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.
The Gerrard v Scholes debate is always a strange one as there not similar players. The obvious argument is Lampard v Gerrard as there clearly is a connection, but in terms on how they both played the argument is nonsense. Gerrard could play in multiple positions and take the game by the horns. Scholes could dictate the play of a game and was always composed.
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!
Scholes did lead Man Utd, with the way he played the game, he may not have been the most vocal of players but he let his feet do the talking. Scholes got other players around him playing football. Every time our team was under heavy pressure, Scholes was always the man who could take that pressure off the whole team, by receiving the ball and retaining possession, despite having opposition players all around him. Scholes had the tools to be a box to box midfield player, as proved in his younger days, but he also had the ability to run games from deeper and keep the pressure on opponents. Scholes believe it or not did carry Man Utd, for many years, you take him out of the midfield and the team would struggle to keep the pressure on opponents like we used to be able to. You look at how many late goals we used to get, that is no coincidence. It is because Scholes would tire teams out with his passing and ball retention during a game, that the opposition would be out on there feet come the final 10 mins. Scholes would have led any side he played in to success, as he gave others the confidence to play. We have had so many great players under Fergie, and the common opinion amongst all of them is that Scholes was the best. His England team mates believed the same to, they all went back to there clubs saying how amazed they where with Scholes in training. Even Jamie Carragher has said that Scholes was the one player that impressed him the most when training for England. It was the common opinion amongst all the England players that Scholes was the best
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
Start a thread about either Scholes, Gerrard or Lampard and as sure as spades is spades it will turn into a "one is better than the other thread". That's this thread done then!
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
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.
This is what I said but then the United fans like to disregard this and explain how good Scholes in specialist areas.
John O'Shea could play anywhere. Sure others were better than him in specific roles but he could literally play in any position. Phil Neville too. I dont think that makes either of them better than say, Evra, who could only play left back.
