How good was Paul Scholes?

[DadiBG]

Modric is closer to Scholes than Scholes is to Xavi.

What the . . . a player who's been, agreed, pretty darn good for an amazing real side for all of two years, compared to one of the best midfielders of all time, a mainstay in the most successful domestic English club side and arguably in Europe as well. Scholes was so clearly a different class to the likes of Modric, Gerrard, Lampard, Alonso, etc. that it's hilarious comparing them to me.

All amazing players in their own rights, sure. Great goalscorers, playmakers - but the thing about Scholes is, he could do it all. Started as a second striker, went into midfield next to Keano, then was a second striker again and had a phenomenal season behind Ruud, went back in a midfield two, slowly transitioned into the best deep-lying playmaker the English game has ever seen. Retired, came back, nearly won us the league, while still being our best midfielder (and probably the best midfielder in England) at the age of 38.

Sure, Xavi maybe was a better short passer. Maybe even a better playmaker (not a lot in it though). Sure, Gerrard and Lampard were better goalscoarers. Modric is a better dribbler. Pirlo was a genius at set pieces. But none of them could do everything like Scholes could. And not one of them played the majority of their career and had their greatest success in a midfield two, in a league and team that has always seen the midfield as a transitional area of the pitch, its only job to deliver the ball to the forwards. Xavi played in a dominating Barca side, built up from the ground to suit his style. Him and Pirlo, while certainly no slouches themselves, had two other midfielders running around and providing cover. Sure, Scholes had Keane, but it was still a midfield two and Scholes, along with scoring and directing our play, also had a fair bit of defending to do. His tackles wouldn't have become a meme, had it not been the case.

Every one of these midfielders was/is better than Scholes at something. None of them are as good as him at everything else. That's what makes him the best midfielder to me.

 

[Invictus]

Why is there an insistence on denigrating Xavi's legacy to praise Scholes? 'Easily the best midfielder of his generation', 'he would easily overshadow him (Xavi) by a country mile', some of you don't half engage in hyperbole. Xavi wasn't just a modern great of the game - in historical terms, you could realistically place him as the greatest central midfielder of all time with the likes of Didi or Matthäus or Rijkaard or Falcão (albeit in a varied function). Xavi didn't just benefit from Barcelona's system - in his own inimitable way, he was the fundamental presence behind Barcelona's system because his shadow loomed large over almost everything they did - the evidence for that lies in the deterioration of their midfield passing game since his retirement, and increased reliance on Suárez + Messi + Neymar to bail them out of trouble instead of being decisive from the center of the pitch. Iniesta is still Iniesta, but he cannot control games in the way Xavi did, and for all his breathtaking grace on the ball, Xavi will still go down as the better midfielder.

Anyway, back to Scholes - he was a phenomenal player, and really underappreciated for a bulk of his career because he was the antithesis of your typical flamboyant, power and pace - blood and guts, athletically gifted leader of men midfielder in the mold of a Gerrard. It's a pity that managers on the international level never build their teams to bring out the best in him (like say Italy did for Pirlo) - because you could argue that he was THE player worth building around in midfield given his intelligence on the ball, ability to create space and control the tempo of the game, innate deliberation in the passing phase, vision of the field - the prototypical architect from the central hub of the pitch. And, he was adept at three different positions - support striker, attacking midfielder in a two, and towards the final third of his career - as a metronomic rondo; also - comfortable in a two in a combative league - without a lot of protection around him. Not many can lay a claim at being difference makers at three different positions necessitating three different sub-skillsets in wide open systems that isolated them at times. Just a brilliant, complete midfielder - one of the best of the modern era, and probably the best England has produced since Gascoigne.

 

[Moonred]

Great player, but has become a little overrated IMO.

Obviously a legend, but his best wasn't Redondo good, Xavi good etc, but to listen to some on here he was the best DLM the CL era has seen.

His best wasn't Redondo good?

 

[El cangrejo]

Amazing player, Shame the way England treated him to fit in 2 less talented players.

In what way was he badly treated?

 

[Mike09]

You want to know how good Scholes was? Well, if you know how good Xavi was then let me tell you that in 2008 Scholes in his late 30s when he was still a world class defeated Xavi in his prime age. That's how good Scholes was, although I will put both of them on the same level. But there is no doubt that Scholes is the best English midfielder in his generation and this came from Alonso, Pirlo, Viera and Henry not me being biased.

But I still believe both Keane and Viera are probably more influenced in midfield than Scholes since they are type of players who dominate and lead the midfield while Scholes is more type of controlling the midfield.

 

[Treble]

Threads on United legends tend to be quite biased. Therefore, I shall try to stay more objective.

IMO, if Modric wins a 3rd CL title with Real, 2 of them back to back for first time in history, I'm not sure that Scholes will be remembered as a greater player than Modric.

I can imagine Modric and Scholes competing for 1 spot in the Madrid first XI and Modric getting the nod, especially in the big games. He makes one of the most successful CL teams tick.

Scholes' overall career is better though, at least from United perspective.

 

[Footyislife]

What the . . . a player who's been, agreed, pretty darn good for an amazing real side for all of two years, compared to one of the best midfielders of all time, a mainstay in the most successful domestic English club side and arguably in Europe as well. Scholes was so clearly a different class to the likes of Modric, Gerrard, Lampard, Alonso, etc. that it's hilarious comparing them to me.

All amazing players in their own rights, sure. Great goalscorers, playmakers - but the thing about Scholes is, he could do it all. Started as a second striker, went into midfield next to Keano, then was a second striker again and had a phenomenal season behind Ruud, went back in a midfield two, slowly transitioned into the best deep-lying playmaker the English game has ever seen. Retired, came back, nearly won us the league, while still being our best midfielder (and probably the best midfielder in England) at the age of 38.

Sure, Xavi maybe was a better short passer. Maybe even a better playmaker (not a lot in it though). Sure, Gerrard and Lampard were better goalscoarers. Modric is a better dribbler. Pirlo was a genius at set pieces. But none of them could do everything like Scholes could. And not one of them played the majority of their career and had their greatest success in a midfield two, in a league and team that has always seen the midfield as a transitional area of the pitch, its only job to deliver the ball to the forwards. Xavi played in a dominating Barca side, built up from the ground to suit his style. Him and Pirlo, while certainly no slouches themselves, had two other midfielders running around and providing cover. Sure, Scholes had Keane, but it was still a midfield two and Scholes, along with scoring and directing our play, also had a fair bit of defending to do. His tackles wouldn't have become a meme, had it not been the case.

Every one of these midfielders was/is better than Scholes at something. None of them are as good as him at everything else. That's what makes him the best midfielder to me.

Spot on, though I'd argue no one else on that list could deliver a long ball quite like Scholes!!! The only knock on Scholes is his international record. But you can hardly blame the stupidity of others on him.

For specific systems or leagues you could easily make a case for picking Xavi over Scholes or vice versa. Can't really go wrong with either legend. However, Scholes is a more complete midfielder and hence the more skilled player overall.

 

[kps88]

bring out the quotes

It's amazing it hasn't happened yet!

 

[BBer13]

I'm not going to say Scholes was better than Xavi because i truly believe they were in the same bracket in terms of quality so it would be unfair to say one was better than the other. All i think is that Xavi played in a team that was tailor made for him, the amount of runs and intelligence across the pitch was phenomenal, far better than any team Scholes had played in. In a very fast paced league we saw numerous times that Scholes could control the tempo of a game almost on his own, his passing and vision was world class. His movement on and off the ball was another key asset that often gets overlooked. English football for certain didn't appreciate him for most of his career and i still don't think he gets the plaudits he deserves, if he was born Spanish,Italian or even German we would be speaking of him as one of the best of his generation and an all time great of central midfielders.

 

[roonster09]

Threads on United legends tend to be quite biased. Therefore, I shall try to stay more objective.

IMO, if Modric wins a 3rd CL title with Real, 2 of them back to back for first time in history, I'm not sure that Scholes will be remembered as a greater player than Modric.

I can imagine Modric and Scholes competing for 1 spot in the Madrid first XI and Modric getting the nod, especially in the big games. He makes one of the most successful CL teams tick.

Scholes' overall career is better though, at least from United perspective.

How does that work? In that case Casemiro is the best DM in the last 20-30 years too?

 

[Treble]

How does that work? In that case Casemiro is the best DM in the last 20-30 years too?

Casemiro wasn't there for the first CL title (2014). More importantly, he doesn't make Real tick. He is just a soldier.

 

[ryadmahrez]

Easily the best midfielder of his generation. Xavi was technically brilliant but scholes was on par to him in many aspects of the game.

The team Xavi played in was easily one of the best club teams of all time. If scholes played in that barca team he would easily overshadow him by a country mile. Its not fair to compare the two best midfielders of all time both were brilliant but Scholes will come on top each time.

This is just crazy. A big reason why that team probably was one of the best of all time is Xavi. After Messi, he was the best player. Scholes couldn't do what xavi did. He wasn't as good on the ball, wasn't as good in tight spaces, as intelligent and wasn't as creative as xavi was. Scholes wouldn't do well in barca Tiki Taka playstyle. Scholes was more a dynamic player, who would make runs in the box and was known for long balls. Later in his career he became a deep lying midfielder, but not on the level of Xavi. No one was. Scholes would fail in Xavi's role.

Xavi has won 2 champions leagues, 2 European championships, a world cup and multiple leaugue titles as the the leader and the dominating midfielder. Xavi has been the best midfielder of the last 20 years by a mile.

 

[roonster09]

Casemiro wasn't there for the first CL title (2014). More importantly, he doesn't make Real tick. He is just a soldier.

Casemiro doesn't make them tick but he is the one who provides balance to their team with his defensive qualities. So he will also achieve unique record of winning back to back CLs.

 

[Sammyjunn]

How does that work? In that case Casemiro is the best DM in the last 20-30 years too?

That was one of the most stupid reasoning I've seen, there is so much less competition now than then, this Real team is nowhere near that Barcelona team, Scholes and United had to compete with.

 

[strangeways]

I never saw him take a game by the scruff of the neck like Keane or robbo. He's was very introverted which held him back from being a club captain. We missed Keane terribly when he left. Scholes could do his own job in a very important position but could never be a leader.

 

[Sammyjunn]

I cant blame anyone who rates Xavi higher, Xavi was magnificent but it's marginal. It wasnt two different levels between them. However no, Modric and Pirlo werent as good. I think Pirlo's level gets elevated a bit due to his elegance, swagger and smooth play. Just like Xabi Alonso, albeit great and genuinely world class players.

 

[Treble]

Casemiro doesn't make them tick but he is the one who provides balance to their team with his defensive qualities. So he will also achieve unique record of winning back to back CLs.

He will but he isn't special. It's simple.

You are trying to reduce my point to the number of big trophies. And that's hopeless because it wasn't just about the big tropheys in the first place but about the combination of individual qualities and tropheys.

 

[roonster09]

He will but he isn't special. It's simple.

You are trying to reduce my point to the number of big trophies. And that's hopeless because it wasn't just about the big tropheys in the first place but about the combination of individual qualities and tropheys.

Then I just disagree with your point. Scholes is better than Modric.

 

[vangagal]

You can praise Scholes as high as you want without insult any of Xavi achievement in the game. The former more a dynamic player than the latter and one thing that Scholes did better than Xavi is long pass. Scholes always did it constantly with precise. If England built their NT around Scholes, they will achieve more than what they got so far.

 

[ryadmahrez]

What the . . . a player who's been, agreed, pretty darn good for an amazing real side for all of two years, compared to one of the best midfielders of all time, a mainstay in the most successful domestic English club side and arguably in Europe as well. Scholes was so clearly a different class to the likes of Modric, Gerrard, Lampard, Alonso, etc. that it's hilarious comparing them to me.

All amazing players in their own rights, sure. Great goalscorers, playmakers - but the thing about Scholes is, he could do it all. Started as a second striker, went into midfield next to Keano, then was a second striker again and had a phenomenal season behind Ruud, went back in a midfield two, slowly transitioned into the best deep-lying playmaker the English game has ever seen. Retired, came back, nearly won us the league, while still being our best midfielder (and probably the best midfielder in England) at the age of 38.

Sure, Xavi maybe was a better short passer. Maybe even a better playmaker (not a lot in it though). Sure, Gerrard and Lampard were better goalscoarers. Modric is a better dribbler. Pirlo was a genius at set pieces. But none of them could do everything like Scholes could. And not one of them played the majority of their career and had their greatest success in a midfield two, in a league and team that has always seen the midfield as a transitional area of the pitch, its only job to deliver the ball to the forwards. Xavi played in a dominating Barca side, built up from the ground to suit his style. Him and Pirlo, while certainly no slouches themselves, had two other midfielders running around and providing cover. Sure, Scholes had Keane, but it was still a midfield two and Scholes, along with scoring and directing our play, also had a fair bit of defending to do. His tackles wouldn't have become a meme, had it not been the case.

Every one of these midfielders was/is better than Scholes at something. None of them are as good as him at everything else. That's what makes him the best midfielder to me.

More complete doesn't mean better. Even then I don't think Scholes was the most complete. Besides goalscoring Modric and Xavi do/did everything better than Scholes.

 

[Sparky10Legend]

His best wasn't Redondo good?

In my opinion, no.

But your smiley wins the "debate", I guess.

 

[roonster09]

More complete doesn't mean better. Even then I don't think Scholes was the most complete. Besides goalscoring Modric and Xavi do/did everything better than Scholes.

There was no way Modric can ping long passes like Scholes did. His passing was magic.

 

[MadDogg]

This is just crazy. A big reason why that team probably was one of the best of all time is Xavi. After Messi, he was the best player. Scholes couldn't do what xavi did. He wasn't as good on the ball, wasn't as good in tight spaces, as intelligent and wasn't as creative as xavi was. Scholes wouldn't do well in barca Tiki Taka playstyle. Scholes was more a dynamic player, who would make runs in the box and was known for long balls. Later in his career he became a deep lying midfielder, but not on the level of Xavi. No one was. Scholes would fail in Xavi's role.

You are certainly under-rating Scholes there. While I do agree Xavi was better (I rate him the best central midfielder I've ever seen), Scholes is one of the few players who could slot into that role without changing too much.

 

[barmyarmy]

He wasn't as good on the ball, wasn't as good in tight spaces, as intelligent and wasn't as creative as xavi was. Scholes wouldn't do well in barca Tiki Taka playstyle. Scholes was more a dynamic player, who would make runs in the box and was known for long balls. Later in his career he became a deep lying midfielder, but not on the level of Xavi. No one was. Scholes would fail in Xavi's role.

Xavi has won 2 champions leagues, 2 European championships, a world cup and multiple leaugue titles as the the leader and the dominating midfielder. Xavi has been the best midfielder of the last 20 years by a mile.[/QUOTE]
As someone said above scholes in his 30s (08)still beat xavi in his prime. I am not degrading Xavi but if i have to choose one it has to be scholes purely because there hasnt been a complete midfielder than him.

This is just crazy. A big reason why that team probably was one of the best of all time is Xavi. After Messi, he was the best player. Scholes couldn't do what xavi did. He wasn't as good on the ball, wasn't as good in tight spaces, as intelligent and wasn't as creative as xavi was. Scholes wouldn't do well in barca Tiki Taka playstyle. Scholes was more a dynamic player, who would make runs in the box and was known for long balls. Later in his career he became a deep lying midfielder, but not on the level of Xavi. No one was. Scholes would fail in Xavi's role.

Xavi has won 2 champions leagues, 2 European championships, a world cup and multiple leaugue titles as the the leader and the dominating midfielder. Xavi has been the best midfielder of the last 20 years by a mile.

As someone said scholes in his 30s still dominated Xavi in 08 cL final says it all. Even though Xavi was better in tight spaces but scholes was more intelligent just to get out of tight spaces, to say he would fail in tiki taka system ask Pep guardiola. He had Xavi and inesta in his team yet to praise paul scholes saying "he is the best midfielder of his generation" says it all. Xavi was brilliant but scholes was a complete midfielder both of them are greats of the game but if i have to choose one it has to be scholes. He could do everything Xavi could and excel in some aspects.

As for winning trophies at club/international level is concerned everybody knows that barca team was one of the best all time club teams and that spanish side could field two teams and yet compete in final with the other thats how strong it was.

 

[Bojan11]

When did Scholes dominate Xavi in the 08 final? I know he scored a goal in the second leg, but we barely could get the ball off them in both legs.

 

[Striker10]

When did Scholes dominate Xavi in the 08 final? I know he scored a goal in the second leg, but we barely could get the ball off them in both legs.

How old were both players at the time?

 

[Striker10]

Scholes was irreplaceable. If he played in the hole other then one season, he'd have scored more goals. I think he was mismanaged by England and under appreciated. They should have made the team around him not put him on the wing....

 

[Bojan11]

How old were both players at the time?

Yes and what does that have to do with domination? I don't recall us dominating the Barca midfield that game.

 

[17Larsson]

Am I right in saying Scholes never had an agent?

 

[Oscie]

Genuine case of if he was Brazilian or Spanish he'd be widely considered one of the best of his generation and have won tons of accolades for it. I hate it when that argument gets used for bang average players with people insisting El Lingardo would be a Ballon d'Or contender, but in Scholes' case it probably does apply. World class.

 

[Litch]

Hard to assess him when you look at the players around him in those Utd teams. He was quality amongst quality. I think his game was more suited to today's football than his era and a 26 year old Scholes is Pogba money......

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Luca Modric started out as an attacking midfielder around 12 years ago for Zagreb but him and Scholes virtually hold no parallels at any point of their careers.

I can see how Modric moved deeper as his career went on but nowhere near Scholes's level. That's just my opinion.

I'd say that Scholes period as an attacking midfielder was better.

I'd say that Modric's current period as a ball carrying midfielder dictating play is at the same level or better than Scholes managed.

Whether Modric can adapt and play for as long and perhaps restrict his game as much as Scholes did, while still contributing at a World Class level... remains to be seen.

It's a system based preference. Modric is only a supporting cast away from looking as good as Xavi. Just as Scholes was.

All opinion of course.

 

[RoadTrip]

Some of the tripe in here is ridiculous.

On one hand some fools arguing Modric is better than Scholes.

Other fools arguing Scholes was ahead of Xavi.

The reality is, Scholes was a fantastic footballer. In my view, under-appreciated by most in a England because he wasn't that vocal leader like Gerrard was. Or a major part of the England international team (but should have been).

He is in a similar bracket to Xavi. Could he replace Xavi in their system? Probably not, but Xavi probably couldn't replace Scholes either. They are similar but different. But overall had a significant impact on both of their teams.

 

[Yagami]

bring out the quotes

The only thing more predictable than United fans bringing out said Scholes quotes are opposition fans saying "here come the quotes" whenever a topic involving Scholes crops up.

 

[davidmichael]

I'm sure Zidane and Xavi have both said Scholes was not only their toughest opponent but also the best midfielder of that era, I think those two know a bit about a decent midfielder.

For me personally I think Scholes is the greatest midfielder in Premier League history just ahead of Keane, Gerrard, Vieira and Lampard in that order of the top 5 in Premier League history and he was so good he came back from retirement to play a different role to his original one and excelled yet again.

 

[harms]

Scholes assisted 49 goals in total for United. That puts everything into perspective.

Especially considering that this isn't true

Again, credit to the amazing @Mrs Smoker

Spoiler

On the point of the thread - he wasn't better than Xavi. He also wasn't better than Iniesta, even though Iniesta played a slightly different role.

I would put Scholes on par with Pirlo, the latter was much better internationally but Scholes' grit and all-roundness elevate him to Pirlo's level in my opinion.

Not an all-time great midfielder, but one of the best midfielders of his generation and a one who have a genuine claim on the spot of 2nd best midfielder in United history (it's impossible to separate him from Keane and Robson, with them being so different yet all so brilliant).

 

[hellohello]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't think there's much between Xavi, Modric Scholes and Pirlo. Loved them all. Scholes had everything (including tactical yellow cards), and always looked to positively influence the game with his amazing passing range, and of these four I think Pirlo and Scholes got the best long range passes, whilst Xavi and Modric are better at angled passes on the ground.

I think in general Modric have been underappreciated compared to other midfield greats when imo he has been on the same level for a long time now. This performance by Modric against Spain in 11/12 is an amazing performance by a midfielder dominating the Spanish midfield in their prime.

 

[Treble]

Then I just disagree with your point. Scholes is better than Modric.

Fair enough mate. My point is controversial and I'm not sure how much I believe it. It is big compliment for Modric to be compared to Scholes.

 

[BigTimeCharlie]

Put Xavi in the United sides instead of Scholes and he does less of a job than Scholes did, doesnt stand out as much. Put Scholes in the Barca side instead of Xavi and Barca win 3 more european cups and prevent la decima.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't think there's much between Xavi, Modric Scholes and Pirlo. Loved them all. Scholes had everything (including tactical yellow cards), and always looked to positively influence the game with his amazing passing range, and of these four I think Pirlo and Scholes got the best long range passes, whilst Xavi and Modric are better at angled passes on the ground.

I think in general Modric have been underappreciated compared to other midfield greats when imo he has been on the same level for a long time now. This performance by Modric against Spain in 11/12 is an amazing performance by a midfielder dominating the Spanish midfield in their prime.

I remember that one against Spain, he was absolutely magnificent that game.

I remember Scholes having some great performances against Real Madrid back in the day.