Warper wrote: » Zidane was the best midfielder up to when he retired, since then Xavi has been the best. Xavi will go down as one of the greats of World Football. Scholes will go down as one of the greats of Man Utd. - BIG difference.
eZe^ wrote: » And again, I'll say that the results being different would be because of ignorance in the voters, not because Xavi has only magically become world class in the past 2 years. He has been one of the best midfielders in the game for the past decade ffs. Just because you and sky didn't acknowledge it doesn't make it untrue.
eZe^ wrote: » The fact that all you people and the British media are only recognising Xavi's genius now, that's a fault that lies with yourselves and not Xavi. Xavi has been consistently breathtaking for the best part of a decade.
gosplan wrote: » Xavi was voted Spanish player of the year in La Liga six years ago.
Out of curiosity, has Scholes ever been recognised for anything outside England?
gosplan wrote: » Out of curiosity, has Scholes ever been recognised for anything outside England?
Eidur Gudjohnsen : "I'm more an admirer of Paul Scholes than I am of Ronaldo. Ronaldo is a fantastic player, but he has 10 other great players around him every week...Scholes is one of the most complete footballers I've ever seen. His one-touch play is phenomenal. Whenever I have played against him, I never felt I could get close to him." Edgar Davids : ""Every one of us (midfielders) is just trying to become as good as him. Everyone can learn from Paul Scholes." Thierry Henry : "I can't understand why Scholes has never won the player of the year award. He should have won it long ago. Maybe it's because he doesn't seek the limelight like some of the other 'stars'." Zinedine Zidane : "My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder. He was an extremely tough opponent to play against," Zizou continued. "You didn’t get any time on the ball when he was around. He would close you down and make your life terribly uncomfortable.'' Zinedine Zidane : "Scholes is undoubtedly the best midfielder of his generation. He’s almost untouchable in what he does. I never tire of watching him play. You rarely come across the complete footballer, but Scholes is as close to it as you can get. “One of my regrets is that the opportunity to play alongside him never presented itself during my career.” Marcello Lippi : "Paul Scholes would have been one of my first choices for putting together a great team - that goes to show how highly I have always rated him. Scholes is a player I have always liked, because he combines great talent and technical ability with mobility, determination and a superb shot. He is an all-round midfielder who possesses character and quality in abundance. In my opinion, he's been one of the most important players for United under Sir Alex." David Beckham said that, among his teammates at Real Madrid, which included Zinedine Zidane, Raúl, Ronaldo, Luís Figo and Roberto Carlos, Scholes was the most admired opponent : "He's always one of those people others talk about. Even playing at Real Madrid, the players always say to me 'what's he like'?
Xavi6 wrote: » No he isn't, don't be silly.
Degag wrote: » It's not a silly notion though is it? While not exactly the same type of player, Xavi and Iniesta share alot of similar traits. Both absolutely suberb players.
Hulk Hands wrote: » Scholes for me. Easily. Scholes has consistently been the Premier league's best player for the past 12 years. His way of controlling the tempo of the game, bringing others into play is phenomenal. At age 36, he is still one of the best passers of the ball in the world. Scholes has been completely underrated throughout his career, probably down to his shy nature. Another reason has been the players around him such as Keane, Beckham, Ronaldo. Big characters demanding the limelight. What people fail to realise is that it was Scholes who made United tick. His best year was 2006-2007 imo. At age 32, with Chelsea seeming an unstoppable force in the Premier League, Scholes was sensational. Completely ran every game he played. Ronaldo grabbed the headlines that year, but it was Scholes who constantly found him in space, who constantly made interceptions to launch United onto another counter. A completely underrated part of Scholes game is his defensive side. People see rash tackles and assume he can't tackle for s***. Wrong. Im convinced, as are many professional's, that he does this on purpose. It is his way of getting in players heads, and showing that he, as the small guy, isn't going to be pushed around. People fail to see how many times Scholes wins the ball back, through tackles and interceptions. An example would be the 1st leg of the champions league semi final in 2008. Barcelona were attempting to play their tippy-tappy pass pass pass game that serves them so well. Scholes was phenomenal. I lost count of how many times he intercepted them. It was a major mistake of Fergie's not to play Scholes in the CL final in 2009. In the end, Scholes sealed that semi final with a wonder goal in the 2nd leg. His opponent over them 2 legs...oh yeah, Xavi.This is the same Xavi that couldn't make the Barcelona side in 2006 right? At age 26? Dont get me wrong, he is a superb player, the best CM in the world at the moment. But he has been great for what, 2-3 years? He has some way to go to match Scholes 12 years of being great. Xavi is becoming excellent in the latter stages of his career. Scholes has been excellent throughout his career. And noone can convince that Xavi at his very best will ever be as good as Scholes in his best season (2006). Also, I can only imagine what Scholes would do if he has the chance to play with Messi, Iniesta and Villa. The list of quotes above make great reading.
neil.p.b wrote: » I'd like to see Xavi do what he does in the premier league, he wouldn't get half as much time on the ball. Having said that i do think Xavi is better technically, better passer and better controller of a game, but having said that i'd have scholes, he does more for the team
The Floyd p wrote: » 1.When Xavi's 36 I'm sure he'll still be a fantastic passer of the ball. It remains to be seen if Xavi will be playing at the highest level at 36. 2. Xavi played 22 games that season because he suffered a serious injury which kept him out for 5 months. So you're wrong there. Fair enough 3. Last season and the season before. That's Debateable.
The Floyd p wrote: » 1.When Xavi's 36 I'm sure he'll still be a fantastic passer of the ball. 2. Xavi played 22 games that season because he suffered a serious injury which kept him out for 5 months. So you're wrong there. 3. Last season and the season before.
Trilla wrote: » Exactly, put him in a two man midfield in the premiership...see how he does. He's a great player. I've always loved Iniesta though, and Scholesy has had his poor games, injuries and late tackles.
Hulk Hands wrote: » Probably, so we'll have to see if he can still retain a place in one of Europe's premier sides at age 36 though. Fair enough on point 2. But can you honestly say that Xavi was a World class CM until 2007 at the earliest? I dont think so. Also to the numerous people saying Xavi was player of the tournament at Euro 2008, was that not Senna? I seem to remember Senna being by far and away Spain's best midfielder during that tournament.
That's your own opinion. While he has been great, I dont think it matches up to Scholes in 06-07. Tbh, I think Iniesta was as good as Xavi over them 2 seasons.
Xavi6 wrote: » Why does the Premier League have to be the measure of how good a player is? Yes I can, quite comfortabl. Just because the collective football world didn't bother to take notice before then doesn't mean it wasn't happening. He doesn't just measure Scholes for that season, he betters it. Scholes has been a superb player and deserves all the plaudits but his over exposure due to playing for United in the Premier League means people rate him higher than they should, i.e. better than Xavi.
Xavi6 wrote: » Scholes has been a superb player and deserves all the plaudits but his over exposure due to playing for United in the Premier League means people rate him higher than they should, i.e. better than Xavi.
Xavi6 wrote: » Why does the Premier League have to be the measure of how good a player is?
DOC09UNAM wrote: » How is it over exposure?
Trilla wrote: » Its not, its the type of player he is and the point being made before me about time etc... I dont know where I stand on whether its the best league in the world or not. I would say its faster and tougher physically. Take the game on the tv right now, Everton and Chelsea. 90miles an hour. I've never seen Spain or Barca play in a game like that. I'm not saying he'd fail miserably it would be very interesting to see Xavi in a 4-4-2 on a wet evening against Millwall in the cup
Warper wrote: » No he hasnt. Never nominated for European player of the year or World player of the year, I wonder why?
Thierry Henry : "I can't understand why Scholes has never won the player of the year award. He should have won it long ago. Maybe it's because he doesn't seek the limelight like some of the other 'stars'."
Xavi6 wrote: » Because people in the UK/Ireland see more of Scholes. I'd have thought that was fairly self explanatory and hardly a revolutionary suggestion.
Warper wrote: » What absolute crap
DOC09UNAM wrote: » I'm not picking at the suggestion, i'm just wondering why you consider it over exposure, most of the people can see the same amount of xavi if they wish, surely he's earned the exposure by being the fantastic player he is? Same with xavi imo.
Xavi6 wrote: » I agree, most of the people can see the same amount. How many actually do though? How many posters here do you think watch as much La Liga as they do Premier League? I certainly don't, but I have watched Xavi closely for over a decade. Barcelona weren't a dominant force really prior to 2006 or so, hence people questioning Xavi was that good before that time. He was though, people just didn't see enough of him regularly to notice.
DOC09UNAM wrote: » True point I Guess, but shouldn't that be labelled more to peoples ignorance to talk about things they don't know, rather than over exposure?
Xavi6 wrote: » It's much of a muchness really. If something's on your doorstep chances are you will see more of it and may even be an 'expert', hence the waxing lyrical about Scholes (most of it justified of course). When someone outside your knowledge bubble comes along then he's not going to be held in as high regard for obvious reasons, i.e. lack of exposure.
