Point is, Lampard and Gerrard have always been picked out as the stars and the heartbeat of their team. Scholes rarely was. In fact, Roy Keane was probably more celebrated as a player when they played together, and was also missing in the final.

As good as Pirlo? It's a matter of opinion, and there positions have never really been the same, but I'd rephrase it and say that even if not quite as good as their continental counterparts, of various England midfielders in the last 25 years Scholes is probably the only one who could have done a decent job of playing with Pirlo/Xavi/Iniesta etc.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Although not the same type of player I used Pirlo as he is so good he can dominate a midfield and dictate a game, likewise Xavi and Zidane. People talking about Scholes in the same light are way off the mark. He was a fantastic passer and weighed in with goals but he had just as many flaws. Maybe cos he was a mainstay during Man Utd's zenith years people elevate him a little too highly. As I said before Liverpool would have got nowhere near their Champs league triumph without Gerrard, Man Utd would have prospered with or without Scholes, in fact they did!

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah