sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,063
Xavi was comfortably ahead of Scholes, though Xavi was comfortably ahead of most.
But Beckham, Keane, Giggs, Scholes, Cole, Yorke and Sheringham all had the exact same idea. They played football their way; which was more about high intensity, natural wide play and the quality of delivery to the strikers.When Xavi was dominating with Barcelona and Spain i already said that if Xavi was replaced with Scholes there would hardly be a difference.
Scholes played with great players during his carreer but never played with worldclass players like Iniesta and Busquets who have the eaxct same idea on how to play football. Keane was a worldclass midfielder and Carrick was really good too but they wont play 'tiki taki' football like Busquets and Iniesta.
Completely disagree about long range passing. Scholes really hit them low and hard with astounding accuracy, which meant that players ran into the cross instead of waiting for it, which subsequently made it much more difficult to defend against. Xavi's long range passing was much more floated across the pitch with less power and more height.Not really, no. Xavi can play long balls just as well. That seems to be everyone's argument with regards to Scholes. He can do what Xavi can do, but so can Xavi. Scholes was a much better header of a ball, but that's about it. Scholes scored 40 odd more goals overall, which isn't a lot for a player who was basically a second striker at one point in time.
Scholes is one of my favourite players overall, but our fans do tend to overrate him a little.
Tangible evidence according to passes? Just watch them. Xavi was a better short range passer, but Scholes' long range passing was really something else. He drilled them lower with much more speed and at least as good precision. That makes it much harder for defenders to position themselves across and defend. Rooney was hailed as having as good long range passing as Scholes by some, which was utter rubbish as his passes were far too lofty and slow. Xavi was similar in that respect. It makes perfect sense that Scholes would be better at this seeing as Barcelona didn't play a game that suited long range passing as well.Well there are some real double standards in this post. Scholes could dictate the game as well as Xavi apparently (even if there isn't any tangible evidence), yet Xavi couldn't play the long ball as well as scholes could (because there is no tangible evidence).
Scholes has double the goals of Xavi. In less games.Not really, no. Xavi can play long balls just as well. That seems to be everyone's argument with regards to Scholes. He can do what Xavi can do, but so can Xavi. Scholes was a much better header of a ball, but that's about it. Scholes scored 40 odd more goals overall, which isn't a lot for a player who was basically a second striker at one point in time.
Scholes is one of my favourite players overall, but our fans do tend to overrate him a little.
You call it a joke on here how people overrate Xavi but then come up with a comment which is, frankly, a joke.Xavi is massively overrated on here, it's actually becoming a joke.
World class player for about 5 seasons, the longer he's gone the more people are making him out to be even better than he was. Iniesta was better than him during that period.
Anyway.. Scholes in my opinion was the 2nd best midfielder of all time, just behind Zidane.
Pretty sure Xavi played more than 700 games for Barcelona and more than 500 in La Liga alone.Xavi played 428 games for Barcelona - 364 as a starter
Exactly. I've never seen a player control a game while also ripping teams apart in the way Xavi did at his best. I think he got 30+ assists in the 08/09 season? Given the sort of midfileder he was, that's amazing. Scholes never got near Xavi's peak level.A very good midfielder, one of the greatest midfielders of the last two decades.
Saying that, I would have put him slightly below Pirlo and Iniesta, and comfortably below Xavi. I don't think that is controversial to say anywhere bar in a United forum. Xavi is by far the best central midfielder I have seen, and his highest level was genuinely crazy. Like Ronaldo and Messi for attackers.
A mixture; transfermarkt, ESPN, Soccerbase, etc.Completely disagree about long range passing. Scholes really hit them low and hard with astounding accuracy, which meant that players ran into the cross instead of waiting for it, which subsequently made it much more difficult to defend against. Xavi's long range passing was much more floated across the pitch with less power and more height.
Scholes played 682 games for United - 552 as a starter
Xavi played 428 games for Barcelona - 364 as a starter
Scholes scored 143 goals for United. 0,26 goals per started game
Xavi scored 52 goals for Barcelona. 0,14 per started game
Where do you get your stats from?
Scholes had 151 yellow cards
Xavi had 30
Source: Statbunker
Yep, I mean Scholes was great, but isn't even close. It is like claiming that Rooney was better than Messi.Exactly. I've never seen a player control a game while also ripping teams apart in the way Xavi did at his best. I think he got 30+ assists in the 08/09 season? Given the sort of midfileder he was, that's amazing. Scholes never got near Xavi's peak level.
Read what all those players had to say about Scholes, to be frank I think they are better judges of him than anyone else https://redflagflyinghigh.com/2011/...he-worlds-top-players-on-the-ginger-prince/2/Yep, it appears so in those quotes. Without even checking, I'm going to guess those were made to a British journo before a Barcelona vs United game. I'm going to guess similar quotes were made about the likes of Gerratd, Lamps, Rooney and Nicky fecking Butt over the years.
The reality, in my opinion, is that Scholes was a fabulous player, but then us reds have to go and overdo if and imply stuff like he was the best midfielder ever, or best midfielder of his generation.
In that case, there should at least be somewhat of a consensus in this land that he was the best ever PL midfielder, whereas I strongly suspect he wouldn't even get into many 'experts' PL XI. We, of course, have the right to disagree with them, but it's still a commonly held view.
Thanks for accepting it quickly.In my opinion, no.
But your smiley wins the "debate", I guess.
By the same logic, we can argue then that Gerrard was a way better player than Scholes. Gerrard got 8 times in PFA team of the year, while Scholes only 2. Players voted for them, players that played every week against them.Read what all those players had to say about Scholes, to be frank I think they are better judges of him than anyone else https://redflagflyinghigh.com/2011/...he-worlds-top-players-on-the-ginger-prince/2/
You'll find a lot of players saying similar things about someone like Gerrard too, who few here would rate as highly as Scholes. These quotes that get trotted out in every Scholes thread have gone beyond parody at this point, largely because every fan who wants to believe that Scholes was the greatest midfielder of his generation falls back on them immediately.Read what all those players had to say about Scholes, to be frank I think they are better judges of him than anyone else https://redflagflyinghigh.com/2011/...he-worlds-top-players-on-the-ginger-prince/2/
So despite Scholes being the playmaker for most of our golden period and praised by leading players and managers, you know better?By the same logic, we can argue then that Gerrard was a way better player than Scholes. Gerrard got 8 times in PFA team of the year, while Scholes only 2. Players voted for them, players that played every week against them.
Nah, I've heard/read it all over the years. I don't attach too much value to it. These are gentlemen of the game paying compliments to fellow pros.Read what all those players had to say about Scholes, to be frank I think they are better judges of him than anyone else https://redflagflyinghigh.com/2011/...he-worlds-top-players-on-the-ginger-prince/2/
It´s funny when guys think they know better than the leading players and managers, did you not notice he was the midfield playmaker for us when we were winning titles left,right and center?You'll find a lot of players saying similar things about someone like Gerrard too, who few here would rate as highly as Scholes. These quotes that get trotted out in every Scholes thread have gone beyond parody at this point, largely because every fan who wants to believe that Scholes was the greatest midfielder of his generation falls back on them immediately.
When a journalist (particularly a British one) asks a footballer "what do you think of Scholes/Gerrard/whoever?", it's hardly a surprise that the answer they receieve is positive.
Do you think Scholes is the only player praised by players and managers? The fact is, if the entire world thought he was the best, why wasn't he voted the best by his fellow pros at the awards?So despite Scholes being the playmaker for most of our golden period and praised by leading players and managers, you know better?
Trust the opinion of the land? Are you drunk? Is that a offical opinion of the land?Nah, I've heard/read it all over the years. I don't attach too much value to it. These are gentlemen of the game paying compliments to fellow pros.
If you compiled, for example, every quote people in the game have said of Marcus Rashford, what do you imagine he would sound like?
Having grown up in England for 31 years, I prefer to trust the opinion of the land. He was a top player, undenied, but not convinced he was the best ever or anything. The same players who made those quotes have probably said similar about different players too.
A) He wasn't really our leading playmaker for a large chunk of his career, when he was actually an attacking midfielder. Certainly not to the same extent he was in his later years, when he really started to dictate games.It´s funny when guys think they know better than the leading players and managers, did you not notice he was the midfield playmaker for us when we were winning titles left,right and center?
So by your logic Scholes cannot be a truly great player because Zidane said Gerrard was a great player????A) He wasn't really our leading playmaker for a large chunk of his career, when he was actually an attacking midfielder. Certainly not to the same extent he was in his later years, when he really started to dictate games.
B) Zinedine Zidane (one of the professionals I'm sure features on your list of quotes) once said he thought Gerrard might be the world's greatest player, ahead of Messi and Ronaldo. Scholes and Gerrard's fellow professionals also repeatedly voted for Gerrard ahead of Scholes in the team of the year lists. So by your logic, I'm guessing you think Gerrard is better than Scholes?
Of course Scholes was always our leading playmaker, he made the side tick. did you think Butt or Keane were playmakers?A) He wasn't really our leading playmaker for a large chunk of his career, when he was actually an attacking midfielder. Certainly not to the same extent he was in his later years, when he really started to dictate games.
B) Zinedine Zidane (one of the professionals I'm sure features on your list of quotes) once said he thought Gerrard might be the world's greatest player, ahead of Messi and Ronaldo. Scholes and Gerrard's fellow professionals also repeatedly voted for Gerrard ahead of Scholes in the team of the year lists. So by your logic, I'm guessing you think Gerrard is better than Scholes?
Scholes wasn't a second striker since his youth/reserve team games.... just because he made runs behind the forwards (and ended up in similar positions as a second striker might occupy) doesn't make him a second striker. He was a midfielder.A mixture; transfermarkt, ESPN, Soccerbase, etc.
I'm including their entire careers, which also includes internationals.
It's 114 to 169. And like I said, Scholes was a second striker for a number of years.
Scholes more versatile then?A mixture; transfermarkt, ESPN, Soccerbase, etc.
I'm including their entire careers, which also includes internationals.
It's 114 to 169. And like I said, Scholes was a second striker for a number of years.
No. I'm not the one putting so much weight in what random footballers say. Their quotes are totally irrelevant to my argument.So by your logic Scholes cannot be a truly great player because Zidane said Gerrard was a great player????
Am I drunk?Trust the opinion of the land? Are you drunk? Is that a offical opinion of the land?
Why don't you tell me?Scholes more versatile then?
Are you crazy?Scholes wasn't a second striker since his youth/reserve team games.... just because he made runs behind the forwards (and ended up in similar positions as a second striker might occupy) doesn't make him a second striker. He was a midfielder.
Keane controlled our game more than Scholes did in the first half of his career. If that's what you mean by being a playmaker....Of course Scholes was always our leading playmaker, he made the side tick. did you think Butt or Keane were playmakers?
Laughable. Genuinely.Maybe this makes him a little bit better than for example Gerrard?
- Premier League (11): 1995–96, 1996–97, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2010–11, 2012–13[125]
- FA Cup (3): 1995–96, 1998–99, 2003–04[125]
- Football League Cup (2): 2008–09, 2009–10[125]
- FA Community Shield (5): 1996, 1997, 2003, 2008, 2010[125]
- UEFA Champions League (2):1998–99, 2007–08[125]
- Intercontinental Cup (1): 1999[125]
- FIFA Club World Cup (1): 2008[1
He was neer our best player, or most important player.So despite Scholes being the playmaker for most of our golden period and praised by leading players and managers, you know better?
Random footballers, Zidane,Xavi,Lippi and so on. Yeah you must know better than those random players.No. I'm not the one putting so much weight in what random footballers say. Their quotes are totally irrelevant to my argument.
Back to my question: you said it's funny when people think they know better than the leading professionals, the leading professionals repeatedly picked Gerrard ahead of Scholes. Do you think Gerrard was better than Scholes, or do you think you know better than the leading professionals? You can't have it both ways.
Exactly.He was neer our best player, or most important player.
As I said, if you go by players choices, they put Gerrard 8 times in team of the year, and Scholes only twice. Do you know better than them?
Sounds like you answered it yourself.Why don't you tell me?