Re: Understanding Paul Scholes Brilliant piece!! One thing that has always made me wonder is what Scholes could have been if he had more physical precense. I guess the argument will always be that he might never had developed his inteligence in the game if he could have relied upon his physics allready from an early age. But you still have to wonder. Great job highlighting the speed of though Scholes has when he passes to teammates. That's what really makes him the brilliant retainer he is. If you pick the percentige best option you have and then you figure out how hard you can pass the ball figuring in your teammates skillset then you will have the best option. But to able to play like that consistenly without making hardly any mistakes is just remarkeable. And you forgot to mention Fletcher as potential CM partner To bad he never really could stamp his mark on things. Hopefully he can learn Anderson how to control the tempo of the game, he doesn't need to be a retainer, but if he can be more considerate of his options who knows how good he can become. How Scholes has made his career though is simply amazing. As you say, he must be the most intelligent player in England ever.
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes I can't think of a player who plays a similar game to Scholes. Tuguy at Blackburn is the best example I can think of. Great technique, small in stature, very similar way of striking the ball. Other than that I think Pirlo is too deep, Huddlestone is far, far, FAR too big and Deco is a bit too quick, although he has changed his game of late to a similar one to that of Scholes. I've noticed not many people like Hargreaves, although that is for another thread. I think he could play well with Scholes. I think I could play well with Scholes and I'm unfit and over-weight. The lad is simply magnificent....
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes Great read. Only thing I'd interject with is that the term 'retainer' doesn't seem to suggest a progressive, prying approach to breaking defenses down. Scholes is anything but a 'water-carrier'--Deschamps, Makelele, Hamman rarely gave the ball away but their passing range was limited and not adventurous. The percentage-perfect passes that Scholes makes are always with an eye to create space, to shift defenses in order to open up opportunities for offensive progression (barring situations where the team is just running down the clock holding a lead). This may take the form of a chess-like buildup where Scholes sees how the pitch will open up 2 or 3 passes in advance. A back pass to Rio now is really in service of the more progressive pass that will follow. In his passing, Scholes can be as audacious as anyone in the world. The chip to Rooney against Milan is something to be expected from a Ronaldinho. Where Scholes does his 'retaining' work is in how he makes himself available to teammates in midfield. He provides them with a safe option to maintain possession---and due to his positional sense and ability to shield the ball, he himself is rarely dispossessed. This retaining possession, protecting the ball, and providing a safe pass for teammates is always in service of breaking the opposition down---it fatigues them physically and emotionally, causing them to break formation, lose position, thus creating space that can be exploited.
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes This is what I really love about Scholes. He's the most unlikely of football heroes. If you saw him walking down the street, you would NEVER think "professional athlete." And yet, the man is a footballing giant. His superior technique is stunning to watch, and inspirational to boot. Scholes Thanks for this article, guys. The pictures were excellent; and, DS, I think this is the best of your articles that I've read on BigSoccer. Well done!
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes ^^ I always wonder when people say they print this stuff out. They never come back and comment, lol, not that it's something they should do, but I always wonder what they think either way as there's no further comment from them at all! *points Me personally, I am in favour of the most superfluous and intelligent line-ups we can put out there. We are at our best when can polay instinctive one and two-touch all across midfield and up-front and I feel we've lacked that for a while, which is why our attacks stutters at times and breakdown prematurely I've never given specific thought to the relationship between Scholes and Park because we rarely see them in the same areas of the pitch - Scholes plays the left CM or deeper role and Park tends to play on the right flank most times they are both fit, so their footy relationship isn't particularly great right now, although I believe it could be with the amount of movement and intelligent runs Park makes. One of my favoured styles of football comes from any team that can start an attack playing 'boxes' really tight squares with passes being pinged about accordingly and then the square becoming wider until it takes the form of flankers and mids - in theory Park should be brilliant at that, but I've yet to see it happen frequently with my own eyes, and I doubt it'll have a chance to get off the ground given we are talking about Europe, which will equal Giggs one side and Ronaldo on the other. I usually hope the personality of the player is inferred, but you're right, I should have written it in and removed any doubt. His selflessness also marks him as a unique player of english stock - when glory is there to be had, most snap it up for themselves, Scholes takes the chances on because it's his job and he'd just as readily give up his chance to score if he was assured somebody else in the team would not fluff it. I think the Gerrard situation is complex. He won't ever play like Scholes, simply because he doesn't have to. In many ways, if a player has the physical capability to do majestic things on his own, team-mates who may or may not complete one-two's etc and get said player from A to B in the same way he could by bursting throw a midfield himself presents its own dilemma. I think Gerrard at, 28, (29!! soon ) is a ruined product. He needed coaching at a much younger age and the mind boggles to think what Fergie and our team could have turned him into. He has fallen way, way short of his potential, which was to be the midfielder of this generation - he has every single tool, but the mental know-how and coaching. I was actually going to include a section about Gerrard's passing in contrast to Scholes. Gerrard plays a number of sublime short passes that people miss because of his penchant for the ridiculous Hollywood ball, but what I find is commonplace in Gerrards short passing is that there is no consideration at all of whether the player recieving the ball from a bullet of a pass has the technique or ability to control it and make use of it. - In those same situations, Scholes would caress the ball to lesser skilled team-mates, not fizz it at them 100mph just because he has the ability to do that. Gerrard is also so used to being everything for his club that the concept of competent team-mates who can play quality, ground-based footbal is often lost on him through no fault of his own. I think that has played havoc with his development and I think it's a theme that runs through the NT - Arsenal supply no English talent, and thus that brand of football and understanding of passing and technique goes out the window with that, and then you have our lot, who are used to far more intricate football than the rest of the camp - it's a hotch potch of philosophies and developmental coaching. Most of those NT players do not have the base technique or know-how to play for Manchester United, as Hargreaves has found out, it's a whole new ball game. Outside of Bentley (an Arsenal product) and Joe Cole (a West Ham boy, along with Rio and Carrick) the technical level of the England players and ability to play one/two-touch is simply not there. I think Gerrard would need to play for a team that demands those fundamentals to be able to replicate them in his own game. Ironic given that he is from what was the most insistent club for the fundamentals of passing, possession and retention through the 70's and 80's. I think a lengthier post on this would be best suited to the tactics thread, but in short I would say that Anderson's game isn't really about high pressure and expectation - his base level is so high and his platform for development so ready that even whilst learning his trade and fans being accepting of his age (and thus mistakes and naivete) Anderson holds nearly all the cards over the others. Scholes played the majority of his CM career next to a 'monster' and Anderson looks to me to have the potential to be another one. Carrick has the proven form and a season behind him as well as age and maturity menaing he'd get less time outs, but our midfield needs to be more dynamic than it is. I made the point of mentioning that the variables have changed - what we lacked in dynanism from CM last season was made up for by an in-form and extremely agressive Saha, and then a 4-2-3-1 system that was fluid and effective with a settled squad and established first xi. We have none of those things now, so considering the variables, the Carrick-Scholes partnership might not have the edge to it we need to go all the way in one, two or three tournaments. Anderson, on the other hand, has that edge and impactfu spark. Whether we use it as a latter second half weapon or not remains to be seen, but he's the partenr I'd chose for Scholes for this season, wherever possible. Huddlestone is a classic deep-lying playmaker, or he could turn out to be a sweeper in the end. He does not often play one-two's or look to play a ball to recieve back (to make space for himself and his team-mate) because he doesn't really need to nor, do I think, he has the mobility to play in that way. One of the things I should have mentioned about Scholes is that although he paces himself throughout a game, he is always on the move, always jogging and always shortening the distances lesser-skilled players on his team have to make to hit a pass to him - all retainers do this, the better a retainer the smoother and unassuming he is at this - for any player looking to learn the role it is a master class, and any fan interested in the entire game of a Scholes will watch him for the whole 90 quite amazed. DLP's do not think or move like this. They are rather static and expectant, the times where a Scholes is constantly jogging and moving around, most DLP's are rather stationary and turn their attention to looking at the field ahead of them and what possible options are on should they recieve the ball at any given moment - Carrick does this all the time, as does Huddlestone - it's a fundamental difference between the roles and thought process and often why DLP's need players supplying them in a decent amount of space, because they've not given deeper thought to making that space for themselves. Huddlestone is an amazing passer of the ball, but that';s usually on one-off, magical hollywood balls, his retentative ability and passing link up and chains would be quite low, I would imagine. In one way he could be seen as wasteful in possession because he looks to get the ball forward too quickly, but in terms of being a DLP and constantly offering those ahead of him a carrot for them to make the runs for, he is quite superb at his role already and will only get better at it. Accomodating him modern formations is the biggest problem. I'd love to see Scholes as an attacking midfielder in a 3, with Say a Carrick and Anderson or Hargreaves behind him. His vision and goalscoring ability as well as his passing are perfect for the role. Problem is, it requires a lot more energy to make space for yourself further up the field and you're on the end of a lot of tackles and attention. At 33 Scholesy might not have the energy for that. Anderson's probably going to take that role on because of his physical advantages. We'll see when we play in the CL one way or the other. Pirlo is a DLP, imo. His game is similar to that described above for Huddlestone, but he is more mobile and more willing to link-up further forward. Pirlo isn't metronomic, however, his role is very conclusive for Milan and he is expected to trigger a number of there attacks from deep whenever they are on. I agree with your first paragraph's sentiment entirely. As I said to machoward in reply about Gerrard, I beieve you play in that retaining manner because you have to, and if you have the physical advantages not to have to play the 'right' way all the time, you won't. Gascoigne and Robson would have been England's dream CM pairing during the late 80's, but they were never fit at the same time and in both of them you have players that don't need the other, but would have found each other handy to play of off at times. Gascoigne with his technique and football intelligence would most likely have been a retainer if he were not so suited to the game he had, but with those physical tools, he simply didn't need to play the percentage wise correct pass or team-move, when he could just beat two or three men on his on at a whim. I'm sure Scholesy's game would have altered, quite dramatically, if he were a superior athlete - those superior athletes have a lot more time to consider and develop their own game knowing full well that should they manage to reach the top with superior intelligence to go with the physical body, they are a self-made match winner for their team in any game at any moment. I believe we'd have seen Scholesy's genius manifest differently - he'd be more celebrated and more compared to the Best's, Charlton's and Cantona's and whoever else was capable of inspired moments of genius outside of the team schematic. I think that's all covered, tbh. Retainers sway the opposition and patiently pick them apart. DM's 'just play the short safe pass to a more able man most of the time, they definitely do not pick and chose their passes, nor do they look to give a ball to a team-mate with the intention of getting it back to open up the field. Thanks Saph. And thank to all of you who have left comments and/or rep. It is appreciated. I just go round to everyone individually saying that. I would ask for more quotes to go with this thread. RoM is a saint and exhausted his elaborate resources to get me so many, but I'm sure there'#s a lot more out there that even escape his all-seeing eye! I also wanted to put up some Xavi clips. As he is another player to really watch out for if you want to study the retainer role further. I wanted to take about D.Jones, but am out of time, will do so at a later date. [youtube]bc7TCUqidsQ[/youtube] [youtube]jhJ2skmPXeI[/youtube] <- Xavi's private life. Eerily similar to Scholes just in more flambouyant settings.. [youtube]3lE-y7Ip-uQ[/youtube] [youtube]4soXPW6P9rg[/youtube] Oh, and the England match.. did anyone happen to catch the England fans booing their own team for retaining possession of the ball for more than two minutes? This is what Scholes was up against. People who don't understand anything but getting 'stuck in' goals, fouls and incidents. Intricacy and thus Scholes, is completely lost on them, thus Scholes not scoring = Scholes is shite. Sigh.
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes Stop guilt tripping me! To be honest, I am struggling to come up with much right at this minute because most of what Iwould say has already been said. Also, a lot of what I would otherwise say I have already said in a different thread I made, so I will post it again and then chime in when the conversation evolves to avoid giving in a meaningless post - that is usually when it gets more interesting to read and contribute to as well, imo.
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes Spot on. I couldn't agree more. While Gerrard is an awe-inspiring player on his day, he lacks the technique and intelligence to be jaw-dropping. Do you think that, had Gerard moved to Chelsea 4 years ago when they made a bid after Euro 2004, Mourinho may have coached a bit more technique or subtlety into his game and perhaps made him in to THAT player that he promised to become?......
Re: Understanding Paul Scholes You're right DS, I did have a few comments and I'll post them later. They were not really that significant though - the breadth of this post covered most everything, and I've never hid my love of Scholes' play so I'm going to agree with a lot of a post that explains why he's so good. Still, I'll post a couple things in a bit...
I thought today was a pivotal moment in our season with relation to this team and what it lacks. I noticed that not one of our midfielders had the balls to play with and off Scholes when he was trying to link up with them. It's telling how confidence and nerves can affect a team. Tevez was the only go willing to bounce the ball between himself and Scholes. Anderson was taking it and hoofing it, Hollywood style when he got it and frequently made the short ball from Scholes impossible by not placing himself in positions to recieve simple passes. Anderson needs a few games under Scholesy's tutelege to perform calmly as part of a pairing that isn't hairing around and wasting energy gathering balls that shouldn't have been lost in the first place. It's still my preferred partnership, but if we end up 5pts behind Arsenal by this time tomorrow, we're going to have go straight to the tried and tested as best we can, which would mean Carrick and Scholes from that point onward. Scholes' game is going to force us to improve or expose us absolutely over the upcoming months.
Not just for DS, but can anyone name a game on the international/european stage which Scholes 'has' (e.g Robson/Barca, Keane/Juve etc.)?? IIRC I read an article/post some time ago in which someone said Scholes is extremly influential in the league but less so in the CL. To strenthen their point, they asked the same question I did and added that we beat Roma 7-1 without him. They also mentioned how he will play well and show signs of brilliance (ala flick assist againt Milan) but he is generally not as effective in the CL as he is in the PL. I'm sure they said more but I'm just summarising it. So is this mostly down to his physique (Robson and Keane were more than physically adept) or does that guy have a point? Or maybe I'm somehow missing the bigger picture??
It was pointed out a while ago that this is what seperates him from being on Giggs and Keanes level in terms of ... something... word slips my mind but you get the point.
CNN Headline: PAUL SCHOLES GIVES AN INTERVIEW! (From the official website) Paul Scholes will be hoping to build - and improve - on his first full match since early October when United face Arsenal this weekend. His 90 minutes against Manchester City may not have yielded the right result for the Reds, but for Scholes it was another important step as he returns to the peak of his powers. Now he'll be hoping for another start, by seeing off his many rivals for a midfield berth. Scholes told MUTV: "There are so many options in there now - Michael,Owen, Anderson, Fletcher, O’Shea and Giggsy. "I think that has to be good for your game. You go into matches knowing that if you don’t play well, there’s always somebody waiting to take your place. We all have to keep our performance level up to get picked for the next game." The range of midfield personnel at Sir Alex Ferguson's disposal is impressive - as Scholes says, "If we do lose one or two players, it doesn’t make any difference." But he couldn't separate the current crop from any previous set of midfield masters he's been part of. “It's hard to say (whether this is our best midfield). I think we’ve always had competition, like when Nicky (Butt), Roy (Keane) and (Juan Sebastian) Veron were all here. They were all top midfielders and it was hard to get into the team. I think it’s the same now. "Any two from six could play and you’d still have the same outcome."
This is covered in the opener - the game that Scholes has is not going to earn him any monumental praise on the international stage, nor does it in the league. He is never going to celebrated like those players who had the physical attributes needed to take over big games with moments that break the team schematic open, but he can put in a superb performance via passing and moving whilst retaining the ball, which he has done during a number of campaigns in Europe under the radar of most because the rest of our attack was doing something that looked far more dynamic and eye-catching at the time. At international level the chances for ghosting are reduced dramatically so Scholes has to play a more considered game, and if he doesn't get on the scoresheet, who but the most avid even remember he played unless he does something fancy like the pass to Rooney vs Milan? The Roma game is anomalous, btw. It was a one-off with no suggestion we could or will repeat it, so Scholes being absent from that game doesn't give us anything conclusive. Scholes' work in big games is often done in the background and you'd have to watch the game a second time with all eyes just on him to really assess his performance to the positive or negative. Amidst the emotion and excitement of the big games, you're naturally drawn to the percieved game-turners or match-winners...not the string-pullers unless they are playmaker types constantly throwing balls forward to stay in your mind's eye. Scholes can do that, as he displayed against Chelsea, but it's not what we usually ask of him in Europe.
All that and I still say that he should not have come back Immediatly into the first team Anderson Carrick and Hargreaves have got us to the top of the Table in January, what more do you want ????????? Now we drop two of these players and look what happens Yet again we have a "Norwich " Match team selection and it messes everything up
Hmm, so the fact that he's no longer a game turner or an obvious match winner damages the perception of him. I'm not totally sure because most people I'd talk to would still rank Scholes ahead of Fabregas, Gerrard, Essien even though they don't understand the tiny nuances in Scholes' game so maybe he's rated higher than you think? Also, you compared Scholes to Keane, Zico, Platini etc.. as to highlight just how unique he is in the world of football but how does a Scholes type player get remembered in the long term? I believe Crerand was the metronome and background worker for Best, Law and Charlton and would keep the team ticking in the shadows. Scholes seems to have followed a similar path as he's been somewhat 'outshined' by more eye catching players in his career. He hasn't really set the international stage alight and he doesn't get the attention a Zidane or a Beckham get which have hurt him in the long run. In spite of all this, his talent is evident and there's no one in the world who can do what Scholes do better than he does (nor has there ever been..?). The quotes mentioned in your original post have shown many people have noticed Scholes and think as him as one of the best of his time but has he done enough to be revered with the Matthaus, Redondos et al or will his legacy ultimately stay confined to the British Isles?
I find that a lot of people parrot what others say about Scholes without knowing for themselves why he is regarded highly by others. Like, if you asked: why is Scholes 'better' than the players you mentioned, you'd not get a concrete reply. Others regard Scholes as an institution, almost. I don't think he gets the credit he deserves overall - if any player we have has the type of game which will be forgotten should our whole team play well, it's Scholes. He doesn't.. or he won't.. is my bet. Scholes will be a cult classic and a club legend, but he'll be a footnote in the broader history of the game.. or known as 'that fella who scored goals from nowhere' I'm sure there are lots of fantastic retainers from the 50's, 60's and so on who have been forgotten with the passage of time and if you haven't witnessed their game for yourself (which is probably given the lack of footage) you'll never know just how good they were at what they did unless you were alive at that time. The players that tend to be rembered are those who are classed as out-and-out playmakers (deep or normal) or those with the physical advantages to make it huge in the position they played. As above. Matthaus was a box-to-box CM and Redondo the same although he was a fantastic retainer, DM or DPL as he saw fit, with his physical advantages he coud pick and chose as a situation demanded, so he won't be categorized with a Scholes type in history's eye. I suppose if Scholes has some match-winning goals in the CL's latter stages and wins another EC or two before retirement he could be revered more than he is, but if those goals don't come, even if he has a few good or great games, he'll have to do something(s) that is/are eye-catching for the masses to remember him with the fondness they save for entertainers like Zidane.
Well, with another Roma-esque performance under our belt, I believe this part deserves further discussion. If I'm honest, I think that if Scholes would have started, we probably would not have got a team performance of that magnitude. If you replace him with any of the triumverate that played in the centre on Saturday then the whole complexion of the game changes. I doubt he could perform the specific roles that Fletcher, Carrick and Anderson were asked to play and we would have played differently if he was in the side. To cut a long post short, I reckon playing Scholes would have slowed down our pace to suit Arsenal and it would have been a much more cagey affair than it was. We would have deferred to him and our football would not have been free flowing imo. I know two games is too small to make a conclusive statement but the lack of Scholes in Roma and Arsenal is telling, when you consider the brand of football we were playing. Now, is there a grain of truth to what I'm saying or have we just had two one-off matches?
Well, 2 matches over the course of 2 seasons is such a huge sample size to go by isn't it? Not withstanding that, it was a very very understrength Arsenal team that played like shite. I also don't agree with the suposition that Scholes slows United down. Scholes understands tempo better than most who play in England and he can slow the game down when it needs to be done, but in all of the premiership there are possibly a handful of better 1 touch passers and only Tevez (when at 100%) can come close to Scholesy when on his game as it concerns 1 touch passing. Scholes is the most intelligent player we have and to suggest that Carrick and Fletcher have more speed of thought that he does is rediculous. We may not have won in the same manner had Scholes been played instead of Carrick. He rarely hits that many through balls. However, we'd have controlled the game more efficiently and there'd have been less unrelenting hacking away at Arsenal's trunk and more a peeling away of their layers. That's not to say that we couldn't have had penetrating football being played at the same time.
I know I'm going to get smashed a bit because I'm a newbie and I'm about to say something bad about a great servant of the club, but what the heck. Firstly, I have great respect for Scholes, in terms of technique, there probably isn't another Englishman like him in the past few decades, and he was a center-piece in our great achievements in the late 90s and early years of this century. His great vision and eye for goals have dug us out of many sticky situations and rightfully should be considered as an all-time great for the club. But the 07/08 version of Scholes had been largely disappointing. Even before his injury relatively early in the season, there is evidence that Scholes had indeed slow down. While he had never been a player with great pace, he gets around his markers via good agility and decisions (and in turn, makes the extra small amount of space to make use of his passing ability), but ever since the second half of season 2006/2007, this ability has diminished significantly. While his passing technique still allows him to be a quality 'retainer' type of role, I believe that he is playing such a role not because he was asked to, but rather that's the only role he can play given his physical condition right now. He had never been a 'complete' central midfielder - the likes of Keane and Phil Neville (when he played a season as a defensive midfielder) provided great cover for his lack of defensive skills (both in ball-winning and positioning), and as he ages, the ability to get into good defensive position and staying in front of his marker has even diminished even further. And his attacking skills has also diminished significantly, he no longer has the stamina to make his intelligent forward runs into threatening positions in the box. His kicking power has diminished and no longer has the penetration or speed in his long pass as he had two, three years ago. He has also lost a great deal of confidence in his skill and agility on the ball - this is evident in the early games of this season and the Manchester City game - when he receives the ball further up the pitch, he rarely turns towards goal-side, and is hesitant to turn side ways - he ends up with the ball facing his own goal and that narrows his passing options to a backward pass or at best, a sideward pass to an overlapping defender or a flat-footed winger. He is still a good retainer, when given plenty of time and room, he is still capable of making intelligent decisions, switches of play etc. But he offers very little in terms of being able to snuff out a counter-attack by the opposition or create runs on his own. With both Tevez and Rooney having the tedency to play wide and deep, Scholes' long passing becomes much less effective (his long pass nowadays is still accurate, but slower and much less penetrating than say Carricks') without a target-man that was able to hold-up the ball up front (RVN). his passing completion will likely to be extremely high but I would suggest that the majority of these passes would be back passes or short passes that does not necessarily improve our attacking positions. In my view, because of our attacking system where we utilise two agile forwards that passes extremely well (three, if you include Giggs) and an absolutely freak in Ronaldo, ball retention and conservative but accurate short passing is not a necessity for our central midfield. For balance, we should have two well-balanced central midfielders that can be both relied on to snuff out counter attacks and this version of Scholes is not capable of providing that. Especially with the very good recent form of Carrick and the maturity shown by Anderson, Scholes is no longer in my first 11, especially in the quicker paced Premier League Matches. In Europe, I will also be more inclined to include Hargreaves as a man-marker type to snuff out quality players like Kaka (Hargreaves and Anderson together really rendered Gerrard into a bystander). I might even try a dark horse like Fletcher whose endless running creates chances and closes gaps (he was a major unsung hero in that 7-1 Roma game) and complements Carrick extremely well. Scholes is still a good player, but for me, he should be used more as a role-player rather than the first name on the first team sheet nowadays.
I find the turning on Scholes amongst United fans to be an actual example of just how much of his work goes under the radar, really. Now I'm not saying you've turned on him with your post, but what I would say is that it's not a reasoned response if you give full consideration to Scholes' season so far and how first it was completely at the mercy of a new team and way of playing plus lack of form, unfitness and terrible cohesion and then a few games back from injury, it doesn't give Scholes much of a chance to A) play at his best (he needs interaction, which requires others to have some semblance of synergy) and B) where others around him are fit and vitally, in some klind of form. Let's see what happens when Scholes is under these conditions to really scrutinize his game, eh? As for the Arsenal game - it was no Roma - they were crap and we were good, not brilliant. You'd be best off judging teams we play who are massively victorious against opposing sides with some kind of fight and appetite about them. As Johno also said, Scholes understands tempo better than anyone else we have - his game does not slow us down. If we're ready to play rapid football Scholes will provide that instantly, just because he isn't wasteful can we conclude that his game always has to be slow, it's simply not the case. Mighty Mouse brought up the argument in the Anderson thread for Scholes' omission, without the flawed stats it's a topic worthy of discussion I would say, but I really don't think the 'evidence' against Scholes is compelling, it's incidental and I remain unconvinced we can tear a top team in top form a new one playing like that until we actually do it. Roma are no Euro or CL giant and the game was a one-off, and Arsenal were wank on Saturday - these are not grounds for a solid argument against Scholes and his worth to the team, imo. Hello, and no, I don't think you'd get ripped on for being a newbie. I think what you're saying is well off the mark and premature, though. Your sample size of games to conclude Scholes is falling off the wagon at such a rate is way too small and you haven't factored in all the conditions we had to deal with at the start of the season either, nor have you given consideration to Scholes' new role being that of a constant provider for others even when he is in goal-scoring positions himself. Just because he doesn't pull the trigger it is assumed he cannot? No, I don't buy it. I watched Scholes when he came on on Saturday because I figured he'd be under attack after the game by those who ffeel we don't need him in the starting xi these days. He played his usual game and barring the dodging of the ball to a team-mate he though was behind him, he found the rhythm and flow of the game easily and offered others the easy inlet/outlet balls as required, you'll soon see how valuable that is when we're in Europe and the space in midfield is being denied us. Carrick, even on Saturday, was not dropping in to recieve short-balls or make life easier for his team-mates. His concern is doing something with the ball when it finds its way to him and when it works it looks quite spectacular, but his game is nothing like Scholesy's and he, with that style, is definitely going to need help in the games that are actually tough. Nobody else in our midfield provides the game and comfort to others that Scholes does and that's a vital consideration you've completely omitted from your post.
I'll keep that in mind for the future. Eh, maybe I gave the wrong impression. Let me try again. When I think of what Scholes brings to the table, I think of sensible passes, unselfish play and a canny ability to retain possession all over the pitch. On Saturday, Anderson was trying to break the offside trap with dangerous passes behind the fullbacks and through the middle and he was running at defenders. Carrick held his position well, played risky passes which ultimately came off and was always thinking forward. Fletcher was willing to run beyond our midfielders and get in the box while also running himself into the ground closing down players. Well, you may disagree but that the way I interpreted their play anyways. Scholes can do all these things but like you've said before, he plays the percentages. He can still do the hollywood 50 yard passes, the 'eye of the needle' passes and run past beyond our front line but currently that is not his role in the side anymore and he will always play the 'right' pass. So, I know this is just conjecture , but I think our team's make up would have changed if he was in the side for any of those 3. Maybe our tempo would have stayed the same, but with Scholes being so sensible and selfless I don't think we would have played the same way. We played high risk, high reward on saturday (and against Roma as well) and that's not something I associate with Scholes. Hold up, I am not 'against' Scholes. I was just putting up Scholes' influence on the side up for discussion. Nor have I said he was poor in his cameo role on Saturday or we would have lost if he had started. I'm not that fickle as to forget Scholes' stellar performance against Portsmouth nor am I dismissing his worth to the team. I am not presenting arguements for why Scholes should be omitted or ludicrous bullshit like we are more effective in attack with so and so than Scholes. I'm a big advocate of Scholes so I don't understand why saying we would have performed differently with Scholes in the side seems to irk you so much.
We may have played a much mroe careful game with Scholes, both against Roma and Arsenal, but one would have to think the reason why we were so successful on both counts is because of the opposition and in both cases they were unorganized, chaotic groups of eleven men. Roma completely isolated their defense making it as easy as possible for us to break them down, every way possible, and Arsenal's backline was just in complete shambles, whether the reasons are tactically or just returning to the first team from the African Nations Cup, and having Lehmann return who hasn't played with them the entire season - it was just a recipe for disaster on their front. Also, because of Scholes' game, and what he does best, it has translated onto the team so well that at times when he's not in the team, our midfielders play a game based on Scholes' but because of the difference in quality and experience always looks more chaotic and less organized. Now, I think what Scholes does bring to the table is cohesion, organization and most importantly intelligence, something the team will need against bigger and more prepared clubs, like read-Champions League giants. I don't think we would achieve similar results against Milan or Barcelona without Scholes. What he brings to the table is the ability to "edit" for the lack of a better word or think ahead and notices what might or might not happen when he plays this pass or that pass, thus eliminating our percentage of losing possession. Ultimately I don't think our result would have changed much with Scholes in the team, and that's purely because of the opposition but we probably would have looked that much sharper doing what we did.
This is where I'm going wrong. Because Roma beat us in the first leg, I was sure they would set up well in the second leg but in retrospect their tactics were awful. Like you said, they didn't exactly make it hard for us to break them down. I didn't factor in the Lehmann point either as that seemed to have a profound effect on their defence too. I've overestimated the quality of those sides on those two occasions where we thrashed them. Do you personally think it is possible to thrash a top side like that without their set up having a fundemental flaw? You've made some very astute points and made me rethink my earlier thoughts. Fantastic post.