Not true. It was just the qualities he possessed were not the norm in the top tier of english football. Players of his ilk do not come around very often.
How good was Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Not true. It was just the qualities he possessed were not the norm in the top tier of english football. Players of his ilk do not come around very often.
While somewhat true, players with different qualities are made to look better depending on the football the sides play. Throw Keane into the Pep Barca side and he'd be hounded out. Throw Scholes in there and he'd be lauded.
When players have hung up their boots and fans reminisce about them they tend to forget the poor games and barren spells.
Scholes was a good little midfielder but not a world star or such like. Had a decent pass and shot for sure. Not a legend but a decent player all the same.
Anyone telling you differently is lying.
Scholes was a good little midfielder but not a world star or such like. Had a decent pass and shot for sure. Not a legend but a decent player all the same.
Anyone telling you differently is lying.
He'd be benched in that Barcelona team, that's for sure.
Wouldn't be too sure, not sure what Xavi did better.
Scholes played in the PL at a high level at the age of 37 and was brilliant in helping United win the PL.
Gerrard at 34 was on his last legs and playing in the MLS at a piss poor level and he wasn’t great whilst there.
It is safe to say that once their legs went, Scholes was a far better player. Much greater footballing intelligence as well.
Gerrard at 34 was on his last legs and playing in the MLS at a piss poor level and he wasn’t great whilst there.
It is safe to say that once their legs went, Scholes was a far better player. Much greater footballing intelligence as well.
Short Passing
Dribbling
Pressing
Press Resistance
Positioning
Assisting goals
Dominating opponents
Tackling
Long passes on the ground
Controlling the tempo of the match
I could go on but I think you get the gist
You're clearly someone that can't separate the team from the players. Most of those are linked to being a Barca player on that particular system. imo the only really difference between the two is Scholes' ball striking and passing range. Everything else is neither here nor there. I mean you even listed short passing as though anyone could do that better than Scholes.
Scholes has better long pass, everything else Xavi is better
If someone like that makes it to the team, it should be no problem for Scholes.
His peer didn't think of him that highly during his career. Fact. Giggs, Beckham, Keane have several so there is no anti-united bias or anything like that.
Can't believe some of the comments in this thread all honestly.
They were totally equal. Had paul scholes played in 2 finals things could have been a lot different than those one sided affairs.
Technically fantastic, wonderful to watch. A bit limited in terms of athleticism though. Small, which isn't inherently a bad thing but his pace was nothing special and he had mild asthma so didn't have the energy levels of some players. Also never really got to grips with the defensive side of midfield play. One of my favourite players but he had limitations which you could argue stopped him reaching the levels of recognition that some other comparable players received. If he'd had park's lungs he'd have been an incredible player.
I’ve never seen a midfielder as good as Xavi and I’ve never seen anyone control a football match the way he did, during my time watching football (25 years or so).
That’s the thing with Scholes though, he barely had poor games, his bottom level was very high.
Labeling him a decent passer and a decent footballer is an insult.
Some people talk crap when it comes to Scholes. It's not even worth going into
It's easy to talk shite.
Gerrard ran around a lot and dove in a final. Mediocre player who barely won anything of note and couldn't even win his domestic league.
See, it's easy.
This thread is actually a goldmine.
Jamie Redknapp was always a decent player. Problem was he was a sicknote
A better example I think was Darren Anderton. What with all these attacking 'full-backs' and wing-backs knocking about these days. Anderton would be considered as one of the best around today....shame he was a sicknote. Great player. I really wanted him at United back in 1995
I don't know why you mention Steve Stone as they play in different positions plus its not about Steve Stone making it once, its about how little recognition from his peers, Scholes received when actually playing. For example, Keane and Vieira were elected 5 and 6 times by the PFA (which comprises of their footballing "peers") to Scholes 2. The PFA awards are for "people who have contributed a lot to the game – every year" note that Beckham made it 4 seasons in a row. Don't even get me started on the individual accolades both continental and domestically which doesn't quite equate to his peers recognition of him being the supreme midfielder of his era, whilst he was actually playing. perhaps they just don't like him.
I didn't even mention Rivaldo goal as I care little for how good he is defensively.
Neither Keane nor Vieira scored 50 goals a season....
In Scholes defence this is a gross under representation. He was a quality little player with a quality pass and shot.
People who claim Scholes to be best midfielder the premier league has seen like to dismiss PFA and other individual awards as meaningless but they reflect the opinion of players, journalists and fans at that time.
If a Liverpool fan turned around and said Liverpool are the best club of the premier league era we would think it was crazy and point to the number of trophies we won in comparison to them. So when comparing the merits of individual players why not use the number of individual awards they won?
Scholes clearly won more team trophies as a player than Gerrard because Man Utd were the better side. Gerrard won more individual awards than Scholes because he was the better player. They played same league, same era, its easy to make comparisons.
Making comparisons with Xavi could be less straightforward as they player in different league but it's made easier when you consider the simple fact that Xavi was a far superior player to Scholes.
As a United fan I'm supposed to blindly believe our players are the greatest, I don't see the point.
Here's another 1 for you KDB is better than Lingard.
Stating the truth and being unbiased isn't that difficult.
If a Liverpool fan turned around and said Liverpool are the best club of the premier league era we would think it was crazy and point to the number of trophies we won in comparison to them. So when comparing the merits of individual players why not use the number of individual awards they won?
Scholes clearly won more team trophies as a player than Gerrard because Man Utd were the better side. Gerrard won more individual awards than Scholes because he was the better player. They played same league, same era, its easy to make comparisons.
Making comparisons with Xavi could be less straightforward as they player in different league but it's made easier when you consider the simple fact that Xavi was a far superior player to Scholes.
As a United fan I'm supposed to blindly believe our players are the greatest, I don't see the point.
Here's another 1 for you KDB is better than Lingard.
Stating the truth and being unbiased isn't that difficult.
Last edited by a moderator:
He dint have to defend much because most of the time he won the ball and was in control with his proactive reading of the game without even having to make a tackle, his positioning and anticipation made it look so easy on the eye. Sometimes he did miss winning the ball in proactive press and he would just commit a professional foul to break up the opposition counter.
My point is he'd have been considered more than just a 'decent' player.
Cant agree with that. As i said Scholes was Xavi with a bigger range of passing and far better ball striking. Everything else looks very similar. We're hardly comparing him to Gascoigne who could and would do a whole lot more.
Jesus wept. Scholars was not Xavi. This is exactly what I mean. What ever team has Xavi, will automatically win the midfield. Even top sides merely surrender possession when faced with Xavi. I have never seen top sides play everyone behind the ball and just concede the ball when facing Scholes. Xavi vision was considerably better and he was better at keeping the ball under pressure. Xavi had the better weight of pass and accuracy. Scholes had the better long pass but then so did Fabregas. Scholes passing is closer to Cesc than Xavi. If I had an option of one in my team, there would be zero hesitation that Xavi would be my pick as I know we would control the midfield, no matter the opposition.
What makes you say Xavi had better vision? Scholes would regularly find players and build up attacks. What makes you say he had a better weight of pass? Scholes rarely, if ever, misplaced a pass and long range passing is much more difficult, which even you acknowledge was better. I think you are judging Xavi based on teams he played for and their style i.e.\ Barcelona & Spain and possession based football. If Xavi played in our midfield instead of Scholes, we wouldn't have dominated games in the same way that Barcelona and Spain did. You make a claim that Xavi would control any midfield regardless of the opposition. Xavi was lucky to have never played against Keane who would have knocked him the feck out. Keane dominated a match in midfield against Zidane, Deschamps and Edgar fecking Davids.
I get that Xavi was a great player, and yes, there is an argument to be made he was better than Scholes, but its wrong to suggest he is some magical man who could do anything regardless.
He’s looking better with each passing week...What wouldn’t we give to have a bloke like him pulling the strings in our current midfield?
Maybe because they're completely different things?
The league is competed for by every team... same number of players on the pitch, same ref, same rules, same number of games, same opposition (home and away), same timescale and goals win games (which win leagues). It's literally a level playing field.
Individual awards (especially PFA awards) are determined by an individual's vote without any justification of why they chose to vote how they did. The B2B midfielders attracted the votes too (understandably in one sense, not saying they were rubbish.... bar one) such as Keane, Gerrard, Vieira, Petit, Platt, Townsend, Speed......... Hodge.
And Gerrard wasn't a better player than Scholes la.
Different positions.
SAF did though, hence why played/picked so many times in various teams. Fact.
Fact is, Xavi and Paul Scholes are being compared to each other like Messi and Ronaldo. One may be elevated higher than the other, but Xavi and Scholes were pure, pure world class and professional players.
Then you have people talking about Scholes and Pirlo. Where's the conversations about Lampard or Gerrard with Xavi and Pirlo?
They are different types of players, but to question just how good Scholes (was) is wrong. The correct question is, how world class was Paul Scholes...somewhere there you'll find an answer. That was his level.
Then you have people talking about Scholes and Pirlo. Where's the conversations about Lampard or Gerrard with Xavi and Pirlo?
They are different types of players, but to question just how good Scholes (was) is wrong. The correct question is, how world class was Paul Scholes...somewhere there you'll find an answer. That was his level.
Nonsense. What a load of toss.
Gerrard better than Scholes?? I'm sorry but only someone who observes the game on a superficial level will say that. Club allegiances have nothing to do with it. It's like saying Pogba is better than Kroos. Absolute nonsense.
All I can say is that Scholes was one of the greatest midfielders of his generation. He had an incredible ability consistently to score from close and long range, create scoring chances, link it all together in the middle third and, most importantly, consistently turn in stellar performances in leading his club to multiple major trophies. But Scholes was weak in his defensive game, no question about it.
Zidane was the greater midfielder, but after Zidane I'm struggling to find a single midfielder of his generation was consistently better than Scholes. Several as good, but none better.
Zidane was the greater midfielder, but after Zidane I'm struggling to find a single midfielder of his generation was consistently better than Scholes. Several as good, but none better.
On Xavi v Scholes. Xavi was better at finding a creative, penetrative pass from deep along the ground into a forwards feet, with Scholes focusing more on hitting the wings/full backs, opening the game up, or the longer ball over the top when looking to create directly. Scholes preferred technique(on mid to long range) was the drive, while Xavi favoured the inside of the boot, giving less power but more disguise.
This is such an excellent point. Modric was praised, overly in my opinion, during and after the World Cup. And there is no way in my opinion that Modric is a better player than Scholes. However the ability of a player to subtly control a game from midfield is now hyped to hell so even if the team loses they still get praised.
I was actually thinking that during the SemiFinal against Croatia. Scholes would have rocked it in that team. We had no midfield to speak of and relied entirely on the defense to build play and find our fast wide men. We had the better first half and only in the second did Croatia smother us and use the Modric-Rakitic pivot to switch play and control the game. With Scholes in that team we would have won the game and played in the final, losing but competitively. My point is Scholes would be getting player of the tournament and not Modric.
He was not the perfect player but during his career he didn't play for perfect teams tactically. With the right set up Scholes would have been levels above Modric and easily on par with Xavi. This talk of Gerrard and Lampard misses the point imo.
Having watched them both play throughout their entire careers.
We would most certainly have dominated games better with Xavi.
See the post below.
Except one was recognised as the best midfielder of his time and the other never was in his own country, not even his own team.
Funny you mentioned Zidane who was a better player but wasn't as consistent. In most seasons there were midfielders who performed consistently better than Scholes and some were in his team. Keano and Becks were just a few. What were Scholes' stand out seasons? what were his great European or international tournament campaigns? seems he was the best because he was better than the EPL midfielders
Also Scholes didn't lead us. He played a supporting role to big hitters like Beckham and Keane
I can recall Modric being the outstanding midfielder at the highest level compared to other top level midfielders. I don't remember one CL or International campaign where I thought "gosh Scholes is the best midfielder in this whole damnthing". In fact it was rare to think that in any one EPL campaign.