This. Shearer could have easily had a career at the very top playing on the right wing if hadn't been so damn good at putting the ball in the back of the net. He could create a yard of space and deliver superb crosses into the box. Hold up play was obviously excellent too. Then there's his leadership qualities, which were very good. He did lose a yard of pace in the last few years of his career but adapted his game and still did well for us. It's just a shame about those dodgy knees.
Shearer was right to go to Newcastle, he had to be the big fish in the pond and he'd have never been that at United, he'd have turned up and despite being the better goal scorer, he wouldn't have taken Cantona's throne. He was always the big man at Newcastle, that's the way he needed it, and for England. The best player to step foot on the St James' park turf in any of these lad's lives is Paul Scholes, time and time again they watched him rip their team to shreds.
Paul Scholes is one of my favourite players of all time. I once got ripped by a few Man United fans for calling him workmanlike, but I still believe he was far from being the most gifted footballer I have ever seen - but he is definitely one of the best footballers I have ever seen. While he may not have had the natural talent of Giggs, he had a brilliant football brain and a workrate that would put virtually anyone else to shame. He did exactly what Alex Ferguson wanted and needed him to do. His reading of the game was amazing, and I would say he was the best passer of the ball I have seen in my lifetime. It often went unnoticed outside of Manchester though, as he would never pass it 40 yards when there was just as good an option 5 yards away. But boy he could hit those 40 yarders when he needed to - just as he could produce the stunning goals at times too. You'll hate the comparison, but the player he reminded me of most was Terry McDermott. Not saying they were in the same class over the course of their careers, but the way they played the game was very similar. Neither of them would ever be the real headline grabbers, but both played a big part in creating the reputations of other headline grabbers. I also don't buy into the myth that he was as bad at tackling as people said. He just had the ability to be a very dirty player when his team needed him to be. He used the myth to get away with a lot - which in my book makes him a much more effective dirty player than Roy Keane. It isn't a criticism of him either. Every team needs that dirty player to be truly ruthless. Again, not in the same category, but when we had a good Tiote and Cabaye at the heart of our midfield it was Tiote who had the reputation for being dirty, but it was Cabaye who was by far the dirtier of the two players. He just did it with an innocent smile on his face and got away with far more. I don't agree with Shearer needing to be the biggest fish in the pond as being the sole reason for him being here. I think there was definitely that side to him, but I do think it had a lot to do with just wanting to be a Newcastle hero too. Sadly, he never quite helped us get beyond runners-up in any competition. However, compared to the results most of us have endured for the past 50 years, even runners up is relative success.
Scholes was vastly under rated in many quarters I think. He was the complete player - he literally had the lot. He probably had some big offers from Barca etc... come his way but he's the type of bloke who would do a 'Shearer' and look beyond the money. The long service him and Giggs gave the club will likely never be repeated in English club football again.
I was hoping for a meltdown actually mate. Scholes is my favourite player of all time, I don't expect everybody to agree with me on that I just haven't seen anybody like him and I'll always be biased either way, so it makes no sense to argue over Scholes/Pirlo or Scholes/Zidane for me. Shearer from my view probably made the right choice, at the time, but he should have left with Keegan or at least when Dalglish had ruined the team, but he stayed, pissing in the wind until Robson come and saved his career. I don't believe him at all if he says he wouldn't change a thing, he should have won everything. This sport is about winning, not goals and statues.
If Carlsberg did meltdowns they'd do it on the Sunderland board As for the Pirlo or Zidane thing, I agree it makes no sense to compare them as individual players. They had different roles to fulfil. A team full of Pirlos or Zidanes would be exciting to watch, but a team full of Scholeses would probably beat them for their all round game.
A team full of Zidane's vs a team full of Cantona's would be funny to watch, red cards everywhere, kung fu kicks and headbutts order of the day.
Scholes just got carried by a team of superstars, just like gary neville. His job was easy, let Keane do the tackling, let beckham and alike do the top passes, whilst he just buzzed around playing simple 10 yard balls and having the occasional shot, which yeah there are a couple of worldies in his collection, but I've scored worldies and I play sunday league, if you shoot enough your gonna connect with one or two. Had shearer had gone to Man u and broken the all time goal scoring record, there would be a statue of him outside OT no doubt, he would have eclipsed cantona and would be in the same catagory as Charlton or George Best. Shearer - 559 app 283 goals Sir Bobby Charlton - 758 app 249 goals Shearer was in a p!ss poor team for a few years, sustained lengthy injuries he was lucky to come back from and had awful managers for long periods. I dont doubt that has Sir Alex got his way, Shearer would have won more and probably would be well over 300 PL goals deep
I'm being deadly serious. Everything I said there is what I believe. Cantona was a good player like, but 5 years at Man U and only 64 goals, Nisterlrooy was there for 4 years and scord 95 and they are never mentioned in the same breath. It;s not like every single goal Cantona scored was a master piece, one chipped lob and arrogant celebration and the mancs cream themselves.
Scholes was a good player. People saying he was under rated but I think it's the other way around. People wax lyrical about him all the time like he was one of the greats, but I don't quite put him in the same class as some of the names mentioned. He read the game well and had a fantastic right foot but tackling and dribbling not so good. I always thought he should have played a bit further forward because he was such a good finisher, rather than CM where his tackling got him into trouble. When Sheringham left Man Utd I thought Scholes would have just taken that position.
82 goals in 185 games actually which isn't a bad return, probably superior to Bergkamp as a percentage I'd say. The thing is mate, we don't fall in love with goal scorers here like you did with Shearer, we don't necessarily give a **** that Rooney may or may not break Charlton's record, we much prefer winners to people who go round counting goal tallies. Cantona won, you should know that if you know your Newcastle history. That's why we like him, but I understand why you worship your local hero so much, since you never win nowt. Maybe when you win the Championship, you'll think about Daryl Murphy in a similar, but less significant way.
People see him differently, it'd be boring if we all thought Scholes was the best player, there'd be nobody to laugh at.
TEL you often talk sense but you're very very wrong here. In fact it's the stupidest comment I think I've ever read on this forum. We never win nowt? We often win nowt. Now hang your head in shame.
Cantona and Scholes were incredible, but aren't we talking about strikers here? Bergkamp sometimes played deeper rather than being an out and out striker too. Both Cantona and Schole's games were about far more than goals, esp. Cantona who I've heard many describe as the best Prem player ever, I'm tempted to agree.
