Paul Scholes, the Manchester United stalwart, has offered insight into his rather contentious stance on Arsenal’s midfield maestro, Declan Rice, clarifying why he leans towards other players. Rice has been a standout performer for Arsenal, establishing himself as one of the Premier League’s top midfield talents. Despite widespread acclaim as the league’s premier centre-midfielder, Scholes has stirred conversation by suggesting Newcastle United’s Sandro Tonali currently eclipses his peers.
“Alexis Mac Allister was nothing short of brilliant last season. He orchestrated many matches, and that’s something Liverpool’s squad is currently lacking,” Scholes remarked. “Sandro Tonali, too, has been exceptional. At the moment, I would arguably place Tonali above others.”
Scholes further elaborated: “Declan Rice is undoubtedly talented, possessing a full array of skills. However, his penchant for the dramatic, the occasional extra touch, detracts from his efficiency. I prefer Tonali, though both have notable capabilities.”
The crux of Scholes’ viewpoint lies in his affinity for a distinct type of midfielder. “I’ve faced criticism for omitting names like Caicedo and Rice from my top picks. My preference is for a midfielder with a more rounded, controlling presence,” Scholes explained during the Stick to Football podcast.
“In PSG’s Vitinha, we witness such brilliance—he embodies all the qualities I admire in a midfielder. Mac Allister was sublime for Liverpool last season, albeit less impactfully this term. I gravitate towards players who offer a holistic approach rather than just defensive acumen or sporadic goalscoring ability.”
Rice, according to Scholes, doesn’t fit this mould. “Elliot Anderson has been impressive, but we lack a complete, controlling midfielder in England a Vitinha, a Kroos, a Modric. Jack Wilshere, prior to his injury woes, was perhaps our closest approximation. This type of game intelligence, knowing when to dictate tempo or execute a swift attack, seems absent in the current cohort,” he concluded.
Read more Paul Scholes analysis: