How good was Paul Scholes?

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...
Just like @amolbhatia50k wrote, the comparison is really pointless. Do you honestly think if Pirlo was English, the national team would have performed better? Of course if we are judging players on achievements and neglecting the conditions they had, you'd have a point but I am not sure that would make for a discussion as we'd simply look at the list of honors and get it over with.
 
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...
Pirlo received many complaints during his playing career. Too slow, poor in counter, doesn't run enough, doesn't tackle. No such problem with Scholes.
 
Rasfene said:
Pirlo received many complaints during his playing career. Too slow, poor in counter, doesn't run enough, doesn't tackle. No such problem with Scholes.
Click to expand...
Most of these myths can be dispelled just by watching this game:



Whenever people think of Pirlo, they think of the lazy bum who played for Juventus.

Milan Pirlo (2003-2007) reached a higher peak than Scholes did IMO. He was the best midfielder in the world for several seasons.

What Scholes does have over Pirlo is that he was more versatile. Pirlo could only really play one position while Scholes could play several.
 
Last edited:
Infordin said:
Most of these myths can be dispelled just by watching this game:


Whenever people think of Pirlo, they think of the lazy bum who played for Juventus.

Milan Pirlo (2003-2007) reached a higher peak than Scholes did IMO. He was the best midfielder in the world for several seasons.

What Scholes does have over Pirlo is that he was more versatile. Pirlo could only really play one position while Scholes could play several.
Click to expand...
One game doesn't prove much. He could be lazy in others just like pogba was against Newcastle.

Here we are not only concerned about peak. We are also concerned with consistency.
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Beckham was lucky because Scholes was the pivot and he sprayed good passes for beckham to put in his crosses. Scholes scored more goals than Beckham on average while they were there and Scholes provided more unique approach to attacking.

When Beckham left united, united continued to win titles.

When Scholes left united, united stopped winning titles.

Of course, the departure of SAF is also part of the reasons.
 
Rasfene said:
Nope.

Beckham was lucky because Scholes was the pivot and he sprayed good passes for beckham to put in his crosses. Scholes scored more goals than Beckham on average while they were there and Scholes provided more unique approach to attacking.

When Beckham left united, united continued to win titles.

When Scholes left united, united stopped winning titles.

Of course, the departure of SAF is also part of the reasons.
Click to expand...
:lol: You don't say?
 

This is now my favourite Scholes video. Most Scholesy videos spend over 5mins showing him spraying diagonal passes but that was Scholes towards the later part of his career when he played alongside Carrick.

This video shows Scholes in the early to mid 00's when he played with Keane and you see he was far more than a deep-lying playmaker. For such a little guy he had so much heart to go with his obvious quality. You see him going in for duels with Patrick fecking Vieira and coming out on top. Pogba should really study Scholes because he's miles off.
 
Basically, in the past, if you see Paul Scholes' name in the team sheet, you will more or less know that United will win.

But if you dont see it, your heart will skip a bit worrying for united.
 
Was about to post the same video. My favourite United player ever. Vieira's words about him sums it up nicely : "Nobody wanted to face Scholes."
 
If only Scholes had stayed on, then united might have kept winning matched, staying at top 3 at the very least after ferguson left.
 
7 years ago today, we started Fabio, Rafael, O'Shea and Gibson vs Arsenal and won 2-0. Scholes came on for 10 minutes and toyed with them.

Three of the chances he created:
 
El Jefe said:

This is now my favourite Scholes video. Most Scholesy videos spend over 5mins showing him spraying diagonal passes but that was Scholes towards the later part of his career when he played alongside Carrick.

This video shows Scholes in the early to mid 00's when he played with Keane and you see he was far more than a deep-lying playmaker. For such a little guy he had so much heart to go with his obvious quality. You see him going in for duels with Patrick fecking Vieira and coming out on top. Pogba should really study Scholes because he's miles off.
Click to expand...


I was just about to post this video. What a brilliant player!
 
It's funny in the early 00s there was a thread on here talking about how you were better with a Butt and Keane pivot and Scholes benched

Rasfene said:
Nope.

Beckham was lucky because Scholes was the pivot and he sprayed good passes for beckham to put in his crosses. Scholes scored more goals than Beckham on average while they were there and Scholes provided more unique approach to attacking.

When Beckham left united, united continued to win titles.

When Scholes left united, united stopped winning titles.

Of course, the departure of SAF is also part of the reasons.
Click to expand...

This is just wrong. Before Beckham left United won the title 6 out of 8 seasons. After he left it took you 4 seasons to win the title again. Beckham's assists stats were world class season on season too.
 
A true maestro and magician. The touch, the vision, the decision-making, ability to find space, sublime passing, a perfect eye for a goal and tenacity. Blessed we were back in those days.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
This is just wrong. Before Beckham left United won the title 6 out of 8 seasons. After he left it took you 4 seasons to win the title again. Beckham's assists stats were world class season on season too.
Click to expand...

:lol: Talk about making a point without any context.
 
The question asked is ‘How good was Paul Scholes?’ Well, in my humble opinion, there were none better when he was in his pomp which was a long time. He could have played in any team in the World easily as could have Giggs.

Talent to burn, strong mentally and a true team player. Wish we had someone with half his talent today.
 
Love him to bits. I always looked up to him when growing up and tried to do some of the things he did on the field. Makes you realize when you try yourself to replicate his moves how impressive they are. Even more so when you think he was doing it in PL and CL.
 
GASHEAD said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yeah international journalists are a very objective bunch.
Bit like the Eurovision voting.
 
Hed Zitin said:
Best CM we've ever had. Better than Robbo or Keane.

God I'd love to have a prime Scholes benching Pogba now.
Click to expand...
Sure Mctominay is benching Pogba now.

He is up there with Robson and Keane but you are comparing different types of midfielders.
 
Theonas said:
Just like @amolbhatia50k wrote, the comparison is really pointless. Do you honestly think if Pirlo was English, the national team would have performed better? Of course if we are judging players on achievements and neglecting the conditions they had, you'd have a point but I am not sure that would make for a discussion as we'd simply look at the list of honors and get it over with.
Click to expand...
Pirlo carried a tired Italy side to the Euro 2012 final and was voted one of the players of the tournament. He has far more individual accolades and memorable performances, tournaments etc than Scholes and is recognised superior across many different publications so it seems most in the football community thought Pirlo was the better player

Pirlo:
Scholes

 
@Stacks I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that individual performances are strictly linked to how the team operates. Pirlo's performances were indeed on a higher level and influenced big games more but that has a lot to do with how his teams functioned as a whole. A very simple example is passing accuracy. If your passes are accurate and lead directly to big moments, it means that you are individually a brilliant player but without good movement and teammates being available, offering solutions and making use of those passes, that would not happen, you wouldn't be able to showcase that brilliance. This I said is a basic example but if you apply it on more intricate details, you can see why a team's tactical nous, positional, movement, etc ... can elevate a player from brilliant to influentially brilliant and those are the ones usually getting the accolades. My point was that Scholes was the former whereas Pirlo and Xavi were the latter.
 
Very good. The best accolade I can give him was he was the second best English midfielder of that generation.
 
Rasfene said:
Of course, the departure of SAF is also part of the reasons.
Click to expand...

Erm - yes. Probably had at least something to do with it.

Beckham was just as influential for United as Scholes during their time together, if not more so.

No, scratch that - he was more influential.

And Keane - forget about it. Completely different degree of influence.

Scholes was a brilliant player in several different incarnations - but as I've said many times on here, people have a tendency to add the younger Scholes' attacking attributes to the older Scholes' DLP attributes, turning him into something he never was at any point in time.

He was a brilliant playmaker from a deeper position in his last years - but physically he was clearly past his prime at this stage. He didn't have the legs to make an impact against top class opposition in Fergie's preferred setup. He could control the match at will against lesser teams - and did so frequently - but when he (and the midfield as such) was put under serious pressure, he couldn't handle it.

It's interesting to imagine what he could have done, as an ageing DLP, in a more protected setup (Pirlo was always more protected in his golden years as a DLP).
 
For me Scholes is/will be up there with Bobby Charlton in terms of club legend status, he's the most decorated English footballer in history.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
He was a brilliant playmaker from a deeper position in his last years - but physically he was clearly past his prime at this stage. He didn't have the legs to make an impact against top class opposition in Fergie's preferred setup. He could control the match at will against lesser teams - and did so frequently - but when he (and the midfield as such) was put under serious pressure, he couldn't handle it.

It's interesting to imagine what he could have done, as an ageing DLP, in a more protected setup (Pirlo was always more protected in his golden years as a DLP).
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The last part was my point in the previous post. Xavi and to a lesser extent Pirlo played in systems that simply never had to deal with "serious pressure" as you put it. Their teams were not necessarily better overall than ours (Barcelona 2009-2011 clearly were) but they were always more tactically drilled in their positional and possession game. Italian and Spanish teams almost always are. This is why I simply cannot see how any one individual could have controlled big games for us or for England the way those two did for their sides.
 
Theonas said:
@Stacks I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that individual performances are strictly linked to how the team operates. Pirlo's performances were indeed on a higher level and influenced big games more but that has a lot to do with how his teams functioned as a whole. A very simple example is passing accuracy. If your passes are accurate and lead directly to big moments, it means that you are individually a brilliant player but without good movement and teammates being available, offering solutions and making use of those passes, that would not happen, you wouldn't be able to showcase that brilliance. This I said is a basic example but if you apply it on more intricate details, you can see why a team's tactical nous, positional, movement, etc ... can elevate a player from brilliant to influentially brilliant and those are the ones usually getting the accolades. My point was that Scholes was the former whereas Pirlo and Xavi were the latter.
Click to expand...
But Scholes played with world class players throughout his career, just like Pirlo and Xavi did. He also played under a better manager. I think I am missing your point so apologies if I come off as stupid.
 
backtowhiteside said:
Legend!

How come he never played much for England?
Click to expand...

He got 66 caps and retired at 29 to spend more time with his family. The man himself said this...
"Being away from my family was always the main reason I retired from internationals at the age of 29 in August 2004. I never liked being away from my home and my family for weeks on end. Whenever England went away for a tournament I was OK for maybe the first three or four days, but after that I was unhappy because I was missing my wife and children. To me, it was like a huge burden being lifted from my shoulders. In future I could look forward to summertime without that sense of foreboding which had preyed on me for so long. I had made the right decision for my family and myself and since then I have never felt otherwise."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.