There's only room for three in my 2000's midfield. Vieira is a different kind of player to Scholes, so he was in direct competition with Xavi and Pirlo. I rate Scholes behind both.
Both Xavi and Pirlo were excellent players, i just think Scholes was 'excellenter' (Xavi himself would seem to agree with my view - but i'm sure you've read the quotes)
It's funny that Xavi, Scholes, and Pirlo are all competing for the same 'playmaker' role in these hypothetical teams, yet we all know they all played differently lol
Disagree. Scholes was never rated as highly during his actual career as what he has been since his retirement. He never received a single vote as a Ballon D'Or nominee (and was only nominated once), he never made the FIFPRO world 11, he was never even voted as Manchester United player of the year. Scholes' reputation has shot up since his retirement. A lot of that comes from the Manchester United propaganda machine. This same propaganda machine is now convincing the English that Michael Carrick was as good as Busquets. I rate Scholes at about the same level as Xabi Alonso. A very good player over a very lengthy period of time, but never the best player from his own country or the best midfielder in the world. I don't give too much weight on quotes. Zidane said that Gerrard was better than Messi and Ronaldo in 2009. Most players don't analyse the game of other players playing in other countries any more than us fans do.
I now regret the Xavi quote as it appears to have opened a can of worms. This is my view on Scholes, and though i generally like to post pithy comments, i fear in this one i may be a little prolix: England's "Golden Generation" was a gross exaggeration, almost a fallacy. The only 2 world class players were Cole, who was unparalelled at left back, and Scholes. The rest were strictly Silver (Gerrard, Ferdinand, Beckham), Bronze (Lampard, G. Neville, Campbell), and the usual sub-optimal makeweights (P. Neville, et al). The over-hype for England, and the predictable, and for the most part deservedly, poor results damaged the perception of Scholes in the eyes of the football media - even the more intelligent and considered outlets. The general antipathy towards all things ManU probably didn't do him any favors either. Worse, discarded onto the left wing by the media-toe-sucking-ass-licking Eriksson to accommodate the vastly inferior Lampard in the centre, likely prompted Scholes' premature ( yet understandable) retirement from the international scene. Paul Scholes could head the ball, shoot, tackle (ok, many fouls, but at least he does tackle, unlike many playmakers), dribble, create, pass. There is not one facet of a midfielders game that is absent from Scholes game. I really dont know of any other midfielder in the history of the sport that had such a complete set of skills as Paul Scholes - at least not at his level. At live games i have probably seen fewer than 30% of the players in your teams, though obviously i've seen them all on the telly, so maybe my judgement is flawed and yours is superior. Having said that, Paul Scholes is simply the best player i have ever watched live. Just a class above, and worth the entrance fee for the privilege. Certainly above Xavi and Pirlo, but that's... just my opinion.
@holto I find it hard to disregard England's golden generation as merely a fad. In the 2008 Champions League final, 10 of the 20 outfield players who started the game were English, and that didn't even include Gerrard or Beckham. English teams with an English core regularly performed very well in the CL from 2005 to 2009. This cannot just be a coincidence. International careers does play a part in how I rate players. Pirlo was amazing at the 2006 World Cup and amazing in every game of the 2012 Euro Cup bar the final. Xavi was amazing at Euro 2008 and World Cup 2010, and had a decent tournament at Euro 2012. Scholes never even had a tournament as good as Xavi's 2012, which is the weakest of the five I mentioned above. Scholes did play centrally from 1998-2002 and was only shoved out to the left at Euro 2004.
That may be so, but for whatever failings (certainly not Scholes'!), in all major international competitions since perhaps 2002, England have been <where is that flushing toilet icon i need?>, and not really any good since 1990 WC. Let's just agree to disagree - you have your favorites, i have mine. Pleasure having a civilized discussion. PS: Scholes really really is...no i'll resist ;-)
I would argue that Xabi Alonso at Real Madrid was the best player in the world at his role, although like you said, not the best midfielder. That must count for something, imho. I think during Scholes peak, there were players like Veron who stood in his way to establish himself as world's no.1 at his role. That's funny. I haven't seen the Busquets = Carrick narrative yet. Certainly, I think Carrick has been vastly underrated throughout his career. However, since Fergie left, his importance has been very well recognized because Man Utd tend to do better with him than without. There is always a danger, of course, that when someone's been underrated for a long time, when he does get his recognition, he can become overrated overnight (see: Scholes post-retirement.)
That reminds me of a joke doing the rounds at the time: Did you here that Alex Ferguson has opened a Fish & Chip shop? £1 for chips £2 for fish £28,000,000 for pudding