He was one of the best midfielders of his generation, a great player.
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Just to wade in. Different role but Iniesta > Xavi/Scholes
It was amazing
I remember many good games, by Scholes, but not a single one that spring to mind as being 'watch this game'. What would people say are his best performances?This. Questioning Xavi's legacy is borderline moronic, because he had almost the perfect career. He answered every critic while he was playing, yet people still insist on bringing dumbass arguments.
1) Only great because of Messi - 2 European Championships & World Cup without him
2) Only great because of system - see Euro 2008
3) Only great because of Iniesta - then why haven't Barcelona ever been as dominant since he left, despite having an even more talented squad with MSN?
Watching Gerrard and Lampard leave huge holes in midfield, not having a clue how to play the position and generally treading on each other's clown shoes while the best English midfielder of the modern game was stuck on the left wing was just embarrassing.
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.
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.
Some United fans don't half make a show of themselves when discussing Paul Scholes.
And yes, he's my favourite ever footballer. But, bloody hell...
And yes, he's my favourite ever footballer. But, bloody hell...
I'd have him just below Keano in terms of influence. If you read any of Fergie diaries you'll realise how much importance Keane had even in the early 90 sides let alone the peak 90 sides and what he achieved in Europe.
Also I'd back a Keano led midfield to give a Xavi led midfield one helluva battle in terms of grit and fight whereas with Scholes at the helm we tended to get dominated possession wise and there was no aggression in our midfield.
I rate Scholes higher than Modric because he was a more penetrative passer, better goal scorer although Modric is superior dribbler... you look at the volleys Scholes scored, his goal in the semi v Barca .. incomparable.
Pirlo in the right set up possibly superior to Scholes in toe to toe big match encounters at their peaks but if you're trying to win a league you'd prefer Scholes. Also Scholes was less system dependent imo. Pirlo dribbling skills were better than Xavi or Scholes and he was silkier than either of them.
Xavi as @Invictus beautifully put is in a league of his own. One man tiki taka band whose absence has destroyed Barcelonas midfield dominance. He was controlling games at all levels for 4 years at an unbelievablely unprecedented level with a consistency that was beyond Scholes or Pirlo.
Keano matched his intensity but was obviously not a game controlling midfielder in the same way so not as effective in Europe but Xavi was sensational.
1. Xavi
2. Keane
3. Pirlo/Scholes/Iniesta
4. Modric
Also I'd back a Keano led midfield to give a Xavi led midfield one helluva battle in terms of grit and fight whereas with Scholes at the helm we tended to get dominated possession wise and there was no aggression in our midfield.
I rate Scholes higher than Modric because he was a more penetrative passer, better goal scorer although Modric is superior dribbler... you look at the volleys Scholes scored, his goal in the semi v Barca .. incomparable.
Pirlo in the right set up possibly superior to Scholes in toe to toe big match encounters at their peaks but if you're trying to win a league you'd prefer Scholes. Also Scholes was less system dependent imo. Pirlo dribbling skills were better than Xavi or Scholes and he was silkier than either of them.
Xavi as @Invictus beautifully put is in a league of his own. One man tiki taka band whose absence has destroyed Barcelonas midfield dominance. He was controlling games at all levels for 4 years at an unbelievablely unprecedented level with a consistency that was beyond Scholes or Pirlo.
Keano matched his intensity but was obviously not a game controlling midfielder in the same way so not as effective in Europe but Xavi was sensational.
1. Xavi
2. Keane
3. Pirlo/Scholes/Iniesta
4. Modric
Nah. He wasn't better than his own midfield partner.
The irony...
A blessing in disguise some say
It wouldn't surprise me if this was a serious comment. There's a trend on redcafe lately to come up with serious wumming or shocking comments. Injuries to our most important players are called blessing, people seriously think Pogba wouldn't get inro Ajax midfield, people wanting us to not get into champions league next season, just to name a fewTerrible wum
Do you guys just measure assists?
For the record Xavi 500 apps 58 goals. Scholes 499 apps 107 goals.
Miles better finisher than Xavi. Doubled his goal tally.
For the record Xavi 500 apps 58 goals. Scholes 499 apps 107 goals.
Miles better finisher than Xavi. Doubled his goal tally.
If my memory serves me correctly, a lot of people used to swear by one of his games against Newcastle, but I can't recall what year. In general though, the thing about Scholes is that while he rarely had a dominating midfield performance, like what Xavi would do or what Modric did against Atletic in the midweek, he almost never had a bad game. The most consistent 7.5/10 player you'll ever see in my mind.It was amazing
Youtube has a few games with "all his touches", i just watched this:
Against a Real Madrid Galactico side that slams us 3:0, not once does any of the madrid players come even close to him. And people are criminally underrating his short passing, by the way, might a bit below Xavi (who was, to be fair, probably the master in that regard), but it was still at a ridiculously high level.
Xavi isn't overrated here in isolation. He's rated on a god tier almost everywhere.
Incorrect. He wasn't world class for 5 seasons. He was world class for close to a decade, but for a period of 5 seasons - he dominated the possession oriented central midfielder position unlike any player before or since at both club and international level - scheming, probing, conducting entire matches - that's what elevates him to stratospheric levels. Without going so far as to say he fundamentally redefined the position, what he did was indeed unprecedented and he set an all-time level benchmark like Matthäus for box-to-box midfielders, or Rijkaard for defensive midfielders. From here on out, every midfielder of that nature will be compared with Xavi as the reference point - until someone truly surpasses him, just like every box-to-box will be compared with Matthäus (West Germany and Internazionale) and every defensive midfielder with Rijkaard for his exploits with the Netherlands and Milan.
Was expecting better from someone who pointedly criticizes the collective Caf userbase. Zidane wasn't even the best midfielder for France - Platini was, or for Juventus - again Platini, let alone the best of all time. And most (if not all) French/Juventus posters and observers will corroborate that.
Is there a chance that, some day in the future, we'll have a thread about Scholes without Pirlo and Xavi popping there out of fecking nowhere?
Out of the midfield players I've seen in their prime at United, scholes rates highly , but I'd never describe him as ' first name on the teamsheet '
Robbo & keano were exactly that in their pomp.
Robbo & keano were exactly that in their pomp.
Scholes' long range passing was head and shoulders above Xavi's. That is to some extent probably down to Barcelona preferring to play a short passing game, but it doesn't take away the fact that Scholes was far superior in that regard. Coupled with his ability to dictate the tempo of a game just as well as Xavi or any other, his long range shooting, goal threat and heading, there is a case for Scholes being better.
Best natural English midfielder, I have seen. There's a reason why guys like Xavi, Zidane, Pirlo and them types of players speak highly of him and not Lampard or Gerrard.
But, if he was a midfielder starting out today in this squad, the instant gratification generation would be blasting him. "He is slow", "he cannot defend", "he is a liability", "tries too many hollywood passes to no one in particular" etc etc.
But, if he was a midfielder starting out today in this squad, the instant gratification generation would be blasting him. "He is slow", "he cannot defend", "he is a liability", "tries too many hollywood passes to no one in particular" etc etc.
The best English player i have seen, a player who wouldn't look out of place at the club i support and a player i feel was underappreciated by his national team.
Scholes was a world class midfield player and to quote a man that knows all about playing in midfield, Xavi said this about Scholes: "They say never meet your heroes. Standing on the Old Trafford touchline, head with curtain fringe darting side-to-side, 18-year-old Xavi Hernández was about to show his what he could do. "Paul Scholes! A role model," he told The Guardian in 2011. "For me, he's the best central midfielder I've seen in the last 15, 20 years. He's spectacular, he has it all: the last pass, goals, he's strong, he doesn't lose the ball, vision."
He retired early to spend more time with his family and then rejected an appeal to come out of retirement.
The England team over the years wanted and needed Scholes a lot more than Scholes wanted to play for England. I don't think it's accurate to say he was underappreciated, everyone knew how good he was, even if one manager played him in a position that was not his preferred role.
Brilliant player, grossly overrated by our fans. Which is some achievement, given how good he actually was.
Would you say that Xavi grossly overrated him also ? They say never meet your heroes. Standing on the Old Trafford touchline, head with curtain fringe darting side-to-side, 18-year-old Xavi Hernández was about to show his what he could do. "Paul Scholes! A role model," he told The Guardian in 2011. "For me, he's the best central midfielder I've seen in the last 15, 20 years. He's spectacular, he has it all: the last pass, goals, he's strong, he doesn't lose the ball, vision."
He made every player around him look so much better than they were.
Always being played out of position to accommodate the lampard/gerrard midfield
I think you'll find that only United fans would make that case. It's pretty clear to any neutral or unbiased fan who the better player was overall.
I've seen this list before and I'm unsure if its credibility. Most stats sites and the official PL website don't have Giggs anywhere near that number?Especially considering that this isn't true
Again, credit to the amazing @Mrs Smoker
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).
So you don't think Scholes' long range passing was superior along with his finishing?
Xavi until his mid to late 20s wasn't considered a great player. About 2008, Spain had Alonso, Iniesta, Fabregas, Villa, Torres, Senna, Silva, Puyol etc yeah awful team that won thanks to Xavi..right? Xavi was a great, great player but let's not pretend that his best perfomances came when he was paired with great players and Messi or Ronaldinho upfront paired with Eto'o, Henry, Silva etc not darron Gibson, Djemba-Djemba, Liam Miller, a young Fletcher and Quinton-Bebe is going to be a great player-Fortune. When we finally got really good cms in Carrick and Hargreaves, Scholes was also a beast and we were top of the world. Pirlo and Xavi were amazing players close to Scholes' level. Then you have players like Carrick and Alosno just below them. To say that Xavi was better is not a blasphemy like saying Lampard and Gerrard were better, but god some people here seem to believe that Xavi was the second coming of Jesus.
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.
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.
Ginger Genius.Always? He played 3 tournaments in central roles before Lampard and Gerrard really came into the picture. Scholes was played out of position to accomodate Lampard and Gerrard for a handful of games and with it England looked stronger than in previous tournaments at the Euro 2004 until Rooney got injured. Then Scholes quit without fighting for a place in his best position.
Ability wise he is up there with Xavi as the best modern day midfielder but performance wise he is behind him and probably few others. Why? Id say biggest reason is because Fergie never really built a team around him and a player of his calibre deserved that but tbf to Fergie you cant really hold that against him as results speak for themselves. We dominated possession against most teams of course but against the top teams where you are turning from a good to great or in this case from a great to God we always went back to the counter-attacking routs which was absolutely fine and Scholes was very good in that system as well but it wasnt the style he preferred to play or the style where he was at his best.
Second reason but not that important IMO was international football. England national team is a mess for more then 25 years now, in fact they didnt progress one bit from that 96 Euro so everyone with a common sense wont hold that part of his career against him. But the funniest thing is, the last time when England looked like a team was in 04 and Scholes was the reason behind it even though he was pushed to the wing....he was so good that he ran the game for them from the left wing.
Second reason but not that important IMO was international football. England national team is a mess for more then 25 years now, in fact they didnt progress one bit from that 96 Euro so everyone with a common sense wont hold that part of his career against him. But the funniest thing is, the last time when England looked like a team was in 04 and Scholes was the reason behind it even though he was pushed to the wing....he was so good that he ran the game for them from the left wing.
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).
Wouldn't swap him for anyone type good.
Scholes over Xavi all day.
Ask Xavi.
Ask Xavi.
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.
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.