Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:32 pm  

Scholes was good but he was no Elano.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm  

Enfield Exile wrote:

snip

I accept that as your opinion fella, I really do. But I don't think you can bring his play at international into it. If we're doing that Messi should not be mentioned in the same breath as Maradonna or Pele. He has been "meh" for Argentina. I think his international form was massively underated as it happens.

My personal opinion is that in his peak, Scholes is as good as I've seen in a United shirt at reading the game. He did what Xavi does now (a very good comparison). A mis-conception was that Scholes was an attacking midfielder because of his shot (which for me turned out to be the one part of his game that he could've done better at - goal scoring). He never gave the ball away and always made space for himself to receive the ball. You hear a lot about a "footballers footballer" which I hate, but I can sort of understand it with Scholes. He always seemed to be available and always had a load of space. He was outstanding at that. You listed players there such as Ronaldinho who did it for 2 or 3 years at Barca then fell off a cliff. Scholes did it for a prolonged period of time.

I love the argument (which other people have made) of a good player in a good team. In that case, Xavi and Iniesta aren't as good as people make out as they play with each other (ooh errr) and Messi.

I am biased when it comes to the Ginger Prince and I do not hide that, I think he is a special talent who we as a nation should be proud of. However, I don't think we will because of club allegiances, which is a shame. If he played in Spain I think he would be in your list along with Xavi and the likes.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:06 pm  

JWP wrote:

Wasn't Lampard England's best player at Euro 2004?

Comparisons between Scholes, Lampard & Gerrard's abilities tend to reflect their performances since 2004 rather than at the time. As an England player, Lampard in particular has sadly declined, had poor WC's in 2006 and 2010. By contrast Scholes has enjoyed a remarkable end to his career (this season aside) probably at least in part due to his retirement from international football.

But back in 2004 if anyone had outside of Old Trafford had suggested that Scholes should have been picked in central midfield ahead of Lampard or Gerrard they'd have been laughed at. Lampard was easily the better player, at that time.

And the argument that Lampard & Gerrard couldnt play together didnt really gain currency until after Euro 2004. England qualified for Euro 2004 with relative ease, nobody at that time was suggesting that the team needed to be radically changed. That was the real cause of the problem. England had such a comfortable qualifying campaign against weak opposition that the Lampard - Gerrard partnership was never really tested.

Scholes subsequent career may have proved him to be the better player, but its re-writing history to suggest that he was in 2004.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:13 pm  

Enfield Exile wrote:

If I had as much time on my hands as Flipper, I could easily pull off similar quotes made about a number of other players in the last 20 or 30 years.

Yawn - relatively easy to do when the opinion is so widely shared.

It's not like I am trying to suggest Georgi Kinkladze was the best player in the world ever, and looking for supporting quotes from sane people is it?

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:17 pm  

[

RedTez wrote:

I accept that as your opinion fella, I really do. But I don't think you can bring his play at international into it. If we're doing that Messi should not be mentioned in the same breath as Maradonna or Pele. He has been "meh" for Argentina. I think his international form was massively underated as it happens. .

TBF, mate, Messi is still a youngster. He has plenty of years to light-up the international scene. He looked very good at the World Cup IMO. He did everything but score a goal. He was not as dominant as he is for Barca, but still prominent.

My personal opinion is that in his peak, Scholes is as good as I've seen in a United shirt at reading the game. He did what Xavi does now (a very good comparison). A mis-conception was that Scholes was an attacking midfielder because of his shot (which for me turned out to be the one part of his game that he could've done better at - goal scoring). He never gave the ball away and always made space for himself to receive the ball. You hear a lot about a "footballers footballer" which I hate, but I can sort of understand it with Scholes. He always seemed to be available and always had a load of space. He was outstanding at that. You listed players there such as Ronaldinho who did it for 2 or 3 years at Barca then fell off a cliff. Scholes did it for a prolonged period of time. .

He read the game well, without a doubt. He also had a number of skills that he was not credited for, including his heading. I know heading wasn't his strength but was certainly a more than competent header of the ball. The point being that he was an allrounder.

As for Ronaldihno, it doesn’t matter if he did it for only a year IMO. He played at a level that could not be matched by any player at the time. We all know that Ronaldihno’s form dipped because of his lifestyle, not because he was a flash in the pan. That for me doesn’t mean you can question his ability.

I love the argument (which other people have made) of a good player in a good team. In that case, Xavi and Iniesta aren't as good as people make out as they play with each other (ooh errr) and Messi. .

It does put question marks over a players ability. Of course, it does. How often does a player look much better when they move from an average team to a big club? From my experience, United fans were not singing the praises of the likes of Steve Bruce and Gary Pallister when they played for Norwich and Boro, respectively. Yet within a few months of joining United, my mates, and the press, were telling me they are among the best defenders in the world..

I am convinced of Xavi’s ability as he basically controls the top club side and best international side in the world. Without him, the players around him, and the team, are not as effective. He’s the brains behind both teams.

I am biased when it comes to the Ginger Prince and I do not hide that, I think he is a special talent who we as a nation should be proud of. However, I don't think we will because of club allegiances, which is a shame. If he played in Spain I think he would be in your list along with Xavi and the likes.

Nothing wrong with being biased. It’s what being a supporter is about.

I would have to disagree with the claim that if he played in Spain he would be on my list. If anything, it is English players who are overrated.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:20 pm  

flipper wrote:

Yawn

That was my reaction when I started to read your post. I imagine the reaction of a number of others too.

It's not like I am trying to suggest Georgi Kinkladze was the best player in the world ever, and looking for supporting quotes from sane people is it?

What has this got to do with City?

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:09 pm  

Enfield Exile wrote:

That was my reaction when I started to read your post. I imagine the reaction of a number of others too.

What has this got to do with City?

the simple point, that appears to be evading you again was - that the extensive list of accolades for Scholes from many of the top players in world football of the last 20 years was not in fact a time consuming thing to pull together as you suggested it was, given they are plentiful and no doubt will continue given the high regard in which he is held.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:51 pm  

flipper wrote:

the simple point, that appears to be evading you again was - that the extensive list of accolades for Scholes from many of the top players in world football of the last 20 years was not in fact a time consuming thing to pull together as you suggested it was, given they are plentiful and no doubt will continue given the high regard in which he is held.

You would find the same words being spouted about many players.

Just as you get the press informing us of who is 'world class'. If I listened to them, there would be at least 200 world class players currently plying a trade.

You still haven't stated why City was brought into the debate.


See that's the thing - you can generally have a conversation with a proper United fan.

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:22 pm  

RedTez wrote:

If he played in Spain I think he would be in your list along with Xavi and the likes.

As a bit of a side issue, would it be fair to say that England's dismal performances in the last decade, with what many regard as a pretty decent squad, is down to the fact that nearly all of our players tie themselves to the English League and so are pretty clueless when it comes to the technical skills of international football?

Would it have helped England as a side, if the likes of Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, etc had made the move to the Spanish or Italian leagues, helping their technical abilities?

Certainly, if you believe the hype, there wouldn't have been a lack of big European clubs after these kinds of players, and so if they had gone for a spell, perhaps things might have been different?

Re: Football Chat Thread : Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:34 pm  

Scholes was good but he was no Ricard