How good was Ryan Giggs?

[Adnan]

He was a brilliant player in a era where stretching the pitching horizontally and being asked to create chances was a requirement for a winger, rather than what we see now where players are inside forwards in a formation that has gone away from the two players up top formation to having three players up top. Giggs in full flow was an absolute delight to watch and he was such a threat to the opposition that it wasn't about goals and assists but rather about how Giggs would cause such havoc to the opponent's defensive structure that it would open up space for others to exploit. And that was a big reason as to why we had a functioning system of play where the team as a collective created chances galore rather than individuals scoring or assisting to the detriment of the team as a collective.

Giggs was my favourite player growing up as a young kid. His ability to combine a high level of dribbling with great acceleration where he would twist the opposition inside out to open space for others was a joy watch. The only time I worried about losing a game was when Giggs was unavailable because his pace, dribbling and creative abilities couldn't be replaced. And on top of all that he had a immense work ethic out of possession that we took for granted, when you consider what has become acceptable now where players who score or assist goals are excused for being non-committal out of possession and hence their own personal tallies increase in the form of goals and assists but the team as a collective doesn't evolve. It's why players like Giggs were so good, because not only did he contribute to a high level when it came to in-possession play, but his contribution out of possession on top of everything else was a big factor towards having a system of play that functioned to a high level, which led to the team creating and defending to high levels.


Giggs in his own words mentioned that he lost half a yard of pace in his mid 20s, and hence I don't think we saw the best of Giggs in his peak years. But it was a testament to Giggs in how he adapted his game for the greater good of the team and would later in his career even be utilised in central midfield.

And the goal below from Giggs at 17 or 18 years against Spurs at WHL is a clear example of a player who combined great acceleration, dribbling, balance and a poise that made him a teenage prodigy.

 

[Dr Foo]

Was there a better out and out winger than him in the PL to date? Based on peak plus longevity

Then you throw in the transformation into a winger in centre mid that can dribble and also create

He had a period in his mid to late 20s where he had to adapt to his injuries and finding consistency, then came back stronger

 

[Desert Eagle]

Greatest PL player

 

[ryansgirl]

It's not really hard to reconcile? He was competing with Lampard and Gerrard and he lost. He was arguably better than both - not saying he was, but there's not a lot in it. He was certainly a different type of player to both. Less flashy though, and older with less of an engine.

Scholesy was the ultimate quiet achiever - and as a few perceptive football writers noted, his reserve and refusal to live the life of a top tier footballer in terms of the PR and lifestyle considered normal tended to make him under-rated by too many. Again like Ryan, he was much appreciated in Europe, more so than in the UK.

Yes, he lost the pre-selection contest with Lampard and Gerrard - both of them outstanding players of their generation, with Steve especially busting his guts for England despite unfair criticism after losses. But did England win anything with those two? Having Paul Scholes in the England side would have led to a different focus, more on playing the way suitable for international football.

As some noted, whenever England failed with the generation that was supposed to bring back the trophies, players such as Steve Gerrard played just like he did as a box to box player with Liverpool, Frank played as he did with Chelsea. Too many other players were the same. It didn`t work in terms of success because the England team couldn`t or wouldn`t change the way players did things in international competitions. This was a failure of management and coaching - and selection.

Scholesy had deft technique and could find his way through a packed midfield with precision despite his smaller size, and his team mates appreciated his range of passing and vision. His ability to adapt strategically was sorely missed by the English team. His skills have been under-rated in England but just like Giggsy, the European commentators, managers and players gave him a lot of respect for those skills.

Time and time again no matter how good the `Golden Generation` were in their own teams, their time with England showed strategic failures as well as the inability to successfully knock the ball around until an opening could be found to goal. Players like Scholesy should have been seen as keys to unlocking international defences.

 

[Smithy89]

Stats were only counted from 2003 onwards but Giggs' stats have been counted on this forum and his assist numbers are world class.

You know what people are like these days, the eye test no longer matters. If you don't have Salah, Haaland, or Ronaldo numbers then you're average.

 

[SilentWitness]

Turns out he wasn't very good and is instead a very bad man.

 

[Remember the geese]

Turns out he wasn't very good and is instead a very bad man.

He was brilliant, whilst not being the best of blokes.

 

[FCAES_7]

It's funny how people claim United core players of the late 90's up to 2011 are overrated but won the most leagues, reached 4 CL finals (losing 2 against arguably the greatest club team in history). As for Giggs he was essential part of SAF success over the years, a great player where as many said had to adapt his game more than once to stay successful. As a football player one of the best to ever to play in the PL, his goals against West Ham vs against Arsenal in the FA cup just shows you the way his game evolved and the way he had to adapt to his strength.

 

[Withnail]

I think he's overrated(at least on forums with a good number of British people) because of how long he remained as a good player.

His game in his prime can be resumed by: "Run, Forrest, run!". He was similar to 2003/2006 C. Ronaldo, but without the stupid tricks and with a bit better crossing. Later, he became a solid CM, but nothing special in comparison to other in the same position at other big clubs.

I don't expect to become popular with this post, but it's my honest opinion.

Well you're assumption in the first paragraph is wrong. He was rated very highly throughout his career. He didn't suddenly became elevated to a great player due hanging around for ages.

You're entitled to your opinion in thinking he's over-rated, obviously, but summing up his peak as run forest run and on a par with Ronaldo when he was a frustrating young winger is a bit ridiculous, really.

 

[Sunny Jim]

Yesterday i watched highlights of United- Fiorentina (3:1 game) at OT. It happens to be one my favourite games. Giggs was superb in that game. Such a joy to watch.

 

[VivaObertan]

Never really liked him as a kid, but in hindsight he's probably one of the top 5 United players of all time?

 

[Bobski]

It is always strange to me how discussion on Scholes and Giggs has gone post retirement. Personally I think Giggs was the better of the 2 over their careers, you can argue about peak, whatever, but this forum basically has Scholes on par with Zidane, Xavi and Modric while Giggs is often spoken of as if he was some grafting workhorse, like an up market James Milner.

He was an incredible talent.

 

[Gehrman]

It is always strange to me how discussion on Scholes and Giggs has gone post retirement. Personally I think Giggs was the better of the 2 over their careers, you can argue about peak, whatever, but this forum basically has Scholes on par with Zidane, Xavi and Modric while Giggs is often spoken of as if he was some grafting workhorse, like an up market James Milner.

He was an incredible talent.

He was imo the most naturally gifted player during Fergie apart from Ronaldo imo.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

I remember when he and Lee Sharpe broke through at more or less the same time. I rated Sharpe more at that point, Giggs just seemed more erratic, whereas Sharpe was so clinical. Giggs lasted quite a bit longer at the top though of course. Great player.

 

[CallyRed]

Giggs completely changed his game once his pace went. Not many players can do that.

Bernardo Silva reminds me of an older Giggs. Technically similar, as well as footballing intelligence.

 

[Mr. MUJAC]

If you look at Ryan Giggs Wiki page and scroll down to the bottom...just look at all the trophies, records and PFA awards that he collected over his career.

You don't tote all those up by being an average player.

Alex Ferguson, his team mates and his fellow professionals all rated him world class and one of the best players in his generation.

Not sure how anyone on this forum can say he was overrated in any way.

On the pitch he was the real deal.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

It is always strange to me how discussion on Scholes and Giggs has gone post retirement. Personally I think Giggs was the better of the 2 over their careers, you can argue about peak, whatever, but this forum basically has Scholes on par with Zidane, Xavi and Modric while Giggs is often spoken of as if he was some grafting workhorse, like an up market James Milner.

He was an incredible talent.

Hard to disagree with that.

I also think Giggs was the better of the two the more I think about it.

 

[RC89]

Not really a fair comparison. Ronaldo is a little better but that is in many ways due to his being far more selfish than Giggs. Ryan put in a tremendous amount of defensive work and was far more focused on the team than he was on personal achievements.

Comparing players from different eras is hard to do also but as others in this thread have stated, there was not a club in the World that would not have broken their transfer record to get him if he was available. He was the most exciting player I have seen at Old Trafford over a sustained period and even in his mid thirties when his legs were going he was able to reinvent himself and still boss the best teams in the world.

It isn't a fair comparison. But to say Ronaldo is a little better is outrageous. Ronaldo is on a whole different level. That's not to say Giggs wasn't great. But to make it seem like it's close between Giggs and Ronaldo is insane. We're talking about one the greatest all all time when we talk about Ronaldo. Giggs doesn't even get close to that conversation.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It is always strange to me how discussion on Scholes and Giggs has gone post retirement. Personally I think Giggs was the better of the 2 over their careers, you can argue about peak, whatever, but this forum basically has Scholes on par with Zidane, Xavi and Modric while Giggs is often spoken of as if he was some grafting workhorse, like an up market James Milner.

He was an incredible talent.

The Scholes one is odd as post retirement the way the game has gone appreciates his style of play much more. When you think he often traded places with Butt in some tricky away matches even up until the 99 treble, then got moved around /fell out with SAF for Veron and only really had the Scholes World class peak after that, playing in a deeper role for 4-5 years (of which there was a long eye trouble interruption), it’s even stranger.

Giggs was undoubtedly the better player over their entire careers, by some distance too for me.

 

[Chicharo]

He was one of the fastest players of his generation, possessed exceptional dribbling skills and the capacity to swiftly change direction while sprinting , and a keen sense for passing, particularly in the final third (which is something that often does not receive sufficient recognition, I would say).
When discussing talent and his peak, I concur with SAF. He stands alongside Cantona, Scholes, and Ronaldo as one of the best Manchester United players in the Premier League era. The fifth one would probably be Rooney

 

[ROFLUTION]

It isn't a fair comparison. But to say Ronaldo is a little better is outrageous. Ronaldo is on a whole different level. That's not to say Giggs wasn't great. But to make it seem like it's close between Giggs and Ronaldo is insane. We're talking about one the greatest all all time when we talk about Ronaldo. Giggs doesn't even get close to that conversation.

You gotta look at what they gave go United if you want to compare them in a context of United imo and since they’re completely different it’s hard to do.

Ronaldo won us the league a decent amount of times (with Rooney and the defence being the other big factors) and then the whole team passed to Ronaldo, which made everyone play less good imo (but it worked). Also came back and made us go backwards despite his goals.

With Giggs he fitted in nicely in all eras. Had a bit of a downer for a season or two in performance (like Ronaldo’s first seasons), but he just gave us so much. Most assists in the league and champions league ever, partly due to how lengthy his career was. He definitely aged better than Ronaldo has and played at top level until he was 40 (!)

Some sort of metric is probably needed for fairly measuring the two’s impact on United.

 

[Gehrman]

He was one of the fastest players of his generation, possessed exceptional dribbling skills and the capacity to swiftly change direction while sprinting , and a keen sense for passing, particularly in the final third (which is something that often does not receive sufficient recognition, I would say).
When discussing talent and his peak, I concur with SAF. He stands alongside Cantona, Scholes, and Ronaldo as one of the best Manchester United players in the Premier League era. The fifth one would probably be Rooney

Giggs still had one mesmerising ways of running and turning defenders inside out. Sure that isnt end product in itself but got fans off their seats. Honestly we havnt had a player since Fergie retired who had that. Nani perhaps when he was world class for 1.5 seasons

 

[Gandalf]

It isn't a fair comparison. But to say Ronaldo is a little better is outrageous. Ronaldo is on a whole different level. That's not to say Giggs wasn't great. But to make it seem like it's close between Giggs and Ronaldo is insane. We're talking about one the greatest all all time when we talk about Ronaldo. Giggs doesn't even get close to that conversation.

Different position, different era. They are both greats and both sustained their career at an exceptionaly high level for an incredibly long time. Ronaldo obviously played a role that let him pile up the individual stats in a way that Giggs could not and I would say a far bigger distinction is that Giggs played internationally for a small nation during a period when he was often forced to play with pub level players or even worse, Vinny Jones! If Giggs had played for England as he well could have done then he would have had a much higher profile. In the end I stand by my comment that Ronaldo is only a little better if forced to rank them.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

If you made a Premier League XI and were strict with positions, he would still comfortably be my left midfield.

I always had him above Scholes admittedly.

 

[honirelandboy]

He played in an era where two strikers was the normal. He reminds me kind of a mixture of Bernardo Silva and Eden Hazard.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

It is always strange to me how discussion on Scholes and Giggs has gone post retirement. Personally I think Giggs was the better of the 2 over their careers, you can argue about peak, whatever, but this forum basically has Scholes on par with Zidane, Xavi and Modric while Giggs is often spoken of as if he was some grafting workhorse, like an up market James Milner.

He was an incredible talent.

Yeah it's strange but I think it's to do with how both positions changed - passers and technique in midfield is appreciated more so Scholes gets a boost, whereas people look at Giggs's goal record from the wing and compare it to the top players now and it doesn't match up as well.

But again that's very much of its time, Figo won Ballon d'Or at Barca and he scored less than 1 in 5. Playing 442 winger, the strikers scored the goals and CMs got in the scoring positions as much as the wingers sometimes, whereas in modern 433, the wingers get in the best spots. Yet unfortunately I feel if Giggs scored 15-20 league goals a season he would be talked about these days much more highly.

 

[Red in STL]

Different position, different era. They are both greats and both sustained their career at an exceptionaly high level for an incredibly long time. Ronaldo obviously played a role that let him pile up the individual stats in a way that Giggs could not and I would say a far bigger distinction is that Giggs played internationally for a small nation during a period when he was often forced to play with pub level players or even worse, Vinny Jones! If Giggs had played for England as he well could have done then he would have had a much higher profile. In the end I stand by my comment that Ronaldo is only a little better if forced to rank them.

He couldn't have played for England as the rules were then, he was born in Wales and he didn't qualify for England, people think he did because he played for England Schoolboys but that was because those teams are picked on location not birth

 

[OverratedOpinion]

I think he's overrated(at least on forums with a good number of British people) because of how long he remained as a good player.

His game in his prime can be resumed by: "Run, Forrest, run!". He was similar to 2003/2006 C. Ronaldo, but without the stupid tricks and with a bit better crossing. Later, he became a solid CM, but nothing special in comparison to other in the same position at other big clubs.

I don't expect to become popular with this post, but it's my honest opinion.

The bolded part secures you a spot on the pantheon of clueless opinions shared on this forum.

Re the question he was a superlative player and from what I can tell a total scumbag.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Giggs still had one mesmerising ways of running and turning defenders inside out. Sure that isnt end product in itself but got fans off their seats. Honestly we havnt had a player since Fergie retired who had that. Nani perhaps when he was world class for 1.5 seasons

Early Martial was absolutely like that when he got the ball on the wing. Pre-back injury Rashford was getting there too in terms of ruthlessly taking players on/skinning people. That's probably it though, and obviously neither come close to the actual effectiveness within a match of Giggs.

 

[HackeyC]

His acceleration was unreal, and incredibly balanced. Injuries eventually hampered his speed, but early Giggs was every bit as electric as early Ronaldo.

 

[RC89]

Different position, different era. They are both greats and both sustained their career at an exceptionaly high level for an incredibly long time. Ronaldo obviously played a role that let him pile up the individual stats in a way that Giggs could not and I would say a far bigger distinction is that Giggs played internationally for a small nation during a period when he was often forced to play with pub level players or even worse, Vinny Jones! If Giggs had played for England as he well could have done then he would have had a much higher profile. In the end I stand by my comment that Ronaldo is only a little better if forced to rank them.

This is massively biased. No non United fan would ever compare them. Sure, a Portuguese players profile is likely bigger than that of a Welsh. But would anyone in their right mind ever argue Giggs being a top 10 player ever? With Ronaldo, I'd imagine most would argue him into atleast top 10. Ronaldo piled up the stats, but you think it's normal to score as many as Ronaldo has? Yes, the teams were centred around him, because he was good enough for it to be, and he delivered beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

 

[The Cat]

Different position, different era. They are both greats and both sustained their career at an exceptionaly high level for an incredibly long time. Ronaldo obviously played a role that let him pile up the individual stats in a way that Giggs could not and I would say a far bigger distinction is that Giggs played internationally for a small nation during a period when he was often forced to play with pub level players or even worse, Vinny Jones! If Giggs had played for England as he well could have done then he would have had a much higher profile. In the end I stand by my comment that Ronaldo is only a little better if forced to rank them.

Not having a pop at all but how could Giggs have played for England? It wasn't possible.

 

[RC89]

You gotta look at what they gave go United if you want to compare them in a context of United imo and since they’re completely different it’s hard to do.

Ronaldo won us the league a decent amount of times (with Rooney and the defence being the other big factors) and then the whole team passed to Ronaldo, which made everyone play less good imo (but it worked). Also came back and made us go backwards despite his goals.

With Giggs he fitted in nicely in all eras. Had a bit of a downer for a season or two in performance (like Ronaldo’s first seasons), but he just gave us so much. Most assists in the league and champions league ever, partly due to how lengthy his career was. He definitely aged better than Ronaldo has and played at top level until he was 40 (!)

Some sort of metric is probably needed for fairly measuring the two’s impact on United.

Partly? Mostly. Also, why do you need to compare at United? The point is, is their levels are comparable? Only in the eye or a United fan. Ronaldos ceiling wasn't even comparable to Giggs. Longevity? Ronaldo was still top 5 player in the world at 35. Giggs wasn't close (though still good). He did not definitely age better at all. He accepted a part time role that Ronaldo never. Bales ceiling was higher than Giggs, comparing Ronaldo to Giggs is borderline insulting.

 

[Gandalf]

This is massively biased. No non United fan would ever compare them. Sure, a Portuguese players profile is likely bigger than that of a Welsh. But would anyone in their right mind ever argue Giggs being a top 10 player ever? With Ronaldo, I'd imagine most would argue him into atleast top 10. Ronaldo piled up the stats, but you think it's normal to score as many as Ronaldo has? Yes, the teams were centred around him, because he was good enough for it to be, and he delivered beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

I don’t think I have ever disputed that Ronaldo was better so I am not really sure why you seem to think I have. I do think Giggs gets overlooked a lot because he did not play at a World Cup or even the Euros and he was a one club man. If he had moved to Real or Juve in his prime he might well be a much bigger name. The more recent revelations concerning what an utter scumbag he is off the pitch have also soured people on him understably.

The level he maintained for such a long time in an incredibly successful team is worthy of recognition. For context, as a Welshman it is probably true to say peak Bale was better but you are comparing 3 or 4 years of being exceptional against almost 20 years of being incredibly good.

So far as him not being eligible for England, I guess I misremembered because of his youth appearances for England that the rules were different at that time.

 

[Gehrman]

I don’t think I have ever disputed that Ronaldo was better so I am not really sure why you seem to think I have. I do think Giggs gets overlooked a lot because he did not play at a World Cup or even the Euros and he was a one club man. If he had moved to Real or Juve in his prime he might well be a much bigger name. The more recent revelations concerning what an utter scumbag he is off the pitch have also soured people on him understably.

The level he maintained for such a long time in an incredibly successful team is worthy of recognition. For context, as a Welshman it is probably true to say peak Bale was better but you are comparing 3 or 4 years of being exceptional against almost 20 years of being incredibly good.

So far as him not being eligible for England, I guess I misremembered because of his youth appearances for England that the rules were different at that time.

Fergies Man Utd was in terrms on fanbase, commercial impact probably the biggest club in the world. Didnt do too badly in terms of trophies. I don't Giggs could played for better club in terms of recognition also nobody was represented Man utd more on the pitch than Giggs.

 

[Look-a-Hill]

I've been watching the all 2000 PL goals video the club put on the YouTube channel, and it's remarkable how many goals he's involved in at the age of 19/20, especially in a 4-4-2 era of football. He looks an entire generation ahead of his peers in terms of athleticism. Proper good stuff.

 

[Bobski]

Rashford is going to crush his goal record but does anyone who watched both of them really think he is close to Giggs as a player?

Individual goal records are often a product of footballing fads, guys like Rashford are strikers on the wing, don't have to or want to take the responsibility to play down the middle, don't really have to work back, just play on the last man.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

The big thing was Giggs was a winner too, which can’t be said about the current crop. People underrate just how hard it is to win 13 leagues as an important player. There were only a couple where he wasn’t first team really. Even in his latter years he played a lot of games in CM and he used to frustrate me but better still again than most of the post-Fergie crop and you could rely on him to play a killer pass and keep the wins ticking in the league.

 

[Bobski]

The big thing was Giggs was a winner too, which can’t be said about the current crop. People underrate just how hard it is to win 13 leagues as an important player. There were only a couple where he wasn’t first team really. Even in his latter years he played a lot of games in CM and he used to frustrate me but better still again than most of the post-Fergie crop and you could rely on him to play a killer pass and keep the wins ticking in the league.

The thing with guys like Giggs and Scholes is that they were team players first and foremost, they weren't selfish, as you said all about winning. That comes from the culture that Fergie created, wasn't about individual egos, and when Beckham started to show that ego he was booted. Maybe they should have demanded to take the pens at some point, score another 60/70 goals over their career and some of the stat obsessed would be more comfortable rating them higher.

 

[André Dominguez]

He's regarded as one of the best players ever to be on a football pitch, mainly as left winger. Was solid as midfielder later in the career, but still not top notch solid as he was as left winger.

As a person, he clearly lacked talent to be a decent human being.