Xavi or Scholes?

Simple question: Who is the better midfield controller and passer: Paul Scholes or Xavi? (Seeing as this was a debate waiting to happen on another Euro topic).

I'd have to say Scholes (I'm a little bit biased in favour of him) because his long passing is excellent. Maybe Xavi can pass it long but he rarely does that.

As a controller and passer strictly I'd say Xavi but Scholes had more to his game.

Xavi by a country mile IMO

Xavi's long term achilles injury really has affected his game and his level has dropped remarkably in the last couple of seasons. Barcelona's play in the last year has slowed and became predictable, I can see the same thing happening with Spain.

Xavi in his prime for me.....just!

Xavi did it for club and country, Scholes just for his club. Not even close for me, Xavi.

Xavi by a mile. Scholes was a very fine player, but Xavi is a class above (and I say that despite strongly disliking the guy).

Long range passing - Scholes by a distance
Short passing - Xavi by a distance

I think both players are irreplaceable. We saw Man Utd struggle without Scholes and, although I haven't seen Barcelona without Xavi, I can't see them playing anywhere near as well. They're both like metronomes.

Think it's harsh to say Scholes never did it for his country. He was stuck out on the wing for them (and Spain are a better team than England anyway). Scholes in Spain would have been very interesting to see.

TSC wrote:Simple question: Who is the better midfield controller and passer: Paul Scholes or Xavi? (Seeing as this was a debate waiting to happen on another Euro topic).

I'd have to say Scholes (I'm a little bit biased in favour of him) because his long passing is excellent. Maybe Xavi can pass it long but he rarely does that.

i will take responsibilty for this thread

Both very similar- scholes turned into a xavi type player later on- he was more advanced earier on

Its a bit of an urban myth that Scholes only played out on the wing for England, he played in the middle plenty of times in his 66 caps. Im pretty sure he played centrally in both Euro 2000 and the 2002 world cup. It was really just later under Sven that he got shunted out wide.

Xavi is a different class
I've said it on several other threads; for me - best player in the world.
Hypnotic to watch
Simply doesn't give the ball away, never lets ambition cloud his perception of risk, and knows exactly WHEN to pass, not just where - and I mean exactly when! Which is what sets him apart from anyone else.

I like Iniesta for his unselfishness.

easy decision..

Xavi by a mile!

I've got to agree with Graeme Swann's Cat on this.

Xavi was the better passer/ midfield controller. However, that's because that's his primary (sole?) function. Xavi's game is built around picking the right pass and always offering an option when team-mates are in possession. He sits deeper and is not a prolific goal-scorer. Scholes, on the other hand, was more of a complete midfielder (that's not to say superior) and looked to get forward more. That's reflected in his vastly superior career goal scoring stats.

Both supremely talented midfielders and great passers of the ball, but the comparison is apples and oranges given the differing styles of both the players and the teams in which they played.

I'd rather Xavi.

i dont think there are apples and oranges.

very similar roles for there teams over the last 3 years.

scholes was much more advanced before and plays the quicker balls- but the prem is much quicker.

I dont think many people could argue that scholes is better with 100% authority though.

Xavi is the best at it. But scholes is the prems xavi for my money- the most similar player to him in the prem

Xavi everyday of the week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym_Qh4hb3fc

Enjoy!

ermmmmm.

Id say xavi is more about his short passing and retention- alot of his long balls were just hit to hard and the next player cant do zip with it. I admit alot are good though.


however- this man is better at mid- long passing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfy1Fwbek2Y

It's a shame that Becks' fame and celebrity have somewhat overshadowed just what a great footballer he was on his day.

Good stuff Myst.

he was very good- i thik we forget.

On xavi- he has this amazing abilty to hit really fast passes without much space of effort- he is quality.

Think Xavi and Scholes could have worked together in the same team?

i dont see why not

I presume this is a joke. Has to be Xavi, by an arm and a leg.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I presume this is a joke. Has to be Xavi, by an arm and a leg.

Why?

i think people under rate scholes tbh.

TSC wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I presume this is a joke. Has to be Xavi, by an arm and a leg.

Why?

When has Scholes ever performed for England?

i dont think we are talking internationaly only

For me thats what matters more. Otherwise Ramps would be a better batsman than KP.

ermmm shanks. now dont get me wrong i plump for xavi(just)- however crickst is very different- players play cricket for there country almost non stop and have central contracts- they play a couple of club games a year when there are at peak.

Football at club level is very close to international level as well for the top cl teams

I am aware of that but as someone who doesnt support a particular club, country is all that matters to me.

I think that the top of club level is higher than that of country because the club sides work together on a constant basis, are specifically built and the players appear to value it more.

In Xavi's case it also helps that for the past 4 or 5 years he's played in a settled Spain side (containing alot of Barca players) whereas I don't think Scholes ever did for England. Scholes was also moved all over the shop by Sven which ultimately forced his early retirement.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I am aware of that but as someone who doesnt support a particular club, country is all that matters to me.

I am sure you are - however maybe that is the reason you dont realise how valued scholes is . He is one of the best midfielders all time since the prem has been going- possibly the best overall- considering the length of his carrer.

But on an intenational level there isnt really a contest obviously.

Personally i think scholes made a very bad decision in regards to england. and i think he also feels the same. But there you go- it could have pro;longed his united carrer- so it swings in roundabouts

mystiroakey wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I am aware of that but as someone who doesnt support a particular club, country is all that matters to me.

I am sure you are - however maybe that is the reason you dont realise how valued scholes is . He is one of the best midfielders all time since the prem has been going- possibly the best overall- considering the length of his carrer.

But on an intenational level there isnt really a contest obviously.

Personally i think scholes made a very bad decision in regards to england. and i think he also feels the same. But there you go- it could have pro;longed his united carrer- so it swings in roundabouts

Oh no I do! Great player in the EPL. One of the best midfielders in the last 20 years. Bu as I said I value World Cup/Euro performances more.

I am a big CL fan- i am not a religious prem fan, because i dont support a club i suppose. Just like watching goos games. I am only an england fan myself- but support all the prem clubs in europe..

The problem when rating players though is that in some cases they retired early(scholes) or dont have a good enough country- giggs,

its much easier to rate players based on club only in my opinion- becasue the coincidence of birth doesnt exist- it doesnt define you- the best go to the best clubs and they get to play at the clubs highest level

Any thoughts on Iniesta?

No point comparing international form as Xavi (as good as he is) has happened to find himself in an amazing side and has had tournaments where he has either not made the Spanish side or not shone.

I feel Xavi was criminally under rated for a long time before Barca and Spains success in the last 4 years, sad really and a poor reflection of the average football fan.

Leff wrote:Any thoughts on Iniesta?

Better than Xavi. Probably the best midfielder I have seen since Zidane's retirement.

For me the best passer in the game at the moment is Fabregas. He just makes the most simple pass look amazing.

legendkillarV2 wrote:For me the best passer in the game at the moment is Fabregas. He just makes the most simple pass look amazing.

Apparently a lot in Barca don't like him because he's become "too English" in his style, not patient enough.

Crimey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For me the best passer in the game at the moment is Fabregas. He just makes the most simple pass look amazing.

Apparently a lot in Barca don't like him because he's become "too English" in his style, not patient enough.

Seems a bit daft given that if he can spot a pass and make it 5-6 moves earlier, why not. Otherwise it is a waste of £30M and talent.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Crimey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For me the best passer in the game at the moment is Fabregas. He just makes the most simple pass look amazing.

Apparently a lot in Barca don't like him because he's become "too English" in his style, not patient enough.

Seems a bit daft given that if he can spot a pass and make it 5-6 moves earlier, why not. Otherwise it is a waste of £30M and talent.

I know what you mean, but obviously the football culture is different. I think in England we value more driving forward, quick as possible to the goal route where as Spanish football prefers pass after pass after pass until you find the perfect opening. In that respect I think Real Madrid are arguably quite English in the style they play.

Crimey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Crimey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For me the best passer in the game at the moment is Fabregas. He just makes the most simple pass look amazing.

Apparently a lot in Barca don't like him because he's become "too English" in his style, not patient enough.

Seems a bit daft given that if he can spot a pass and make it 5-6 moves earlier, why not. Otherwise it is a waste of £30M and talent.

I know what you mean, but obviously the football culture is different. I think in England we value more driving forward, quick as possible to the goal route where as Spanish football prefers pass after pass after pass until you find the perfect opening. In that respect I think Real Madrid are arguably quite English in the style they play.

Quite agree there. I think Mourinho at first was criticised for his football by the Madrid doubters and now he has won the league, they think differently now.

mystiroakey wrote:I am a big CL fan- i am not a religious prem fan, because i dont support a club i suppose. Just like watching goos games. I am only an england fan myself- but support all the prem clubs in europe..

The problem when rating players though is that in some cases they retired early(scholes) or dont have a good enough country- giggs,

its much easier to rate players based on club only in my opinion- becasue the coincidence of birth doesnt exist- it doesnt define you- the best go to the best clubs and they get to play at the clubs highest level

Its easier but its not complete. Weher would Pele or a host of other Brazilians rate in the history of the game if we chose to ignore what he did for Brazil ? He would just get called a flat track bully who scored over a 1000 club goals but so what.
You have to take into account Maradona dragging an Argentina side to glory and you have to wonder why Messi cant quite inspire a decent Argentina now, though he still has plenty of time to change that.

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I am a big CL fan- i am not a religious prem fan, because i dont support a club i suppose. Just like watching goos games. I am only an england fan myself- but support all the prem clubs in europe..

The problem when rating players though is that in some cases they retired early(scholes) or dont have a good enough country- giggs,

its much easier to rate players based on club only in my opinion- becasue the coincidence of birth doesnt exist- it doesnt define you- the best go to the best clubs and they get to play at the clubs highest level

Its easier but its not complete. Weher would Pele or a host of other Brazilians rate in the history of the game if we chose to ignore what he did for Brazil ? He would just get called a flat track bully who scored over a 1000 club goals but so what.
You have to take into account Maradona dragging an Argentina side to glory and you have to wonder why Messi cant quite inspire a decent Argentina now, though he still has plenty of time to change that.

I think you can value club higher than international football without dismissing international football completely though. International football is extremely difficult for individuals I feel, it's harder for one player to make a huge impact on the international stage, but I think the level of football for the teams is harder on a club level.

I agree with that but again we are very much focussed on European football...for obvious reasons. The standards in South and Central America are very high but they also play a different style again to Europe. So when there best players come over and fail to adjust for cultural and tactical reasons we write them off as overated.
If the boot where on the other foot how many of the top Europeans would go over to say Brazil and shine over there ?
Seeing everyone play internationally gives us a different perspective on how we rate players. Just because a Brazilian fails to adapt to English hoofball in the driving rain doesnt make them pony but thats how a lot of imports end up being remembered.

From my perspective, for all that Xavi is technically superb, I just don't enjoy watching him or the style of football he instills into a team all that much - a lot of times it seems to be passing for the sake of it with little thought of end product (except sometimes for Barca where it's all just a holding pattern until Messi gets between the midfield and defensive lines and draws someone out of position). For this reason I prefer Iniesta, who is almost as good a technician but is more positive in what he is attempting to do.

I'd also say that Scholes is more like either Iniesta or Alonso, in that he is positive and often looks for longer passes forwards, than he is like Mr Square Ball Xavi - the Ray Wilkins of modern football

I remember when Xavi first came into the Barca team and thinking Utd needed to sign him as he was the perfect player to replace Scholes yet Scholes is still around

Id take Scholes though for his range of passing I think Xavi under Guardiola has actually been more restrained in whats hes done for the team because of the style of play and the role hes been given

Nice article on Xavi in Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/xavi-hernandez-is-the-key-player-in-spain-s-football-dynasty-a-840163.html