Paul Scholes is my favourite Premier League era midfielder. It's a combination of his quality and consistency for so long that puts him on that pedestal in my eyes. That said, the way some people (including pros, pundits, journos etc) go on about him leaves me wondering if I've watched the same player. The Scholes hype borrows from something I rather lazily term 'the Makelele ruse'. Here, a quality player spends a long time in the shadow of his more accomplished, illustrious, flamboyant team mates and goes a little under the radar. Suddenly, a couple of voices highlight how good they are and a massive new rolling bandwagon massively over-compensate for the previous "under-recognition" with incessant, excessive praise. Such players are often under-stated and unassuming in carriage and mannerisms which often wins them big points and lots of love among fellow pros. It also adds a touch of mystique to their persona which helps perpetuate the legend. It often explains how quiet, unassuming players like Scholes, Makelele, Modric and even Iniesta (who's still one of my favourite players) suddenly go from one of the world's most under-rated players to the most over-rated. This mini-rant was spurred by a debate with a group of Man U fans on the better player at their peak between Scholes and Fabregas. My problem wasn't with their predictable, unanimous consensus of Scholes being the better player but the contemptuous dismissal of the very idea of putting both players in the same sentence. You'd think Scholes was Keane, Zidane, Ronaldinho and Messi rolled into one with the way they went on. Of course, there was the predictable allusion to quotes of Zidane, Davids etc calling him the best and brain-dead comparisons of trophy counts (O' Shea must be better than Cesc too). It just does my head in when some smart-a** trying to feel clever blurts the tired old line about Scholes being underrated. In 2003, there may have been an element of truth in that but certainly not now. It's the complete reverse scenario. And that's my penny's worth on the mildly irritating Scholes hype.
I stopped reading when you put modric in that list. Then carried on reading, Scholes was indeed a great player, fabregas' vision and passing, amazing shooting, intelligent in his play and positioning and a good guy off the field (until we find out he's been shagging about like giggs) But fabregas isn't yet in his peak so you cant really compare the two
Scholes - greatest ever in giving away cheap and poor tackles in dangerous positions, endangering opposition players. Nasri should no better that scholesy has retired and he doesn't have to join manu to avoid Scholes anymore.
But fabregas isn't yet in his peak so you cant really compare the two. ____________ ______ I disagree with this. Fabregas COULD still get better but his performances in the 07/08 and 09/10 seasons rival anything Scholes ever achieved in his peak. People love to go on about Scholes' passing. There are 2 elements of the passing to consider when comparing Scholes and Cesc: in terms of the ability to put a 50-60 yard ball on a six-pence, Scholes comes out on top but in terms of the ability to envision and execute an incisive pass that takes out a defence, Fabregas comes out on top. No Premier League midfielder plays a forward, incisive pass better than Cesc. Not even a peak Scholes and I do have tons of stats to back it up.
Meh it's always so debatable when comparing players. Some are better at some things and suit different formations/teams better. Some excel at nothing but are good at everything. Scholes, for example, was great at most but possibly one of the worst tacklers of the ball I've ever seen! It's much easier just to agree that both are great players because unless you can create a parallell universe and time machine, transport Cesc back to Scholes' youth days and switched 'em (you'd also need to create a VERY potent hair dying machine AND get Cesc to agree to go daywalker - not easy methinks) there's no way to accurately compare. I tend to have a scale for rating players and they go into the various categories. Horsesh*t - Dire - Bad - Ok - Alright I guess - Useful - Good - Tidy - Excellent - Awesome. That's the depth of how far I go into rating/comparing because it's so subjective. Messi, for example, would be an 'Awesome'. Chamakh would be an 'Alright I guess' and Carlton Palmer a 'Horsesh*t'. Simple.
Hats off to the lad though, he's probably spent more time in the sunlight than almost any other ginger ever. Why rumour has it that his immunity is such that he can stay out in a balmy 25 degrees for up to two and a half hours!
Our lighthouses are unmanned, so in retirement he could be used up there during the night to ward off ships, when the light fails.
gerrard is/was much better, a complete midfeilder who could do anything, i think the only positions he hasnt played in for liverpool are GK and LD, scored in every major domestic and european cup final, player and young player of the year awards, twice scored goal of season, MBE, captained winning champions league team, and even as a liverpool fan he has carried a pretty mediocre team for years, virtually winning trophies and getting consistant top 4 on his own. scholes is a good player but he just cant do what gerrard does
I think people would be hard pushed to find a better all round midfielder than Gerrard. I mean, Iniesta and Xavi are of course better at passing the ball, but I think at his peak Gerrard is one of the best all round midfielders there were/are.
That's hard to say really, Just because the likes of iniesta, xavi, scholes, favregas have decent-good players around them meaning they have less to do doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do it if they had **** around them Plus, gerrard was only good when alonso was around doing the hard work, alonso left, gerrard and liverpool became ****, coincidence?
Why is this suddenly about Gerrard? If you go remotely off topic or dare disagree with anything on the LFC board they whine like ****. Anyway, back on topic, I agree completely with the OP. Scholes isn't even the best United CM of the premier league era, Roy Keane is. By a mile. Don't get me wrong, Scholes is a great player, I appreciate his loyalty, longevity, commitment, skill, goals etc. and I'll always be greatful but I agree that if anything he has now become over rated. He was dirty as **** and it got us in trouble, he got booked too many times and it got us in trouble, he gave the ball away too often and he also got sent off for deliberate hand ball a few times, getting us in trouble. Other than that, top drawer
Plus, gerrard was only good when alonso was around doing the hard work, alonso left, gerrard and liverpool became ****, coincidence? .................... gerrard was an england international and was dragging liverpool into the champs lge before alonso even joined. didnt chelsea desperatly want gerrard the summer before we bought alonso? didnt alex fergusson admit he would love gerrard at utd? when alonso joined it freed gerrard to play as a more attacking player and be able to score 20+ goals a year, obivously he was going to get better with age and it just coincided that his peak was the 3 seasons 05-07. to say he was only good because of another player is a bit daft afterall every manager in europe would of wanted him before that
Ha! That's funny, in fact it's the first time I've ever heard that. Almost seems like it's a stereotype... a bit like Welshmen and sheep?
Trilogy - Wilshere may go into tackles with the enthusiasm of youth - but dirty? I don't think so. I hope he will temper his will to win the ball with experience. However to elevate Wilshere to the level of Keane and Scholes is downright absurd. Scholes was possibly encouraged by SAF to 'make his presence felt' the way he seemed to target influential players for the kick up in the air stuff. Keane may have been incredibly loyal but was shocking in behaviour - ought to have been banned from the game..
Why have the Scousers hijacked my thread? For the record, while a rate Gerrard highly for his drive and versality, if we're talking purely about midfield creativity, vision, passing range and ability to dictate the midfield tempo, he doesn't come within a country mile of Scholes.
if we're talking purely about midfield creativity, vision, passing range and ability to dictate the midfield tempo, he doesn't come within a country mile of Scholes. ..................................... creativity = ok i'll give you that one vision = pretty even passing range = gerrard is miles better, pings 40 yrd balls all over the place dictate the midfield = that is gerrard best strength, noone is better at it
