Juve sack Sarri..

Originally Posted by utd99

Modric was a tremendous player mate; Scholes himself is a huge fan, as was Fergie. Scholes was better, but had the benefit of much better players around him, and a much better manager. You think Scholes would have this type of mythology if he’d spent his career at Spurs rather than here?

It’s an odd line of argument. We don’t mythologise Scholes because he played at United with great players around him. But because he was actually a great player. If he had played for spurs he’d have eventually been signed by a much better team.

Great players end up at great clubs, generally speaking. Can’t use that as a criticism

Originally Posted by NedKelly

I rarely ever see Pirlo touted as the best midfielder of all time (I don’t think I ever have, actually); he unanimously is accepted as one of the best midfielders of his generation (he was), and is also appreciated for his ability to adapt as he aged. He did refine that role of sitting back and pulling the strings from deep, that was his whole schtick. The fact that so many teams since have seen that role as so important speaks volumes. We did it with Carrick, Barca with Busquets etc.

Pirlo was a thinking man, I have no doubt in my mind that he’d have done well in any top team that set themselves up to play to his strengths.

It’s easy to forget that Pirlo was mainly seen as an attacking midfielder in his early days and didn’t really come of age until he was dropped deeper.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

I rarely ever see Pirlo touted as the best midfielder of all time (I don’t think I ever have, actually); he unanimously is accepted as one of the best midfielders of his generation (he was), and is also appreciated for his ability to adapt as he aged. He did refine that role of sitting back and pulling the strings from deep, that was his whole schtick. The fact that so many teams since have seen that role as so important speaks volumes. We did it with Carrick, Barca with Busquets etc.

Pirlo was a thinking man, I have no doubt in my mind that he’d have done well in any top team that set themselves up to play to his strengths.

All fair points. He is probably rated higher by people that consider themselves ‘thinking men’. Personally I regard better midfielders as those that can walk into any midfield and adapt and influence a game.

Originally Posted by shenwen

It’s an odd line of argument. We don’t mythologise Scholes because he played at United with great players around him. But because he was actually a great player. If he had played for spurs he’d have eventually been signed by a much better team.

Great players end up at great clubs, generally speaking. Can’t use that as a criticism

Mate, c’mon...it wasn’t a criticism; it was merely an observation that, once a player reaches a certain level, much of how their career is viewed depends on what’s around them. Gerrard is multiple levels above anything Jordan Henderson will ever be, yet here he is, captain of the Champions and player of the year. History will be kinder to Henderson than he deserves.

Anyway, this is a Sarri thread; someone’s getting a ban soon.

Originally Posted by ryanMUFC

All fair points. He is probably rated higher by people that consider themselves ‘thinking men’. Personally I regard better midfielders as those that can walk into any midfield and adapt and influence a game.

Ok, well I did say I think he would walk into any top team and be a great addition, so I’m not sure what your point is?

Pirlo = Class player.

Scholes & Xavi = Genuine best in class midfielders.

Zidane = Genius.

No point talking about what ifs and would haves.

Originally Posted by Coracao

I wouldn't pick anyone over Xavi. If you want to control a game, i don't think there has been anyone better.

Scholes and Xavi are very similar players, both stylistically, and in terms of ability, but for me Scholes was the better overall midfielder, for a few crucial reasons.

Firstly, Xavi scored 85 goals in his entire Barcelona career across 767 games, with a season high of 14 in 2011/12, and double figures for goals in just 2 out of 17 seasons. Contrastingly, Scholes scored 155 goals in 718 games for United, with a season high of 20 in 2002/03, and double figures for goals in 8 out of 19 seasons.

So Scholes effectively scored twice as many goals as Xavi, despite playing 50 less games, and was also a ridiculously more consistent goalscorer over the course of his career, given the amount of seasons he bagged double figures.

Obviously a midfielder's primary objective isn't to score goals, and this wasn't the key strength of either Xavi or Scholes, tbf. However, when you break down some of their key attributes, there are a few where Scholes comes out on top. Scholes' long-passing game was far superior to Xavi's; this thread is about Juventus sacking Sarri, and Pirlo taking over, and you'd put Scholes' long-range passing as good as, if not better, than Pirlo's. He could switch play effortlessly from one side of the pitch to the other, with raking long-range balls in a way that Xavi couldn't.

Another area where I'd say Scholes has the edge is the argument around personnel, and the evolution of the sides he played in. Xavi only really came to prominence as a genuine world-class midfielder after 2008/09 when Guardiola took over from Rijkaard, and he blossomed in that unbelievably good midfield trio with Busquets and Iniesta. It was that same trio that he had the benefit of playing in for the rest of his Barcelona and Spain career. He obviously would have looked world-class in any other side, but the consistency of that midfield unit certainly helped him. Prior to 2008/09 he was clearly a key Barcelona player, but even when they won the European Cup in 2006, it was probably Deco who was their superior midfielder, and in the early 2000s Barcelona were in the doldrums.

In comparison, Scholes adapted to several different sides at United that were all top-class, initially breaking through alongside Keane in the mid-90s, and culminating in the 1999 Treble season, before being a key in the early 2000s United side that dominated domestically, then becoming the crucial midfield leader in the side that won the European Cup in 2008, before transitioning again into a much deeper role in the post-Ronaldo years.

I love Xavi. He's probably my favourite non-United player over the last 20 years, and was a joy to watch, but I'd say Scholes was the better and more complete, midfielder overall. Scholes could control an entire football match for 90 minutes, and did so in several different United sides, but Xavi couldn't score goals like the ones Scholes hit at Valley Parade and Villa Park.

Just my two cents.

Fwiw I think Xavi himself would agree with you, and actually mean it.

Good post btw.

Originally Posted by Neo

Scholes and Xavi are very similar players, both stylistically, and in terms of ability, but for me Scholes was the better overall midfielder, for a few crucial reasons.

Firstly, Xavi scored 85 goals in his entire Barcelona career across 767 games, with a season high of 14 in 2011/12, and double figures for goals in just 2 out of 17 seasons. Contrastingly, Scholes scored 155 goals in 718 games for United, with a season high of 20 in 2002/03, and double figures for goals in 8 out of 19 seasons.

So Scholes effectively scored twice as many goals as Xavi, despite playing 50 less games, and was also a ridiculously more consistent goalscorer over the course of his career, given the amount of seasons he bagged double figures.

Obviously a midfielder's primary objective isn't to score goals, and this wasn't the key strength of either Xavi or Scholes, tbf. However, when you break down some of their key attributes, there are a few where Scholes comes out on top. Scholes' long-passing game was far superior to Xavi's; this thread is about Juventus sacking Sarri, and Pirlo taking over, and you'd put Scholes' long-range passing as good as, if not better, than Pirlo's. He could switch play effortlessly from one side of the pitch to the other, with raking long-range balls in a way that Xavi couldn't.

Another area where I'd say Scholes has the edge is the argument around personnel, and the evolution of the sides he played in. Xavi only really came to prominence as a genuine world-class midfielder after 2008/09 when Guardiola took over from Rijkaard, and he blossomed in that unbelievably good midfield trio with Busquets and Iniesta. It was that same trio that he had the benefit of playing in for the rest of his Barcelona and Spain career. He obviously would have looked world-class in any other side, but the consistency of that midfield unit certainly helped him. Prior to 2008/09 he was clearly a key Barcelona player, but even when they won the European Cup in 2006, it was probably Deco who was their superior midfielder, and in the early 2000s Barcelona were in the doldrums.

In comparison, Scholes adapted to several different sides at United that were all top-class, initially breaking through alongside Keane in the mid-90s, and culminating in the 1999 Treble season, before being a key in the early 2000s United side that dominated domestically, then becoming the crucial midfield leader in the side that won the European Cup in 2008, before transitioning again into a much deeper role in the post-Ronaldo years.

I love Xavi. He's probably my favourite non-United player over the last 20 years, and was a joy to watch, but I'd say Scholes was the better and more complete, midfielder overall. Scholes could control an entire football match for 90 minutes, and did so in several different United sides, but Xavi couldn't score goals like the ones Scholes hit at Valley Parade and Villa Park.

Just my two cents.

Top postage and I agree completely.

Originally Posted by Neo

Scholes and Xavi are very similar players, both stylistically, and in terms of ability, but for me Scholes was the better overall midfielder, for a few crucial reasons.

Firstly, Xavi scored 85 goals in his entire Barcelona career across 767 games, with a season high of 14 in 2011/12, and double figures for goals in just 2 out of 17 seasons. Contrastingly, Scholes scored 155 goals in 718 games for United, with a season high of 20 in 2002/03, and double figures for goals in 8 out of 19 seasons.

So Scholes effectively scored twice as many goals as Xavi, despite playing 50 less games, and was also a ridiculously more consistent goalscorer over the course of his career, given the amount of seasons he bagged double figures.

Obviously a midfielder's primary objective isn't to score goals, and this wasn't the key strength of either Xavi or Scholes, tbf. However, when you break down some of their key attributes, there are a few where Scholes comes out on top. Scholes' long-passing game was far superior to Xavi's; this thread is about Juventus sacking Sarri, and Pirlo taking over, and you'd put Scholes' long-range passing as good as, if not better, than Pirlo's. He could switch play effortlessly from one side of the pitch to the other, with raking long-range balls in a way that Xavi couldn't.

Another area where I'd say Scholes has the edge is the argument around personnel, and the evolution of the sides he played in. Xavi only really came to prominence as a genuine world-class midfielder after 2008/09 when Guardiola took over from Rijkaard, and he blossomed in that unbelievably good midfield trio with Busquets and Iniesta. It was that same trio that he had the benefit of playing in for the rest of his Barcelona and Spain career. He obviously would have looked world-class in any other side, but the consistency of that midfield unit certainly helped him. Prior to 2008/09 he was clearly a key Barcelona player, but even when they won the European Cup in 2006, it was probably Deco who was their superior midfielder, and in the early 2000s Barcelona were in the doldrums.

In comparison, Scholes adapted to several different sides at United that were all top-class, initially breaking through alongside Keane in the mid-90s, and culminating in the 1999 Treble season, before being a key in the early 2000s United side that dominated domestically, then becoming the crucial midfield leader in the side that won the European Cup in 2008, before transitioning again into a much deeper role in the post-Ronaldo years.

I love Xavi. He's probably my favourite non-United player over the last 20 years, and was a joy to watch, but I'd say Scholes was the better and more complete, midfielder overall. Scholes could control an entire football match for 90 minutes, and did so in several different United sides, but Xavi couldn't score goals like the ones Scholes hit at Valley Parade and Villa Park.

Just my two cents.

Interesting points. However, I would argue there are mitigating circumstances with some of them or points I don't agree with.

Reference the goals, Scholes was very much an attacking midfielder for the first half of his career, something which I wouldn't really ever class Xavi as. He started as a striker and even had a period during van Nistelrooy's time where he was playing off the striker. His career from Keane leaving is probably a fairer comparison to the role Xavi played. I feel that sometimes when Scholes is spoken about, it is like people talking about an early Ali and a post prison Ali, and this footballer / boxer is created who never existed, by taking the best elements of them at different points in time...

Xavi was an excellent passer both long and short. With regards to switching the play, this was how United played. Barca's style has never really incorporated that.

He was an excellent player prior to Pep taking over. He missed a lot of the season in 2006 as he did the ligaments in his knee, hence him being on the bench for the final. The season prior he was the Spanish player of the year.

Xavi for me turned up and dominated the biggest games in football. European Cups, World Cups, European Championships. I don't think it is any coincidence that the levels of Spain and Barcelona dropped off as he got towards the end / retired. As good as Scholes was, he never did that in the manner that Xavi did. Whether he could have done, if he had been put into those sides, we will never know.

Originally Posted by Coracao

Interesting points. However, I would argue there are mitigating circumstances with some of them or points I don't agree with.

Reference the goals, Scholes was very much an attacking midfielder for the first half of his career, something which I wouldn't really ever class Xavi as. He started as a striker and even had a period during van Nistelrooy's time where he was playing off the striker. His career from Keane leaving is probably a fairer comparison to the role Xavi played. I feel that sometimes when Scholes is spoken about, it is like people talking about an early Ali and a post prison Ali, and this footballer / boxer is created who never existed, by taking the best elements of them at different points in time...

Xavi was an excellent passer both long and short. With regards to switching the play, this was how United played. Barca's style has never really incorporated that.

He was an excellent player prior to Pep taking over. He missed a lot of the season in 2006 as he did the ligaments in his knee, hence him being on the bench for the final. The season prior he was the Spanish player of the year.

Xavi for me turned up and dominated the biggest games in football. European Cups, World Cups, European Championships. I don't think it is any coincidence that the levels of Spain and Barcelona dropped off as he got towards the end / retired. As good as Scholes was, he never did that in the manner that Xavi did. Whether he could have done, if he had been put into those sides, we will never know.

One thing Xavi has on absolutely anyone is his ability to pull off those pin point passes into the box. I have never seen a player, before or since, who was so consistent in creating chances out of those tiny opportunities. Every single game he would pull off several of them and it was sublime to watch.

Didn’t Xavi win the player of the tournament in the 2008 EC?

Originally Posted by NedKelly

One thing Xavi has on absolutely anyone is his ability to pull off those pin point passes into the box. I have never seen a player, before or since, who was so consistent in creating chances out of those tiny opportunities. Every single game he would pull off several of them and it was sublime to watch.

Yep, he has some outrageous assists tbf Most players don't even see the balls that he played, nevermind have the ability to pull them off.

Will never forget his performance at the Bernabau in 2009, when Barca beat them 6-2. Think he ended up with 4 assists and it could easily have been 8. He absolutely tore them to shreds.

I remember watching Xavi take the piss out of England for Spain U21's when he was about 19, nobody got anywhere near him all night, he was incredible, think they beat us 4-1 and the striker that bagged a brace ended up at Ipswich ffs Xavi was just about a first team regular at Barca from then on? We were linked loads of times

Conversely, I always remember Pirlo as highly rated when young, bouncing about a bit, being decent but among the supporting cast at Milan and not really getting recognition until his late 20's/early 30's when he rocked up at Juve? Might be slightly skewed by time tbf.

Scholes was awesome.

Originally Posted by dunk

I remember watching Xavi take the piss out of England for Spain U21's when he was about 19, nobody got anywhere near him all night, he was incredible, think they beat us 4-1 and the striker that bagged a brace ended up at Ipswich ffs Xavi was just about a first team regular at Barca from then on? We were linked loads of times

Conversely, I always remember Pirlo as highly rated when young, bouncing about a bit, being decent but among the supporting cast at Milan and not really getting recognition until his late 20's/early 30's when he rocked up at Juve? Might be slightly skewed by time tbf.

Scholes was awesome.

Pirlo was top for AC tbf

It was at Inter where he kinda struggled but he was used more as an attacking midfielder back then.

Originally Posted by AK14

Didn’t Xavi win the player of the tournament in the 2008 EC?

Was player of the tournament Euro 2008.

Team of the tournament Euro 08 & 12 and World Cup 2010.

Originally Posted by Coracao

Was player of the tournament Euro 2008.

Team of the tournament Euro 08 & 12 and World Cup 2010.

When did Guardiola take over at Barca?

09 right?

Seems Xavi was pretty £#%&!ing good before Guardiola.

Originally Posted by AK14

When did Guardiola take over at Barca?

09 right?

Seems Xavi was pretty £#%&!ing good before Guardiola.

08/09 then he left at the end of the 2011/12 season

Originally Posted by Sparky***

08/09 then he left at the end of the 2011/12 season

He was pretty £#%&!ing good after the bald headed doper too then.

Originally Posted by Coracao

Xavi for me turned up and dominated the biggest games in football. European Cups, World Cups, European Championships. I don't think it is any coincidence that the levels of Spain and Barcelona dropped off as he got towards the end / retired. As good as Scholes was, he never did that in the manner that Xavi did. Whether he could have done, if he had been put into those sides, we will never know.

Hard to argue with that, as they're the facts, tbf. Xavi bossed the biggest games, on the biggest stage, time and time again. Although I do think a lot of that is down to the midfield unit that he got to play in for both Barcelona and Spain, which is the best and most dominant midfield I've ever seen.

Nevertheless, I always thought he was the standout player in that midfield, and he made both teams tick. I've always put Xavi ahead of Iniesta - whilst the latter popped up with the big goals, it was Xavi that was the heartbeat of the teams. Incredible footballer.

Still think Scholes was the better player, though. Swap the teams that him and Xavi played in, and Scholes would have won just as many European Cups, European Championships and World Cups.