I wonder if that would have been influenced by Robson being involved in transfers between clubs. If Gerrard had come through at another club and moved to Liverpool in his twenties, would he still have been seen as their talisman and afforded as much positional freedom to go charging about chasing the ball.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)
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
To be fair in Scholes' defence since he is still my guy, a Xavi assist can simply involve passing the ball to Messi's feet 40 yards from goal and Messi simply does the rest.
Real evidence? As in trophies and achievements? How does that rank Gerrard in your book (for selections in PFA team of the year FFS!). The whole concept of underrated is lost to you. That's why this is a debate which is still ignited everywhere (forums, media, etc) since he was not appreciated as he should have been in England.
I think Xavi was on-par (maybe a tad better) - no debate there whatsoever. I just don't like people who have never understood what he does in a footballing context and go on about trophies/achievements, etc to say Scholes was no match to Xavi - on-par? maybe. Xavi a bit better? - ok. Miles ahead of Scholes - BS! (see the one below your comment)
Your last line makes no sense at all.
I'm not saying Xavi isn't one of the best. I'm saying Scholes is right up there as well.
Who cares what other players/managers/fans say? Scholes was perfect for us and was a key player through our most successful years. We know better than anyone what he brought to United, and he will be forever loved for it.
It means Gerrard spent his life playing for his boyhood club who happened to be shite, played with the likes of Biscan, Traore etc whilst Scholes played under the greatest manager of all time, with the best players in the country, who of course tried to sign Gerrard twice as did the best team of the early 2000's Chelsea. As an individual, yes Gerrard was top.
I know what underrated means and I would like to know why you feel Paul was underrated just in England and not overseas as well? I mean everyone in England now claim he was the best CM of his generation, as do some overseas but both at home and the continent, the people did not demonstrate this during his player career, by selecting him ahead of others who played at the time. if you followed the thread you would realise Scholesey was supposedly underrated in Europe too and his team mates got more of the accolades (especially Beckham). fancy that.
My last line was in response to someone using Scholes video to la masia as justification that he is as good as Xavi which is a fallacy as the same would be said of Iniesta being told to watch Pep.
I don't fully get what you mean regarding trophies as Scholes clearly won more at team level. I am well aware what Scholes offered and recognised Xavi could execute better and on a bigger stage. Individually, yes Xavi's accolades shit on Scholes' and there is surely a logical reason for that which you seem to ignore as part of the nostalgia brigade. Scholes is one of the most consistent players to be able to play multiple positions to a high standard. Xavi was the master. It's like this, Rooney was a quality CF in his own right but Ronaldo (Il fenemono) was the master.
In fairness this just shows that these awards are not much more meaningful than the quotes - Keane was our best player throughout these years.
Scholes was insanely good, clearly one of the best ever in his position and he is the most decorated English player of all time so I think that tells you all you need to know. Keane and Scholes was an incredible midfield pairing and dominated games as a midfield 2 despite teams trying to flood the midfield or put a player on Scholes to stop him. I don't get why people elevate the likes of Xavi ahead of Scholes - for me they are on the same level and he would have been right at home in the Barca midfield which by the way was often more of a midfield 3 with Busquets and Iniesta.
Not against the top European sides though.
At one point we tried signing Xavi. Sir Alex broother Martin tried arranging it, imagine Scholes and Xavi together.
Xavi said "On one occasion I spoke with United and Sir Alex Ferguson's brother," he admitted.
“The Red Devils tried to take me there, but I decided to stay. I was always thinking that Barcelona was my favourite club, I have them in my heart and it is the best club in the world."
Xavi said "On one occasion I spoke with United and Sir Alex Ferguson's brother," he admitted.
“The Red Devils tried to take me there, but I decided to stay. I was always thinking that Barcelona was my favourite club, I have them in my heart and it is the best club in the world."
You cannot dismiss everyone's opinion because your one preferred player did not win. Rivaldo came 1st, Batistuta 3rd, Zidane 4th. The rest of the players you would have little issue with so that's not a legitimate claim. Also Keane was 6th on Ballon D'or votes for 1999, He also made the list in 2000 and got votes.
I cannot think of any player that gave me as much pleasure (sensual or otherwise) watching.
Being a Utd fan and him playing here played a massive part of that but he just was so fecking good.
Being a Utd fan and him playing here played a massive part of that but he just was so fecking good.
Actually I think Rivaldo was a worthy winner in 1999. Keane should probably have come second, but the problem the treble-winners had in terms of individual awards is that they tended to split the United vote. Same reason why Ginola won the domestic awards that season.
couldn't agree more. Keane and Becks along with Yorke and Cole stood out for one reason or the other and delivered in some key games.
A lot of what Sacchi said about Gerrard could be applied to Pogba when you think about it.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
Pogba is also a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player.
Yeah, there are some similarities between Pogba and Gerrard (more so than between Pogba and Scholes). The former is more talented, while the latter had a significantly better mentality and workrate, but in the end they both lacked top understanding of the game.
I think Pogba at WC displayed "top understanding of the game". It's just at United he looks playing for himself. But like Scholes said, even Messi would look clueless here.
Even though that sounds like a drool worthy prospect on paper, I don't believe Scholes and Xavi would have been a good partnership in practice, unless Xavi played in a pivot with a defensive midfielder (which probably wouldn't bring out the best in him) and Scholes played as a second striker — which was not his peak position as a passer and organizer in midfield as the 2000s wore on and he had to redefine his game, even though he personally loved playing as a striker, most prominently in 2002/03 where he scored a career high 14 league goals.
Link.
Xavi was at his best with a needle player like Iniesta — who had great ball carrying and passing ability in tight spaces towards attacking midfield zones as a dribbler. Scholes would have similarly been better off with someone like Iniesta or Modrić (whose is the needle player complement to Kroos) or even someone like Seedorf if you consider an alternative approach, because even though Scholes could carry the ball from an attacking midfield position, he didn't have the fluidity or agility or press resistance (in motion) of a more natural dribbler. Personally think the player we should have signed above all others was Nedvěd — tactically brilliant and versatile, close to the definition of a needle player in midfield-attack transitions, exceptionally hard worker, and joined Juventus from Lazio in the same window as Verón to United for a slightly lower fee — would have been a wonderful complement to Scholes as well, in contrast with Verón.
I have always felt Pogba is more Gerrard than say a DLP, or out and out AMC.
He did, but those were just a few games. He's still 25 (amazingly), so he has time to work on this.
Wrt. Pogba, I think Ibrahimović is a decent comparison — incredibly talented, very good athlete, produced impact moments, but prone to lapses in judgement and not the most consistent and had bouts of selfishness where he forgot to apply the fundamentals or got too cocky for his own good. Ibrahimović was not a particularly perceptive striker in the way he interpreted the game even though he was trained at Ajax for 3 years after signing from Malmö, and had to watch tapes of Van Basten religiously under Capello at Juventus to retrain his brain for Serie A — and started realizing the full extent of his potential at almost 30 years of age, which was anomalous for strikers who usually peak earlier and decline towards their 30s. A focused Pogba would be a better player than Gerrard despite having a worse natural engine, and could genuinely make a case for the All-Time great tier as opposed to an Era-based great tier, because he's one of the most talented midfielders since Falcão — especially considering this French team with the likes of Mbappé and Kanté gives him an excellent platform to shine at the highest levels of international football, provided he consistently stands out in the team as a key difference-maker while also proving his worth as a team-player (which is an important characteristic for midfielders).
I think its wrong though, because people only classify understanding of the game through the paradigm of how you play in relation to defence. What i mean is that it takes as much understanding of the game, to attack the box at the right time, be in the right positions to score and assist goals as it does to defend keep your shape in relation to the team, and not always have to tackle. People will classify for example someone like Pirlo has having a great understanding of the game because of how he operated deep, but put Pirlo as a number 10 and how good is his 'understanding' of the game in relation to what a number 10 is supposed to do? Not great, and the same exactly for Busquets and Alonso, if we're talking about 'understanding' then the likes of Lampard and Gerrard had great understanding of certain roles, football is as much about scoring goals as kit is defending them, probably more so....
It could be said about a lot of 'individualist' players, is up to perception, but one has to also realize what Sacchi's philosophized wouldn't be the same as Guardiola or Cruyff, in fact Sacchi in terms of philosophy was the precursor to the likes of Mourinho and Benitez.
I think it’s not only defense, it’s your decision-making, understanding when and what to do. Pogba is, sadly, quite lazy and his movement isn’t top notch (not only in the defensive phase, if you compare his off the ball movement with Xavi or even Scholes, you’ll see what I’m talking about). It’s not as bad as some make out of it, and he has a beautiful vision (one of the best I’ve seen of United’s players).
Pirlo was quite lazy but his positioning was fantastic - the way he always gave his partners a passing option and found the best way to utilize his vision and passing skills. Pogba often runs to dead ends or tries to dribble his way out when he can do a simple pass. Look at De Bruyne — I won’t say that he has a better vision or is a better passer than Pogba, but his movement is significantly better (he was already very good but Pep took him to another level) — and you’ve seen the difference last season. Although, of course, the exceptional movement of his partners made it much easier for him.
By the way, I’m a big Pogba fan and I rate him as our best outfield player. Even with his weaknesses he is one of the best midfielders around, but he has a talent to surpass Scholes if he develops properly.
Paul Scholes is the best Paul Scholes I've ever seen.
No one could get near Paul Scholes,not even Paul Scholes.
No one could get near Paul Scholes,not even Paul Scholes.
Very true. We often hear Gerrard as poor positional sense, but to get into scoring positions suggests the opposite.
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 at the very highest levels blow Scholes completely out of the water. It’s not even an argument. 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.
I think plenty of people (including United fans) recognise Xavi as a great and a lot of them would place him ahead of Scholes.
But being better doesn't mean he "blows Scholes out of the water" even if you think (as you've now said more than once) that Xavi was one of the best EVER. He played in probably the best club side we've seen and a very strong Spain team - key component yes, but so were some of his teammates.
Xavi was arguably better, hard to argue with his accomplishments and understanding of the game one step ahead.
But, playing in midfield two for United and playing in that Barca, or even Spain set up is not the same. Scholes was insanely good, defensively brilliant (underrated quality when we talk about him) and for all the talk about missing a leader like Keane which is understandable Scholes type of player is even more of a loss imo. Pogba can't do it, he is a very good player when on form, but the one who needs exactly someone like Scholes behind him so he doesn't have to be bothered with playmaking from the deep and just influence the game in the final third.
But, playing in midfield two for United and playing in that Barca, or even Spain set up is not the same. Scholes was insanely good, defensively brilliant (underrated quality when we talk about him) and for all the talk about missing a leader like Keane which is understandable Scholes type of player is even more of a loss imo. Pogba can't do it, he is a very good player when on form, but the one who needs exactly someone like Scholes behind him so he doesn't have to be bothered with playmaking from the deep and just influence the game in the final third.
Thought exactly the same when reading this funnily enough. Although I think Pogba may be more talented, if not as aggressive in footballing terms.
Also never heard any rumors on his Juve's day that he's a selfish, low awareness type of midfielder either.
But you did say "top understanding". So it's a bit arbitrary then; whether you compare him to Modric and David Silva of this world, or to the like of KDB.
Defensively brilliant? Scholes? Paul Scholes? The one who used to play in midfield for United?
Ironically, at Pogba's age, Scholes was the one who needed someone like Keane behind him "so he doesn't have to be bothered with playmaking from the deep and just influence the game in the final third".
General consensus? Who does these things? Where is it?
Here. Brilliant is probably an exaggeration, but positionally he was miles ahead of Pogba. At 25 and later.
Not really. In the treble season he was regularly left out for Nicky Butt when the team needed a more defensively aware player. He was 24 that season.
Pogba is potentially a much better defensive player than Scholes. The way Pogba played against Newcastle as a one man midfield was outstanding. Scholes didn't have the athleticism to play like that.
The one advantage Scholes has over Pogba as a defensive player is that he wanted to do it.
Pogba is clearly struggling where to be on the field in the defensive phase. It certainly isn't a case of him not wanting to defend, it's a case of him being overrun and being out of position many times.
Scholes proved multiple times that he can play in a midfield two on a very high level, even play it with someone like Carrick who is not so brilliant runner, but they compensated it by their great positional awareness. Something I don't see in Pogba.
I do hope I'm wrong and Pogba proves otherwise, but I don't see him being nearly that influential like Scholes was in that role. Also, I think it isn't suited to get the best out of him.
Scholes improved defensively as he got more experienced. You mention how he even managed to play with Carrick in a midfield 2. Scholes was 31 when Carrick joined United and even then, although not very athletic, Carrick is a very good defensive player.
Scholes played most of his younger career alongside Keane in midfield. It's easy to be able to cope well defensively alongside a player like that. Much like Pogba did next to Kante for France.
In my opinion, Pogba's best position is in a midfield 2. He's not the most natural defensively but if there is ever a player to prove that with the right attitude it's possible to overcome a lack of defensive quality in that position, it is Scholes.
But Xavi proved that he can play in a midfield 2. He was player of the tournament in Euro 2008, also provided the assist to Torres winner in the final (if I remember correctly). Scholes NEVER performed at that high a level in a midfield 2. Xavi was quite clearly better AND more influential. His imprint on that Barca/ Spain was substantial.
True, he played with Senna behind him that tournament (they were still better when Fabregas was also in the team and went 4-2-3-1 like in the final, but nevermind).
I was thinking more about getting Xavi out of that system and having doubts on how he would perform, but since that is impossible to prove you have to take each player for what he achieved and how he played and Xavi is the greatest player of his generation there.
Still, Scholes is genius in his own right and the distance is not that far as people suggest looking at their individual capabilities.
Both of you are correct in your own right. Ability wise Scholes can do some of what Xavi can do and it's not a huge gap per se but if you approached a randomer and said "I am building a dream team, not saying what formation or players will be in it but you can choose Xavi or Scholes" 9/10 or maybe 10 I am confident Xavi will get the nod. Its like Rooney vs Ronaldo (il fenomeno). One is quality but the other is the master.