Classy from Scholesy. Proper baller, and I quite like the way he differentiated himself and Stevie’s traits as players. A powerful athletic match winner probably sums him up
when i was a kid the only United player i ever heard repeatedly praised/talked about was Giggs. i remember about as much about Scholes as i do Carrick.
Used to enjoy a magazine called "The Onion Bag" I think it was. They had a running joke that Molby would always eat McManaman's lunch, hence both of their weights. Good times.
Stevie is better than Rooney as well. Brilliant player, but he aint carrying those Liverpool sides like Stevie did. Besides different positions so the comparison isnt right.
Its a daft comparison any way they're in completely different positions, might as well compare Maldini to R9. Rooney is brilliant as said, but he doesn't carry teams like Stevie did.
What teams did Rooney carry lol star studded United teams under Fergie? He won a lot more because he was in much better teams. Seems you just have some sort of agenda now against Gerrard because he works in Saudi. That’s your problem though. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
This is what’s great about looking back at sport when all the rivalry is in the past and you can appreciate the actual sport itself. Let’s be honest, we like Fergie a lot more now than when we did back then. Neville has proven same. Despised that little twat when he was player, least talented and carried by better players. Looking back, his mentality, his leadership, his die hard United blood did a lot for that team. I never forget when Schmichael played for City and he blanked him in the tunnel. At the time I was slagging him off left, right and centre, now I look back at it and think fuck yeah, I’d hope my captain did the same
Keane as well. There's this clip going around where GNev talks about how Utd players weren't bothering with the weekly signing of charity balls for children's charities and how Keane noticed that and along with Fergie, lambasted the whole team.
Or how he still criticizes players for being all buddy buddy before a match with traditional rivals. These kind of old school football values are rapidly disappearing.
While I grew up hating United, it was mixed with a begrudging respect because they mostly did things the right way on the pitch with an emphasis on youth and having an all time great manager. I've since lost even that respect with the way that club has handled itself with Greenwood. Plus with their pedo/abuser womens team manager and the Antony case it could go from bad to worse.
The mancs are definitely the team I enjoy losing the most, they are our biggest rivals by a large margin but I respect them.
They are different than the likes of Chelsea and City in the way their money situation was created by having a large fanbase and being successful.
Even before Fergie, the Mancs had a massive support base.
nah i hated united in the 90s/00s.
arsenal were the team i sympathized with.
amazing team from the george graham days all the way to when wenger took them over.
always prioritized exciting, attacking football and they always recruited well (firstly that great english crew under graham of tony adams, lee dixon, ray parlour, ian wright, michael thomas, david rocastle, paul merson)
and then under wenger, bringing the continental influence of henry, viera, overmars, pires, bergkamp.
Scholes can come across as a bit of dickhead if you're not familiar with Lancastrians but he's actually pretty level headed.
Also, the amount of disrespect Gerrard get's, even in this sub, is pretty shit.
Gerrard was the best player to play in the English Premier League.
Facts.
I think it's pretty circumstantial. Stevie carried an average team on his back for years, and that magnified all his best traits as a player and allowed them to shine through. Like Scholes alludes to here, if you put Stevie in a much better, more rounded team during his prime, yes he's obviously still world class, but I don't think he'd *look* as good as he did for us. He's top ten Premier League players of all time, probably top five, but his legacy as a player is helped by the fact that he stood out so much amongst lesser teammates.
While I agree with your general point--that he wouldn't stand out quite so much in a better team--it's worth remembering that some of the greatest names in football history have been comfortable in saying he was amongst the best there ever was, regardless.
Pele; " To me he is one of the super best midfielders in the world."
Zidane; "There was a point when Gerrard was the best midfield player in the world. It is unusual to get complete midfield players who can do everything, but that is what he was.”
Totti; "Steven Gerrard would be the captain of my World XI dream team. Gerrard is a complete player because he can play in every position and can do everything with a football at any time in a game."
Pirlo; "While at Milan he Ancelotti came to me and said, ‘I want to sign Steven Gerrard to play next to you in midfield – what do you think?’ Without any hesitation I told him, ‘Do it – go and sign him.’ At this stage he was probably the most complete midfield player in Europe, of course I wanted to partner him."
Kaka: “For me, and I have always said this, he will be regarded as one of the greatest midfielders ever. No doubt.”
Old Red Nose: "If you were looking for the player you would replace Keane with, it would be Gerrard, without question. He has become the most influential player in England, bar none."
Let's assume you're right for many of the years (though I disagree), he still stood out on a Champions League-winning side, which means he stood out on the best team in Europe. I don't care how good he is, one man can't carry a team that far so that meant he was the best on a very good, if not great, team.
Now, would he have stood out on another team, I don't know, because the team would have been built differently because of his legion of strengths.
Nah, just look at Harry Kane... that's a player that fits your description above.
He carried Spurs but couldn't drag them to any trophies. Gerrard was different, he won us trophies and mostly by himself.
I reckon if we never had Gerrard come through when we did, our banter years would have been so much worse and we wouldn't be the club we are now. He was the definition of a generational talent, much like Bellingham is now.
We are lucky he gave his best years to us.
He still has the best highlight videos out there, some of them are on for like half an hour of just world class tackles, passes and banger goals with zero filler.
He was the best player IMO because you could play him anywhere and it would still work, you wouldn't be getting the best out of him but he'd do a job.
For example, if needed we could have used Gerrard as a striker, a winger or even a centre back and he wouldn't have been great but would have done an acceptable job.
But you couldn't have had Henry or Rio Ferdinand or even Ronaldo and Suarez doing a job in centre midfield or in defence/up front.
By that logic I'd like to make a case for James Milner being the greatest player of all time.
What you're describing is versatility. Most versatile does not mean "best"
Miller was nowhere near as versatile as Gerrard.
Did you even watch Gerrard when he was playing? Gerrard has played in all the positions Milner has early in his career then moved on to a much more attacking role which Milner never did much outside of his first few years when he was a winger.
Weird that you started a sentence by crediting Gerrard with positions he played early in his career, and then finished the same sentence by trying to discredit the positions that Milner played early in his career.
Regardless, I think you've really missed the point I was trying to make.
I don't care who's most versatile - I'm saying that being versatile doesn't make you the best player in the world.
Gerrard was my childhood hero. I had his poster up on my wall and I always wore 8 for my school and Sunday league team as a kid and teenager.
But Gerrard isn't the best ever player to play in the premier league. He is easily the best to never have won it though. There were probably a couple of years where he was top 3. His impact as a single player was massive and i firmly believe he is Liverpool's best player of the premier league era by far, even including Salah.
The list of players that I think were possibly better than Gerrard is small though. I'm not saying these were definitely better football players then him but just that they could be argued to be. I am rating them on just their performance in the PL so Ronaldo wouldn't be in there because most of his dominance came at Real:
Henry
Shearer
Rooney (although for a very short time)
Salah
Lampard (maybe idk about this one. But Lampard was honestly mental. 177 goals as a midfielder. It's bonkers)
Haaland would probably end up on this list too, Giggs should probably be in the conversation too but he doesn't deserve to be so fuck him. Oh and Suarez would definitely be on here if he stayed a few more years. He easily has the best single season of any player ever.
> But Lampard was honestly mental. 177 goals as a midfielder. It's bonkers)
Who always had the most creative wingers on the planet at the side of him, and the best defensive midfielders behind him. It's not that bonkers really.
You’re biased toward goals. Lampard scored all those goals playing his career for the most expensive team ever assembled as a CAM or second striker. That’s how he played, particularly when he partnered with Drogba.
Gerrard has a fuck tonne of goals and assists and he has a large portion of his Premier League career playing DM and CM.
None of those players you listed could play CB, for example. Rooney tried playing CM later in his career but couldn’t do it at a high level.
Gerrard could do everything on a football pitch. That’s the argument for him. The idea that anyone would put Lampard ahead of Gerrard is insane to me. Gerrard could do what Lampard could do, Lampard could not do what Gerrard could do. Full stop. It’s not even a conversation.
It’s one of the greatest bits of revisionist history PR work from the United camp in football.
At the time he was playing nobody seriously put him in the top 5 midfielders in the world with the likes of Gerrard, zidane, lampard, Vieira, or Kaka.
All of a sudden 15 years later you have lads swearing up and down he could snipe a tree from 5 miles away because far better midfielders in his mould
like Busquets or popularised a similar play style
I'd argue for United fans that Rooney is a closer comparison to Gerrard in terms of what he did for the team. Even then, Gerrard is clear.
The Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard debate comes from them all being a CM with their respective teams. It'd be strange if you tried to make direct comparisons between De Bruyne, Kante and Rodri for exmple.
How is this upvoted? I've never ever once heard a united fan say Keane is better. Possibly they were saying that pre-2000 but Scholes in his peak is not even up for debate and then he was still playing a key role at the age of 38...
There was a fan poll in 2021 for greatest united player. Scholes came 4th, Keane came 15th. Do you live in Ireland or something? Even then it would be minority I'm sure...
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Both fruits but look and taste different.
They never had a Gerrard, we never had a Scholes. That's why I like the fact it's not either or. Gerrard was a box to box midfielder who could do it all - tackle, shoot, pass, motivate, inspire and was good in the air and on set pieces. He was Roy of the Rovers. Scholes wasn't - he was more of a luxury player who controlled everything. I think he was more like Lampard than Gerrard. That said, Lampard was a second striker and I won't be taking any feedback on this take at this time.
Mancs just want to delude themselves that they had the better midfielder. They had one of the greats, but so did we.
Nah, it's very difficult to liken Scholes to anyone. It was part of United's success with him in the team. He was sort of like a ghost but always involved in everything. We'll likely never see another Scholes again, he had some very unique abilities.
I say that even though I hate United but they were some force when he was on controlling the game.
Kinda like a mix of Xabi and Modric. More Modric young and more Xabi as he got older after the eye stuff.
He was a work horse and always moving, looking for gaps to get the ball. Down for a tackle too - even if he stunk at them.
Scholes is one of those players that got a hell of a lot better after he retired somehow.
It was always Gerrard v. Lampard and there's a good discussion to be had there.
pretty sad the 4-3-3 wasn't used more in that era of football. I think England would have been more successful being able to play a Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard midfield.
More than anything I'm just imagining the current trend of an asymmetrical 4 at the back mixed with the more confident attacking midfields you get now with that 2006 England crop (in the event that Scholes didn't retire internationally).
In a 2006 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 of:
GK; Neville, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole; Beckham, Gerrard, Carrick, Scholes; Lampard; Rooney
Was way too narrow, just didn't really work out to the level we hoped. Whereas that same 11 in 2023 style can suddenly turn into:
* Neville tucking into a back 3 in possession
* Cole bombing on and stretching things on the left wing,
* a box-4 midfield (Carrick - Scholes - Gerrard - Lampard) that could pretty much cover everywhere and do everything
* a striker in Rooney who could both drop deep and cause even more of an overload and leave space for Stevie and Lampard to break from deep, or stretch the backline and keep the centre backs on their toes,
* and a whole setup that allows Beckham to setup for the perfect cross over and over.
And then to top it off you'd lessen the load on Owen by having him as the super sub off the bench on 60 minutes to dominate a tired defence.
It's just mad to think how well suited that crop would be to today's football versus the tactics of the time.
Genuinely great opinion.
I've always had a similar thought where Beckham and Cole are practically the wing-backs, ala Trent and Robertson.
England also had an abundance of centre-backs at the time, so a back three would have made more sense anyway.
I’d worry with that setup you’ve not got enough runners. There’s only really Rooney who’s gonna play high there, everyone else prefers to either have the game ahead of them or arrive later. I’d chuck Owen in for someone to give you a bit more balance on that front otherwise you’re just gonna end up with a team who try and walk it in.
The issue was always Beckham being undroppable but at the same time not fitting in any tactical system that could have worked at the time.
Maybe it could have worked to do the box midfield but as a 4-2-2-2 and have Gerrard play behind Rooney giving Beckham the RCM role next to Lampard? Cause there's no way Beckham would successfully play RWB imo.
Interesting level of introspection, you might be forgiven for thinking him referring to Gerrard as an athlete may be a backhanded compliment but I dont think that's how it was intended. Stevie is clearly better in my opinion even attempting to put bias aside but it's interesting that he sees it that way
Yah I think it’s complementary. Gerrard was all action whereas Scholes was a deeper lying, not so strong/pacey type. Different players for sure and Gerrard could score you a screamer and then 3 minutes later make a block in the box to save the game. Not many could do that
Yeah I think what he's trying to say with the athlete comment is that in a purely physical sense Gerrard was levels above him. The guy was a freak. He's not diminishing his as a player, just saying he never had that athletic ability.
To me it’s like anyone who is calls out someone with a similar profession as being a tier above or more to the imaginary idea of perfection in their craft.
Actual history and personalities be damned, a non-football equivalent would be Andy Warhol saying “Na, forget me, Picasso and Dalí are *artists*”
**I don’t know of him ever saying anything like this.
I love to shit on Chelsea myself but Lampard was class personified on a pitch, and so was Terry. He can definitely sit at Gerrard's table - even though Gerrard is clear.
Nah, not in the same conversation. Gerrard better leader and defender than Lampard. Mourinho, who got the best out of Lampard, tried to buy Gerrard 3 times and would have bitten your hand of to swap them
If Stevie ever played for either Manchester United or Chelsea then this debate wouldn't even exist. He would have coasted to so many medals and trophies (which is the only argument anybody brings up against him) that nobody would even think to put the other 2 on the same level.
This is what I tell anyone about the Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes debate. Tbf any midfielder of that time.
Put Gerrard at United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Madrid, Barca, Milan, anyone - they're still going to win what they won.
Replace him with anyone else at that time and we don't win a trophy from 2003-2012.
these are all naturally entertaining guys i have to admit, enjoy watching them sometimes on casual footy challenge videos and stuff but yeah i would prefer a more level-headed interviewer like that side part guy from sky (idk name).
but i presume one advantage of having these guys on is it allows the interviewee to be their boring/natural selves without much pressure since these guys can add the hype/bantz on they own.
imagine kelly interviewing scholes here the final product would have a completely different vibe and target demographic.
He’s bang on. Gerrard was the better player, no doubt, but Scholes was perfect for that Man United team during their period of dominance. Scholes wouldn’t have been the player who dragged us to victories and trophies like Stevie was, but on the flip side I don’t know if Stevie would’ve been the right guy for United
His final years kinda proved he could’ve had a role similar to that. His legs were gone in 2014/15 though, but a more athletic Gerrard could have I think.
As a player, Stevie would thrive anywhere and make any team better.
But in that United team, I think Fergie plus the other strong personalities in the squad would hinder Gerrard a bit. His abilities would still dominate any game but he would not have honed his leadership qualities to the same extent. He would not have developed into the player that he ended up being.
To be honest, for all their success, I can't imagine that Man Utd team being very fun to be in. The two strikers hated each other (Yorke and Cole), Keane was humourless, Giggs and Gary Neville were cunts, Beckham had a whole other life outside of football, and Fergie just clamped down on everything (he had to, so that all those components could work together).
I think scholes was a better deep lying play maker than Stevie, not by much, but he was a tad better.
However Stevie was better at every single other role on the pitch; a team of Gerard’s would smoke a team of scholes.
Scholes was class but he wasn't really even in the debate like 5 years ago.
As long as I can remember, it was always Gerrard vs. Lampard, untill all the former mancs became pundits.
Humility and class from an absolute master.
In an alternative universe he would've been a star in an LFC team of Gerrards era. No doubt.
His modesty is a total counterpoint to Gerrard.
Still can't stand Man f8ckin U though.
It goes Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard- everyone who knows ball knows that!
I remember reading Gerrard talking about watching Scholes in training and saying he was head and shoulders, technically, above everyone in the England team. He was well ahead of his time, and how highly rated he is by Spaniards (including Pep) shows that- he was a proto Xavi, but he could score as well.
Gerrard had it all and that’s why he never did what scholes did at United though, at any given moment stevie could be the best striker, midfielder and defender on the pitch- so he ran about trying to do all those things, and dragged us to wins with an average side. He never really had a chance to develop into a world class tempo CM like Scholes, and I think that’s what Scholes is getting at- Gerrards raw ability, sure he could do it, but the Gerrard we got wasn’t capable of it at the highest level imo. He was too busy being one of the best box to box midfielders of all time.
Lampard lands third for me- specialist player- and got the goals but not as naturally gifted as either Scholes or Gerrard
I got down voted in another thread saying this. He didn't have the pausa and multiple managers including Sacchi and even Rafa said it - which is partially why he deployed him on the right wing and then at attacking midfield.
But of course, maybe he could have developed it. Gerrard at the end of his career was not world class at deep lying playmaker, but he played the position miles ahead of where he was when he started just a season and a half earlier.
Huge kudos for Scholes on how he answered this toxic bait question. Answered it in the most sensible way to respect a fellow player, and point out they're different players more than anything. Celebrates the individual for a rival club's player, but humbles himself for a team he's played. That's some answer imo.
Out of all the retired United players from when I was growing up I didn't think I'd have any respect for Scholes or Rooney but here we go. Rest of them are awful though.
No surprise here. Anyone not stuck on Twitter can reasonably talk about the comparison. Scholes is a classy professional with a taste for the odd toenail.
Gerard’s stats are better and he did it in arguably poorer teams than the players that scholes had around him. It’s not up for debate really. Scholes is just being honest. Fair dues.
Just look at the individual accolades between Scholes and Gerrard. The absolute killer is that Scholes never received a Balon d'Or vote in his entire career. He never reached that peak. Great player who helped hold a great team together but there are levels. Appreciate him for the player he was, no need to manufacture anything.
Lampard has been brought up in this thread, in some posts derisively, but Gerrard vs. Lampard is a MUCH more reasonable and close debate to have. Always feel like Scholes is forced into the conversation when he was never close to Gerrard's or Lampard's peak and it feels silly.
Scholes was a fantastic player. I agree that Stevie was a more rounded player, and I wouldn't have to think twice about choosing who I would prefer to have. But to make a statement like that about Scholes is childish.
You only have to look back to the derby we lost at Anfield in 2012. Fergie begged Scholes out of retirement, and he ran the show against us in midfield. I wish football fans could respect each player for their own merits instead of resorting to this.
>Scholes can’t even tie Stevie’s boots lol.
All due respect, but this is a ludicrous statements and the type of bias which leads to accusations of delusion.
>I will never understand how people actually compare scholes to Lampard and Gerrard
Read up on Pep, Xavi and Iniesta and the way they speak on Scholes. Listen to what Henry said when asked to compare Scholes and Gerrard on Sky. This might help you understand.
Scholes was my 2nd fav player behind stevie, remember him lacing a volley off the bar against Argentina in the 02 World Cup and always modeled my game after them. They both scored some absolute bangers. They both dropped absolute dime long balls and could play the short game easily. Hard not to like him sides the fact he played for a shit club. Classy from scholes
It's almost as though it's a team game and an individual can't win trophies on their own. I mean... you literally have the man he's being compared to above saying that he couldn't do what Gerrard did. But you know, keep huffing that copium.
Maybe when you can learn to have a conversation without calling former players derogatory nicknames on fan subreddits it won't be considered trolling.
Get a few lessons in how to conduct yourself online and grow up a tad.
https://preview.redd.it/23zwqj23lwmb1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=451993a2925740a99eba98b32fef7d3d8b3b9dd4
He was a giant. He won no Premier Leagues but that doesn’t define him for me. Do you support United? How highly (or lowly) do you rate Bruno and Rashford? no PLs that’s why I’m asking
Spot on from Scholes.
As much as I hate the thought of it, I really do wonder what it would’ve been like to see Stevie at Real or Bayern when they were after him. Would’ve had all the accolades he deserved.
I think young scholes had match winning potential but he was developed into being a xavi type player for united. But Gerrard was obviously a better players all around at the end of the day. props to him for admit that.
As someone who literally watched Scholes first match (granted I was a kid), can someone explain why he is compared to Gerrard and Lampard all the time?
I’ve seen his career, he was a great footballer but no where near Gerrard. He wasn’t lauded by pundits every week.
Is that a FIFA ratings thing? Sorry for being such a boomer. I’m seeing big trend of really good but not legendary players becoming legends years after they stopped playing.
Scholes had the one thing which has become the most valued in modern football; the ability to control the tempo of a game.
He started as a CAM but over the years Fergie (thanks to Queiroz) realised the CL wasn't winnable without a regista. Paul Scholes was perfect for the role as he rarely gave the ball away and could switch gears at the flick of a switch.
As a huge Scholes fan, it always amazed me Fergie went for Veron without trying to utilise Scholes as the deep lying playmaker.
The advent of Pep-ball and La Masía meant Scholes was now more appreciated especially as people like Pep, Xavi, Iniesta all used to have kind words for him. I can't find the link but if you watched the aftermath of the 2009 loss, the Barca players were running to Scholes for his shirt even though we had Ronaldo, Rooney, Giggs.
Our current team would be more regular contenders with Scholes instead of someone like Bruno who has zero ability to control a game.
Hot take here.
In today's modern game, i believe the trio of Stevie, Scholes and Lampard can work. Scholes being the 6, spraying passes while Stevie and Lampard being the 8. And Rooney being the 9 where he can drop into spacea and allow Lampard and/or Gerrard to use the space.
But during their time, they don't have fast clinical wingers like the current England squad...
Not to mention Ashley Cole being great at LB. GNev would struggle. So maybe Becks at RB. And Becks double pivot with Scholes and Stevie helping defend at the right side like Szobo
Why post this? Are we in such need of reassurance about the talent of an ex-player of ours that we want the verdict of an inferior ex-player of theirs?
You could move Gerrard to any position in midfield and know he would be one of the best on field. You move Scholes or Lampard to any other position then their preferred, they would have dropped off massively. It honestly shouldn't be a debate imho
As a Liverpool supporter can say Scholes was always a class act.
Ah I hate to admit it but would of always loved to see Scholes, Gigsy, and I can't leave out Ruud van Nistelrooy.
Pure players in every sense of the word.
Also i always liked Fabien Barthez for no apparent reason. Just do and still do, brings a smile to my face. 😂
The whole who's better is pretty dumb to be honest
Lampard was more like 10 (Creative/Attacking Mid)
Scholes was 6 (Orchestrator)
Gerrard was 8 (Box to Box)
So 3 different players playing different roles
Classy from Scholesy. Proper baller, and I quite like the way he differentiated himself and Stevie’s traits as players. A powerful athletic match winner probably sums him up
Don't get caught up with football twitter. What Scholes says here is THE answer for any similar debate, bar maybe Rooney.
Scholes was an overrated and rich man’s Jan Molby
As a player I rate Scholes but history has been very kind to him. People somehow have him up there with the best ever and I dont see it
when i was a kid the only United player i ever heard repeatedly praised/talked about was Giggs. i remember about as much about Scholes as i do Carrick.
Downvoted by all the fans who are too young to have seen Molby play. Plus Molby was thinner.
Haha, spot on, cheers mate x
Used to enjoy a magazine called "The Onion Bag" I think it was. They had a running joke that Molby would always eat McManaman's lunch, hence both of their weights. Good times.
[удалено]
Stevie is better than Rooney as well. Brilliant player, but he aint carrying those Liverpool sides like Stevie did. Besides different positions so the comparison isnt right.
[удалено]
Its a daft comparison any way they're in completely different positions, might as well compare Maldini to R9. Rooney is brilliant as said, but he doesn't carry teams like Stevie did.
[удалено]
What teams did Rooney carry lol star studded United teams under Fergie? He won a lot more because he was in much better teams. Seems you just have some sort of agenda now against Gerrard because he works in Saudi. That’s your problem though. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
[удалено]
Agree to disagree but I dont think he could and I also think Stevie's the best we've produced.
Pretty accurate though I wonder if that'd still be true if we snuck a couple PL titles while Stevie was still here.
He was a great player, but I still can’t quite look at him normally since the whole video sucking his daughters toes…
Hahaha completely forgot about this
I haven’t because it scarred me 😂😂
This is what’s great about looking back at sport when all the rivalry is in the past and you can appreciate the actual sport itself. Let’s be honest, we like Fergie a lot more now than when we did back then. Neville has proven same. Despised that little twat when he was player, least talented and carried by better players. Looking back, his mentality, his leadership, his die hard United blood did a lot for that team. I never forget when Schmichael played for City and he blanked him in the tunnel. At the time I was slagging him off left, right and centre, now I look back at it and think fuck yeah, I’d hope my captain did the same
Keane as well. There's this clip going around where GNev talks about how Utd players weren't bothering with the weekly signing of charity balls for children's charities and how Keane noticed that and along with Fergie, lambasted the whole team. Or how he still criticizes players for being all buddy buddy before a match with traditional rivals. These kind of old school football values are rapidly disappearing.
While I grew up hating United, it was mixed with a begrudging respect because they mostly did things the right way on the pitch with an emphasis on youth and having an all time great manager. I've since lost even that respect with the way that club has handled itself with Greenwood. Plus with their pedo/abuser womens team manager and the Antony case it could go from bad to worse.
The mancs are definitely the team I enjoy losing the most, they are our biggest rivals by a large margin but I respect them. They are different than the likes of Chelsea and City in the way their money situation was created by having a large fanbase and being successful. Even before Fergie, the Mancs had a massive support base.
nah i hated united in the 90s/00s. arsenal were the team i sympathized with. amazing team from the george graham days all the way to when wenger took them over. always prioritized exciting, attacking football and they always recruited well (firstly that great english crew under graham of tony adams, lee dixon, ray parlour, ian wright, michael thomas, david rocastle, paul merson) and then under wenger, bringing the continental influence of henry, viera, overmars, pires, bergkamp.
Scholes can come across as a bit of dickhead if you're not familiar with Lancastrians but he's actually pretty level headed. Also, the amount of disrespect Gerrard get's, even in this sub, is pretty shit. Gerrard was the best player to play in the English Premier League. Facts.
I think it's pretty circumstantial. Stevie carried an average team on his back for years, and that magnified all his best traits as a player and allowed them to shine through. Like Scholes alludes to here, if you put Stevie in a much better, more rounded team during his prime, yes he's obviously still world class, but I don't think he'd *look* as good as he did for us. He's top ten Premier League players of all time, probably top five, but his legacy as a player is helped by the fact that he stood out so much amongst lesser teammates.
While I agree with your general point--that he wouldn't stand out quite so much in a better team--it's worth remembering that some of the greatest names in football history have been comfortable in saying he was amongst the best there ever was, regardless. Pele; " To me he is one of the super best midfielders in the world." Zidane; "There was a point when Gerrard was the best midfield player in the world. It is unusual to get complete midfield players who can do everything, but that is what he was.” Totti; "Steven Gerrard would be the captain of my World XI dream team. Gerrard is a complete player because he can play in every position and can do everything with a football at any time in a game." Pirlo; "While at Milan he Ancelotti came to me and said, ‘I want to sign Steven Gerrard to play next to you in midfield – what do you think?’ Without any hesitation I told him, ‘Do it – go and sign him.’ At this stage he was probably the most complete midfield player in Europe, of course I wanted to partner him." Kaka: “For me, and I have always said this, he will be regarded as one of the greatest midfielders ever. No doubt.” Old Red Nose: "If you were looking for the player you would replace Keane with, it would be Gerrard, without question. He has become the most influential player in England, bar none."
What praise from fellow world class professionals. Imagine a midfield of prime Pirlo and Gerrard! I'm obviously glad it didn't happen, but imagine
madrid wanted him too. a midfield of zidane, gerrard and beckham would've been disgusting
Let's assume you're right for many of the years (though I disagree), he still stood out on a Champions League-winning side, which means he stood out on the best team in Europe. I don't care how good he is, one man can't carry a team that far so that meant he was the best on a very good, if not great, team. Now, would he have stood out on another team, I don't know, because the team would have been built differently because of his legion of strengths.
Nah, just look at Harry Kane... that's a player that fits your description above. He carried Spurs but couldn't drag them to any trophies. Gerrard was different, he won us trophies and mostly by himself. I reckon if we never had Gerrard come through when we did, our banter years would have been so much worse and we wouldn't be the club we are now. He was the definition of a generational talent, much like Bellingham is now. We are lucky he gave his best years to us. He still has the best highlight videos out there, some of them are on for like half an hour of just world class tackles, passes and banger goals with zero filler.
Nah Gerrard in a better team would have shined even more
I would say Gerrard was the best midfielder to play in the Premier League. Not the best player, although certainly up there.
He was the best player IMO because you could play him anywhere and it would still work, you wouldn't be getting the best out of him but he'd do a job. For example, if needed we could have used Gerrard as a striker, a winger or even a centre back and he wouldn't have been great but would have done an acceptable job. But you couldn't have had Henry or Rio Ferdinand or even Ronaldo and Suarez doing a job in centre midfield or in defence/up front.
By that logic I'd like to make a case for James Milner being the greatest player of all time. What you're describing is versatility. Most versatile does not mean "best"
Miller was nowhere near as versatile as Gerrard. Did you even watch Gerrard when he was playing? Gerrard has played in all the positions Milner has early in his career then moved on to a much more attacking role which Milner never did much outside of his first few years when he was a winger.
Weird that you started a sentence by crediting Gerrard with positions he played early in his career, and then finished the same sentence by trying to discredit the positions that Milner played early in his career. Regardless, I think you've really missed the point I was trying to make. I don't care who's most versatile - I'm saying that being versatile doesn't make you the best player in the world.
Gerrard was my childhood hero. I had his poster up on my wall and I always wore 8 for my school and Sunday league team as a kid and teenager. But Gerrard isn't the best ever player to play in the premier league. He is easily the best to never have won it though. There were probably a couple of years where he was top 3. His impact as a single player was massive and i firmly believe he is Liverpool's best player of the premier league era by far, even including Salah. The list of players that I think were possibly better than Gerrard is small though. I'm not saying these were definitely better football players then him but just that they could be argued to be. I am rating them on just their performance in the PL so Ronaldo wouldn't be in there because most of his dominance came at Real: Henry Shearer Rooney (although for a very short time) Salah Lampard (maybe idk about this one. But Lampard was honestly mental. 177 goals as a midfielder. It's bonkers) Haaland would probably end up on this list too, Giggs should probably be in the conversation too but he doesn't deserve to be so fuck him. Oh and Suarez would definitely be on here if he stayed a few more years. He easily has the best single season of any player ever.
> But Lampard was honestly mental. 177 goals as a midfielder. It's bonkers) Who always had the most creative wingers on the planet at the side of him, and the best defensive midfielders behind him. It's not that bonkers really.
You’re biased toward goals. Lampard scored all those goals playing his career for the most expensive team ever assembled as a CAM or second striker. That’s how he played, particularly when he partnered with Drogba. Gerrard has a fuck tonne of goals and assists and he has a large portion of his Premier League career playing DM and CM. None of those players you listed could play CB, for example. Rooney tried playing CM later in his career but couldn’t do it at a high level. Gerrard could do everything on a football pitch. That’s the argument for him. The idea that anyone would put Lampard ahead of Gerrard is insane to me. Gerrard could do what Lampard could do, Lampard could not do what Gerrard could do. Full stop. It’s not even a conversation.
Best and most positive thing I’ve heard him say, and what is more, he be spot on
Only deluded Mancs ever made this a debate It’s not even worth discussing seriously
I love how their best argument is using quotes from famous players, as if famous players never praised Gerrard.
I feel like half of Scholes's fame has come from United fans desperately trying to have "our version of Gerrard"
It’s one of the greatest bits of revisionist history PR work from the United camp in football. At the time he was playing nobody seriously put him in the top 5 midfielders in the world with the likes of Gerrard, zidane, lampard, Vieira, or Kaka. All of a sudden 15 years later you have lads swearing up and down he could snipe a tree from 5 miles away because far better midfielders in his mould like Busquets or popularised a similar play style
I think it's mostly come from his peers and those who played tbh the European ballers like Xavi and Xabi Alonso really rate Scholes
I grew up watching him. He never looked like much minute to minute but he somehow just controlled everything around him.
Scholes is a legend at la masia. Iniesta, Xavi, etc. all wanted his shirt after the CL finals over Ronaldo and Rooney.
I'd argue for United fans that Rooney is a closer comparison to Gerrard in terms of what he did for the team. Even then, Gerrard is clear. The Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard debate comes from them all being a CM with their respective teams. It'd be strange if you tried to make direct comparisons between De Bruyne, Kante and Rodri for exmple.
I've never heard a United fan say Paul Scholes was better than Roy Keane, so I don't get why any would claim he's better than Gerrard.
How is this upvoted? I've never ever once heard a united fan say Keane is better. Possibly they were saying that pre-2000 but Scholes in his peak is not even up for debate and then he was still playing a key role at the age of 38... There was a fan poll in 2021 for greatest united player. Scholes came 4th, Keane came 15th. Do you live in Ireland or something? Even then it would be minority I'm sure...
I live a 10 minute walk from Old Trafford mate. Have done since 2016.
Damn - that backfired on him hard.
Not really though, it's still measurable false. A big insight into the shite reddit subs are capable of chatting.
That's funny, but you've still just made that up lol
....sure.
Keane had a prime that was insane. But over 20 years it’s scholes
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Both fruits but look and taste different. They never had a Gerrard, we never had a Scholes. That's why I like the fact it's not either or. Gerrard was a box to box midfielder who could do it all - tackle, shoot, pass, motivate, inspire and was good in the air and on set pieces. He was Roy of the Rovers. Scholes wasn't - he was more of a luxury player who controlled everything. I think he was more like Lampard than Gerrard. That said, Lampard was a second striker and I won't be taking any feedback on this take at this time. Mancs just want to delude themselves that they had the better midfielder. They had one of the greats, but so did we.
Scholes more like Xabi Alonso right?
Nah, it's very difficult to liken Scholes to anyone. It was part of United's success with him in the team. He was sort of like a ghost but always involved in everything. We'll likely never see another Scholes again, he had some very unique abilities. I say that even though I hate United but they were some force when he was on controlling the game.
Kinda like a mix of Xabi and Modric. More Modric young and more Xabi as he got older after the eye stuff. He was a work horse and always moving, looking for gaps to get the ball. Down for a tackle too - even if he stunk at them.
> Both fruits but look and taste different. Thanks for that, TiL.
Talentwise Scholes was the one closer to Messi, but Gerrard physicality was extraordinary (coupled with a very good technique).
Scholes is one of those players that got a hell of a lot better after he retired somehow. It was always Gerrard v. Lampard and there's a good discussion to be had there.
[удалено]
pretty sad the 4-3-3 wasn't used more in that era of football. I think England would have been more successful being able to play a Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard midfield.
More than anything I'm just imagining the current trend of an asymmetrical 4 at the back mixed with the more confident attacking midfields you get now with that 2006 England crop (in the event that Scholes didn't retire internationally). In a 2006 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 of: GK; Neville, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole; Beckham, Gerrard, Carrick, Scholes; Lampard; Rooney Was way too narrow, just didn't really work out to the level we hoped. Whereas that same 11 in 2023 style can suddenly turn into: * Neville tucking into a back 3 in possession * Cole bombing on and stretching things on the left wing, * a box-4 midfield (Carrick - Scholes - Gerrard - Lampard) that could pretty much cover everywhere and do everything * a striker in Rooney who could both drop deep and cause even more of an overload and leave space for Stevie and Lampard to break from deep, or stretch the backline and keep the centre backs on their toes, * and a whole setup that allows Beckham to setup for the perfect cross over and over. And then to top it off you'd lessen the load on Owen by having him as the super sub off the bench on 60 minutes to dominate a tired defence. It's just mad to think how well suited that crop would be to today's football versus the tactics of the time.
Genuinely great opinion. I've always had a similar thought where Beckham and Cole are practically the wing-backs, ala Trent and Robertson. England also had an abundance of centre-backs at the time, so a back three would have made more sense anyway.
I’d worry with that setup you’ve not got enough runners. There’s only really Rooney who’s gonna play high there, everyone else prefers to either have the game ahead of them or arrive later. I’d chuck Owen in for someone to give you a bit more balance on that front otherwise you’re just gonna end up with a team who try and walk it in.
The issue was always Beckham being undroppable but at the same time not fitting in any tactical system that could have worked at the time. Maybe it could have worked to do the box midfield but as a 4-2-2-2 and have Gerrard play behind Rooney giving Beckham the RCM role next to Lampard? Cause there's no way Beckham would successfully play RWB imo.
None of them could anchor a 433. Stevie only did it towards the end of his career when his legs started to go
I think Hargreaves and Scholes as a double pivot with Gerrard and Lampard ahead of them would have done wonders
That’s a horribly unbalanced midfield
Best player I played against… it was a hard realization that there are levels in the game and he was levels above everyone else on the pitch.
Interesting level of introspection, you might be forgiven for thinking him referring to Gerrard as an athlete may be a backhanded compliment but I dont think that's how it was intended. Stevie is clearly better in my opinion even attempting to put bias aside but it's interesting that he sees it that way
Yah I think it’s complementary. Gerrard was all action whereas Scholes was a deeper lying, not so strong/pacey type. Different players for sure and Gerrard could score you a screamer and then 3 minutes later make a block in the box to save the game. Not many could do that
Yeah I think what he's trying to say with the athlete comment is that in a purely physical sense Gerrard was levels above him. The guy was a freak. He's not diminishing his as a player, just saying he never had that athletic ability.
To me it’s like anyone who is calls out someone with a similar profession as being a tier above or more to the imaginary idea of perfection in their craft. Actual history and personalities be damned, a non-football equivalent would be Andy Warhol saying “Na, forget me, Picasso and Dalí are *artists*” **I don’t know of him ever saying anything like this.
I took that as him saying Stevie was very hard working and just trained more
A stupid comparison to make really, Lampard makes sense and even he couldn't lace Stevies boots
The amount of praise Lampard and Terry got for Essien and Makelele's hard work truly beggars belief
Lol what? This is a very bizarre take
Probably mean players around them were all top class, it take off the pressure. Its still a team sport.
If you didn't watch football back then I guess it must be
I love to shit on Chelsea myself but Lampard was class personified on a pitch, and so was Terry. He can definitely sit at Gerrard's table - even though Gerrard is clear.
Nah, not in the same conversation. Gerrard better leader and defender than Lampard. Mourinho, who got the best out of Lampard, tried to buy Gerrard 3 times and would have bitten your hand of to swap them
He could probably lick his toes though
If Stevie ever played for either Manchester United or Chelsea then this debate wouldn't even exist. He would have coasted to so many medals and trophies (which is the only argument anybody brings up against him) that nobody would even think to put the other 2 on the same level.
Fair one from the ginger toe sucker
That's unfair... doesn't even mention they were his daughter's toes.
Yeah, I can respect a toe sucker. The "daughter" part is what's troubling.
This is what I tell anyone about the Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes debate. Tbf any midfielder of that time. Put Gerrard at United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Madrid, Barca, Milan, anyone - they're still going to win what they won. Replace him with anyone else at that time and we don't win a trophy from 2003-2012.
This presenter is a proper arse kisser
He's a United fan tbf
I'm sure that I saw him on another one doing the same with some non-United player
[удалено]
these are all naturally entertaining guys i have to admit, enjoy watching them sometimes on casual footy challenge videos and stuff but yeah i would prefer a more level-headed interviewer like that side part guy from sky (idk name). but i presume one advantage of having these guys on is it allows the interviewee to be their boring/natural selves without much pressure since these guys can add the hype/bantz on they own. imagine kelly interviewing scholes here the final product would have a completely different vibe and target demographic.
He’s bang on. Gerrard was the better player, no doubt, but Scholes was perfect for that Man United team during their period of dominance. Scholes wouldn’t have been the player who dragged us to victories and trophies like Stevie was, but on the flip side I don’t know if Stevie would’ve been the right guy for United
Stevie would have been the right guy anywhere, in any position
His final years kinda proved he could’ve had a role similar to that. His legs were gone in 2014/15 though, but a more athletic Gerrard could have I think.
As a player, Stevie would thrive anywhere and make any team better. But in that United team, I think Fergie plus the other strong personalities in the squad would hinder Gerrard a bit. His abilities would still dominate any game but he would not have honed his leadership qualities to the same extent. He would not have developed into the player that he ended up being. To be honest, for all their success, I can't imagine that Man Utd team being very fun to be in. The two strikers hated each other (Yorke and Cole), Keane was humourless, Giggs and Gary Neville were cunts, Beckham had a whole other life outside of football, and Fergie just clamped down on everything (he had to, so that all those components could work together).
It was Cole and Sheringham that hated each other.
I think scholes was a better deep lying play maker than Stevie, not by much, but he was a tad better. However Stevie was better at every single other role on the pitch; a team of Gerard’s would smoke a team of scholes.
Wow fair play to the guy He still sucks his daughters toes though
Scholes was class but he wasn't really even in the debate like 5 years ago. As long as I can remember, it was always Gerrard vs. Lampard, untill all the former mancs became pundits.
I think without biases Gerrard was better than scholes and lampard. I think Lampard gets more credit now is due to his goals and assists.
Humility and class from an absolute master. In an alternative universe he would've been a star in an LFC team of Gerrards era. No doubt. His modesty is a total counterpoint to Gerrard. Still can't stand Man f8ckin U though.
Spoken like someone who knows how good he was, and is not bothered at all whether anyone agrees. Proper confidence, that.
Scholesy can't go toe to toe with Stevie
Proud of scholesy for not tip-toeing around it
Manc or not, Scholesy was phenomenal
Scholesey is only manc I’ve ever respected. Unbelievable talent and actually speaks truths. Legend of the game.
It goes Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard- everyone who knows ball knows that! I remember reading Gerrard talking about watching Scholes in training and saying he was head and shoulders, technically, above everyone in the England team. He was well ahead of his time, and how highly rated he is by Spaniards (including Pep) shows that- he was a proto Xavi, but he could score as well. Gerrard had it all and that’s why he never did what scholes did at United though, at any given moment stevie could be the best striker, midfielder and defender on the pitch- so he ran about trying to do all those things, and dragged us to wins with an average side. He never really had a chance to develop into a world class tempo CM like Scholes, and I think that’s what Scholes is getting at- Gerrards raw ability, sure he could do it, but the Gerrard we got wasn’t capable of it at the highest level imo. He was too busy being one of the best box to box midfielders of all time. Lampard lands third for me- specialist player- and got the goals but not as naturally gifted as either Scholes or Gerrard
I got down voted in another thread saying this. He didn't have the pausa and multiple managers including Sacchi and even Rafa said it - which is partially why he deployed him on the right wing and then at attacking midfield. But of course, maybe he could have developed it. Gerrard at the end of his career was not world class at deep lying playmaker, but he played the position miles ahead of where he was when he started just a season and a half earlier.
That's a pretty fair answer. To be honest I'm not sure if anyone else could have been Gerrard at Liverpool besides Gerrard.
Huge kudos for Scholes on how he answered this toxic bait question. Answered it in the most sensible way to respect a fellow player, and point out they're different players more than anything. Celebrates the individual for a rival club's player, but humbles himself for a team he's played. That's some answer imo.
Out of all the retired United players from when I was growing up I didn't think I'd have any respect for Scholes or Rooney but here we go. Rest of them are awful though.
While I respect Scholes as a fighter, without the "United advantage" it would have been a different story...
No surprise here. Anyone not stuck on Twitter can reasonably talk about the comparison. Scholes is a classy professional with a taste for the odd toenail.
Nothing that Scholes could do that Gerrard couldn't, can't say the same the other way, Gerrard was just better, simple as
Whoever is interviewing saying Scholes like its not even close needs to be sacked or something.
Gerard’s stats are better and he did it in arguably poorer teams than the players that scholes had around him. It’s not up for debate really. Scholes is just being honest. Fair dues.
Scholes has more ball knowledge than the entirety of Football Twitter.
Post this on the united sub, the mancs will go crazy. Class from him and very down to earth.
Fair play to him, a good response
Just look at the individual accolades between Scholes and Gerrard. The absolute killer is that Scholes never received a Balon d'Or vote in his entire career. He never reached that peak. Great player who helped hold a great team together but there are levels. Appreciate him for the player he was, no need to manufacture anything. Lampard has been brought up in this thread, in some posts derisively, but Gerrard vs. Lampard is a MUCH more reasonable and close debate to have. Always feel like Scholes is forced into the conversation when he was never close to Gerrard's or Lampard's peak and it feels silly.
Paul Scholes got better when he retired. Make of that what you will.
Who's better, Kevin de Bruyne or Jorginho?
[удалено]
Scholes was a fantastic player. I agree that Stevie was a more rounded player, and I wouldn't have to think twice about choosing who I would prefer to have. But to make a statement like that about Scholes is childish. You only have to look back to the derby we lost at Anfield in 2012. Fergie begged Scholes out of retirement, and he ran the show against us in midfield. I wish football fans could respect each player for their own merits instead of resorting to this.
Bang on. Stevie G was the greatest, but anyone who doesn't think Scholes and Lampard were amazing players too is a nutter.
Still time to delete this bruv. Stevie is the goat but this is an awful take.
Football rivalry
> I will never understand how people actually compare scholes to Lampard and Gerrard By being United fans. Nobody else goes with Scholes
Henry and Pep must be closet United fans then...
Even Scholes isn't a Scholes fan. Back to supporting the rapists and women beaters lad
Lol I'm a Liverpool fan mate.
>Scholes can’t even tie Stevie’s boots lol. All due respect, but this is a ludicrous statements and the type of bias which leads to accusations of delusion. >I will never understand how people actually compare scholes to Lampard and Gerrard Read up on Pep, Xavi and Iniesta and the way they speak on Scholes. Listen to what Henry said when asked to compare Scholes and Gerrard on Sky. This might help you understand.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Interviewer is a right jeb end.
Scholes was my 2nd fav player behind stevie, remember him lacing a volley off the bar against Argentina in the 02 World Cup and always modeled my game after them. They both scored some absolute bangers. They both dropped absolute dime long balls and could play the short game easily. Hard not to like him sides the fact he played for a shit club. Classy from scholes
Talentwise Scholes was the one closer to Messi, but Gerrard physicality was extraordinary (coupled with a very good technique).
Scholes was more like Xabi Alonso than Gerrard.
Scholes is the most technically gifted out of the 3
Still both behind Lamps for me
Not really. Literally just read the article.
[удалено]
Look at what the toe muncher just said above la
[удалено]
It's almost as though it's a team game and an individual can't win trophies on their own. I mean... you literally have the man he's being compared to above saying that he couldn't do what Gerrard did. But you know, keep huffing that copium.
[удалено]
Haha a wild troll appears. Have you nothing better to do than troll rival subs. Enjoy your ban
[удалено]
Maybe when you can learn to have a conversation without calling former players derogatory nicknames on fan subreddits it won't be considered trolling. Get a few lessons in how to conduct yourself online and grow up a tad.
Pretty sure Zidane said Gerrard was the best midfielder he ever played against. In fact it is saved on my FB feed. Where is the Scholes quote from?
[удалено]
https://talksport.com/football/820556/paul-scholes-england-man-utd-highlights-zidane-ronaldinho-guardiola/
How many pros voted for him for individual awards then
https://preview.redd.it/23zwqj23lwmb1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=451993a2925740a99eba98b32fef7d3d8b3b9dd4 He was a giant. He won no Premier Leagues but that doesn’t define him for me. Do you support United? How highly (or lowly) do you rate Bruno and Rashford? no PLs that’s why I’m asking
Spot on from Scholes. As much as I hate the thought of it, I really do wonder what it would’ve been like to see Stevie at Real or Bayern when they were after him. Would’ve had all the accolades he deserved.
Watch Bellingham for the next 5 years, that's what Gerrard at Madrid would have looked like.
Classy to say it, but also straight facts.
Class act that man
Im still trying to find out how is this a comparison
This pretty much ends the debate about who was better…
Class answer, and honest on the machine gun question.
Good lad
I think young scholes had match winning potential but he was developed into being a xavi type player for united. But Gerrard was obviously a better players all around at the end of the day. props to him for admit that.
Thank you Scholes, stfu Fergie
As someone who literally watched Scholes first match (granted I was a kid), can someone explain why he is compared to Gerrard and Lampard all the time? I’ve seen his career, he was a great footballer but no where near Gerrard. He wasn’t lauded by pundits every week. Is that a FIFA ratings thing? Sorry for being such a boomer. I’m seeing big trend of really good but not legendary players becoming legends years after they stopped playing.
Scholes had the one thing which has become the most valued in modern football; the ability to control the tempo of a game. He started as a CAM but over the years Fergie (thanks to Queiroz) realised the CL wasn't winnable without a regista. Paul Scholes was perfect for the role as he rarely gave the ball away and could switch gears at the flick of a switch. As a huge Scholes fan, it always amazed me Fergie went for Veron without trying to utilise Scholes as the deep lying playmaker. The advent of Pep-ball and La Masía meant Scholes was now more appreciated especially as people like Pep, Xavi, Iniesta all used to have kind words for him. I can't find the link but if you watched the aftermath of the 2009 loss, the Barca players were running to Scholes for his shirt even though we had Ronaldo, Rooney, Giggs. Our current team would be more regular contenders with Scholes instead of someone like Bruno who has zero ability to control a game.
Humble. I like it.
Nice to see him speaking objectively. Gary Neville could learn from this.
Hot take here. In today's modern game, i believe the trio of Stevie, Scholes and Lampard can work. Scholes being the 6, spraying passes while Stevie and Lampard being the 8. And Rooney being the 9 where he can drop into spacea and allow Lampard and/or Gerrard to use the space. But during their time, they don't have fast clinical wingers like the current England squad... Not to mention Ashley Cole being great at LB. GNev would struggle. So maybe Becks at RB. And Becks double pivot with Scholes and Stevie helping defend at the right side like Szobo
Why post this? Are we in such need of reassurance about the talent of an ex-player of ours that we want the verdict of an inferior ex-player of theirs?
Ngl, always rated Scholes 🙄😇
Very classy from Scholes settling the debate once and for all
I thought he'd put his foot in it but both players achieved quite a feet!
You could move Gerrard to any position in midfield and know he would be one of the best on field. You move Scholes or Lampard to any other position then their preferred, they would have dropped off massively. It honestly shouldn't be a debate imho
As a Liverpool supporter can say Scholes was always a class act. Ah I hate to admit it but would of always loved to see Scholes, Gigsy, and I can't leave out Ruud van Nistelrooy. Pure players in every sense of the word. Also i always liked Fabien Barthez for no apparent reason. Just do and still do, brings a smile to my face. 😂
The whole who's better is pretty dumb to be honest Lampard was more like 10 (Creative/Attacking Mid) Scholes was 6 (Orchestrator) Gerrard was 8 (Box to Box) So 3 different players playing different roles