[Archived] Are some Rovers players omitted from the greatest Premier league teams of all time?

[blueboy3333]

1 hour ago, donnermeat said:

When Zizou calls you the best midfielder of your generation, then for me you are a great player.

Zizou Schmizou.  I'll wait for Tim Sherwood's opinion.

[skous18]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

Scholes was great to watch, but not a true 'great' and certainly not ahead of Gerrard or Lampard.

I think he suffers from being so vastly overrated now because of how criminally underrated he was in his playing days.

This twitter thread explains my thoughts nicely (and adds a few bits), btw you can all read it, twitter not needed:

http://www.givemesport.com/1092549-chelsea-fan-produces-amazing-rant-on-twitter-about-paul-scholes

Here is a little intresting interview with Carragher and Neville, both tryin to explain their point about who they think the best player of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard is

id go with Neville about that one

 

[blueboy3333]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

Scholes was great to watch, but not a true 'great' and certainly not ahead of Gerrard or Lampard.

I think he suffers from being so vastly overrated now because of how criminally underrated he was in his playing days.

This twitter thread explains my thoughts nicely (and adds a few bits), btw you can all read it, twitter not needed:

http://www.givemesport.com/1092549-chelsea-fan-produces-amazing-rant-on-twitter-about-paul-scholes

I nearly stopped reading at the point he says it 'embarrassing' to see Scholes put on 'the same level' as Lampard. I did stop reading at 'Scholes was never one of United's most important players'

Chelsea fans. Scum, subhuman scum...and arbiters of quality since never.

[arbitro]

13 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

I nearly stopped reading at the point he says it 'embarrassing' to see Scholes put on 'the same level' as Lampard. I did stop reading at 'Scholes was never one of United's most important players'

Chelsea fans. Scum, subhuman scum...and arbiters of quality since never.

I would rather have watched Scholes play than any of the other two. I witnessed Scholes give what I consider the best performance by a visiting player in my time going to Ewood. It was a League Cup semi-final second leg and I think we got a draw in the Theatre of Dreamers so hope were high ahead of the game. Scholes was imperious and despite my intense dislike of the Rags I had to hold my hands up and admit he was the difference. Simply outstanding.

[oldjamfan1]

5 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I would rather have watched Scholes play than any of the other two. I witnessed Scholes give what I consider the best performance by a visiting player in my time going to Ewood. It was a League Cup semi-final second leg and I think we got a draw in the Theatre of Dreamers so hope were high ahead of the game. Scholes was imperious and despite my intense dislike of the Rags I had to hold my hands up and admit he was the difference. Simply outstanding.

I saw him do similar to Scotland at Hampden Park in 1999 Tony - different class.

[arbitro]

Just now, oldjamfan1 said:

I saw him do similar to Scotland at Hampden Park in 1999 Tony - different class.

He wasn't unlike Messi in many respects Andy. He used to glide past opponents with such balance and the ball seemingly tied to his feet. Now if only he could have tackled....................

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

He wasn't unlike Messi in many respects Andy. He used to glide past opponents with such balance and the ball seemingly tied to his feet. Now if only he could have tackled....................

He had Roy Keane beside him to do that  

[roverandout]

7 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

 

When he was at his peak Cole was as good a left back as I've seen play for England. Up there with Ray Wilson. Terry Cooper and  Kenny Sansom were also top class.

Best left back in the world in his prime

[roverandout]

21 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

To be honest it's hard to argue with that lineup. Also telling that Scholes is in there, and the two players who kept him out of the England team and ultimately led to his retirement - Gerrard and Lampard - are not.

Defense is not that great - none of those names except for maybe Cole was truly world class - but there isn't really many better names I can think of.

Ferdinand was definately world class. Up there as one of the best

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, roverandout said:

Ferdinand was definately world class. Up there as one of the best

Not so good center midfield though as he found out when up against Robbie Savage  

[roverandout]

When i look back at our '04, '06 team it makes me weep we didnt do better. Campbell. Terry, ferdinand, cole, neville, king, lampard, gerrard, scholes, beckham, owen and rooney. Such a waste of talent.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, roverandout said:

When i look back at our '04, '06 team it makes me weep we didnt do better. Campbell. Terry, ferdinand, cole, neville, king, lampard, gerrard, scholes, beckham, owen and rooney. Such a waste of talent.

No left midfielder though. If only Duff or Giggs were English, you would have had one hell of a team,  

[roverandout]

1 minute ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

No left midfielder though. If only Duff or Giggs were English, you would have had one hell of a team,  

We had trevor sinclair, who was better ?

[Bigdoggsteel]

17 minutes ago, roverandout said:

We had trevor sinclair, who was better ?

He probably scored 1 better goal than those two have in their careers, but that is about it! 

[joey_big_nose]

1 hour ago, roverandout said:

When i look back at our '04, '06 team it makes me weep we didnt do better. Campbell. Terry, ferdinand, cole, neville, king, lampard, gerrard, scholes, beckham, owen and rooney. Such a waste of talent.

I don't think the balance was there really. We had a lot of good players, but no real wingers and no real defensive midfielders.

Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes and Rooney all wanted to play in the same number 10 area of the pitch. We always looked narrow, congested and unimaginative with the ball. We could really have done with our best players being of a more varied type. Being forced to play the likes of Sinclair and Heskey on the wing tells you everything you need to know in terms of our options.

Scholes playing deeper in midfield would have helped, but he didn't start doing that till later in his career, and it would have meant leaving one of Lampard, Beckham or Gerrard out, or playing them on the wing.

All a bit annoying really.

[Stuart]

8 hours ago, Mike E said:

Scholes was great to watch, but not a true 'great' and certainly not ahead of Gerrard or Lampard.

I think he suffers from being so vastly overrated now because of how criminally underrated he was in his playing days.

This twitter thread explains my thoughts nicely (and adds a few bits), btw you can all read it, twitter not needed:

http://www.givemesport.com/1092549-chelsea-fan-produces-amazing-rant-on-twitter-about-paul-scholes

Utterly ridiculous post from, presumably, a millennial. Almost every post can be used against itself.

Scholes was a PL player for one of the top clubs for 20 years.

He wasn't 'forced out' anywhere, such was his importance, a place had to be found for him in the team. More limited players such as Gerard and moreso Lampard could only play in one position. (Both of whom should have been each other's substitutes for England and not played together).

No istambul-esque performances? WTF? Gerard has been dining out on the back of that freak match for half of his career. How many times did Scholes slip and cost his team the title would be an equally unfair comparison. "Lampard had Bolton" - hahahahah.

When he retired from international football, the manager tried to talk him out of it!

That Alan Shearer was a bit of a mug as well, wasn't he?  

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

5 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Scholes was a footballer's footballer. Sir Alex Ferguson realised what he was missing when he retired the first time - and talked him into pulling his boots on again. That sort of move is virtually unprecedented at that level, I would think. That suggests he was irreplaceable! And as much as I despise the club he played for, I would have had him in the England team in central midfield before Gerrard and Lampard every time. That isn't to say they weren't a couple of great players as well.

The timing of his tackling let him down on occasions but that's about the only slight flaw he had in his game. 

Don't fall for that " His timing was poor regarding tackling ". He knew exactly what he was doing in the tackle. He was a spiteful player in the tackle.

[Mike E]

Don't get me wrong, Scholes was second only to Tugay in the best passer of a ball I've seen and generally a brilliant player (criminally underrated). I don't by the 'shoved out wide' stuff but he was left aside in favour of Gerrard and Lampard for so many accolades that it cannot be a coincidence.

[Stuart]

29 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Don't get me wrong, Scholes was second only to Tugay in the best passer of a ball I've seen and generally a brilliant player (criminally underrated). I don't by the 'shoved out wide' stuff but he was left aside in favour of Gerrard and Lampard for so many accolades that it cannot be a coincidence.

It's not a coincidence. It's the football marketing people. Certain players needed to be in the England team in that era to appease sponsors and 'partners'. Probably still goes on. Scholes was not marketable, Lampard and Gerard certainly where. Not on the Beckham scale but certainly more than a ginger haired lad from Salford. If only he'd been around in the Ed Sheeran / Rupert Grint era.

England won't win anything until we stop picking players for commercial reasons over footballing ones.

[Mike E]

2 minutes ago, Stuart said:

It's not a coincidence. It's the football marketing people. Certain players needed to be in the England team in that era to appease sponsors and 'partners'. Probably still goes on. Scholes was not marketable, Lampard and Gerard certainly where. Not on the Beckham scale but certainly more than a ginger haired lad from Salford. If only he'd been around in the Ed Sheeran / Rupert Grint era.

England won't win anything until we stop picking players for commercial reasons over footballing ones.

This I definitely agree with and I suspect would've been the Big Sam approach to the England team.

[Oldgregg86]

It's like tryna say which Ferrari is better the black one, the red one or the green. They were all sublime players. I preferred Gerrard to the others but would never say one was better than the other 

[J*B]

35 minutes ago, Oldgregg86 said:

It's like tryna say which Ferrari is better the black one, the red one or the green. They were all sublime players. I preferred Gerrard to the others but would never say one was better than the other 

The red Ferrari is always the best Ferrari. 

[elwaxo]

Friedel, probably not as the #1, but in the conversation.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

8 hours ago, elwaxo said:

Friedel, probably not as the #1, but in the conversation.

Schmiecel would have to be No1 but Brad was the second best goalie I've seen in the Prem.

[Admiral Nelsen]

On 08/09/2017 at 17:51, Stuart said:

Utterly ridiculous post from, presumably, a millennial. Almost every post can be used against itself.

Scholes was a PL player for one of the top clubs for 20 years.

He wasn't 'forced out' anywhere, such was his importance, a place had to be found for him in the team. More limited players such as Gerard and moreso Lampard could only play in one position. (Both of whom should have been each other's substitutes for England and not played together).

No istambul-esque performances? WTF? Gerard has been dining out on the back of that freak match for half of his career. How many times did Scholes slip and cost his team the title would be an equally unfair comparison. "Lampard had Bolton" - hahahahah.

When he retired from international football, the manager tried to talk him out of it!

That Alan Shearer was a bit of a mug as well, wasn't he?  

 

100% agree, but to be fair to the guy who posted it, I think he argued the point as well as possible. The big flaw in his argument is that what he's actually showing is that we, as fans, players, journalists and even some coaches, value the wrong sorts of things in players. The fact we couldn't appreciate his quality says a lot more about us than it does Scholes.

Two points I'd add. There was a time (10 years or more) when it was assumed Man U would never be outplayed, just occasionally 'ran out of time'. Parody, maybe, but it's nevertheless true that despite playing a straightforward 442 with out and out wingers and Keane/Butt as his partner, United bossed possession and played attacking football without having to adapt their style at all, only really changing when they were beat in Europe by Barcelona (who, incidentally, do value the right sort of things in players!). Without doubt, Scholes was the biggest single factor in them being able to do that, and Lampard/Gerrard's better highlight reel at the end of the season doesn't alter the fact that Scholes was more influential in his team dominating English football for a decade. 

Other point about us as fans. Andy Todd has been Rovers player of the year twice. Tugay hasn't won it once. Toddy was a very useful player for us, but there is no comparison at all with the influence that Tugay had on our team and club in that period, and that even was at a time when you didn't need to convince Rovers fans of his quality. 

Basically, he did a very decent job of getting his facts lined up, but you can only really go with Gerrard/Lampard above him if you have a 'Match of the Day' level of analysis of his game. Sadly, that's how we used to pick the England team.