How good was Paul Scholes?

Rozay said:
But apparently, the view of all of those people was that's Scholes was the best.

I'd agree with you about how great he was though. Not the best United player I've seen though, that would be Ronaldo for me.

I actually prefer him to Gerrard and Lampard, but I do think Fabregas was better than him in his Arsenal days.
Click to expand...
Ronaldo had three good years at United. Not comparable to what Scholes did. Unlike Giggs who I'm not sure had as high a peak, Scholes both had immaculate consistency and the kind of peak that leaves him as a gold standard for his position.

No of course not all of those people believe scholes was the best. When the discussion involves other great players like Lampard or Gerrard there will be differing views. But IMO Scholes was a class apart. He was more in Pirlo and Xavi's tier (Xavi being the best) than Gerrard, Fabregas and Lampard's tier.
 
Rozay said:
No, not with his view 'if it even was his actual view' that Scholes was the best midfielder of his generation. I don't agree with loads of things he did, coming to think of it.

What about the many footballing greats who probably believe Xavi was the best. Don't you agree with them?
Click to expand...
You say "No, not with his view 'if it even was his actual view' that Scholes was the best midfielder of his generation." This is straight from Fergie´s book and he was not known the be afraid to tell things like they were, but you guy´s probably know better than Fergie did, he was just his manager during a golden period for our club.
 
Balu said:
Always? He played 3 tournaments in central roles before Lampard and Gerrard really came into the picture. Scholes was played out of position to accomodate Lampard and Gerrard for a handful of games and with it England looked stronger than in previous tournaments at the Euro 2004 until Rooney got injured. Then Scholes quit without fighting for a place in his best position.
Click to expand...

I believe he quit because he wanted to spend more time with family. But the rest of your post is correct and dispels a myth that has grown legs.
 
magic player with so much vision he knew what he was going to do before the ball got to him. i could always see a touch of eric in his technique and i guess all the younger players at the time benefited from the king.
a lot of handbags out in this thread :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Context is so important when it comes to the international football thing. England have been a right mess for a long time. Xavi did play in a time when everything came together for spain. Imagine Scholes in the German team of this era?

I'd still have xavi as number 1 simply on the weight of overall performances of course. Just that I wouldn't hold lack of international achievements against Scholes that much.
 
Infordin said:
How important was Scholes to the 1999 treble winning team? Would you guys say he was more, less or equally important compared to Keane/Giggs/Beckham?
Click to expand...

Less, him and Butt tended to rotate, he was just getting started really at that point
He still scored some important goals and personally i always cringed a bit seeing Butt starting

EDIT: Isco for the current madrid side might be a good comparison
 
Bojan11 said:
No stuff likes yours is ridiculous reading and stupid reasoning.

Xavi was always the best player in a big game. If it was for Spain or Barca then Xavi would produce 10/10. I can't recall Scholes producing 10/10 in big games. I can recall Keane doing it. It was Keane who used to boss the games against Arsenal in the 90s. I have never even seen Scholes produce a performance like Keane did vs Juventus let alone any of the performances Xavi has made in finals.
Click to expand...

:lol:
You said Argentina would have probably won the world cup, even when they managed to get to the final and were only beaten after 120 minutes and had chances to win. But yeah, would Xavi have been the key, what about Éder? clown.
 
starman said:
:lol:
You said Argentina would have probably won the world cup, even when they managed to get to the final and were only beaten after 120 minutes and had chances to win. But yeah, would Xavi have been the key, what about Éder? clown.
Click to expand...

They got to the final. Did they win? Clown
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Context is so important when it comes to the international football thing. England have been a right mess for a long time. Xavi did play in a time when everything came together for spain. Imagine Scholes in the German team of this era?

I'd still have xavi as number 1 simply on the weight of overall performances of course. Just that I wouldn't hold lack of international achievements against Scholes that much.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Xavi, he was a huge reason why everything came together for Spain. He helped working out the tension between Real and Barca players together with Casillas and brought everyone together even when the rivalry between the two clubs was huge. He lead the team as their best player to their first tournament win in decades in 2008 and gave them the platform to excel. Obviously it was a golden generation, but he was the right type of leader for that generation, the character Spain needed after decades of disappointing tournament after disappointing tournament. Spain was a similar failure as England with often great players, who didn't show their peak in international football. They had often really talented but disrupted teams, were often one of the favourites but failed. It changed once Xavi became the focal point of the team. I don't think Scholes would have ever been that type of character. And at least in my book, that's a damn important part of a player's legacy.
 
Balu said:
To be fair to Xavi, he was a huge reason why everything came together for Spain. He helped working out the tension between Real and Barca players together with Casillas and brought everyone together even when the rivalry between the two clubs was huge. He lead the team as their best player to their first tournament win in decades in 2008 and gave them the platform to excel. Obviously it was a golden generation, but he was the right type of leader for that generation, the character Spain needed after decades of disappointing tournament after disappointing tournament. Spain was a similar failure as England with often great players, who didn't show their peak in international football. They had often really talented but disrupted teams, were often one of the favourites but failed. It changed once Xavi became the focal point of the team. I don't think Scholes would have ever been that type of character. And at least in my book, that's a damn important part of a player's legacy.
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit much to claim that Xavi brought that much of it together. Individuals never have that much of a relevance. England too will finally get out of this mire of under performing and being disjointed when a new generation comes along and it won't be one player making that happen. It'll be many and their relationship and their manager and simply, time.

It also coincided with a lot of Barcelona players excelling together at one club which further helped. Basically it was a lot of factors and a work in progress, as it has been for germany. It's not like Schweinstieger o whoever just raised themselves and the team came together. It's years of work and the cohesion of players and managers that just .. works.
 
Scholes was better than Xavi. There is no question about it. I can't believe I have to post this on a Utd forum.
Xavi played in excellent teams that controlled possession completely. Scholes had everything in his game - Xavi was a level below in every aspect to Scholes. Shooting, Long Passing, Heading, Movement etc.

Fabregas over Scholes? Dear God.
 
I'd say he was up there with Gazza as being one of the best midfielders of all time.

Gazza could tip it or atleast would of done if he was able to control his demons. I give it to scholes because I take into account what he helped United achieve
 
snk123 said:
Scholes was better than Xavi. There is no question about it. I can't believe I have to post this on a Utd forum.
Xavi played in excellent teams that controlled possession completely. Scholes had everything in his game - Xavi was a level below in every aspect to Scholes. Shooting, Long Passing, Heading, Movement etc.

Fabregas over Scholes? Dear God.
Click to expand...
Lay off whatever you're on mate.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
It also coincided with a lot of Barcelona players excelling together at one club which further helped. Basically it was a lot of factors and a work in progress, as it has been for germany. It's not like Schweinstieger o whoever just raised themselves and the team came together. It's years of work and the cohesion of players and managers that just .. works.
Click to expand...
Don't think you can compare Spain and Germany in that regard. It certainly was a big problem for Spain and the Euro winning team wasn't really dominated by the golden Barca generation either. It was basically just Xavi, Iniesta and Puyol who came from Barca and to a smaller degree Fabregas. And they were all already part of the Spain side at the World Cup in 2006 when they again were one of the favourites but crashed out against the first quality team they faced.
 
Stack said:
Every single Scholes thread degenerates into a Scholes v Xavi slog.
Click to expand...

Blame the OP tbh. Plus I hardly think it's a negative thing, it's a credit to Scholes that he's being mentioned in the same breath as arguably the best and accomplished CM ever. I think he loses the case against Xavi, but there are very obvious similarities in their styles.
 
What I found with Scholes was that aside from Liverpool/Chelsea fans (for Gerrard/Lampard comparisons), he was very popular with the neutrals. He was continually put forward as their favourite midfielder. Primarily for his no-nonsense style and a seemingly humble persona - matched with being an excellent player.
 
Paul Scholes wouldn't get through our academy these days, so regardless of who was better or not, our system is fecked and we wont be seeing another one soon
 
Skills said:
Blame the OP tbh. Plus I hardly think it's a negative thing, it's a credit to Scholes that he's being mentioned in the same breath as arguably the best and accomplished CM ever. I think he loses the case against Xavi, but there are very obvious similarities in their styles.
Click to expand...
Its so predictable and insanely boring. People are incapable of discussing how good Scholes was without the mind numbingly unimaginative drudgery of the infinitely repeated Xavi fights. It devolves into my dick is bigger because I think this player had a higher level blah blah blah rather than a discussion or celebration of a players abilities or influences.
 
Stack said:
Its so predictable and insanely boring. People are incapable of discussing how good Scholes was without the mind numbingly unimaginative drudgery of the infinitely repeated Xavi fights. It devolves into my dick is bigger because I think this player had a higher level blah blah blah rather than a discussion or celebration of a players abilities or influences.
Click to expand...

Gerrard and Lampard will be brought up as well.
 
Come on guys behave, you might think Xavi is much better but don't sh1t on scholesy and say players like fabregas are better than him.

Can see the argument why xavi is better, but scholes isn't that far behind.
 
I question your sanity if you actually think Scholes was near Xavi (08-12). There is no discussion to be had, this is embarrassing :lol:
 
Balu said:
To be fair to Xavi, he was a huge reason why everything came together for Spain. He helped working out the tension between Real and Barca players together with Casillas and brought everyone together even when the rivalry between the two clubs was huge. He lead the team as their best player to their first tournament win in decades in 2008 and gave them the platform to excel. Obviously it was a golden generation, but he was the right type of leader for that generation, the character Spain needed after decades of disappointing tournament after disappointing tournament. Spain was a similar failure as England with often great players, who didn't show their peak in international football. They had often really talented but disrupted teams, were often one of the favourites but failed. It changed once Xavi became the focal point of the team. I don't think Scholes would have ever been that type of character. And at least in my book, that's a damn important part of a player's legacy.
Click to expand...

Which Real Madrid players? Majority of Spain's NT's XI were players from Barca, especially those who were really important part of their team. Only Xabi Alonso was Madrid's player that was part of that core and he was never really some tough character who needed Xavi's help to cooperate with others. Ramos was far from great anyway, and probably one of the weakest links of that back four, and he actually had some arguments with Pique even on the pitch back then. And you only have Casillas left from their best XI as Real Madrid player and we know that he had problems even in his club for being friends with Catalans.

Btw, while you are mentioning character and leadership, do you think Xavi was able to do both on the pitch and off pitch what Scholes did when he came back from the retirement?

Just to be clear, I think Xavi will be remembered as better player, and rightfully so, but I don't think Scholes would be remembered as any worse than him if he was playing for same teams, and that if you put him in any team that Xavi was playing for that he wouldn't make it worse, and vice versa.
 
snk123 said:
Scholes was better than Xavi. There is no question about it. I can't believe I have to post this on a Utd forum.
Xavi played in excellent teams that controlled possession completely. Scholes had everything in his game - Xavi was a level below in every aspect to Scholes. Shooting, Long Passing, Heading, Movement etc.

Fabregas over Scholes? Dear God.
Click to expand...

It's an amazing coincidence that all of these teams Xavi played in completely dominated and bossed possession. Then when he retired those teams stopped doing just that.
 
To even think about comparing Scholesy to any other midfielder is a crime against football.
 
I'm old enough to have watched Scholes, through the years.
He was fantastic.
He was terrible at tackling, but when it came to attacking, he could open up defences like a hot knife through butter.
He had terrific shot power, which meant that saving his shots was not an easy task.
Several MUFC players were asked, who the best player (team-mate) was in training. Almost unanimously, all players say, "Scholes".
 
johanovic said:
In my mind Gerrard was a great player but see what Henry said about Scholes http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/thierry-henry-names-paul-scholes-6722152. Do all those former players playing for other teams not know their stuff?
Click to expand...
Didn't Henry said once that Gerrard was the best player in the league, during the time Ronaldo was at United?

TheReligion said:
Why don't you answer it yourself rather than deciding based on the opinions of others
Click to expand...
I have. I don't think that Scholes was anywhere near Xavi's quality.

I mentioned the PFA award to the poster who was making his judgement on Scholes based on what other players said. If we judge by authority (in this case other players), than Gerrard dwarfs Scholes.

For what is worth, I think that players are very bad at judging other players. Biased, looking at players that play similar style, don't even watch that much football, etc. Pique has been saying for years than John Stones is the best CB in England.

Judging by authority, I think that the good journos are better than players. They at least watch football every day and are payed to do so.
 
It's a shame a lot of this thread has boiled into Scholes vs Xavi, but ultimately that itself is the answer to the question. The very fact we are saying Scholes vs Xavi and not Scholes vs Fellaini says it all.

Great player. Better than great even. And whether you think Xavi or Scholes is better, there really ain't much to set them apart.
 
RedSky said:
Scholes was an awesome player. But feck me you didn't want him anywhere near your own penalty box, he really was a bit shit at tackling. In my opinion he was the second best United player during the Ferguson era with only Ronaldo above him.
Click to expand...
If that was the case, why wasn't he never our best and more important player. First was Cantona, then there were Keano, Beckham and the two strikers (in the treble season), then RvN, then Ronaldo, then Rooney, then RVP. All while Scholes was playing for us. In the treble season, it could be argued that he was the least important midfield player we had, and was even benched for big matches in favor of Keane.

He was great. But he is also the most overrated player in the Caf (although Danny Welbeck almost got that award from him).
 
He was our best ever midfielder in the Premier League era and better than Lampard and Gerrard in my opinion but not as good Xavi, Pirlo, Zidane or Iniesta. I don't think theres any debate about that.

Those guys are pioneers of the game. Scholes is no doubt a legend and it's no knock on him whatsoever to say he wasn't as good as those guys.
 
Only those who have seen Scholes at his best, live, know just how good he was. To watch him with a full view of the pitch was a thing of beauty.

Nobody got near him and he made everything look so simple. Like an adult playing balls over the heads of kids.

Even now, when he plays legend matches, he does it all just as well at walking pace with other legends left chasing passes all game.
 
Scholars was 3 steps ahead of everyone on the pitch, not even the players, the managers, fans, and millions watching on tv. He read the game like no other and backed it up with the technical ability no other Englishman has had in the last 20 years.
 
Zii said:
I mean......Xavi was better? There clearly is a question to be had, its not clear cut.
Click to expand...

No it's not and I've seen Xavi - infact followed each Barca game during the 07-09 period. Xavi had great control and vision but lacked a lot of the qualities scholes had. Xavi couldn't lace the ball like Scholes - he couldn't ping the ball 60 yards inch perfect like Scholes. Also, Xavi played in a weaker league. Xavi/Scholes both couldn't tackle. Xavi was a poor header of the ball.

It's clear Scholes was better at pretty much everything.
 
Jaybomb said:
He was our best ever midfielder in the Premier League era and better than Lampard and Gerrard in my opinion but not as good Xavi, Pirlo, Zidane or Iniesta. I don't think theres any debate about that.

Those guys are pioneers of the game. Scholes is no doubt a legend and it's no knock on him whatsoever to say he wasn't as good as those guys.
Click to expand...

People go with fancy names and international stars. Scholes was as good as any as a player and if he was playing in a better international team, you wouldn't say what you said. Zidane was better yes - but even Pirlo is debatable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.