Scholes Vs Xavi (Not a direct comparison thread)

[DucdeOrléans]

He also failed to play a big part in Europe from 1991-2006 where he was in his peak. (apart from the treble in 1999).

The PL was also "only" the third best league in the world from 1991-2005.

But fair enough still a great player although I fell he is a bit overrated among Brits.

 

[yusuf]

To answer your question about Scholes, Xavi and the international stage, Scholes is english failure for the england team is a given, no matter how talented you are

Seriously success at international level seems to elevate players to to an elite group of player present and past considered to be of legendary status.

There are exceptions for players like Best and Dalglish who found legendary status for their clubs through european club success. As they were unlucky enough to be born in Belfast and Glasgow.

but ed u cant forget that spain were regarded in the same class as the english as huge bottlers and were used in all the same jokes....xavi was a big reason that they crushed that way of thinking so i dont think nationality should give xavi an advantage

 

[DucdeOrléans]

but ed u cant forget that spain were regarded in the same class as the english as huge bottlers and were used in all the same jokes....xavi was a big reason that they crushed that way of thinking so i dont think nationality should give xavi an advantage

Precisely. Xavi was the main reason for that because of his world class. Simple as that. Scholes, as good as he has been, never was near doing the same. And it's not like England did not have great players when he played for the national team....

 

[putogusiluz8]

but ed u cant forget that spain were regarded in the same class as the english as huge bottlers and were used in all the same jokes....xavi was a big reason that they crushed that way of thinking so i dont think nationality should give xavi an advantage

Agreed. Until the last 4 years Spain were no different if not regarded as bigger bottlers than England. Once they gave Xavi the reins to the team we saw success.. In that Xavi does gain some points.

 

[silky_soccer]

Precisely. Xavi was the main reason for that because of his world class. Simple as that. Scholes, as good as he has been, never was near doing the same. And it's not like England did not have great players when he played for the national team....

Scholes was played out wide TBF, to try and make Gerrard and Lampard work. One of the most Idiotic thngs any manager could of done. But yeah, the thread isnt a "Whos Better" one anyway.

 

[Guardian]

but ed u cant forget that spain were regarded in the same class as the english as huge bottlers and were used in all the same jokes....xavi was a big reason that they crushed that way of thinking so i dont think nationality should give xavi an advantage

:beer2:

Scholes was played out wide TBF, to try and make Gerrard and Lampard work. One of the most Idiotic thngs any manager could of done. But yeah, the thread isnt a "Whos Better" one anyway.

Complete bollocks. Lampard and Gerrard were injured and out for WC 2002 squad, so Scholes played as CM. He was in his natural position at WC 1998 and Euro 2000.

 

[silky_soccer]

And he was at his best on 02-06 IMO. So for his best years he was played out of his natural position. And Scholes was good at that World Cup anyway. Just because your team doesnt win the competition doesnt mean you dont play well ffs.

 

[AnfieldEd]

Yusuf it's not just Xavi it is basically Barcelona that changed Spain forever.

Before 2008 they played with wingers - Joaquin was a regular. It wasn't until Aragones decided to change the system and play a similar system to the barca one, where Spain finally had success. You are right because of this Xavi became the focal point for Spain and the rest is history.

Gerrard and Lampard out performed Scholes from 04-06 no matter what anyone says and thus why those 2 were central mids for england at that time. IMO eriksson was a fool to play Scholes out wide - he should have changed the system to accommodate all 3 in a 4-3-3 system. With Gerrard as the AM.

And he was at his best on 02-06 IMO. So for his best years he was played out of his natural position. And Scholes was good at that World Cup anyway. Just because your team doesnt win the competition doesnt mean you dont play well ffs.

Scholes was at his peak from 98 - 03. He was utterly immense during that period.

 

[Guardian]

And he was at his best on 02-06 IMO. So for his best years he was played out of his natural position. And Scholes was good at that World Cup anyway. Just because your team doesnt win the competition doesnt mean you dont play well ffs.

Which world cup? In 1998 and 2002 he never looked that good, England never managed to dominate in midfield and to retain the possession back then. He wasn't good at Euro 2002. Scholes retired from international football in 2004, he had enough time to make an impact. And he had been criticized for poor performances at national team in contrast to that in his club. Same story as many other English players like Gerrard, Lampard and many more.

Paul Scholes is still one of best midfielders for the past decade, but far from Xavi's technical and tactical level. He is better only on physical level.

 

[silky_soccer]

ED, hes been utterly immense throughout his career . He just wo more from 98-03. I think his personal level was higher during the period I stated. Not to take anything away from him in te late nineties and early noughties.

@Guardian. He was good in 02.

 

[woobie]

Concur with Silky on this one. Scholes was amazing in the 98-03 period -- the whole United midfield during that time was something very, very special.

 

[DucdeOrléans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTDN341r234&feature=player_embedded

What is the first "song" in this video?

Anyone?

Thanks.

 

[Gnegneri]

Silky soccer is such a bloody manc. Unreal.

 

[silky_soccer]

Silky soccer is such a bloody manc. Unreal.

Well Done Detective Inspector.

 

[DucdeOrléans]

Do some of you guys now the name of the first "song" in the video Silky posted?

Thanks.