PompeyVillan Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Let's not be silly, Paul Scholes and David Beckham are both great players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobler Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) What sticks out for me is that period when he was at his peak at the turn of the century, it was almost obscene how much ground he would cover during a game, he played with so much determination, i've never seen anything like it since and possibly won't again. Obviously not massively naturally gifted but just a top, top professional and one that i'll look back at in many years to come and say was a wonderful player of that particular time. Edited May 17, 2013 by nobler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Not just lack of pace he couldn't go round players like the real greats of the game. Scholes had a better range of passing and scored more goals Nobody mentions that Scholes never beat a man for pace. Truth is neither of them really had to as their technique and passing was so good they could split open a defence or score from anywhere with a couple of touches. It's just the way people used to laugh off Scholes's tackling that wound me up for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Waddle reckons he wouldn't be in the top 1000 players to feature in England's top flight. Can't say that I agree with him, he'd comfortably make it into my top 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 17, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 17, 2013 His retirement has hit some particularly hard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Waddle reckons he wouldn't be in the top 1000 players to feature in England's top flight. Can't say that I agree with him, he'd comfortably make it into my top 25. Not just lack of pace he couldn't go round players like the real greats of the game. Scholes had a better range of passing and scored more goals Nobody mentions that Scholes never beat a man for pace. Truth is neither of them really had to as their technique and passing was so good they could split open a defence or score from anywhere with a couple of touches. It's just the way people used to laugh off Scholes's tackling that wound me up for years. Scholes doesn't rank a great either. Definition of great is George Best, Pele, Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona, Platini, Zidanne etc. He's not in that league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 I always liked Beckham. Great footballer and carried the England team for years. He seemed to be the only player who cared at times. I also subscribe to the fact he was a good bloke. Everything I have heard about makes me think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Waddle reckons he wouldn't be in the top 1000 players to feature in England's top flight. Can't say that I agree with him, he'd comfortably make it into my top 25. Not just lack of pace he couldn't go round players like the real greats of the game. Scholes had a better range of passing and scored more goals Nobody mentions that Scholes never beat a man for pace. Truth is neither of them really had to as their technique and passing was so good they could split open a defence or score from anywhere with a couple of touches. It's just the way people used to laugh off Scholes's tackling that wound me up for years. Scholes doesn't rank a great either. Definition of great is George Best, Pele, Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona, Platini, Zidanne etc. He's not in that league. Ironically Zidane famously described Paul Scholes as "the finest midfielder of his generation" http://youtu.be/M3AHuFCoybo Scholes is highly rated by most, if not all, but I do wonder what his reputation would have been like had he been foreign or ten years younger. Scholes was shafted at international level time and again because of the English obsession with having a 'box to box' midfielder who charges around the pitch for 90 minutes. Scholes was more cultured than that. What if he had been from a country who appreciated those qualities? What if he had been coming through today and all of a sudden we realised we had a player who was every bit as good as Xavi? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmythomas Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Seems like a nice guy, but ****, does Beckham have the worst accent ever or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted May 17, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 17, 2013 Paul Scholes was a dirty word removed, always hated him, plus he gave up on England way too early. People say Beckham was limited but the only thing I can see was missing from his game was pace, he had everything else. Hehe. Didn't mean to start a debate on DBeck vs Scholes. I was just going for a bit of wordplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Beckham-Scholes-Keane-Giggs What a midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 I loved the Brazilian side of 82. I was so disappointed when Italy beat them. Me too, a travesty. Socrates was awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Beckham-Scholes-Keane-Giggs What a midfield. Would've been interesting to see them up against: Case-McDermott-Souness-Kennedy I think the latter edge it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Beckham-Scholes-Keane-Giggs What a midfield. Would've been interesting to see them up against: Case-McDermott-Souness-Kennedy I think the latter edge it. Scholes and Souness going in for a 50/50 would've been a sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Souness wins that ten times out of ten in my minds eye. Scholes was clumsy, Souness was a beast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 I loved the Brazilian side of 82. I was so disappointed when Italy beat them. Me too, a travesty. Socrates was awesome 82 in my opinion was the best ever world cup, Socrates legend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Beckham-Scholes-Keane-Giggs What a midfield. Would've been interesting to see them up against: Case-McDermott-Souness-Kennedy I think the latter edge it. How about the Leeds one of the 70s. Gray, Giles, Bremner and Lorimer. Giles for all his football ability was a hard little so and so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 I know, but if you think of the United greats he would pro be 11th at best Edwards Best Law Charlton Robson Cantona Giggs Scholes Ronaldo Rooney Beckham Bruce, Keane, Schmeichel, Irwin, Vidic, Hughes, Neville even Solskjaer would be ahead of Beckham and Rooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted May 18, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 18, 2013 Seems like a nice guy, but ****, does Beckham have the worst accent ever or what. How'd ya keep a straight face typing that on a messageboard full of Brummies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Waddle reckons he wouldn't be in the top 1000 players to feature in England's top flight. Can't say that I agree with him, he'd comfortably make it into my top 25. Not just lack of pace he couldn't go round players like the real greats of the game. Scholes had a better range of passing and scored more goals Nobody mentions that Scholes never beat a man for pace. Truth is neither of them really had to as their technique and passing was so good they could split open a defence or score from anywhere with a couple of touches. It's just the way people used to laugh off Scholes's tackling that wound me up for years. Scholes doesn't rank a great either. Definition of great is George Best, Pele, Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona, Platini, Zidanne etc. He's not in that league. Ironically Zidane famously described Paul Scholes as "the finest midfielder of his generation" http://youtu.be/M3AHuFCoybo Scholes is highly rated by most, if not all, but I do wonder what his reputation would have been like had he been foreign or ten years younger. Scholes was shafted at international level time and again because of the English obsession with having a 'box to box' midfielder who charges around the pitch for 90 minutes. Scholes was more cultured than that. What if he had been from a country who appreciated those qualities? What if he had been coming through today and all of a sudden we realised we had a player who was every bit as good as Xavi? Up there with the best midfielders and my favorite players. I feel people sell him a bit short sometimes, but you hit the nail on the head here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts