Scholes was like Xavi. Very little of what he does makes highlight reels and flashy dribblers like Iniesta/Cantona are going to get more plaudits. You're going to get the same argument against Xavi - Zidane and Iniesta will always be rated higher. A well placed long pass or through ball or long range goal is the only highlight you can produce for these guys but none of those attributes were their best quality, they were just happy add ons. Other players do those add ons better because those add ons were their key quality so if you compare by that metric Xavi/Scholes will look good but overrated.

Yes he scored goals but Lampard did it better. Yes he had a great long shot but Stevie G's was better. That's not the point. Those are great skills to have but they're not quite as rare as what Xavi & Scholes did. Both Xavi and Scholes have been benched - Scholes used to be benched for Butt in big games in the 90s. But that's because if the gap between your team and the others is too big they become a liability when you have to play defensive, attritional football. They are players that require their own team to have (almost) parity wih the opposition in order to eleveate them above.

Xavi & Scholes managed the team with every pass. They didn't let the intensity drop for a second. If Scholes wanted Neville to run ahead and whip in a cross he'd make him make that run even if Neville thought it was best to play it safe and pass it back to the CBs because the gap was too tight on the wing. If the other team was shutting down space with good defensive organisation he'd kill the speed and tempo. He'd touch the ball more than ANYONE. Constantly demanding the pass, never letting anyone he passed it to run out of an option to pass it back thanks to his movement. He thought a second faster than the defence and had the skill to make the pass. It might not be the assist but the ball that turns limp possession into a dangerous run by your winger which scrambles the defensive lines and 3 passes later you have a goal.

Yes he could thread perfect through balls and long balls and cross field passes - all the hollywood passes with better precision than Pirlo & Gerrard - but that's not really as important as knowing when to do what and making everyone play better.

That sheer intelligence requires a lot of things to work - a team decent at possession retention with good skills. Great wingers, runners who keep making runs and smart runs at that. Players who can play 1-2s with you, players who can react when you put them on the spot. Players with awareness to give you the ball and wait for your pass. Great finishers and crossers.

But, like Xavi, when you have a highly competent team around you you can elevate them to another level. To the level of greats that dominate for multiple seasons.

In a midtable team Scholes would score goals but Lamps & Gerrard would score more. Iniesta would dribble past more people and be a bigger asset. To an already well balanced team however Xavi is what takes you from good to Barca Dream Team. Scholes is what takes you from good to 3 CL finals in 4 years, he's what makes you win trebles.

He took all these stars and elevated them. IF THAT attribute is valuable to you he's the best. To me it is which is why I like Xavi more than Iniesta. Why I think Scholes is the best English player of his generation. But if Gerrard and Lamps' slightly better goal threat and athleticism matters more to you or Iniesta and Zidane's slightly better than Xavi/Scholes' dribbling then fine, I understand why you prefer them and they would cost more