Gerrard V Scholes

Discussion in 'Association Football Discussion' started by GIMH, May 12, 2013.

  1. loganb JEM Logan

    If Scholes could tackle I honestly think he'd be the complete midfielder. Must be such an awesome player to have in your team too. Although as would Gerrard.
     
  2. cloughie09 TJ Clough

    Scholes for me, just because he is more consistent and in the man utd team of old (99/00). Was just awesome, alsoo imo lampard only became so rated was because scholes back out off internationals
     
  3. Eds E Ames

    Firstly, Ki-Sung Yeung has a pass completion rate of 92.7% for the season. I wouldn't suggest it's the best way to judge a player's ability.

    Secondly, I'd argue Scholes' consistency is down to the quality of his teammates. Whilst Scholes has always had at least two world class forwards in the side, Liverpool have only ever had one at once with Fowler, Owen, Torres, Suarez (with the exception perhaps being the overlap between Owen & Fowler, which resulted in Liverpool winning the treble - Gerrard was also voted PFA Young Player of the Year that season). As well as this, there was the obvious help Scholes got in midfield in comparison to Gerrard - for every Roy Keane there was an Igor Biscan. Again, the exception was arguably the Mascherano-Alonso-Gerrard trio, in which we actually finished 2nd, pushing United all the way (despite Kuyt, Benayoun, Riera & Babel all racking up 27 PL apperances +) - that season Gerrard also performed admirably, with 27 goals in all competitions (also winning the FWA Player of the Year), to Fernando Torres' 17.

    Then there's the FA Cup game. Scholes played half an hour and City scored five minutes after he came on. I really can't remember the match at all, though.
     
  4. loganb JEM Logan

    You're right, it's not the only way, but in Scholes' case it's a bloody good one when you consider the quality of opposition he faces.

    Yeah I guess that could be a part of it, but regardless, he's got to put the work in to be in that team. Not only that, but he's also pretty much always been the star in those teams. Tbf, Kuyt and Babel weren't exactly bad players then. They weren't the quality of players Scholes was playing with, but they weren't too far off.

    There's no denying Gerrard's abilities, but if I had to choose who I'd rather have in my team, it'd be Scholes. He's everything Gerrard is, minus tackling and arguably set pieces (but that is hard to argue or gauge, considering Scholes wouldn't have a shot at set pieces over the players he's played with, whereas Gerrard has nearly always been the guy Liverpool would turn to, because there isn't a lot else) and plus a considerable amount of passing.
     
  5. loganb JEM Logan

    Thing is, it is really hard to compare the two, cause every time I write an argument for Scholes I think "well tbf, Gerrard can do that too". The reason I chose to focus on passing is that that is probably where Scholes really does excel compared to Gerrard.

    For me, Scholes just seems the type of player that calms players around him. Like, if I played for United, I'd think "it's fine, I'll always know that if I have no other options, Scholes will be there", whereas if I played for Liverpool, I'd be scared to impress Gerrard and feel like I was playing in his shadow, or somewhat in fear of him, rather than playing alongside him. Although that's an incredibly hard point to argue unless you have actually played with them both.
     
  6. Eds E Ames

    Kuyt and Babel have never even been close to Giggs and Ronaldo. Not even close.

    Also disagree Scholes has a "considerable amount of passing" over Gerrard. Scholes has sat deep in central midfield for longer, where their respective passing abilities are/were best shown. This season Gerrard is a totally different player. I'm not going to argue Gerrard's proven himself as a better passer, but the difference certainly isn't considerable.
     
  7. loganb JEM Logan

    Really? Scholes has sat deep in central midfield for longer because he's played for longer, simple as that. He started his career as a second striker, and played there for a considerable time, compared to Gerrard playing in midfield pretty much his whole career, bar right at the start when I think he played right back a fair amount.

    Using last season alone, the 37 year old Paul Scholes, with eye problems and knee problems, achieved 92.37% in arguably the best, if not the second best league in the world, compared to a 31/32 Gerrard, who achieved 83%, near on 10% less. Talking percentages also takes out the position and to some extent, the role the player is playing, because we're not talking about the actual amount of passes which are completed, simply the amount of passes the player made that were successful.
     
  8. loganb JEM Logan

    There is no denying Gerrard's ability though, tbf. Some of those passes are just delicious.

    I'd just rather have Scholes.
     
  9. Eds E Ames

    Scholes is a few years older than Gerrard, yep. What I'm saying is that I suggest we judge this in a few years time because it's easier to show a full range of passing in the deeper midfield role, and Scholes has obviously had more time doing that because of his age. Gerrard's been a box-to-box midfielder his entire career, until this season.

    Just disagree with all of this tbqh.
     
  10. loganb JEM Logan

    A few? He's 6 years older than Gerrard. That's a huge difference. I'll be amazed if Gerrard is still playing then, or even in 5 years. I'd love him to still be, cause I do really enjoy watching him play, but I doubt it.

    Care to elaborate?
     
  11. Eds E Ames

    I couldn't care less - the point stands. Scholes has played in the role for longer which means he's had more opportunity to showcase his passing ability than Gerrard has.

    And even so, I'd argue if Gerrard had retired from international football as early as Scholes, and been at United rather than Liverpool, it'd add a good three or four years to his career.

    1. Pass completions again?! Come on.

    2. Last season is just a shit example to use in general, really. They played about 30 games in all competitions between them. Gerrard had arguably his worst season and Scholes was retired half the year.

    3. Not sure where you get this from:
    "Talking percentages also takes out the position and to some extent, the role the player is playing, because we're not talking about the actual amount of passes which are completed, simply the amount of passes the player made that were successful".
     
  12. Cevno IV Narang

    Gerrard is/was a pretty good passer, but Scholes was quite clearly better then him at passing and consistency of passing. His long ball success rate was quite a bit better than Gerrard who missed a lot more, while hitting some really good ones too and his short passing and control was better too.

    It was something that came naturally to Scholes. Cristiano Ronaldo on Scholes -

    “When we were in training, I used to do a lot of tricks which not many of the other payers could do. Once I was showing my skills to Scholes. After I finished, Scholes took the ball and pointed at a tree which was about 50m away from were he was standing. He said, Im going to hit it in one shot. He kicked it and hit first time. He asked me to do the same, I tried 10 times, but couldn’t hit it with that accuracy. He smiled and left.”
     
  13. Cevno IV Narang

    Zidane and Edgar Davids called him the most complete player they had played against IIRC. He could track back, run, snap at people's heels, standing tackle etc.. but what he struggled at was diving tackles.

    Most players who struggle like this tend to then avoid doing those, but Scholesy did them anyway. :p
     
  14. loganb JEM Logan

    This was going to be my next point/quote!
     
  15. loganb JEM Logan

    But even before he was in that position, he was showing off his passing. That's a fair argument.

    Pass completion is a huge thing - passing is the essence of the game.

    Right, well I'll use 2010/11, when Scholes had a % of 90.2% compared with Gerrard's 80.4%, or 2009/10 when Scholes had 89.2% compared with Gerrard's 77.7%. Yes, Scholes had more of an opportunity to pass, but we're not talking total passes, which means the opportunity to pass doesn't play as much of a factor in the stat than it would if it were pass completed. Obviously it does, because Scholes will have short passes that he's made under less pressure than Gerrard would, but not nearly 10% worth more over a whole season. Scholes is a better passer.

    This isn't really an argument against your video, more a view from Scholes' side. Granted the camera quality isn't as great and the music is worse (tbf, there's a more limited choice as to what you can use for music when accompanying 8 and a half minutes worth of highlights) but the point still gets across.

    http://youtu.be/KwMDfKXUNFY
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  16. Furball G Furball

    Scholes carried United to a title, something Gerrard's never done.
     
  17. loganb JEM Logan

    Huge point.
     
  18. Eds E Ames

    I'm fine with you coming to the conclusion Scholes is a better passer but doing it by using pass completion rates is just horrendous. Do you think Joe Allen, Leon Britton and Ki-Sung Yeung are the best passers in the league?
     
  19. loganb JEM Logan

    In which case, watch the video I posted.

    I was using pass completion as the best factual way to compare the two, using stats.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  20. Dirk Diggler DM Diggler

Share This Page