Sports
11 Jan 07
17 Jan 07
Originally posted by RagnorakHe's the first that springs to mind. Personally, I'd say that at their peak Beckham was actually Man Utd's fourth best midfielder (in an admittedly superb midfield), behind Scholes, Keane and Giggs. Obviously the other two weren't English.
What about Paul Scholes?
It would be interesting to know how different their careers would have been if Scholes and Beckham had their looks swapped.
17 Jan 07
Originally posted by mtthwBeckham is a highlights player. His one good 70 yard pass looks great in a 2 minute segment. His 10 bad passes don't make the cut. Scholes is a full match player. His 70 10 yard passes mightn't make many headlines amongst people who aren't influenced solely by hype.
He's the first that springs to mind. Personally, I'd say that at their peak Beckham was actually Man Utd's fourth best midfielder (in an admittedly superb midfield), behind Scholes, Keane and Giggs. Obviously the other two weren't English.
It would be interesting to know how different their careers would have been if Scholes and Beckham had their looks swapped.
That quartet that you mentioned was without doubt the best midfield 4 in the world for a few years.
What do you mean about their careers being different? Scholes is still the best midfielder in one of the most competitive leagues in the world, whereas Beckham has fooled the americans into shelling out bucketloads for a (now) average player. Ah well, it's all about the packaging. I think most serious sports players would prefer to be in Scholes' shoes.
D
17 Jan 07
Originally posted by RagnorakLA didn't pay that money for a football player, they paid it for an Icon.
Beckham is a highlights player. His one good 70 yard pass looks great in a 2 minute segment. His 10 bad passes don't make the cut. Scholes is a full match player. His 70 10 yard passes mightn't make many headlines amongst people who aren't influenced solely by hype.
That quartet that you mentioned was without doubt the best midfield 4 in the world f ...[text shortened]... packaging. I think most serious sports players would prefer to be in Scholes' shoes.
D
And don't kid yourself, (almost) every footballer in the world would gladly trade places with Becks today for 250,000,000 reasons.
Scholes was good. He and Beckham were both world class in their prime. I have no desire to debate who was better. I'll only ask this question: who would most people pick?
17 Jan 07
Originally posted by invigorateI'm with Ragnorak on this one. Scholes would do the important stuff consistently, and that's what you need to win trophies.
Personally I would have Beckham over Scholes. Because he could do that bit of magic that changed a game and it was often spectacular.
18 Jan 07
Originally posted by RONOCIt is sad that she is a very lost individual.
Sorry did I read you correctly rmacken, firstly I wasn't refering to the management of the beckham brand I was refering to the talentless mrs beckham, and believe me victoria doesn't make the decisions avery well oiled professional team do that for them both, niether was she in a band it was actually a group of singers , some could sing and some could not, gu ...[text shortened]... ows, and no I have never sold a story on her, my lifes already rich in non monitorie values.
It must have hurt when Beckham was caught playing away from home with pig lover Loos.
She clearly is killing herself trying to achieve some perceived body of perfection with all the plastic surgery she has had.
Sadly shallow.
18 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakHmmm... I love Scholes, but he tended to go missing in internationals.
Beckham is a highlights player. His one good 70 yard pass looks great in a 2 minute segment. His 10 bad passes don't make the cut. Scholes is a full match player. His 70 10 yard passes mightn't make many headlines amongst people who aren't influenced solely by hype.
That quartet that you mentioned was without doubt the best midfield 4 in the world f packaging. I think most serious sports players would prefer to be in Scholes' shoes.
D
Scholes never won a game for England almost single-handedly, much less an important one.
Beckham did.
[edit: okay, technically it was a draw...]
18 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellWhich isn't a bad description of Beckham either.
He did have good games for England, but not that many.
Since this was (initially) about England's best, I'd add that in terms of number of effective performances for England the defenders have a better record over the period we're talking about (as probably does Michael Owen - his scoring record in competitive games is actually very impressive).
18 Jan 07
Originally posted by mtthwIn a vital game - v Greece 2001 - Beckham ran the match from start to finish, as well as scoring the crucial goal. He was simply on a different level to everyone else on the pitch.
Which isn't a bad description of Beckham either.
Since this was (initially) about England's best, I'd add that in terms of number of effective performances for England the defenders have a better record over the period we're talking about (as probably does Michael Owen - his scoring record in competitive games is actually very impressive).
It's true that there aren't many other examples. But I can't remember Scholes ever running a game for England.
18 Jan 07
Originally posted by dottewellIt wasn't difficult to be a different level to the rest of the team that day - they were awful.
In a vital game - v Greece 2001 - Beckham ran the match from start to finish, as well as scoring the crucial goal. He was simply on a different level to everyone else on the pitch.
18 Jan 07
Originally posted by rhbTrue - but someone had to do it, and he did.
It wasn't difficult to be a different level to the rest of the team that day - they were awful.
I'm not the world's biggest Beckham fan, but he seems to be criticised for what he couldn't do rather than praised for what he could. And what he could do was sometimes the difference between England winning (or drawing...) and England losing.