Premier League Gameweek 17 | Stop flogging a dead thread - Damien

[Revan]

The best way to judge a player is by what his fellow professionals think of him. Awards are all politically driven and also driven by the appetite for that player wanting an award (which Scholes never actively wanted). Scholes was widely regarded as the best midfielder of his time and best at what he did by the vast majority of non English club affiliated legends.

Not necessarily. A lot of footballers are quite biased, and many of them don't watch football that much (although in Xavi's case, he is an encyclopedia of football).

I think that Ballon D'Or award hasn't been politically driven bar on those 4 years or so when it was joined with FIFA award. Incidentally, the value of it got diminished because 1/3 of the votes came from footballers and 1/3 from managers of national teams. I think that journos are better at it than footballers, simply because it is their job to be good at it and to watch as many matches as possible, while players job is to be good at football. A lot of players say that they don't even watch that much football, and you can see from interviews how ignorant most of the players are when it comes to football.

Quotes in isolation don't mean too much IMO, and you can get similar quotes for other players. Fergie for example called Gerrard the most influential player in the league and a better Vieira in 2004, with Zidane calling him the best in the world, etc etc.

I like how Scholes peers' appreciate Scholes, but I think that a large part of it might be because Scholes was arguably the first truly great midfield playmaker, and it is possible that Pirlo and Xavi modeled part of their games to emulate Scholes. However, they surpassed Scholes by the end of their careers.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I wouldn't always put too much on these big time awards. They often have a severe bias to the big name, high profile players.

Do you recall Beckham was 2nd In the world player of the year in both 99 and 2001?
Was he in the best 2 in our own team those years?

Yes he was, there's been major revisionism on Beckham and Scholes. Beckham's creativity and long passing accuracy was simply better than Scholes ever was during this period.

Since he left and wasn't at United for as long he's not remembered as fondly as Scholes now is.

 

[Irrational.]

Incorrect. As I've said, Alli scores significantly more often, as the stats per minutes played show. He also makes more assists than Pogba. That's at least two areas - and vital areas at that - where Pogba has been inferior to Pogba.

This debate is futile. Let's just wait until the end of the season

 

[Prodigal7]

Not necessarily. A lot of footballers are quite biased, and many of them don't watch football that much (although in Xavi's case, he is an encyclopedia of football).

I think that Ballon D'Or award hasn't been politically driven bar on those 4 years or so when it was joined with FIFA award. Incidentally, the value of it got diminished because 1/3 of the votes came from footballers and 1/3 from managers of national teams. I think that journos are better at it than footballers, simply because it is their job to be good at it and to watch as many matches as possible, while players job is to be good at football. A lot of players say that they don't even watch that much football, and you can see from interviews how ignorant most of the players are when it comes to football.

Quotes in isolation don't mean too much IMO, and you can get similar quotes for other players. Fergie for example called Gerrard the most influential player in the league and a better Vieira in 2004, with Zidane calling him the best in the world, etc etc.

I like how Scholes peers' appreciate Scholes, but I think that a large part of it might be because Scholes was arguably the first truly great midfield playmaker, and it is possible that Pirlo and Xavi modeled part of their games to emulate Scholes. However, they surpassed Scholes by the end of their careers.

I agree with some of your points but generally disagree. Journalisat ate mostly ignorant to what makes a good player. They are story tellers and like players who give them popular stories more than anything else. There are some off the cuff remarks by ex players that can be taken with a pinch of salt, but the way the likes of Zidane, Xavi etc talk about Scholes specifically it is quite clear that they are really speaking their own sincere opinion. SAFs quote in Gerard is probably also quite sincere and IMO true. He could on occasion be very influential but not a better player than scholes.

The Ballon d'or is and always has been a behind closed doors lobbying process.

 

[montpelier]

No he hasn't. Xavi was the main man of the best midfield of all time, both in club and international level. Scholes was part of a midfield that got outplayed almost every time we played a great time in Europe, be it Milan with Pirlo, Madrid with Redondo or Barca with Xavi or even Deco.

I agree with this bar the last line. Would say that Scholes was closer to Xavi than to Alonso. In fact, I would say that Alonso was closer to Carrick than to Scholes.

I know what you mean by this bolded bit but it is also partly untrue - Utd proceeded to 3 CL Finals around 2007 so must have been doing something right.

But also historically it was a general problem for English teams isn't it - tactics concerning the MF, retention of possession, liking width on both sides, liking 2 forwards on the field as well. No one did particularly well for quite a long time (Utd, Arsenal mainly would it be, mid 90s forward) Benitez knew how to do it with more success with only 3 decent players at times.

The penny has finally dropped possibly with some British coaches, and most top teams here would now be built to service one main goalscorer & a move to 4-3-3 with the inverted wide AMs preferring to move inside whatever the nationality of the Manager.

Just throwing that in really, not a seriously fervent believer of it, but have wondered at times.

 

[montpelier]

Yes he was, there's been major revisionism on Beckham and Scholes. Beckham's creativity and long passing accuracy was simply better than Scholes ever was during this period.

Since he left and wasn't at United for as long he's not remembered as fondly as Scholes now is.

In slightly simplified terms, Beckham just became all about the crossing though isn't it. Tactical shape, he stands out right, is the free man eventually, receives the ball & serves it in. If you watch the goals from some seasons that is happening time after time.

 

[Gio]

This is utterly simplistic. Having a shared trait, "pass short and sharp at pace until he finds the space and time to take a touch, lift his head and do the pass with the right weight for the forwards" does not mean he is the equal of the likes of Xavi, Iniesta or Zidane.

Xavi is the most direct comparison. He basically dominated every midfield for five years straight with hardly any exceptions. You literally couldn't take the ball off him and he almost never gave it away. His ability to make himself available and pick the right pass next at high pace is probably the best of anyone ever. Scholes being very good at him does not make him his equal. The body of work of dominating midfields that Xavi has compared to Scholes is not only larger, at both international and club level, it is also copnsistent against the very best of opposition in a manner where's scholes body of work pales in comparison. Nor could Scholes match his assist output on top of all that.

As for Iniesta and Zidane, they had far more to their game besides being playmakers. And like Xavi, they have a solid body of work as standout performances on the biggest of stages.

It's not that we don't get it, that understanding what Scholes does requires you to be some exquisite connoiseur of technical passing that the unwashed masses of other clubs just wouldn't understand. We see it very clearly and everyone clearly appreciates it in players like Pirlo and Xavi.

Scholes simply hasn't played to their level with the same kind of panache, consistency and has generally not left nearly the same mark on the big stages.

Doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. But there have been better around who have made the difference to their team more often than Scholes.

Scholes is closer to Xabi Alonso than he is to Xavi.

Fully agree with this.

 

[Revan]

I know what you mean by this bolded bit but it is also partly untrue - Utd proceeded to 3 CL Finals around 2007 so must have been doing something right.

But also historically it was a general problem for English teams isn't it - tactics concerning the MF, retention of possession, liking width on both sides, liking 2 forwards on the field as well. No one did particularly well for quite a long time (Utd, Arsenal mainly would it be, mid 90s forward) Benitez knew how to do it with more success with only 3 decent players at times.

The penny has finally dropped possibly with some British coaches, and most top teams here would now be built to service one main goalscorer & a move to 4-3-3 with the inverted wide AMs preferring to move inside whatever the nationality of the Manager.

Just throwing that in really, not a seriously fervent believer of it, but have wondered at times.

There were two (in 2008 and 2009) built mostly on an extremely strong defense and Cristiano Ronaldo. Scholes didn't even start in 2009 final despite that Fletcher was suspended, Hargreaves injured and we still put three other midfielders in the starting lineup. In the next final we achieved (2011), Scholes was already a bit part player and didn't start the final (or semis or quarters).

United never played in that way to dominate the midfield, we simply never did that. Up to 2006 or so we played very chaotically in Europe, without much care given to tactics and since then it was mostly defend first and then attack in counter. Xavi for Barca dominated every other midfield (with ease) so it is not right to say that Scholes did everything that Xavi did, just because they had the same style.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Perhaps if Scholes/Pogba could be a bit more Emre Can they would get more recognition from the caf dippers.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/emre-can.417044/

This is the level of stupid/bias you're trying to debate with. Pointless.

 

[montpelier]

There were two (in 2008 and 2009) built mostly on an extremely strong defense and Cristiano Ronaldo. Scholes didn't even start in 2009 final despite that Fletcher was suspended, Hargreaves injured and we still put three other midfielders in the starting lineup. In the next final we achieved (2011), Scholes was already a bit part player and didn't start the final (or semis or quarters).

United never played in that way to dominate the midfield, we simply never did that. Up to 2006 or so we played very chaotically in Europe, without much care given to tactics and since then it was mostly defend first and then attack in counter. Xavi for Barca dominated every other midfield (with ease) so it is not right to say that Scholes did everything that Xavi did, just because they had the same style.

ah yes, the 3rd one I was imagining incorrectly we lost to Milan in the SF, isn't it? And yes, SAF had gone to a central 3 in most of the 'Big Games' - but an English club MF pair always fared pretty badly vs. the very top Forrin oppo until 'the change' occurred somewhere when... early noughties, the attempt to integrate Veron... what ever, I dunno...

but playing outnumbered in there never seemed a lot of fun did it? if the opposition were any good at all

 

[Tom Van Persie]

I thought United fans were getting frustrated with Giggs towards the end? Maybe that was during the Moyes season.

Not frustrated with Giggs as a player as he was still pretty good at the age of 40 we were more frustrated with Fergie for over using him especially at centre midfield in his last few years as manager.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I like how Scholes peers' appreciate Scholes, but I think that a large part of it might be because Scholes was arguably the first truly great midfield playmaker, and it is possible that Pirlo and Xavi modeled part of their games to emulate Scholes. However, they surpassed Scholes by the end of their careers.

Erm, what? Did football come into existance in the 90s or 00s, I forget.

 

[Revan]

Erm, what? Did football come into existance in the 90s or 00s, I forget.

I mean in modern era, he was probably the first type of midfielder who would do an infinite number of short passes and control matches. Then after him came the others like Pirlo, Deco or Xavi, but back then it was more fashionable for midfielders to either be box to box types (like Keano or Vieira) or kind of No.10 like Zidane or type of destroyers like Davids or Makelele.

 

[Fortitude]

There were two (in 2008 and 2009) built mostly on an extremely strong defense and Cristiano Ronaldo. Scholes didn't even start in 2009 final despite that Fletcher was suspended, Hargreaves injured and we still put three other midfielders in the starting lineup. In the next final we achieved (2011), Scholes was already a bit part player and didn't start the final (or semis or quarters).

United never played in that way to dominate the midfield, we simply never did that. Up to 2006 or so we played very chaotically in Europe, without much care given to tactics and since then it was mostly defend first and then attack in counter. Xavi for Barca dominated every other midfield (with ease) so it is not right to say that Scholes did everything that Xavi did, just because they had the same style.

I get what you're conveying, and agree with some of it, but Xavi/Barca did not dominate every other midfield with ease. They had an absolute nightmare time of it vs. Chelsea throughout their mutual time at the top, and they were not a great side on the road, failing to to turn games with frankly daft retention numbers to effective ones with wins instead of draws.

There's one thing being allowed to retain the ball for an age, but it's another to not be able to break other teams down, to the point an obvious formulaic method came into vogue to combat Barca's strengths, for teams defensively astute enough to administer it.

Xavi is one of, if not the best, in a very specific style of midfield play, but outside of that, he has question marks just like a host of others who are easily peers of his.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

In slightly simplified terms, Beckham just became all about the crossing though isn't it. Tactical shape, he stands out right, is the free man eventually, receives the ball & serves it in. If you watch the goals from some seasons that is happening time after time.

Kind of but he was the best crosser in the world, he could probably even make Giroud prolific. It wasn't all of his repertoire though.

 

[Prodigal7]

Beckham is like Gerrard in a way. You remember some key moments where they attempt something daring and it comes off. But neither are as good or contribute to the teams performance as much as Scholes. People say Scholes is being overly hyped up after he retired but I still disagree. Not only was he that good but he could have been even better if not in a 442.

 

[Johnnyredboots]

By 'the scouse' I take it you mean one guy you met in a bar when you were pissed and probably misunderstood half of what was said.

No i was refering to an article from an archived thread that someone kindly found.

Maybe you should try reading a few pages of the thread before you decide to get offended by something.

 

[B20]

I get what you're conveying, and agree with some of it, but Xavi/Barca did not dominate every other midfield with ease. They had an absolute nightmare time of it vs. Chelsea throughout their mutual time at the top, and they were not a great side on the road, failing to to turn games with frankly daft retention numbers to effective ones with wins instead of draws.

There's one thing being allowed to retain the ball for an age, but it's another to not be able to break other teams down, to the point an obvious formulaic method came into vogue to combat Barca's strengths, for teams defensively astute enough to administer it.

Xavi is one of, if not the best, in a very specific style of midfield play, but outside of that, he has question marks just like a host of others who are easily peers of his.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that that barca side was not one of the most dominant and successful of all time reading that description. Same goes for Spain where he was also the fulcrum. Neither have been able to replicate that dominant style of play without him.

Xavi more than anyone defined the most dominant club and international side in more than 25 years with unparalleled consistency throughout that period. You'd need to go back to Matthaus before you start finding midfield peers.

 

[Ban]

This is one crazy thread.

 

[PlayerOne]

This is impossible to keep up with. What's going on? Who said Can is midfielder in the league?

 

[Fridge chutney]

Perhaps if Scholes/Pogba could be a bit more Emre Can they would get more recognition from the caf dippers.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/emre-can.417044/

This is the level of stupid/bias you're trying to debate with. Pointless.

Yes, this is truly the worst thread I've seen on RedCafe.

 

[Gasolin]

Yes he was, there's been major revisionism on Beckham and Scholes. Beckham's creativity and long passing accuracy was simply better than Scholes ever was during this period.

Since he left and wasn't at United for as long he's not remembered as fondly as Scholes now is.

Correct, but if I have to go back to football coaches teaching football to kids, they like to show Scholes passing because Beckham often required the receiver to have a sublime first touch to benefit the pass and use it. While again, Scholes was making sure the receiver could focus on the next action, and make it offensive, instead of the first touch. That's why he's rated higher in that regard.

I agree that Xavi probably learned a lot from Scholes and went ahead of him. But nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that Scholes is up there with the best footballers of his generation at his peek. And don't even compare him to Xavi Alonso... for Pirlo, I still don't think he was better than Scholes but mostly because he's a different kind of player who bonified when going deeper in the midfield. Pirlo changed football perceived perceptions of the 6, and that's certainly not Scholes.

I am not just an United fan glorifying Scholes, before that, I'm a football fan. If you want to underrate Scholes, it's your problem. But he's the one player that's getting analyzed for space and passes by football coaches.

 

[Gio]

I get what you're conveying, and agree with some of it, but Xavi/Barca did not dominate every other midfield with ease. They had an absolute nightmare time of it vs. Chelsea throughout their mutual time at the top, and they were not a great side on the road, failing to to turn games with frankly daft retention numbers to effective ones with wins instead of draws.

There's one thing being allowed to retain the ball for an age, but it's another to not be able to break other teams down, to the point an obvious formulaic method came into vogue to combat Barca's strengths, for teams defensively astute enough to administer it.

Xavi is one of, if not the best, in a very specific style of midfield play, but outside of that, he has question marks just like a host of others who are easily peers of his.

I agree that the Chelsea/Inter ties are the best or arguably only examples of a peak Xavi-led midfield not dictating the biggest games. Yet that forms a fairly small part of a portfolio of league, European and international dominance that outstrips what almost any of those midfield peers have produced. The other central midfielders who I would place in his bracket, Matthaus and Rijkaard, will have a similar or possibly longer list of big games that they did not boss. That's notwithstanding the likes of Bozsik and Didi who, from what we know, could claim to have been as dominant within their era but it's difficult to assess with the same lens we're applying here. Inevitably he has benefited from being a part of the superclub era and from a concentration of talent and style that enabled him to maximise his own talent. But it's important too to acknowledge that he didn't just benefit from the system, he became the system. So much so that his career peak and performance trajectory either side of that mirrored the success of Barcelona and Spain (and their relative falls when he started to fade).

 

[Rafateria]

No i was refering to an article from an archived thread that someone kindly found.

Maybe you should try reading a few pages of the thread before you decide to get offended by something.

Maybe you should try quoting them instead of expecting people to read back pages of a thread to understand a single sentence made in isolation

 

[kouroux]

Why is this stupid debate still on ?

 

[BlueCelery]

The improvement he has made under Klopp has been nothing short of astounding. Seems to be getting better with every game.

If he keep this up, he'll be the best midfielder in the league next season.

Fecking hell

 

[BlueCelery]

FFS, United fans claiming all Beckham did was cross just to defend Scholes. The fanaticism has gone too far.

He was the main man on United in terms of decisiveness for years. One of the most underrated players in football history & it took 4 years after his departure for United to properly find/develop a player on that level of influence.

 

[Johnnyredboots]

Maybe you should try quoting them instead of expecting people to read back pages of a thread to understand a single sentence made in isolation

well, maybe we both need to do better

 

[Crossie]

This is one crazy thread.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[prath92]

You'd be forgiven for thinking that that barca side was not one of the most dominant and successful of all time reading that description. Same goes for Spain where he was also the fulcrum. Neither have been able to replicate that dominant style of play without him.

Xavi more than anyone defined the most dominant club and international side in more than 25 years with unparalleled consistency throughout that period. You'd need to go back to Matthaus before you start finding midfield peers.

Xavi was brilliant but a good part of his success came due to the system and his understanding with busquets and iniesta. Scholes never had a balanced midfield like this, as England preferred goalscoring attacking midfielders (hence why Gerrard and Lampard were preferred in CM) whereas Spain preferred domination in midfield.

Even today many English journos put AMs as CMs when they select TOTW.

 

[adexkola]

I'm just here to note that the failings/shortfalls of the likes of Pirlo and Zidane are almost never touched on, unlike Scholes, for some weird reason.

 

[Moby]

FFS, United fans claiming all Beckham did was cross just to defend Scholes. The fanaticism has gone too far.

He was the main man on United in terms of decisiveness for years. One of the most underrated players in football history & it took 4 years after his departure for United to properly find/develop a player on that level of influence.

Indeed. The only reason he's underrated is because he left for Madrid and Giggs and Scholes stayed. Had he retired at United he would have been unanimously rated ahead of them.

 

[Rafateria]

120.284km vs. Stoke
Liverpool's record distance covered in a Premier League match in history.

Weird really because some people on here are claiming we are already slowing down. Still, it didn't seem to me as if we'd exerted that much effort, we had ca. 66% possession !

 

[B20]

120.284km vs. Stoke
Liverpool's record distance covered in a Premier League match in history.

Weird really because some people on here are claiming we are already slowing down. Still, it didn't seem to me as if we'd exerted that much effort, we had ca. 66% possession !

'letting the ball do the work' is a myth. Studies have shown that keeping possession does not mean running any less. If anything, possession teams tend to cover more ground than those without it.

 

[B20]

Fecking hell

Needless to say, he didn't keep it up at all. He looks more like a young raw player than ever. Very unkloppy.

 

[PickledRed]

Needless to say, he didn't keep it up at all. He looks more like a young raw player than ever. Very unkloppy.

He looks like he can't get going. Niggly injuries seem to have hampered his development. That said, I think Klopp likes him.

 

[PickledRed]

120.284km vs. Stoke
Liverpool's record distance covered in a Premier League match in history.

Weird really because some people on here are claiming we are already slowing down. Still, it didn't seem to me as if we'd exerted that much effort, we had ca. 66% possession !

Liverpool not burned out yet with all this running stuff? It's as if Klopp knows what he's doing.

 

[TheReligion]

120.284km vs. Stoke
Liverpool's record distance covered in a Premier League match in history.

Weird really because some people on here are claiming we are already slowing down. Still, it didn't seem to me as if we'd exerted that much effort, we had ca. 66% possession !

They give the running around alot awards out in May I think.

Headless chickens come to mind.

 

[TheReligion]

Beckham is like Gerrard in a way. You remember some key moments where they attempt something daring and it comes off. But neither are as good or contribute to the teams performance as much as Scholes. People say Scholes is being overly hyped up after he retired but I still disagree. Not only was he that good but he could have been even better if not in a 442.

Beckham was successful overseas though. Gerrard flopped.

 

[TheReligion]

The opening Can thread. .

The improvement he has made under Klopp has been nothing short of astounding. Seems to be getting better with every game.

If he keep this up, he'll be the best midfielder in the league next season.

Soon followed by. .

Dreadful tonight. That pass for their third goal. wtf.

Reminded me of his performance against us in the U21 Euro. Atrocious.

Was awful tonight but I actually think he's going to be a great player.

They never learn