The holy trinity 68
The disparager
Ridiculous. Scholes is better than Modric and Pirlo, granted Iniesta and Xavi are a level above though.There's a pretty big gap between the first four (Xavi Iniesta Modric and Pirlo) and the second four for me
Ridiculous. Scholes is better than Modric and Pirlo, granted Iniesta and Xavi are a level above though.There's a pretty big gap between the first four (Xavi Iniesta Modric and Pirlo) and the second four for me
Xavi
Iniesta
Scholes
Modrić
Pirlo
Gerrard
Kroos
Lampard
Sounds about right to me. Yes, Modric won a ballon-dor by default that year, but I still rate Scholes as a better midfielder than him. Xavi & Iniesta are untouchable at the top.
Nearly in complete agreement with these. Just that I can't quite separate Xavi and Iniesta. Xavi is the better genuine CM. But some of the things Iniesta did with the ball were just magical.Xavi - arguably the best midfielder ever
Iniesta - brilliant, but very much an attacking player
Scholes - a low rent Xavi
Pirlo - wonderful player but couldn't quite dictate the game the way those above him could
Modric - same as Pirlo, just not quite as good
Gerrard - great player, but played like Roy of the Rovers. Couldn't control a game.
Kroos - good but he's a clear level below the others
Lampard - forged a brilliant career and you would want him in a team over some of the others, but he was nowhere near as good a footballer as them.
I don't agree with Sacchi because he was a great manager, I use this quote because I fully agree with it, but his opinion should hold more weight than mine. Fergie also said a similar thing — and this doesn't contradict with the fact that he tried to sign him before you mention this (who knows, maybe under Fergie's tutoring he would've fulfilled his potential to the fullest).The sacchi quote has been come a bit of a red herring, it’s one great mans opinion but we don’t have to agree with every decision or opinion made by great managers otherwise maybe we would have to rate the likes of Baggio less?
The truth is it’s not really that he required the team to be built around him, it reallys that he was simply Liverpool’s best player in every position. He had a world class season as a RM, CM AM and DM so why should his versatility be used against him?
Alonso had two at most good seasons at Liverpool, because he was a specialist midfielder who could literally only play one position to a top level shouldn’t be used against Gerrard who could play to a top level in many. Funny you bring it up but The infamous slip was a small part of a great season that had Gerrard finish in the team of the year and easily one of the best midfielders in the league at 34 as a deep lying playmaker, yet the slip sums up the season for him more than the numerous class performances he put in to help his team actually be in a title challenge? Yet that one moment defines everything?
Gerrard had all the tools to become a Matthäus-like figure (in a way that, say, Lampard never had), but ultimately failed to do so. He was still very, very good, but in the end he lacked tactical nous to secure that top level. It's also not a coincidence that most memorable of Gerrard's performances came in games where Liverpool had to come back from a disastrous start — in that situations tactics usually go out of the window and you rely on your mentality, grit and natural talent that Gerrard had in abundance.It may be true, as Arrigo Sacchi once said, that Gerrard lacks "knowing-how-to-play football" in a tactical sense, and his versatility and evolution into a more attacking player created a strategic riddle various Liverpool managers took too long to solve. Nevertheless, in terms of the raw ingredients that create an excellent footballer, Gerrard ticked every box
As the last point, I'd also mention that we certainly have different standards of world-class. For me, he had 2 world-class seasons (and multiple very, very good ones) — in 2005/06 and in 2008/09. Unsurprisingly, under the most tactically adept manager that he had who moved him away from central midfield.Gerrard's performance in Liverpool's 2-1 defeat to Arsenal demonstrated both the benefits and drawbacks of deploying him there. His distribution throughout was wonderful, although he received an incredible amount of time on the ball because Arsenal's most advanced midfielder, Mesut Özil, showed little interest in closing down the Liverpool captain. More hard-working attacking midfielders – Chelsea's Oscar or Ross Barkley of Everton, for example – would not have allowed Gerrard such freedom, and for long periods he was the game's most free player.
Without the ball, however, Gerrard was vulnerable. He appears uncomfortable defending against counterattacks, especially when opposition wide players come inside, as demonstrated by his booking for cynically fouling Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain towards the end of the first half, when he made no attempt to win the ball.
That caution handicapped Gerrard for the rest of the game, and he was fortunate not to be dismissed for a subsequent foul on Oxlade-Chamberlain in the left-back position, almost identical to his foul on the same player at Anfield last week, conceding a penalty in Liverpool's 5-1 victory. Much like Juventus's use of Andrea Pirlo in front of the defence, Gerrard's lack of defensive ability must be tolerated to accommodate his fine distribution.
This is the problem with England as well, too many people focus on those things and not the core important things.You can all hate me now, but for me Xavi was a bit boring and not as naturally skilful as say Scholes. Can't argue with his trophy cabinet though.
XaviLampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric, Kroos, Scholes.
Based on their ability, performances, peak, influences, achievement and overall.
Said no one who watched football outside of EPL.Ridiculous. Scholes is better than Modric and Pirlo, granted Iniesta and Xavi are a level above though.
Scholes achieved more than Pirlo, well at club level anyway. 2008 Scholes is better than any version of Pirlo.Said no one who watched football outside of EPL.
Pirlo vs Scholes is not even particularly close.
Not true. Scholes in 2008 was essentially how Pirlo played for a decade, though Pirlo was even better.Scholes achieved more than Pirlo, well at club level anyway. 2008 Scholes is better than any version of Pirlo.
Scholes as an attacking midfielder put up better stats than Pirlo as an attacking mid.
Scholes as a deep lying playmaker was better than Pirlo at the same position. Scholes could do what Pirlo did whilst being in a 2 man midfield, Pirlo had to be in a 3 man midfield to dictate the game like Scholes.
Look at all the quotes from managers and players at the top of the game, they all said Scholes is the best CM of his generation, which is funny considering Pirlo played at the same time.
Imagine being able to start your pro career as a striker and finish up playing deep in midfield while looking just as good in all of them positions.Not many players have ever done that like Scholes and still looked world class.
Scholesy IniestaLampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric, Kroos, Scholes.
Based on their ability, performances, peak, influences, achievement and overall.
XaviLampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Modric, Kroos, Scholes.
Based on their ability, performances, peak, influences, achievement and overall.
This would be mine too on most days.Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Scholes
Kroos
Gerrard
Lampard
Scholes never dictated play like Pirlo did.Scholes achieved more than Pirlo, well at club level anyway. 2008 Scholes is better than any version of Pirlo.
Scholes as an attacking midfielder put up better stats than Pirlo as an attacking mid.
Scholes as a deep lying playmaker was better than Pirlo at the same position. Scholes could do what Pirlo did whilst being in a 2 man midfield, Pirlo had to be in a 3 man midfield to dictate the game like Scholes.
Look at all the quotes from managers and players at the top of the game, they all said Scholes is the best CM of his generation, which is funny considering Pirlo played at the same time.
Imagine being able to start your pro career as a striker and finish up playing deep in midfield while looking just as good in all of them positions.Not many players have ever done that like Scholes and still looked world class.
Sacchi always had problems with individuals who won games by themselves. He was such a relentless collectivist that it's no surprise he distrusted various creatives over the years. As for 2013/14 that was the fag-end of Gerrard's career when he was nowhere near as mobile as the decade before. Cox's example simply does not reflect Gerrard the player whatsoever, as throughout his career his off-the-ball work and athleticism were exceptional. For example, here he is at DM at 20 for England against Germany:I don't agree with Sacchi because he was a great manager, I use this quote because I fully agree with it, but his opinion should hold more weight than mine. Fergie also said a similar thing — and this doesn't contradict with the fact that he tried to sign him before you mention this (who knows, maybe under Fergie's tutoring he would've fulfilled his potential to the fullest).
To quote Michael Cox:
Gerrard had all the tools to become a Matthäus-like figure (in a way that, say, Lampard never had), but ultimately failed to do so. He was still very, very good, but in the end he lacked tactical nous to secure that top level. It's also not a coincidence that most memorable of Gerrard's performances came in games where Liverpool had to come back from a disastrous start — in that situations tactics usually go out of the window and you rely on your mentality, grit and natural talent that Gerrard had in abundance.
I've tried to word that bit about the slip so that you wouldn't react that way, but maybe I failed to do so. He's had a very good season, but it was not world-class — he contributed a lot creatively, but his presence at the DM spot meant that Liverpool were very vulnerable defensively. The slip was just the most memorable moment that highlighted the exact weakness that was exploited by many managers & footballers before.
It's not a surprise that, for all Gerrard's all-roundness, his best seasons came when he was completely freed from any defensive responsibility by the tactics — so that the system didn't rely on him to keep his position, and all of his (rather substantial) defensive contribution came as a bonus. In a weird way this is a similar situation with Pogba with one huge exception — just like Gerrard, Pogba doesn't have the tactical nous to reliably position himself in the defensive phase of the game, but Gerrard always worked his ass off while Pogba is a lazy player to boot. Speaking of Gerrard in that slip-defined season it was very much like playing Pogba in a deep midfield role — you get all the additional creativity but you'll always suffer from their occasional brain farts.
Speaking of 2013/14, Liverpool conceded 50 goals in the league — more than City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Everton, Moyes' United, Southampton & Crystal Palace. And no other player is more symbolic to that gung-ho side than Gerrard (Suarez had a pretty much perfect season, while Liverpool did not) — creating tons of chances, scoring goals (mostly penalties though), but leaving his backline exposed as an anchor player in a midfield three.
Another Cox's article from 2013/14:
As the last point, I'd also mention that we certainly have different standards of world-class. For me, he had 2 world-class seasons (and multiple very, very good ones) — in 2005/06 and in 2008/09. Unsurprisingly, under the most tactically adept manager that he had who moved him away from central midfield.
I think Scholes must have referred to his last one or two seasons, as he retired in 2013 while Kroos really become important for Bayern in 2011/12. Bayern reached two consecutive CL final in 2012 and 2013, so it makes sense that Scholes looked at that team and especially at Toni Kroos for inspiration.Is this even true though? Scholes adapted to a deeper role around 2007 ish. Kroos was 17 and didn't even make his first team debut for Bayern until then.