England - the aftermath
- Thread starter Plum
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
When I was up \i Aberdeen, Manure came up to play a testimonial for the kit man who retired and was there when Ferguson was at Aberdeen. Scholes played, and even though it was a friendly he was just head and shoulders above everyone else on the pitch. You would have never thought it was a friendly, he played as if his life depended on it.
Don't get me wrong I liked scholes. But at Man U he was in the dominant team with a certain Roy Keane alongside him. Giggs one side and Beckham the other.
Man U massively underachieved in Europe or were found out, you choose.
Man U massively underachieved in Europe or were found out, you choose.
Possibly regarding Wilshire but I don’t think he’s done enough to warrant inclusion but no denying he has tha natural talent.
I think we could have done with chamberlain last night to be honest. Finally started to live up to his early promise this season. Would have been in the staring line up for me this World Cup
Whether Zidane said that or not (finding the actual interview seems difficult to say the least, though Zidane was evidently a fan), it's not true, is it? Like when people go on about Pele saying George Best was the best player of all time, so therefore it must be true (Pele has made this claim about a number of players, but has most frequently named himself when asked that question). Scholes was terrific at domestic level in England - which is the environment in which most people have seen him given the Premier League's global popularity - but he wasn't as effective in European club football and he rarely played well for England (it's no coincidence that his best game at international level came against Scotland; effectively a domestic British game). Yes, he was eventually moved out to the left-hand side of a midfield diamond (where Zidane would sometimes play for France, as it goes) but that was after he'd been given four years in his favoured attacking central midfield position and largely been underwhelming. He may have suffered from Sven Goran Eriksson's cowardly post-2002 team selections - when the manager was simply trying to get his best 11 players somehow into a team - but the truly great players find a way to make themselves effective at whatever level they're playing at. Scholes never really did that for England. And at no point in his career was he ever the best midfielder in the world, as outstanding as he was for Manchester United.
Man for man in each position and croatia win with a few defenders from england maybe ahead
It did show how perhaps ineffective kane is,anonymous yet again
He's not at that top level of player
Maybe he was injured
The whole 2nd half was england of old
Panicking
Long balls
Constantly booting it when croatia pressed
Which led to croatia dominating the ball and tempo
Many reasons. Inexperience
Etc
I have doubts about maguire, i just think he lacks that bit extra to become a top class defender
Manager too niave to change anything last night
Same system
Same subs
Some players should move abroad
It did show how perhaps ineffective kane is,anonymous yet again
He's not at that top level of player
Maybe he was injured
The whole 2nd half was england of old
Panicking
Long balls
Constantly booting it when croatia pressed
Which led to croatia dominating the ball and tempo
Many reasons. Inexperience
Etc
I have doubts about maguire, i just think he lacks that bit extra to become a top class defender
Manager too niave to change anything last night
Same system
Same subs
Some players should move abroad
I think it was more a physiological thing with Scholes wasn't it. He wasn't happy playing for England or something.
Whilst I agree with most of your comments Rich, I think Messi hasn't really found his level playing for Argentina. He is regarded as a 'truly great' player by a lot of people.
I took my young son (on reflection probably too young at the time) to a Leicester match versus Man United for the sole reason of giving him the opportunity to see Paul Scholes play and hopefully learn something. It is the only time I have ever bought a ticket for a match where City weren't playing. That is how good Scholes was.
He's still played in a World Cup final, won the player of the tournament award in Brazil 2014, has played in three Copa Americas finals, and at club level has a ludicrous scoring record and a load of Ballon d'Ors and Champions League winners medals. I agree that he hasn't quite 'done it' for Argentina when compared with his incredible club career, but his international career hasn't quite been the disaster it is sometimes made out to be.
I'm not sure if it's an urban myth (as you say, it's hard to find the original interview), though he has certainly said in interviews that he was the best midfielder he ever played against.
He did indeed. But what does Zidane know compared to 606 experts?
Interviewed by English journalists, yes.
Interviewed by Italian journalists, an Italian player.
They all do it. Good pr.
I know Wimbledon is special and the best tennis tournament, cos the winner will say that.
Strangely th French one the other week was then.
Then it'll be the Aussie one.
Do you think that Scholes was a better or more effective international midfielder than, say, Zidane, Kaka, Pirlo or Ballack, whose careers overlapped his?
Who gives a flying **** about multi millionaire foreigners knocking a little ball over a net?
Footballers earn their living playing for clubs. There have been many great players who have done nothing at international level due to the players around them not performing or the manager not using them properly.
This is what Zidane actually said. "My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder. Scholes is undoubtedly the greatest midfielder of his generation."