Paul Scholes

I'm not concentrating on anything, i'm just not brushing it under the carpet. I appreciate his qualities but to be as complete as people make out he is terrible in the tackle and gives the ball away too much, end of.

 

I don't agree with that, if anything he keeps the ball everytime i watched him.

 

He used to give the ball away a fair bit when he was younger. he was schooled by Pirlo a couple of times

 

You clearly haven't watched him much.

 

You are aware this is Matth you're talking too Ruff!

 

I know, how dare I eh? He'll be sending the Scholes police round to arrest me for blasphemy.

 

If Scholes had been at a Xavi/Pirlo level for two decades, United would have won more CLs

 

if Roman Abraomvich wouldn't of bought Chelsea, they would've been in administration.

 

Unfortunately for you he did; and now we are the best team in Europe

 

This, Scholes is decent for long balls but switches off for short passes easily and gives it away too often, Carrick a few times but not as much, not much is said by commentators when he gives it away because of his status and maybe age who knows

 

Scholes is a very good player on the ball on his day but I can't remember him ever controlling a game of football in the way Xavi, Pirlo or even Alonso do. He's also a passenger off the ball and a team might aswell play with 10 men if you don't have the ball with Scholes in your team.

I think I've got a new phrase for what happens to players like Scholes, its "Makelele syndrome", he does a decent job for the team without ever really doing anything spectacular. The reality was he was a decent holding midfielder who did a good job for Chelsea, now he's portrayed as some sort of world beater and one of the worlds best midfielders. Very odd.

There's a long list of players that have been hyped up in this way. Capdevila, Carrick, Park Ji-Sung, Kuyt, Heskey etc all spring to mind in recent memory. I'm not saying they're all at the same level of ability, but whats happened to them is pretty similar, people claim they are doing some important invisible work which makes them seem like a vital piece of the team even though they're probably the easily replaceable members of the team.

 

classic thread... perhaps we can also have threads as to who is better between gerrard and lampard, ronaldo and messi.. never seen a thread about either subject before

 

False, dipshit.

 

No you are not. Thats like saying liverpool were the best team in 2005. Lies.

Luckiest is the term you are looking for I think.

 

False, dipshit.

 

To be fair we actually attacked teams, we didn't concede possession and have 9 players defending in the 18 yard box relying on the opposition missing chances to go through.

We still weren't the best team in Europe though, but we were a lot closer to being that than Chelsea, to be honest.

 

Fair enough.

To be the best team in Europe you have to be a league champion. For me the best team in europe last season was Real Madrid.

Champions of their domestic league and a CL semi final. Nobody else did better.

 

Juventus deserve some credit too, full season unbeaten in the league. Would've been interesting to see how they would've done in CL results wise, because the Arsenal invincibles were pretty awful in europe considering their domestic record.

I would say Real Madrid and Barca are the two clear best teams in Europe at the moment tbh...

 

Wouldnt of expected much from them this time round, think the italian league was poor last season and Juve were one of those that benefited from it. We will never know though but still think Real just about deserve the title of best team in the world.

Real
Barcelona
Borrusia Dortmund
City
Bayern Munich
Manchester United
Chelsea

Off just last season thats how I would put it, biggest emphasis is on league position and then factor in the cups. Why United above Chelsea? Simply the League position. Though Chelsea ahead of United wouldnt be too far wrong.

 

For once i agree with you.