01 May 2016 20:43:33
Bit of a different question to ask but Ed001 can I get your opinion on Scholes as a player. I was having an argument with my mate and he was adament that Gerrard was a better player to him. I love Gerrard as a player as much as anyone but is it bad that i prefer Scholesy even though he played for united.

{Ed001's Note - they were totally different types of player, both had a nasty streak, but Scholes was sly with it and got away with some of the slyest nastiest tackles in football because he was Scholes. He could tackle but chose not to bother, as it was easier to just foul people. So, like Gerrard, he lacked the defensive responsibility and positional sense, but they manifested in different ways.

Going forward, Gerrard was all about charging in like a bull in a china's shop, smashing through defences with power and pace. Scholes was about ghosting in late and getting on the end of things in and around the box. Both scored and created lots of goals in their own way, but Scholes was less reliant on physical attributes than Gerrard, which is why he was able to come back from retirement and continue, with little sign of a struggle.

Both had a great range of passing, but Gerrard would always look to hit a 50 yard pass first, Scholes would only look to the 'Hollywood' ball when it was definitely on. Scholes' finishing was sublime, he was lethal and it was not just about hitting with power. Gerrard was mainly smashing it at the target every chance he got.

Scholes had better players around him, in the main, playing a style of football that suited him, giving him an option in wide areas almost every time he got on the ball. Gerrard sometimes played in very average sides with team mates who hid from the ball. How can you compare the two?

It is like comparing Pirlo with Gattuso, to a slightly lesser degree, both great players in their own right playing in the same area of the pitch, but doing it is such a different way that you can't really compare them. All you are going to do is choose the one who plays the style you prefer or who played for your team. They were two of the very best in the world, let alone England, at playing the way they did, that is for sure.

For me though, I just look at them and think what could have been. They should have been the best in the world, but the coaching they received never allowed them to become it. Gerrard was never given the discipline needed and Scholes was not played far enough back early enough, to really make the most of their skills.}

1.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 05:02:05
Flipin heck Buttercup you have surpassed yourself today with that assessment of scholars and Gerrard. It was sheer poetry, my eyes welled up reading it. Did you eat three shredded wheat for breakfast? But you failed to mention scholes was a lesser player than Gerard because he was a ginger!

{Ed001's Note - ah but being ginger meant he had to be better to receive the recognition as people are so afraid of gingers they refuse to notice how much better they are than the rest....}

2.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 06:20:41
Scholes was a great player in my humble opinion, Gerrard was too, both great players, now move on to Thursday and I hope a anfield is rocking because we will need a special night again.

3.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 07:09:55
Scholes was originally a striker who found a better place for himself in midfield. Gerrard was originally a wide midfielder who found a slightly worse place for himself in centre midfield, but albeit still greatly excelled at it.

4.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 08:58:25
United fan here in peace.

Although I agree with Ed001 that they were different players, I would have had Scholes in my team if it was an either or situation.

I think both of their long range hollywood passing and goalscoring abilities are on par.

But where Scholes edges it for me is in his short intricate passing to break open tight defenses that sit back. The tiki taka kind of Barcelona passing, the little flick over the top of the center backs etc.

Also Scholes' ability to slow the game down or quicken it up at will was superior to Gerrard's imo. Scholes kept possession much better than Gerrard I think and brought his teammates a lot more into play.

I agree that their tackling and rather lack of discipline was more down to coaching and tactics rather than their own inability. Just look at Scholes in the season's Queroz was number 2 and was in charge of tactics, Scholes was very disciplined in terms of positioning and interceptions and chose his forward runs almost to perfection.

Gerrard was a superb player, a better leader, great box to box ability but Scholes edges it. I am always left wondering what could have been for that talented England team if Scholes, Gerrard, Rooney were used with the right tactics.

5.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 09:27:38
I'd be interested to read a post from a Utd fan who thought Gerrard was better, or a Liverpool fan who preferred Scholes.

6.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 10:35:13
Hey redfaith, obviously you prefer Scholes and I prefer Gerrard, my justification is Gerrard's ability to take a game by the scruff of the neck and win it despite his team mates.

We'll never agree who was better so I'll just say how did they never even make a semi in international competition let alone win anything? A wasted generation.

7.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 05:09:26
Scholes is an old school CM who was first class in passing and dictating the tempo of the game and much like other classy CM (Zidane, Xavi ) He couldn't put in a tackle and always Played alongside a top class CDM. He was considered better than Xavi by many.

Gerrard was the most complete all round midfielder in the world excelled in almost all the position he has played. Fine passing attributes with brilliant goal scoring records.
You could play both in the same team very much what Spurs are setting up now.
Dembele - Scholes
Alli - Gerrard.

8.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 12:18:11
Gerrard is the most complete footballer of all time .

9.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 14:02:23
U put scholes in the teams Gerrard had and he would not have the Sam impact you put Gerrard in the United teams he would so that tells you who the better player is . # Gerrard.

10.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 15:48:06
Thanks ed001 for taking the time to answer my question. Wonderful assessment.

{Ed001's Note - you are welcome mate and thank you.}

11.) 02 May 2016
02 May 2016 16:47:26
Gerrard could win you a match, scholes would help win you a match. Scholes is useful on a pitch full of great players, Gerrard is useful on a pitch full of average players. You would have scholes in your team if the midfielders that are alongside him make up for his lack of ability elsewhere. Gerrard didn't need that in his pomp. Gerrard was the most complete midfielder at one point, scholes never was. If I relied on a player to win me a match, it would be Gerrard 9/ 10 and that's what football is all about. In terms of ability on the ball, scholes wins, but it terms of ability with the ball, Gerrard wins. I'd rather Gerrard in my team as I know he'd consistently perform and can win me the game out of nothing. Can't say the same about scholes.

12.) 03 May 2016
03 May 2016 04:59:50
Pace power/ strength, passing shooting crossing leading tackling passion fitness skill leadership . Willing to play for his country versitile heading ability at pieces short pass long pass slip, who else can do this? Marradonna? No . Pele? No . Ronaldo? No messi no . Zidane? No . Stevie g yes . Best all round playet ever its not up for debate 😄.

{Ed001's Note - what leadership? He was never a leader. Best all round player would know something about defending as well as attacking, he did not. Great player but never an all round one, he was all about the glory.}