How good was Paul Scholes?

POF said:
Dismissing Xavi's achievements due to the players he played alongside is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


These things never made sense, never will.:lol:

Messi is great because he played with Xavi, Iniesta, Dani Alves and Busquets.

Xavi is great because he played with Messi, Iniesta, Dani Alves and Busquets.

Iniesta is great because he played with Xavi, Messi, Dani Alves and Busquets.

Dani Alves is great because he played with Xavi, Iniesta, Messi and Busquets.

Busquets is great because he played with Xavi, Iniesta, Dani Alves and Messi.

It is probably Valdes who made them all great.

Scholes was not in the level of either of Xavi or Zidane, he gets overrated here, just like Michel Laudrup in barca forums.
 
when i was young i never understood how Paul Scholes dictates the whole pitch by himself alone. Football was never that smooth and was never eye catchy before i seen Scholes. Only reason why i have started to support Manchester United is him. For me, Only player who have had better vision than him was Xavi Hernandez, but i doubt that Xavi could dictate the game in two men midfield. Whenever i watch the top top midfielders (not a top player) i always compare them with Paul Scholes. He was an exceptional, he was a true legend, he was a genius, he was a true footballer. He is there with "greatest midfielders of all time".
 
  • Like
Reactions: langster
langster said:
What are you on about? Some of the world's best players and coaches who have all played against Scholes or witnessed him first hand have said they think he was the best they have played against. Yet you, on a football forum argue against them?

Well done. Good for you. I watched him his whole career and I thought he was world class, and so do the professionals he played against. I will take their word over yours. How you have the balls to say their opinions don't count is hilarious. How is yours more valid?

Zidane and Xavi say Scholes was the best they played against and Socrates said he could have played for Brazil but @Jaybomb on the Caf disagrees. Yeah ok. Whatever :lol: ffs.
Click to expand...
Pele is the greatest of all time and he’s said some strange shit over the course of his career. I guess because he’s Pele, you agree with all of it then?

And I didn’t say he wasn’t world class. I said he’s probably the best Premier League midfielder of all time.... but he’s not fecking Zidane is he? Come on.
 
Jaybomb said:
Pele is the greatest of all time and he’s said some strange shit over the course of his career. I guess because he’s Pele, you agree with all of it then?

And I didn’t say he wasn’t world class. I said he’s probably the best Premier League midfielder of all time.... but he’s not fecking Zidane is he? Come on.
Click to expand...

No of course I don't agree with everything anyone says, regardless of who they are. BUT that article I posted has some of the world' greatest players and managers who have played with and against and managed Scholes ALL saying he is the best they have ever seen or faced. You have to listen to them because they know. Zidane had his own style and was a different type of player to Scholes, I think if Scholes had a more successful England career or had played for Juve, Barca or Real then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Lord SInister said:
These things never made sense, never will.:lol:

Scholes was not in the level of either of Xavi or Zidane, he gets overrated here, just like Michel Laudrup in barca forums.
Click to expand...

Scholes was not on the level of Zidane but he certainly was on Xavi's level. And how can anyone overrate Laudrup? He was one of the best players in the world and arguably the best Scandinavian player of all time (along with Zlatan).
 
Beagle said:
That's not saying much. He would be perfect for most teams at any given time. He was just that good.
Click to expand...
Except, unlike a team like City, we lack a midfielder who can run the game from the middle of the pitch. Yes everyone would be happy to have Scholes. But we desperately need someone like him to the extent where it would be transformative.
 
Giggs86 said:
Scholes was not on the level of Zidane but he certainly was on Xavi's level. And how can anyone overrate Laudrup? He was one of the best players in the world and arguably the best Scandinavian player of all time (along with Zlatan).
Click to expand...
Nope.

I am not a man utd fan but personally, I rate Scholes very highly. Basically, if you field him, you just win or draw matches.

Scholes can defend, Zidane can't

Scholes can attack and score easily from outside or inside the box, Xavi can't.

Manutd or England has never really lost with Scholes in the team. They only lost on away goals mainly or penalty shootout.

KDB better? if he can score a winning goal against Barca in the champ league, I will start to consider that.
XH6 said:
De Bruyne this season > Scholes' peak

Scholes' career >>> De Bruyne's career
Click to expand...
 
I thought Scholes was a good player, he had some outstanding games but also went missing in some of the more important games - couple of the B.Munich games spring to mind. In his career he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or 5 times but never got a SINGLE vote.....so clearly no one outside of Manchester really rated him.
 
SirMonteyne said:
when i was young i never understood how Paul Scholes dictates the whole pitch by himself alone. Football was never that smooth and was never eye catchy before i seen Scholes. Only reason why i have started to support Manchester United is him. For me, Only player who have had better vision than him was Xavi Hernandez, but i doubt that Xavi could dictate the game in two men midfield. Whenever i watch the top top midfielders (not a top player) i always compare them with Paul Scholes. He was an exceptional, he was a true legend, he was a genius, he was a true footballer. He is there with "greatest midfielders of all time".
Click to expand...
Similar experience with me then. He's the first reason I properly get into football and support United "properly", disregarding the faze back then. Initially thought football is just a simple game of kick-about and longball tactics, but nope. How Scholes played showed me how awesome and creative football can be. It's like ecstacy. Football is just not a simple game.
 
Giggs86 said:
Scholes was not on the level of Zidane but he certainly was on Xavi's level.
Click to expand...

talent wise yes, maybe he was even better, but Xavi has achieved so much(yes much to do with him being in that great Spanish side, and Scholes being in the crap English sides), it is ridiculous IMO to look further. And it is not like, Xavi's team were successful in spite of him, but he was the fulcrum, the most important cog in those two ridiculous sides. Also iirc, Xavi was much more productive in the final third with this chance creation than Scholes(when he was playing deep). Anyways that is just my opinion.

And how can anyone overrate Laudrup? He was one of the best players in the world and arguably the best Scandinavian player of all time (along with Zlatan).
Click to expand...


By saying he was better than the likes of Maradona, Platini, Zico and so on?
 
Rasfene said:
Nope.

I am not a man utd fan but personally, I rate Scholes very highly. Basically, if you field him, you just win or draw matches.

Scholes can defend, Zidane can't

Scholes can attack and score easily from outside or inside the box, Xavi can't.

Manutd or England has never really lost with Scholes in the team. They only lost on away goals mainly or penalty shootout.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, Scholes is one of my all time favorite players and I also rate him very highly, but even wearing the most red-tinted glasses I could find I won't be able to rate him higher than Zidane. Zidane was on a different level.
 
Giggs86 said:
Scholes was not on the level of Zidane but he certainly was on Xavi's level. And how can anyone overrate Laudrup? He was one of the best players in the world and arguably the best Scandinavian player of all time (along with Zlatan).
Click to expand...

Xavi was a class above the Scholes/Pirlo level for me. His passing, touch, vision, and decision making were just ridiculously perfect. He also had an edge in his ability to dribble, turn, and keep the ball under pressure in a way that virtually nobody else could.

The video below shows the type of performances that Xavi was putting in during his peak. There was also no Iniesta in this game.


 
With regards to Xavi having a higher top level, and Scholes not being able to dictate early in his career, I think one has to appreciate the differences.

Xavi from the get go and definitely since Pep arrived and he reached a good age was in an environment where midfield playmaking, short passing, controlled control of possesion, passing to feet, three man midfield etc was the ideology.

Scholes was just as lucky to have played under Sir Alex, but the emphasis here was more on getting the ball forward quickly, a huge focus on wide players, a two striker pronged attack, two man midfield, wingers getting in crosses, more passes in the air and over the top and counter attack as opposed to possesson football.

I mean, which of the two do you really expect to suit short tiny midfield playmaking? Now, our play wasn't uncultured or anything, but it was just different in it's own brilliant way. It was more blood and thunder. And it's a testamant to Scholes that he fit into that superbly, whether as an attack minded CM or as a second striker. And then when our play became more 'continental' he was able to convert into a deep lying playmaker/quarter back and did it majestically. It's more important to note that just because Scholes played a different role earlier it doesnt mean he wasnt brilliant or didn't playmake, he just did it less.

I do think Xavi's top level was higher, but it's important to note the differences. Scholes and Xavi were the two best I've seen.
 
GASHEAD said:
I thought Scholes was a good player, he had some outstanding games but also went missing in some of the more important games - couple of the B.Munich games spring to mind. In his career he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or 5 times but never got a SINGLE vote.....so clearly no one outside of Manchester really rated him.
Click to expand...

Utter bollocks mate.

Check this article out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...hat-the-games-greats-have-said-about-him.html

Messi: “At La Masia (Barcelona’s Academy) his name was mentioned a lot. He’s a teacher.”

Figo: “I’m star-struck when I see Paul Scholes because you never see him. On the pitch you can’t catch him. Off the pitch he disappears.”

Pep Guardiola: “Out of everyone at Manchester United, I would pick out Scholes – he is the best midfielder of his generation. I would have loved to have played alongside him.”

Ronaldinho: “I want to pass like him. Who taught him how to do that?”

Pele: “If he was playing with me, I would score so many more.”

Still think he wasn’t rated?
 
Giggs86 said:
Don't get me wrong, Scholes is one of my all time favorite players and I also rate him very highly, but even wearing the most red-tinted glasses I could find I won't be able to rate him higher than Zidane. Zidane was on a different level.
Click to expand...
Scholes was consistently the top 5-10 players in the world for more than a decade.
XH6 said:
Xavi was a class above the Scholes/Pirlo level for me. His passing, touch, vision, and decision making were just ridiculously perfect. He also had an edge in his ability to dribble, turn, and keep the ball under pressure in a way that virtually nobody else could.

The video below shows the type of performances that Xavi was putting in during his peak. There was also no Iniesta in this game.
Click to expand...
Xavi a great player. No doubt about that.

But scholes scores more goals than him and he doesn't jack up his goal tally like what Gerrard and Lampard did with penalties. Both Gerrard and Lampard racked up more than 40 penalties goals each. Take away their 40 goals and Scholes scored more than Gerrard and similar to Lampard.

Scholes scored more goals than Xavi and controlled the midfield almost as well as xavi.
Giggs86 said:
Don't get me wrong, Scholes is one of my all time favorite players and I also rate him very highly, but even wearing the most red-tinted glasses I could find I won't be able to rate him higher than Zidane. Zidane was on a different level.
Click to expand...

Zidane was a late bloomer. He was not doing very well. And at times, his club Juventus suffered as well. His tenure at real Madrid as a player wasn't that good as well as he only won 1 league title and 1 champ league in 5 years.

He won the world cup on home soil but crushed France's hope in another with a headbutt, showing his lack of discipline.
 
Last edited:
Rasfene said:
Scholes was consistently the top 5-10 players in the world for more than a decade.

Xavi a great player. No doubt about that.

But scholes scores more goals than him and he doesn't jack up his goal tally like what Gerrard and Lampard did with penalties. Both Gerrard and Lampard racked up more than 40 penalties goals each. Take away their 40 goals and they scored almost the same as Scholes.

Scholes scored more goals than Xavi and controlled the midfield almost as well as xavi.


Zidane was a late bloomer. He was not doing very well. And at times, his club Juventus suffered as well. His tenure at real Madrid as a player wasn't that good as well as he only won 1 league title and 1 champ league in 5 years.

He won the world cup on home soil but crushed France's hope in another with a headbutt, showing his lack of discipline.
Click to expand...
Scholes started as a forward, moving to AM and played as second striker as well. His goal rate was not that good after he moved towards playmaker role. I will not compare his goal rate with Lampard and Gerrard. Scholes is forever a better footballer than the 2, to me.
 
Rasfene said:
Scholes was consistently the top 5-10 players in the world for more than a decade.

Xavi a great player. No doubt about that.

But scholes scores more goals than him and he doesn't jack up his goal tally like what Gerrard and Lampard did with penalties. Both Gerrard and Lampard racked up more than 40 penalties goals each. Take away their 40 goals and they scored almost the same as Scholes.

Scholes scored more goals than Xavi and controlled the midfield almost as well as xavi.
Click to expand...


Scholes scored more goals when he was playing as an AM, when he started taking control of our midfield, his numbers dried up. And that is natural for any deep playing midfielder.
 
Better than Gerrard and Lampard

About as good as Pirlo

A level below Xavi and Zidane
 
Garethw said:
Utter bollocks mate.

Check this article out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...hat-the-games-greats-have-said-about-him.html

Messi: “At La Masia (Barcelona’s Academy) his name was mentioned a lot. He’s a teacher.”

Figo: “I’m star-struck when I see Paul Scholes because you never see him. On the pitch you can’t catch him. Off the pitch he disappears.”

Pep Guardiola: “Out of everyone at Manchester United, I would pick out Scholes – he is the best midfielder of his generation. I would have loved to have played alongside him.”

Ronaldinho: “I want to pass like him. Who taught him how to do that?”

Pele: “If he was playing with me, I would score so many more.”

Still think he wasn’t rated?
Click to expand...

Look at how all those people you quoted are not British. He wasnt and still isnt rated by the Brits except for United fans.
 
Lord SInister said:
Scholes scored more goals when he was playing as an AM, when he started taking control of our midfield, his numbers dried up. And that is natural for any deep playing midfielder.
Click to expand...
Yes, but could Xavi have scored as many Scholes in any role? Could he have been a smashing second striker? I doubt it. Scholes beats him on versatility and longevity whereas Xavi's peak was higher.

Infordin said:
Better than Gerrard and Lampard

About as good as Pirlo

A level below Xavi and Zidane
Click to expand...
I agree with that. Except I'd personally have him between Pirlo and Xavi/Zidane.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Yes, but could Xavi have scored as many Scholes in any role? Could he have been a smashing second striker? I doubt it. Scholes beats him on versatility and longevity whereas Xavi's peak was higher.
Click to expand...

But that is not a question. the poster I quoted was saying that Scholes could score that amount of goals while also controlling the midfield. Which is not true.
 
I saw Scholes up close in a legends 5v5 futsal game shortly after he retired. It was an all star team with guys like Desailly, Salgado, etc. It wasn't close, he was the best player on the pitch by far, controlled the entire game and scored like 4 goals, and assisted on 3 others. He was floating out there.

He never won a World Cup, but he won 2 CLs and 11 PL titles. Yes, Xavi won a WC, 4 CLs and 2 ECs, and 8 La Liga titles. Remember, two of those CLs were finals against us. Does Messi make the difference in those two finals? Probably, yes.

A lot more goals for Paul - almost double-- and part of that is because he played further forward earlier in his career. I do believe that Scholes was a better long range passer and finisher than Xavi, but Xavi was better at movement and recognizing the 3v2 and 2v1 advantages that tiki taka requires.

Can't we just say that they were both great, generational players?

I do believe that those on the pitch recognize greatness faster than we do as fans. The fact that Scholes is universally lauded by his contemporaries means he was truly special.
 
Garethw said:
Utter bollocks mate.

Check this article out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...hat-the-games-greats-have-said-about-him.html

Messi: “At La Masia (Barcelona’s Academy) his name was mentioned a lot. He’s a teacher.”

Figo: “I’m star-struck when I see Paul Scholes because you never see him. On the pitch you can’t catch him. Off the pitch he disappears.”

Pep Guardiola: “Out of everyone at Manchester United, I would pick out Scholes – he is the best midfielder of his generation. I would have loved to have played alongside him.”

Ronaldinho: “I want to pass like him. Who taught him how to do that?”

Pele: “If he was playing with me, I would score so many more.”

Still think he wasn’t rated?
Click to expand...
Hamadovich86 said:
Look at how all those people you quoted are not British. He wasnt and still isnt rated by the Brits except for United fans.
Click to expand...
 
Not just the British. If his total lack of Ballon d'Or votes is any gauge then international journalists, coaches and captains didn't rate him either. If he was that good surely at least one person would have voted for him in one of the 5 years he was nominated?
 
That was because Sir Alex did not fully play him all season. He rested Scholes against weak opponents to prepare him for big games. Affect his overall season credentials but as a player, he has always done well.

Beckham has been nominated more times than scholes. Does that mean he is a better player?

Anyway, different people will have different opinions and I respect that. Pointless to discuss anymore. I am out.
 
Rasfene said:
That was because Sir Alex did not fully play him all season. He rested Scholes against weak opponents to prepare him for big games. Affect his overall season credentials but as a player, he has always done well.

Beckham has been nominated more times than scholes. Does that mean he is a better player?

Anyway, different people will have different opinions and I respect that. Pointless to discuss anymore. I am out.
Click to expand...

Beckham may not be as talented, but peak Beckham was a very decisive player. He was a match winner type of player.


Anyways since you agree to disagree, better move on:)
 
Prodigal7 said:
Xavi played better than him at his peak, true. But, put Scholes in that Barca team and I'm convinced he could have matched Xavi at his peak.
Click to expand...

Theonas said:
That's the part that I don't understand with the Xavi argument. No team in the history of the game supported their midfield as much as that Barcelona team. The amount of movement and options to every player at all times was higher than any other team. Scholes was playing in a footballing culture that is entirely different where midfielders stood out thanks to their stamina and box to box contributions. Obviously Xavi was also an essential part in making that team tick which makes him an all time great but the comparison is just so silly.
Click to expand...

Xavi would be on the bench just like veron if scholes played for barca , he was more complete compared
 
Rasfene said:
Beckham has been nominated more times than scholes. Does that mean he is a better player?
Click to expand...

I think that while they were both here, most would have argued that Beckham was the more important, effective player for United until perhaps his final year or so.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
I agree with that. Except I'd personally have him between Pirlo and Xavi/Zidane.
Click to expand...
As in, better than Pirlo?

I can't agree. If you take international football into consideration, Pirlo probably edges it.
 
Infordin said:
As in, better than Pirlo?

I can't agree. If you take international football into consideration, Pirlo probably edges it.
Click to expand...
Yes, marginally.

Scholes played for England. That alone makes comparing them based on tgeir international feats difficult.
 
Hamadovich86 said:
Look at how all those people you quoted are not British. He wasnt and still isnt rated by the Brits except for United fans.
Click to expand...

Because all none United English football fans hate Man United. Look at the amount of abuse P. Neville, Beckham and Rooney have all suffered by England fans after poor international tournaments.

Excluding Southgate, I can’t think of many if any England players from other clubs that suffered the abuse of them 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.