Steven Gerrard

To be fair Scholes was a real class player, fantastic on the ball with great vision and complemented the likes of Keane, Beckham and Giggs so well - blimey what a midfield that is.

I think we should just enjoy the fact we have had players like him and Gerrard in our league.
 
Sky1981 said:
Managed not only to boss the midfield, but actually winning the match where it matters (World cup final, Euro Final, CL final) When the margin is so small, people will naturally look into these sort of things to separate the Best of the best and the one of the best.

Just like Gerrard will never be remembered in the tier of Zidane. Because... he's just a loyal very good player in the Liverpool team.. once.. and will fade along the memory of non liverpool fans.
Click to expand...

So Xavi is better simply because he's Spanish and Scholesy is English? Because that's what you're saying. No qualities in Xavi that you think Scholes doesnt have. Simply the fact that he's won more at the international stage, well, England are shit. No surprises there.

Bojan11 said:
I said brilliant in every big game I seen him in.

I've seen Scholes disappear a few times against the big boys in Europe and Arsenal in the league, when they were good.
Click to expand...

This is going around in circles now. Barca's system is built around possession and a style that was designed to control games regardless of the opposition. United have never set out that way. Its inevitable thus that you'l see Xavi control games more than Scholes because Scholesy was never a part of a team that set out to control any big game. But yet, whatever we did, he was the man dictating the game.
 
Varun said:
So Xavi is better simply because he's Spanish and Scholesy is English? Because that's what you're saying. No qualities in Xavi that you think Scholes doesnt have. Simply the fact that he's won more at the international stage, well, England are shit. No surprises there.



This is going around in circles now. Barca's system is built around possession and a style that was designed to control games regardless of the opposition. United have never set out that way. Its inevitable thus that you'l see Xavi control games more than Scholes because Scholesy was never a part of a team that set out to control any big game. But yet, whatever we did, he was the man dictating the game.
Click to expand...

Like i said, it's not ideal. But the greatness you mention both xavi and scholes probably have it and the rest is subjective. At the end of the day, the difference being is that Xavi won the World Cup, European Cup. Sadly that's the tie breaker
 
Sky1981 said:
Like i said, it's not ideal. But the greatness you mention both xavi and scholes probably have it and the rest is subjective. At the end of the day, the difference being is that Xavi won the World Cup, European Cup. Sadly that's the tie breaker
Click to expand...

Yeah so just the nationality. Fair enough if you have that as a criteria, I surely dont. I'l never hold nationality against players like Scholes, Keano etc just because they played for a nation shit at football.
 
Varun said:
Yeah so just the nationality. Fair enough if you have that as a criteria, I surely dont. I'l never hold nationality against players like Scholes, Keano etc just because they played for a nation shit at football.
Click to expand...

Let's argue somewhere else, this is for Gerrard.

PS: I don't hold it against them, it's just the way it is. Do anyone else remember what a genious Gascoigne is? Nope.. because he plays for a shit team and haven't won anything in his life. Sports is about winning, and only winners get remembered. I'm sure there's lot of very good footballer, but like every other sports, greats is measured where it matters.
 
Xavi was the best player on the pitch in World Cup, Champions League and European Championship finals. Scholes never really stepped up and ran the show in the massive career defining games like that.
 
Varun said:
So Xavi is better simply because he's Spanish and Scholesy is English? Because that's what you're saying. No qualities in Xavi that you think Scholes doesnt have. Simply the fact that he's won more at the international stage, well, England are shit. No surprises there.



This is going around in circles now. Barca's system is built around possession and a style that was designed to control games regardless of the opposition. United have never set out that way. Its inevitable thus that you'l see Xavi control games more than Scholes because Scholesy was never a part of a team that set out to control any big game. But yet, whatever we did, he was the man dictating the game.
Click to expand...

Football isn't about random lists of what people are good at its about how you actually apply those skills on a football pitch
 
Blasphemy said:
Football isn't about random lists of what people are good at its about how you actually apply those skills on a football pitch
Click to expand...

No, it isnt as simple as that at all. Applying skills, specially for a CM, revolves very heavily around the system the team plays and the players around him. Unless you can tell me what Xavi did at Barca that you think Scholes couldnt, its fairly pointless to simply say one was definitely the better player.
 
Varun said:
No, it isnt as simple as that at all. Applying skills, specially for a CM, revolves very heavily around the system the team plays and the players around him. Unless you can tell me what Xavi did at Barca that you think Scholes couldnt, its fairly pointless to simply say one was definitely the better player.
Click to expand...

Xavi's ball retention is obviously superior to Scholes. He'd play the most intense high pressure games with players doubling up on him and still manage a 99% pass completion and over 100 passes.
 
Varun said:
No, it isnt as simple as that at all. Applying skills, specially for a CM, revolves very heavily around the system the team plays and the players around him. Unless you can tell me what Xavi did at Barca that you think Scholes couldnt, its fairly pointless to simply say one was definitely the better player.
Click to expand...
Xavi was the best player on the pitch in World Cup, Champions League and European Championship finals. Scholes never really stepped up and ran the show in the massive career defining games like that. That's the difference. Xavi made most of the other best midfielders in his time, including Scholes look like ameaturs. They couldn't get near him.
 
Sky1981 said:
He didn't do enough for me sadly, not enough heroic exploits in the World cup where it matters. Xavi did it, Zidane did it, even the great Keane won't be remembered that much outside United. The united of 99 have so many talents in midfield none of them shines above the rest (giggs/Scholes/Keane/Beckham)
Click to expand...

I cannot take international tournaments into consideration because of it's not Scholes fault that his manager played him on the right side of midfield.
 
NK86 said:
I cannot take international tournaments into consideration because of it's not Scholes fault that his manager played him on the right side of midfield.
Click to expand...

If he hadn't retired so early his time would have come. Not to mention that at the time Scholes was an AM and better AM's than him have done amazing things starting from a wide position
 
B20 said:
Xavi's ball retention is obviously superior to Scholes. He'd play the most intense high pressure games with players doubling up on him and still manage a 99% pass completion and over 100 passes.
Click to expand...

He was the better dribbler but Scholes was as good at finding a quick pass when closed down and then making himself available for the return pass. The reason Xavi got to do it far more often was the system he played in. Scholes would have done the same in that Barca team.

Blasphemy said:
Xavi was the best player on the pitch in World Cup, Champions League and European Championship finals. Scholes never really stepped up and ran the show in the massive career defining games like that. That's the difference. Xavi made most of the other best midfielders in his time, including Scholes look like ameaturs. They couldn't get near him.
Click to expand...

And that had simply to do with Xavi as a player being that much superior to Scholes when they played vs each other and nothing to do with the respective teams, the systems they played and their teammates? And Scholes never got to a WC final or a Euro cup final, again, nothing to do with his qualities but simply the fact that England are shit.
 
Blasphemy said:
If he hadn't retired so early his time would have come. Not to mention that at the time Scholes was an AM and better AM's than him have done amazing things starting from a wide position
Click to expand...

When was he an AM? He was always part of a midfield 2 for us. He was a proper box-to-box coming late into the box to score for us.
 
Varun said:
He was the better dribbler but Scholes was as good at finding a quick pass when closed down and then making himself available for the return pass. The reason Xavi got to do it far more often was the system he played in. Scholes would have done the same in that Barca team.



And that had simply to do with Xavi as a player being that much superior to Scholes when they played vs each other and nothing to do with the respective teams, the systems they played and their teammates? And Scholes never got to a WC final or a Euro cup final, again, nothing to do with his qualities but simply the fact that England are shit.
Click to expand...

The England sides Schools played for were full of class across the pitch. Don't talk bollocks.
 
Blasphemy said:
The England sides Schools played for were full of class across the pitch. Don't talk bollocks.
Click to expand...

Top players dont make a top team. Any England team in the past decade would get their asses whipped by the Spanish team Xavi was a part of. England and their fans for some reason cannot understand the fact that their collection of stars (in the past) dont automatically make them a top team.

My point is simple, Scholes in that Barca and Spain setup would do everything Xavi did and all this schooling nonsense is bollocks because Xavi would have faced the same had he come up against that Barca team with scholes in it as a part of the United team. It had nothing to do with Xavi being so much better than Scholes individually, even Xavi would tell you that ffs.
 
NK86 said:
So for two seasons out of 15. And you say he was an AM? It's like me calling Rooney a wide left player because he played there a lot when Ronaldo was here.
Click to expand...

That's the period when he played wide left for England and then quit so yeah its pretty important in this context
 
Varun said:
Top players dont make a top team. Any England team in the past decade would get their asses whipped by the Spanish team Xavi was a part of. England and their fans for some reason cannot understand the fact that their collection of stars (in the past) dont automatically make them a top team.

My point is simple, Scholes in that Barca and Spain setup would do everything Xavi did and all this schooling nonsense is bollocks because Xavi would have faced the same had he come up against that Barca team with scholes in it as a part of the United team. It had nothing to do with Xavi being so much better than Scholes individually, even Xavi would tell you that ffs.
Click to expand...
They weren't a team because players like Scholes weren't good enough for the national team. Where as Xavi stepped up and transformed his national team into the greatest national team of all time.
 
Blasphemy said:
That's the period when he played wide left for England and then quit so yeah its pretty important in this context
Click to expand...

So he was being played as an AM where he did not thrive and then that was supported to make him play wide left and he was expected to deliver. How does that compute? I don't know why he quit but to say that he should have been successful playing from the left because he was played as an AM for a couple for years is so unfair on the guy.

EDIT: Do you think Xavi would thrive in the wide left position or even in the AM position?
 
Varun said:
He was the better dribbler but Scholes was as good at finding a quick pass when closed down and then making himself available for the return pass. The reason Xavi got to do it far more often was the system he played in. Scholes would have done the same in that Barca team.
Click to expand...

besides the fact that these "would have" discussions are pointless, no he wouldn't. Scholes' ball retention was just not as good as Xavi's.
 
B20 said:
besides the fact that these "would have" discussions are pointless, no he wouldn't. Scholes' ball retention was just not as good as Xavi's.
Click to expand...

Wasting your time. He's the kind of person who makes the case for Scholes in that Scholes vs Zidane thread.
 
B20 said:
besides the fact that these "would have" discussions are pointless, no he wouldn't. Scholes' ball retention was just not as good as Xavi's.
Click to expand...

Okay, I disagree but atleast you have a reason why you think Xavi was better unlike others who cant seem to point at anything but reasons that boil down to nationality alone.

Blasphemy said:
They weren't a team because players like Scholes weren't good enough for the national team. Where as Xavi stepped up and transformed his national team into the greatest national team of all time.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Okay.

Am sorry to be dismissive but I really cant debate with you if you think the reason why England were shite was because players like Scholes werent good enough or it was Xavi that transformed Spain into the team they became. Seriously.
 
B20 said:
besides the fact that these "would have" discussions are pointless, no he wouldn't. Scholes' ball retention was just not as good as Xavi's.
Click to expand...

Xavi had better close control, Scholes had great shooting ability and I feel a better passing range than Xavi.
 
Blasphemy said:
Wasting your time. He's the kind of person who makes the case for Scholes in that Scholes vs Zidane thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah and you're someone who believes Xavi's qualitiles as a player transformed Spain into the team they became. Wasting my time would be putting it very mildly.
 
Varun said:
Yeah and you're someone who believes Xavi's qualitiles as a player transformed Spain into the team they became. Wasting my time would be putting it very mildly.
Click to expand...

He did. Xavi was the best player of Euro 2008 by a mile.

Just going to leave this here:

Xavi:
Scholes:
 
B20 said:
Scholes' ball retention was just not as good as Xavi's.
Click to expand...

Xavi is probably the best short passer of all time, so I agree with that. That's not how you judge a player though and Scholes was superior in other respects which deserves mentioning. He was a better long passer than Xavi for example and more of a goal threat, as well as being able to dictate games on his own albeit not on Xavi's level. I don't think there's much in it, Xavi has had a much better career though and will of course go down as the better player.

Xavi perfected what he did as well, which virtually nobody does - including Scholes. It wouldn't be possible to implement tika taka any better than Xavi did.
 
I, personally, would have had Paul Scholes in my team everyday of the week.

All about opinions in these sort of threads at the end of the day. Both top quality players.
 
Last edited:
Scholes is possibly my favourite ever English player but I can't say that I rate him as highly as Xavi or that he'd bring to the Barca team what Xavi does. I thought Scholes was capable of dominating matches from midfield with his passing and ball control but it's like Xavi has eyes in the back of his head or something. Some of his turns, touches and passes are just out of this world.

Scholes at home to Fulham in a night time game about 6 years ago remains one of the greatest midfield performances I've seen. Certainly as far as passing and running a midfield goes.
 
Blasphemy said:
Only Villa and Senna deserve a mention and he was comfortably better than both. Voted as the Player of the Tournament by Uefa.
Click to expand...
Again, no, not really. Xavi was exceptional throughout the tournament except against Italy, but he was never "comfortably" the best player of the tournament.
 
"What can Xavi do that Scholes can't?" is such an awful argument.

Obviously Scholes is a level above Cesc but has everyone forget when people said Cesc could do what Xavi does and add more goals/assists while he's at it. People just don't understand how good Xavi is at controlling a game, even compared to Scholes he's much better at it, no matter who the opponent is. He's a bit too disciplined at times now but at his peak he was just phenomenal.
 
The Xavi / Scholes debate is tired at the best of times but even more so when popping up in the Gerrard thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.