How good was Paul Scholes?

[Nevilles.Wear.Prada]

If we have him now, we would instantly be challenging on every front.

 

[Fridge chutney]

Probably around the level of a Gravesen, Milner or Grealish, but not quite top tier. Good player though.

 

[The Brown Bull]

As an old timer I'm going to go against the grain here. He was a brilliant player, world class in his prime, but perhaps a little overrated by many United fans.

Technically excellent, 360° vision, laser accurate short and long-range passing, superb shooting. But he really had no physicality whatsoever, no defensive ability, no leadership qualities and was very slow. Which meant he sometimes struggled against fast fluent midfields. You needed a Keane next to him and a Rio and Vidic behind him to allow him to do his thing.

Keane was a much better all-rounder, and Robson was pure inspiration, they were two all-time greats that could get into United's best ever 11. Scholes, as superb as he was, would just about get on the bench.

Yeah, I have to agree and I was a massive Scholes fan. In a midfield 4 of Beckham, Giggs and most importantly Keane he could strut his stuff. He was magnificent! Without the right midfield partners he struggled.

 

[Red in STL]

How good was Paul Scholes, let's make it simple, if he was playing in his proper position today then the game on Sunday would be England's revenge for the hand of the cheat.

 

[meamth]

Probably around the level of a Gravesen, Milner or Grealish, but not quite top tier. Good player though.

You joking? Or serious?

 

[OrcaFat]

Well without breaking it down season by season, I’d argue that after he broke into the first team in 1994, our most important players were - Cantona (94-96), Keane (96-02), RVN (02-06), Ronaldo (06-09), Rooney (09-12) and RVP (12/13).

I wouldn’t argue against that because those guys were all highly influential and of course important.

In my opinion, after about 2000 Scholes was the single biggest influence on the way we played and although he clearly couldn’t have done it on his own, he was the hub of the machine and enabled all those other players to achieve what they did. Scholes particularly liked playing with RVN who was fantastic for us.

Scholes was a team player and I measure his importance by the impact on the whole team when he was playing and the loss of style and cohesion when he was absent.

 

[Stacks]

If we have him now, we would instantly be challenging on every front.

Nope. He was never good enough to impact a team like that. He wasn't really talismanic. Someone like Xavi or Pirlo then maybe.

 

[EtH]

Nope. He was never good enough to impact a team like that. He wasn't really talismanic. Someone like Xavi or Pirlo then maybe.

He absolutely was. FFS.

 

[andersj]

Nope. He was never good enough to impact a team like that. He wasn't really talismanic. Someone like Xavi or Pirlo then maybe.

Yes, he was. Same way Modric is.

 

[Zen86]

He was a fabulous player who was probably eclipsed by some of the massive personalities and cult figures we've been lucky to have at United. He was often quite a comparatively understated player, but a key factor in throughout the most successful period in our history. His England career impacts his legacy quite a bit though. Not that I think that was his fault, the NT was badly managed and very much influenced by the headline grabbing media favourites of the time. He was a team player, and the kinds of attributes he had weren't really what England valued at the time, and probably still don't.

 

[Zen86]

Nope. He was never good enough to impact a team like that. He wasn't really talismanic. Someone like Xavi or Pirlo then maybe.

Exactly the kind of thinking that led to Gerrard and Lampard dominating the England NT during a pretty underwhelming period of our history.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Modric, Xavi, Pirlo, Kroos. That's Scholes level .

 

[Flying high]

Nope. He was never good enough to impact a team like that. He wasn't really talismanic. Someone like Xavi or Pirlo then maybe.

What? Seriously, wtf?

 

[Krits]

He was right up there. Not GOAT level, but definitely WC and top tier in that category as well. For me, his real skill was vision and understanding of where everyone was. It is a trait that is hard to back up with stats and can only be passed by the eye test. Had plenty of technical ability to maximise that talent as well. If Bruno had Scholes technical ability, I would easily see us challenging for top 2 spots. Bruno also does have high level of understanding where his team mates are, just doesn't have to ability to pull it off with consistency.

 

[Real Name]

Player like Scholes would be magnificient for England team and would propel them to the final imo. He's the exact player this England team lacks and needs.

Not to mention he was a fantastic player in his time.

 

[Oranges038]

Seriously questionable revisionism in here.

He was a great player, one of the best midfielders of his generation, his evolution from attacking mid/ second striker to the deep lying dictator was incredible. Not many players are capable of it, Lampard/Gerrard etc couldn't do it. Pirlo is the only other player I can think of that has had a similar progession.

His biggest asset was always his brain, the understanding he had of his roles out there on the pitch, his positioning was exceptional. Not to mention his passing, vision and technique, always found the extra yard of space he needed. Hell of footballer, one of the best midfielders of his generation.

 

[Shark]

He would be easily our best midfielder out of all the rubbish that's been bought the past ten years aside from one or two.

 

[therealtboy]

Yeah, I have to agree and I was a massive Scholes fan. In a midfield 4 of Beckham, Giggs and most importantly Keane he could strut his stuff. He was magnificent! Without the right midfield partners he struggled.

Scholes and overrated should never be in the same sentence unless there’s a is not in between. Scholes is Top 10 best of all time in his position and fellow Top 10 players like Xavi and Zidane agree.

 

[Hughes35]

Very similar player to Pirlo really. Would make a huge hug difference to us now.

Put him in this team next to Casemiro and we'd be right up there.

 

[Stacks]

He absolutely was. FFS.

Yes, he was. Same way Modric is.

Exactly the kind of thinking that led to Gerrard and Lampard dominating the England NT during a pretty underwhelming period of our history.

Scholes had plenty of opportunity before Gerrard even got into the team and did nout.

What? Seriously, wtf?

I'm old enough to remember and he was the least important of our Big 4 most seasons. We could replace him with Butt (e.g 1996 and 97) and still be the same. Keane was our talisman. Scholes wasn't even regarded as such by his own coach he left him out of biggest games. Very not comparable to Modric, Xavi, Pirlo whom the teams were based around and could not function without

 

[Stacks]

Player like Scholes would be magnificient for England team and would propel them to the final imo. He's the exact player this England team lacks and needs.

Not to mention he was a fantastic player in his time.

Again, had plenty opportunity and didn't have an impact on the international scene so I don't know why people keep saying this

 

[El Jefe]

The difference between Scholes and the likes of Iniesta, Modric, Xavi and Pirlo is that they dominated on the biggest stages in football and have memorable performances at that level. As great as Scholes was, he has very few of these in CL and international competitions compared to the players mentioned.

People will give all sorts of excuses why that didn't happen but none are valid.

The same reasons why posters say KDB doesn't belong on that level in his recent thread, should be the same why Scholes doesn't either.

 

[Stacks]

The difference between Scholes and the likes of Iniesta, Modric, Xavi and Pirlo is that they dominated on the biggest stages in football and have memorable performances at that level. As great as Scholes was, he has very few of these in CL and international competitions compared to the players mentioned.

People will give all sorts of excuses why that didn't happen but none are valid.

The same reasons why posters say KDB doesn't belong on that level in his recent thread, should be the same why Scholes doesn't either.

Pretty much. He was a prem legend and was very much a tough competitor but never had the talismanic dominance of the others listed at the biggest stages.

 

[Zen86]

Scholes had plenty of opportunity before Gerrard even got into the team and did nout.

He played in position (and played decent) in some pretty underwhelming and transitional England teams. By the time the England team started to gather a strong squad, he was shunted off the left and retired shortly after. It's all hypotheticals now, but England would have fared much better had they accommodated him in 04 and beyond.

 

[Withnail]

The difference between Scholes and the likes of Iniesta, Modric, Xavi and Pirlo is that they dominated on the biggest stages in football and have memorable performances at that level. As great as Scholes was, he has very few of these in CL and international competitions compared to the players mentioned.

People will give all sorts of excuses why that didn't happen but none are valid.

The same reasons why posters say KDB doesn't belong on that level in his recent thread, should be the same why Scholes doesn't either.

International football is not the benchmark and hasn't been for a very long time.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

I challenge anyone to name a player that has performed to a very high level as an ST, CAM, CM and CDM. Scholes has been exceptional in all of these positions and then became one of the best Deep Lying Playmakers of the last 30 years.

That basically shows he was a world class footballer. Not many could play all 4 positions in their career and still be great.

 

[Eriku]

Here’s what Thierry Henry has to say:

 

[KiD MoYeS]

The difference between Scholes and the likes of Iniesta, Modric, Xavi and Pirlo is that they dominated on the biggest stages in football and have memorable performances at that level. As great as Scholes was, he has very few of these in CL and international competitions compared to the players mentioned.

People will give all sorts of excuses why that didn't happen but none are valid.

The same reasons why posters say KDB doesn't belong on that level in his recent thread, should be the same why Scholes doesn't either.

Man Utd underperformed in Europe during their English dominance. When the club did finally get into gear in Europe during Ferguson's latter years, Scholes was massively influential.

 

[Real Name]

Again, had plenty opportunity and didn't have an impact on the international scene so I don't know why people keep saying this

Never played for England in his best position and England never played to his strenghts. It's not all black and white.

 

[Real Name]

Scholes had plenty of opportunity before Gerrard even got into the team and did nout.


I'm old enough to remember and he was the least important of our Big 4 most seasons. We could replace him with Butt (e.g 1996 and 97) and still be the same. Keane was our talisman. Scholes wasn't even regarded as such by his own coach he left him out of biggest games. Very not comparable to Modric, Xavi, Pirlo whom the teams were based around and could not function without

What were those?

Seems so you dont rate him much.

 

[TheReligion]

Again, had plenty opportunity and didn't have an impact on the international scene so I don't know why people keep saying this

I mean he won England a Euros play off by scoring a few goals, got a hatrick, scored at major international tournaments..

You’re being extreme. By all means say you feel he’s overrated but saying he had no impact and was not a talisman (check the definition of what that is) feels like you’re fishing. It’s that silly.

 

[Longlivekeano]

What’s all this crap about Scholes being a mere above average player????

scholesnever grabbed headlines cause he doesn’t do interviews or engage in silly antics. But as a footballer, he was top, top, top class. I view him as a metronome, dictated tempo, pace of the game, and never ever loses possession. World class range of passing and has thunderbolt of a shot that accounts for over 100 over goals without taking many penalties/free kicks.

 

[andersj]

Scholes had plenty of opportunity before Gerrard even got into the team and did nout.


I'm old enough to remember and he was the least important of our Big 4 most seasons. We could replace him with Butt (e.g 1996 and 97) and still be the same. Keane was our talisman. Scholes wasn't even regarded as such by his own coach he left him out of biggest games. Very not comparable to Modric, Xavi, Pirlo whom the teams were based around and could not function without

If you are talking about Scholes at 24-25 you should remember Modric playef in Croatia at 23. He was used on the left for Spurs in his first season at the age of 24.

Scholes between 2004 and 2010 was our best player by some distance. Always available for a pass and always the most involved player on the pitch. Always the best player in the toughest games. The difference in quality of Man Utd all round game with and without Scholes was huuuuuuge (and bigger than for any other player).

 

[Abraxas]

A genuine world class footballer. No doubt about that whatsoever. We had a lot of good players back then, but only a few were categorically world class, that term gets thrown around way too easily. Most of them were extremely good but not world class, even Fergie acknowledged this.

To be honest, as for where he stands among his generation or historically - I don't know and have never found that type of stuff particularly interesting. I'm sure there are guys like Xavi etc that have better international careers, that maybe were more pivotal, or whatever. But Scholes was a product of his environment and perfect for us and that's the point. And we were pretty successful.

 

[El Jefe]

International football is not the benchmark and hasn't been for a very long time.

Of course it is and it always will be. Look at the amount of pressure that was lifted off Messi and Ronaldo when both won the Copa/Euros and that was despite them having multiple Ballon d’Ors and CL titles. I mean people are saying Messi will be the undisputed goat if Argentina win on Sunday so that just shows how important it is.

Scholes' international career isn't anywhere near accomplished enough to be listed with the greatest CMs. He also has no excuse because he played for England and not a small nation with no chance of qualifying or competing at tournaments.

Man Utd underperformed in Europe during their English dominance. When the club did finally get into gear in Europe during Ferguson's latter years, Scholes was massively influential.

This is another excuse unfortunately, if Scholes was who everyone says he is he would have been more of a difference maker. I'm not saying he didn't have his moments as he clearly did, both legs of the CL Semis in 2008 he was incredible but we didn't get enough of that.

Ronaldo, Rooney, RvN, Giggs and even Beckham were all exceptional in the CL for us and made more of an impact than Scholes.

 

[nakpodiareuben]

Paul scholes is currently my all time greatest Manchester united player. Its beyond facts, it's a out what he brings to the team. Scholes was the only player in SAF era that I am so sure would have walked into any team in the world and become a regular. Any team which includes Madrid and Barca. He is just class. SAF brought him back from retirement to help him win his last title.

 

[JB7]

Scholes had plenty of opportunity before Gerrard even got into the team and did nout.

The majority of his early international football was played either as a second striker or directly behind the strikers, and to be fair his goalscoring record was very good in those first couple of years, Gerrard came into the team in 2000/2001. I seem to remember Scholes played a couple of games in central midfield at Euro 2000, he certainly did in the win against Germany. He did get a proper run during the World Cup 2002 qualifiers and tournament in centre midfield and was good without being great most of the time, and then once Lampard came into the managers thinking Scholes did get shifted around more, both back to off the strikers and to the left and he didn't excel in either. So to answer your post, before Gerrard came into the team Scholes had generally done well but played higher up the pitch.

The issue you have is as a central midfielder he matured into the role and United saw his best years in the position, England simply didn't.

 

[mariko48]

Who cares about the hater? To me he's the best holding midfielder in the history of the prem and I'm sure many people also agree with me.

 

[Adam-Utd]

As football evolved into 4-3-3 he was even more valuable IMO.

Back in the 4-4-2 days athleticism was more required, and being little with asthma he perhaps struggled more compared to some bigger box to box men.

Once midfield became more about pass/move though he was up there with the best of them. He could have walked into the Barca side with Xavi/Iniesta and not look a step out of place.

If only he was born maybe 5/10 years later, he'd be regarded as the best in the world by far IMO. What couldn't he do? passing, shooting, heading and not too bad defensively

 

[Red in STL]

Ronaldo, Rooney, RvN, Giggs and even Beckham were all exceptional in the CL for us and made more of an impact than Scholes.

And the common factor - Paul Scholes, he is the one who played with all of them, he was the glue that enabled them to do what they did