How good was Paul Scholes?

Trigg said:
The fact that he reinvented himself from a second striker to controlling playmaker says a lot about Scholes.

He was magnificent. Best player for United since I began following them, with the exception of Ronaldo and possibly Giggs.

Shit pundit though ;)
Click to expand...
lol.. agreed on the punditry; he was a 'better pundit' when he kept his mouth shut :D
 
2cents said:
Love the man but feel he's a bit overrated on this forum. He was never someone Fergie built the team around (Cantona, Keane, RVN, Ronaldo), Barca semi aside he never truly shone in the CL (often a substitute during the 1999 run and taken off during the 2008 final - his best CL showing might have been against Madrid in 2000 or 2003, can't remember which), never really dominated a top CL team. His peak was 2003 (@Eboue by that time it was a few years since he'd been getting dropped for the likes of Butt and Johnsen) playing off RVN. His move back to the deep-lying role helped cement his legendary status but he only had one truly great season in that position (06/07).

He was, however, an absolute joy to watch, the type of technical footballer that the PL really hasn't seen much of over the years.
Click to expand...

Imo the 06-08 vintage wasn't directly built around him but he was pivotal to our approach and was arguably the key to the exciting and fast tempo football that we played.
 
Just saw an interview with Anders Lindegaard where he talked about, among other things, Scholes. He told the interviewer that Scholes never said anything, like ever, but sometimes he would just destroy someone on the training ground. As in smash him into the ground. No one would say or do anything about it, because everyone knew why he did it and because no one dared to confront him. Usually it was because the victim wasn't fulfilling his duties on the field and therefore needed to be punished:lol:

Scholes sounds awesome, I must say. Probably a dying breed, though. I don't see many of these sort of characters out there anymore.
 
I think the Xavi comparisons are out-of-place, Scholes was a Premier League player his entire life and that shaped him as a footballer. Scholes was probably the better Premier League midfielder, and Xavi was better in La Liga. Overall, you could give it to Xavi since he won more, though Scholes wouldn't have minded Messi making runs in behind in front of him.

Scholes was excellent, and one of the players that is the face of Manchester United.
 
I hate comparing players. Scholes was a fantastic footballer by any standard though and was a joy to watch, his first time passing and movement marked him out as a unique talent. Rarely lost possession even though he was a creative player, that's not easy unless you have great talent.
 
ShakeUnBake said:
I think the Xavi comparisons are out-of-place, Scholes was a Premier League player his entire life and that shaped him as a footballer. Scholes was probably the better Premier League midfielder, and Xavi was better in La Liga. Overall, you could give it to Xavi since he won more, though Scholes wouldn't have minded Messi making runs in behind in front of him.

Scholes was excellent, and one of the players that is the face of Manchester United.
Click to expand...

This is very true as each was ultimately shaped by their environment. In an alternate reality had Scholes moved to Barca and been part of THAT team then he could have been a GOAT really. Scholes probably had too much talent for how we used him sadly but thats down to the differences in football cultures and styles at that time between both countries.
 
Reynoldo said:
This is very true as each was ultimately shaped by their environment. In an alternate reality had Scholes moved to Barca and been part of THAT team then he could have been a GOAT really. Scholes probably had too much talent for how we used him sadly but thats down to the differences in football cultures and styles at that time between both countries.
Click to expand...

Scholes would have had no desire to be the GOAT though. I think we were the perfect club for him, bar the wobble in 2001, he was able to play his game and go home at night with no limelight. He had a safe environment where others could shine and he could do his stuff.
 
As good as a cold bottle of water after playing a football match while it's 30 degrees outside.
 
Tincanalley said:
Best tackler in the league.
Click to expand...

He should have gotten a lot more bookings really but his fouls were usually sensible ones to make.
He had good positioning and worked hard and tracked his runners so was a bit underrated defensively imo.

His tackles were tough and no doubt sore to be on the receiving end of but I think he largely avoided dirty or dangerous tackles.
There was a pretty nasty tackle against Reyes and the the time he kicked out against toure. Considering the number of games he played every season it's not the worst record by any stretch.
So I think the dirty reputation he picked up was probably a bit undeserved too
 
The best I've seen at switching play and getting it wide. Rooney convinced people he was a midfielder by hitting those 6/10 times. Scholes never missed. Amazing player and one of my favourites ever.

With regards to his tackling, I have a weird take on that. I think he could tackle just fine. He just seemed a miserable sod who enjoyed hurting people. I watched the class of 92 documentary and in it he'll speak of winning trophies stone faced with no emotion whatsoever. Get him talking about smashing a ball in the back of Phil's head while he was pissing, he has the biggest smile on his face and talks excitedly like it was his biggest accomplishment in life.
 
Scholes was world class who, alongside Keane, was part of the best central midfield pairing I've seen in English football.

United will never come close to better than that.
 
Yeah I think his tackling was alright, but from time to time he'd put in a horrible one that was just unnecessarily forceful and was usually a foul. And he would occasionally just get it completely wrong and take someone out. He did occasionally just do some weird things on the pitch, like that handball goal that got him sent off :lol: I don't really think his rep for being a dirty/dangerous tackler is unjustified, but it sort of overrides the fact that he also wasn't terribly bad at it like some people say
 
Xavi is what scholes would be if he was Spanish and same for xavi if he was English, there is no comparison in my eyes they are neck and neck.
 
Well he would have had a few games at all of europes biggest sides.

Not an insult on Xavi, but when you have the likes of iniesta, messi, a prime David Villa, a thierry henry , an ibra etc all playing with you and your the teams main playmaker, youre probably gonna get a few more assists then the average midfielder, especially considering the brand of football the barca teams he played in implemented.

Absolutely bizarre to compare their stats. Whats telling is the fact that Barca and United met in what was it, 2/3 finals and a semi (in which scholes scored the winner) in the space of something like 5/6 years? Both at the hearts of their team. Thats pretty telling IMO.
 
Wedge said:
Xavi is what scholes would be if he was Spanish and same for xavi if he was English, there is no comparison in my eyes they are neck and neck.
Click to expand...

I think Scholes was better. Yes I know I am biased and my opinion is unpopular but I can't help it. Schole just had the best passing I have ever seen in my life.
 
shamans said:
I think Scholes was better. Yes I know I am biased and my opinion is unpopular but I can't help it. Schole just had the best passing I have ever seen in my life.
Click to expand...
I love scholes. Him, Giggs and schmeichle my heroes growing up.
 
I think it is quite unfair when people say Scholes would have flourished in the barca system just as much as Xavi. I think you then underestimate the amount of pressure players like Xavi, iniesta and Messi invited on from the opposition during that period, playing in small pockets of space and how they played under out of it. The amount of skill it takes to do that. Scholes never experienced such constant pressure, Manchester played way different with more open space hence the long balls, so its hard to know, but my guess is he wouldn't do it nearly as good as the best that ever did it.

Also in 2008 with a young iniesta and puyol by his side as his only barca teammates, before guardiola, Xavi proved that he was the system. When he became the player of the tournament and became the leader of a team that finally won a throphy for spain.

Scholes was a great player. Surely the best British midfielder who could set the tempo and one of the best over europe in his time. He performed great for united and was great influence, especially as a deep lying midfielder. I do think it is a stain on his legacy he couldn't perform for his nt. Missused or not, he obviously didnt convince the coaches at the time with his performanes to play him in his preferred position. That is on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus
Loved his personality. Hardly talks and hardly takes the limelight. Just wants to play football. Loyal to the club.

Clever footballer. His long range passing is amazing. Splits the defence and turns game with a single pass. Opponents are always on their toes when he plays.

Once in a while, you get a thunderbolt of a goal from him. SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT!

I wince whenever he tackles. Not the best in this department.

Overall, one of the most consistent and talented midfielder United had since the 90s.
 
Never did get to see Sir Bobby play so for me Scholes is probably the best midfielder we've ever had, Keane was on par, I just like Scholes more. Oh! Robson was also fantastic! We are truly a spoiled club when we are discussing if a player like Scholes was good or not.
 
ryadmahrez said:
I think it is quite unfair when people say Scholes would have flourished in the barca system just as much as Xavi. I think you then underestimate the amount of pressure players like Xavi, iniesta and Messi invited on from the opposition during that period, playing in small pockets of space and how they played under out of it. The amount of skill it takes to do that. Scholes never experienced such constant pressure, Manchester played way different with more open space hence the long balls, so its hard to know, but my guess is he wouldn't do it nearly as good as the best that ever did it.

Also in 2008 with a young iniesta and puyol by his side as his only barca teammates, before guardiola, Xavi proved that he was the system. When he became the player of the tournament and became the leader of a team that finally won a throphy for spain.

Scholes was a great player. Surely the best British midfielder who could set the tempo and one of the best over europe in his time. He performed great for united and was great influence, especially as a deep lying midfielder. I do think it is a stain on his legacy he couldn't perform for his nt. Missused or not, he obviously didnt convince the coaches at the time with his performanes to play him in his preferred position. That is on him.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong but the same logic applies vice versa. Xavi in a midfield two playing box to box with opponents thundering up and down the pitch?

Others have eloquently put it above but their surroundings and environments shaped them so it's impossible to compare concretely/fairly.
 
Think of Scholes in ac milan with same attributes he always ever had and imagine if yourl would still be talking about him as you do about xavi? Most of you would say yes. It is because in our mind we have this assumption preset that barca and milan of old were technically playing teams while we were hit on the counter team.

Of course xavi was magical, but at united, he also would be doing the same and would loose the ball more as we never had strikers like messi, eto, zlatan, villa etc. Rooney and tevex were different kind of players. The most technical player we ever had was rudd and look what he did in his limited time with us.

Huge respect to both but i believe xavi had better opportunity to show his attributes than Scholes.
 
2cents said:
Love the man but feel he's a bit overrated on this forum. He was never someone Fergie built the team around (Cantona, Keane, RVN, Ronaldo), Barca semi aside he never truly shone in the CL (often a substitute during the 1999 run and taken off during the 2008 final - his best CL showing might have been against Madrid in 2000 or 2003, can't remember which), never really dominated a top CL team. His peak was 2003 (@Eboue by that time it was a few years since he'd been getting dropped for the likes of Butt and Johnsen) playing off RVN. His move back to the deep-lying role helped cement his legendary status but he only had one truly great season in that position (06/07).

He was, however, an absolute joy to watch, the type of technical footballer that the PL really hasn't seen much of over the years.
Click to expand...

I think this is a more accurate description of the real Scholes playing achievement. He was absolutely world-class in that deep-lying role.

But in his earlier role as attacking midfielder, he was not as good as what people are saying here. If he was, he wouldn't have been regularly the sub for Phil or Butt, or shunted to the left for England.

If only Ferguson had converted him earlier, however, I think he could have been just as great as the likes of Pirlo or Xavi.

Pirlo himself was an attacking mid, but only world class after moving back.
 
Played at a very high level for 20 years
Engine around which winning teams were built
Played only for 1 club
IIRC, he never had an agent
Had only one good eye
Better chances of him doing well in Barca than Xavi doing well in United/EPL
 
Xavi was the most important player on one of the best NT teams ever which were underachievers for years, Scholes was kinda meh but England had bad managers and all so let's call it a tie. :wenger:


Come on guys this is such a ridiculous argument, just think about it for a second.
 
Hard to compare Scholes to Xavi and Pirlo, but he was absolutely world-class as a deep-lying midfielder who maintained possession and kept things calm in midfield. Our team was never built around anyone, really - but Scholes was always one of the key pieces. Without him, we were forced to play Carrick-Fletcher, Fletcher-Hargreaves, or Carrick-Hargreaves, mostly - which made fans commit seppuku right on the stands. I would say that our three most important players in that great era between 2007 and 2009 were Rio (the rock in defense), Scholes (the brain in midfield) and Ronaldo (the Ronaldo in Ronaldo).
 
Schneckerl said:
Xavi was the most important player on one of the best NT teams ever which were underachievers for years, Scholes was kinda meh but England had bad managers and all so let's call it a tie. :wenger:


Come on guys this is such a ridiculous argument, just think about it for a second.
Click to expand...

Judging a player based on their respective international team achievements makes no sense. There's really no need to include that. Just look at the two players and make a decision from there.

Scholes for me. Way more exciting to watch.
 
Best midfielder the premiership has ever seen. No doubt about it.

Exceptional player
 
You must log in or register to reply here.