Man United's Golden Generation

Who had the most impact for Man United!

(sorry I haven't included Phil Neville and Nicky Butt )

Paul Scholes.

In his pomp he was every bit as influential on our performances as Roy Keane, often setting the tempo of our play. Didn't sometimes have the impact of Beckham or the individual brilliance of Giggs but he was always in the thick of it and alot more consistent than Giggs for instance.

He'd regularly get 10 plus goals a season and he didn't rely solely on goals either.

Very versatile as well, able to play as a forward and a central midfielder. With probably his best ever season in 2002/2003 playing behind Ruud and scoring over 20 goals.

There isn't much choice here - where is Kaka?

Giggsy. just for being in the first team and performing wonderfully (and not so wonderfully over the past 2 seasons). He has learned to adapt a more energy conserving game then before now which is still why he is one of the best attacking mid fielders around.

Tweedledum wrote:There isn't much choice here - where is Kaka?

He can't be in every poll. Still, we can have Darren Fletcher in here if you'd like... he looks Kaká-esque when he plays against Cesc.

Obispo wrote:

Tweedledum wrote:There isn't much choice here - where is Kaka?

He can't be in every poll. Still, we can have Darren Fletcher in here if you'd like... he looks Kaká-esque when he plays against Cesc.

So, so true.

Lol @ obipso

my sides are aching

NOT

He has a point though.

Fletcher always plays well against Arsenal and has got the better of Cesc a couple of times.

Not sure he'll get the chance next week as he maybe on the bench.

Natural talent - Giggs

Ability to impact upon games - Scholes

Looks/Hair/fame of wife - Beckham

twatfactor - Neville

Useless once he'd left United - Butt

Only became good since he left United - other Neville


Best of the bunch since then? Wes Brown. Consistently better than Neville when he plays rightback, but without being a git. England's most reliable centrehalf after Carragher.

Not a fan of Neville, I take it Saints?

Parks Lives wrote:Who had the most impact for Man United!

(sorry I haven't included Phil Neville and Nicky Butt )

Has to be Giggs.

In Europe he was always the player who looked like he could make a difference with a sharp turn. A player that was/is very difficulat to force deep, not only because on his day he has a superb touch and but because he is also a figher and great tackle. A truely great player



Scholes, even in his prime, only really ever made an impact when United were dominating. The type of midfileder who would join in the attack and overload the box arriving unmarked to fire home from after a defence had failed to clear a Beckham delivery. Ferguson eventually realised that against more tactically aware teams such overloading of the box would have to be curtailed.

Has to be Giggs he has given over 10 years of top quality performances for Man Utd over the years, and has always consistantly been one of most important players at the club. The 'Player of the Month' award was well deserved for him.

Cesc / Fletcher comparisions

Was Fletcher on the Real Madrid wish list this summer. No thought not.

giggs>>>beckham>>>scholes>>>neville

It is beckham. People can talk crap about him now, but them days nobody was better. Unlike franky lumpard he was actually unlucky to finish 2nd to rivaldo.

Bonus 20 goals from set pieces guaranteed with him. I look back at almost any big game, and he was involved in the big incidents. the f.a cup semi arsenal he scored the 1st. the cl final both his corners. juventus his corner keane header etc etc.
when he left man utd fell apart untill now imo.
Even his last game he scored the winner i think.

neville duno who voted for him but that is crazy.
giggs scholes beckham all very good no reason to pick one over the other unless you have an obsession with one.

Parks Lives wrote:Not a fan of Neville, I take it Saints?

Not really. He's a good player but has a serious attitude problem.


Beckham had an excellent season in 98/99, but so did Dwight Yorke and I didn't see his name on the World Player of the Year shortlist. Fact is, that prize is chosen by journalists. Beckham, being from London (as is LRD), was more media-friendly.

Scholes did not only affect games where Man U were dominating. That is just crap.

saintgoingmarching wrote:

Scholes did not only affect games where Man U were dominating. That is just crap.

He was a flat track bully - the vast majority of his goals would come in bursts against mediocre sides, or teams with awful defences like Newcastle.

Watch how many of his goals come from late runs into the box? These tactics are rarely effective at the highest level unless attackers are outnumbering defenders and dominating games against teams how dont have the ability to counter attack as was the rigour when Manu domainated in the 90's

Scholes is/was a lovely footballer with a soft sole, cushioned touch. Unfortunately, in central midfielde at the highest midfield, he lacks the pysical attributes and isnt quite skillful enough to make up for it endering him into a sideways passer who is scared to get forward in fear of leaving his side exposed.

His best position was at the head of the 3 under Hoddle for England in a 3:5:2 formation

I wouldn't agree with that. Scholes was a main feature of an incredible successful Man Utd squad that consistently had success both domestically and in Europe qualifying for at least the quarter finals up until the last couple of years.

Scholes doesn't lack physical attributes IMO, its not an integral part of his game, but he isn't a player that lacks pace or gets bullied off the ball so I can't see how it particularly matters

Tweedledum wrote:I wouldn't agree with that. Scholes was a main feature of an incredible successful Man Utd squad that consistently had success both domestically and in Europe qualifying for at least the quarter finals up until the last couple of years.

True - but I believe Keane, Giggs and Beckham were the vital cogs in the team midfield.

Tweedledum wrote:
Scholes doesn't lack physical attributes IMO, its not an integral part of his game, but he isn't a player that lacks pace or gets bullied off the ball so I can't see how it particularly matters

Id say he does. He doesnt win the ball enough for me high up the pitch - primarily because he lacks pace and agility. At the top level he does get bullied off the ball and keeps his passing and touches much simpler as a result.

I dont think Scholes has been on the decline the way others say he has over the last years - its simply that defences tighter and more organised and have tougherand quicker players.

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:

Scholes did not only affect games where Man U were dominating. That is just crap.

He was a flat track bully - the vast majority of his goals would come in bursts against mediocre sides, or teams with awful defences like Newcastle.

Patently untrue.

Watch how many of his goals come from late runs into the box?

See how many came from wonderfully long-range volleying and shooting?

These tactics are rarely effective at the highest level unless attackers are outnumbering defenders and dominating games against teams how dont have the ability to counter attack as was the rigour when Manu domainated in the 90's

On the contrary, players who can ghost into the box and score goals regularly are worth their weight in gold at ANY level of football.

Scholes is/was a lovely footballer with a soft sole, cushioned touch. Unfortunately, in central midfielde at the highest midfield, he lacks the pysical attributes and isnt quite skillful enough to make up for it endering him into a sideways passer who is scared to get forward in fear of leaving his side exposed.

Sideways passer my arse...

His best position was at the head of the 3 under Hoddle for England in a 3:5:2 formation

Remember the goal against Tunisia? That's the sort of thing Scholes has been doing for a decade...

saintgoingmarching wrote:



Patently untrue.

He ll still get his quota of goals against the West Broms of the League - there are simply more teams that know how to defend.

Its not just Scholes that suffers - look at the goalscoring charts in general.

saintgoingmarching wrote:

See how many came from wonderfully long-range volleying and shooting?

Very often when the ball would richochet out to him on the edge of the box with no one near him. I never said that Scholes couldnt strike a ball with no one near him - evidently he can.

[/quote]

saintgoingmarching wrote:

On the contrary, players who can ghost into the box and score goals regularly are worth their weight in gold at ANY level of football.

Well yeah - Goals are a pretty handy commodity in the game at any level.

Many of his goals didnt come from his 'ghosting in' but from him just being free to simply stand there agaimst tactically naive teams, who would try to outplay Manu with considerably less able players. He was forever the extra man. Scholes never had the nous of a David Platt in the box at the 'highest level' although he was much better all round footballer


[quote="saintgoingmarching"]

Sideways passer my arse...

Watch the game at home to Milan two seasons ago. Scholes played well in the first half but missed a gilt edged chance. Once they were behind he rarely featured and struggled to even control the football let alone muster a sideways pass in Milan's half. He was scared to receive possession for fear of failure and it was left to the redoubtable Keane to push them forward

[quote="saintgoingmarching"]


Remember the goal against Tunisia? That's the sort of thing Scholes has been doing for a decade...

Well yeah - provided you substitute Tunisia where appropriate eg West Brom , Bradford etc that could work

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:



Patently untrue.

saintgoingmarching wrote:

See how many came from wonderfully long-range volleying and shooting?

Very often when the ball would richochet out to him on the edge of the box with no one near him. I never said that Scholes couldnt strike a ball with no one near him - evidently he can.

saintgoingmarching wrote:

On the contrary, players who can ghost into the box and score goals regularly are worth their weight in gold at ANY level of football.

Well yeah - Goals are a pretty handy commodity in the game at any level.

Many of his goals didnt come from his 'ghosting in' but from him just being free to simply stand there agaimst tactically naive teams, who would try to outplay Manu with considerably less able players. He was forever the extra man. Scholes never had the nous of a David Platt in the box at the 'highest level' although he was much better all round footballer


[quote="saintgoingmarching"]

Sideways passer my arse...

Watch the game at home to Milan last season. Scholes played well in the first half but missed a gilt edged chance. Once they were behind he rarely featured and struggled to even control the football let alone muster a sideways pass in Milan's half. He was scared to receive possession for fear of failure and it was left to the redoubtable Keane to push them forward

saintgoingmarching wrote:


Remember the goal against Tunisia? That's the sort of thing Scholes has been doing for a decade...

Well yeah - provided you substitute Tunisia where appropriate eg West Brom , Bradford etc that could work

Im astonished, did you never watch United play in the '90s or early 00's? Scholes was one of the most highly respected midfielders in Europe, pretty much every top Italian team were after him in the 90s and he was considered WC by the European pundits.

SteveOoO wrote:

Im astonished, did you never watch United play in the '90s or early 00's? Scholes was one of the most highly respected midfielders in Europe, pretty much every top Italian team were after him in the 90s and he was considered WC by the European pundits.

I never said Scholes was rubbish - but Ive always believed him to be overrated. For united he was touted as Cantona's successor and for England Gazza's- I knew he would never be as good as either


Was it Henning Berg who said Scholes was as good as Zidane?


I laughed at the time and I still laugh now although many of the pundits you refer to would have agreed - although I appreciate im in the minority re Scholes

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:

Im astonished, did you never watch United play in the '90s or early 00's? Scholes was one of the most highly respected midfielders in Europe, pretty much every top Italian team were after him in the 90s and he was considered WC by the European pundits.

I never said Scholes was rubbish - but Ive always believed him to be overrated. For united he was touted as Cantona's successor and for England Gazza's- I knew he would never be as good as either


Was it Henning Berg who said Scholes was as good as Zidane?


I laughed at the time and I still laugh now although many of the pundits you refer to would have agreed - although I appreciate im in the minority re Scholes

The things you said about Scholes are not even slightly true though, you blatantly haven't watched many games with him in.

SteveOoO wrote:

The things you said about Scholes are not even slightly true though, you blatantly haven't watched many games with him in.

yeah - blatantly.



Notice I have my own opinion, something that can only be gleaned from watching games as opposed to simply listening to these pundits you would appear to bow down to.

Besides I think Scholes is a very good player...

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:

The things you said about Scholes are not even slightly true though, you blatantly haven't watched many games with him in.

yeah - blatantly.



Notice I have my own opinion, something that can only be gleaned from watching games as opposed to simply listening to these pundits you would appear to bow down to.

Besides I think Scholes is a very good player...

I mentioned European ones, to show that his technical side is widely appreciated, and your talking utter nonsense. How can anyone criticise Scholes' passing at his best? That's madness.

SteveOoO wrote:

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:

The things you said about Scholes are not even slightly true though, you blatantly haven't watched many games with him in.

yeah - blatantly.




Notice I have my own opinion, something that can only be gleaned from watching games as opposed to simply listening to these pundits you would appear to bow down to.

Besides I think Scholes is a very good player...

I mentioned European ones, to show that his technical side is widely appreciated, and your talking utter nonsense. How can anyone criticise Scholes' passing at his best? That's madness.

Which pundits? And why would they be amore insghtful in relation to Scholes level of performnace than your average Hansen or Lawro?


Is his passing at a lower level now? He is still a very good passer


Are you referring to my comments relating to the game two seasons ago against Milan? Watch it and try to say otherwise.


My problem with Scholes is that he hasnt got a good enough all round game for a top level role esp in a 442 i.e his passing is good but not on the level of a Pirlo. His tackling, which is underrated IMO, is still not something you would pick him for.

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:

The things you said about Scholes are not even slightly true though, you blatantly haven't watched many games with him in.

yeah - blatantly.




Notice I have my own opinion, something that can only be gleaned from watching games as opposed to simply listening to these pundits you would appear to bow down to.

Besides I think Scholes is a very good player...

I mentioned European ones, to show that his technical side is widely appreciated, and your talking utter nonsense. How can anyone criticise Scholes' passing at his best? That's madness.

Which pundits? And why would they be amore insghtful in relation to Scholes level of performnace than your average Hansen or Lawro?


Is his passing at a lower level now? He is still a very good passer


Are you referring to my comments relating to the game two seasons ago against Milan? Watch it and try to say otherwise.


My problem with Scholes is that he hasnt got a good enough all round game for a top level role esp in a 442 i.e his passing is good but not on the level of a Pirlo. His tackling, which is underrated IMO, is still not something you would pick him for.

Scholes' tackling is not underated, he is a poor tackler technically, he just gives it everything and it sometimes works. He has missed a lot of games due to accumulated yellows for his tackling.

SteveOoO wrote:

Scholes' tackling is not underated, he is a poor tackler technically, he just gives it everything and it sometimes works. He has missed a lot of games due to accumulated yellows for his tackling.

People forever describe him as a poor tackler - Id say he is average but not poor. Therefore Id say its underrated although clearly its a subject concept.


Which pundits?

Dogma of a quiet past wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:

Scholes' tackling is not underated, he is a poor tackler technically, he just gives it everything and it sometimes works. He has missed a lot of games due to accumulated yellows for his tackling.

People forever describe him as a poor tackler - Id say he is average but not poor. Therefore Id say its underrated although clearly its a subject concept.


Which pundits?

Yeah sorry, I forgot my pen and paper at the time...

You are clutching at straws here.