Fabian Delph - Signed for Manchester City

[Monty]

He was played in an obsolete system which stodged up the whole team, Beckham and Lampard as much as anyone else. Gerrard might have run around a lot but he always gave the ball away. Xavi was was right when he said that if Scholes were Spanish he'd have been much more celebrated. Modern midfielders aren't Roy of the Rovers (shoot! tackle! run around!), they're Pirlo - they get themselves in the right positions in attack and defence, don't give the ball away and play from there.

Oh, and as for scoring enough goals from midfield, Scholes was well capable of that. The best pure striker of a football I've ever seen.

[Villa in Denmark]

And there in a nutshell is why England are light years behind at international level.

Even now we're for the most part stuck dogmatically with 442, for as far as I can see no better reason than it worked for Ramsey 48 years ago.

At the time we were pissing about with Scholes on the left of a 442, he was playing just of either a front one or front two for his club and looking like one of the best link-men / midfielders in Europe and being a constant goal threat himself.

Re his retirement from international football, I think it was intimated that Fergie had told him that if he wanted a new big fat contract he'd needed to stop playing for England. After years of banging his head up against a wall, could you really blame him if that was the case?

For years, if we could have looked beyond 442, and possibly even today, you could if you really wanted to, find a formation that could accommodate Lampard and Gerard without completely buggering the rest of the team up.  If you were to use both 4-2-3-1 would probably work best, with Gerard one of the two to limit the amount of running he'd have to do.

As for Delph, he could make either a central or wide left position in 4-3-3- or 4-2-3-1 his own.  Great that we're finally getting to see what all the fuss was about 5 years ago.
Hard to believe that he's only just turned 24.  Hopefully we'll see him at his best over the next 6-7 years when he's at his peak.

Well, up to a point.

4-4-2 suited the players available at the time. It's easy to forget that Lampard and Gerrard were two of the best midfielders around at the time. To accommodate all 3 we would have risked exposing one flank because Beckham was a shoo-in on the right. Whatever we might think now he was justified in being in the team. Scholes was a good player but his tackling wasn't up to it and Gerrard and Lampard did show more. With all 4 in then you'd need a 5th player on the left for balance. Again, at the time Owen fed a lot off Heskey so they were the reason for playing two up front. Unless it went 3-5-2 then 4-4-2 was the only possible formation with the players available. 3-5-2 was worked out after it became vogue at Italia 90 and few years after that. 4-4-2 with one of the 3 being asked to fill in on the lank was the only reasonable formation for me.

Personally I think 4-4-2 was the cop out to avoid having to make a decision over who to cut. 

We (especially the media) are too easily wrapped up in who we think the best 11 players are, and not necessarily who makes the best team, or which 11 can best carry out the managers instructions.  The two don't have to be mutually exclusive but they often are.  (I recall one of the oft repeated reasons for Heskey's repeated inclusion later on in his career,was that he could be relied upon to carry out instructions, not because he was viewed as an extraordinarily good striker)

On the basis that most games are won and lost in midfield, and traditionally England can usually find a somewhat competent back 4, it strikes me as almost criminal that we never really looked further than 4-4-2 and shoehorning players into systems that they weren't even really using at club level, when we had  four of the best of the midfielders we've seen in the last 20 -30 years all playing at the same time, based on the criteria of reasonable technique and vision. and  all of whom carried a significant goal threat, but because of the formation we could never get the best out of them.

This is best evidenced by the repeated debates after each tournament fiasco about midfield being overrun and no-one knowing if it was Gerard or Lampard  who were meant to be "bombing on".

I can't help thinking that if they'd come along 10-15 years earlier, before the whole Celeb / WAG culture became even more all pervasive than it was at the start of the 90's, maybe the coaches at the time would have had a little more time to find the right balance.

[Clark W Griswold]

I wouldn't rank on acheivement, on that basis Alan Shearer would be a no mark and we all know how good he was. Application would be more of a benchmark, whilst Viera and Keane weren't as good footballing wise as those ive listed they were possibly more effective than any of them when at their best. The best footballer of the lot is Beckham though for me. It is true though that other players will notice more than us fans. I think where Scholes was great was movement, link up play and goals from midfield, a very 'clever' player. Gerrard does so much allround though, as does Lampard but not quite a well for me.
How would Platt and Gazza fit into that list? For me, Gazza was better than any of them, but didn't have the application due to unprofessionalism. Therefore in real terms he wasn't as good as any of them. And whilst Platt was inferior technically to Scholes, you couldn't knock his application. His goalscoring record was phenominal from midfield and given the choice between Scholes at his best for Man Utd or Platt at his best for us and England, i would go with Platt. Slightly anyway.

[pauliewalnuts]

He was played in an obsolete system which stodged up the whole team, Beckham and Lampard as much as anyone else. Gerrard might have run around a lot but he always gave the ball away. Xavi was was right when he said that if Scholes were Spanish he'd have been much more celebrated. Modern midfielders aren't Roy of the Rovers (shoot! tackle! run around!), they're Pirlo - they get themselves in the right positions in attack and defence, don't give the ball away and play from there.

Oh, and as for scoring enough goals from midfield, Scholes was well capable of that. The best pure striker of a football I've ever seen.

I remember he scored an absolute belter against us at VP in the MON era, at the North Stand end, edge of area, clattered in off the bar.

I was sat in the Witton that game, and remember the extremely loud thud off the crossbar.

[danno]

He was played in an obsolete system which stodged up the whole team, Beckham and Lampard as much as anyone else. Gerrard might have run around a lot but he always gave the ball away. Xavi was was right when he said that if Scholes were Spanish he'd have been much more celebrated. Modern midfielders aren't Roy of the Rovers (shoot! tackle! run around!), they're Pirlo - they get themselves in the right positions in attack and defence, don't give the ball away and play from there.

Oh, and as for scoring enough goals from midfield, Scholes was well capable of that. The best pure striker of a football I've ever seen.

I remember he scored an absolute belter against us at VP in the MON era, at the North Stand end, edge of area, clattered in off the bar.

I was sat in the Witton that game, and remember the extremely loud thud off the crossbar.

I'll give the Cattermole comparison some credence when he can do that and be lousy at tackling.

[supertom]

For me Scholes was the most talented English footballer post Gascoigne. I include Rooney in that. Scholes could have slotted in quite comfortably in most of the best sides in the world and look well worth his place. Xavi and Iniesta can't tackle either. Granted they don't go breaking legs, but in terms of what he could do with a football, Scholes was top class. Utd really miss him too.

[Somniloquism]

Wasn't there another one from a corner where they deliberately played it out to him in a similar area.  I thought that was against us but might be mistaken.

[supertom]

Wasn't there another one from a corner where they deliberately played it out to him in a similar area.  I thought that was against us but might be mistaken.

He scored a couple like that IIRC. Then teams worked out what was going to happen.
Scholes probably has one hell of a youtube compilation out there. Most of his goals were brilliant and his eye for a pass was exceptional.

[Toronto Villa]

He was played in an obsolete system which stodged up the whole team, Beckham and Lampard as much as anyone else. Gerrard might have run around a lot but he always gave the ball away. Xavi was was right when he said that if Scholes were Spanish he'd have been much more celebrated. Modern midfielders aren't Roy of the Rovers (shoot! tackle! run around!), they're Pirlo - they get themselves in the right positions in attack and defence, don't give the ball away and play from there.

Oh, and as for scoring enough goals from midfield, Scholes was well capable of that. The best pure striker of a football I've ever seen.

I remember he scored an absolute belter against us at VP in the MON era, at the North Stand end, edge of area, clattered in off the bar.

I was sat in the Witton that game, and remember the extremely loud thud off the crossbar.

Maybe Kiraly would have got closer to it if he wasn't in his pyjamas.

[Dante Lavelli]

That was the game where I realised how good he was.  He was always labelled as a player who played off the striker (and maybe he was when younger) but in that match he rarely left the centre circle and was often the deepest of all man u's midfield.  He orchestrated the whole match with Pirlo-esque passing.

[ozzjim]

Wasn't there another one from a corner where they deliberately played it out to him in a similar area.  I thought that was against us but might be mistaken.

He scored a couple like that IIRC. Then teams worked out what was going to happen.
Scholes probably has one hell of a youtube compilation out there. Most of his goals were brilliant and his eye for a pass was exceptional.

Bradford away I am sure. But there were a few. He was a bloody incredible player when you look back at the effect he had on that team. I never appreciated how good he was when I was younger I admit, but I think you appreciate what players can do the more you watch football and the more you understand roles and how teams work.

[OCD]

Bradford away was the main one but I think they did repeat it a few times, as did Sheringham.

[Ger Regan]

Anyone who doesn't rate Paul Scholes doesn't understand football (or lets their united hatred overtake them). A genuine world class talent.

[MoetVillan]

I understand football quite well thanks.  For a man that tackled consistently as well as I, can only ever be rated as good not great regardless of his other attributes

[SheffieldVillain]

I understand football quite well thanks.  For a man that tackled consistently as well as I, can only ever be rated as good not great regardless of his other attributes

Maradona, Pele, Messi. None renowned for their tackling. Good not great?