Paul Scholes(in prime) vs. Xavi

Blatter

I think the two of these guys could be compared, play very similar roles in their respective teams. Masters of passing and link up the play as good as I've seen any player do. Both won pretty much everything there is to win at club level. So, who do you think is/was better?

karma_

Ridiculous proposition. There should be no debate about this whatsoever and will be ruined by partisan voting.

Le King

karma_ wrote: »

Ridiculous proposition. There should be no debate about this whatsoever and will be ruined by partisan voting.

Yet you hate Manchester United and say that. Clap, Clap...

flahavaj

Voted Xavi as I think he's peerless. Its almost a sin to have to choose between two such unbelieveable footbllers tbh.

Scholes: Best English footballer of his generation.

Xavi: Best midfielder of his generation.

onemorechance

karma_ wrote: »

Ridiculous proposition. There should be no debate about this whatsoever and will be ruined by partisan voting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

shano_88

Its been done to death, both world class players.

Xavi6

Poll should've been public

Le King

A vote won't prove anything tho.

Anybody who is saying there is a huge gulf between the two is incredibly deluded. There is little between them.

Degag

Scholes in his prime was a vastly different player than Xavi and his current self.

#15

shano_88 wrote: »

Its been done to death, both world class players.

+1

cson

This 'vs' shite is way overdone at this stage.

Peyton Manning

cson wrote: »

This 'vs' shite is way overdone at this stage.

Infractions for "vs" and "are x and y done" threads should be given out imo.

Paul Tergat

Degag wrote: »

Scholes in his prime was a vastly different player than Xavi and his current self.

This

edit: also, doing this kind of thing now just isnt going to get an accurate result. Its pretty much impossible to isolate the view people have of Scholes now as someone who cant play every game and isnt anywhere near as good as he was. Add to this the performance Barca just had and you wont get a proper reflection.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Extremely hard to pick between the two, both excellent footballers and both underrated.
Xavi probably shades it on reflection, but I voted for Scholes. Lucky also that Xavi will still be around for a few years, whereas Scholes will only play for one more season at the most.

fillmore jive

Should be public, it'd be interesting to see how many utd fans would vote for Xavi

Blatter

Quick question. If Scholes was playing alongside the likes of Messi and Iniesta, how much better would he look?

Le King

fillmore jive wrote: »

Should be public, it'd be interesting to see how many utd fans would vote for Xavi

I'd love to find out why everybody is obsessed with Man United. Look at the West Ham thread. Funny stuff.

RasTa

I haven't seen enough of Xavi to vote for him tbh. What age is he anyway?

3hn2givr7mx1sc

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Quick question. If Scholes was playing alongside the likes of Messi and Iniesta, how much better would he look?

Messi and Iniesta are the reasons that Xavi not thought of as highly as he should be by the people that matter.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

RasTa wrote: »

I haven't seen enough of Xavi to vote for him tbh. What age is he anyway?

30.

karma_

RasTa wrote: »

I haven't seen enough of Xavi to vote for him tbh. What age is he anyway?

30

Bodhisopha

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Quick question. If Scholes was playing alongside the likes of Messi and Iniesta, how much better would he look?

Arghh!!

The most annoying argument in football today; if (insert player) played alongside (insert Barcelona players), how much better would they be.

You're right, Scholes is better than Xavi, Ronaldo is better than Messi and Marlon Hayward is better than Villa.

Corholio

Such polls can never be fair because people's minds will be turned by the fact is Xavi is playing some incredible football now whle Scholes is in his probably last season for United. If both at similiar stage of their careers fair enough, otherwise it's pointless.

racso1975

Dear santa,
I have been a really good boy this year. Please make these threads stop!
Love
racso
ps please stop the "is x manager/team done" threads also

Le King

Acordding to this Daily Mail article Xavi isn't that good at all. But Sky Sports tell me that Scholes is still a top, top player. So I voted Scholes.

Blatter

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Arghh!!

The most annoying argument in football today; if (insert player) played alongside (insert Barcelona players), how much better would they be.

You're right, Scholes is better than Xavi, Ronaldo is better than Messi and Marlon Hayward is better than Villa.

Never said how much better he would be, said how much better he would look. There is a difference.

Bodhisopha

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Never said how much better he would be, said how much better he would look. There is a difference.

How much better did Hleb, Gudjohnsen and Ibrahimovic look?

Blatter

Xavi6 wrote: »

Poll should've been public

True, would have showed how many non utd fans voted for Xavi...

flahavaj

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Never said how much better he would be, said how much better he would look. There is a difference.

I think the Barca jersey would clash quite horribly with his ginger locks tbh.

Blatter

Bodhisopha wrote: »

How much better did Hleb, Gudjohnsen and Ibrahimovic look?

I'm not talking about those players, I asked how much better you think Scholes would look...

#15

baz2009 wrote: »

Messi and Iniesta are the reasons that Xavi not thought of as highly as he should be by the people that matter.

With good reason. Messi is the best player out there.

edit: I think all the ''people that matter'' know how good Xavi is.

dfx-

Le King wrote: »

Acordding to this

You'd think they'd take that article off the internet out of embarrassment at this stage, but they don't..

joe123

Scholes was a top quality player...But xavi is on another level.

No comparison.

eZe^

Scholes in his prime was an animal, a powerful box to box midfielder, who was talented at popping up with vital goals, and making lovely passes. He mellowed as he aged and became a more calming controlling influence in midfield, using his vision and immense skill to boss the tempo of games.

Xavi has always played like 'old' Scholes, I think Xavi is the best midfielder ever at what he does, he makes that CMF position look so trivial, just pick the ball up and simply move it on to another man in space. He is the best passer of the ball I've also ever seen.


Both players are different, and will appeal to different sets of fans. Scholes was more dynamic, Xavi will consistently deliver near perfect performances, allowing everyone else in his team to shine alongside him. I prefer Xavi, as he is the definition of a Barca moulded midfielder, but Scholes could have absolutely held his own in Barca's midfield imo, the most talented British player I've seen in my lifetime.


Scholes in his prime was closer to a Gerard imo, albeit a Gerard who can control a game from midfield properly. (I don't think Gerard is good enough to properly control a midfield the way Scholes/ Xavi can, his passing range and vision isn't good enough, but that's a different discussion)

Kess73

Degag wrote: »

Scholes in his prime was a vastly different player than Xavi and his current self.

This post is spot on. Very different players and a pretty pointless comparison.

#15

eZe^ wrote: »

Scholes in his prime was an animal, a powerful box to box midfielder, who was talented at popping up with vital goals, and making lovely passes. He mellowed as he aged and became a more calming controlling influence in midfield, using his vision and immense skill to boss the tempo of games.

Xavi has always played like 'old' Scholes, I think Xavi is the best midfielder ever at what he does, he makes that CMF position look so trivial, just pick the ball up and simply move it on to another man in space. He is the best passer of the ball I've also ever seen.


Both players are different, and will appeal to different sets of fans. Scholes was more dynamic, Xavi will consistently deliver near perfect performances, allowing everyone else in his team to shine alongside him. I prefer Xavi, as he is the definition of a Barca moulded midfielder, but Scholes could have absolutely held his own in Barca's midfield imo, the most talented British player I've seen in my lifetime.


Scholes in his prime was closer to a Gerard imo, albeit a Gerard who can control a game from midfield properly. (I don't think Gerard is good enough to properly control a midfield the way Scholes/ Xavi can, his passing range and vision isn't good enough, but that's a different discussion)

Nail on the head IMO.

Great post eZe.

Wolf Club

baz2009 wrote: »

Extremely hard to pick between the two, both excellent footballers and both underrated.

Xavi is widely regarded as the best midfielder in the world, how is he underreated?

Both are fantastic footballers with exceptional passing abilities as well as many other attributes, but for me Scholes' dynamism just about shades it for him.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Wolf Club wrote: »

Xavi is widely regarded as the best midfielder in the world, how is he underreated?

Both are fantastic footballers with exceptional passing abilities as well as many other attributes, but for me Scholes' dynamism just about shades it for him.

Overshadowed would probably have been a better word. Any other team in the world(possible exception of Madrid, but that's a different thread) and he'd be pinpointed as their main player. But he's overshadowed by Messi at Barca, imo. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, obviously.:pac:

CorkMan

Why hasn't Spains Euro 2008 and World Cup 2010 feats been highlighted? Xavi was player of the tournament at Euro 2008 and made roughly 575 successful passes in World Cup 2010, top 2 in world Cup history.

Don't get me wrong, Scholes is good/was great but if you are to compare players I think you need to compare them on all fronts, ie club and international level.

Club level = Both the same
International level = Xavi claims the throne out and out.

Blatter

Wolf Club wrote: »

Xavi is widely regarded as the best midfielder in the world, how is he underreated?

Both are fantastic footballers with exceptional passing abilities as well as many other attributes, but for me Scholes' dynamism just about shades it for him.

It does annoy me when people say Xavi is underated because he' clearly not. Scholes is the most underated player outside of England IMO.

Blatter

The Scholes/Xavi type player is very rare in football, the only other one I can think of is Pirlo.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Scholes is the most underated player outside of England IMO

stovelid

United fan and voted for Xavi.

I know I voted but these threads are getting painful. Why the teenage need to know who better and best? Two of my favourite footballers ever and I hate seeing them compared in a pissing contest.

Blatter

stovelid wrote: »

United fan and voted for Xavi.

I know I voted but these threads are getting painful. Why the teenage need to know who better and best? Two of my favourite footballers ever and I hate seeing them compared in a pissing contest.

What pissing contest? Nobody has slated either player, it's not like a Ronaldo v Messi thread where several people call Ronaldo a ****...

3hn2givr7mx1sc

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

The Scholes/Xavi type player is very rare in football, the only other one I can think of is Pirlo.

In his prime Scholes was a very different player to Xavi.

Blatter

baz2009 wrote: »

In his prime Scholes was a very different player to Xavi.

The thing is, Scholes ''prime'' is a bit of a grey area. When he was younger, say up to age 30-31 he was a box to box player and was regarded great. But as he got older and changed his style to the deep lying playmaker role, he was/is also regarded as great. I think it's up for discussion when his ''prime'' exactly was.

homerjay2005

CorkMan wrote: »

Why hasn't Spains Euro 2008 and World Cup 2010 feats been highlighted? Xavi was player of the tournament at Euro 2008 and made roughly 575 successful passes in World Cup 2010, top 2 in world Cup history.

Don't get me wrong, Scholes is good/was great but if you are to compare players I think you need to compare them on all fronts, ie club and international level.

Club level = Both the same
International level = Xavi claims the throne out and out.

load of B*llix to be honest, the current spanish team is one of the best of all time, the england teams scholes played for, was no where near that.

you cant compare teams when talking about players, scholes never had the chance to be the best player as england never got far enough to do it. he was only 21 in 96 and their other euro performances were muck.

Bodhisopha

homerjay2005 wrote: »

load of B*llix to be honest, the current spanish team is one of the best of all time, the england teams scholes played for, was no where near that.

you cant compare teams when talking about players, scholes never had the chance to be the best player as england never got far enough to do it. he was only 21 in 96 and their other euro performances were muck.

Hold up. Paul Scholes was part of "the golden generation", his failure to recreate his club form at international was a part of the reason England consitently underperformed. Of course, there are others to blame too, don't get me wrong.

It shouldn't be overlooked.

#15

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Hold up. Paul Scholes was part of "the golden generation", his failure to recreate his club form at international was a part of the reason England consitently underperformed. Of course, there are others to blame too, don't get me wrong.

It shouldn't be overlooked.

Another thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that Scholes was frequently played on the left wing.
Unsurprising that he didn't recreate his form.

SlickRic

This, tbh, nails it on the head.

flahavaj wrote: »

Scholes: Best English footballer of his generation.

Xavi: Best midfielder of his generation.

Scholes is the one player in the Utd team that i simply refuse to hate. a little genius, particularly in his prime when he was the archetypal juggernaut in midfield who perfected the art of the 'late arriving midfielder'. him and Keane formed the best midfield partnership i've ever seen in an English team.

but then there's Xavi.

there's no point in even trying to come with new superlatives for him, or re-hash the ones that are used on a weekly basis at this stage.

he is the perfect creative midfield player, makes the game look painfully easy, and does it with a style and elegance that i've seen very few exhibit. he can pass any distance, he can play the game at any tempo, he can shoot, he can tackle.

but these are just words. it must be seen to be fully understood. re-watch El Clasico from Monday and you'll see a perfect encapsulation in 90 minutes of what he is all about.

two of the greatest of the modern era. but Xavi takes it.

but even then i wonder am i right, considering Zidane called Scholes the best. but i have to go with my instinct on this.

Xavi it is.

Bodhisopha

#15 wrote: »

Another thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that Scholes was frequently played on the left wing.
Unsurprising that he didn't recreate his form.

He was in other failing England teams before that clown SGE misused him, but you're right, that didn't help matters. Don't get me wrong, i love him as a player, not bashing the man, just don't think international careers should be discounted if we insist on comparing the two.

SlickRic, not too sure about Xavi's shooting, that is one department that Scholesy is definitely head and shoulders above him in. Also, didn't Zidane recently say Gerrard was the best player in the world?

Zico however said Scholes is the one English player who would've slotted into most Brazil teams.