How good was Paul Scholes?

[Stacks]

The fact this is even a debate saddens me. Anyone who watched Utd regularly from the 90s onwards would appreciate how good he was during an era of absolutely legendary centre mids.

It seems to me that players who played with less "flair" seem to lose some of the reputation/kudos over time - but players like Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Zidane etc... are always revered at the same level. Keane and Vieira are other examples - they would piss on most midfielders considered world class right now but we still get the "how good was Keane/Scholes" type debates.

they don't. Everyone still creams over Xavi, Laudrup and much of the debate is comparing Scholes impact to contemporaries, Pirlo, Xavi, Modric, Keane, Vieira (none of which played with much flair) who I feel were all a tier above. I used to even rate Ruben Baraja and later Cesc, none flair players.
Its just about putting players in their correct places/tiers. nothing more. Nothing to do with not rating them. nothing to do with them not scoring, being big personalities or whatever. Just accurately assessing their impact/importance as closely as one can remember.

 

[matherto]

The fact this is even a debate saddens me. Anyone who watched Utd regularly from the 90s onwards would appreciate how good he was during an era of absolutely legendary centre mids.

It seems to me that players who played with less "flair" seem to lose some of the reputation/kudos over time - but players like Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Zidane etc... are always revered at the same level. Keane and Vieira are other examples - they would piss on most midfielders considered world class right now but we still get the "how good was Keane/Scholes" type debates.

Tbf, this is the reason Youtube exists. Highlights of flair and amazing skill make great compilations.

Players like Scholes get remembered if you took the same to go to OT and just watch him and not the game for a bit. Carrick was always one for me, remembered for not being remembered but unfailing in making a game tick (albeit yeah Scholes was better).

 

[OL29]

they don't. Everyone still creams over Xavi, Laudrup and much of the debate is comparing Scholes impact to contemporaries, Pirlo, Xavi, Modric, Keane, Vieira (none of which played with much flair) who I feel were all a tier above. I used to even rate Ruben Baraja and later Cesc, none flair players.
Its just about putting players in their correct places/tiers. nothing more. Nothing to do with not rating them. nothing to do with them not scoring, being big personalities or whatever. Just accurately assessing their impact/importance as closely as one can remember.

If anything, I think a lot of flair players tend to get overlooked. A lot of people on this forum seem to prefer more understated players. It gives them a platform to patronise anyone who doesn't rate players of that ilk to the same degree as them. It's all over this thread, apparently if you don't think Scholes was the greatest united player of his era, you don't understand the complexities of his game. It's jarring.

 

[adexkola]

Excellent midfielder. Key piece of 2 strong United teams. Set the tone for SAF's sides attacking in full flow. So many times he would switch the play with a perfect diagonal ball begging for the winger to chase, which stretched the defense. Knew when to run into the box.

Gets done a disservice from the first page of this thread by comparison to others. Really wish he reconsidered retirement from the England team who were going nowhere with Gerrard and Lampard in midfield.

 

[adexkola]

If anything, I think a lot of flair players tend to get overlooked. A lot of people on this forum seem to prefer more understated players. It gives them a platform to patronise anyone who doesn't rate players of that ilk to the same degree as them. It's all over this thread, apparently if you don't think Scholes was the greatest united player of his era, you don't understand the complexities of his game. It's jarring.

Who said this?

Name names

 

[OL29]

Who said this?

Name names

You are entitled to your opinion, but I just feel really sorry for you because you missed out on understanding the brilliance of one our best players at Man Utd ever.

Romanticised? By people who understand the game. Romanticised when he was playing. Romanticised now. By the likes of Zidane, Xavi and Pep. By basically all the players he ever played with. And romanticised by Ferguson. I think Pep just last month chose to romantihim again saying he prefered him over Gerrard and Lampard.

But not by Stacks, who just missed out.

Scholes is abit like that Messi vs Ronaldo test. If you actually think it is or ever was debatable you just dont get this sport.

I was being hyperbolic but there's loads of posters in Scholes threads suggesting that you 'don't get this sport' if you don't rate Scholes to the same degree as them. The funny thing is, Scholes is probably my favourite united player of all time. I queued up for hours in the Trafford Centre to get my book signed by him when I was younger. I just disagree with the argument that he was so clear of his peers that you don't understand football if you disagree.

 

[grahamo]

He was well better than Gerrard!

 

[Stacks]

Who said this?

Name names

I was told "I don't get the sport" but I don't take it serious. Its just a passing comment.

 

[EtH]

I was told "I don't get the sport" but I don't take it serious. Its just a passing comment.

Seems a pretty fair comment judging by most of your posts in this thread.

 

[Stacks]

Seems a pretty fair comment judging by most of your posts in this thread.

It's a simple game which I played to a decent enough level and watched for 30 years. What's not to get? You remind of the "pure hooper" basketball fans

 

[andersj]

I was being hyperbolic but there's loads of posters in Scholes threads suggesting that you 'don't get this sport' if you don't rate Scholes to the same degree as them. The funny thing is, Scholes is probably my favourite united player of all time. I queued up for hours in the Trafford Centre to get my book signed by him when I was younger. I just disagree with the argument that he was so clear of his peers that you don't understand football if you disagree.

What does this even mean? I’ve never used that type of phrase, but you are quoting me.

My argument is first and foremost that he was a key player at Man Utd, and one of the most influential players for a team that between 1998 and 2010 was probably the best team in the world (alongside Bayern, Barcelona and Real Madrid). I really dont think it is very controversial.

I would not say that someone «dont understand football» if they claim Beckham, Giggs, Keane or even Gerrard was better. I would not agree, but I think it is a fair opinion. I would, however, feel that some understanding is lacking if you fail to respect that the opposite is also a fair opinion. Even more so if you even doubt that a coach like Guardiola, who he would have been a perfect fit for, is not sincere in his praise of Scholes.

If I did not rate a player that two of the greatest coaches in history repeatedly praise I would be a bit humble about it. I would probably even acknowledge that there is a good chance Zidane and Pep are right and I’m wrong. But I guess everyone is different.

 

[OL29]

What does this even mean? I’ve never used that type of phrase, but you are quoting me.

My argument is first and foremost that he was a key player at Man Utd, and one of the most influential players for a team that between 1998 and 2010 was probably the best team in the world (alongside Bayern, Barcelona and Real Madrid). I really dont think it is very controversial.

I would not say that someone «dont understand football» if they claim Beckham, Giggs, Keane or even Gerrard was better. I would not agree, but I think it is a fair opinion. I would, however, feel that some understanding is lacking if you fail to respect that the opposite is also a fair opinion. Even more so if you even doubt that a coach like Guardiola, who he would have been a perfect fit for, is not sincere in his praise of Scholes.

If I did not rate a player that two of the greatest coaches in history repeatedly praise I would be a bit humble about it. I would probably even acknowledge that there is a good chance Zidane and Pep are right and I’m wrong. But I guess everyone is different.

My post wasn't limited to you, you were just the first post I saw that exemplified what I was talking about.

The bolded is a bit disingenuous. The poster you were claiming doesn't understand football didn't say he doesn't rate Scholes, he just doesn't rate him better than some other players which is a fair opinion. It certainly doesn't warrant the accusation that he doesn't understand football.

 

[Revan]

What does this even mean? I’ve never used that type of phrase, but you are quoting me.

My argument is first and foremost that he was a key player at Man Utd, and one of the most influential players for a team that between 1998 and 2010 was probably the best team in the world (alongside Bayern, Barcelona and Real Madrid). I really dont think it is very controversial.

I would not say that someone «dont understand football» if they claim Beckham, Giggs, Keane or even Gerrard was better. I would not agree, but I think it is a fair opinion. I would, however, feel that some understanding is lacking if you fail to respect that the opposite is also a fair opinion. Even more so if you even doubt that a coach like Guardiola, who he would have been a perfect fit for, is not sincere in his praise of Scholes.

I do not think that anyone is disagreeing that he was great. The only registra players who are rated better than him are Xavi, Modric and Pirlo, maybe Kroos but there I wouldn’t disagree if people put Scholes higher. Which at worst case puts him as the fifth best player in that position for the last 20 years.

What is ridiculous is when people start calling others trolls or know nothing about football cause they disagree that he wasn’t as good as Xavi or Modric (hint: he really wasn’t), or that he was our best player always (even when a certain Cristiano was playing here), or that the only reasons why he didn’t win awards was cause he didn’t have a PR (but then Xavi, Pirlo, Modric didn’t have too and yet won so many individual awards).

The equivalents of that Chelsea poster who was claiming that Hazard doesn’t score as much as Ronaldo or Messi cause he doesn’t want too.

NB: there is also the agglomeration of two different versions of Scholes. He was as good at dictating the play as Xavi, Pirlo or Modric (he never was), while scoring as much as Gerrard and Lampard (he didn’t score as much). But importantly, Scholes who scored many (before 2005-2006) was not dictating much the play. And the one who reinvented himself as deep laying playmaker (after that season) didn’t score as much (very comparable to Xavi and Pirlo in that aspect).

 

[andersj]

I do not think that anyone is disagreeing that he was great. The only registra players who are rated better than him are Xavi, Modric and Pirlo, maybe Kroos but there I wouldn’t disagree if people put Scholes higher. Which at worst case puts him as the fifth best player in that position for the last 20 years.

What is ridiculous is when people start calling others trolls or know nothing about football cause they disagree that he wasn’t as good as Xavi or Modric (hint: he really wasn’t), or that he was our best player always (even when a certain Cristiano was playing here), or that the only reasons why he didn’t win awards was cause he didn’t have a PR (but then Xavi, Pirlo, Modric didn’t have too and yet won so many individual awards).

The equivalents of that Chelsea poster who was claiming that Hazard doesn’t score as much as Ronaldo or Messi cause he doesn’t want too.

NB: there is also the agglomeration of two different versions of Scholes. He was as good at dictating the play as Xavi, Pirlo or Modric (he never was), while scoring as much as Gerrard and Lampard (he didn’t score as much). But importantly, Scholes who scored many (before 2005-2006) was not dictating much the play. And the one who reinvented himself as deep laying playmaker (after that season) didn’t score as much (very comparable to Xavi and Pirlo in that aspect).

I think the reason why people are calling someone trolls or not knowing football are quotes like these:


«ok he had an impact but it was nothing to write home about.»

«He never made our team. Keane was the heartbeat and Ferguson had replaced Scholes for Butt for large periods and even tried to replace Scholes with Veron, leading to Scholes going on strike. He is being romanticised.»

«He was just another good player who would chip in here and there.»

«Stop talking about Modric because Scholes was not on that level.»

«No it should not have as he was not good enough. He was level below the true talismanic midfielders.»

«wanted us to sign Cesc as our Scholes replacement. He was better at controlling games and also making defence splitting passes.»

 

[andersj]

My post wasn't limited to you, you were just the first post I saw that exemplified what I was talking about.

The bolded is a bit disingenuous. The poster you were claiming doesn't understand football didn't say he doesn't rate Scholes, he just doesn't rate him better than some other players which is a fair opinion. It certainly doesn't warrant the accusation that he doesn't understand football.

See a few quotes above. You are of course correct, rating a few players higher is fine, but that is not the case or basic for discussion here.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Like this thread there are plenty of varying opnions.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-scholes.37770/

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-scholes-the-complete-footballer-appreciation-thread.37847/

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-scholes-passing.138415/

Some people even thought he was a problem.. mostly when he had that vision problem around 04/05.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-scholes-how-much-longer.95619/

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-official-i-blame-paul-scholes-thread.93143/

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-scholes.52072/

He was absolutely a great player. One of the greatest midfielders of his generation? That's really the only debatable part.

This proves nothing. You can find negative threads on every United player over the last 20 or so years. And you can also find many posts calling for SAF to be sacked and a lot of United fans saying he was finished in the mid 2000s.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

In 2012, Scholes recorded a passing accuracy in the Premier League of 92.5%, which considering he averaged 9.9 accurate long balls per game is a pretty outrageous stat for a central-midfielder.

He had just come of retirement and was putting up these numbers. Ridiculous footballer.

 

[Oranges038]

This proves nothing. You can find negative threads on every United player over the last 20 or so years. And you can also find many posts calling for SAF to be sacked and a lot of United fans saying he was finished in the mid 2000s.

Proves that people have differing opinions on a footballer. Which was kind of the point.

 

[Revan]

For all the quotes about Scholes, isn’t a bit surprising that he never received a single vote in FIFA world player of the year award? Now, personally, I think that Ballon d’Or (voted by journos) is a much better (and everyone knows that it is a more prestigious) award, but Figa world player of the year is voted by captains and coaches of countries. Yet, they never saw Scholes as being deserved of a single point in either of those awards (which is fine cause he arguably was not a top 10-20 player in the world).

 

[andersj]

For all the quotes about Scholes, isn’t a bit surprising that he never received a single vote in FIFA world player of the year award? Now, personally, I think that Ballon d’Or (voted by journos) is a much better (and everyone knows that it is a more prestigious) award, but Figa world player of the year is voted by captains and coaches of countries. Yet, they never saw Scholes as being deserved of a single point in either of those awards (which is fine cause he arguably was not a top 10-20 player in the world).

I’m not sure it matters much?

A) I really dont think he was
B) The awards is of limited value in my opinion (there is alot of politics in these)
C) Some type of players get favoured more than others in those type of awards. I think a type of player like Scholes was always underrated, but perhaps even more back then than now (I really doubt Modric would have won it between -98 and 2013)

 

[Kelly15]

they don't. Everyone still creams over Xavi, Laudrup and much of the debate is comparing Scholes impact to contemporaries, Pirlo, Xavi, Modric, Keane, Vieira (none of which played with much flair) who I feel were all a tier above. I used to even rate Ruben Baraja and later Cesc, none flair players.
Its just about putting players in their correct places/tiers. nothing more. Nothing to do with not rating them. nothing to do with them not scoring, being big personalities or whatever. Just accurately assessing their impact/importance as closely as one can remember.

Paul Scholes impact at Manchester United:
718 Apperances. 3rd all time
155 Goals 10th all time.

 

[OrcaFat]

I do not think that anyone is disagreeing that he was great. The only registra players who are rated better than him are Xavi, Modric and Pirlo, maybe Kroos but there I wouldn’t disagree if people put Scholes higher. Which at worst case puts him as the fifth best player in that position for the last 20 years.

What is ridiculous is when people start calling others trolls or know nothing about football cause they disagree that he wasn’t as good as Xavi or Modric (hint: he really wasn’t), or that he was our best player always (even when a certain Cristiano was playing here), or that the only reasons why he didn’t win awards was cause he didn’t have a PR (but then Xavi, Pirlo, Modric didn’t have too and yet won so many individual awards).

The equivalents of that Chelsea poster who was claiming that Hazard doesn’t score as much as Ronaldo or Messi cause he doesn’t want too.

NB: there is also the agglomeration of two different versions of Scholes. He was as good at dictating the play as Xavi, Pirlo or Modric (he never was), while scoring as much as Gerrard and Lampard (he didn’t score as much). But importantly, Scholes who scored many (before 2005-2006) was not dictating much the play. And the one who reinvented himself as deep laying playmaker (after that season) didn’t score as much (very comparable to Xavi and Pirlo in that aspect).

I agree with some of this. If we are talking about Xavi, Modric, Pirlo, Kroos and Scholes, I would place Scholes at #4 in that list.

However, I disagree that Scholes was less good than any of them at dictating play. He was brilliant at it but, in particular, he was brilliant at dictating the attacking “squeeze” in the last 20 mins of games. I have seen no-one better at that.

Where Xavi, Modric and Pirlo have the edge is they all have a little extra dimension, in my opinion. A little extra stamina, or mobility, or better dribbling, set piece taking, better defensive acumen, more personal charisma (the kind that drags team-mates along). It’s fine margins but these things make a difference. Scholes was not without his flaws; he is in the same tier as all those guys but not quite at the top.

A few people have posted that Scholes can’t have been important because we were able to win quite easily without him. To me that’s just not a meaningful argument; teams win games without Paul Scholes every day, it doesn’t make him any less important or any less good. I wouldn’t say those people don’t understand football, they just understand it in a different way to me.

Scholes was important because of the way he played the game. The multitude of quotes praising Scholes are really people seeing the same thing - football being played as they believe it should be played. The same people, of course, have praised other players - there are other good players on this planet.

That said, Scholes is widely (but not universally) regarded as the most talented midfielder in the last 30 years but it’s probably true that he was not always the most effective because his game, physique and personality had some shortcomings.

How good was Paul Scholes? It depends what’s important to you as a fan and a viewer of the game.

 

[honirelandboy]

All of a sudden it’s 15 years or so since prime Scholes and as time passes we sometimes see things differently than how they were. Prime Scholes easily walks into any Real and Barcelona side of the last two decades, although it could be reasonably argued that there’d be no room for Scholes when Inietsa and Xavi were at their peak.

His international career hurts his reputation as England managers during that time went with the bigger names, not the players who comprised a better team.

England had some great players back in Euro 2004. I remember Sven was afraid to drop one of Lampard, Gerard, Scholes, Rooney, Owen for a more balanced team and unfortunately played Scholes on the left side of midfield when it probably should of been Joe Cole there and a midfield two of either Lampard, Gerard, Scholes. Probably could of fitting all three properly if he dropped Owen or Rooney either and just rotated a bit more to whoever the opposition was.

 

[sherrinford]

His career had already turned around before Pep so you could argue that was going to happen either way.

He was the best player at Euro 2008 and was incredible in the season prior to Pep joining. I remember watching Euro 2008 and think Xavi was playing like a peak Paul Scholes and was very impressed. At the time of course, Scholes was the best CM of that mould in the world.

Pep of course took his game to new heights but he does that with every player. Also worth remembering SAF really wanted Xavi around 2004 so his quality was always evident.

I'm interested then, at what point do you feel Pirlo surpassed him? Or maybe you don't? The Italian had been an established elite midfield playmaker for years by the time of Euro 2008 - do you feel Scholes was superior?

I feel like Pirlo is held in higher esteem due to his more eye-catching time at Juventus - he was a far more speculative player late in his career, which meant plenty of memorable killer passes and long balls but that was, to an extent, at the expense of the flawless decision-making and methodical nature in circulating the ball that his younger self displayed. I wouldn't say the older Pirlo was better than his younger self.

I do generally regard Pirlo as having been the better player, but thinking about it now I would say there was very little between Scholes and him. Modric and Xavi were both clearly superior, and Kroos clearly inferior. Scholes did have the same mesmeric quality in the choice, timing and execution of his passes that sees him grouped rather exclusively with the former two (and Pirlo) and separates him from the later (and Busquets, Xabi Alonso et al.)

 

[Revan]

I’m not sure it matters much?

A) I really dont think he was
B) The awards is of limited value in my opinion (there is alot of politics in these)
C) Some type of players get favoured more than others in those type of awards. I think a type of player like Scholes was always underrated, but perhaps even more back then than now (I really doubt Modric would have won it between -98 and 2013)

With regards to (B) and (C), why it would affect Scholes say more than Xavi, Modric or Pirlo? Ok, even if we take the cut in 2013, Xavi went twice close to winning Ballon d’Or (being in top 3), and also Pirlo rated high and got points multiple seasons.

For what is worth I rate Ballon d’Or much higher than FIFA award like everyone else (by virtue of Ballon d’Or being chosen by people whose job is to watch football every day, while FIFA award is by captains and managers whom actually are not watching that much football compared to journos), but in both cases he never received a vote.

I agree with some of this. If we are talking about Xavi, Modric, Pirlo, Kroos and Scholes, I would place Scholes at #4 in that list.

However, I disagree that Scholes was less good than any of them at dictating play. He was brilliant at it but, in particular, he was brilliant at dictating the attacking “squeeze” in the last 20 mins of games. I have seen no-one better at that.

Where Xavi, Modric and Pirlo have the edge is they all have a little extra dimension, in my opinion. A little extra stamina, or mobility, or better dribbling, set piece taking, better defensive acumen, more personal charisma (the kind that drags team-mates along). It’s fine margins but these things make a difference. Scholes was not without his flaws; he is in the same tier as all those guys but not quite at the top.

A few people have posted that Scholes can’t have been important because we were able to win quite easily without him. To me that’s just not a meaningful argument; teams win games without Paul Scholes every day, it doesn’t make him any less important or any less good. I wouldn’t say those people don’t understand football, they just understand it in a different way to me.

Scholes was important because of the way he played the game. The multitude of quotes praising Scholes are really people seeing the same thing - football being played as they believe it should be played. The same people, of course, have praised other players - there are other good players on this planet.

That said, Scholes is widely (but not universally) regarded as the most talented midfielder in the last 30 years but it’s probably true that he was not always the most effective because his game, physique and personality had some shortcomings.

How good was Paul Scholes? It depends what’s important to you as a fan and a viewer of the game.

I do not disagree with any of this, in fact I completely agree. In that position, I have him fourth of fifth, behind Xavi and Modric (very clearly), Pirlo (clearly), around the same level as Kroos, and above the likes of Xabi Alonso.

In his more advanced role (when he played behind Ruud), I think he was very good, but not as good as the registra player. I think Gerrard and Lampard (or later Sneijder) were clearly better, and of course Zidane and Kaja. But then he probably makes top 5 of his time in that position too (I would have had peak Riquelme higher but peak Riquelme existed only for 2 years so does not belong in the debate). Cesc imo is lower.

So even people like me who don’t understand football, would have him in top 5 in two different positions.

 

[andersj]

With regards to (B) and (C), why it would affect Scholes say more than Xavi, Modric or Pirlo? Ok, even if we take the cut in 2013, Xavi went twice close to winning Ballon d’Or (being in top 3), and also Pirlo rated high and got points multiple seasons.

For what is worth I rate Ballon d’Or much higher than FIFA award like everyone else (by virtue of Ballon d’Or being chosen by people whose job is to watch football every day, while FIFA award is by captains and managers whom actually are not watching that much football compared to journos), but in both cases he never received a vote.

I do not disagree with any of this, in fact I completely agree. In that position, I have him fourth of fifth, behind Xavi and Modric (very clearly), Pirlo (clearly), around the same level as Kroos, and above the likes of Xabi Alonso.

In his more advanced role (when he played behind Ruud), I think he was very good, but not as good as the registra player. I think Gerrard and Lampard (or later Sneijder) were clearly better, and of course Zidane. But then he probably makes top 5 of his time in that position too (I would have had peak Riquelme higher but peak Riquelme existed only for 2 years so does not belong in the debate). Cesc imo is lower.

So even people like me who don’t understand football, would have him in top 5 in two different positions.

In the case of Xavi, Modric and Pirlo, maybe they were just a bit better*? Not much, but just enough to get the attention in this type of award.

I also think it is much more natural to compare Scholes to Iniesta than Xavi as a type of player. Xavi, under Pep, was a creative force in the last third. He played in a three man midfield, and probably the forth most attacking player in their system. He had bunch of assists. His task was a lot closer to KdB than Modric, Iniesta or Scholes (04-12). Scholes had that task consistently for what? One season (02/03?)?

I’m not sure how Iniesta did in those type of awards, but in my opinion he was as influential and talented as Xavi. Maybe more so. But lower profile. Xavi still got so much more attention. And it was obviously down to what type of task they solved.

*Personally, I dont think there was much between Scholes in his prime and Iniesta, Pirlo and Modric. I remember Scholes against Milan (Pirlo) and Barcelona (Iniesta/Xavi) on a few occasions in the period 04-08 and he was often the best midfielder on the pitch.

 

[OrcaFat]

With regards to (B) and (C), why it would affect Scholes say more than Xavi, Modric or Pirlo? Ok, even if we take the cut in 2013, Xavi went twice close to winning Ballon d’Or (being in top 3), and also Pirlo rated high and got points multiple seasons.

For what is worth I rate Ballon d’Or much higher than FIFA award like everyone else (by virtue of Ballon d’Or being chosen by people whose job is to watch football every day, while FIFA award is by captains and managers whom actually are not watching that much football compared to journos), but in both cases he never received a vote.

I do not disagree with any of this, in fact I completely agree. In that position, I have him fourth of fifth, behind Xavi and Modric (very clearly), Pirlo (clearly), around the same level as Kroos, and above the likes of Xabi Alonso.

In his more advanced role (when he played behind Ruud), I think he was very good, but not as good as the registra player. I think Gerrard and Lampard (or later Sneijder) were clearly better, and of course Zidane and Kaja. But then he probably makes top 5 of his time in that position too (I would have had peak Riquelme higher but peak Riquelme existed only for 2 years so does not belong in the debate). Cesc imo is lower.

So even people like me who don’t understand football, would have him in top 5 in two different positions.

Hey, whoever said you don’t understand football probably didn’t mean it!!

 

[Revan]

In the case of Xavi, Modric and Pirlo, maybe they were just a bit better*? Not much, but just enough to get the attention in this type of award.

I also think it is much more natural to compare Scholes to Iniesta than Xavi as a type of player. Xavi, under Pep, was a creative force in the last third. He played in a three man midfield, and probably the forth most attacking player in their system. He had bunch of assists. His task was a lot closer to KdB than Modric, Iniesta or Scholes (04-12). Scholes had that task consistently for what? One season (02/03?)?

I’m not sure how Iniesta did in those type of awards, but in my opinion he was as influential and talented as Xavi. Maybe more so. But lower profile. Xavi still got so much more attention. And it was obviously down to what type of task they solved.

*Personally, I dont think there was much between Scholes in his prime and Iniesta, Pirlo and Modric. I remember Scholes against Milan (Pirlo) and Barcelona (Iniesta/Xavi) on a few occasions in the period 04-08 and he was often the best midfielder on the pitch.

I remember Iniesta playing more advanced than Xavi, and being a very different type of player. He was great at passing, but he also had unbelievable dribbling ability, and caused havoc in the final third. While Xavi played the classic registra role behind, albeit with a shitload of assists (I think one season he had over 30 assists).

Iniesta is probably more comparable with younger Scholes, De Bruyne or Zidane (although still very different), although he was never that good at scoring many goals (ironically, he scored some very high profile ones like against Netherlands and Chelsea).

Xavi, Pirlo, Modric and Scholes IMO were quite similar in style. Xavi the best at dictating, Pirlo at free kicks and dead balls, Scholes at scoring screamers, Modric at dribbling.

 

[lex talionis]

England had some great players back in Euro 2004. I remember Sven was afraid to drop one of Lampard, Gerard, Scholes, Rooney, Owen for a more balanced team and unfortunately played Scholes on the left side of midfield when it probably should of been Joe Cole there and a midfield two of either Lampard, Gerard, Scholes. Probably could of fitting all three properly if he dropped Owen or Rooney either and just rotated a bit more to whoever the opposition was.

Exactly. But Gerrard and Lampard were the more sexy names so Sven unbalanced the squad in the manner you described. A waste, an England were stacked with talent at that time. If England were properly managed at the time, oh my.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Paul Scholes impact at Manchester United:
718 Apperances. 3rd all time
155 Goals 10th all time.

Only 1 person has won more English top flight titles than him. That's his best achievement.

 

[Kelly15]

Only 1 person has won more English top flight titles than him. That's his best achievement.

Giggs and Scholes. Manchester United through and through. Both 1 club men. Something Lampard nor Gerrard can claim. Privileged to have been able to to watch their careers.

 

[Olecurls99]

I'd have Modric over him purely for his better mobility but I couldn't split Scholes from any of the other top midfielders of the past 30 years.
I think a lot agree and the reason we have these debates about him is because he didn't get the plaudits he deserved.

 

[shamans]

For all the quotes about Scholes, isn’t a bit surprising that he never received a single vote in FIFA world player of the year award? Now, personally, I think that Ballon d’Or (voted by journos) is a much better (and everyone knows that it is a more prestigious) award, but Figa world player of the year is voted by captains and coaches of countries. Yet, they never saw Scholes as being deserved of a single point in either of those awards (which is fine cause he arguably was not a top 10-20 player in the world).

you discredit the power of office politics. Scholes didn’t care and doesn’t care.

 

[shamans]

I'd have Modric over him purely for his better mobility but I couldn't split Scholes from any of the other top midfielders of the past 30 years.
I think a lot agree and the reason we have these debates about him is because he didn't get the plaudits he deserved.

Scholes was so much more difficult to dispossess though. His long hall vision is probably the best I’ve seen in my life as well. Pinpoint accuracy. Also, his long shot — incredible

 

[Red in STL]

England had some great players back in Euro 2004. I remember Sven was afraid to drop one of Lampard, Gerard, Scholes, Rooney, Owen for a more balanced team and unfortunately played Scholes on the left side of midfield when it probably should of been Joe Cole there and a midfield two of either Lampard, Gerard, Scholes. Probably could of fitting all three properly if he dropped Owen or Rooney either and just rotated a bit more to whoever the opposition was.

IMO that makes Sven a crap manager, it was his job to make those sorts of decisions, you pick a team not a bunch of individuals that can't play as an effective one

 

[OrcaFat]

Scholes was so much more difficult to dispossess though. His long hall vision is probably the best I’ve seen in my life as well. Pinpoint accuracy. Also, his long shot — incredible

Yeah there was some sort of machine that all the players used in a test (not sure if it was England or Utd) that measured who had the hardest shot and Scholes was joint top with Rooney. Scholes had the accuracy to go with it. A few pros have made the point that Scholes struck it sweeter than anyone else.

I’d say Scholes is my all time favourite player (sometimes I have a left-field moment and say Berbatov) and I’ve been watching Utd since the mid 70s. Scholes would be the first name on my team sheet if I could pick a midfield from anywhere in the world at any time over that pretty long period.

In the cold light of day, Modric, Xavi and Pirlo are a whisker ahead of Scholes because they’re all giving a slightly more complete package in one way or another. Much as I love him, Scholes did have flaws - he wasn’t the most mobile and his tackling was a bit of a liability at times. I’m still choosing him over the others but it’s tough to make the case that he is overall better than them. There could still be times when even the most pragmatic manager would prefer Scholes but it’s the romantic in me who chooses Scholes every time.

 

[GoldanoGraham]

For me the greatest player of the ‘92 era and the most mis-used player at international level since Hoddle.

Only when watching Scholes live could you really see just how much he did in a game and his range of passing and movement was second to none. An absolute travesty that he was made the odd one out of Gerrard/Lampard when he was streets ahead of both of them.

What would he be worth in todays game? He would certainly be much more appreciated. Best England player since Gazza.