You mentioned 96/97 in a previous post. So what was it? 95/96 or 96/97? Scholes was maybe unlucky in some years. Performing in two-men midfield is hard and other ones with clear end product (goals, assists) too like Pirlo and Sneijder were seen as top 5-10 material in some years.
Yeah, I had already guessed that. Knew about reputation in Germany so I guessed that would be the same in Austria. Austria is after all the 17th Bundeslander. Onze Mundial team also had Carlos as best LB between 1997-2003 and 2005. I understand the skepticism of some (had an awkward sliding tackle) and over here the pundits were somewhat divided. But it was often remarked that his offense was so strong that in a dominant team this occupies the opposing winger rather than the other way around. Of course, Figo abused him and saw him red carded but Figo was one of the greatest and most skilled wingers ever (and not a one-trick pony like Beckham). But even people who don't know anything about football noticed him. Will save the details but someone in my vicinity who did not follow football designated him as 'mini me of austin powers' and another one also noticed his pace, speed, strength etcetera. And yes, it was also before the rumors about less pleasant aspects of Spanish football started so no 'hate' of me to Carlos. http://fussballdoping.derwesten-recherche.org/en/2013/01/fuentes-connections-to-football/
PuckVanHeel: For the sake of completness this is how Maldini's ratings looked like which are very impressive imo with 12 seasons above 6.3 (Cafu has two, Thuram three and Zanetti four) 28.95 games per season 6.73 6.5 6.48 6.45 6.43 6.4 6.39 6.36 6.35 6.34 6.32 6.3 6.24 6.22 6.1 6.03 6.03 6.02 6.02 5.78
Here are my thoughts on Scholes. I don't think people know how to properly quantify his contribution. With a player like Lampard it is fairly easy. His contribution can be measured by the goals and assists he provides, and how good the opposition was and how important the games were the goals and assists came in. His major role in the team is finishing offensive moves. No one tries to quantify Xavi's impact on the game through offensive production. No one thinks Xavi's best season was 11/12 because it was his biggest goal haul. Xavi's impact on the game is more subtle, you usually need to see it to quantify it. Lampard does do things you have to see to quantify (working hard to get the ball back etc), but these things are periphery to his main role, they are the essence of Xavi's role (picking the right pass, controlling the midfield, setting the pace of the game). I feel like to many people try to measure Scholes impact on the game with the same measuring stick used for Lampard, production. The idea that Scholes is an attacking midfielder may drive this, or maybe it is the fact that he plays in England (this may also pertain to Xavi's quotes about how Scholes is the total package and would be more appreciated in Spain). The only seasons it is fair to judge Scholes in a similar way to Lampard is between 2001 and 2005 when Scholes was moved directly behind a lone striker, Ruud and had a primary role in the team of scoring and assisting goals. Now even though these were his most productive years, I don't think they were his best. In fact Lampard and Gerrard were both better at this role than Scholes. Compare their best seasons when playing similar roles. Scholes 02/03: 20 goals (all comps), 3 assists (epl) Lampard 09/10: 27 goals (all comps), 17 assists (epl) Gerrard 08/09: 24 goals (all comps), 9 assists (epl) Scholes top years in my opinion were 98-01 and a rebirth in 06/07. From 98-01 Scholes played in a two man central midfield with Keane. His role was not to proved assists (that was Giggs and Beckham) or score goals (that was Cole and Yorke). His role was those subtle things you need to see to understand (like Xavi): releasing the wingers with long diagonals, controlling the pace of the game, knowing the right time to initiate an attack or keep moving the pall, generally controlling the midfield. The 11-12 goals and 6-9 assists he provided during these years were a bonus, he provided those because he had a great sense of timing, a powerful shot, and great passing touch and vision, not because his role was to score and assist. From 98-01 Scholes shared his role with Keane, and some parts of the role (setting the pace of the game/controlling the midfield) Keane was dominant in. Because of this I think his best seasons was 06/07. He completely took over the midfield, still doing all the things he did great in 98-01 (long passing, dictating the pace, initiating attacks), but fully took over the roles Keane used to dominate (dominating action in the midfield with movement and short passing). This was the deepest he had ever played in the midfield, often retrieving the ball from the centerbacks, in my eyes he was the closest thing you will ever see to Xavi or Pirlo in 06/07, yet if you continue to try to judge him by the Lamaprd standard, it was a nondescript season, with 7 goals and 1 assist. So if I was to rate Scholes seasons I am not sure if he would achieve any *** seasons (under comme's ranking system signifying a top 15 or so player in the world), but if he did it would not be in 02/03 it would probably be in 98/99, 99/00, 00/01, or 06/07.
Largely agree with you on almost all of that. Scholes I think would have been better rated had he been at his peak in an era when statistics were more highly prized. Having said that I do think there is a tendency to conflate the two (or more) roles that Scholes played and assume that he was always as excellent in possession as he is now. No doubt he is a fantastic retainer now, but for much of his career it was his ability to get forward which defined much of his play. He was good, but I'm not sure he was at the level he has been over recent seasons. There is a reason why the chant at Old Trafford starts: "He scores goals, my lord".
I agree he was not as good in possession in 98-01 as he was in 06/07, mostly because he did not need to be with Keane next to him. I think part of his reputation as a goal scorer comes from the spectacular nature of so many of his goals, it seems like half of them are drives/volleys from 30 yards. This is what you see if you don't catch the whole game, Scholes almost ripping the net in half from a ball falling out of the sky and you start to associate him with scoring goals.
97/98: Bergomi 98/99: Mihajlovic 00/01: Tudor (only 23 games) 01/02: Zanetti 02/03: Zanetti, Bertotto (21 games)
Maybe it is just me but I think 01/02 and 02/03 were the only seasons where Scholes played consistently behind a striker. Definitely not 04/05 when Rooney entered the scene.
I think you are right about 04/05, but I think 03/04 was still scholes behind ruud, they had no other forwards with more than 10 epl starts.
All the great midfield maestros are swarthy: Pirlo, Xavi, Veron, Guardiola, Magath. What hurts Scholes is being ginger.
03/04 was one of their weakest seasons in the Murdoch/EPL era. The departure of Beckham changed something in the tactics and I think Ferguson struggled to find a solution. They had not really a right-sided replacement for him. He did feature behind RvN sometimes but sometimes not. Lets look at the encounter when Mourinho owned Ferguson at his own turf (still like it). Saha and RvN started at the away game. At home Scholes played behind RvN (with the all-time great midfield of Djemba-djemba, Butt and Fletcher). There are some other examples of big games where he played with two forwards (RvN, Saha, Forlan, Solskjear) or with a right-sided midfielder like Phil Neville, Fletcher on Beckham his place (with the Keane-Scholes partnership reinstated).
Thanks. Tudor is a strange name here. Had rarely a starting place and/or played more than 20 games. What is the best way to get an positional overview? Find side-backs often hard to judge. Struggled to find the words but I will do an attempt without claiming it is conclusive. I think it is an position where it is hard to be really visible for football qualities alone. Originally intended to stop wingers but they hardly play with (classic) wingers any more and there was a time when nobody played with them. Side-backs who really influences outcomes of games are very rare. Then I think about Carlos or a Thuram who was able to nullify everyone (including Ronaldo). You said about Cafu that you had rarely the idea you saw an all-timer at work; I had the same feeling with Maldini (esp. when he became center back). I also feel that more as with other positions the fancied side-backs tend to play for the bigger clubs and bigger nations. It is harder to get noticed while playing at smaller team. That is by definition the case but nature of position catalyzes this. It is hard to convince or make an impression if you do not play at a dominant team; no spectacular runs and attacks often flow/finish through the sides because that is where the space is. So side-backs who play at not very dominant teams get frequently tested. At the same time, side-backs who help to make the team dominant in possession, chances created or conquer space on opposing half are rare. They, while sometimes providing outlets and closing channels, rarely have a noticeable contribution in tilting the balance. There is a reason why good side-backs (and certainly lefties) are rare because usually the good footballers tend to play on positions where they are more decisive. It is simple as that. Also a reason why smaller countries have rarely provided elite side-backs. Hence, I often tend to get a different impression about what a good side-back is. Mentioned some examples in the past, will not repeat that again. Regarding Zanetti vs Cafu, I prefer the one who proved himself in various schemes and philosophies. That one obviously is Zanetti, who could also play as midfielder. I think he was valuable both on and off the ball. He had the ability to surprise opposition with his movements. Cafu was great, and once he built his name that propelled him forward but you need to use him in a specific role. A role that was done better by Roberto Carlos in my view. But it is a hard role to rate and often the wrong ones are appreciated IMO. Who talks still about Robert Jarni for example? Srna is another one who is overlooked (though a one in the 'spectacular' mould).
Forgot to say something: coincidentally (or maybe not) Cafu received the highest ratings when his team was domestically successful. 00/01 (his highest at Roma) and 03/04 (highest at Milan). Yes, he was also highly rated in 99/00 but so was his wing-back colleague Candela on the other side (who was rated even slightly higher). That was also the first Capello season by the way, who changed from a 3-4-3/4-3-3 (Zeman) to a one with wing-backs (3 central defenders and two full-backs). Zeman famously received his walking papers after he accused Juventus of doping practices (had anyway an influence).
Know it is no proof but this website also lists some formations. Like to know the official EPL ones but can't find them. http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/manchester-united/spielplan/verein_985_2003.html Agree that in five men midfield his role was still an attacking/advanced one but to what extent was it different as when he played in a two men midfield?
Ronaldo praised Maldini a few times: http://www.foxsportsasia.com/football/news/detail/item886333/ This shows him vs Thuram, I think Thuram did a good job in the first video There are also a few videos where he plays against Milan. Example: