Paul Scholes “Comes Out Of Retirement” to Play One More Time For Man Utd

espn flubs paul scholes1 Paul Scholes Comes Out Of Retirement to Play One More Time For Man Utd

If you watched Manchester United’s annihilation of New England Revolution in the 4-1 victory on ESPN2 Wednesday night, you may have blinked and missed one important item. When Ashley Young was substituted in the 67th minute, on came Gabriel Obertan. However, according to the on-screen graphics shown by ESPN2 (see above photo), Paul Scholes came off the pitch after putting in 67 minutes of hard work. Except that Paul Scholes never stepped foot on the pitch. He retired from his playing career at the end of last season.

The embarrassing flub by ESPN was probably due to the fact that Young now wears the number 18 shirt, the number previously worn by Scholesy. Just as teams work out their kinks in preseason to prepare for the real deal in August, it looks like ESPN are dusting off their skills too.

Paul Scholes will play for Manchester United one last time, for real, in his testimonial August 5 against New York Cosmos at Old Trafford.

As for the match itself, it was a thoroughly one-sided affair. Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney created chances up front for Man United, but were a bit rusty in front of goal. In the second half, on came the trio of Federico Macheda, Michael Owen and – later – Obertan. And just like last season’s preseason tour, Macheda and Obertan – especially – looked very impressive for United.

As for the Revs, the team rarely tested Manchester United and looked completely outclassed by a team who hasn’t played for almost two months, while the Revs have played 18 league games since March. Let’s hope that Seattle Sounders give United a better test when the two clubs play July 20 at Qwest Field.

H/T to Stupid Sideline Reporters.

12 thoughts on “Paul Scholes “Comes Out Of Retirement” to Play One More Time For Man Utd”

  1. Yeah I caught that during the match. Unfortunate they didn’t sub out Lindegaard so Edwin could have had another run out.

  2. “As for the Revs, the team rarely tested Manchester United and looked completely outclassed by a team who hasn’t played for almost two months, while the Revs have played 18 league games since March”

    Are you kidding me? The Revs held their own for the first half, they actually look really really good. In the second half they subbed out 7 starters. You didn’t even watch the match you clown.

    1. Norfolk, I watched the entire game and I thought New England Revolution were awful — especially in the first half, which is ironic because they ended the first half 0-0. Obviously we saw two different games, but as a neutral, I wasn’t impressed by the Revs at all.

      The Gaffer

      1. Gaffer I really question your objectivity. I think it is the biggest issue I have with your blogs. It is a shame really cause these are decent sites if you can look past it.

        1. Norfolk, we’re not always going to agree. It’s an opinion and sometimes it’s going to differ from what you and others believe. I’m objective as I can be and call it the way I see it :)

          The Gaffer

    2. The “revolution” were terrible. They play mickey mouse football. Their league is utterly inferior. Unwatchable.

  3. In terms of subs, Man U did pretty much the same thing in the second half, subbing out there starters. They then went on to rout the NE subs. It is just amazing at the depth of the MU squad and what they can do with their younger guys. They should be amazing once Jones, de Gea, and Chicarito join the squad.

  4. ESPN flubbed the whole broadcast. why can’t they understand that the term “ManU” is insulting to both the club and it’s supporters? they put it up in the score/time display and the idiot announcers would only refer to the club as “manu” shameful, ESPN. learn some history before you try to broacast world sports or stick to crap american football and the thuggish ruggish NBA

    1. I’ve been a fan since 1967 and season ticket holder until 93 and I’ve never understood the dislike for the ManU term and in fact, until I read it on this blog I had in fact never been aware of there being an issue. So it’s really not that insulting :)

      Anyone know where Tom Cleverly is ?

      1. I have been a fan for a long time and I understand the history of the term. Personally I feel that unless you are a Liverpool fan screaming it at your hated rival or someone who just wants to anger a “real red”, it’s not that big of a deal. I’m sure ESPN announcers didn’t know the difference and I’m fairly certain that most people didn’t even pick up on it. Just enjoy the game.

  5. i spotted that too! but i do think the revs held their own in the first half….the second half was radically different though.

    @real red: i didnt enjoy last night’s broadcast at all…. Please at least get the pronunciations right! I kind of wished Ian Darke could be calling the game from Germany at 2am local time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>