Paul Scholes Appreciation Thread

Le King

eagle eye wrote: »

Actually you do and he did. He was all about Carrick before the 2009 final.

Never heard him say Carrick was his idol. Besides Carrick was in top class form then. Scholes hasn't been for a while now, yet they still talk about Scholes.

Ush1

peterswellman wrote: »

Pedantic bollix if you ask me.

Class act and one of the best of his generation, trophy cabinet packed to the rafters nothing else matters.

I'm pretty sure, us United fans don't really care if some people don't think he's a 'complete' midfielder because if he was complete i'd never get to see him clatter numerous opposition players in a way i've always wanted to do.

Red legend.

Yes, so my point stands he wasn't complete like some people said. Nothing pedantic about it.

peterswellman

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, so my point stands he wasn't complete like some people said. Nothing pedantic about it.

Fair enough. He wasn't 100% complete.

It matters alot though. Nothing being pedantic or anything close.

Ush1

peterswellman wrote: »

Fair enough. He wasn't 100% complete.

It matters alot though. Nothing being pedantic or anything close.

Fair enough. I won't let logic get in the way of lads rubbing willys.

Pro. F

Ach, I'm sad that he's gone now. Even the other night when playing in defeat and not in great form, I still got some joy from watching his poise on the ball. If he had decided to keep going I am certain that he could have carried on like Giggs has been doing, coming into form now and again and getting the world talking about him again once or twice a season.

I love the way that he has retired in the most understated way possible. Not announcing it until the season is over so no one would know it's coming. It sums him up.

For people asking about him about playing for Oldham, that had all been a bit over hyped. He said a while back in an interview that it was his dad who was a fan and that he'd been to some games when he was a kid, but it was nothing more than that.

He was a great player and he has been a joy to watch for all of his long and hugely successful career. He will be missed.

Ush1 wrote: »

Ken Earlys take:

I think people are seriously misusing the term "complete midfielder". I don't think he was that at all.

Great player all the same.

And another poster losses all credibility...

Criticising Scholes is perfectly reasonable, he had defensive flaws in his game and I agree he was not a complete midfielder, but claiming that ''Rooney retired him in 04'' and that he was ''a bit short as a general/play maker'' is idiocy and you have endorsed that.

Yes he wasn't a midfield general like Keane and yes he wasn't as creative as Zidane. But he was so much more creative than Keane it's unreal and he did more of the hard work that Zidane didn't do. I'm saying that as a massive fan of both of those players. In reality he's in between the two types of player, but he was his own type of player and he was great in his own right. I would say just below both of them if you were to add everything up, but they are two of the best players to ever play the game so that's hardly worth worrying about. Nobody is saying that he is one of the best players ever, but he was a truly great player.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Actually you do and he did. He was all about Carrick before the 2009 final.

Source? Link?

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote: »

Source? Link?

Find it yourself like a good man.

SlickRic

Ush1 wrote: »

Nope, that's a straw man.

IMO Scholes was an average tackler at best. Roy Keane for me would be a better representation of a complete midfielder.

While obviously Scholes did certain things better, Keane could do everything to a very high standard. Nothing to do with who was the better player, but everything to do with who was the more complete player.

the 'more' complete player?

if you're griping over the use of 'complete', since it's an absolute, you can't then talk about another player being more complete than another. that doesn't make sense.

the fact is Scholes was brilliant, the best English midfielder of his generation, and in the top few midfielders fullstop of his generation.

Scholes could do things Keane couldn't dream of doing, while Keane's leadership and tackling are qualities Scholes couldn't dream of replicating.

again, you can ask Keane his opinion of Scholes, and you'll find Keane himself called Scholes one of the best.

i've never defended a Utd player like this in my life, and i may need a wash afterwards, but he's the one guy in that team i would've taken every day of the week. i've huge, huge respect for the man, and i think people are nit-picking for the sake of it.

he ain't Pelé or Maradona; nobody said he was, but he was a world class player and professional. 'complete' might be the wrong word if we're being pedantic, but he was exceptional.

Scorpion Sting

When Xavi says Scholes has been a rolemodel to him for the last 15 years then you know he was something special. A Manchester United legend who will be remembered for his brilliant footballing ability and quiet personality.

ROCKMAN

Boskowski wrote: »

I'd be very careful to base ones appreciation on quotes from other players. Players are like politicians these days, they say what the local media wants to hear.

If asked by German media they will tell you that Beckenbauer and Schuster were the greatest ever, if asked by British media they will tell you the same about Best & Gascoigne.

I mean why is this argument brought up all the time? "Barca players have said so he must be great"? Have you guys no eyes to see and brains to think yourselves?
Show me what he's done to be up there with the all-time legends, don't tell me who said he's great.

And by the way please don't take this the wrong way. He IS a great midfielder. And he was for many years an integral part of a great side. And I can appreciate that. And I can appreciate that United fans love him for that. But he's no fkn Pele, don't get carried away.

He is a bit like what Matthaeus or Effenberg were for Bayern. I can appreciate them and I can appreciate they were big, big stars. That doesn't mean I have to make a case they're up there with the greatest of all times. Because they're fkn not. And neither is Scholes.

It just seems that people get romantic notions when their longstanding clubstars retire.

One quick question are you old enough to have seen Pele play yourself or are you making your decision based on videos ,match reports and fellow pro 's comments

Now I'm not comparing Scholes and Pele , But I doubt there are many posters on here old enough to have seen Pele play , So opinions and views on the great man are formed by game reports ,match videos and the views and opinions of the people in the know back then ie. fellow pro's /managers and coaches...
My point been if the best players and Managers around are calling Scholes.. one of the best or the best ,I accept and respect their views

Liam O

The thing that I think sums up how high regard I hold Scholes is that no matter where he was on the pitch he seemed to have manufactured a pocket of about 5 yards of space to operate in when he got the ball, also his first touch would 9 times out of 10 be perfect to get the ball out of his feet and set up a pass. He was the first player I watched that much who could do anything like that.

It was amazing to me that every other player could get the ball, turn and always be under pressure and yet here was a player, even if he was under pressure as the ball came to him would take one touch and the other guy would be a non-entity.

The only other player I can think of all the ones I've watched who does this as well as him is Xavi.

Beefy78

ROCKMAN wrote: »

One quick question are you old enough to have seen Pele play yourself or are you making your decision based on videos ,match reports and fellow pro 's comments

Now I'm not comparing Scholes and Pele , But I doubt there are many posters on here old enough to have seen Pele play , So opinions and views on the great man are formed by game reports ,match videos and the views and opinions of the people in the know back then ie. fellow pro's /managers and coaches...
My point been if the best players and Managers around are calling Scholes.. one of the best or the best ,I accept and respect their views

I've seen a few Pele matches on tape. Very over-rated from the small sample I've seen. His career was based solely on a made-up stat that he scored 1,000 goals. His longevity in the game has to be respected and he won a stupid number of World Cups but I don't think he was ever the best player Brazil had. He was a novelty act in Europe because he stayed as the big fish in the small pond of South America rather than playing in Europe.

Scholes was a great player. One of my favourites growing up and still today. And I'm certainly no Manchester United fan.

Beefy78

Great words from Sir Bobby Charlton:
"Many great players have worn the shirt of Manchester United - players I worshipped, then lost with my youth in Munich. Players like Denis Law and George Best, who I enjoyed so much as team-mates and now, finally, players I have watched closely in the Ferguson era - and in so many ways Scholes is my favourite."

eagle eye

Its this thing where people confuse longevity with a player being better than he was. Scholes was immense from 2005 to 2010, that was when he was at his very, very best. Before then he wasn't as good and maybe he could have been that good in a midfield without Roy Keane for longer but we only seen him as an out and out world class midfield player for 5 years. Before that he was just a very good midfielder who had the ocassional brilliant game.

Some people think I'm dishing Paul Scholes but I don't think I am. I have huge respect for him, he was a really hard worker who made the most of what he had and had an incredibly long career at the top level.

I also had the pleasure of seeing the careers of the other players I mention. Robson is up there with Roy Keane for me as just a midfield god. Scholes is not in that echelon for me.

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

Its this thing where people confuse longevity with a player being better than he was. Scholes was immense from 2005 to 2010, that was when he was at his very, very best. Before then he wasn't as good and maybe he could have been that good in a midfield without Roy Keane for longer but we only seen him as an out and out world class midfield player for 5 years. Before that he was just a very good midfielder who had the ocassional brilliant game.

Some people think I'm dishing Paul Scholes but I don't think I am. I have huge respect for him, he was a really hard worker who made the most of what he had and had an incredibly long career at the top level.

I also had the pleasure of seeing the careers of the other players I mention. Robson is up there with Roy Keane for me as just a midfield god. Scholes is not in that echelon for me.

Bullsh*t. If you think he was only occasionally brilliant before 2005 (basically throughout his 20's!!!) then there's no point in even arguing with you. The fact you think Lampard and Paul f*cking Ince were better speaks volumes.

Professey Chin

eagle eye wrote: »

Find it yourself like a good man.

Why should he find it when you're the one trying to use it to get your point across?

eagle eye

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Why should he find it when you're the one trying to use it to get your point across?

I didn't use a quote, I just said that Xavi was all about him before the final in 2009.

adox

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't use a quote, I just said that Xavi was all about him before the final in 2009.

You were dismissing someones use of a Xavi quote about Scholes by saying he bigged up Carrick in 2009 to try and prove your point that players opinions arent a barometer to go by.

He asks for a source for this alleged quote and you dont even bother.

You seem intent on stirring it and underhandedly dissing Paul Scholes which is out of order, considering this is supposed to be an appreciation thread.

For someone who is obviously not a young fella, your ability to go against the flow of opinion on most subjects football seems like thats excately what it is, going against opinion for the sake of it. It makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously, not because I have a contrary view on nearly everything you say, but because its hard to believe you actually hold any of those opinions.

Apologies to all for dragging this thread OT.

Johnny Utah

eagle eye wrote: »

Its this thing where people confuse longevity with a player being better than he was. Scholes was immense from 2005 to 2010, that was when he was at his very, very best. Before then he wasn't as good and maybe he could have been that good in a midfield without Roy Keane for longer but we only seen him as an out and out world class midfield player for 5 years. Before that he was just a very good midfielder who had the ocassional brilliant game.

Some people think I'm dishing Paul Scholes but I don't think I am. I have huge respect for him, he was a really hard worker who made the most of what he had and had an incredibly long career at the top level.

I also had the pleasure of seeing the careers of the other players I mention. Robson is up there with Roy Keane for me as just a midfield god. Scholes is not in that echelon for me.

All of the above is a fair, reasonable comment. I agree that Keane was a more copmplete player than Scholes.




Nobody said Scholsey was a terrible player or anything like, but at the same time he's not a footballing god that some of his afficinados make out.... so in summation, a good player, not a 'great' player!

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

Scholes was immense from 2005 to 2010, that was when he was at his very, very best. Before then he wasn't as good and maybe he could have been that good in a midfield without Roy Keane for longer but we only seen him as an out and out world class midfield player for 5 years.

Scholes was at his best with Keane, so this makes no sense.

2005 - 2010 were by no means his best years, as good as some of them were.

you must have missed his 20s.

eagle eye

adox wrote: »

You were dismissing someones use of a Xavi quote about Scholes by saying he bigged up Carrick in 2009 to try and prove your point that players opinions arent a barometer to go by.

He asks for a source for this alleged quote and you dont even bother.

Its not very hard to google Xavi Carrick and I'm sure you won't have much bother finding it. I didn't need to search for it in the first place. If somebody is too lazy to do that well I'm not doing if for them.

As for the rest of your post, you are just making it a personal attack there. People love when others do that because its an excuse to dismiss an opinion. I have my opinions on Scholes' football career and I've made them very clear and not just today but for a long time. So its not like I'm just going against the grain for the fun of it.

It appears to me that peope have short memories these days. Like Scholes is being spoken about as if he was on the same level as Roy Keane and Patrick Viera in this thread which is ludicrous. Bryan Robson is clearly all but forgotten about today which is so sad and those people who claim that Scholes was better than him do not know what they are talking about. And thats a statement of fact not just my opinion.

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

Scholes was at his best with Keane, so this makes no sense.

2005 - 2010 were by no means his best years, as good as some of them were.

you must have missed his 20s.

No I didn't miss anything. And you are wrong imo.

Liam O

Liam O wrote: »

The only other player I can think of all the ones I've watched who does this as well as him is Xavi.

The whole Barca midfield tbf

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

And you are wrong imo.

fair enough.

tbh, it seems you're just very partial to certain kinds of midfielders.

Keane, Robson and Ince are all of the same ilk really for instance.

to think they're all, undeniably, above Scholes, is just very questionable IMO. the inclusion of Ince in particular makes it very peculiar, and is what makes it look like you're being contrary.

SlickRic

SlickRic wrote: »

Scholes was at his best with Keane, so this makes no sense.

2005 - 2010 were by no means his best years, as good as some of them were.

you must have missed his 20s.

Yeah, I would have thought his best years were before 2005

v3ttel

SlickRic wrote: »

2005 - 2010 were by no means his best years, as good as some of them were.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Yeah, I would have thought his best years were before 2005

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

fair enough.

tbh, it seems you're just very partial to certain kinds of midfielders.

Keane, Robson and Ince are all of the same ilk really for instance.

to think they're all, undeniably, above Scholes, is just very questionable IMO. the inclusion of Ince in particular makes it very peculiar, and is what makes it look like you're being contrary.

Are you for real? Robson like Keane and Ince? How on earth do you come up with that?

Beefy78

Scholes had far more passing ability, vision and a better first touch than Keane, Vieira, Robson and certainly Paul F'ing Ince for goodness sake. He scored more, and better, goals than any of those players as well.

I doubt anyone would doubt his commitment or his will to win (something that all of those places had in spades). Where some say he falls down is his tackling. I think it's too easy to say that he couldn't tackle. Paul Scholes definitely could tackle. He just often chose not to. As Wenger said earlier in the season, Scholes could get away with things that no other player could and he certainly used that to his advantage.

adox

Robson had a bit of Keane, Ince and Scholes to his game and was better player than all of them imo.

However rating Ince and Lampard above Scholes just seems odd in the extreme.

Beefy78

Robson was a great player. There are things that Scholes can do that Robson couldn't though.

adox

Beefy78 wrote: »

Robson was a great player. There are things that Scholes can do that Robson couldn't though.

I`d agree with that but there was a lot more that Robson could do so much better than Scholes. Thats not to diminish my opinion of Scholes as I hold Robson in high regard, a better player than Keane imo.

Nailz

Robson > Scholes: Probably

Keane > Scholes: Arguably

Ince > Scholes: Fuck off, you're taking the piss

eagle eye

Beefy78 wrote: »

Robson was a great player. There are things that Scholes can do that Robson couldn't though.

Like what?

Pro. F

eagle eye wrote: »

It appears to me that peope have short memories these days. Like Scholes is being spoken about as if he was on the same level as Roy Keane and Patrick Viera in this thread which is ludicrous. Bryan Robson is clearly all but forgotten about today which is so sad and those people who claim that Scholes was better than him do not know what they are talking about. And thats a statement of fact not just my opinion.

Keane and Viera were a completely different kind of player. To say they were simply better is completely stupid. Scholes was light years ahead of the pair of them in terms of skill on the ball. That doesn't mean he was a better player than them, it means he was a different kind of player.

Robson is a more comparable type if you are looking for straight up comparisons, since he was such an attacking threat. Overall Robson was a much more rounded midfielder, but Scholes definitely had more on the ball. It is certainly up for debate which one would be best of the two overall.

This is typical of what I see you often doing, going back as far as you can for a reference so that nobody can argue with you and you can safely hold your contrarian view and try to make yourself out to have some sort of special knowledge. But you have been caught out now because you have made some howlers in this thread.

Lets pick one that a lot of people will be familiar with - Ince. A decent player, but very limited on the ball. You are trying to say that he was better than Scholes. This proves how much incredible bollocks you are capable of talking when you're trying to make yourself look clever.

Another one - Scholes was only consistently brilliant after Keane left. More nonsense. Just because the midfield was rotated and Ferguson experimented with the shape and line-up, something that he has done for years, doesn't mean that Scholes wasn't consistently class back then. Seriously, you need to cop yourself on.

secman

Best compliment I can give Scholes is that in his prime, he would not have looked out of place in that Barca midfield last sat night.
Pure class and a model pro and fantastic servant to MUFC, great to hear he is to be on the coaching staff.


Secman

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

And another poster losses all credibility...

Criticising Scholes is perfectly reasonable, he had defensive flaws in his game and I agree he was not a complete midfielder, but claiming that ''Rooney retired him in 04'' and that he was ''a bit short as a general/play maker'' is idiocy and you have endorsed that.

How exactly?

#15

eagle eye wrote: »

And Ferguson wasn't happy with either of them because if you remember he went and signed Veron. Veron didn't work out as well all know so he managed to keep his place.

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, well he signed Veron to play in midfield beside Keane because he obviously didn't think that Scholes and/or Butt were good enough.

That's revisionist bollocks.

Ferguson spent his time shoehorning Veron into the same team as Keane and Scholes.

If he wasn't happy with Scholes he would have just dropped him and played Veron in his place.

Deleted User wrote: »

Source? Link?

This is what Xavi said about Carrick in 09

"Carrick gives United a balance and can play defensively too," said Xavi.

"He passes very well, has a good shot and is a complete player.

"United have a very good midfield at a high level and they're very strong both physically and technically.

"But we can't use any excuses at this stage though and we will play as we normally do. We won't change our philosophy."

And what Xavi has said about Scholes in the past few months:

Paul Scholes! A role model. For me – and I really mean this – he's the best central midfielder I've seen in the last 15, 20 years. I've spoken to Xabi Alonso about him. He's spectacular, he has it all: the last pass, goals, he's strong, he doesn't lose the ball, vision. If he'd been Spanish he might have been rated more highly. Players love him.

According to EE, they're the same thing:rolleyes:

Maybe Xavi was thinking of Eagle Eye when he said:

If he'd been Spanish he might have been rated more highly.

I can't imagine how highly EE would rate a Pablo Xcholes.

The_Kew_Tour

Ush1 wrote: »

How exactly?

Post 205 did not help:D

DOC09UNAM

And another thread degenerates into a pile of crap due to the same old people.

A premier league legend is retiring, why can't people just appreciate him for what he was instead of just trying to start arguments in every thread.

:rolleyes:

Ush1

SlickRic wrote: »

the 'more' complete player?

if you're griping over the use of 'complete', since it's an absolute, you can't then talk about another player being more complete than another. that doesn't make sense.

Well I assume you used complete in that he could do all things well, why else use it?

More complete is fine in this context in that Scholes has legs and can tackle to a level. It's just blantantly deficient. You even admitted it, you said apart from his tackling.

I just can't see how someone can call a player complete when they have such a glaring handicap to their game, to the point United fans revel in the fact he couldn't tackle.

SlickRic wrote: »

the fact is Scholes was brilliant, the best English midfielder of his generation, and in the top few midfielders fullstop of his generation.

Scholes could do things Keane couldn't dream of doing, while Keane's leadership and tackling are qualities Scholes couldn't dream of replicating.

again, you can ask Keane his opinion of Scholes, and you'll find Keane himself called Scholes one of the best.

Read my posts, I have already said there is things he could obviously do that Keane couldn't.

SlickRic wrote: »

i've never defended a Utd player like this in my life, and i may need a wash afterwards, but he's the one guy in that team i would've taken every day of the week. i've huge, huge respect for the man, and i think people are nit-picking for the sake of it.

he ain't Pelé or Maradona; nobody said he was, but he was a world class player and professional. 'complete' might be the wrong word if we're being pedantic, but he was exceptional.

Thanks, it was the wrong word completely and that's not being pedantic. It was used by a few people.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

How exactly?

By quoting it in a post where you were criticising Scholes (obviously nothing wrong with criticism in itself). If you realised it was idiotic nonsense then why did you quote it at all? The obvious and only sane interpretation was that you felt it supported your argument.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

By quoting it in a post where you were criticising Scholes (obviously nothing wrong with criticism in itself). If you realised it was idiotic nonsense then why did you quote it at all? The obvious and only sane interpretation was that you felt it supported your argument.

:pac::pac::pac:
Hmmm, do you reckon that would hold up in court?

My post was nothing to do with criticism, as you can see in the same post I called him a great player. It was to do with people bandying about a term they didn't seem to understand.

But don't let that get in the way of your emotional outburst and attack on my "credibility".

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you for real? Robson like Keane and Ince? How on earth do you come up with that?

combative, and an on-pitch leader to rival any.

like Keane, he could drag Utd through matches on his own.

boundless energy.

it's not the worst comparison to make, so stop acting outraged by the thought of it.

anyway, off-topic now. you have your opinion, 99% of the football world has theirs about Scholes. we'll leave it that

eagle eye

Pro. F wrote: »

Keane and Viera were a completely different kind of player. To say they were simply better is completely stupid. Scholes was light years ahead of the pair of them in terms of skill on the ball. That doesn't mean he was a better player than them, it means he was a different kind of player.

He is being called the best midfielder of his generation here. Thats all encompassing. He was called the best English midfielder of the past 30/40 years in here thats encompassing Bryan Robson, Glenn Hoddle, Paul Ince, Ray Wilkins and many more.

Pro. F wrote: »

Robson is a more comparable type if you are looking for straight up comparisons, since he was such an attacking threat. Overall Robson was a much more rounded midfielder, but Scholes definitely had more on the ball. It is certainly up for debate which one would be best of the two overall.

Robson could do anything on the ball, he could find the magic pass, he could run at and beat defenders. He had everything that Scholes had and more.

Pro. F wrote: »

This is typical of what I see you often doing, going back as far as you can for a reference so that nobody can argue with you and you can safely hold your contrarian view and try to make yourself out to have some sort of special knowledge. But you have been caught out now because you have made some howlers in this thread.

Rubbish. How dare you say that I'd use it like that. This is highly insulting and very annoying.

Pro. F wrote: »

Lets pick one that a lot of people will be familiar with - Ince. A decent player, but very limited on the ball. You are trying to say that he was better than Scholes. This proves how much incredible bollocks you are capable of talking when you're trying to make yourself look clever.

When you say central midfielder, I say Ince is better. We are not talking about where one was better than the other in specific areas, we are talking about them as central midfielders. Ince all around was a better midfielder than Paul Scholes.

Pro. F wrote: »

Another one - Scholes was only consistently brilliant after Keane left. More nonsense. Just because the midfield was rotated and Ferguson experimented with the shape and line-up, something that he has done for years, doesn't mean that Scholes wasn't consistently class back then.

He was a very good midfielder when he was in midfield with Roy Keane because Roy Keane dominated midfield almost every game. I'm not saying it was Schole's fault that he didn't have as much to do but he just simply didn't.

Pro. F wrote: »

Seriously, you need to cop yourself on.

And the final insult as in many of your posts on here of late. After reading that and the other one above wasn't going to bother answering your post but I'll do it this once. Never again if you finish a post like that.

James Forde

Eagle eye your only embarrassing yourself lad

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

Robson could do anything on the ball, he could find the magic pass, he could run at and beat defenders.

you do know Scholes did all that too, right?

oh wait, you think his best years were from 2005, when his pace went, and he re-modelled his game, so as i say, you must have missed his 20s.

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

you do know Scholes did all that too, right?

oh wait, you think his best years were from 2005, when his pace went, and he re-modelled his game, so as i say, you must have missed his 20s.

I seen him all through his career. I don't remember him being able to beat players one on one. He was never extremely pacey.

I reckon you never seen Robson play tbh.

Rooney10

Rooney10 wrote: »

I was agreeing with Slick about his best years being pre 2005.

K-9

Why do you rate Ince so highly?

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

I seen him all through his career. I don't remember him being able to beat players one on one. He was never extremely pacey.

I reckon you never seen Robson play tbh.

just because he wasn't pacey doesn't mean he never beat anyone. his ability to beat players, especially in and around the box with slight feints, dummies, and speed of thought was magnificent.

you can think i didn't see Robson play all you like tbh, and either way, it doesn't stop me believing your opinion on Scholes is BS.

i'm pretty sure you haven't seen Ince or Scholes play tbh if we're going down that route. Ince had all the energy and forcefulness you could ever want in your engine room, but about a tenth of the football brain and ability on the ball that Scholes had.

Scholes every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.