The retirement of Paul Scholes was greeted with an almost unanimous sadness and widespread respect for a career that encompassed technical mastery and an utterly professional attitude.
Selections of the ginger prince’s finest moments were pored over. Was it Bradford for you? Barca? How about Villa? When the ball parachuted from the sky and Scholes sent it rocketing into the net.
The great and good of the world’s game lined up to eulogize about the little man. Sergio Busquets, Lionel Messi, Andres Iniesta and Xavi literally lined up after the European cup final to get his shirt. Messi explained how Scholes was an example used at Barca’s famed La Masia academy. Zidane of course, once described him as the most complete midfielder of his generation. Samir Nasri aptly called him the English Zizou. A favourite tribute of mine came from the less celebrated Dave Kitson. Kitson rose from the Sunday leagues straight to the Premier League in a short period. He explained that he didn’t find any real difference in talent until opening day at Old Trafford “and Paul Scholes is pinging the ball around like it’s an extension of his body”
Johnny Giles, a pundit who loathes praising pretty much anyone never missed an opportunity to proclaim Scholes as a great player. Every teammate said they would want Scholes on their side in training because it nearly guaranteed a win.
The above isn’t a bad list of references for a footballer’s C.V yet Scholes ludicrously, was not universally rated. One magazine in particular last month said his retirement was greeted with unprecedented hyperbole. That Scholes had been indulged in recent years by Sir Alex. That he had been carried by younger, fitter teammates and was constantly caught in possession. The magazine in question purports to be a half-decent one but the article in question was anything but.
Yet there is sizable percentage of the footballing paternity that just didn’t get Scholes. For all of Fleet Street’s tributes this past month, the fact remains that Scholes never won the footballer of the year award. Go back through the references above. The problem was not confined to journalists. Scholes also never won a PFA award.
The fact that the verdict of him as a great player was not a unanimous one is down to two things. Cultural and period. Jonathan Wilson begins his seminal book on tactics “Inverting the pyramid” in a bar in Lisbon during Euro 2004. There has been speculation that a group of senior players have forced the then England manager Sven Goran Erikson to change England’s formation to a traditional 4-4-2. One English journalist remarks that the formation doesn’t matter; they are all the same players. Wilson and co are incredulous; an Argentinean next to him says tactics are all that matters.
He was wrong of course. There is far, far more to the game than tactics but Erikson’s decision or rather the cabal of players decision is a damning one for England. Paul Scholes, left midfield. The lung busting runs of Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard have always been deemed more important than the Scholes possession game. Gerrard and Lampard played together for far too long. The fact that they were too similar was only half the problem. The other half was they couldn’t keep the ball. Fast forward seven years and Jack Wilshere is the first name on the England team-sheet. He is praised for his abilty to keep the ball, to dictate the game. That is what’s important now.
It has taken Spain and Barcelona to keep the ball to teach us all the value of players who do so. This applies more in England but not exclusively. Xavi is now recognised as the finest midfielder in the world. Yet as he explained he was playing the same way years ago when he was admired but not a modern midfield deity as he is today. Some in Spain felt he was too small to play for the national side. He contemplated leaving and joining United, the club against whom he made his Barcelona debut in 1998. He started on the bench and watched Scholes score to put United 2-0 up. “If he was Spanish” one maestro said of another “he might be appreciated more”.
The period of English dominance in the Champions league was defined by power off the pitch, and power on it. European sides could not live with the raw surge of the Premier League game. Nimble technical Europeans were blown away by the likes of Michael Essien and Gerrard. Pace and power are the overwhelming choices when discussing the attributes of the Premier league. The honest plodder who thunder’s into challenges, who bares his teeth and whose shorts are never white are the symbol of the world’s most competitive league. Witness the Football writer’s award winner this season; Scott Parker. A middling, ordinary player who found his level with West Ham yet was deemed by the writing alumni as the best player in the country.
The culture though, thankfully has changed. If Paul Scholes was in his pomp now, the hyperbole would be far greater than what supposedly followed his retirement. Think of the fuss made of Jack Wilshere and then imagine if he could score goals. Spain’s success played its part in the change but in Premier League terms it was United and Scholes who broke the mould. Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea embodied the new money Premier League. The shameless power of Lampard, Essien et al rendered the rest obsolete. But Sir Alex put Michael Carrick and Paul Scholes in midfield and trusted them to keep the ball. The result was arguably the best of all United’s title wins and certainly our best football since the treble.
The league has wised up. We always had Scholes and will hopefully replace him with someone similar. Tottenham for the moment have Modric. Liverpool had Alonso and their slide coincided with his departure. Arsenal have Wilshere. Hiddenk’s Chelsea will want their own controller. The culture and period in which Paul Scholes was in his prime prevented him from universal acclaim. Like a lot of great artists, he was un-appreciated by some in his own time.
Not that it will bother him. He was out of the country when announcing his retirement. Reluctantly, he did some interviews and said he hoped that Cantona’s appearance in his testimonial would take the spotlight off him.
Throughout his career he did his best to avoid that spotlight and made it as easy as dropping his shoulder and avoiding the Scott Parker’s of this world. Maybe that was the problem. A few more interviews, maybe the odd advert and the plebs would get the message. He won’t read the tributes. He won’t care about the criticism. He merely played. In a 24/7 world when everything is dissected, where opinions are formed instantly maybe his disdain for the media ensured those not of a red persuasion would never be convinced.
No matter. Those mesmerising moments that he has left us stand as the pillar to his greatness. From subtle flicks to violent volleys, from scooping the ball over Nesta, to heading it past Given, his is a beacon that will shine as long as a ball is kicked in M16 ORA.
Hyperbole? No, just Scholes.
This article first appeared in Red News Fanzine. Go to www.rednews.co.uk for details.
No comments:
Post a Comment