The mancityfans.net football forum

One of the dirtiest players of his generation, but in today's papers he's also come out as something of a whistle blower on the England football team and erstwhile England team mates. The Guardian today offers the meat of what he said, while The Telegraph has more of a eulogy built around his interview with them, forgetting just how shite he was in the great majority of his England performances.

He has hit the nail on the head, here, though:

Paul Scholes has accused "very selfish" players of ruining England's international chances by putting their own careers ahead of the national team.

Scholes quit the England set-up in 2004 aged just 29 and revealed: "I just got fed up. When you are going to a team, you want to be part of a team and play well, but there are individuals who are after personal glory.

"When there is a simple pass of 10 yards, they might try and smack it 80 yards. They will do things to try and get themselves noticed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... rs-england

Exactly right, and one of the reasons the England team means less and less to many football fans. Step forward Steven "Hollywood" Gerrard, David Beckham and Frank Lampard. Everything that was, and is, wrong with the England football team.

Why not be mention this in 2004 then? not like we covered ourselves in glory at that tournament.

Bit funny considering his England career was average at best. And Gerrard, Lampard and Beckscum have played exactly like that for their Clubs as well and enjoyed great success.

For me that rag twat is making cheap excuses for his own shit international career.

average at best for england? i know he's a rag but if you truly believe that scholes was merely average for england, you're deluded. i think it's more england were average at best, scholes was definitely one of the more consistent england players when he had an international career.

Proof here lies in the results, England have consistently underperformed so his words have a ring of truth to them.

Slim wrote:Proof here lies in the results, England have consistently underperformed so his words have a ring of truth to them.

That seems to be common view but in my opinion during the time Scholes played international football England performed just about in level where they should have judging by the players they had. 98 was controversial but I don't think they would've gotten past NEtherlands, certainly not Brazilia anyway. Euro 2000, around which time Scholes had his best games for England, he was the main man in midfield but couldn't carry England past (very tough) group. 2002 Scholes was one of the most pathetic players on the pitch when England was humbled by Brazil. None of the players he seems to be talking about featured in that game by the way (apart from Beckham but they are mates so probably not having a go at him anyway). 2004 England was beaten in a fantastic game by Portugal and again, to my recollection, Scholes did fuck all.

colonel_muck wrote:average at best for england? i know he's a rag but if you truly believe that scholes was merely average for england, you're deluded. i think it's more england were average at best, scholes was definitely one of the more consistent england players when he had an international career.

I'd say Scholes was effective during qualifying for tournaments against poor to average teams (the only performance I recall of his was scoring against Scotland in the Euro 2000 qualifiers), but when it came to finals he often went missing. I agree that those around him had self indulgent agendas. Heat, plus his asthma, probably didn't help, either, and neither did being bypassed as Gerrard and Co. hoiked balls 60 yards over his head.

Scholes was very average for England (along with others) imo and if some think that opinion is deluded so be it, but having watched nearly all his appearences he had no more than a handful of very good games for his country and then fecked off when he wasn't picked in the middle .... I'm still chuckling about the 'Scholes tells the truth' headline, next week 'Giggs tells truth'.

Chinners wrote:Scholes was very average for England (along with others) imo and if some think that opinion is deluded so be it but having watch nealy all his appearences he had no more than a handful of very good games for his country and then fecked off when he wasn't picked in the middle .... I'm still chuckling about the 'Scholes tells the truth' headline, next week 'Giggs tells truth'.

It's not a headline, it's a thread title.

Anyway, like him or loathe him he's merely saying what all of us have witnessed with the England team for a decade or more.

Thread title/headline .... its still funny

Scholes certainly underperformed for england but wasn't helped by some odd managerial decisions eg sticking him on the left side of midfield. Against Brazil in the World Cup he clearly suffered more from the heat than most players. I heard it speculated that it was because he has a very pale complexion and is more prone to heat fatigue. Whatever, he was a very talented player who should have been more influentual for England. He is also a dirty rag git.

For me scholes could have played for Barcelona or Spain and wouldn't have looked out of place. If you put xavi or iniesta in stokes team they wouldnt be as effective as the players would not have been on the same wavelength. He is a dirty bastard but I wish his career was spent at city,than playing for the rags. When players like zidane and xavi say how good he was you have to respect it.

'England players play for themselves rather than for the team' - Fucl me, hardly breaking news is it!!

That will be why they have been so shite to watch for the last 15 years then!

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Slim wrote:Proof here lies in the results, England have consistently underperformed so his words have a ring of truth to them.

That seems to be common view but in my opinion during the time Scholes played international football England performed just about in level where they should have judging by the players they had. 98 was controversial but I don't think they would've gotten past NEtherlands, certainly not Brazilia anyway. Euro 2000, around which time Scholes had his best games for England, he was the main man in midfield but couldn't carry England past (very tough) group. 2002 Scholes was one of the most pathetic players on the pitch when England was humbled by Brazil. None of the players he seems to be talking about featured in that game by the way (apart from Beckham but they are mates so probably not having a go at him anyway). 2004 England was beaten in a fantastic game by Portugal and again, to my recollection, Scholes did fuck all.

England could have won 2004. As for Scholes being rubbish at that tournament, he was playing left midfield to accomidate the above mentioned players. Explains some of the bitterness.

ross.mcfc wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Slim wrote:Proof here lies in the results, England have consistently underperformed so his words have a ring of truth to them.

That seems to be common view but in my opinion during the time Scholes played international football England performed just about in level where they should have judging by the players they had. 98 was controversial but I don't think they would've gotten past NEtherlands, certainly not Brazilia anyway. Euro 2000, around which time Scholes had his best games for England, he was the main man in midfield but couldn't carry England past (very tough) group. 2002 Scholes was one of the most pathetic players on the pitch when England was humbled by Brazil. None of the players he seems to be talking about featured in that game by the way (apart from Beckham but they are mates so probably not having a go at him anyway). 2004 England was beaten in a fantastic game by Portugal and again, to my recollection, Scholes did fuck all.

England could have won 2004. As for Scholes being rubbish at that tournament, he was playing left midfield to accomidate the above mentioned players. Explains some of the bitterness.

England lost to Portugal though who went to final. I don't agree with "they could've won the tournament". He was playing left of midfield diamond, not on the wing. For player hailed for his versatility, I think it's bit rubbish that he couldn't perform there.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

ross.mcfc wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Slim wrote:Proof here lies in the results, England have consistently underperformed so his words have a ring of truth to them.

That seems to be common view but in my opinion during the time Scholes played international football England performed just about in level where they should have judging by the players they had. 98 was controversial but I don't think they would've gotten past NEtherlands, certainly not Brazilia anyway. Euro 2000, around which time Scholes had his best games for England, he was the main man in midfield but couldn't carry England past (very tough) group. 2002 Scholes was one of the most pathetic players on the pitch when England was humbled by Brazil. None of the players he seems to be talking about featured in that game by the way (apart from Beckham but they are mates so probably not having a go at him anyway). 2004 England was beaten in a fantastic game by Portugal and again, to my recollection, Scholes did fuck all.

England could have won 2004. As for Scholes being rubbish at that tournament, he was playing left midfield to accomidate the above mentioned players. Explains some of the bitterness.

England lost to Portugal though who went to final. I don't agree with "they could've won the tournament". He was playing left of midfield diamond, not on the wing. For player hailed for his versatility, I think it's bit rubbish that he couldn't perform there.

England's problems have stemmed from this offhand comment for years now.

These are the 11 best players we have, now fit them in.

I am sorry Gerrard and Lampard play the same position, but for example take a look at the Australian cricket team, MacGill would have walked into any other side when he was playing, but being a spinner behind Warne meant he was 12th man a lot and left out of the side even more and look how Australia did during that time. Square pegs, round holes and not a single manager with the balls to choose a team based on positions rather than reputations.

Did he give any explanation as to why he himself was consistently shit for England?

Tokyo Blue wrote:Did he give any explanation as to why he himself was consistently shit for England?

Oooohhhh......don't say it. Apparently he was "great" for England.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:Did he give any explanation as to why he himself was consistently shit for England?

Oooohhhh......don't say it. Apparently he was "great" for England.

I must have missed those three minutes. Perhaps I had gone for a piss.