Roy Keane probably doesn't have the internet. Therefore he's basing his decisions on what actually happened rather than this myth the internet has created about Paul Scholes where people actually believe he was the best midfielder in Europe when in actuality he wasn't even better than Roy Keane.
Why on earth are we trying to separate these two brilliant players. Both were good. Not enough attention played to Scholes' brilliant forward passing splitting defences.
Because they were not the same. Scholes even said he couldn't have done what Gerrard did at Liverpool. In terms of ability and the fact that he actually used them all, he was Roy Keane without the belligerent fouls, Beckham, Scholes, Rooney(yes, striker skills) rolled into one but much quicker and stronger. People don't understand how bad the ownership and the exec decisions made were at liverpool during his time. Had Alonso stayed at that shite Liverpool club forever, he wouldn't have gained the accolades he has now. Gerrard being loyal is the reason why people still doubt his greatness.
All the legendary players when asked who was the best they played against said Paul Scholes. Even the ones who played in a different time say Scholes. Pele rated him highly. I don't think he gets the credit because he never looked like a super star. He just looked like the Ginger kid from the estate, he never looked it but in terms of football, he was magnificent. They called him Sat Nav because no matter where you were on the pitch, he would find you. How I wish we had someone who could pass like him now.
As a individual who's on the fence, Paul Scholes was supposed to born Italian the way he played football, BEAUTIFUL, Steven gerrard played football like he was an Italian, with Brazilian flair, English passion, Spanish, Argentinean furness German ingenuity, Paul Scholes INCHES the better passer, he couldn't tackle like SG he couldn't HEAD like SG , he couldn't quite score like SG
@anthonywright6237 Scholes would have scored far more than Gerrard IF Fergie had played him as he did to begin with, as a box to box mid. After Fergie moved him back to be a deep sitting mid, obviously he wasn't going to score as many, and yet if you take Gerrards pens away, they scored the same number of goals, actually!!
Gerrard wouldn't have got in the prime Barca side, but they'd have found a space for Scholes. At the time, the midfield engine thing was highly regarded in English football, but Scholes was a more cultured footballer who was more like a Pirlo / Xavi type. If England could have gone again with Carrick and Scholes in midfield, they might have actually won something.
Gerrard was world class, he could have played for anyone. I'm a United fan but you are forgetting how good/ influential he was, he could drag a team to victory with sheer force of will, Keane could do that too but it's a rare thing.
That's why Gerrard is named in the world XI over Scholes. Plus, who said tiki taka is the pinnacle of football? That's not the only way to play football.
@@AJ-nd4nk well the results spoke for themselves really, Spain and Barcelona dominated football over such a long period that you have to say it was the pinnacle. The ease that they beat United in 09 and 2011 was very humiliating.
@@brettpilkington9539 That Barca team is massively overrated. Had to cheat in 2009 to go through. Chelsea bossed them twice, Inter outplayed them, Bayern destroyed them, etc.
The problem with this comparison is that Gerrard and Lampard almost only played in 3-midfielder formations at clubs which were packed and covered their free roaming style: they got distractions and dimensions by default. When in national team it had shown that they played more like 2 CBs in the midfield who were excellent at striking the ball. They lacked the technical attributes to "Kubrick" the game (which is a very rare talent). Both were great athletes and footballers but Scholes simply got some kind of technical lightness and finesse that the two didn't offer: like what you would find in Busquets. People forget how midfield actually operates like a slow knife in real life. That's what made Scholes an international great. On paper you would think (Sir Alex did) the skilled Veron should be able to do that but in practice he still couldn't replace Scholes.
@@lostinpictures509 Dude get out of here he was not the best player on the pitch in that game. Scholes was garbage for England. And Scholes had his time to be the main man for England. He's older than Gerrard and Lampard so he was playing for England for a while before Gerrard showed up and for a long time before Lampard became a regular for England and he did nothing. In fact, he was so ordinary for England that When Lampard started banging in 20 goals a season at Chelsea they had no problem kicking him out of central midfield. And when Scholes retired from international football no one cared.
Styles matter. Scholes made that whole United team tick, he was the nucleus. Liverpool played in a different way so relied of a more versatile player in midfield like Gerrard. United had world class players across the board waiting for Scholes to ghost his marker, receive the ball and ping it to them
I disagree Gerrard couldn't control the game or pass like Scholes did in the united team they were different types of midfielder Gerrard was a jack of all trades Scholes was a master passer and controller, Gerrard's impact undeniable but what Scholes did doesn't get highlighted because it set the tone not necessarily to have impact
@@IvorBrynMike gerrard didn’t control games he dominated them just in a different way to scholes. I’m not having Fergie wouldn’t have made him Robson mk2. Fergie, like with Gazza, would’ve made him even more of a monster in a team of stars. It’s scary to think about really. He would’ve won it all with Jose but Fergie would’ve harnessed him better imo
@@stnbch3025 Gerrard was way way more impactful on that Liverpool team than Alonso was. No one ever questioned who the best midfielder was in spite of Alonso being one of the best of all time. And Gerrard was great in the Alonso role in his last two seasons at Liverpool. The reason he never made a career out of it was because it would have been a complete waste of his talents to just put him in front of the back four and spray passes around even though he's one of the best passers ever. All the hype Kante used to get in his prime in the Premier League for the way he used to press every player on the pitch non stop. Gerrard was that. Only with Gerrard when he got had ball he was more athletic version of Kevin de Bruyne. He literally was the team. You'd watch him do a last minute sliding tackle in his own half and a counter attack would start and then one of our guys crosses it into the box and it's Gerrard who heads it in 😦 You used to scratch your head and think how many of this man is actually on the pitch right now? 😂
@@lostinpictures509 Dude Scholes won because he played on the best team 😂 Players don't win titles managers do. You have an average manager and average teammates all over the pitch you don't win. You have the best manager of all time and all the best players in the league on your team and you're going to win a lot 👌
Anyone who doesn’t see/accept the fact that Gerrard was the better player is out of their mind. Plus Scholes himself says without a doubt Gerrard could do all the things he could do on the pitch but he couldn’t do all that Gerrard could do. Just think, try picturing Scholes at right-back, centre-back, winger or even a striker, no chance, now imagine Gerrard playing those positions 😉
@@Lfc517 And Stevie gave away the ball to Henry in Euro 2004 which caused the penalty at the end of the game and he slipped against Chelsea to lose the only PL he could have won...and in 2014 World cup he was a disaster
I completely disagree with Carragher that you could stick Gerrard in that United team and theyd still have done tbe same. He couldnt keep possession like Scholes could and his passing was nowhere near as consistent. Scholes in a midfield 2 was incredible. Gerrard better more advanced
Gerrard : Was most complete midfielder ..as Jamie correctly said..No.6 ..No.8 ..No.10 ..Right Left...he could do it all..and may be circumstances at Liverpool really forged him into one.. Lampard - for me was the Striker of Midfielders..if that phrase makes any sense..he in comparsion to other two wouldn't drop and take the ball off defence..then pass..swivel..then spray it wide etc...but when the ball was dodging around in the opponents box I haven't seen any other MF...sort out his body and come into a striking position as quickly as Lampard...that's why he was striker of midfielders..because he had that instinct to just do the right thing in the opponent's box... Scholes..ofcourse the long range passing or striking everyone knows and debates about...but the point that he spent first 10 years in a 2 midfield with Keane...that allowed United to go into matches with 2 strikers..that contribution doesnt get measured as a stat like goals/assists...but it was immense..and he was what I said Lampard wasn't dictating play...taking the ball off defence...swiveling passing it ahead..then running and playmaking in the final third...!
@@arpitkulshreshtha3513 If Gerrard was this complete who could allegedly play as a 6, why did fail miserably at Liverpool & England in that role? Butt, Hargreaves were way better than him for England. So keep dreaming.
@allistairfrancis8780 😂😂 Butt and Hargreaves. I hope this tongue in cheek humour. If not, you have shown a huge lack of footballing knowledge with that comment
@@allistairfrancis8780 I am a United fan..hate Liverpool..as United fans should .but gotta accept Gerrard and Hargreaves/Butty don't belong to same sentence. ..Gerrard in a United team could have led to so much more European success in that era..vs Barca in 2009/11..their midfield running the show ..if only we had someone like Gerrard..take a long range strike ..lift the team morale...change the tide in that match....but Fergie has Anderson starting vs Xavier Iniesta and Busquets!..
@@arpitkulshreshtha3513 Hi, I am a Utd fan too & Gerrard is a way better 8 & 10 than Butt but not as a 6. The only time England looked balanced was when Butt played there 02 WC & Hargreaves in 06 WC.When Gerrard played there England were awful. Now Gerrard is a great player but he could not play anywhere & be as good as he was at 8 or 10. Some people would have you believe Stevie was world class in every position & that is not true Same is true with Rooney. Maybe it's an English thing?
@@bluemotion14 Do yourself a favour & go watch England at the 2002 & 2006 WC with Butt & Hargreaves as the DM then go watch any England game with Stevie G & Lampard. If that doesn't open your eyes, football is not you. This is not about agenda or bias it's about facts. They used to say Rooney can play anywhere, he is that good. I saw him in midfield & Tom Cleverley was better than him. Tongue or cheeks it don't matter.
Paul Scholes had to use his brain more than Gerrard because he didn't have the physical stature of a Gerrard, Keane, Ince etc. So Scholes controlled games better than Stevie whereas Stevie produced moments of magic in games where Liverpool were being dominated much like Robbo did for Utd in the 80's.
Yes because Torres, Mascherano, Riise, Alonso, Suarez, Owen, Hypia, Sturridge were all bang average. Look at the Utd sides following Ronaldo leaving in 2009. Even Ferguson mentioned it, the only world class player he had was Scholes.
Fergie was very harsh in what he considered “world class”, didn’t he say that only Cantona, Scholes and Ronaldo fit that category from the players he managed? In those post Ronaldo United teams, Vidic, Ferdinand, Rooney, Evra and Der Sar were amongst the best in the world in their positions, and the likes of Berbatov, Nani, Giggs, Carrick, Park etc were quality as well.
Gerrard couldn't take the ball on the half turn and play those little sharp balls around the corner in tight midfield spaces as brilliantly as Scholes could. Keane should've at least pointed out the things Scholes was better at even if overall he agreed Gerrard was better.
No matter how hard Carragher tries to change the history, if Ferguson had to choose between Scholes and Gerrard in those Man Utd teams, he would probably keep Scholes, Gerrard had to do more but that doesn't mean he could have done what Scholes did. I don't think Iniesta, Zidane or Modric could have won the UCL with 2005 Liverpool but I would never trade Iniesta for Gerrard in those Barca teams or for Modric in Real.
It's kinda dumb to compare between Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard. Scholes is the best as a playmaker. Lampard is the best as a CAM. Gerrard is the best as a box to box CM. A manager with a brain will choose what position the team is lacking.
He could’ve played scholes role 100% but scholes was arguably the best in the world in his position. He was more limited than Gerrard though and admits he wasn’t an athlete like Gerrard was. Scholes was sublime though, they both were but very different.
@@paulwilliams2663Always go by what ex players say. Zidane, Viera, Xavi, Iniesta, Gaurdiola, Figo, Carlos and plenty more have all said that Scholes was the best they played against. Being a ballon dor nominee could just mean there wasnt many great players that year (bit like this year tbh). Thats not saying Gerrard didnt deserve to be nominated, just pointing out that its not the measure of a player.
I gotta admit as a lifelong LFC fan,if Stevie had gone to United he would have been even better,and it would be all because of Fergie. That guy was a damn genious he could have made him better so easily,and everybody would have wondered how but Fergie would have said "well its obvious innit??"
Im not sure he is gonna be better than paul scholes at man utd.. but im pretty sure that scholes wouldn't have been able to do what gerrard did at liverpool
@@Amarakhai999 Oh no, Gerrard although a good passer wasnt Scholes level of a pitch general, scholesy was way better in that role. Each has their own strenghts and shortcomings
@@lostinpictures509 Dude Scholes only played that role in his mid 30's. You could make the argument that he was a far more effective player when Keane played with him. He regressed into the holding role because he couldn't play the attacking role any more because his legs couldn't handle it. Saying he didn't play with him as a holding player is like saying that those last five years when he was playing 20 games a season in a packed midfield where all his teammates did all the heavy lifting so that all he had to do was pass the ball was better than when Keane played with him. That's ridiculous. That holding role wasn't Scholes' prime it was the twilight of his career. Remember Keane didn't play with Gerrard at all. He's going by what he's saw and I'm sure he watched Scholes play that holding role many many many times.
Xavi Zidane Pirlo best midfielders in the world says Scholes is the best in the world ….legends respect legends,the mastermind behind Uniteds game was Scholes so he wins leagues Gerrard may win some games but Scholes is different ….i learn how great he is now that United is crumbling down…Zidane was asked ‘whats its like being the best midfielder in the world’ he said ‘ask Paul Scholes’
Scholes picked Gerrard. Gerrard was an athlete and scholes admitted he couldn’t have done what Gerrard did for Liverpool. Scholes was the worlds best in 1 position, Gerrard could be MOTM in any position.
@@JoeSawyer-ge3xf Balon D’or nom- Scholes 0, Gerrard 6 TOTY appearances- scholes 2, Gerrard 8 (record) FIFA world 11- scholes 0, Gerrard 3 UEFA TOTY- scholes 0, Gerrard 3 Funny when u look at individual achievements Gerrard destroys scholes 😂 But apparently all players say scholes was the best 😂😂😂
@@leebonnick7052hes not saying he is near Zidane levels, hes saying Zidane called Scholes the best, the same as Pirlo did and Iniesta, Xavi, Carlos, Viera, Pep. Literally most the best players in the world at that time pick Scholes when asked who was the best.
Jog loyalty on. The truth is Gerrard was the more complete player than Scholes. Gerrard could play any position, score with both feet and his head. His passing range was immense, and he could tackle. His dragging mediocre Liverpool teams to victory is legendary. Scholes was great but he couldn't do all of what I've just stated SG could do.
Well he failed miserably at DM & cost Liverpool an EPL & Rodgers his job. The British media & former players always focus on braun & not brains. If Messi, Xavi, Iniesta & Busquets played in England, they would have not made it out of the youth team because of their physical attributes. Brain or braun. That is the question? CR7 vs Messi, Gerrard vs Scoles. Some games you need brains, some games, you need braun.
@@allistairfrancis8780 you are totally wrong. Gerrard slip didn't cost Liverpool the title, Brendan Rodgers failure to manage the game at Crystal Palace when we were 3nil up is what cost us the title. Rodgers was sacked the following season for his mismanagement of the team. Your comment shows you know absolutely nothing. So for that reason I will mute you as I cannot bare to have dialogue with inept people such as yourself. Goodbye 👋
@@NazSBGStevie couldn't play at DM & blaming the manager is a lame excuse. Mascherano, Lucas, Alonso played there, Gerrard played 8 or 10. Seem that you are the know it all on football, remind me which great team you represented as a player or manager/coach so I can google it?
Hard Scholes better technical wise only slightly but gerrard better all around obviously GERRARD is better better than lampard aswell but all 3 are overrated
Paul Scholes after Roy Keane left the club literally RAN premier league games every week, consistent, no frills just dominated every midfield we played even when up against the great Steven Gerrards Liverpool midfield play. Paul Scholes set up attacks and helped in recovery. Stephen Gerarrd wasn't running games against the big teams. He was inspirational yes, but Paul Scholes is an all-time great. Carragher admitted Liverpool were outplayed and outrun in the 2005 against a top ac milan team. Where was steven gerrard? Why did he get over run except for anfew inspirational moments in the run-up games and the final? Inspirational is good enough for Liverpool Fc but thats why he never won yous a premier league. Scholes v gerrard isnt seriously on the table if you talk to zidane, xavi,iniesta,pep. Stephen Gerard is a Liverpool great. Stick Paul Scholes in the centre for Liverpool, your chances created would have doubled. Very simple Sir Alex wanted class and greatness not inspirational and fighting spirit.
wtf you on, Scholes in that liverpool side wouldnt do anything. not cause hes a bad player, but cause gerrard was the all time hard carry for liverpool. stick gerrard in that united side over scholes youll never know hes missing.
@@bungster8 jesus i cant believe the length of that (what i wrote,nothing else) id been out on the beers! goodness me. maybe you are right lol peace and love pal!! roll on the euros 🙂
Even United knew Gerrard was better. Fergie wanted him. Scholes, Keane, Rooney, Ince, Sherringham all picked Gerrard. The ones that didn't were just in denial (Rio, Neville, etc).
Yeah, just in denial. Like Neville and Rio. And Ronaldo9. And Zidane. And Xavi. And Guardiola. And Henry. And Pele. And the other legends of the game. I love a few of those players you cite, but if they even said that, they missed the bus. You need to read up on things before you spout such drivel.
@@AJ-nd4nk add Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Henry, Vieira to Rio & Neville. I am surprised Scholes got an English man's vote. Ever since I started watching English football, the English always favoured the robust, strong, quick players instead of the more intelligent ones. Robson, Gerrard, Ince compared to Wilkins, Micky Hazard & Hoddle & that's why England never control any games. Helter Skelter football does not work at the Euros & WC.
Both are on record saying Scholes was unique in his talent as a midfielder. Manchester United would be unlikely to consider signing such an integral Scouser from their main rivals. Owen was the only time they made that leap. Even signing Mata from Chelsea was considered a travesty back then. What evidence that Ferguson wanted to sign Gerard?
United fan. Scholes was unbelievable. Love him. Feel guilty because always admired Gerrard. Gerrard better though. Could tackle also poor scholesy never could. Great players though. But no. Gerrard was better.
Straight delusion. Gerrard was amazing at what he did which was work his ass off while being incredible at everything from shooting to tackling to passing but he was nowhere close to Scholes at what Scholes did which was dictate and control games better than anyone in the world. on top of that Gerrard was an above average midfielder at passing yes, Scholes was the undisputed best at it. Especially taking into consideration that he could do it from volleys, off balance or between tight spaces with ease. he saw things that no one else saw and was able to get the ball there better than anyone in the world. a special talent. just like gerrard was a special talent at what he did, which was be an amazing captain rallying his entire team to play better while also being the top performer on his team and doing everything from defensive work to scoring goals at a top level
