After his first couple of season in and around the 1st team when he would play off the front man, he played almost exclusively as a CM, save for the first part of the 01/02 season when Fergie tried to play him as a number 10 behind RVN. It never really worked, Scholes wasn't comfortable there and struggled being ahead of the ball.

Even then SAF tried three in midfield quite often, to accommodate Scholes, Keane and Veron.

Oddly it failed in the league but seemed to work in the CL.

I'm getting worked up because I used to be the same kind of arrogant, know-it-all little sch·muck to my old man, but now I'm older and realise, he's dead and there's nothing I can do to let him know I've understood what a horrid little creep I was.

I'm just hoping you grow up a bit faster than I did and don't let your old man go to his grave thinking his kid is a grade A prick.
=========================

Fvcking wow. Kind of made me laugh with it's brutal honesty.

What has to be taken in to consideration is how attacking United were in that period from 98 to 2001. Two proper strikers, and wingers, no facking about.

Scholes and Keane held that together

Arthur

Seems like you got your own issues, don't take them out on me when you know absolutely nothing about me

Seems like you got your own issues, don't take them out on me when you know absolutely nothing about me

...........

We know you are a complete and utter waster.

I just find the whole "I didn't see them play but I have a strong opinion on the matter" bizarre.

IMO Scholes's influence has become overstated since retirement. There's a lot of revisionism that goes on with regards to his earlier career.

The whole England debate is an example. He was probably one of the national team's key players in his earlier years, but was poor for a couple of years prior to his retirement. Plenty of people at the time were calling for him to be dropped. Lampard and Gerrard at the time were 2 emerging CMs who put in good performances for the NT, Gerrard particularly (in a deeper role it must be said). Scholes didn't play that many games on the left (think it was 8 out of 60 odd), but that he did was a reflection of his loss of standing as England's no.1 CM. Scholes himself said he didn't have a problem with playing on the left, as he did for Utd at times. His retirement wasn't seen as a massive shock at the time.

Secondly, his peers clearly did not rate him at the time as highly as the famous quotes that are reeled out would suggest, otherwise they would've voted for him to win more honours. Nor did the footballing media at the time recognise him as they did with Keane - who was generally regarded as Utd's no.1 CM - when awarding him the player of the year award. Nor did Ferguson when he bought Veron for a record fee and pushed Scholes further forward (and occasionally to the left...) to accommodate him.

IMO, Scholes' elevated post-retirement reputation comes from a curious case of two distinct halves of his career being melded together to create a hybrid footballer that was more than the sum of his contributions on the pitch at any one time. You have the pre-05 attacking CM who played in a slightly leaky 4-4-2 and scored 10+ goals a season while being tidy in possession, then you have the post-eye troubles era from around 06, where he played an increasingly withdrawn, metronomic playmaking role as his legs went, ending up the deepest midfielder in 3-man midfields. At no stage was he both players rolled into one. IMO he falls short of the likes of Lampard as the former, and Pirlo/Xavi as the latter. I would rank him somewhere around the level of someone like Michael Ballack, top continental midfielder but not quite one of those era-defining players.

Secondly, his peers clearly did not rate him at the time as highly as the famous quotes that are reeled out would suggest, otherwise they would've voted for him to win more honours.

............

Utter bollox,

Secondly, his peers clearly did not rate him at the time as highly as the famous quotes that are reeled out would suggest, otherwise they would've voted for him to win more honours.

............

Utter bollox,
---------------
That he wasn't recognised very often by his peers when it came to awards? IMO the private votes reveal a lot more about his standing among his peers than their public utterances, which are often probably nothing more than polite lip service.

IMO the private votes reveal a lot more about his standing among his peers than their public utterances,

................

This is your opinion, which is very flawed.

You might want to read through the thread where this has all been explained to the ill educated OP.

There were some quite eceptional cms at that time in he league. Gerrard, Viera, Keane and Lampard are examples. This doesn't make Paul Scholes bad at football as he was demonstrably excellent.

I do think a lot of Utd fans on here over egg his career based on his renaissance but the lad was class at a time when technical players were not as appreciated as much.

This is your opinion, which is very flawed.

You might want to read through the thread where this has all been explained to the ill educated OP.
---------------
Yeah I know, that's why I began with 'IMO'. Isn't this whole thread all opinion anyway? There's no objective measure of 'rated-ness'. Looking at individual awards is an attempt to gauge his general level of acclaim at the time. It's not perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a quote from years after he retired.

I do think a lot of Utd fans on here over egg his career based on his renaissance but the lad was class at a time when technical players were not as appreciated as much.

............................................

I look at Scholes from around 97- 2007 as the years he was just pure magic to watch.

In all fairness the two major obstacles he overcame to reach the peake of the game werequite inredible when you think about it.

Being ginger and suffering from asthma.

There were some quite eceptional cms at that time in he league. Gerrard, Viera, Keane and Lampard are examples. This doesn't make Paul Scholes bad at football as he was demonstrably excellent.

I do think a lot of Utd fans on here over egg his career based on his renaissance but the lad was class at a time when technical players were not as appreciated as much.
----------------
Absolutely not, the point isn't to denigrate Scholes but to point out there's a glaring contrast between how people talked about him at the time and how they do now that he's retired and nostalgia and revisionism have crept in.

Part of that involves the rewriting of his pre-04 game to introduce elements of his post-06 game where he became a more 'technical player' as you put (i.e. a more cultured, possession-oriented playmaker). People then use this future version of Scholes to claim that his past version wasn't appreciated, particularly with regards to England, which is a false representation of history.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
I do think a lot of Utd fans on here over egg his career based on his renaissance but the lad was class at a time when technical players were not as appreciated as much.

............................................

I look at Scholes from around 97- 2007 as the years he was just pure magic to watch.

In all fairness the two major obstacles he overcame to reach the peake of the game werequite inredible when you think about it.

Being ginger and suffering from asthma.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And his eye tbf

comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 6 minutes ago
There were some quite eceptional cms at that time in he league. Gerrard, Viera, Keane and Lampard are examples. This doesn't make Paul Scholes bad at football as he was demonstrably excellent.

I do think a lot of Utd fans on here over egg his career based on his renaissance but the lad was class at a time when technical players were not as appreciated as much.
----------------
Absolutely not, the point isn't to denigrate Scholes but to point out there's a glaring contrast between how people talked about him at the time and how they do now that he's retired and nostalgia and revisionism have crept in.

Part of that involves the rewriting of his pre-04 game to introduce elements of his post-06 game where he became a more 'technical player' as you put (i.e. a more cultured, possession-oriented playmaker). People then use this future version of Scholes to claim that his past version wasn't appreciated, particularly with regards to England, which is a false representation of history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't agree with that at all. Everyone knew he was class because he was scoring 20 a season

Don't agree with that at all. Everyone knew he was class because he was scoring 20 a season
------------
Which isn't something I've argued against. Quite the opposite in fact.

Part of that involves the rewriting of his pre-04 game to introduce elements of his post-06 game where he became a more 'technical player
===============

What's this then? Because he's always been technical he wasn't in there for his tackling and heading anyway.

Look it's by the by. The op is chatting sh!t about players he's not watched (again).

What's this then? Because he's always been technical he wasn't in there for his tackling and heading anyway.
----------------
As in his style of play rather than ability on the ball. There's a marked difference between the 'English' style he used to play til the early 2000s and the more 'technical' or 'European' style he increasingly played post-06. But a lot of people bemoan the fact that this more cultured aspect of his game wasn't appreciated throughout his career, particularly during his England days, when it wasn't even a part of his game til very late on. He made his name as a goalscoring attacking midfielder at club level and it was on that very basis that he excelled in the England setup initially. And the failure of his goalscoring attacking game in the years leading up to his retirement was a big factor in him falling behind Lampard and Gerrard in the pecking order, not a lack of appreciation for his (at the time non-existent) metronomic ability to dictate play at the heart of England's midfield.

As in his style of play rather than ability on the ball. There's a marked difference between the 'English' style he used to play til the early 2000s and the more 'technical' or 'European' style he increasingly played post-06. But a lot of people bemoan the fact that this more cultured aspect of his game wasn't appreciated throughout his career, particularly during his England days, when it wasn't even a part of his game til very late on.

.....................

Scholes always had this technical style.

I don't have time so apologies if this is lazy but I don't agree at all. He didn't suddenly become technicall - he always was. His slide down the pecking order came as a result of his eye and the baffling decision by Seven to play him lw

His eye troubles were in late 2005. He retired from international duty in 2004. Sven's decision was not baffling at all. That's a rewriting of history. Here is an actual report from the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/3531982.stm

"The midfielder bows out having scored once in three years for his country.

Scholes hit the net during England's 4-2 win over Croatia at Euro 2004 but he endured a long barren spell before that and there were calls for him to be dropped."

People at the time clearly had concerns about his form and Lampard had done more than enough to warrant being given a chance ahead of him (which he justified with an excellent Euros). Scholes himself admitted as much at the time:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/may/30/newsstory.sport2

Fair enough on the eye. I'd be interested to know at what point Seven started playing him lw and his goals dried up though. I'm sure it was part of his decision to knock England on the head.

He was certainly technical and good at football regardless of the year.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - How dare you call me a bigot you left wing soft nonce (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
Part of that involves the rewriting of his pre-04 game to introduce elements of his post-06 game where he became a more 'technical player
===============

What's this then? Because he's always been technical he wasn't in there for his tackling and heading anyway.

Look it's by the by. The op is chatting sh!t about players he's not watched (again).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm gutted I missed the Maradona article, Hoody