And then by the same logic a world cup, 2 European championships and 4 champions Leagues make Xavi better than Scholes?
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.
And then by the same logic a world cup, 2 European championships and 4 champions Leagues make Xavi better than Scholes?
In a counter attacking team, Scholes is better then Xavi and probably Pirlo, as he added a goal threat in the box
Xavi is the better for the Tiki Taka , give and go style
Xavi is the better for the Tiki Taka , give and go style
You're avoiding my question. Do you think Gerrard was better than Scholes, or do you disagree with all the professionals who repeatedly voted for Gerrard ahead of Scholes? It's a fairly simple question.
Why don't you answer it yourself rather than deciding based on the opinions of others
Sounds like you're a child who contributes nothing.
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?
With that kind of insight can see why you're getting torn apart in this thread.
Anyway. Do carry on.
I totally disagree, simply because when you compare both players in the same roles, they have the same type of output. Scholes stats are inflated by his initial more attacking role.
This seems to be a xavi vs scholes thread. I think xavi was better as a controlling midfielder. Scholes was way better as a goal threat though, in fact, comfortably better! Xavi wasn't a good finisher.
Scholes was great, one of the best midfielders I've seen.
Xavi is the best midfielder I've seen.
Xavi is the best midfielder I've seen.
Again, avoiding the question. It's an either/or: Either you think Gerrard was better or you think the professionals who repeatedly picked him ahead of Scholes are wrong. Which is it?
This is your own argument you're failing to answer, not ours.
Bit narrowminded. Can you not objectively consider Scholes? I.e. if he was in the same team as Xavi who would perform better?
Well if you are going by stats, Xavi did play in the most dominant team in the world, club and country for most of his career and with the probably the best player ever.
Nobody is asking for Henry's opinion. They are asking for yours.
Again, if the consensus amongst all players and managers was that he was the best, I don't understand why they reserved that for interviews instead of voting him as such.
Hahaha. Such a child.
O'Shea was more versatile than Scholes, therefore Sheasy > Scholesy.
Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Keane, Vieira are all often argued as the best PL midfielder.
In my personal opinion, Fabregas at his Arsenal best was a better player than Scholes ever was.
In my personal opinion, Fabregas at his Arsenal best was a better player than Scholes ever was.
And one of the main reasons they were dominant was Xavi. If the best player ever had Xavi as a team mate for Argentina then he probably would have won a World Cup too.
You asked it and then formed an assumed answer. You're a tedious troll.
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.
That's not stats, Xavi has played deeper and still scored a fair amount of goals, he has always been a goal threat. Scholes is also a goal threat but from deep he wasn't as much a goal threat as Xavi. Personally I struggle to separate them, it's greedy but I would just play them together.
You'd do well to stop looking down your nose at people who don't hold the same opinions as you.
You just make yourself come across rather silly.
He could tackle when he wanted to. To be honest, he was just a dirty little fecker. He liked a good kick. His technical ability spared him criticism.
The same Barcelona team is stacked with even more talent now, yet they're nobody puts them up with the greatest teams of all time. They've been knocked out at the QFs for the last 2 seasons, and even in their last treble they weren't as dominant as the 11 team.
You'll be told that awards are popularity contests and they mean feck all and that the endless lists of quotes mean more
I'm with you on this. I absolutely adore Scholes but its somewhat upsetting to see fans overrate a player that really doesn't need to be.
There's no shame in saying Xavi was clearly better but many just want to rewrite history for the sake of it.
He had sporadic moments of greatness on the biggest stages whereas players like Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta and Pirlo to a lesser extent regularly performed exceptionally on the highest levels in club and international football.
Men lie but numbers don't. Their accolades in comparison to Scholesy's tells you all you need to know.
That user created that list after watching each and every United goal in the Premier League era. It's far more credible than anything else on the internet, literally.
You'll be told that awards are popularity contests and they mean feck all and that the endless lists of quotes mean more
I'm with you on this. I absolutely adore Scholes but its somewhat upsetting to see fans overrate a player that really doesn't need to be.
There's no shame in saying Xavi was clearly better but many just want to rewrite history for the sake of it.
He had sporadic moments of greatness on the biggest stages whereas players like Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta and Pirlo to a lesser extent regularly performed exceptionally on the highest levels in club and international football.
Men lie but numbers don't. Their accolades in comparison to Scholesy's tells you all you need to know.
Yes the insecurity is incredible. Some of these people would be those horrific parents, who constantly get offended at the thought of other children being more able than their precious little son or daughter.
This is nonsense. you are comparing a player like Messi to players likes Valencia. And Argentina got to the final of the world cup and were beaten after 120 minutes. You are saying if they had Xavi would have won... but not Scholes? stuff like this is ridiculous reaching.
Out of the great United midfield of Giggs, Scholes, Keane and Beckham he has been the hardest to replace. We've still not replaced him properly.
Aye but Scholes's best goalscoring period came when he wasn't a controlling midfielder, so it's a bit unfair to hold that against Xavi. It's not like Scholes was dictating the game and scoring 20 goals a season.
Example (according to wikipedia): Xavi got 14 goals in the 11/12 season. The only two seasons Scholes scored more than that were 02/03 and 03/04. From 06/07 on (when he was more comparable to Xavi in style) Scholes was scored roughly 3.5 goals a season, compared to Xavi's 7 goals per season in his final seven years at Barca, albeit with more appearances in that time.
Eh? Pirlo's greatest period of his career came as a deep lying playmaker in one of the greatest counter attacking sides of all time in AC Milan. His PRECISE role was to launch counters the entire game with the likes of Kaka and Shevchenko breaking with menacing pace, and he dominated Europe for a good few years doing that. Talking strictly about long range passing, accuracy and releasing it quickly - Pirlo was superior to Scholes.
Looks like old Goaty has been given a time out
So on one hand you have Scholes a leading player that won 11 league titles,3 Fa cups and 2 Champions league titles. He´s held in high regard by fellow players and managers of the highest standards even though you do not want to see that. Gerrard won 2 fa cups and 1 cl title and must regret his choice of not going to Chelsea when he had the chance. So you think because Gerrad won the PFA it makes him a greater player? For me it´s the titles and opinon of those I´ve stated that matter. So by your logic perhaps read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...never-to-have-won-pfa-player-of-the-year-awa/ where you see players like Robson,Hoddle,Zola,Adams,Schmeicel,Wright,Beardsley,Hansen,Aguero that never won the PFA. Are they all examples of overrated players?
You are looking pass thing like adapting his game to midfield. Attacking freedoms for playing for Barcelona most dominant period in their history to United transitional periods. Xavi has Messi, Scholes briefly had Ronaldo
You missed the point about being a in box goal threat as a reason for being better at counter attacking
You've literally confessed your selective bias in that post. Well done, I admire your honesty.
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.
Narrowminded to say Xavi was better because United were worse in Europe. This is about individuals not the collective performance of the teams they were playing in. Don't be such a flippant twat.It's narrowminded to put forward an excuse for Scholes?
Aye, over a season or a long period a player like Scholes is priceless as he constantly keeps you ticking, especially in league games. However against top quality opposition, Keane makes the difference.