggs didn't really play as a playmaker, he was more box to box, Carrick was the deep lying and central playmaker.
It's interesting to read others' perspectives on the England team that had Scholesy, Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard as well as other top talent but couldn't clear the hurdles at successive World Cups. The comments about Sven and his one dimensional attitude towards players' positioning in particular say it well.
Regardless of Premier League rivalries, it was disgraceful the way some England fans slagged off Gerrard and Lampard in particular for World Cup failure. There was this attitude that because the 'Golden Generation' England players were over-handsomely rewarded and had wives/girlfriends who liked the limelight too much, then somehow that translated to failure at the World Cup. Those players gave their all on the pitch including Beckham whose high profile lifestyle and massive publicity campaigns never affected his guts and will to win on the pitch.
Last year I watched again some of those World Cup games with England. The tactics were simply ineffective to plainly wrong in the different World Cups those lads played in. They weren't selfish big-heads who failed because they were arrogant. This stereotype was bandied around especially in the tabloids but you could see the players wanted it so badly.
Regardless of Premier League rivalries, it was disgraceful the way some England fans slagged off Gerrard and Lampard in particular for World Cup failure. There was this attitude that because the 'Golden Generation' England players were over-handsomely rewarded and had wives/girlfriends who liked the limelight too much, then somehow that translated to failure at the World Cup. Those players gave their all on the pitch including Beckham whose high profile lifestyle and massive publicity campaigns never affected his guts and will to win on the pitch.
Last year I watched again some of those World Cup games with England. The tactics were simply ineffective to plainly wrong in the different World Cups those lads played in. They weren't selfish big-heads who failed because they were arrogant. This stereotype was bandied around especially in the tabloids but you could see the players wanted it so badly.
Good post.
Beckham has always been a supremely hard-working player, regardless of his fame and lifestyle. He was a model professional.
Gerrard and Lampard gave their all too.
All of them really.
I think England lacked someone to look up to in the dugout, not necessarily a world class tctician, but definitely a world class motivator.
As a certain Arrigo Sacchi literally said
A good article on the matter: https://www.holdingmidfield.com/what-could-have-been-steven-gerrard/
I think he shared a lot of similarities with Robson in that both had an overwhelming urge to get the ball at all costs, but Robson managed to outgrown it and became more mature while Gerrard didn't. He still had a magnificent career full of big moments (and big failures
)
Last edited:
That's a fair article tbh.As a certain Arrigo Sacchi literally said
A good article on the matter: https://www.holdingmidfield.com/what-could-have-been-steven-gerrard/
I think he shared a lot of similarities with Robson in that both had an overwhelming urge to get the ball at all costs, but Robson managed to outgrown it and became more mature while Gerrard didn't. He still had a magnificent career full of big moments (and big failures
I can imagine Benitez' trouble finding Gerrards place in his strict tactics. I believe Gerrard wanted to be a b2b player in the centre of midfield like Robson. Gerrard wasn't a playmaker, he didn't control games, and his positioning was all over the place.
It's no coincedence his best years was whith Alonso, who provided all that. He needed a good team around him to excel, which he did when Alonso was around. But still.. Like Ferguson said in 2004:
"If you were looking for the player you would replace Keane with, it's Gerrard, without question. He has become the most influential player in England, bar none."
If the Gareth Southgate of today was managing the Golden Generation of the past, would he have made Scholes the heart of the team? And would we have fared better than we did under Sven and McClaren?
Or would Gareth have bowed down to pressure, played Scholes out of position, and it would have been similar results?
Or would Gareth have bowed down to pressure, played Scholes out of position, and it would have been similar results?
Whats annoying is that you cant really compare players to a certain degree because the type of football, the tempo, the intensity, the demands asked of you, what the manager/coach requires from you etc is different. Some people say such and such is better at this kind of pass. That's nonsense. Scholes role was pretty well defined and we played a certain type of football and we faced many teams that sat back purely because they were scared to come out. Which restricts the type of passes you make. I don't think Scholes did certain passes but that don't mean he can't do them. Just because a player don't show boat, don't mean he don't have any skills. So this thread annoys me. Scholes was not quick but was so good no one cared. I never heard people moaning or saying they wish he were quicker or if only. He could have played for any team and many nations and that's because he didn't over complicate, he didn't over think and he made the best of nearly ever situation. We're not saying, he broke down lots of moves. He could make space/find space and dictate play. He could spread play. He looked balanced on both sides. I got news for many people. If Xavi was replaced in that team by Scholes, it wouldn't really change much. The Awards stuff is bs and everyone knows it. In 98/99 we were completely ignored which showed all their prejudices. Scholes was a top player.
Think this is wrong, he wasn't playing in 13/14 how he was in 07, he certainly became more mature, that doesn't mean he could overcompensate by suddenly transforming into a 5'8 low centre gravity midget like Xavi and Scholes, and neither did Robson. Even in regards to what Sacchi says, it depends what Gerrard you're talking about, in relation to him playing as a number 10 he had great positioning, great know how of where to be and what to do.As a certain Arrigo Sacchi literally said
A good article on the matter: https://www.holdingmidfield.com/what-could-have-been-steven-gerrard/
I think he shared a lot of similarities with Robson in that both had an overwhelming urge to get the ball at all costs, but Robson managed to outgrown it and became more mature while Gerrard didn't. He still had a magnificent career full of big moments (and big failures
As a centre midfield probably less so, but he also grew up in a time where if he was playing abroad he wouldn't be forced into two man midfields that didn't highlight the best of his ability, in terms of intelligence Alonso is seen as a genius somewhat, but put him in a midfield two, and the genius who has a great sense of the game turns into a slow cumbersome midfielder who is liable to be exposed, especially in the premier league, the same can be said for Busquets another player of high iq, sometimes the blame isn't always on the player.
Last edited:
In the years before lanpard emerged, Gerrard was a talismanic influence in deep midfield whilst Scholes nickname playing in his favored role in Central midfield ahead of him was The Invisible Man.
There was a reason it was Scholes shunted to the left when lampard came in.
Well thats not true, because the season before 08/09 Alonso was so average he was ready to go Arsenal for a fee Wenger wasn't willing to pay.
It would because Scholes was not as good as Xavi. Only United fans think otherwise which shows clear bias. At no stage in his career has Scholes even been the best midfielder at United, let alone in Europe.
You say United were ignored for our 1999 season?
well in 1999 Beckham came 2nd for Balon D'or votes, Keane was 6th (ahead of Vieri, veron, Raul, Matthaus etc), Yorke 11th, Stam 12th, Giggs 21st, Scholes (not on shortlist). Beckham and Keane were also in the shortlist for 2000 and again no Scholes.
World player of the year 1999 United had 3 players in the top 10 (Becks, Yorke, Cole). In 2000 we had one BECKHAM. so yes, United players did get recognition if they warrented it. This is not some conspiracy and I don't see why the nominations for the "outstanding players" count for nothing as opposed to hazy memories, especially when it is a consistent theme (same players making it, the same ones not)
Gerrard did not play deep lying though, he played box to box
That is incorrect. Watch England vs Germany when they won 5-1, Gerrard was playing box to box whilst Scholes played deep lying to central playmaker. Gerrard ended up scoring a goal where he was stood close to the penalty box, a deep lying playmaker does not stand on the edge of the box, they usually play and stay deep or in centre mid. Scholes was shoved to the left because Sven thought he could all 3 of Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes. He could have if he changed formation and system.
He was that average that you noticed how much of a difference he was to the side as soon as he left. Consistently in the top 4 to dropping out of the top 4. He was never average, he just was not appreciated for what he did. People only noticed how good he was after he left. He ended up at Real Madrid and Pep bought him at Bayern.
The clearest rebuttal for your post is this. It wasn’t just fans that didn’t rate Scholes as highly back then. Fellow professionals in England also thought so. So did professionals and managers in Europe. They thought that highly of him that that they wouldn’t vote for him. That’s the one question that Scholes fans continually refuse to answer. If he was so good at the time, why didn’t his fellow professionals both at home and abroad vote for him much? At the end of the day, Scholes was a great player and should be denigrated, but the likes of Xavi and Zidane are and will be regarded as some of the very best in HISTORY, Paul Scholes will hardly get a mention in that company. How can anyone seriously compare him to guys that dominated World Cups, Euro Champs and Champions leagues on a regular basis. Xavi, Zidane (and Porto) did this, Scholes didn’t. Yeah, but if he played in Xavis teams? The fact is he didn’t. History doesn’t remember what ifs, it judges you on what you actually did (otherwise Ronaldo o fenomeno would be the best in history IF he hadn’t gotten injured). Only on a United forum.
Same reason why Alonso and Modric were never rated highly in England compared to how they are or were in Spain.
When Modric was playing in the PL, pundits, fans and many others said he did not score that many goals. That is how much lack of understanding these pundits and fans have on these players They are not about goals, they are about dictating play.
It is only now people realise how much of a special talent Scholes was. He was ahead of his time with the football he played. Redknapp said it best, Scholes played tika taka before anyone knew what it was. Messi said it best, they spoke a lot of Scholes at their academy, Xavi said it best he was never appreciated in England compared to what he was in Spain. Inter Milans owner tried numerous attempts to get him to Italy. But people in English football know best. English football prefer box to box midfielders to playmakers. Thats why the golden generation flopped on the international stage. It is not the players it is the mindset of English football.
You keep saying English football and English culture, yet you don’t repond to the 2nd half of the argument I made. They had the same opinion of Scholes in Europe ALSO. How do you explain that? Why was he nominated 5 times for world player awards and didn’t get a single vote? If fellow professionals in Europe (and managers) thought he was one of the best, that wouldn’t have happened. Gerrard, Becks and Lampard used to get far more votes and recognition from the rest of Europe, the very same people you’re now using to prop Scholes up. At the time, they just didn’t think he was that great, it wasn’t a cultural thing at all. And enough of the tiki tala hyperbole. Scholes never played that way. Man Utd never played that way. And regarding Modric, when at Spurs his standing in Europe was similar to his standing in England, he was seen as a very good midfielder, though a notch behind the absolute best at the time.
Have you got proof Scholes never got a single vote? Also you do know Pirlo rarely got any recognition until later on his career.
If you're saying Scholes was never appreciated in Europe, then why did the Inter chairmen try signing him and why did Xavi and Messi make complimentary comments about him. One of the reasons why people have noticed Scholes talent was because of Peps and Barcelona style of play. Pep said it himself when he was at Barcelona, Scholes would be the one player he would take from Manchester United. In regards to Scholes playing tika taka, I didn't say it, Redknapp did. Thats exactly what Scholes was, the ultimate dictator.
Scholes was just a brilliant and world class playmaker. I am not just pulling things out of thin air, I am saying what Xavi, Messi, Pep and the Inter president said about him. Gerrard was a media darling, Scholes never wanted to be in the spotlight. Look what happened to Gerrard when Alonso left, Liverpool pummeled and so did Gerrard. Alonso never got appreciated until after he left. I remember masses of Liverpool fans thought he would be easily replaced. Well how did that turn out? Where was Super Stevie G then when you needed him? Thats why I am saying it is English culture and the mindset.
Modric also won World player of the year recently. Lets look at Yaya Toure and David Silva. Yaya Toure played at Barcelona and struggled to standout, he arrives at City and standouts being a box to box midfielder. David Silva gets a mention but no where near Yaya's level. If both played at Barcelona, who do you believe would get the better recognition out of the 2?
Last edited:
You’re post is full of holes and inaccuracies.
Firstly, Scholes Ballon d’or success: scroll down:
https://www.football365.com/news/tw...lly-didnt-know-cristiano-ronaldo-lionel-messi
The fact remains, when it came to cold hard votes from his fellow professionals in EUROPE, there weren’t Any at all, as in zilch. Yet, you’re trying to argue otherwise. Your defence of Scholes is based on quotes by other players. Since we’re taking stock in quotes, did you believe Zidane when he said that Gerrard (media darling) was the best in the world ahead of Messi and Ronaldo? Did you believe Scholes own manager Fergie who said that Gerrard was the most dominant player in the league? Henry named him one of the best midfielders in history. Owen (having played with Scholes, fat Ronaldo and other greats) only put him as 2nd behind Zidane with players he’s played with. The very same Harry Redknapp you quoted said he was better than Scholes. Gerrard, still a media darling? And how did this media darling get EIGHT times into PFA team of the season (the great Scholes only twice in 15 Years)? You do realise that was voted for by fellow professionals right? And Scholes was so great, he didn’t even Manchester Utd player of the season, not once. Please explain that? Was that down to the media?
United players were simply not ready for tiki taka yet. It was only at Barcelona's formation in 2009 when they subsequently won the CL, beating Man Utd, did the rest of the world start to appreciate that style of player.
I never knew the Inter Milan bid £31m for Scholes in 2000.
That would’ve been a world record fee at the time.
That would’ve been a world record fee at the time.
Sir Alex rejected lots of bids for Scholesey. He was an in demand player as he was a player of quality.
Good analysis, but you're missing a key factor. Not only Gerrard didn't have Alonso anymore, but he had to cope with deadweight Lucas Leiva on the team.
He literally had to drop deeper and play for two. Things went downhill for him and Liverpool from there.
I'm sure someone will come here do defend Lucas Leiva but before you do please remember that Lucas got injured in the 13/14 season and Liverpool had one hand on the trophy. When he returned to the squad they pretty much self-destructed and we all know how that story ended.
You do know the balon d'or is voted amongst journalists, national team coaches and players. Not every player across Europe or the world. Owen and Gerrard are buddies and grew up together, who do you expect him to vote? Jamie Redknapp is another one of Gerrards former teammates. Henry said he preferred Scholes to Gerrard, he said when Arsenal set out to play against United, their plan was to stop Scholes going near the ball. The reason why Scholes was always never in the spotlight was because he never did any interviews and just did not want the spotlight. A bit like David Silva today who has not won any awards and so on.
If you want to know why I believe Gerrard is a media darling and overhyped. Lets look at facts, what happened to Liverpool when Alonso left? What happened to Gerrard. Why did both Liverpool and Gerrard go off the radar? Why did Liverpool go from consistent top 4 challengers to dropping out of the top4? Why did Liverpool drop out of the group stages after spending years getting to the latter stages of the CL? Where was Super Gerrard then? Where were his last minute heroics and where were his last minute saviours. When Gerrard was in his prime, I told people it is not Gerrard, it is Alonso making him better than what he actually is. Thats not me being bias, that was how I saw it and that is what happened. Gerrard is taking the limelight, whilst Alonso quietly gets on with things. It was evident the day Alonso left, Liverpool suffered. Yet not one person or journalist will ever say that. You still had the same squad the following season, but without Alonso.
The reason why Gerrard did what he did was because Alonso made him look better than what he actually was. That proved it the day Alonso left because not only did Liverpool miss him, so did Gerrard. Thats why he is a overhyped media darling. United still competed after Keane left, after Cantona left, after Ronaldo left, yet they have struggled to compete after Scholes has retired. Yet Liverpool and Gerrard could not compete after Alonso left.
I never understood why people are talking about Gerrard and Scholes too. They are 2 different players. Gerrard is a attacking midfielder/number 10 and Paul Scholes is a playmaker and central midfielder. Look at the CL final in 2005, Gerrard alongside Alonso, they got exposed in the first half and Hamann came on which allowed Gerrard to push forward and play behind the main striker. That gave Alonso more space to do what he had to do. Gerrard prime at Liverpool, he was never a central midfielder, he was a attacking midfielder/number 10, best season was at righr midfield. Alonso and Mascherano/Sissoko were Rafa's preferred midfield duo.
Last edited:
Scholes probably rejected them himself too. He never seemed interested in being anywhere else. He might have ended up a more highly regarded player if he had gone abroad and been a success
It was because Lampard or Gerrard would've been completely useless on the left and he was too much of a chicken to bench one of them.
Where do you get Jamie Redknapp from? I said Harry Redknapp, the same manager whose quotes you used to prop up Scholes. He said that Gerrard was better. Zidane, another one you quoted, said that, at his best, Gerrard was the best in the world. He never said the same about Scholes. Xavi, another one you quoted, snubbed Scholes in 2014. He was asked which English players were his favourite off all time. He left Scholes out, and included Barnes, Gerrard and Lampard:
https://www.eurosport.com/football/...ers.-and-snubs-scholes_sto4478160/story.shtml
Why did he leave Scholes out and mention Stevie G? Are you ultimately saying that Harry Redknapp, Zidane and Xavi haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about by praising Gerrard to the roof? After all, he’s only an overrated media darling. Can’t have it both ways. You can use quotes all you want, but quotes can quite easily, as I’ve just proved, be used to counter your point.
Scholes' move to Inter would've helped fund the transfer of Figo to United.
Yep. Fergie was willing to let Scholes go to Inter as he had an eye on bringing Figo in
However Scholes like Solskjaer a couple of years earlier (turning down Spurs) was having none of it and wanted to stay and fight for his place
You sure have done your research. All in all you display that quotes are useless and judging players using quotes about them is the most pointless exercise.
I admire your commitment to your argument so fair play!
The Balon D'or in the old days was done by journalists so could be put down to popularity and favouritism, so fair enough.
The world player of the year is chosen by national team coaches and their captains, selected the player they deem to have performed the best in the previous calendar year.
For our 1999 season, those footballing people placed 3 United players in the top 10 (Becks, Yorke, Cole). In 2000 we had one BECKHAM. 2001 Beckham again, 2002 Beckham, (Ballack as a rival CM to Scholes), 2003 (Beckham and RVN)
2004 (Beckham, Rooney, Henry, RVN, Owen, LAMPARD), 2005 (Lampard 2nd place) (Gerrard 7th place). In future years, players from Essien, Gerrard, Rooney, Ronaldo, Drogba, Lampard, terry, torres, Tevez, have all got voters.
Is is that the captains and managers of national teams acorss the globe, simply cannot recognise that Scholes is actually the best midfielder in the world at the time?
if that is not a big enough sample size, lets try the Fifpro world 11. FIFPro invited all professional men's pro footballers in the world to compose the best men's team of the year, named the FIFPro World XI. Every player was requested to pick one goalkeeper, four defenders, three midfielders and three forwards. 45,000 voting ballots are sent out to professional footballers' associations
Lampard has been elected once, Gerrard "le terrible" has been elected 3 times, Iniesta (9), Xavi (6), Modric (4), Kroos (3) Zidane (2) Kaka (3) Pirlo (1) Scholes zero.
Now I appreciate competition is high and there is no guarantee that anyone bar Messi and Ronaldo should make the team but the fact is the whole footballing community in England, Europe and the World seemed to shun Scholes when it came to putting pen on paper, money where there mouths are, crosses on ballots as whatever pun you like (as to who are the best midfielders). This is a phenomenon because according to you, Scholes was better than all of them, especially Steven Gerrard. its unexplainable. it doesn't make sense. why would you use a players kind quotes about a player post retirement as having more weight than their actions while he was playing? "John was the perfect politician, any country in the world would be lucky to have him as leader." who did you vote for president? "Trump"
Last edited:
Well I could not find anything in regards to Harry redknapp and found quotes from Jamie Redknapp. You missed the key part of your article out-
In 2011, Xavi said: "In the last 15 to 20 years the best central midfielder that I have seen - the most complete - is Scholes."
Earlier this year, he said the "one small regret" from his career was that he never got to play with the Manchester United midfielder.
Saying who is your favourite player, does not mean he is the best. Carrick was my favourite player within the last 10 years, does not mean he was better than Ronaldo, Rooney and so on. It is all subjective.
You also failed to mention what happened to Liverpool and Gerrard post Alonso. I am not saying Gerrard is a poor player, he was just hyped to be better than what he actually was. I always said Alonso made him look better and I stood by that, I was saying this when Alonso was at Liverpool, this was proven when Alonso left. I remember telling Liverpool fans, Liverpool would miss Alonso more than United would miss Ronaldo, that was proven. Yet like I said, the media and the pundits just pretended it never happened and made out like Gerrard was still top class when his form dipped after Alonso left. Thats a media darling.
Lets look at some stats since that is what you enjoy pulling up-
Between 04-09(Alonso years at Liverpool)
Liverpool came 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 2nd
Reached 2 CL Finals winning 1, 1 semi final 1 quarter final
6 years after Alonso left-
Liverpool came 7th, 6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and when Suarez left Liverpool came 8th
They reached 2 finals and that was the league cup and FA Cup, winning 1 against Cardiff on penalties and losing the other against Chelsea.
It is common sense to work out who was the real influence.
Scholes has scored more outfield goals than Gerrard, if you remove the amount of penalties Gerrard has scored. Yet he had a different role to Gerrard. Like I said earlier Liverpool and Gerrard stopped competing when Alonso left, United have struggled post Scholes. That is how little recognition playmakers get in English football. If you place both Yaya Toure and David Silva in the Barcelona side, then Silva would have got all the praise.
That's why they show Scholes' videos to La Masia graduates. You have a clear bias - shows in the number of times you have commented/replied on this thread.
Moyes shown Rio Jagielka's vids, is that make Jagielka better than Rio?
That's why they show Scholes' videos to La Masia graduates. You have a clear bias - shows in the number of times you have commented/replied on this thread.
Do you even know what Bias means? There is plenty of real evidence that supports Xavi was a superior CM than Scholes and virtually no one I have seen outside of a United forum has ever told me otherwise. Even family members of mine who support United see Xavi as King. At La Masia I wonder if they showed Iniesta videos of Pep? We know that Andres surpassed Pep as a player.
That's why they show Scholes' videos to La Masia graduates. You have a clear bias - shows in the number of times you have commented/replied on this thread.
YES he most certainly is.Moyes shown Rio Jagielka's vids, is that make Jagielka better than Rio?
He’s not wrong though. Xavi Hernandez is and will always be remembered by the majority of the football world (outside Manchester) as the better and greater player. That’s by general consensus. He doesn’t win arguments on ifs and buts, but on what he actually Achieved. His achievements and performances (esp performances) at the very highest levels blow Scholes completely out of the water. It’s not even an argument. Can Scholes compete with Xavis Euro2008 (without Messi, who apparently he needs)? And by the way, since Scholes converted to Xavis role, Xavi scored and assisted more. Xavi is one of the best EVER.
That's why they show Scholes' videos to La Masia graduates. You have a clear bias - shows in the number of times you have commented/replied on this thread.