- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/3/17 at 7:38 pm to Masterag
quote:
as a fellow liverpool fan i understand the hate for MU. but paul scholes has more goals and assists than xavi hernandez, for a club that's on the same level. let that sink in.
The guy listed him as the third best player in the history of the game.
Let that sink in.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:01 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
The guy listed him as the third best player in the history of the game.
Let that sink in
it was me... and i listed him as the 3rd best since i've been watching. after zidane, i don't think there's a better midfielder in the past 20 years.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:26 pm to Masterag
quote:
it was me... and i listed him as the 3rd best since i've been watching. after zidane, i don't think there's a better midfielder in the past 20 years.
You think Scholes is the best midfielder to play in the last 20 years?
Somewhere recently I read a compelling argument for Zidane being overrated. It was on Bigsoccer I think, and someone went back and watched as many games as he could of Zidane from 1996 til his career end. I'm searching for a link.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:34 pm to Masterag
Zidane himself agrees with you...
As does Xavi...
quote:
Zinedine Zidane: My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder. Scholes is undoubtedly the greatest midfielder of his generation.
As does Xavi...
quote:
Xavi Hernandez: Paul Scholes is a role model. For me – and I really mean this – he's the best central midfielder I've seen in the last 15, 20 years. I've spoken to Xabi Alonso about him. He's spectacular, he has it all: the last pass, goals, he's strong, he doesn't lose the ball, vision. If he'd been Spanish he might have been rated more highly. Players love him.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:53 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
You think Scholes is the best midfielder to play in the last 20 years?
after zidane, yes. and I'm a Liverpool fan so I've obviously got no dog in the fight.
he's got better offensive and defensive stats than both xavi and iniesta, and played for arguably the biggest club in the world during his 20 year tenure. Go back and watch some old games and see who really made that offense tick. it was paul fricking scholes.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 10:08 pm to Masterag
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/20/25 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:36 pm to Masterag
I've watched Scholes plenty. He was a fantastic DLP, and I wish he moved deeper earlier in his career. But let's not pretend that his achievements as a deep lying midfielder weren't equaled or surpassed by Pirlo and Xavi.
The system at Man U was more direct than the systems that Pirlo and Xavi played. Scholes loved being the apex of a triangle deep in midfield from which he could send a ball across the field to a winger or a fullback. That was in fact the point of the midfield interplay of that particular Man U system, as Sir Alex's teams were built on creating this push pull like effect on the opposition so that they became narrow. Scholes did it really well, although I think Carrick was better at the short range interplay.
Pirlo's teams were different. He had players around him to ensure he never had to do defensive work, or as little defensive work as possible. He had players around him who loved carrying the ball but also had willing runners. Those Milan teams were built around him. And he was a pretty superb DLP, the likes of which we might not see again, as he withstood the end of the 3 man midfield at beginnings of the noughties. He could avoid the physical aspect of the game by the smart use of space. It's hard for me to say that Scholes would have had the same sort of influence from deep-lying positions. Yet Pirlo would never have the stats that the English midfielders do in general because the English in particular value directness from midfield, which isn't a bad thing, but it also isn't a trait that is particularly valued on the continent.
Xavi and other smaller DLP's who came to prominence later came as a result of the offside rule change in 2005. I'd argue that Scholes move to deeper in midfield was enabled by this change as well. Pep's system at Barca maximized this advantage, which also signalled the return of the 3-man midfield (first really reintroduced as a low-block counter attacking system by Mourinho in 2005). Xavi certainly took advantage of this. He was as important to those Barca and Spain teams as anyone else. And I reject the notion that the stats are better for Scholes. Xavi had 20 assists in the league in 2008, while Scholes had 21 assists in all comps from 2005 til his retirement. The next season Xavi had 14, and averaged around 7 or 8 the rest of his career.
And its difficult to make a case as to what club is bigger between Man U, Barca and Milan/Juventus, all of which are/were elite clubs. For me, Pirlo was the best DLP of the decade, though his stats weren't on the level of Xavi or Scholes.
The system at Man U was more direct than the systems that Pirlo and Xavi played. Scholes loved being the apex of a triangle deep in midfield from which he could send a ball across the field to a winger or a fullback. That was in fact the point of the midfield interplay of that particular Man U system, as Sir Alex's teams were built on creating this push pull like effect on the opposition so that they became narrow. Scholes did it really well, although I think Carrick was better at the short range interplay.
Pirlo's teams were different. He had players around him to ensure he never had to do defensive work, or as little defensive work as possible. He had players around him who loved carrying the ball but also had willing runners. Those Milan teams were built around him. And he was a pretty superb DLP, the likes of which we might not see again, as he withstood the end of the 3 man midfield at beginnings of the noughties. He could avoid the physical aspect of the game by the smart use of space. It's hard for me to say that Scholes would have had the same sort of influence from deep-lying positions. Yet Pirlo would never have the stats that the English midfielders do in general because the English in particular value directness from midfield, which isn't a bad thing, but it also isn't a trait that is particularly valued on the continent.
Xavi and other smaller DLP's who came to prominence later came as a result of the offside rule change in 2005. I'd argue that Scholes move to deeper in midfield was enabled by this change as well. Pep's system at Barca maximized this advantage, which also signalled the return of the 3-man midfield (first really reintroduced as a low-block counter attacking system by Mourinho in 2005). Xavi certainly took advantage of this. He was as important to those Barca and Spain teams as anyone else. And I reject the notion that the stats are better for Scholes. Xavi had 20 assists in the league in 2008, while Scholes had 21 assists in all comps from 2005 til his retirement. The next season Xavi had 14, and averaged around 7 or 8 the rest of his career.
And its difficult to make a case as to what club is bigger between Man U, Barca and Milan/Juventus, all of which are/were elite clubs. For me, Pirlo was the best DLP of the decade, though his stats weren't on the level of Xavi or Scholes.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:42 pm to Masterag
It was you, my bad.
And I didn't know you were listing only players you've seen live. I assumed it was a respond to the thread topic.
In that case your argument makes much more sense.
And I didn't know you were listing only players you've seen live. I assumed it was a respond to the thread topic.
In that case your argument makes much more sense.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 8:43 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
I've watched Scholes plenty. He was a fantastic DLP, and I wish he moved deeper earlier in his career. But let's not pretend that his achievements as a deep lying midfielder weren't equaled or surpassed by Pirlo and Xavi.
Granted, these stats account for a few years when Scholes played further forward as well. However, the difference in goals and assists is still significant. There's no denying that Scholes, as a deep-lying midfielder, added a unique goal threat in addition to pulling all the strings.
And Scholes shouldn't be penalized for his diversity and ability to play in a lot of different roles. If anything, it's a credit to his abilities that he started his career as a striker and, later, could play at the top or the base of midfield. He did spend many years in that deeper role though.
While some disagree with him, Masterag has more than a colorable argument. Those downvoting or laughing about it should think twice. Scholes' play definitely passes the eye test. And he has the trophies, stats, and commendations from other players like Zidane and Xavi to back it up. I tend to agree with Xavi - Scholes would be more venerated if he wasn't English.
ETA: Disclaimer - my opinions are clearly biased. He's my favorite player of all-time. Just wanted to weigh in on the thread hijack.
This post was edited on 5/4/17 at 9:15 am
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:34 am to Masterag
quote:
these are only players i've seen play live, so basically anyone after 95.
No Alan Shearer?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 11:36 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
I couldn't find assist stats for Scholes like that. I found he had 21 assists in the last 7 seasons of his career, when he played deeper. According to the Premier League site, Scholes only had 55 assists in the league his entire career. But it also claims that he had only 44 through balls his entire career, which beggars belief. LINK
I straight up don't trust the 138 number. That would be a startling amount of productivity. If after 2005, he had only 21 assists, then that would mean he generated 10 assists a season from 1993 to 2005, which we both know he didn't.
The reason I rate Pirlo more is that he came to prominence when the three man midfield was effectively dead. Players like Scholes and Xavi benefited more from the rule change in 2005. Players like Pep had their careers shortened because of the prominence of the two man midfield.
I straight up don't trust the 138 number. That would be a startling amount of productivity. If after 2005, he had only 21 assists, then that would mean he generated 10 assists a season from 1993 to 2005, which we both know he didn't.
The reason I rate Pirlo more is that he came to prominence when the three man midfield was effectively dead. Players like Scholes and Xavi benefited more from the rule change in 2005. Players like Pep had their careers shortened because of the prominence of the two man midfield.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 2:42 pm to crazy4lsu
Even at 55 assists, he's right in the conversation with a substantially higher goals rate.
In any event, I think you're certainly well within your rights to favor Pirlo or Xavi over Scholes. I wouldn't argue with anyone about that much.
There were a couple of people in here sort of laughing at the idea that Scholes was one of the best midfielders of the last 20 years, outside of Zidane. If someone had said Pirlo or Xavi, I doubt the response would've been the same. For some of the reasons I've mentioned, I think he's in the conversation.
In any event, I think you're certainly well within your rights to favor Pirlo or Xavi over Scholes. I wouldn't argue with anyone about that much.
There were a couple of people in here sort of laughing at the idea that Scholes was one of the best midfielders of the last 20 years, outside of Zidane. If someone had said Pirlo or Xavi, I doubt the response would've been the same. For some of the reasons I've mentioned, I think he's in the conversation.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:09 pm to PeepleHeppinBidness
I do think he is in the conversation, and I'll be honest, I liked him a lot as a DLP. If he were on the continent with a system built around him I think he'd be far more revered. Pirlo and Xavi got the chance to be the lynchpin while the English don't really appreciate the deep role, with the way they've sidelined both Carrick and Scholes.
That he was shunted aside for the doomed pairing of Gerrard and Lampard exemplified everything wrong the English approach.
That he was shunted aside for the doomed pairing of Gerrard and Lampard exemplified everything wrong the English approach.
Posted on 5/5/17 at 6:37 am to crazy4lsu
The greatest ever is Leo Messi. It's not close really IMO. Surprised he's not getting as many mentions. The best of the modern era. He's been the most dominant player by far competing against the most talented clubs/players of any generation. There have never been as many great players as there are right now and he dominates at a level never seen before. CR7 is number 2. The numbers these two put up compared to everyone else are absolutely astounding.
IMO it's not fair that Pele is basically the de facto answer by many in regards to this topic. It's not his fault, but the competition he faced was nowhere near what Messi has faced throughout his career. Also never playing anywhere except Brazil and America really hurts his case as the best ever.
I find that pundits and analysts (mostly former players from a different era of football) seem to favor the greats from previous generations. You see this in other sports also. Retired basketball players are the worst. Misplaced nostalgia is a funny thing and sometimes brings out the worst in guys from previous eras of sport.
IMO it's not fair that Pele is basically the de facto answer by many in regards to this topic. It's not his fault, but the competition he faced was nowhere near what Messi has faced throughout his career. Also never playing anywhere except Brazil and America really hurts his case as the best ever.
I find that pundits and analysts (mostly former players from a different era of football) seem to favor the greats from previous generations. You see this in other sports also. Retired basketball players are the worst. Misplaced nostalgia is a funny thing and sometimes brings out the worst in guys from previous eras of sport.
This post was edited on 5/5/17 at 7:06 am
Posted on 5/5/17 at 6:42 am to mynamebowl
In 5 years there won't even be a debate when this guy lifts his 2nd world cup trophy.
Posted on 5/5/17 at 11:40 am to mynamebowl
You serious with the "there have never been as many great players as there are right now?" I'm gonna rattle off some names that were playing soccer when I first started watching. Ronaldo, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Figo, Raul, Maldini, Henry, Viera, Van Nistelrooy, Carlos, Cafu, Rivaldo, Kahn, Nesta, Bautistuta, Vieri, Crespo, Ballack, Davids, Nedved, Riquelme, Shearer, Eto'o, Keane, Kaka, Davids, Makelele. And you want to talk about talented clubs when it's literally Barcelona, Madrid & Bayern compared to back then when AC Milan, United, Inter, etc were at the peak of their powers.
This post was edited on 5/5/17 at 11:52 am
Posted on 5/5/17 at 12:08 pm to jrtplaya21
quote:You could argue Arsenal were too, with an invincibles season, UEFA Cup final, & CL final.
when AC Milan, United, Inter, etc were at the peak of their powers.
Posted on 5/5/17 at 2:23 pm to jrtplaya21
quote:
You serious with the "there have never been as many great players as there are right now?"
Yes I am. I said in my post it was just my opinion dude.
So your way of presenting your argument that players/clubs from the past are better than their modern counterparts is simply to rattle off a bunch of names and cherry pick a few clubs that used to be good but aren't anymore. I could go that route too with great players and clubs doing it right now but that's retarded so I'm not going to do that.
There's never been a time in history where there were more great athletes playing soccer, American football, basketball, baseball. Every single facet of legit, big time, money-making leagues, teams, players and everyone and everything involved in high level sports are better now than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Training. Nutrition. Technology. Tactics. Preparation. Fans. The Matchday Experience. The physiology of the athletes themselves. Coaching. Everything. All of it. Every measurable or common sense argument leans towards the modern athlete having every single advantage. The top tier of athletes in the world in every sport are better than they have ever been. And there are many many more of them than ever before. This is a fact. But that doesn't necessarily translate to MORE great clubs. The talent gap isn't as wide as it used to be before world football is what it is now so it's probably tougher to spot the truly great modern players. There's probably about the same number of standout clubs per league as there has been for several decades now. The players and quality and athleticism and everything is just better for the modern version of these great clubs. It's truly a great time to be a soccer fan.
But overall - The top, mid, and lower tiers of clubs, leagues, and players in 2017 are better than they have ever been.
Posted on 5/5/17 at 2:32 pm to jrtplaya21
quote:
you want to talk about talented clubs when it's literally Barcelona, Madrid & Bayern compared to back then when AC Milan, United, Inter, etc were at the peak of their powers.
WTF are you trying to say here?
There were six talented clubs?
Inter, LOL.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News