So not being able to make a tackle without fouling throughout his career is superb technique is it?
Thats one thing Gerraed has over him. One of the few.
So not being able to make a tackle without fouling throughout his career is superb technique is it?
Thats one thing Gerraed has over him. One of the few.
Just to clarify on the Scholes vs Gerrard debate: no-one except Liverpool fans think Gerrard is even close to Scholes's level.
You United fans trying to make sensible arguments on this are showing Scholes a huge amount of disrespect by even acknowledging the Liverpool fans' absurd viewpoint.
Big talk but your balls are teeny tiny.You merely prove my point regarding you singular lack of any ability to comprehend what you have supposedly read. I explained to you carefully using simple terms so as not to over-tax your abilities that I had no need to support my predictions in any way. I further explained that your continued demands to bet was nothing short of childish. Yet you still persist with you puerile nonsense. It is just too sad to witness your continued stupidity!
Big talk but your balls are teeny tiny.
Big Dave said last week that United would finish 7th or lower. I disagree and was happy to have a wager on it, either financial or sportsman's (with a forfeit of his choice!). He's been blustering and blubbering ever since!What is the bet?
Just out of curiosity...
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.


Why do people even bother comparing the two? Anyone with a brain can see they are two completely different types of player. Next we'll be comparing who was the better player between Fowler and Van Der Sar, or Carrick and Spearing![]()

I agree comparing one of the best goalkeepers in the world of his generation, to the 5th best English striker of his era is stupid![]()
Gerard is decent at long range passing, not as good as Scholes though. The area that Scholes really trumps Gerrard as a footballer is his ability to receive the ball under pressure and play short passes to team mates quickly. He can dictate games in the same way Xavi and Pirlo can. Gerard has never had anywhere near that kind of ability in possession. This is why now that his legs have gone at 34 he is having to step down a level and head to USA. When Scholes was 34 he still had a lot to offer, as he didn't need to rely on having legs, he could rely on his talents as a footballer. Scholes was still playing for the Premier League champions at the age of 38, that's how talented he was.
You ask the majority of players that have played with Scholes throughout his career who the best they played with was and most will say Scholes. And take into account that Scholes played in a side who where the best in England for most of his time there, and at times the best in Europe too.
Many great players who played against Scholes rate him as the best too. Zidane, Henry and Kliuvert to name a few.![]()
Gerrard is a better all round player. He's the most complete midfielder of his generation.
Scholes could pass and his shooting was good, but he couldn't tackle or defend for ****.
Lampard again, great passer and brilliant goal scorer but never had to or could defend.
Pirlo, brilliant on the ball, average off it and again can't defend and was never the most mobile.
So many great midfielders are great in one area either attacking or defending, think of Keane he was brilliant as a defensive midfielder who could also drive forward and great leadership but wasn't really a threat going forward. Similar to Vieria.
Gerrard may not have been as great a goal scorer as Lampard or as good a passer as Scholes or Pirlo but he was still exceptional at those but he also had athleticism, he truly was box to box, he could defend and tackle, he had leadership qualities to drive a team on and singlehandedly won us trophies. Would Scholes or Lampard have been able to do that on their own in such poor team? We'll never truly know but my guess would be not to the same level.
I've said for years, Scholes was a better attacking player and Keane was a better defensive player, but Gerrard was the better player.

I've said for years, Scholes was a better attacking player and Keane was a better defensive player, but Gerrard was the better player.
Gerrard is a better all round player. He's the most complete midfielder of his generation.
Scholes could pass and his shooting was good, but he couldn't tackle or defend for ****.
Lampard again, great passer and brilliant goal scorer but never had to or could defend.
Pirlo, brilliant on the ball, average off it and again can't defend and was never the most mobile.
So many great midfielders are great in one area either attacking or defending, think of Keane he was brilliant as a defensive midfielder who could also drive forward and great leadership but wasn't really a threat going forward. Similar to Vieria.
Gerrard may not have been as great a goal scorer as Lampard or as good a passer as Scholes or Pirlo but he was still exceptional at those but he also had athleticism, he truly was box to box, he could defend and tackle, he had leadership qualities to drive a team on and singlehandedly won us trophies. Would Scholes or Lampard have been able to do that on their own in such poor team? We'll never truly know but my guess would be not to the same level.
How does that work then?

This is what I said but then the United fans like to disregard this and explain how good Scholes in specialist areas.![]()