And Scholes doesn't have the ability to run with the ball for 30-40 yards. Nor can he play in multiple positions. Nor can he tackle and do the defensive work. So yes, Scholes is a better central midfield. But Gerrard is the better ALL ROUND footballer.
In your dreams was Scholes better than Gerrard. So what is supposed to be so good about playing until 38? At that age he was and looked a has-been!
If Scholes was so good in his old age then why were Man Utd fans always complaining about their midfield and saying it was non existent for years under Ferguson. Scholes must've been a great influence in the centre of the park for teams to overrun you week in week out in the centre of the pitch
Scholes in his 20s could run with the ball no problem, he was a quality dribbler, not sure who you where watching when Scholes was younger. As far as the multiple positions go, Scholes has played and been effective in multiple positions throughout his career. He's played on the left, he's played off the front, and he's played as a holding player. As far as tackling Scholes really wasn't as bad as some would have you believe, yes he did get booked a lot, but who cares, there is nothing wrong with taking one for the team. Gerrard was a better tackler, and probably could play in more positions, but John Oshea could do the same. You wouldn't say John Oshea was a better footballer , based on the fact he could play more positions. It's better to be a master of one trade than a jack of all trades. By your logic James Milner is a better all round footballer than Xavi?
And there lies the true quality of Gerrard, he never played in sides with the quality of players around him that Scholes did on a constant basis, yet his tackling, passing and positional skill and his ennthusiasm to succeed carried us to victory in finals etc. If you think Scholes had the quality to single handedly lead a team to success you are off your horses head mate. And btw Gerrard has received plaudits off Henry, Zidane, Pele etc.
I never complained, Scholes and Carrick were a great pairing. Look at the trophies we won with Scholes in the team in his mid to late 30s, we won the PL 5 times, and made 3 CL finals, winning one. You really cannot argue with the silverware we picked up in that period, and Scholes was a vital player for us
So do you believe Scholes could do more than Gerrard? There's a difference between being a utility player and a player who can comfortably play in a number of positions and at a HIGH LEVEL, which is what Gerrard has proven.
Scholes was a quality footballer and one of the finest this country has ever produced. He's one of the best central midfielders I have seen and he's better than Gerrard in this role by far. I'm just talking about the complete package and Gerrard could do almost everything, and at a high level.
Scholes was a better player and midfielder. He also aged far better. Look at calamity steve compared with scholes as both moved deeper into defensive midfield. Gerrard was more energentic though.
When it comes to being an all round footballer and inspiration then Gerrard leaves Scholes well in his wake. It truly is no contest.
Hard to compare as Scholes never had to carry a team. Scholes inspired in a different way though, quietly and with superb technique.
That's a ridiculous comparison considering Scholes was taught to play in those roles all his career. His loss of legs wasn't going to affect his ability to play. Gerrard's skillset was based around box to box running and dynamism so it was natural that he was going to fade in his latter years.
Scholes was an attacking midfielder. Often played as a second striker on the few occasions we didnt play with two up top. He didnt score 20 a season as he played that role at a time when 442 was common. Keane covered the defensive side and scholes was the attacking mid. As he aged he became a defensive playmaker. He never had pace but used inteligence. Regardless of his role. Well unless some idiot played him left wing.
