Xavi was comfortably ahead of Scholes, though Xavi was comfortably ahead of most.
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.
But Beckham, Keane, Giggs, Scholes, Cole, Yorke and Sheringham all had the exact same idea. They played football their way; which was more about high intensity, natural wide play and the quality of delivery to the strikers.
There's more than one way to play football.
Completely disagree about long range passing. Scholes really hit them low and hard with astounding accuracy, which meant that players ran into the cross instead of waiting for it, which subsequently made it much more difficult to defend against. Xavi's long range passing was much more floated across the pitch with less power and more height.
Scholes played 682 games for United - 552 as a starter
Xavi played 428 games for Barcelona - 364 as a starter
Scholes scored 143 goals for United. 0,26 goals per started game
Xavi scored 52 goals for Barcelona. 0,14 per started game
Where do you get your stats from?
Scholes had 151 yellow cards
Xavi had 30
Source: Statbunker
Tangible evidence according to passes? Just watch them. Xavi was a better short range passer, but Scholes' long range passing was really something else. He drilled them lower with much more speed and at least as good precision. That makes it much harder for defenders to position themselves across and defend. Rooney was hailed as having as good long range passing as Scholes by some, which was utter rubbish as his passes were far too lofty and slow. Xavi was similar in that respect. It makes perfect sense that Scholes would be better at this seeing as Barcelona didn't play a game that suited long range passing as well.
Perhaps the best evidence of how good Scholes was is that he is in fact compared with the likes of Xavi.
A very good midfielder, one of the greatest midfielders of the last two decades.
Saying that, I would have put him slightly below Pirlo and Iniesta, and comfortably below Xavi. I don't think that is controversial to say anywhere bar in a United forum. Xavi is by far the best central midfielder I have seen, and his highest level was genuinely crazy. Like Ronaldo and Messi for attackers.
Saying that, I would have put him slightly below Pirlo and Iniesta, and comfortably below Xavi. I don't think that is controversial to say anywhere bar in a United forum. Xavi is by far the best central midfielder I have seen, and his highest level was genuinely crazy. Like Ronaldo and Messi for attackers.
Scholes has double the goals of Xavi. In less games.
You call it a joke on here how people overrate Xavi but then come up with a comment which is, frankly, a joke.
2nd best midfielder of his generation? Sure. But of all time?
only if your football knowledge has a cut off point if 1990.Pretty sure Xavi played more than 700 games for Barcelona and more than 500 in La Liga alone.
The comparisons with Xavi is what my lecturer would call 'pub talk'.
There's so many factors as to why it's so hard to compare these two players, as there often is with other players. Different formations, leagues, positions, tactics, etc. This is why it's not always a given that top players in different leagues are a success, and vice versa - I suppose.
What I can say is that, Scholes and Xavi were amongst the best of their generation.
Scholes obviously changed his game - and for the good I'd say, in his late 20's.
Mostly playing in a two man midfield, he had the ability to dictate the tempo of games, score goals, stretch teams with his long range passing and get up and down the pitch.
Superb player. Someone we could do with, because at the moment, we haven't got a player in our midfield that control the tempo of the game. Pogba has done, but because he's asked to play the furthest forward out of the three, we could do with someone to control the game from deeper, meaning Pogba doesn't always have to drop so deep. Players like Modric, Kroos, Verratti, Thiago would be perfect, in my opinion.
There's so many factors as to why it's so hard to compare these two players, as there often is with other players. Different formations, leagues, positions, tactics, etc. This is why it's not always a given that top players in different leagues are a success, and vice versa - I suppose.
What I can say is that, Scholes and Xavi were amongst the best of their generation.
Scholes obviously changed his game - and for the good I'd say, in his late 20's.
Mostly playing in a two man midfield, he had the ability to dictate the tempo of games, score goals, stretch teams with his long range passing and get up and down the pitch.
Superb player. Someone we could do with, because at the moment, we haven't got a player in our midfield that control the tempo of the game. Pogba has done, but because he's asked to play the furthest forward out of the three, we could do with someone to control the game from deeper, meaning Pogba doesn't always have to drop so deep. Players like Modric, Kroos, Verratti, Thiago would be perfect, in my opinion.
Exactly. I've never seen a player control a game while also ripping teams apart in the way Xavi did at his best. I think he got 30+ assists in the 08/09 season? Given the sort of midfileder he was, that's amazing. Scholes never got near Xavi's peak level.
Completely disagree about long range passing. Scholes really hit them low and hard with astounding accuracy, which meant that players ran into the cross instead of waiting for it, which subsequently made it much more difficult to defend against. Xavi's long range passing was much more floated across the pitch with less power and more height.
Scholes played 682 games for United - 552 as a starter
Xavi played 428 games for Barcelona - 364 as a starter
Scholes scored 143 goals for United. 0,26 goals per started game
Xavi scored 52 goals for Barcelona. 0,14 per started game
Where do you get your stats from?
Scholes had 151 yellow cards
Xavi had 30
Source: Statbunker
A mixture; transfermarkt, ESPN, Soccerbase, etc.
I'm including their entire careers, which also includes internationals.
It's 114 to 169. And like I said, Scholes was a second striker for a number of years.
Yep, I mean Scholes was great, but isn't even close. It is like claiming that Rooney was better than Messi.
Read what all those players had to say about Scholes, to be frank I think they are better judges of him than anyone else https://redflagflyinghigh.com/2011/...he-worlds-top-players-on-the-ginger-prince/2/
Thanks for accepting it quickly.
He was brilliant, although he was no Roy Keane, Keane was something else.
By the same logic, we can argue then that Gerrard was a way better player than Scholes. Gerrard got 8 times in PFA team of the year, while Scholes only 2. Players voted for them, players that played every week against them.
You'll find a lot of players saying similar things about someone like Gerrard too, who few here would rate as highly as Scholes. These quotes that get trotted out in every Scholes thread have gone beyond parody at this point, largely because every fan who wants to believe that Scholes was the greatest midfielder of his generation falls back on them immediately.
When a journalist (particularly a British one) asks a footballer "what do you think of Scholes/Gerrard/whoever?", it's hardly a surprise that the answer they receieve is positive.
So despite Scholes being the playmaker for most of our golden period and praised by leading players and managers, you know better?
Nah, I've heard/read it all over the years. I don't attach too much value to it. These are gentlemen of the game paying compliments to fellow pros.
If you compiled, for example, every quote people in the game have said of Marcus Rashford, what do you imagine he would sound like?
Having grown up in England for 31 years, I prefer to trust the opinion of the land. He was a top player, undenied, but not convinced he was the best ever or anything. The same players who made those quotes have probably said similar about different players too.
It´s funny when guys think they know better than the leading players and managers, did you not notice he was the midfield playmaker for us when we were winning titles left,right and center?
Do you think Scholes is the only player praised by players and managers? The fact is, if the entire world thought he was the best, why wasn't he voted the best by his fellow pros at the awards?
Trust the opinion of the land? Are you drunk? Is that a offical opinion of the land?
A) He wasn't really our leading playmaker for a large chunk of his career, when he was actually an attacking midfielder. Certainly not to the same extent he was in his later years, when he really started to dictate games.
B) Zinedine Zidane (one of the professionals I'm sure features on your list of quotes) once said he thought Gerrard might be the world's greatest player, ahead of Messi and Ronaldo. Scholes and Gerrard's fellow professionals also repeatedly voted for Gerrard ahead of Scholes in the team of the year lists. So by your logic, I'm guessing you think Gerrard is better than Scholes?
Maybe this makes him a little bit better than for example Gerrard?
- Premier League (11): 1995–96, 1996–97, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2010–11, 2012–13[125]
- FA Cup (3): 1995–96, 1998–99, 2003–04[125]
- Football League Cup (2): 2008–09, 2009–10[125]
- FA Community Shield (5): 1996, 1997, 2003, 2008, 2010[125]
- UEFA Champions League (2):1998–99, 2007–08[125]
- Intercontinental Cup (1): 1999[125]
- FIFA Club World Cup (1): 2008[1
So by your logic Scholes cannot be a truly great player because Zidane said Gerrard was a great player????
Of course Scholes was always our leading playmaker, he made the side tick. did you think Butt or Keane were playmakers?
Scholes wasn't a second striker since his youth/reserve team games.... just because he made runs behind the forwards (and ended up in similar positions as a second striker might occupy) doesn't make him a second striker. He was a midfielder.
Scholes more versatile then?
No. I'm not the one putting so much weight in what random footballers say. Their quotes are totally irrelevant to my argument.
Back to my question: you said it's funny when people think they know better than the leading professionals, the leading professionals repeatedly picked Gerrard ahead of Scholes. Do you think Gerrard was better than Scholes, or do you think you know better than the leading professionals? You can't have it both ways.
Am I drunk?
Your defence has been ridiculous. Google Xavi on Scholes, then google Xavi on Gerrard and other top players. Quotes are all similar. And it's not an official opinion.
But the fact is, Scholes is not unanimously thought of as the best PL midfielder ever. So people have to instantly refer to those from outside England to validate this view. Those that played here and watched him every week for years don't regard him that way. Some may feel he was the best, but you will find at least as many people who think Lampard, Gerrard, Vieira, Keane etc were better. And the funny thing is, if you asked any of these players and managers you are referencing about those players I have just mentioned, I doubt the answer would be 'he was great, but no Scholes'. They have already said similar things about those players anyway.
Why don't you tell me?
Are you crazy?
Keane controlled our game more than Scholes did in the first half of his career. If that's what you mean by being a playmaker....
Laughable. Genuinely.
He was neer our best player, or most important player.
As I said, if you go by players choices, they put Gerrard 8 times in team of the year, and Scholes only twice. Do you know better than them?
Random footballers, Zidane,Xavi,Lippi and so on. Yeah you must know better than those random players.
And for the record, Scholes was truly fantastic, just that he wasn't in isolation with that.
Exactly.