nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Paul Scholes(in prime) vs. Xavi

Blatter

I think the two of these guys could be compared, play very similar roles in their respective teams. Masters of passing and link up the play as good as I've seen any player do. Both won pretty much everything there is to win at club level. So, who do you think is/was better?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mdwexford

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Nope not a silly notion at all.

It's worth pointing out that Iniesta is only 26.

It's fair to say that when Xavi was 26, he wasn't as good as Iniesta is now.

Will be interesting to see how he develops over the next few years...

This.

In 5 years time he could definitely end up being the goat.

eZe^

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.

Everything negative that you're making about Xavi can be made about Scholes.

Scholes did good to beat Barca 1-0 over two legs in 06/07? What about Xavi utterly destroying Manchester United 2-0 the next year in the final? A game where when Scholes came on all he did was butcher Busquets with a horrible challenge, he could have been red carded in that game.

You're also making it out that Xavi wasn't good enough to make Barca's 06 team, that's ONLY because he had long term knee injury that kept him out for essentially the whole season. That's the only season in his playing career that he's had a long term injury.

Xavi is also incredibly well rounded defensively, he doesn't make massive tackles like Mascherano, but he intelligently positions himself to intercept a disproportionate number of passes every game, he also hassles opposition players just as well as any other player around atm. Just because he isn't running 90 miles an hour and slide tackling every player on the pitch doesn't mean he isn't putting a decent shift in defensively.

Everything you've said above in praising Scholes could so easily be applied to Xavi iswell.

I love Scholes, and he is the best English player I have ever seen, and also the most likable. But I think when Xavi is 36 people will be recognising him as the best CMF of all time.

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.

What a silly thing to say. Xavi comfortably keeps Cesc Fabregas out of the Spanish national team, the same Cesc who is the best midfielder in your precious premiership. He'd be just a ruthless in England, players like Xavi make space for themselves, it doesn't matter how much rain there is or who's closing him down.

#15

Xavi6 seems to be working on the basis that it's only Utd/EPL fans who hold Scholes in the same regard as Xavi.

Bodhisopha

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Do you accept that Scholes' defensive side of the game is vastly superior to Xavis?

No, he doesn't accept that, and neither do i.

Nalz

eZe^ wrote: »

What a silly thing to say. Xavi comfortably keeps Cesc Fabregas out of the Spanish national team, the same Cesc who is the best midfielder in your precious premiership. He'd be just a ruthless in England, players like Xavi make space for themselves, it doesn't matter how much rain there is or who's closing him down.

Ah come on now, Paul Greene keeps every other irish player out of the Ireland midfield now that Andrews is/was injured. Doesn't make him the better player over everyone else, especially for all formations and teams does it.

I'm not saying he'd fail, please let me stress this. But it would be very interesting. Veron was world class, and still did well in this WC, yet alot of people seem to think he failed at United and CHelsea (two best teams in England at the time)

eZe^

Trilla wrote: »

I'm not saying he'd fail, please let me stress this. But it would be very interesting. Veron was world class, and still did well in this WC, yet alot of people seem to think he failed at United and CHelsea (two best teams in England at the time)

Well in that case it completely depends doesn't it? It depends on how the team is set up. You can't play the same type of football with Xavi in midfield as you would Lampard/ Gerard/ Essien/ Fletcher and vice versa. If the team is set up properly, there is no reason why Xavi couldn't prosper in a 2 man midfield against Bolton on a rainy November's day.

eagle eye

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Scholes has been equally breathtaking for the best part of a decade, if people can't recognise that, then that's a fault that lies with themselves and not Scholes.

You are way overrating Paul Scholes. Breathtaking is how I'd describe Xavi over his career, and once every so often for Paul Scholes.

How do you explain that he shared time, maybe even played less games that Nicky Butt over a 5 year period? How do you explain Alex Ferguson signing Juan Veron if he thought Scholes was so good? I know Veron didn't work out but the plan clearly was to replace Scholes with him.

Xavi6

#15 wrote: »

Xavi6 seems to be working on the basis that it's only Utd/EPL fans who hold Scholes in the same regard as Xavi.

Well I don't think any La Liga fans would, but I'm open to correction.

I believe that the vast majority that have seen them equally will rate them both very, very highly but see Xavi as the better player.

Hank Scorpio

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you explain Alex Ferguson signing Juan Veron if he thought Scholes was so good? I know Veron didn't work out but the plan clearly was to replace Scholes with him.

Really?? Dont believe thats true at all

#15

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well I don't think any La Liga fans would, but I'm open to correction.

I believe that the vast majority that have seen them equally will rate them both very, very highly but see Xavi as the better player.

I didn't mean it as a criticism of you. Just an observation.

I know a few Spanish guys who grew up just outside Catalunya. One of them is a ST holder at the Nou Camp. They're all arrogant culés

but they regard Scholes as an equal of Xavi.

They may be the exception though.
Broadly speaking, I'd tend to agree with you - I'm just making the point that it's not quite as clear cut as La Liga fans = Xavi and EPL fans = Scholes.

#15

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you explain Alex Ferguson signing Juan Veron if he thought Scholes was so good? I know Veron didn't work out but the plan clearly was to replace Scholes with him.

4-5-1 is how you explain it.

Did you miss 2001-2002? Those 9 months when Fergie tried to ram Veron into the team alongside Keane and Scholes?

Nalz

eZe^ wrote: »

Well in that case it completely depends doesn't it? It depends on how the team is set up. You can't play the same type of football with Xavi in midfield as you would Lampard/ Gerard/ Essien/ Fletcher and vice versa. If the team is set up properly, there is no reason why Xavi couldn't prosper in a 2 man midfield against Bolton on a rainy November's day.

Yes. So its not so silly to say, after all. Veron could have cost Uited 28.1m and Chelsea 16.5. World class yet failed to play with great players around him. I'd still like to see Xavi in England. My opinion (and don't jump all over this, its just an opinion) but I just have this feeling that Scholes would adapt better. After all, he changed his game when his legs went.

And less of the "precious Premiership" "you don't watch anything but English soccer" jibes lads. There are intelligent decent people who like to express an opinion on here without all the crap and the the one line replies like "absolute crap".

SantryRed

Trilla wrote: »

Yes. So its not so silly to say, after all. Veron could have cost Uited 28.1m and Chelsea 16.5. World class yet failed to play with great players around him. I'd still like to see Xavi in England. My opinion (and don't jump all over this, its just an opinion) but I just have this feeling that Scholes would adapt better. After all, he changed his game when his legs went.

And less of the "precious Premiership" "you don't watch anything but English soccer" jibes lads. There are intelligent decent people who like to express an opinion on here without all the crap and the the one line replies like "absolute crap".

But why is the Premiership so important for Xavi to be a great player? Also, the way Scholes jumps into challenges would make him so poor defensively in games in La Liga as he would just leave space which would be exploited.

These what if threads are fcuking ridiculous anyways.

Nalz

SantryRed wrote: »

But why is the Premiership so important for Xavi to be a great player? Also, the way Scholes jumps into challenges would make him so poor defensively in games in La Liga as he would just leave space which would be exploited.

These what if threads are fcuking ridiculous anyways.

The premiership is not improtant for Xavi to be a great player.Xavi is a great player. I'm making the point that I think Scholes would do well in Spain and I tihnk he'd adapt better than Xavi would in England. We've seen Scholes adapt and still keep his title as a "great player", thats what I'm basing it on.

The reason I'd like to see Xavi in England would be to test this, not to say "oh I was right I knew he'd be sh'it".

Its very difficult to compare though as they are not 100% the same player, probably not 75% the same.

Pro. F

SantryRed wrote: »

Scholes was a much more offensive player when he was in his prime whilst Keane would do the more protective role. As Scholes has gotten older, he has gotten more like the Xavi role imo. He plays deeper in midfield and picks the ball up from the defenders and looks to make the defence splitting passes.

Lukker- wrote: »

This thread is a load of sh*te, Scholes in his prime was an attacking midfielder, only as he has gotten older and lost some of his fitness has he played deeper so the comparison is complete load of ****e.

Scholes dropped deep to build attacks plenty during his prime. This is always overlooked and it grinds my gears. All the beautiful, subtle passing and building of attacks is something that Scholes excelled at during his prime. His stats for completed passes used to be amazing often enough. Not as amazing as Xavi's stats but Xavi plays in a team built around ball retention and his game is almost completely focussed on that aspect, whereas Scholes was also doing the ACM's job too and all this in a four man midfield.

These two are very close imo. I would say that Xavi has the better close control and Scholes had the better goal threat. Xavi would be able to shoot more if he played in an attacking 442 and does have a good shot. But would he have the amazing engine that Scholes had which got him into so many good positions? And would he have been such an impressive finisher?

So overall I see it as a draw. Two fantastic midfielders who are/were similar to each other but play(ed) in two very different teams.

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you explain that he shared time, maybe even played less games that Nicky Butt over a 5 year period?

Because he was being converted from a striker to a central midfielder. These things take time and Nick Butt was no mug back then either. And lets not forget that Scholes went on to become central to the team for the next decade, picking up bags of medals on the way.

Trilla wrote:

We've seen Scholes adapt and still keep his title as a "great player", thats what I'm basing it on.

The old, adapted Scholes is not a great player. He hasn't changed his game and found some new depth of ability, he has just stopped running as much as he used to.

Nalz

Pro. F wrote: »

The old, adapted Scholes is not a great player. He hasn't changed his game and found some new depth of ability, he has just stopped running as much as he used to.

The old adapted Scholes is not as good I'll admit. But he's still the most vital MF at Manchester United, who up until today were top of the league, are unbeatena and most believe yet to hit top form.

I think he's great still and thousands will agree. He still has his vision and is wiser in what he does with the ball in a deeper role. From what I can see anyways.

But good post nonetheless

Pro. F

Trilla wrote: »

The old adapted Scholes is not as good I'll admit. But he's still the most vital MF at Manchester United, who up until today were top of the league, are unbeatena and most believe yet to hit top form.

I think he's great still and thousands will agree. He still has his vision and is wiser in what he does with the ball in a deeper role. From what I can see anyways.

I just don't think that a player who is too old to be able to play regularly can be called great. But it's only semantics.

I don't see him as any wiser now with his passing. I don't ever remember him being anything other than a perfect distributor of the ball.

We just see it differently.

Trilla wrote: »

But good post nonetheless

Thanks

eZe^

Very good post Pro. F. Still though, prefer Xavi.

IvySlayer

I hate these vs thread as people start picking out 'faults'

Scholes has spent 16 years in the first Manchester United team. Xavi, for Barca, around 12. Around 2000 is when Xavi was the main playmaker for Barcelona, but didn't produce his best stuff until around 2004 onwards. Feel free to correct me eze.

Both clearly are class. The vision, the passing are miles above anyone else. Don't blame anyone for picking one over the other.

Nalz

Eddie McGoldrick ftw lads

gosplan

eZe^ wrote: »

Eh? What has Xavi winning a Spanish award from a Spanish magazine for being the best Spanish player in the Spanish league have anything to do with my point about people from the British Isles and the British media underrating him massively up until 2 years ago?

It kind of backs you up really. At least that's what it was intended as. People here are saying Xavi wasn't that great until a couple of years ago and I was pointing out that he was well recognised six years ago.

Best Spanish player is a pretty good acolade regardless of where it comes from.

gosplan

Hulk Hands wrote: »

but the mature fans that watch United week in week out always come back to Scholes as being our greatest.

Exactly.

United fans vote for Scholes. You're all mature fans and he's your greatest.

Everyone else sees the obvious answer.

L'prof

Very interesting that the percentages seem to be the same as on the Messi v Ronaldo thread...

m@cc@

The ironic thing about this thread is that Scholesy would hate such a discussion.

dfx-

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.

18 months even. Pre-CL Final 2009, not a chance.

[Deleted User]

L'prof wrote: »

Very interesting that the percentages seem to be the same as on the Messi v Ronaldo thread...

It's a conspiracy I tells ya !

niallo27

L'prof wrote: »

Very interesting that the percentages seem to be the same as on the Messi v Ronaldo thread...

Who did you pick in that poll

Hulk Hands

gosplan wrote: »

Exactly.

United fans vote for Scholes. You're all mature fans and he's your greatest.

Everyone else sees the obvious answer.

Eh, would you care to read the bit you pulled out of my post again? I said that mature United fans see Scholes as our greatest. Where in that did I mention vs Xavi?

It was in relation to Ronaldo, Giggs, Beckham etc all recieving more plaudits, but fans consider Scholes to be the best.

Funny when you think you have got one over on someone, only for it to backfire.....

d22ontour

gosplan wrote: »

Exactly.

United fans vote for Scholes. You're all mature fans and he's your greatest.

Everyone else sees the obvious answer.

Scholes is the greatest player United have had in the last 20 years.This has nothing to do with any vote what so ever.
Lets compare centre halfs and full backs next.Everyone else will still vote..:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Eh, would you care to read the bit you pulled out of my post again? I said that mature United fans see Scholes as our greatest. Where in that did I mention vs Xavi?

It was in relation to Ronaldo, Giggs, Beckham etc all recieving more plaudits, but fans consider Scholes to be the best.

Funny when you think you have got one over on someone, only for it to backfire.....

tbh I'd have Ronaldo and Keane in my team before Scholes but he's definitely not far from them.