Zatman Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 the thing with Scholes is he was perfect for international football and if he was any other nationality would probably have the national team built around him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Wasn't Scholes 29 when he retired from international football? I know the clubs pay the wages but that's unacceptable. Why is it? I mean I know that is a widely held view but why is it unacceptable for a professional footballer to put his actual paid playing career ahead of winning cloth caps? Why is it unacceptable to choose a prolonged club career ahead of travelling the world playing a mixture of meaningless friendlies and qualifying games for competitions you are never going to win? Why is it so unacceptable to want to play for your club and then spend the time you aren't playing for that club with your family? I'm not saying I'd make the same decision as Scholes or take the same course of action that Giggs took but I can understand why each of them make the decision they did and certainly don't think its unacceptable. Jeez that's a lot of questions. Did this attitude exist pre-Sky? I must be naive in expecting players to actually want to play for their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 the thing with Scholes is he was perfect for international football and if he was any other nationality would probably have the national team built around him Yep. England are good at that with creative midfield players. Hoddle was a phenomenal player, but like Scholes was never properly used by England. LeTissier had all the talent of Gascoigne with none of the bad points and he was pretty much never used at all. They were all more than good enough to build your whole team around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I agree with the Scholes comments, he was the best midfielder of his generation, not Gerrard or Lampard. England should have built the team around him but never did for some inexplicable reason. I think if he were 25 years old today then we probably would because we have seen the success Spain have had with Xavi (who is a very similar player) pulling the strings in their midfield. I think Scholes probably didnt charge around the pitch enough or something to be a guaranteed starter in central midfield, we tend to like the all action "box to box" midfielders here. Hindsight is 20/20 though I guess. As for the Le Tissier comments? I cant agree with those at all. He was a very different footballer from Gazza. Gazza was the all action hustle and bustle midfielder who was blessed with amazing technical ability. His dribbling (driving runs from deep midfield) and strength on the ball were his biggest strengths. He was a great outlet ball as he hardly ever conceded possession, and of course he had great creativity and chipped in with his fair share of goals too. Le Tissier was supremely talented, but it was all to do with striking the ball. He was a quarterback I guess, he could put a ball on a sixpence from fifty yards with either foot and his ability to score from outside the box was the stuff of legend. However, his work rate was none existent and he was hardly the fittest of footballers. If he had moved to a bigger club (Chelsea and AC Milan had offers accepted for him) then he would have had to have improved his work rate as they wouldnt have let him get away with doing what he wanted like Southampton did. I still admire Le Tissier though, he could have earned a lot more money, won trophies and got more international football had be been at a different club but he said all along that his ambition as a kid was to play in the top division with his beloved Southampton. I think he knew they would have been relegated without him in the team (though I guess they could have used the money they got for him to strengthen) so he decided to stay loyal. The fact that they did go down shortly after he retired probably vindicated his decision. Great player, but no Gazza. And of course, the biggest shame is that Gazza went to Spurs instead of Manchester United. I think the bright lights of London and the world famous nightclub owner Terry Venables were the worst thing that could have happened to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Very good assessment of Le Tiss. Could of had an even better career if he had wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 29, 2012 Agree with all that Rev, on the money as always. For me Le Tissier is rather similar to Taarabat, sublime skill and talent but too lacking in too many areas of the game to ever be a top player. At his boyhood club Le Tiss found his neche as I think Taarabat did in the championship perhaps although if Le Tiss were playing today I think that is the level he would be at as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Back on topic I felt there was a kind of arrogance about Ryan Giggs with regards to the Wales national team. He was the only top player there and his demeanour (sp) and behaviour showed that. He was always acting like he was superior. Compare that to how he is with Manchester United where he is one of many stars. It is very similar to Hristo Stoitchkov and how he acted with Bulgaria, shouting at team mates, acting arrogant, pushing them away when they tried to celebrate with him, getting frustrated at a mis placed pass, trying to do everything himself. At Barcelona he did none of that, because he was just one of many stars. As I said earlier, we have to question the character of Mr Giggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Gerrard > Scholes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Gerrard > Scholes not in a million years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 As I said earlier, we have to question the character of Mr Giggs pretty sure that has been questioned in last year or 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Gerrard > Scholes Different players completely, but I would rather have had Scholes in my team than Gerrard. Gerrard is fantastic, but I think there is a reason why Scholes has been the heartbeat of a side who have dominated English football for more than 15 years and Gerrard has a handful of medals from cup competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm guessing that if Great Britain had a team, Giggs would have been instrumental in winning the World Cup in 1998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Giggs only 64 caps? That's because he was busy **** his sister in law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm guessing that if Great Britain had a team, Giggs would have been instrumental in winning the World Cup in 1998 And our successful defence of the trophy in 2002 and 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 As for the Le Tissier comments? I cant agree with those at all. He was a very different footballer from Gazza. Gazza was the all action hustle and bustle midfielder who was blessed with amazing technical ability. His dribbling (driving runs from deep midfield) and strength on the ball were his biggest strengths. He was a great outlet ball as he hardly ever conceded possession, and of course he had great creativity and chipped in with his fair share of goals too. Le Tissier was supremely talented, but it was all to do with striking the ball. He was a quarterback I guess, he could put a ball on a sixpence from fifty yards with either foot and his ability to score from outside the box was the stuff of legend. However, his work rate was none existent and he was hardly the fittest of footballers. If he had moved to a bigger club (Chelsea and AC Milan had offers accepted for him) then he would have had to have improved his work rate as they wouldnt have let him get away with doing what he wanted like Southampton did. I still admire Le Tissier though, he could have earned a lot more money, won trophies and got more international football had be been at a different club but he said all along that his ambition as a kid was to play in the top division with his beloved Southampton. I think he knew they would have been relegated without him in the team (though I guess they could have used the money they got for him to strengthen) so he decided to stay loyal. The fact that they did go down shortly after he retired probably vindicated his decision. Great player, but no Gazza. I wasn't meaning to compare Gazza and LeTiss as similar players, merely saying that LeTissier was just as gifted a footballer. My Dad was a big Saints fan and we used to go to the Dell a lot during the early 90s, so I saw a lot of LeTissier. I've never seen another player who looked so effortless - and you could interpret that in two ways! Everything he did he made look ridiculously easy, and he won an absurd number of games for Saints practically on his own. To score 210 goals in 540 games from midfield in a mostly poor Southampton side is a hell of an achievement. But yes, England like their midfielders to charge around all day long looking busy, a curious trait that never seems to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Midfielder? I always thought he was a forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1, 2012 Gerrard > Scholes No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Midfielder? I always thought he was a forward. Nope. He was very much a midfielder, which makes his performances in 93/94 and 94/95 (25 league goals from midfield in a team battling relegation) all the more remarkable. Great player, though I do wonder how he would cope in the league today with its much faster pace. I would have loved to have seen him in a Milan shirt in the 90s though, I think Serie A would have really suited his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 He has another 2 seasons in him I think. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Midfielder? I always thought he was a forward. Nope. He was very much a midfielder, which makes his performances in 93/94 and 94/95 (25 league goals from midfield in a team battling relegation) all the more remarkable. Great player, though I do wonder how he would cope in the league today with its much faster pace. I would have loved to have seen him in a Milan shirt in the 90s though, I think Serie A would have really suited his game. He said himself recently that if he was starting out today, he'd probably not have the motivation to reach the fitness levels required for the modern game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts