Deep playmaker Scholes vs Box-to-box Scholes vs trequi, trequarae, oh I can't spell it... Scholes. feat. Danny Welbeck

I know what you're thinking.

"Scholes doesn't have the energy to play in the hole."

"Scholes doesn't have the pace to play in the hole."

"Scholes is our best midfielder, why would you take him out of there?"

"Rooney and Kagawa are better in that position."

"Scholes can't dribble."

In this post I'll answer all of these questions and prove why playing Paul Scholes back in his original position would be a masterstroke from Ferguson.

First off, this is the system that I'm suggesting:

De Gea
Rafael-Ferdinand-Vidic-Evra
Carrick-Anderson
Valencia-Scholes-Young
Welbeck

1. "Scholes doesn't have the energy to play in the hole."

This is a misconception that comes from Scholes not being able to get in the box as much as he used to in a central midfield position. Scholes used to be a box to box midfielder, primarily, and when he stopped scoring lots of goals and stopped being involved in the creation of every chance we made, we just accepted it, really. We had Wayne Rooney to do that now. However, Rooney has never lived up to the potential that we saw in him, he's more of a goalscorer now than a creative player, and playing through Rooney in the hole last season, we weren't that creative side that we were when everything was going through Scholes.

Playing in the hole requires less energy than playing in central midfield, like he does now. When you don't have the ball, you don't have to do much in that position. Certainly not when you're surrounded by Young, Welbeck, Carrick and Anderson, who all do lots of defensive work. So it's fair to say that Scholes could rest more often playing ahead of the midfield as opposed to playing in it. Furthermore, he wouldn't have to move very far, such is the intelligence of his movement and the energy of the players surrounding him. The quality of his passing also makes a difference. Because we would be playing with three central midfielders, we'd be much better at keeping possession, so as a team, we would have to do less chasing after the ball. He also has a wide range of passing, so he wouldn't have to move towards the wingers in order to link up with them.

So there, his lack of energy is not an issue.

2. "Scholes doesn't have the pace to play in the hole."

Again, the intelligence of Scholes' movement, and the sharpness with which he passes and moves makes up for the lack of pace. He's always been a great goalscorer and he wouldn't have to sprint into the box to get on the end of things. All it takes is one subtle bit of movement, one drop of the shoulder to get on the end of a cross. And he wouldn't have to move from one side of the pitch to the other all the time because the range of his passing is so good.

3. "Scholes is our best midfielder, why would you take him out of there?"

He can't defend. Next.

4. "Rooney and Kagawa are better in that position."

Kagawa's short pass accuracy - 84%
Rooney's short pass accuracy - 82%
Welbeck's short pass accuracy - 87%
Scholes' short pass accuracy - 94%

Kagawa's long pass accuracy - 81%
Rooney's long pass accuracy - 79%
Welbeck's long pass accuracy - 84%
Scholes' long pass accuracy - 88%

Kagawa's dribble success - 44%
Rooney's dribble success - 36%
Welbeck's dribble success - 29%
Scholes' dribble success - 35%

Kagawa's shot accuracy - 45%
Rooney's shot accuracy - 43%
Welbeck's shot accuracy - 44%
Scholes' shot accuracy - 25% (most of them were long shots though)

Kagawa's through ball accuracy - 58%
Rooney's through ball accuracy - 20%
Welbeck's through ball accuracy - 100% (didn't do many, but shows intelligence to know when to risk it)
Scholes' through ball accuracy - 50%

Welbeck's defensive action success - 67%
Rooney's defensive action success - 48%
Kagawa's defensive action success - 43%
Scholes' defensive action success - 66%

Obviously Scholes played deeper last season so you have to take the stats with a pinch of salt, but anyone who's seen all three play knows that Scholes has move intelligent movement, is a more accurate passer and can shoot and head the ball better than either of them.

Even if you don't trust stats, it's a no brainer really that the accuracy, passing range and sharpness of Scholes' one and two touch play is possibly unsurpassed in the history of football, and that he's incredibly creative when he plays higher up the pitch.

5. "Scholes can't dribble."

As above, the accuracy, passing range and sharpness of his one and two touch play more than makes up for his poor dribbling ability. At least he's intelligent enough to know not to attempt to dribble, unlike Rooney and Kagawa, who while better at it, still lose possession more often than not when they do go for a dribble, and for some reason they keep attempting it when they know they'd be better off playing a simple pass.

So that's it.

So where do you think he is, or was, best?

I think Scholes play in the PL and in that league, the slow patient and cerebal game of Scholes isnt best suited to in between the lines.

Perhaps in Italy, or perhaps 20 years ago, but right now, nearly every player that players in between the lines needs the explosiveness to turn, face his opponants and drive at them.

Scholes in between the lines will have to turn and then play a killer pass, the defence are going to be waiting for it and they will simply leave him time and space, forcing him into running forward with the ball. Something he isnt as comfortable with.

You need explosion to play that position nowadays.

The Franchise wrote:the slow patient and cerebal game of Scholes

Yeah you need to watch more of Scholes... he's got the fastest brain in football. Do it now, go on youtube or something. Compare him with Pirlo who is slow, then compare him with Xavi and Iniesta who are something in between. See how fast Scholes is, understand that he'd be better further forward for this reason, come back and agree with me.

MindGames7 wrote:

The Franchise wrote:the slow patient and cerebal game of Scholes

Yeah you need to watch more of Scholes... he's got the fastest brain in football. Do it now, go on youtube or something. Compare him with Pirlo who is slow, then compare him with Xavi and Iniesta who are something in between. See how fast Scholes is, understand that he'd be better further forward for this reason, come back and agree with me.

Some friendly advise. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, the "you need to watch more" is a poor remark. Also, your attitude is not condusive to good debates, be more open minded to others opinion. You dont need to agree, but forcing your opinion down someones through wont get it done. For the record, I watch Scholes plenty and have done for his entire career.

On topic.

First, he doesnt have the fastest brain in football. But more importantly, thats not what im talking about. When I saw slow and cerebal I am talking more about his choice of action. He is a pateint player who rarely forced what isnt there...playing in between the lines, you generally force the issue and look to make something out of nothing. That isnt the kind of player Schole is.

The Franchise wrote:Some friendly advise. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, the "you need to watch more" is a poor remark. Also, your attitude is not condusive to good debates, be more open minded to others opinion. You dont need to agree, but forcing your opinion down someones through wont get it done. For the record, I watch Scholes plenty and have done for his entire career.

On topic.

First, he doesnt have the fastest brain in football. But more importantly, thats not what im talking about. When I saw slow and cerebal I am talking more about his choice of action. He is a pateint player who rarely forced what isnt there...playing in between the lines, you generally force the issue and look to make something out of nothing. That isnt the kind of player Schole is.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I just wanted to emphasise just how good Paul Scholes is. He does have the quickest brain in football. Did you watch him like I asked?

Yes, as a deep lying playmaker, he often has a huge amount of space (because he's so good at finding it) and he can turn and play one of his super-passes, but if you watch him when he gets further forward, he is so quick and accurate it's like he's from another planet.

Please, please watch a few videos and just watch the sharpness and intelligence of his movement, and the accuracy and speed of his passing. Some of them just show his long rangers so look for one when he's in tighter spaces.

If you read quotes from people like Zidane, Xavi, Ronaldo and so many others, the two things they always say about him is "you can't get near him, he's too quick" and "his one and two touch passing is unsurpased" They couldn't say it better.

MindGames7 wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Some friendly advise. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, the "you need to watch more" is a poor remark. Also, your attitude is not condusive to good debates, be more open minded to others opinion. You dont need to agree, but forcing your opinion down someones through wont get it done. For the record, I watch Scholes plenty and have done for his entire career.

On topic.

First, he doesnt have the fastest brain in football. But more importantly, thats not what im talking about. When I saw slow and cerebal I am talking more about his choice of action. He is a pateint player who rarely forced what isnt there...playing in between the lines, you generally force the issue and look to make something out of nothing. That isnt the kind of player Schole is.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I just wanted to emphasise just how good Paul Scholes is. He does have the quickest brain in football. Did you watch him like I asked?

Yes, as a deep lying playmaker, he often has a huge amount of space (because he's so good at finding it) and he can turn and play one of his super-passes, but if you watch him when he gets further forward, he is so quick and accurate it's like he's from another planet.

Please, please watch a few videos and just watch the sharpness and intelligence of his movement, and the accuracy and speed of his passing. Some of them just show his long rangers so look for one when he's in tighter spaces.

If you read quotes from people like Zidane, Xavi, Ronaldo and so many others, the two things they always say about him is "you can't get near him, he's too quick" and "his one and two touch passing is unsurpased" They couldn't say it better.

No I have not watch any youtube videos, and I have no reason too seeing as at my age I am more than old enough to have seen Scholes from the moment he started at Man Utd and most likely I will be around to see his end too.

I dont need to see youtube videos on what I have already seen for long enough.

Yes, he can play a quick pass, nobody is doubting that. However, as I already said, you need more than that to play in between the lines. Nobody is disputing his ability pass, I certaintly am not.

However, can you name me 3 great, or even good number 10's/attacking midfielders/Trequartista in todays game who are not able to turn, run and attack the defence with directness, speed and dribbling?

Francesco Totti favours passing over dribbling.

Dribbling is wasteful and should never be done unless you have to do it. Scholes would just recieve the ball from the CM, give it back, take a look behind him, move into another space, recieve it, dummy, twist and play a 1-2 with the striker, play a lob pass to the right winger with the outside of his foot, leisurely jog across the field towards the right winger, play a 1-2 with the right winger and then the right winger would be behind the defence and could just cross it in to either the left winger or the striker. No forward momentum lost either because passing is much faster than dribbling. That's how I imagine it anway.

Compare it to Messi, who would recieve it, turn, dribble (slower than passing, allowing defenders to get back), and more often than not, get tackled or shoot over the bar or play a poor through ball. Sometimes he would win a free kick (from which he would probably shoot over the bar) or score a wondergoal but most of the time he'd just waste the opportunity or ruin the forward momentum. This is less effective than the creativity that Scholes would offer, in my opinion.

So have I convinced you or shall we agree to disagree?

We should certaintly agree to disagree, if anything I am more convinced of my opinion with every passing post of yours so lets leave it as it is.

Interesting debate, but I have to go with the Franchise on this one. And before Im dubbed a hater, after Juventus I am a big big fan of Man U and a serious admirer or Paul Scholes

The fact of the matter is that to do what Mind Games7 is saying, he needs the explosion that he doesn't have anymore, and its not necessarily just to be able to beat people off of the dribble, but to deceive players into not knowing what he's doing. THink of it like the QB in American football... 10 times in a row, if he passes, you can pretty much guarantee he's going to pass it on the 11th time. But, if every few, he hands it off to the running back, you have to honor the threat of the run. Scholes can't give you that threat of something else right now. Can it be done? sure. But I think that his best position is where he is now in CM.

And btw... where is Rooney in your system posted above?