Paul Scholes Appreciation Thread

Frisbee

No No, Dig up!

peterswellman

What exactly is a central midfielder these days? They are no longer both box-to-box players anymore. They are assigned different roles. Like you have your Javier Mascherano's who sit in front of the defence and just break up play. You have your playmakers sitting deep and spraying the ball around like Andrea Pirlo. You have attack minded, creative, goalscoring midfielders e.g Frank Lampard. Last but not least you have your Essiens who are box-to-box and cover all ground.

So are you only complete these days if you're box-to-box? is that the stage we have come to? Scholes in his early days was the attacking minded but his role changed. Later on he started playing much deeper and was almost like Pirlo near the end of his career, sitting deep and just spraying the ball around. I think he was fairly 'complete' in both the roles he played tbh.

The definition of 'complete' midfielder these days imo is no longer even relevant. Each midfielder is bought for a specific purpose and to fulfill that role. Box-to-box seems to be even less prominent these days as it's less tacticially astute unless you're playing a three-man midfield.

I understand, that because Scholes was poor in the tackle some might not regard him as complete but imho, in the roles he played he was perfect for them. If the role really suits you and you're perfect for that role are you not 'completely' perfect for that position/role?

peterswellman

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.

Scholes could beat his men with his one touch pass and move football. He often got past players through this. His movement was first class and didn't really need to beat the players in the way you suggested because he managed to do it without having the speed required.

eagle eye

I'm finished with this now. I've said my piece and probably overdone it. At the end of the day he is overrated imo.
Good luck to him. I do have great respect for him and what he did accomplish as a player. I have a feeling he will go on to be a very good coach.

Max Power1

Speaking as an Arsenal fan, one of the best midfielders of the EPL era. Possibly the best english CM of this era.

He'll be difficult to replace.

The comparisons with ince, and to a lesser extent lampard, are ridiculous. Scholes is twice the player of either of those.

darragh16

We knew it was coming for ages, but still devastated to find out he's retiring.

Quoting Bobby Charlton "He epitomises the spirit of Manchester United and everything that is good about football"

Mr Alan

Arshavin's thoughts via Twitter......

Goodbye to Scholes, the angry ginger mini man with strange voice. He will be missed on the united bench.

My thoughts.......

I think Scoles was a brilliant player for Utd at times over his career but is being over rated by a lot of people.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Speaking as an Arsenal fan, one of the best midfielders of the EPL era. Possibly the best english CM of this era.

He'll be difficult to replace.

The comparisons with ince, and to a lesser extent lampard, are ridiculous. Scholes is twice the player of either of those.

Scholes in his prime was easily better than those two players in their prime, especially Ince. But it's not exactly comparing like with like is it?

I must add though, Lampard is seriously underrated though especially by "experts" on here. Didn't he go 6 seasons in row scoring 20+ goals plus nearly hit 30 one season iirc.No mean feat. To say Scholes was twice the player he is, is a tad extreme.

nullzero

Scholes was a great player, the praise through gritted teeth from rival fans says a lot ("He was good but...")
A real loss to the game as a whole but more so United, he had some good moments even this season and probably could have carried on if had chosen to do so.
United can expect to have any transfer deals for midfielders ratcheted up by 5 or 10 million now the selling clubs know Scholes needs to be replaced.
I'm going to miss watching him play, I haven't felt as dispondant at the retirement of a player for that reason since Zidane retired, we won't get to watch him again, what a pity.

Max Power1

rarnes1 wrote: »

Scholes in his prime was easily better than those two players in their prime, especially Ince. But it's not exactly comparing like with like is it?

I must add though, Lampard is seriously underrated though especially by "experts" on here. Didn't he go 6 seasons in row scoring 20+ goals plus nearly hit 30 one season iirc.No mean feat. To say Scholes was twice the player he is, is a tad extreme.

I only mentioned those two due to comparisons made earlier in the thread. Posters saying that Ince is a better midfielder than Scholes? That's bordering upon single digit IQ territory IMO.

Lampard had a few good seasons but was by no means anywhere near scholes' level of ability. He (lampard) doesnt have the same level of vision or creativity imo.

TBH the "twice the player" remark was directed at Ince and not necessarily lampard.

nullzero

rarnes1 wrote: »

Scholes in his prime was easily better than those two players in their prime, especially Ince. But it's not exactly comparing like with like is it?

I must add though, Lampard is seriously underrated though especially by "experts" on here. Didn't he go 6 seasons in row scoring 20+ goals plus nearly hit 30 one season iirc.No mean feat. To say Scholes was twice the player he is, is a tad extreme.

Lampard is a fantastic player, his goal scring record is superb but I'd satill pick Scholes ahead of him for his over all play.
I agree that Lampard doesn't get the respect he deserves a lot of the time though, for the most part when he's not playing well Chelsea aren't playing well.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Lampard is a fantastic player, his goal scring record is superb but I'd satill pick Scholes ahead of him for his over all play.

So would I.

I doubt anyone bar EE would disagree.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

: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".

Okay Phoenix Wright, if you want to be so awkward I can reword it in a way that would hold up in court:
''[You have shown that you endorse the quote] 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 reasonable interpretation was that you felt it supported your argument. Since you are trying to appear sensible, then you would not use something that you know is nonsense to support your argument. So it is very reasonable to assume that you endorse the quote as a sensible statement.''

If you do not think that the quote was a sensible statement then why did you post it and pass no comment on it? You have still not acknowledged that the quote you gave was idiotic nonsense and including it in your post did very much make your post about criticism.

I wouldn't be attacking your credibility if you didn't endorse that idiotic quote.

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

...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.

...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.

Who was a better midfielder Zidane or Viera? Zidane was up to little defensively, but he was still a better midfielder than Viera. The truth is that Zidane and Keane are the two best of those archetypes in that generation. Viera and Scholes are on a level just below them. All of the players are slightly different in terms of what they offered to a team so absolute comparisons are impossible in most cases. Zidane also had the luxury of playing a lot of his career in midfields built to cover him defensively, Scholes (even with Keane beside him) did not. For all of Keane's domination of midfields the United midfield was still very open during his time there because of the style of play. Scholes had a lot of work to do and overall he did a fantastic job. Sure his defence was poor because of his proneness to bad tackling, but he was far from useless defensively.

If Scholes had played in a solid five man midfield - like Xavi and Iniesta do for Barca - his over aggressive tackles wouldn't have been nearly as exposed as they were in the constantly stretched United midfield.

Keane stands above any other central midfielder in the history of the Premiership imo. Scholes and Viera were certainly the two just below that. Gerrard and Lampard don't come anywhere near that in terms of central midfielders, to try and claim otherwise is nonsense. There have been precious few truly creative central midfielders of quality in that time period.

Bryan Robson and Glenn Hoddle you could definitely argue were better than Scholes. But he fully deserves to be up there with them and being argued about.

Ince and Wilkins you are having an absolute laugh with. I've seen very little of Wilkins, but you don't need to see a lot to know that he is not anywhere near the same category as Scholes. Wilkins and Ince were two players that suffered from the English disease of being poor at getting the ball forward under pressure. They just didn't have the first touch to let them turn on the ball in tight situations. If you are trying to make the argument that they offered more defensively (and before you explode I know Wilkins had a shot on him, his goal threat was still nothing compared to Scholes), then that is true. But with all things considered Scholes was light years ahead of them.

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

Robson could not do everything that Scholes could. Scholes had better passing, better first touch, better movement off the ball and more deadly finishing. Robson was a better dribbler, was more of a leader and was a lot better defensively. I'm not even sure who I would like to say was best overall, I suppose you have to give it Robson because he was more rounded, but it is just not true to say that he could do everything Scholes could. I think, but I'm not sure, I remember Ferguson saying that he rated Robson higher and that was because he was more rounded.

eagle eye wrote: »

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

I'm not insulting you, I'm calling you on your bullshít. I'd be very happy if you don't respond to my posts any more. I'm still going to point out your bullshít when you post bullshít though.

eagle eye

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not insulting you, I'm calling you on your bullshít. I'd be very happy if you don't respond to my posts any more. I'm still going to point out your bullshít when you post bullshít though.

I find that insulting tbh and I'd say a lot more do too if you do it to them. And you can be sure that I won't be responding to anymore of your posts because I won't be seeing them from now on.

dceire

As a lifelong United fan Scholes is probably my favourite player of all time. I don't think there is any other player I have enjoyed watching than little Scholesy. Sad to see him go but he'll never be forgotten.

Ordinary man

I loved scholes' dislike of the spotlight.I loved the way contracts and pay rises never were an issue. No embarrassing stories in the tabloids about him.

I loved the way he could make the game look so simple.I loved the way he gave 100% every game - when did you ever hear him accused of not trying or just arsing about? Fair enough he had a wild streak but what ginger doesn't:D

nkay1985

Some of the stuff in here really is embarrassing. It's almost as if some people have to take a contrary view just for the sake of it! How anyone can call themselves football fans and then call Scholes overrated beggars belief.

I get the feeling that none of us can ever truly know just how good Scholes was. I think he's the sort of player that, until you've played with him or against him, you wouldn't know. His technique has been lauded plenty but it's his awareness, his football brain that I'll miss most. He just seemed to know exactly what the situation was when the ball came to him and make the correct decision accordingly.

It's sad that he finished on a losing note but I think he acquitted himself very well when he came on in the final. He brought a measure of control and injected some urgency into United's play.

A quiet, unassuming guy who had bags of talent. I don't think I'll ever see a player like him at United again. The term is overused in football but he's a true United legend.

lordgoat

SlickRic wrote: »

the fact the entire Barca midfield pretty much idolise him says a lot.

the fact Zidane called him the best says a lot.

the fact Bobby Charlton heralds him as the best of the modern era says a lot.

i think you could pick out any midfield player of the last 20 years, ask them who the best is, and who they'd want in their team, and it would have been Paul Scholes.

the best English midfielder of the last 20 years - it could be ever, it's just i'm not old enough to make a judgment call.

he could control a game, shoot with either foot, dribble, head the ball, make late runs into the box, could do just about everything bar tackle

as i say, if you have Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets trying to swap shirts with you at the end of your swansong, rather than concentrating on celebrating one of the finest victories of your career, then, well, you've achieved something.

One of the first posts in th thread and one of the most accurate. Especially the bit in bold.

Paul Scholes, the finest central midfield player i've seen play, and the one person i'd love to get a pass from.

stumpypeeps

lordgoat wrote: »

One of the first posts in th thread and one of the most accurate. Especially the bit in bold.

Paul Scholes, the finest central midfield player i've seen play, and the one person i'd love to get a pass from.

Better than Xavi?

Cantona's Collars

Paul Scholes,the ginger genius.Simply one of the best midfielders in the world.
His speed of thought,passing ability and ability to score unbelievable goals sets him apart.
Simply irreplaceable at United,no player can match his allround game,sure he couldn't tackle but the rest of his game was as close to perfection as you could get.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Okay Phoenix Wright, if you want to be so awkward I can reword it in a way that would hold up in court:
''[You have shown that you endorse the quote] 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 reasonable interpretation was that you felt it supported your argument. Since you are trying to appear sensible, then you would not use something that you know is nonsense to support your argument. So it is very reasonable to assume that you endorse the quote as a sensible statement.''

No, that wouldn't hold up at all in court.

Pro. F wrote: »

If you do not think that the quote was a sensible statement then why did you post it and pass no comment on it? You have still not acknowledged that the quote you gave was idiotic nonsense and including it in your post did very much make your post about criticism.

I wouldn't be attacking your credibility if you didn't endorse that idiotic quote.

If you're too stupid to realise what a quote is, I can't debate with you. If you want to add two plus two and get five, that's your problem I'm afraid.

I'd recommend going to Ken Earlys twitter and whinging at him for having a different opinion to yours. I'm sure he'll care about how much you value his credibility as I do.

ShamoBuc

No doubt Scholes was a serioulsy good player -over a long period of time aswell- but there are some posts that are going a little over the top. One of the major parts of being a CM is the ability to tackle - Scholes was fairly brutal at it. The other aspects of his play were top notch -no denying that.

lordgoat

stumpypeeps wrote: »

Better than Xavi?

I've never seen Xavi play. There's more to football than what you see on the tv, Scholes off the ball is vastly under rated.

I'd also take Iniesta over Xavi.

fulhamfanincork

Danny Murphy just as good as Scholes.

stumpypeeps

lordgoat wrote: »

I've never seen Xavi play. There's more to football than what you see on the tv, Scholes off the ball is vastly under rated.

I'd also take Iniesta over Xavi.

Given Xavi spends more time on the ball than most players I dare say he's pretty good off it also.

Ordinary man

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Danny Murphy just as good as Scholes.

I'm after spitting coffee all over my computer after reading this. I thought the previous one eyed crap that was spouted earlier couldn't be topped but low and behold you came along with this pearl of wisdom. Congrats - the single most stupid post in this thread and it was an exceptionally tough one to win;):rolleyes:

fulhamfanincork

Ordinary man wrote: »

I'm after spitting coffee all over my computer after reading this. I thought the previous one eyed crap that was spouted earlier couldn't be topped but low and behold you came along with this pearl of wisdom. Congrats - the single most stupid post in this thread and it was an exceptionally tough one to win;):rolleyes:

Murphy superior Tackling, set piece tackler, a leader (Unlike Scholes who always shirked responsibility of captaincy).

Scholes slightly superior passer but miles better striker of the ball.

Not saying Scholes is a bad player just saying that I'd rather have Murphy.

Divorce Referendum

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Murphy superior Tackling, set piece tackler, a leader (Unlike Scholes who always shirked responsibility of captaincy).

Scholes slightly superior passer but miles better striker of the ball.

Not saying Scholes is a bad player just saying that I'd rather have Murphy.

You can have him no fecking problem!

James Forde

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Murphy superior Tackling, set piece tackler, a leader (Unlike Scholes who always shirked responsibility of captaincy).

Scholes slightly superior passer but miles better striker of the ball.

Not saying Scholes is a bad player just saying that I'd rather have Murphy.

Seriously?

Edit: just read your username

Say Your Number

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Murphy superior Tackling, set piece tackler, a leader (Unlike Scholes who always shirked responsibility of captaincy).

Scholes slightly superior passer but miles better striker of the ball.

Not saying Scholes is a bad player just saying that I'd rather have Murphy.

You'd prefer to have a journeyman over a player who's been consistently at the top for 15 years.

Mr Alan

Say Your Number wrote: »

You'd prefer to have a journeyman over a player who's been consistently at the top for 15 years.

I disagree with faulhamfan, but what does your point have to do with anything? If Scholes didn't spend his entire career at Utd would that have made him less of a player?

Paul Tergat

Oh dear ****ing God. Now Danny Murphy ahead of Scholes. This thread which was supposed to be about one of the greatest players to ever grace the league has come down to this.

Unearthly

What a player. Gonna miss him badly.

Sven should have been shot for playing him on the wing.

and cheers for the entertaining read of Ince and Murphy being better.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

No, that wouldn't hold up at all in court.

I disagree strongly, but there is no need to waste any more time arguing about what would and would not hold up in court. It is a ridiculous standard to think should be applied to a forum discussion anyway.

Ush1 wrote: »

If you're too stupid to realise what a quote is, I can't debate with you. If you want to add two plus two and get five, that's your problem I'm afraid.

I'd recommend going to Ken Earlys twitter and whinging at him for having a different opinion to yours. I'm sure he'll care about how much you value his credibility as I do.

Obviously I realise what a quote is.

Obviously my problem with what Ken Early said is not that his opinion is different to mine, but that it I think his opinion is idiotic in the extreme.

I was hardly adding two plus two and getting five when I got the impression that you agreed with the quote. You included a quote which is critical of Scholes in your post where you were criticising Scholes and you said nothing to indicate that you disagreed with Early. Just to be clear, in case you want to a pedantic nut-case about it, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with criticising Scholes sensibly and I'm not saying that the criticism you wrote yourself was over the top, but it very much seemed like you agreed with that quote. And you still haven't said that you disagree with it.

Maybe it's just a mis-understanding. I know when you are putting a post together it can be read differently than you might have planned. But if it was actually the case that you do think that the Early quote is idiotic nonsense, and I was wrong in thinking that you agreed with it, then why didn't you just say when you quoted me? Do you really have to be this awkward?

Danny Murphy may be a better tackler and free taker. I'd say that's where it ends !

Robbie Savage anyone? Better hair

fulhamfanincork

I see no United fan has questioned Scholes for shirking responsibilities of leading his team unlike Murphy.
Scholes has better long range(aerial) passing, Murphy better passer on the ground threading the ball through.
Scholes abysmal tackler, horrific. Murphy very decent tackler.


I'm not saying Scholes is rubbish and congratulations to him on retiring but Murphy is better. If Ferguson had coached Murphy ye would all agree with me.

Headshot

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I see no United fan has questioned Scholes for shirking responsibilities of leading his team unlike Murphy.
Scholes has better long range(aerial) passing, Murphy better passer on the ground threading the ball through.
Scholes abysmal tackler, horrific. Murphy very decent tackler.


I'm not saying Scholes is rubbish and congratulations to him on retiring but Murphy is better. If Ferguson had coached Murphy ye would all agree with me.

you crack me up

Say Your Number

Mr Alan wrote: »

If Scholes didn't spend his entire career at Utd would that have made him less of a player?

If he went to another club and was as consistant as he was, it wouldn't make him any less. Murphy is a decent player, but saying he's ahead of Scholes is taking the piss.

fulhamfanincork

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I see no United fan has questioned Scholes for shirking responsibilities of leading his team unlike Murphy.
Scholes has better long range(aerial) passing, Murphy better passer on the ground threading the ball through.
Scholes abysmal tackler, horrific. Murphy very decent tackler.


I'm not saying Scholes is rubbish and congratulations to him on retiring but Murphy is better. If Ferguson had coached Murphy ye would all agree with me.

This is why I like the SF

fulhamfanincork

rarnes1 wrote: »

This is why I like the SF

sf?

Headshot

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

sf?

San Francisco

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree strongly, but there is no need to waste any more time arguing about what would and would not hold up in court. It is a ridiculous standard to think should be applied to a forum discussion anyway.



Obviously I realise what a quote is.

Obviously my problem with what Ken Early said is not that his opinion is different to mine, but that it I think his opinion is idiotic in the extreme.

I was hardly adding two plus two and getting five when I got the impression that you agreed with the quote. You included a quote which is critical of Scholes in your post where you were criticising Scholes and you said nothing to indicate that you disagreed with Early. Just to be clear, in case you want to a pedantic nut-case about it, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with criticising Scholes sensibly and I'm not saying that the criticism you wrote yourself was over the top, but it very much seemed like you agreed with that quote. And you still haven't said that you disagree with it.

Maybe it's just a mis-understanding. I know when you are putting a post together it can be read differently than you might have planned. But if it was actually the case that you do think that the Early quote is idiotic nonsense, and I was wrong in thinking that you agreed with it, then why didn't you just say when you quoted me? Do you really have to be this awkward?

Nothing awkward here. You made a judgement that credibility has been lost. I'll live with that, I've already given my opinion on Scholes.

Ordinary man

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I see no United fan has questioned Scholes for shirking responsibilities of leading his team unlike Murphy.
Scholes has better long range(aerial) passing, Murphy better passer on the ground threading the ball through.
Scholes abysmal tackler, horrific. Murphy very decent tackler.


I'm not saying Scholes is rubbish and congratulations to him on retiring but Murphy is better. If Ferguson had coached Murphy ye would all agree with me.

If murphy is such a great player, why is he staying with a low to mid table team like fulham instead of a top team? Why wasn't there top teams lining up to buy him? And why did liverpool dump him?

aidan24326

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I see no United fan has questioned Scholes for shirking responsibilities of leading his team unlike Murphy.
Scholes has better long range(aerial) passing, Murphy better passer on the ground threading the ball through.
Scholes abysmal tackler, horrific. Murphy very decent tackler.


I'm not saying Scholes is rubbish and congratulations to him on retiring but Murphy is better. If Ferguson had coached Murphy ye would all agree with me.

Fulhamfan have a nice cup of tea and a good sleep and you'll feel better in the morning

You're clearly not feeling the best, head gone a bit discombobulated I think.

Liam O

If only Xavi and Iniesta had taken influence from Danny Murphy they'd probably have been better from it :rolleyes:

lordgoat

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Murphy superior Tackling, set piece tackler, a leader (Unlike Scholes who always shirked responsibility of captaincy).

Scholes slightly superior passer but miles better striker of the ball.

Not saying Scholes is a bad player just saying that I'd rather have Murphy.

Yep, maybe Scholes should have dropped down to a bottom half of the table team to prove just how good he was.

Good one though, made me laugh.

fulhamfanincork

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

sf?

Soccer forum.

It's full of characters

Backstreet Moyes

Have a look in Danny Murphys trophy cabinet and compare it to Scholes cabinet and it will give you a slight hint to who the better player was.

Nuts102

Nuts102 wrote: »

Have a look in Danny Murphys trophy cabinet and compare it to Scholes cabinet and it will give you a slight hint to who the better player was.

Is that legal?

fulhamfanincork

Nuts102 wrote: »

Have a look in Danny Murphys trophy cabinet and compare it to Scholes cabinet and it will give you a slight hint to who the better player was.

Scholes was lucky given the team he played with. Murph was unlucky.


Anyway this thread isn't about who's better.

It's about apppreciation for a decent proffesional.