Xavi vs Scholes

Grande_Milano wrote:Xavi>Pirlo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scholes

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury(under Wenger) and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

Arquitecto wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

I'll save my opinions for later.

But you know my views on why I feel Xavi's performance against Germany is better.

One of the greatest midfield performances in the history of the beautiful game.

It cemented my idolization for the maestro.

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

jibers wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

The Arsenal performance was indeed amazing but surely Xavi's role is made hell of a lot easier by the fact that his team is based on possession. I'm not takijng anything away from him as he is the best in the world at what he does but I think if you had put scholes in that team and asked him to do the same he would have been able to. That first 30 minutes in the emirates is the most dominant performance I have evr seen in my life.

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

The Arsenal performance was indeed amazing but surely Xavi's role is made hell of a lot easier by the fact that his team is based on possession. I'm not takijng anything away from him as he is the best in the world at what he does but I think if you had put scholes in that team and asked him to do the same he would have been able to. That first 30 minutes in the emirates is the most dominant performance I have evr seen in my life.

But then Barca's play is based on possession and Xavi was brought up on that philosohpy.Just like United had a different philosophy.
So is it fair to criticize Xavi for not scoring as many goals as Scholes.Cause he was just not brought up on it.Just like Scholes was not brought up on possession football.
They are/were both elite footballers who will go down as all time greats.And each had something the other didnt.Lets leave it at that.

jibers wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

jibers wrote:I will put out my points and relay them, here goes.

They were/are both the playmakers for their respective teams. Xavi is the controlling MF paymaker so he never has to be incisive and Barcelona play through the middle so he gets to see most of the ball and distribute the ball. He is not an incisive playmaker like say Ozil (he was in 08/09, but that is a different story). Barcelona has shown that it can function without Xavi, albeit without as much fluidity but Guardiola has put a system there in place. The incisive playmaker in Barcelona is Messi as he is further up the pitch and is theit most direct player.

Scholes at the apex of his career opearated at a more advanced role beside keane and with united playing through the wings and less centrally, Scholes was both uniteds incisive and controlling playmaker. United are a counter attacking team and so Scholes and Xavis roles were completely different. Again, Scholes bad tackling could be highlighted but is Xaviss any better? Scholes tackles he was mostly caught out because of how united play and we never had suffivient cover at the back. Xavi had the lowest tackling rate in the whole of europe last year. That gives you some idea. In the final third, there is no competiton, xavi also has more time on the ball than scholes ever did. As an attacking threat, no comparison really. Scholes is as good at passing, he had better long range passing, he was a more attcking threat but Xavi is more patient which for me is one of the most important aspects of being a CM, but that is a result of the teams they play for more than anything else.

For me Scholes will always be the best CM in the last decade. The man is undderated because he is english. had he been called, carlos quinteros, he would be called the most gifted player of his time. Also with Barcelonas success, the trend of big powerful cms are dying out at the highest level, so Xavi is now seen as the benchmark. There is a reason why all of scholes peers thought he was the best. I'm sorry barca fans, Scholes for me will always be superioir. Scholes can do everythiong Xavi can, xavi can't do everything scholes can.

All I will say is Xavi at the Emirates.
No one player has gone to Emirates or Highbury and completely played Arsenal off the park like Xavi did in the 09-10 season.
Scholes has never done that.Scholes simply cant do everything Xavi can.If so wheres the proof.
Name the big European games that Scholes has completely and utterly dominated the midfield and set the tempo in.
They both did things the other cant.
Xavi was never the goalscorer Scholes was and though you may believe so Scholes was never ever the midfield orchestrator Xavi is.

The Arsenal performance was indeed amazing but surely Xavi's role is made hell of a lot easier by the fact that his team is based on possession. I'm not takijng anything away from him as he is the best in the world at what he does but I think if you had put scholes in that team and asked him to do the same he would have been able to. That first 30 minutes in the emirates is the most dominant performance I have evr seen in my life.

But then Barca's play is based on possession and Xavi was brought up on that philosohpy.Just like United had a different philosophy.
So is it fair to criticize Xavi for not scoring as many goals as Scholes.Cause he was just not brought up on it.Just like Scholes was not brought up on possession football.
They are/were both elite footballers who will go down as all time greats.And each had something the other didnt.Lets leave it at that.

Yea good points. They are completely differnt players, in fact I think scholes is somwhere in between xavi and iniesta, but you have to admit it's easier to control the tempo for barca than it would be for a team like let's say, spurs where the cms barely see the ball. That's my point (and you're point I guess).

cyberman wrote:Scholes had 2 careers as an AM and deep lying midfielder and was WC at both. 2 years ago away v City was his best performance for us. exceptional alround play.
Scholes is better because he sprays the ball more, he could play to his full capacity if he played for Madri or Chelsea. Xavi pre 08 never quite did.
Opta stats say last year, 1 pass in 5 was a pass forward.. Thats a bit too much, even conservative