Actual GOAT midfielders like Xavi, Redondo, Rivaldo, Laudrup, Ronaldinho, Iniesta > Le Made Up Quotes man 2.0 00s > Le Made Up Quotes Man 90s > prime SlippyG > Manure Beckham > Lampard >> Halal Beckham > shit > PSG/My Little Soccer Beckham >>> JUST retire already 10s SlippyG >>>> irrelevant AND shit > MlelS Beckham > MlelS Frankie/Slippy G
>>65099442 The reality is, England are fucking shit and there's no way that one man can save that massive steaming pile of shit, not Scholes and therefore CERTAINLY NOT Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney or whoever the fuck.
It'd take a genuinely top class manager, with top class support from the under 10s all the way up to the first team and hands-on interaction between all of these factions for a period of at least 10 years.
You have to be a blinkered ABU crybaby to deny that Scholes is one of the GOAT English players and definitely the best of the past 20 or so years. I'm not even a United fan but the fact that Messi, Xavi and Iniesta actually had an argument over who got to swap shirts with him in the Champions League final in 2011 speaks volumes. Then there's Pirlo and Zidane who have called him one of the best. I'd say they know more about what makes a good midfielder than most people.
Gerrard in his prime was undeniably an immense player and obviously world class, but not Scholes tier. Lampard was one of the best players in the Premier League about ten years ago but was never one of the all time greats. Beckham worked hard but was never world class. He had good looks and was in the press a lot due to marrying a world famous singer when Fergie's United were in their prime = brand name.
>>65099514 >It'd take a genuinely top class manager, with top class support from the under 10s all the way up to the first team and hands-on interaction between all of these factions for a period of at least 10 years. That shit doesn't work if the clubs aren't in on it too. If the clubs just do their own shit while developing players with no regards towards a standarized way of understanding and playing football then the youth NT coaches end up having to lose much more time fixing that and having less time to actually put it all into practice. We've tried that shit here for a decade but clubs don't have enough money or their youth development management are shit tier cause the coaches haven't updated their shit to modern football.
You don't give Paul Scholes a 'go' lad, you put Scholes in the team WHEREVER the fuck he wants to play, which by the way is CM, then you ask him who he'd like to partner him. Then you do all you can to accommodate him. You suck his dick if that's what he asks for. Then you build the remaining 10 players AROUND him. You think what striker suits Scholes? What defenders suit Scholes? What sort of wide men would suit Scholes? etc. etc.
That's how you handle world class talent. You don't try to shoe-horn him in along with shit players like Slippy G and Fat Frank.
Scholes had every right to retire, why would he give a toss about England? He doesn't owe England anything. It's a privilege to have Scholes available for selection, not a fucking right.
Beck was by far the best player they had in recent times. Compared to the rest of them he peaked early in career and he didn't last long, but he was rightfully in the top team of his era, the rest of the English were only riding the hype, never even close of being among the top.
in the history of english football england have had
>sir bobby >gazza >scholes
and the rest has been utter shit, we laugh at scotland and wales but the reality is our players are barely better than what they've produced despite having 5-10 times the population and talent pool to pick from
england has had 3 genuine world beaters on the level of Messi, Zidane, Maradona et al.
pathetic, absolutely embarrassing for a country of this size and who takes the sport so seriously
and that's coming from someone who only got into football as a 10 year old BECAUSE of David Beckham in 1997/98 and owned 5 of his shirts for both United and Madrid
great guy, great determination, a global icon, an incredible brand but as a footballer? never really in that 'world class' bracket, take away his striking of the ball and what have you got left? someone with less technique and ability than Gary Neville.
of course, if I were building a team for the future 5 years i'd rather have Beckham than Nani, but for a CL final? Nani everyday
>“There had been a lot of talk about who would be captain under Pearce and, when I arrived at the hotel, I thought that might have been his moment to say, ‘Can I have a word outside? or, ‘Could you come to my room for a chat?’
>“The following morning, just before the squad left for training, Pearce pulled me into a toilet at The Grove. He said, ‘I just wanted to tell you face to face that I’m going to be picking Scott Parker to be my captain.'
>“Scott Parker is a good player and honest; I’ve got a lot of respect for Scott as a player and a person. But to pick Scott Parker as England captain ahead of ME!?"
>>65100018 I'm a Spurs fan m8, I can just appreciate quality when I see it. Absolutely have no loyalty towards Man United whatsoever. Still pissed off about the way they dealt with the Berbatov deal t.b.h.
I'm going to deduce the exact reason why there is such polarisation around the whole 'Scholes' thing. The reason why he is often overlooked is because his style of play was non-descript. Somewhat flawless. Simple.
The people who realise that this might lead to people overlooking his talent then compensate this by launching into the POLAR OPPOSITE and genuinely psychologically conditioning themselves to believe him to be a god when he simply, objectively, never reached the same peak that Gerrard did in his career.
'peak gerrard' was called, - by zidane - 'the best footballer in the world'
You have to have so much inhtrinsic ABLism to jump those mental gymnastics in your head to not even entertain the possibility that in the height of Gerrards career he was unplayable, and inspirational. Nobody ever remembers 'that scholes game' because there were none of them.
>Beckham top 3 ballon d'or finishes 2 >Gerrard top 3 ballon d'or finishes 1 >Lampard top 3 ballon d'or finishes 1 >Scholes top 3 ballon d'or finishes 0
Scholes wasn't on their level. Those 3 were all match winners on their day, players who you could rely on to produce a bit of magic when you're team is in need of a goal. Scholes was basically a poor mans Xavi.
>>65100144 Still absolutely no clue what your'e trying to say.
>If manu had no superstar Robson? Cantona? Beckham? Scholes? Giggs? Stam? Irwin? Schmikes? G. Nev? C. Ronaldo? Keane? Rooney? Vidic? Ferdinand? van Der Sar? van Nistelrooy? Berbatov? van Persie? de Gea?
>they were shit No they weren't. They're literally the most successful football club of the past 25 years. Scholes won the CL twice in his time including the treble. Once more than Zidane.
>Scholes was always there Exactly. Consistently class. Consistently successful. No matter who came and left, Scholes was always there and always won.
>so he could never be god-tier if teams with him could be shit. YOU FUCKING WOT M8!?
Absolutely no sense whatsoever. I've really tried to follow your reasoning but it's not possible.
>>65100231 It's a side-effect of the mentality that is being implanted into people in other settings.
I call it the reddit-mentality. This guy probably has a user on reddit and takes part in politically correct discussions to ensure maximum upvotes. God forbit you say what you actually think. I swear this guy doesn't remember one game where Scholes made the difference.
>>65100613 It's widely reported that Laporte, along with Begiristain and Soriano, analyzed and began to adapt/copy United's business model during his presidency – one that started Barcelona's most successful decade
>>65099514 The Premer league is too powerful. They block any kind of reform that would help the national team or would jeopardise their growth in revenue. You need people in the FA with balls honestly and not just there for a cheap boys club corporate job
There is no question that Gerrard is the best of all. He's certainly much better than Scholes anyway. Just look at the individual records of Scholes and Gerrard. Gerrard has been in the team of the season 8 times keeping Scholes out on most of those occasions. Scholes has only been on that team twice. Gerrard dragged a Liverpool team to the champions league final twice winning once. Although Scholes has won more champions leagues than Gerrard, Gerrard has beaten much higher opposition in the final. Steven Gerrard beat the best Milan team ever while being a part of a team that included Milan Baros and Djimi Traore. Gerrard has a Ballon d'or bronze medal for his work in a season that wasn't even his best. Scholes hasn't come close. Gerrard arguably should have beaten Lampard to silver. Gerrard has been the Uefa club footballer of the year and a champions league man of the match winner. Not to mention Gerrard has more goals in fewer games playing for a much lesser team. Not only this but he kept Scholes out of his favoured position for England. The other two I think it's clear they aren't as good as Gerrard and Scholes but there is a clear gap between Gerrard and Scholes. The only thing that Scholes probably is better than Gerrard at is his passing ability, although both are beautiful passers of the ball. Gerrard is the better all round player and leader most importantly. Scholes can't tackle, Gerrard can. Scholes can't run. Gerrard can. Gerrard has much better aerial ability.
>>65101106 >>65101002 Gerrard has also been much more versatile. He's played multiple positions throughout his career. He's had success at right back, in the centre of midfield in a 4-4-2, a second striker, a more defensive role as a deep midfielder in the role Xabi Alonso used to play alongside Mascherano, the anchor in a diamond where he sat between central defenders (he had success despite the fact that that's the position he slipped), part of a midfield three, and a simple attacking midfielder.
The most worrying configuration i'm seeing is the Beckham>scholes>slippyg<lampard one.
Like I get that putting beckham as first is funny haha and stuff, but then following the trend of the thread's net opinion afterwards almost makes it seem as if the Beckham first thing isn't a joke.
If Scholes and Gerrard are effectively on similar levels (accounting for the subjectivity element due to their different strengths), then Lampard should be JUST below that level, and Beckham should not even be entertained as even a concept of a level.
>>65101423 >uses analogy to Manchester United player because it is the only team he watches play football and has heavily rooted psychological biases of which he actually can not ever be aware of by the the definition itself.
Scholes>Lamps>Becks>>>>>Gerrard >not including Carrick Becks gets points for successfully converting from a right mid to a holding midfielder.
>>65101002 If he was so great why couldn't he hold down his favoured position when Liverpool where at their best? In term of skill Gerrard is probably the best but his 'heart' takes over too much and makes the rest of his game suffer badly.
Also Scholes' football sense was leagues ahead of Gerrard's. He was more subtle because he knew that the loooooong diagonal pass or blooter from miles out were not the best options every. single. time. Gerrard could tackle better but was forever chasing the game.
>>65101900 your description of your opinion is ok, (i actually disagree that gerrard is the most skilled, that would be either scholes or becks), but that does not match up at all with the number of greater than signs you have used at all and it angers me.
Also I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY BECKHAM IS BEING TALKED ABOUT
>>65102064 >number of greater than signs you have used... angers me. then they worked ;^)
What I meant by Gerrard being the most skillful is that he could do every isolated action you could ever ask of a footballer at an elite level. Technically and physically he's better than the other three but like Sacchi said he lacks the know how to play football.
>Why is Becks being talked about? He was awesome that's why. He knew his limitations and adapted his game to get the most out of his ability. How many elite wide midfielders do you know who had really average pace and no fancy tricks? When he played for RM he adapted again to a new style and position and was among the best in Europe in that role.
>>65102335 Both Scholes and Beckham have a hugely apparent better passing/range and accuracy than Gerrard? Gerrard wasn't any more technically gifted than them at all. That was never Gerrard's strong point. The reason why he was so effective was because of an amalgamation of his athleticism and his willpower. He might not have been as technically gifted or methodical as Scholes, and might not have had the same innate football talent, but he influenced games much more dramatically - often in bad ways, but some times having such profound results as to literally alter the cultural chemistry of football. Gerrard became iconic, and he is a symbollic leader. His presence, and his energy affected his team psychologically into states where you had poor liverpool sides not only competing with the most stacked team in the world EVER, but scoring 3 goals against them in a frenzy. Gerrard's impact penetrates so much more deeply than the direction the football goes.
mate plebs will never understand this, scholes fedoras already think they're running against the mainstream crowd-think, and hence have some insight too difficult to grasp for others, so the chance of them reevaluating their opinion is literally nil.
>>65102545 That reads like a think-piece from the Guardian. GJ
I still think Gerrard is the most skillful. Of course you're right in saying that the others were better at this or that particular skill. However, if you made a checklist of every skill and gave each player a tick for the ones that they were elite at, Gerrard would have the most.
>>65100184 Being the poor man's xavi is probably a bigger compliment than some meaningless third place finish in a competition for naming the most popular footballer of the year. Honestly, have you seen who actually votes for the ballon d'or? It's a fucking joke.
1: Those who recognise that Scholes' influence on a game of football is easy to miss, understate, and even be unable to comprehend as his strengths lay in the smallest details of his game - (i.e his decision making and instantaneous spacial awareness and comprehension of the game); nevertheless he was always in a great football team - and therefore perhaps he was why.
2. Those who recognise that Gerrard could influence games hugely in ways that were obviously his own doing because they have seen it happen and the magnitude of it can not be disputed.
Camp one will believe it has some sort of deeper insight in to the nature of the problem, that it has the more considered and complex vision to be able to appreciate the large contribution of the subtle nuances in football. - as opposed to the other camp who are just a bit too simple to see it in the same way, they probably like the avengers 2 (but would have preferred more explosions), probably like pubs, clubs and tv.
Camp 2 will characterise camp 1 as being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, arrogant and ultimately wrong
and then Camp 3 will formulate an entirely new perspective on the matter of which it believes it is the only occupant, so that he can feel as if he has a greater insight on the problem than either camp does and is therefore superior. But will eventually realise that his train of thought is self-circularly erroneous, and then refer to himself in a meta way and then read through his comment a few times to admire how clever her probably sounds
Man, remember that legendary scholes game, where he made that amazing sideways pass? Or that one time where hetook the ball on the miedfield and passed to a defender? All those legendary moments, I mean, who else could've aced that irrelevant pass at stoke?
>>65099694 No they didn't. Nobody in England has ever been at the level of Messi, Zidane or Maradona. Gazza was the closest.
The reason England is shit, is that players would COULD play for England, don't, and opt for playing for NI, Scotland or Wales because their Grand Mother was half-X.
If England had, say, Giggs, in it's team, it would have been far superior than without him. If England had Ramsey and Bale instead of whatever meme of the week (Barkley and Townsend for example) it'd be superior. But they're playing for Wales. If England had Best in the team, it would have been superior than without him.
See the point? It's completely fucked because the UK's FA's are all shit scared of combining into one country that could curb stomp others. Look at Olympics, we should have taken Beckham, the last hurrah, for his services in getting the Olympics. Instead we took Giggs (though he was in form, so rightly), Gary Speed and somebody else I forget.
That took shit loads of begging and pleading to get done. Scotland is the biggest problem. Wales is fine with uniting with England and I don't see why we can't do a UK team for Olympics without Scotland.
Beckham at his peak was a 15 goal/20+ assists a season player, providing many big goals in many big games at the highest level. This whole 'he was never that good' mentality that has come about in recent years is pure bollocks. Just because he didn't have fancy dribbling skills or electric pace doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. It's like saying Van Nistelrooy was never an outstanding striker because he was only good inside the box. Beckham's job was to provide goals for the forwards, and he did it as good as anyone in world football.
Peak gerrard (08/09), who played as a number 10, was probably better than any of the others at any point in their careers, and was one of the best players in the world. However, he was overrated as a centre mid (especially being found out when playing in 442) and wasn't as consistent as the others.
Scholes would be the best in terms of consistency, playing at a top level for at least a decade, however he was never the best in the world in his position, whereas I feel at various points the other 3 were (08/09 gerrard, 04/05 lampard, early noughties/late 90s becks). Also I feel he stands out just because he was an english bloke actually playing a technical passing game rather than cos he was one of the best at it, xavi and pirlo were always a few notches ahead of him in that position.
Becks has a case as he was the only one who really turned it on at international level consistently, Gerrard and Lampard have one good tournament each and Scholes wasn't used properly for england.
Lamps also has the consistency thing and a better goals ratio than all of them
>>65108879 What the fuck are you talking about? Best was Northern Irish and Bale, Ramsey and Giggs are Welsh. They weren't English at all, not in the slightest. They weren't English with Welsh or Irish heritage, they were fully Welsh and Irish.
Jesus, you could say if England had Messi, they'd be a better team.
I think Gerrard was a better player out of the four of them. No one on /sp/ will admit because he and Liverpool are a laughing stock, but prime Gerrard was an incredible player. Its just a shame that he played for a much worse team than the other 3 did and had his family get death threats when he wanted to leave and join a better club.
My ranking would Gerrard > Scholes > Lampard > Beckham.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.