AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
Scholes is/was a better central midfielder than Gerrard. Gerrard is/was the better player in every other position on the pitch though. However imo Scholes was the superior central midfielder.
Scholes is/was a better central midfielder than Gerrard. Gerrard is/was the better player in every other position on the pitch though. However imo Scholes was the superior central midfielder.
Ode to Django
You're not even a real journalism
perfect place for this article
Paul Scholes, Xavi and Andrea Pirlo revive the deep-lying playmaker
Quote:
The past weekend offered yet another chance to see three fabulous midfield technicians in their element
It was a fine weekend for legendary deep-lying playmakers. In Spain, Xavi Hernández of Barcelona curled in a wonderful free-kick at Sevilla to complement his stereotypical passing reliability. In Italy, Juventus' Andrea Pirlo was controlling the game in a comfortable win at Fiorentina, striding forward to score with a sublime chip. The next day, in England, Paul Scholes turned in another fine performance in Manchester United's destruction of Wolves.
The situation for Pirlo and Scholes was identical: both played their part in 5-0 victories away at a struggling side who had a man dismissed in the first half. The circumstances were perfect for both – neither Fiorentina nor Wolves are accustomed to pressing, and could not do so successfully when trailing in the game and facing a numerical deficit. It meant that Juventus and United had plenty of time deep in midfield, and both Pirlo and Scholes shone.
Granted, it was not a difficult game for either. Scholes barely broke into a sprint, while Pirlo did so only when he decided he fancied getting on the scoresheet. But it was a chance to see two fabulous technicians in their element – jogging around the centre circle, offering themselves for a short pass, then spreading the play out to the flanks, where their sides stretched the play and forced the 10 men to work harder. Pirlo completed 97% of his 143 passes, Scholes 98% of his 98. Xavi, the only man competing against 11 opponents and withdrawn before full-time, was down at 90% of 88.
Pirlo and Scholes had similar experiences this weekend, and similar experiences over the course of their careers. In the early part of their careers, both were considered a No10; an attacking midfielder or deep-lying forward. It is not unusual for players to move deeper as they lose their pace towards the end of their career, but that was not necessarily the case for either. Scholes never counted pace as a key attribute, and his attacking threat came from late runs into the box – more about timing than speed. Pirlo as a No10 was a calmer player, waiting for the ball to come to him before casually laying it off to a team-mate.
If pace was a factor, it was because the game became quicker, rather than these two becoming slower. Pirlo's retreat happened around the age of 22, when he enjoyed a successful spell on loan at Brescia under Carlo Mazzone. Roberto Baggio was the No10, so Pirlo had to play much deeper. When he was signed by Milan, Rui Costa and Clarence Seedorf had arrived the same summer, so Pirlo remained in that deep role. Scholes's move backwards was a more gradual process and happened 10 years later in his career, but had the same effect of revitalising his game.
Xavi is different – in basic terms he is a separate type of player, preferring constant neat short passes rather than the searching long diagonals that Pirlo and Scholes favour. Furthermore, his positional development was the opposite – he went from being the pivote in the Barcelona system to playing closer to goal. "They asked me to get up and down and provide assists," Xavi recalls in Graham Hunter's book Barça: The Making of the Greatest Team in the World. "But it's difficult from that [deep] position. Ten or 15 metres further up the pitch, where I play now, makes it much easier for me."
In different ways, those three have helped bring back the deep-lying role that briefly died. It is worth remembering that Pep Guardiola, whom Pirlo describes as "the model" for his position, whom Xavi pinpoints as "his idol", and who described Scholes as the best midfielder of his generation, was barely wanted when he left Barcelona at the age of 31 in 2001. As it happens, he turned up at Brescia, then searching for their Pirlo replacement – they were practically the only club in Europe that wanted a player in that mould in 2001.
While Xavi is at the heart of his club and national side, Scholes and Pirlo both found themselves out of contract last summer. Milan decided not to renew Pirlo's deal – and the player wanted a new challenge – while Scholes retired from the game to take up a loose coaching role at United. Both were free agents. Yet they have proven to be, in their respective leagues, the free signing of the season – Scholes rejoining United, Pirlo picked up by Juventus. "A player of his level and ability?" said an incredulous Gigi Buffon with a laugh. "He was the signing of the century."
They have proven even more effective than anticipated, and both are fulfilling roles that defy assumptions about their defensive weakness. Pirlo has been used even deeper than he is used to – generally not alongside a midfield terrier, as at Milan with Rino Gatusso, but instead on his own in front of the defence. Arturo Vidal and Claudio Marchisio play higher up and drive at the opposition, sometimes leaving Pirlo stranded in front of the defence – but he gets by with good positioning. Scholes does not even have the benefit of that energy higher up in midfield – United's passer-runner combination has been shelved in favour of a distribution-based duo of Scholes and Michael Carrick that allows United to control the tempo of the game.
That is the fascinating thing about these players – they need a calm, patient feel to the game, or they can be completely overrun. The difference between the almost-great players of this mould (Carrick, Riccardo Montolivo, Nestor Ortigoza) and Xavi, Pirlo and Scholes is that the former are forced to accept it is not their type of game, while the latter can actively create that type of game. That is extremely difficult against sides wanting to be powerful, energetic and chaotic – it is easier to hijack a meditation session and turn it into a rave than vice-versa.
That fits the image of these players off the pitch – not quite meditation fans, but quiet and extremely shy. "I restrict myself to the dressing room and to the pitch, those are my boundaries – I'm not interested in anything else, I don't like doing interviews, I don't like going on TV programmes, I don't have a Facebook page and I don't talk on Twitter." It is Pirlo talking, in an interview for La Stampa, but it could so easily be Scholes. Xavi, on the other hand, is content to spend his spare time picking mushrooms.
Despite the universal plaudits that came Scholes's way when he announced his retirement last year, he has won much fewer individual awards than his Italian and Spanish equivalents. Pirlo was man of the match in the 2006 World Cup final and won the Bronze Ball in the tournament, while Xavi has come third in the Ballon d'Or three times, and was Euro 2008's Player of the Tournament.
Scholes's lack of individual recognition hints at a lesser influence on the grandest stage, and it is not a huge surprise that he cannot boast of such awards. It is a shock, however, to discover that he has not received a single vote in the Ballon d'Or in his entire career. On five occasions he made the 50-man shortlist – 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2007 – yet not a single journalist decided to vote for him. Granted, he may not deserve to have been in the top five in any particular year, but when you learn that players of the calibre of Jan Koller, Papa Bouba Diop and Freddie Kanouté have received votes, you do start to wonder.
There is still time. Xavi and Pirlo are now as influential as ever, and the same may be true for Scholes. Sir Alex Ferguson has dismissed the chances of him playing at Euro 2012, but there is still unfinished business for Scholes at that level. "I'm not saying I would have made a difference," he said after turning down Fabio Capello's invitation to play at World Cup 2010. "I am saying I might have made the wrong decision." Some will doubt Scholes's ability to come out of retirement and have a crucial impact, but he has already done it once in 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...irlo-playmaker
Paul Scholes, Xavi and Andrea Pirlo revive the deep-lying playmaker
Quote:
The past weekend offered yet another chance to see three fabulous midfield technicians in their element
It was a fine weekend for legendary deep-lying playmakers. In Spain, Xavi Hernández of Barcelona curled in a wonderful free-kick at Sevilla to complement his stereotypical passing reliability. In Italy, Juventus' Andrea Pirlo was controlling the game in a comfortable win at Fiorentina, striding forward to score with a sublime chip. The next day, in England, Paul Scholes turned in another fine performance in Manchester United's destruction of Wolves.
The situation for Pirlo and Scholes was identical: both played their part in 5-0 victories away at a struggling side who had a man dismissed in the first half. The circumstances were perfect for both – neither Fiorentina nor Wolves are accustomed to pressing, and could not do so successfully when trailing in the game and facing a numerical deficit. It meant that Juventus and United had plenty of time deep in midfield, and both Pirlo and Scholes shone.
Granted, it was not a difficult game for either. Scholes barely broke into a sprint, while Pirlo did so only when he decided he fancied getting on the scoresheet. But it was a chance to see two fabulous technicians in their element – jogging around the centre circle, offering themselves for a short pass, then spreading the play out to the flanks, where their sides stretched the play and forced the 10 men to work harder. Pirlo completed 97% of his 143 passes, Scholes 98% of his 98. Xavi, the only man competing against 11 opponents and withdrawn before full-time, was down at 90% of 88.
Pirlo and Scholes had similar experiences this weekend, and similar experiences over the course of their careers. In the early part of their careers, both were considered a No10; an attacking midfielder or deep-lying forward. It is not unusual for players to move deeper as they lose their pace towards the end of their career, but that was not necessarily the case for either. Scholes never counted pace as a key attribute, and his attacking threat came from late runs into the box – more about timing than speed. Pirlo as a No10 was a calmer player, waiting for the ball to come to him before casually laying it off to a team-mate.
If pace was a factor, it was because the game became quicker, rather than these two becoming slower. Pirlo's retreat happened around the age of 22, when he enjoyed a successful spell on loan at Brescia under Carlo Mazzone. Roberto Baggio was the No10, so Pirlo had to play much deeper. When he was signed by Milan, Rui Costa and Clarence Seedorf had arrived the same summer, so Pirlo remained in that deep role. Scholes's move backwards was a more gradual process and happened 10 years later in his career, but had the same effect of revitalising his game.
Xavi is different – in basic terms he is a separate type of player, preferring constant neat short passes rather than the searching long diagonals that Pirlo and Scholes favour. Furthermore, his positional development was the opposite – he went from being the pivote in the Barcelona system to playing closer to goal. "They asked me to get up and down and provide assists," Xavi recalls in Graham Hunter's book Barça: The Making of the Greatest Team in the World. "But it's difficult from that [deep] position. Ten or 15 metres further up the pitch, where I play now, makes it much easier for me."
In different ways, those three have helped bring back the deep-lying role that briefly died. It is worth remembering that Pep Guardiola, whom Pirlo describes as "the model" for his position, whom Xavi pinpoints as "his idol", and who described Scholes as the best midfielder of his generation, was barely wanted when he left Barcelona at the age of 31 in 2001. As it happens, he turned up at Brescia, then searching for their Pirlo replacement – they were practically the only club in Europe that wanted a player in that mould in 2001.
While Xavi is at the heart of his club and national side, Scholes and Pirlo both found themselves out of contract last summer. Milan decided not to renew Pirlo's deal – and the player wanted a new challenge – while Scholes retired from the game to take up a loose coaching role at United. Both were free agents. Yet they have proven to be, in their respective leagues, the free signing of the season – Scholes rejoining United, Pirlo picked up by Juventus. "A player of his level and ability?" said an incredulous Gigi Buffon with a laugh. "He was the signing of the century."
They have proven even more effective than anticipated, and both are fulfilling roles that defy assumptions about their defensive weakness. Pirlo has been used even deeper than he is used to – generally not alongside a midfield terrier, as at Milan with Rino Gatusso, but instead on his own in front of the defence. Arturo Vidal and Claudio Marchisio play higher up and drive at the opposition, sometimes leaving Pirlo stranded in front of the defence – but he gets by with good positioning. Scholes does not even have the benefit of that energy higher up in midfield – United's passer-runner combination has been shelved in favour of a distribution-based duo of Scholes and Michael Carrick that allows United to control the tempo of the game.
That is the fascinating thing about these players – they need a calm, patient feel to the game, or they can be completely overrun. The difference between the almost-great players of this mould (Carrick, Riccardo Montolivo, Nestor Ortigoza) and Xavi, Pirlo and Scholes is that the former are forced to accept it is not their type of game, while the latter can actively create that type of game. That is extremely difficult against sides wanting to be powerful, energetic and chaotic – it is easier to hijack a meditation session and turn it into a rave than vice-versa.
That fits the image of these players off the pitch – not quite meditation fans, but quiet and extremely shy. "I restrict myself to the dressing room and to the pitch, those are my boundaries – I'm not interested in anything else, I don't like doing interviews, I don't like going on TV programmes, I don't have a Facebook page and I don't talk on Twitter." It is Pirlo talking, in an interview for La Stampa, but it could so easily be Scholes. Xavi, on the other hand, is content to spend his spare time picking mushrooms.
Despite the universal plaudits that came Scholes's way when he announced his retirement last year, he has won much fewer individual awards than his Italian and Spanish equivalents. Pirlo was man of the match in the 2006 World Cup final and won the Bronze Ball in the tournament, while Xavi has come third in the Ballon d'Or three times, and was Euro 2008's Player of the Tournament.
Scholes's lack of individual recognition hints at a lesser influence on the grandest stage, and it is not a huge surprise that he cannot boast of such awards. It is a shock, however, to discover that he has not received a single vote in the Ballon d'Or in his entire career. On five occasions he made the 50-man shortlist – 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2007 – yet not a single journalist decided to vote for him. Granted, he may not deserve to have been in the top five in any particular year, but when you learn that players of the calibre of Jan Koller, Papa Bouba Diop and Freddie Kanouté have received votes, you do start to wonder.
There is still time. Xavi and Pirlo are now as influential as ever, and the same may be true for Scholes. Sir Alex Ferguson has dismissed the chances of him playing at Euro 2012, but there is still unfinished business for Scholes at that level. "I'm not saying I would have made a difference," he said after turning down Fabio Capello's invitation to play at World Cup 2010. "I am saying I might have made the wrong decision." Some will doubt Scholes's ability to come out of retirement and have a crucial impact, but he has already done it once in 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...irlo-playmaker
Guardian
New member
O, yeah, mister football fantastic knowledge
Your knowledge is comparable only with the knowledge of a Neanderthal housewife from the Stone Ages.
What is your point? All the time whining and crying how come Xavi is better than Scholes and complaining in a Barca forum? How about your tinted glasses? It's like comparing the art of Michelangelo with the clumsiness of the f*cking Chenghis Khan. It's the lack of knowledge that couldn't allow you to comprehend what Xavi has given to the game, voted as the best midfielder in the world for the last 5 years, WC winner, three time CL winner, and Euro 2008 winner, being the best player there.
Aw, poor little United supporter, couldn't swallow the fact that there are people who think that Xavi is one level above Scholes.
It's getting boring. Every day here come bunch of frustrated United fans explaining how we don't understand the game and how Scholes is a better or at least equal to Xavi, or Rooney is as good as Messi, then Chelsea fans arrive to insist that Lampard is better than Iniesta, or John Terry is better than Pique and Puyol....
Get a life ffs
Last edited:
Raed
Dr. Raed St. Claire
And they are about to join the museum soon.
Unbiased United
New member
Excellent article about three midfield legends.
The reason Scholes never recieved a vote on the Ballon d'Or, (and Xavi himself practically said as much) because he commited the ultimate sin of being born English.
Paulo Scholezzi would have probably won it....
The reason Scholes never recieved a vote on the Ballon d'Or, (and Xavi himself practically said as much) because he commited the ultimate sin of being born English.
Paulo Scholezzi would have probably won it....
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
Keegan(twice), Owen, Matthews, Charlton won it.
Unbiased United
New member
O, yeah, mister football fantastic knowledge
Your knowledge is comparable only with the knowledge of a Neanderthal housewife from the Stone Ages.
What is your point? All the time whining and crying how come Xavi is better than Scholes and complaining in a Barca forum? How about your tinted glasses? It's like comparing the art of Michelangelo with the clumsiness of the f*cking Chenghis Khan. It's the lack of knowledge that couldn't allow you to comprehend what Xavi has given to the game, voted as the best midfielder in the world for the last 5 years, WC winner, three time CL winner, and Euro 2008 winner, being the best player there.
Aw, poor little United supporter, couldn't swallow the fact that there are people who think that Xavi is one level above Scholes.
It's getting boring. Every day here come bunch of frustrated United fans explaining how we don't understand the game and how Scholes is a better or at least equal to Xavi, or Rooney is as good as Messi, then Chelsea fans arrive to insist that Lampard is better than Iniesta, or John Terry is better than Pique and Puyol....
Get a life ffs
Lack of footballing knowledge and the inablitiy to read...interesting.
Like I said in my post you quoted but failed to read... if I don't know much about a player or team, I dont comment on them, since I don't claim to know everything about everything...however you clearly know nothing about Scholes as a player, yet post your nonsense anyway.
research = knowledge...remember that.
Deco 20
Scandinavian 101
But Michael Owen, Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney (and to an extent Terry) have all done very well in the BPotY elections...
DucdeOrléans
New member
O, yeah, mister football fantastic knowledge
Your knowledge is comparable only with the knowledge of a Neanderthal housewife from the Stone Ages.
What is your point? All the time whining and crying how come Xavi is better than Scholes and complaining in a Barca forum? How about your tinted glasses? It's like comparing the art of Michelangelo with the clumsiness of the f*cking Chenghis Khan. It's the lack of knowledge that couldn't allow you to comprehend what Xavi has given to the game, voted as the best midfielder in the world for the last 5 years, WC winner, three time CL winner, and Euro 2008 winner, being the best player there.
Aw, poor little United supporter, couldn't swallow the fact that there are people who think that Xavi is one level above Scholes.
It's getting boring. Every day here come bunch of frustrated United fans explaining how we don't understand the game and how Scholes is a better or at least equal to Xavi, or Rooney is as good as Messi, then Chelsea fans arrive to insist that Lampard is better than Iniesta, or John Terry is better than Pique and Puyol....
Get a life ffs
Brilliant
Spot on.
Scholes is ugly and English. Thread should have been closed right away.
Fun aside then Scholes is/was obviously among the best midfielders of his generation and certainly the best English midfielder in recent memory.
That said he can't be compared to Xavi for obvious reasons. Most of them already mentioned such as honours, his crucial influence on both club and country, legacy, ability to always step up on big occasions for both club and country and most importantly an OUTSTANDING consistency that I have never seen yet and probably will not witness from a midfielder in years to come.
It's like comparing Xavi/Iniesta with Cesc. It does not make sense despite the latter being extremely talented as well.
Metaphysical
Bomb Dropper
Cox was wrong to include Xavi in that article as he hasn't been a deep-lying playmaker for fucking years. he's an all-pitch playmaker and in recent seasons has been getting forward a fuckload, especially this campaign. should have included Busquets instead, as he's a YOUNG deep-lying playmaker so could, along with Big JM, represent a revival of the position. and then there's Xabi to consider as well. basically I think he just wanted to write about Xavi, Pirlo & Scholes.
the similarities between Scholes & Pirlo are remarkable, and the two of them are certain on a par in terms of ability. but in terms of the last decade/15 years, Xavi is a class above everyone, but they are definitely next in line (along with Rui Costa & Riquelme, although they are mediapuntas rather than deep-lying playmakers).
Ryan_Cule
barça amor d mi alma
O, yeah, mister football fantastic knowledge
Your knowledge is comparable only with the knowledge of a Neanderthal housewife from the Stone Ages.
What is your point? All the time whining and crying how come Xavi is better than Scholes and complaining in a Barca forum? How about your tinted glasses? It's like comparing the art of Michelangelo with the clumsiness of the f*cking Chenghis Khan. It's the lack of knowledge that couldn't allow you to comprehend what Xavi has given to the game, voted as the best midfielder in the world for the last 5 years, WC winner, three time CL winner, and Euro 2008 winner, being the best player there.
Aw, poor little United supporter, couldn't swallow the fact that there are people who think that Xavi is one level above Scholes.
It's getting boring. Every day here come bunch of frustrated United fans explaining how we don't understand the game and how Scholes is a better or at least equal to Xavi, or Rooney is as good as Messi, then Chelsea fans arrive to insist that Lampard is better than Iniesta, or John Terry is better than Pique and Puyol....
Get a life ffs
/thread closed !
Guardian
New member
oh please, I follow English football much closer than LaLiga and people here know me that I've always defended it. I like EPL. I've been following EPL since 1990 and certainly I have way bigger "knowledge" ("knowledge"ffs, it's fucking stupid football game, it's not quantum physic) than your fanboyish one. But fanboys like you are the ones who create a bad image of English football in general. Paul Scholes and the rest English "stars" are amongst the most popular and pampered athletes around, and the fans like you keep insisting that they are underrated and not recognised or not praised enough? OMFG!!!
B
BrianSwan
Guest
Home of Barca Fans
