Who is the greater player: Ryan Giggs vs Gareth Bale

Who is the greater player?


  • Total voters
    597

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
23,149
Amazing how Giggs's PFA player of the year award is played down but Bale won the award with 8 goals + assists in 2010-11 which was just a day light robbery. There are at least 30-40 players who had more goal contributions that season. He won it on the back of 1 game where he tore apart Inter.
 

Bebestation

Full Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
1,393
Supports
An adult TV Channel
How long is a peak? 1 game? 10 games? A season?

Narrowing down a player's ability to a short period is not too dissimilar to people using longevity as a tool for their argument.

And I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Ronaldinho. He was universally recognised as the best player in the world for 2-3 seasons, neither Giggs or Bale have ever been that so it's a strange comparison.
A peak is different to form. What you are talking about is form.
A peak is a height of a players career and each player will have one and you can judge it by how they were perceived what they achieved, what they won, what kind of fear factor they created in football when playing against them, the quality of goals scored - the list is endless.

Not every player has longevity though, that's why I dont use is as the way I ultimately rate players - I rate them by their peaks, what they achieved and how they were perceived.

Players like Rooney didnt have the greatest longevity to them but their peaks were great and a better way of judging them by. If you start judging them by their longevity then you have to consider that Rooney started his PL football career at 16 and looked burnt out but still achieved significantly all that he could except length.

Again, different things influence longevity, so peaks are a better way for me to judge a player.
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,396
Location
South Wales
That would put Giggs in the top 10 footballers or so of the last 20-30 years then. Basically, anyone other than Ronaldinho, Messi, Ronaldo, Henry and a few others who you would look ridiculous even arguing, every other top player would be required to have 20 years to beat Giggs.
You're just twisting words now to suit your argument.

We are not comparing Giggs vs anyone other than Bale, and as I have mentioned I feel it is ok in this discussion to mention Giggs' longevity because their top level was so close, so it can be used as a separator. The top level of all the GOATs you are mentioning is a level above so further metrics do not need to be introduced as it is not even up for debate.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
18,207
A peak is different to form. What you are talking about is form.
A peak is a height of a players career and each player will have one and you can judge it by how they were perceived what they achieved, what they won, what kind of fear factor they created in football when playing against them, the quality of goals scored - the list is endless.

Not every player has longevity though, that's why I dont use is as the way I ultimately rate players - I rate them by their peaks, what they achieved and how they were perceived.

Players like Rooney didnt have the greatest longevity to them but their peaks were great and a better way of judging them by. If you start judging them by their longevity then you have to consider that Rooney started his PL football career at 16 and looked burnt out but still achieved significantly all that he could except length.

Again, different things influence longevity, so peaks are a better way for me to judge a player.
Rooney was fanstastic from 17 onwards. If we consider his peak to be over at 29 odd then thats 12 years of fantastic performances.
I never understood fans saying Rooney had a short career at the top. It was longer than a lot of others
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,396
Location
South Wales
A peak is different to form. What you are talking about is form.
A peak is a height of a players career and each player will have one and you can judge it by how they were perceived what they achieved, what they won, what kind of fear factor they created in football when playing against them, the quality of goals scored - the list is endless.

Not every player has longevity though, that's why I dont use is as the way I ultimately rate players - I rate them by their peaks, what they achieved and how they were perceived.

Players like Rooney didnt have the greatest longevity to them but their peaks were great and a better way of judging them by. If you start judging them by their longevity then you have to consider that Rooney started his PL football career at 16 and looked burnt out but still achieved significantly all that he could except length.

Again, different things influence longevity, so peaks are a better way for me to judge a player.
You didn't really answer my question of how long a peak is? The height of a player's career for how long?

And what is the difference between a peak and form? Because if someone is on form for a whole season, surely that is their peak? But if they are way below that level for the rest of their career, does it then get reduced to form?

What if a player has several peaks?
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
17,979
Location
#SmallingPlusOne
You're just twisting words now to suit your argument.

We are not comparing Giggs vs anyone other than Bale, and as I have mentioned I feel it is ok in this discussion to mention Giggs' longevity because their top level was so close, so it can be used as a separator. The top level of all the GOATs you are mentioning is a level above so further metrics do not need to be introduced as it is not even up for debate.
I’m not twisting words. You can correct me if I am wrong, but by the parameters you have set, anyone other than the GOATs (those who are not up for debate) will then have to have longevity brought into it, which will undoubtedly see them lose to Giggs. Bale being one of such players.

Not everyone feels it is a coin toss between Bale and Giggs, is my point. Many people have said ‘Bale, easily’. Yet they wouldn’t put Bale as a GOAT. They just feel he was better than Giggs, and as agreed earlier - GOAT status isn’t required to be better than Giggs. What I’m saying is, longevity (to the Giggs degree) isn’t required either. That doesn’t make it fact that anyone is better than Giggs of course, and others are entitled to feel differently. My point is simply that Giggs was not necessarily a level where you either have to be one of the all time greats or play for 20 years to be clearly better than him for many. Many people will have another group of player, who don’t fit in wither category, that they feel are undoubtedly better players.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
17,979
Location
#SmallingPlusOne
Rooney was fanstastic from 17 onwards. If we consider his peak to be over at 29 odd then thats 12 years of fantastic performances.
I never understood fans saying Rooney had a short career at the top. It was longer than a lot of others
Rooney had a long peak, but it was well behind him at 29. Rooney was past his best at least 3 or 4 years before he left United.

This is why I like to talk about the best a player was. Rooney was getting shoehorned into midfield just to get him in the team in latter years. He’s our record goalscorer, but that is largely due to longevity too. He could stick around getting the odd penalty and tap-ins in his latter years, however, objectively speaking - he shouldn’t have even been there to be getting those goals. He wasn’t a top level player, would never have been bought on the market at that level, and wouldn’t have been playing, or would have been sold if he were anyone else. He wasn’t a regular Manchester United starting striker because he was good enough to be one in his last few seasons. That’s my opinion anyway. Record books will show him as leading CL scorer for example. It took him 12 years to beat what RVN did in 4. Most players don’t get to stick around that long, many move to different clubs to reflect the level they are at at various stages of their careers. I’d say a striker who came to United and scored 90 goals in 3 years before getting injured and eventually joining Sunderland or whatever has a strong argument to be better than a record holder who got 200 and took 15 years to do it, and probably got loads of trophies along the way too.

Everyone is entitled to their own, but I like to compare players simply based on what they could do. That of course is not one game of one month spells - but anyone who shows a level for a few years where it was taken as their standard as a player is satisfactory for me. I see longevity as a red herring. I’m more concerned with comparing players at their best than their worst. The only reason anyone would think to compare Giggs and Bale in the first place is because they are two top players. Nobody is interested in comparing a 36 year old version of Bale with a 36 year old version of Giggs, and then using that to conclude anything. If those were the players in question, nobody would bother with the comparison at all. They are spoken about because they are remembered as brilliant and devastating forwards. We want to know who was the more so, determining that based on who did what in their twilight is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Bebestation

Full Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
1,393
Supports
An adult TV Channel
Rooney was fanstastic from 17 onwards. If we consider his peak to be over at 29 odd then thats 12 years of fantastic performances.
I never understood fans saying Rooney had a short career at the top. It was longer than a lot of others
Exactly my point. He got burnt out at early but didnt play until he was 38 because he started at 16.

Adriano had a very small peak but didnt achieve much with it so you cant rate him highly except for the fear factor he caused but his longevity was effected by his dad dying.

You didn't really answer my question of how long a peak is? The height of a player's career for how long?

And what is the difference between a peak and form? Because if someone is on form for a whole season, surely that is their peak? But if they are way below that level for the rest of their career, does it then get reduced to form?

What if a player has several peaks?
Michu's peak was at Swansea. That was the epitome of his career. That is when he didnt need to adapt to play next as CDM because his legs were running out - that was the height of his career. He achieved crap all with it so he doesnt mean much except to some premier league fans.

Ofcourse a peak will die - that's why it's called a peak. Because in this life, nothing is permanent and everything has to degrade eventually so rating peoples longevity is very harsh & innacurate. If messi had got injured by 25 or 26 and retired would you rate Giggs higher than him because of his longevity? No you rate Messi because of the type of football he played at the peak of his career no matter what the length of it was.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,122
For peak (as a flying winger), Giggs wasn't anything special in historical terms. He was bloody good, of course, and right up there in the relevant years, but "historical terms" would mean wingers ranging from Garrincha and down from that - and he's pretty far down that list, relatively speaking (which is no shame).

I have argued before that he had less going for him in terms of truly exceptional qualities than either Scholes or Beckham.

But you simply can't separate Giggs' extreme longevity from his overall status. The two clearly go together. He remained a very good player - on the highest level, in fact - well into his 30s (meaning post 35). That's special. In fact, as a central midfielder (of some description) at 40, he could (and did) absolutely skin a player young enough to be his son. He retained a level of burst and overall agility for someone his age that was truly special.
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,396
Location
South Wales
I’m not twisting words. You can correct me if I am wrong, but by the parameters you have set, anyone other than the GOATs (those who are not up for debate) will then have to have longevity brought into it, which will undoubtedly see them lose to Giggs. Bale being one of such players.

Not everyone feels it is a coin toss between Bale and Giggs, is my point. Many people have said ‘Bale, easily’. Yet they wouldn’t put Bale as a GOAT. They just feel he was better than Giggs, and as agreed earlier - GOAT status isn’t required to be better than Giggs. What I’m saying is, longevity (to the Giggs degree) isn’t required either. That doesn’t make it fact that anyone is better than Giggs of course, and others are entitled to feel differently. My point is simply that Giggs was not necessarily a level where you either have to be one of the all time greats or play for 20 years to be clearly better than him for many. Many people will have another group of player, who don’t fit in wither category, that they feel are undoubtedly better players.
And that’s absolutely fine. I have no problem with people rating Bale as the better player, that is their opinion.

I have merely been pointing out that it’s also fine for people to use longevity to split them if you think prime for prime they are even. That doesn’t mean you have to do that for every player comparison with Giggs, but it makes sense to do so when you think a player’s prime is comparable to that of Giggs’. It’s what sets him apart from his peers.
 

Shamana

Full Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
2,321
For peak (as a flying winger), Giggs wasn't anything special in historical terms. He was bloody good, of course, and right up there in the relevant years, but "historical terms" would mean wingers ranging from Garrincha and down from that - and he's pretty far down that list, relatively speaking (which is no shame).

I have argued before that he had less going for him in terms of truly exceptional qualities than either Scholes or Beckham.


But you simply can't separate Giggs' extreme longevity from his overall status. The two clearly go together. He remained a very good player - on the highest level, in fact - well into his 30s (meaning post 35). That's special. In fact, as a central midfielder (of some description) at 40, he could (and did) absolutely skin a player young enough to be his son. He retained a level of burst and overall agility for someone his age that was truly special.
His speed was incredible and was one of the very best dribblers of his generation. Personally I think I he had the highest natural ability of the class of 92.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
17,979
Location
#SmallingPlusOne
And that’s absolutely fine. I have no problem with people rating Bale as the better player, that is their opinion.

I have merely been pointing out that it’s also fine for people to use longevity to split them if you think prime for prime they are even. That doesn’t mean you have to do that for every player comparison with Giggs, but it makes sense to do so when you think a player’s prime is comparable to that of Giggs’. It’s what sets him apart from his peers.
Yea, that is very fair. I can’t argue with that reasoning.
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,396
Location
South Wales
Exactly my point. He got burnt out at early but didnt play until he was 38 because he started at 16.

Adriano had a very small peak but didnt achieve much with it so you cant rate him highly except for the fear factor he caused but his longevity was effected by his dad dying.



Michu's peak was at Swansea. That was the epitome of his career. That is when he didnt need to adapt to play next as CDM because his legs were running out - that was the height of his career. He achieved crap all with it so he doesnt mean much except to some premier league fans.

Ofcourse a peak will die - that's why it's called a peak. Because in this life, nothing is permanent and everything has to degrade eventually so rating peoples longevity is very harsh & innacurate. If messi had got injured by 25 or 26 and retired would you rate Giggs higher than him because of his longevity? No you rate Messi because of the type of football he played at the peak of his career no matter what the length of it was.
Again, Bale is no Messi.

When the gap in ability is so clear, there’s no need to talk about peak or longevity, but when it’s as close as Bale/Giggs then it’s a fair point to argue.
 

fergies coat

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
1,268
Location
Wythenshawe, Manchester
But would have been the best player in the league?

Bale was from 2010-2013 a winning the PFA Player of the Year award twice in three seasons. During Giggs’ peak in this different day of wingers that you speak of, other wingers were winning the award instead.
That first award was a joke. Nani had a better season than Bale that year.
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
12,658
Location
Inside right
The point that I am trying to make is that he wasn’t considered as good as Gareth Bale was considered by the metrics of his own day. He wasn’t even considered the best player in his own team, top 3 would have even been a push. Other wingers were considered better at different stages, in the PL alone.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but this is categorically untrue. Giggs was rated as one of, if not the best, pure left winger in the world and his regard for CL performances against the best right-sided players of his generation - some being regarded as up there as best in those positions of literal all-time - is held in the highest regard.

The football world has changed emphatically in the time between Giggs' era and Bale's; metrics are regarded differently, teams are dire in defense, hence GPG ratios going up, and the regard for things Giggs did as a two-way winger are no longer prominent or even considered, given wingers are now wing-forwards of which, hardly anything is expected from on the defensive end.
 

Amir

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
22,356
Location
Rehovot, Israel
I think he decided not to sprint on the pitch any more from the age of about 28 didn’t he, to prolong his career?
I don't know about that, but I'm sure I read somewhere that after suffering hamstring injuries regularly in his twenties he decided to play more carefully when it comes to running.

It was quite annoying to see him coming into great form, as he's decided to lift those shackles, be totally unplayable for a few games, and then get another one of those hamstring injuries. Happened to him around March 98 (really nailed our season there and then) and I think around Christmas 2000.
 

Cascarino

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
2,777
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
Bale wasn't the best player in England too when he won the award, Nani was better than Bale when Bale won it first time, he got the award for his hat trick against Inter which had nothing to do with PL. Second time RVP was better than Bale and Suarez was better too.
I don’t think Bale should have got the first one, but Nani? Definitely not, that’s an awful shout.

The second one is a lot less controversial. RVP and Suarez were very good that season but Bale was a fair winner of the award, he was phenomenal that season.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
18,207
I don't know about that, but I'm sure I read somewhere that after suffering hamstring injuries regularly in his twenties he decided to play more carefully when it comes to running.

It was quite annoying to see him coming into great form, as he's decided to lift those shackles, be totally unplayable for a few games, and then get another one of those hamstring injuries. Happened to him around March 98 (really nailed our season there and then) and I think around Christmas 2000.
And thats why the longevity point matters. He had two seperate careers and the second half of his career showcased his footballing brain and technical ability.
Bale gets injured a lot and just returns as a slightly lesser version of himself each time. Its why he's 30 and people think pointing to longevity doesn't count as if Bale basically retiring at 28 is normal and isnt a major factor in this.
I would take Zaha during the last 2 years over Bale never mind a 28 year old Giggs.
 

Untd55

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
766
I don’t think Bale should have got the first one, but Nani? Definitely not, that’s an awful shout.

The second one is a lot less controversial. RVP and Suarez were very good that season but Bale was a fair winner of the award, he was phenomenal that season.
Have to agree, not really sure where people are getting this Van Persie and Suarez were so much better than Bale.

Suarez: 33 games - 23 goals & 11 assists (Striker)
Van Persie: 38 games - 26 goals & 15 assists (Striker)
Bale: 33 games - 21 goals & 9 assists (Winger)

Bale won Tottenham 24 points that season. You have to remember that Bale was a winger and was not far off matching them; he also played for the worst of the three teams. Tottenham's team was actually pretty average, outside of Bale.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
24,267
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Nope. Bale doesn't come close to Ronaldinho.
That wasn't the argument. Bringing in Ronaldinho was more to illustrate the ad absurdium nature of the longevity argument.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
38,529
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
That wasn't the argument. Bringing in Ronaldinho was more to illustrate the ad absurdium nature of the longevity argument.
But no one is putting Giggs above Bale solely based on longevity. Giggs combined resume > Bale's combined resume. The same can't be said regarding Ronaldinho. Which is why your ad absurdium critique doesn't apply (nice try though)
 

FootballHQ

Full Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
10,767
Supports
Aston Villa
Have to agree, not really sure where people are getting this Van Persie and Suarez were so much better than Bale.

Suarez: 33 games - 23 goals & 11 assists (Striker)
Van Persie: 38 games - 26 goals & 15 assists (Striker)
Bale: 33 games - 21 goals & 9 assists (Winger)

Bale won Tottenham 24 points that season. You have to remember that Bale was a winger and was not far off matching them; he also played for the worst of the three teams. Tottenham's team was actually pretty average, outside of Bale.
Yep all I remember is Spurs being average in games and then in 90th minute Bale would hit a ridiculous free kick/shot from 30 yards to win them the game, must've happeneded 5-6 times in the season.

Suarez is wrong season, he scored those goals in 13-14 when Bale was in Spain. 12-13 he was biting Ivanovic.

Actually seems you're right on Suarez but Liverpool were very average in Rodgers first year and a long way from even being top 4 (they finished below Everton) so it dosen't stand out as much as 13/14 when he was unplayable and should've fired them to the title.

Van Persie was very good but didn't he win the award for Arsenal the previous season so guess whoever voted wanted to give someone else the award.

Don't want to get in a Giggs debate but Bale had a very strong period between 2012-16. One man show for Spurs pretty much then stepped up in his first few seasons for Real Madrid with 20 goal seasons and good goals and performances in cup finals that won them trophies and also played key role in getting Wales to euro 2016. Then played well at the tournament although Ramsey was overall Wales best player from what I recall.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
23,149
I don’t think Bale should have got the first one, but Nani? Definitely not, that’s an awful shout.

The second one is a lot less controversial. RVP and Suarez were very good that season but Bale was a fair winner of the award, he was phenomenal that season.
Nani was awesome that season and he was better than Bale that season. Most assists in the league and he scored few goals too. I didn't say Nani was the best player in the league, I said he was better than Bale.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
23,149
Have to agree, not really sure where people are getting this Van Persie and Suarez were so much better than Bale.
Did anyone say RVP and Suarez were so much better than Bale?
 

Untd55

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
766
Did anyone say RVP and Suarez were so much better than Bale?
I mean 'so much better' in terms of clearly saying Van Persie or Suarez should have got the award above Bale. I think they were pretty equal in terms of their contributions to their own teams.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
23,149
I mean 'so much better' in terms of clearly saying Van Persie or Suarez should have got the award above Bale. I think they were pretty equal in terms of their contributions to their own teams.
Suarez played in worse team and was better player.

Van Persie and Suarez deserved award means they had better season/player in 2012-13, not they were so much better than Bale.

Nani and bunch of players > Bale in 2010
RVP, Suarez > Bale in 2012-13
 

Untd55

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
766
Suarez played in worse team and was better player.

Van Persie and Suarez deserved award means they had better season/player in 2012-13, not they were so much better than Bale.

Nani and bunch of players > Bale in 2010
RVP, Suarez > Bale in 2012-13
Fair enough, I thought it was the season Liverpool finished second. Alright, their team was pretty bad then.

I still don't think their seasons were better than Bale, though.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
6,556
Bale has done more for the national side and in CL. Although Giggs has so many league titles for us so it depend on what you value.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,122
His speed was incredible and was one of the very best dribblers of his generation.
True - but that doesn't make him historically great (which was my point). Neither his speed, nor his dribbling ability, nor his ability to carry the ball at a high speed - make him stand out in an all-time context. There are multiple similar players (wingers) which by common consensus would be rated higher than him.

Beckham, on the other hand, does stand out with regard to his most obvious quality: as a pinpoint crosser he compares to just about anyone. He has significant weaknesses, of course, which means you wouldn't choose him in an all-time XI over any number of players (he was slow compared to a great traditional winger, for instance - and not a very impressive dribbler) - but his crossing ability was truly extreme.

Giggs has no extreme qualities in an all-time context.

Or rather - he does have one: which is, again, his longevity at a very high level.

Scholes is similar. He also remained a very good player until he retired well into his thirties. But his extreme qualities (passing accuracy and range - and general "awareness") were more impressive than Giggs' (speed, dribbling) AND he retained those qualities on the highest level for much longer.

Giggs obviously wasn't anywhere near the fastest or most effective dribbler in the world at 35, he was just remarkably good at it for his age (even more remarkable at 40). Whereas Scholes was an insane passer - compared to anyone - even when he came back from retirement.

Giggs: Extreme quality/qualities: nothing special historically.

Scholes: Extreme quality/qualities: special but he doesn't positively stand out (there are a number of other players who offer the same, and who are arguably better on the whole).

Beckham: Extreme quality/qualities: special, even historically (there aren't a number of players who offer the same, he's in an "elite" group that doesn't comprise all that many).

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion: this doesn't mean I rate Beckham as either a better player, all things considered, in his prime OR that I rate him as a greater United player than either Giggs or Scholes.

On the contrary, based on ALL factors, my list would be:

1. Giggs
2. Scholes
3. Beckham
 

Shamana

Full Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
2,321
True - but that doesn't make him historically great (which was my point). Neither his speed, nor his dribbling ability, nor his ability to carry the ball at a high speed - make him stand out in an all-time context. There are multiple similar players (wingers) which by common consensus would be rated higher than him.

Beckham, on the other hand, does stand out with regard to his most obvious quality: as a pinpoint crosser he compares to just about anyone. He has significant weaknesses, of course, which means you wouldn't choose him in an all-time XI over any number of players (he was slow compared to a great traditional winger, for instance - and not a very impressive dribbler) - but his crossing ability was truly extreme.

Giggs has no extreme qualities in an all-time context.

Or rather - he does have one: which is, again, his longevity at a very high level.

Scholes is similar. He also remained a very good player until he retired well into his thirties. But his extreme qualities (passing accuracy and range - and general "awareness") were more impressive than Giggs' (speed, dribbling) AND he retained those qualities on the highest level for much longer.

Giggs obviously wasn't anywhere near the fastest or most effective dribbler in the world at 35, he was just remarkably good at it for his age (even more remarkable at 40). Whereas Scholes was an insane passer - compared to anyone - even when he came back from retirement.

Giggs: Extreme quality/qualities: nothing special historically.

Scholes: Extreme quality/qualities: special but he doesn't positively stand out (there are a number of other players who offer the same, and who are arguably better on the whole).

Beckham: Extreme quality/qualities: special, even historically (there aren't a number of players who offer the same, he's in an "elite" group that doesn't comprise all that many).

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion: this doesn't mean I rate Beckham as either a better player, all things considered, in his prime OR that I rate him as a greater United player than either Giggs or Scholes.

On the contrary, based on ALL factors, my list would be:

1. Giggs
2. Scholes
3. Beckham
Hmmm.. I don't know. There was a reason why young Giggs was touted as the next George Best although he never reached his level in terms of individual achievements. I agree that Giggs is not on Messi, Best, Garrincha and Maradonna lvl dribbling but he was stil very good at it and fast as feck.

When Giggs scored that goal against Arsenal, there was not another player in the world who could have done it(Bar Luiz Ronaldo maybe).

Giggs just had that X factor. Another thing is that Giggs just ran in such a elegant way. It's hard to pin point but just seeing Giggs running at full speed was a awesome sight.

Anyway it's always interestingg having a Scholes VS Giggs VS Beckham debate.

3 phenomal players with completely distinct abilities. I for one never understood why someone who could kick a ball as well as Scholes never could master free kicks and corners.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,122
It's hard to pin point but just seeing Giggs running at full speed was a awesome sight.
Of course it was. And I wouldn't trade it for anything as a United fan.

I will add this too: seeing Giggsy leave a (much) younger player on his arse when playing as a CM for us towards the end of his career...well, it gave me more pleasure than anything has in this largely horrible post-Fergie era.

He represented what we used to be - more than anyone.

And - yeah, yeah: as a player. Not as a man who fecked his brother's wife and all that. Before anyone starts with that shite again.
 

Salt Bailly

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
215
Location
Valinor
For anyone still doubting whether Giggs was world class, some guy called Alex seems to think so:

SAF said:
I don't mean to demean or criticise any of the great or very good footballers who played for me during my 26-year career at United, but there were only four who were world class: Cantona, Giggs, Ronaldo and Scholes.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
38,529
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Hmmm.. I don't know. There was a reason why young Giggs was touted as the next George Best although he never reached his level in terms of individual achievements. I agree that Giggs is not on Messi, Best, Garrincha and Maradonna lvl dribbling but he was stil very good at it and fast as feck.

When Giggs scored that goal against Arsenal, there was not another player in the world who could have done it(Bar Luiz Ronaldo maybe).

Giggs just had that X factor. Another thing is that Giggs just ran in such a elegant way. It's hard to pin point but just seeing Giggs running at full speed was a awesome sight.

Anyway it's always interestingg having a Scholes VS Giggs VS Beckham debate.

3 phenomal players with completely distinct abilities. I for one never understood why someone who could kick a ball as well as Scholes never could master free kicks and corners.
With such a clean strike too (cf Villa Park in 2007)
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
18,585
Location
My wit's end


Where r1 is the player's overall season rating in his 1st season, r2 is the player's overall season rating in his 2nd season, etc.

n is the number of qualifying seasons he's played over his career.

A qualifying season is any season where a player has played more than 10 league games in a top 4 league (England, Spain, Germany or Italy).

For Giggs:
92/93 - 7
93/94 - 8
94/95 - 7
95/96 - 8
96/97 - 5
97/98 - 6
98/99 - 6
99/00 - 8
00/01 - 7
01/02 - 8
02/03 - 7
03/04 - 7
04/05 - 6
05/06 - 6
06/07 - 6
07/08 - 5
08/09 - 5
09/10 - 6
10/11 - 6
11/12 - 6
12/13 - 4

For Bale:
09/10 - 5
10/11 - 6
11/12 - 8
12/13 - 9
13/14 - 9
14/15 - 8
15/16 - 10
16/17 - 7
17/18 - 9
18/19 - 7
19/20 - 4


Giggs final score: 880
Bale final/current score: 646
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
17,979
Location
#SmallingPlusOne


Where r1 is the player's overall season rating in his 1st season, r2 is the player's overall season rating in his 2nd season, etc.

n is the number of qualifying seasons he's played over his career.

A qualifying season is any season where a player has played more than 10 league games in a top 4 league (England, Spain, Germany or Italy).

For Giggs:
92/93 - 7
93/94 - 8
94/95 - 7
95/96 - 8
96/97 - 5
97/98 - 6
98/99 - 6
99/00 - 8
00/01 - 7
01/02 - 8
02/03 - 7
03/04 - 7
04/05 - 6
05/06 - 6
06/07 - 6
07/08 - 5
08/09 - 5
09/10 - 6
10/11 - 6
11/12 - 6
12/13 - 4

For Bale:
09/10 - 5
10/11 - 6
11/12 - 8
12/13 - 9
13/14 - 9
14/15 - 8
15/16 - 10
16/17 - 7
17/18 - 9
18/19 - 7
19/20 - 4


Giggs final score: 880
Bale final/current score: 646
There are many formulas I see indirectly used to measure greatness.

‘Good multiplied by time equals great’ is a common one I see.

‘Good + memorable moments equals great’.

‘Good + trophies equals great’.

‘Best/Very good + trophies equals great’ (usually reserved for the ‘greatest’ players).

I’ve said many times, I don’t care that much for ‘great’. It’s a term for text books. I’m much more interested in discussing the ‘best’. And for me, once the length of time is reasonable (I mean, we can’t say a player is the best based on one match, one month etc) - then that is what I’m considering. A player’s peak interests me most. I can’t say a player is ‘better’ than a player who has played a level they haven’t ‘bettered’. Perhaps this is why I have so many disagreements on here in player comparisons.
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
18,585
Location
My wit's end
There are many formulas I see indirectly used to measure greatness.

‘Good multiplied by time equals great’ is a common one I see.

‘Good + memorable moments equals great’.

‘Good + trophies equals great’.

‘Best/Very good + trophies equals great’ (usually reserved for the ‘greatest’ players).

I’ve said many times, I don’t care that much for ‘great’. It’s a term for text books. I’m much more interested in discussing the ‘best’. And for me, once the length of time is reasonable (I mean, we can’t say a player is the best based on one match, one month etc) - then that is what I’m considering. A player’s peak interests me most. I can’t say a player is ‘better’ than a player who has played a level they haven’t ‘bettered’. Perhaps this is why I have so many disagreements on here in player comparisons.
Maybe we could start a new thread about which formula is the greatest.

My formula is just about as objective as it's possible to be when we're discussing something as subjective as 'greatness'. Not only is it simple, there's also little room for fudging the numbers.

Every season is given equal weight but, at the same time, high peaks count for more than average consistency.

I did toy around with the idea of cubing season ratings rather than squaring them. But even then, Giggs comes out top with 5930 to Bale's 5302.