comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 53 seconds ago
Scholes didnt though, he only really did it in the final years of his career.
.................
You obviously never watched Scholes and Keane in their prime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
I'm surprised that we as a society even allowed Scholes to play on grass pitches. Being the god that he is he should only play on 24k gold plateaus, with an audience that only constituted of gods as well. Deities like Zeus, Buddha, Shiva & Jesus should've only witnessed the greatness that is Paul Scholes.
I feel almost ashamed of setting eyes on him when he played. We were never worthy.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you just allow them to rewrite history?!
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 43 seconds ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I just think Scholes was at his best playing in that deep role that he did roughly 06 on-wards.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, he was in his prime playing with Keane, in a double pivot. It was excellent to watch. However people like to think of him as a Pirlo/Xavi type player as he played deeper and kept it simple in his later years and spread the play. Some say that is when he was at his best, which is nonsense. It was just an easier role, one which Leon Brittan did excellently for Swansea a few years back, one that Carrick did well, for a while.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you just allow them to rewrite history?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe I should add the Xavi quote for peace.
Ha, sorry youre right. 2004 was the one that I felt most of the Scholes, Gerard, Lampard debate was happening.
No I just think Scholes was at his best playing in that deep role that he did roughly 06 on-wards.
.......................
Not at all. He was dictating the games tempo in his earlier years as well. To me, they were Uniteds best years and certainly Scholes.
Scholes best years for me were from around 95-09
Love that story from Dyer, good to hear those types of things.
Every man and his dog knows England treated him like crap, to the gain of Man Utd of course.
To come out of retirement at 38 or something and still have the ability to help a team to the title is amazing.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think he was only great when he dropped back a little deeper and played the quarterback type role.
What actuakky ruined Scholes for England was that gutles Sven who refused to drop his favourite bumboys and play Schoes in the middle and build the team aound him.
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you just allow them to rewrite history?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe I should add the Xavi quote for peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They all rushed to get his shirt. He has to be the greatest player ever.
He may have been technically better than Gerrard but for one man's ability to drag a bunch of his team mates through battles they should have rightly lost he will forever be the stand out CM of that era.
Ha, sorry youre right. 2004 was the one that I felt most of the Scholes, Gerard, Lampard debate was happening.
...................
The debate raged on for years 1982. It was a constant topic on the old 606.
Lamps and Gerrard played over 100 games each for England, most of which were as a CM pairing.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
Love that story from Dyer, good to hear those types of things.
Every man and his dog knows England treated him like crap, to the gain of Man Utd of course.
To come out of retirement at 38 or something and still have the ability to help a team to the title is amazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every man except for Scholes himself and those who didn't re-write history.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, he was in his prime playing with Keane, in a double pivot. It was excellent to watch. However people like to think of him as a Pirlo/Xavi type player as he played deeper and kept it simple in his later years and spread the play. Some say that is when he was at his best, which is nonsense. It was just an easier role, one which Leon Brittan did excellently for Swansea a few years back, one that Carrick did well, for a while.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, I don't agree personally.
There is a point though that it was probably 'easier' to be a DM at that point in time. PL team's had only just started adapting to the three-man midfield and the 'attacking midfielder' of that era was considerably lazier than they have to be now + pressing hadn't been introduced to the Premier League yet so the 'DM' had a lot more time on the ball.
Scholes could pick a pass so well though it was why he was perfect for it, one of the best cross-field passers I have ever seen.
People think he was only great when he dropped back a little deeper and played the quarterback type role.
................
Apparently.
comment by Nostraduncus (U11713)
posted 35 minutes ago
regardless of who was better out of Lampard, scholes and Gerrard ( that debate will go on forever) the fact is Gerrard and Lampard were absolute gash for England, only people without an ounce of footballing knowledge would argue that.
scholes should have been given the chance with one or the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
scholes 14 goals in 66
lampard 29 in 106.
Pretty similar, if not frank edges it.
Interesting, I don't agree personally.
...............
There can only be two reasons for this. You either never watched them, or don't understand what you are watching.
Should be fun when carrick retires. The delusion will be a joy to read.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 30 seconds ago
Should be fun when carrick retires. The delusion will be a joy to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 46 seconds ago
Interesting, I don't agree personally.
...............
There can only be two reasons for this. You either never watched them, or don't understand what you are watching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hardly a 'hot take' to prefer Scholes in a deeper role. I'm not discrediting how good he was before, just saying that was my preferential position when I watched him.
Chelsea and Liverpool fans can never admit Scholes is better, when it's so clear that he is
Sign in if you want to comment
Kieron Dyer on Paul Scholes
Page 3 of 17
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 53 seconds ago
Scholes didnt though, he only really did it in the final years of his career.
.................
You obviously never watched Scholes and Keane in their prime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
posted on 13/2/18
I'm surprised that we as a society even allowed Scholes to play on grass pitches. Being the god that he is he should only play on 24k gold plateaus, with an audience that only constituted of gods as well. Deities like Zeus, Buddha, Shiva & Jesus should've only witnessed the greatness that is Paul Scholes.
I feel almost ashamed of setting eyes on him when he played. We were never worthy.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
posted on 13/2/18
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you just allow them to rewrite history?!
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 43 seconds ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I just think Scholes was at his best playing in that deep role that he did roughly 06 on-wards.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, he was in his prime playing with Keane, in a double pivot. It was excellent to watch. However people like to think of him as a Pirlo/Xavi type player as he played deeper and kept it simple in his later years and spread the play. Some say that is when he was at his best, which is nonsense. It was just an easier role, one which Leon Brittan did excellently for Swansea a few years back, one that Carrick did well, for a while.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you just allow them to rewrite history?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe I should add the Xavi quote for peace.
posted on 13/2/18
Ha, sorry youre right. 2004 was the one that I felt most of the Scholes, Gerard, Lampard debate was happening.
posted on 13/2/18
No I just think Scholes was at his best playing in that deep role that he did roughly 06 on-wards.
.......................
Not at all. He was dictating the games tempo in his earlier years as well. To me, they were Uniteds best years and certainly Scholes.
Scholes best years for me were from around 95-09
posted on 13/2/18
Love that story from Dyer, good to hear those types of things.
Every man and his dog knows England treated him like crap, to the gain of Man Utd of course.
To come out of retirement at 38 or something and still have the ability to help a team to the title is amazing.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think he was only great when he dropped back a little deeper and played the quarterback type role.
posted on 13/2/18
What actuakky ruined Scholes for England was that gutles Sven who refused to drop his favourite bumboys and play Schoes in the middle and build the team aound him.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Kash
Wasn’t it more about Euro 2004 and WC 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he quit in 2004. He had 1 tournament out of 4 on the left of a diamond.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you just allow them to rewrite history?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe I should add the Xavi quote for peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They all rushed to get his shirt. He has to be the greatest player ever.
posted on 13/2/18
He may have been technically better than Gerrard but for one man's ability to drag a bunch of his team mates through battles they should have rightly lost he will forever be the stand out CM of that era.
posted on 13/2/18
Ha, sorry youre right. 2004 was the one that I felt most of the Scholes, Gerard, Lampard debate was happening.
...................
The debate raged on for years 1982. It was a constant topic on the old 606.
Lamps and Gerrard played over 100 games each for England, most of which were as a CM pairing.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
Love that story from Dyer, good to hear those types of things.
Every man and his dog knows England treated him like crap, to the gain of Man Utd of course.
To come out of retirement at 38 or something and still have the ability to help a team to the title is amazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every man except for Scholes himself and those who didn't re-write history.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Scholes's prime didn't coincide with playing with Keane.
.....................
Oh I see, you are just wumming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, he was in his prime playing with Keane, in a double pivot. It was excellent to watch. However people like to think of him as a Pirlo/Xavi type player as he played deeper and kept it simple in his later years and spread the play. Some say that is when he was at his best, which is nonsense. It was just an easier role, one which Leon Brittan did excellently for Swansea a few years back, one that Carrick did well, for a while.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, I don't agree personally.
There is a point though that it was probably 'easier' to be a DM at that point in time. PL team's had only just started adapting to the three-man midfield and the 'attacking midfielder' of that era was considerably lazier than they have to be now + pressing hadn't been introduced to the Premier League yet so the 'DM' had a lot more time on the ball.
Scholes could pick a pass so well though it was why he was perfect for it, one of the best cross-field passers I have ever seen.
posted on 13/2/18
People think he was only great when he dropped back a little deeper and played the quarterback type role.
................
Apparently.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Nostraduncus (U11713)
posted 35 minutes ago
regardless of who was better out of Lampard, scholes and Gerrard ( that debate will go on forever) the fact is Gerrard and Lampard were absolute gash for England, only people without an ounce of footballing knowledge would argue that.
scholes should have been given the chance with one or the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
scholes 14 goals in 66
lampard 29 in 106.
Pretty similar, if not frank edges it.
posted on 13/2/18
Interesting, I don't agree personally.
...............
There can only be two reasons for this. You either never watched them, or don't understand what you are watching.
posted on 13/2/18
Should be fun when carrick retires. The delusion will be a joy to read.
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 30 seconds ago
Should be fun when carrick retires. The delusion will be a joy to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 13/2/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 46 seconds ago
Interesting, I don't agree personally.
...............
There can only be two reasons for this. You either never watched them, or don't understand what you are watching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hardly a 'hot take' to prefer Scholes in a deeper role. I'm not discrediting how good he was before, just saying that was my preferential position when I watched him.
posted on 13/2/18
Chelsea and Liverpool fans can never admit Scholes is better, when it's so clear that he is
Page 3 of 17
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10