actually, funny story. i kept hearing all this hype about kempes and the WC 78. everyone that mentioned it was extremely impressed. however, when i saw it, i was no where near impressed given the hype that surrounded it. i even expressed my opinion about it and it caught several people on this forum by surprise. in terms of pure efficiency, he played excellent. but in terms of overall play, i was far from impressed. although it was one of the greatest tournaments, i don`t think it is as great as suggested because of the lack of involvement throughout the game and not enough dominating performances. but this is the exact same case with CR7 today, although Kempes did play with more individuality than Cr7. despite the fact that Messi played clearly better than Cr7 this season, Cr7 is favored to win the ballon dòr because of a number of goals in a short period of time despite his lack of involvement in overall play. i didn`t skip your paragraph. currently i have no internet at my house and i am using a public computer. so my time is limited. when the owner says it´s time to close then i have to leave and i can`t answer every question. xavi only had moments of pure class here and there before 2008. it was no where near the level of consistency that he played with from 2008-2012. there are a handful of wonderful games that xavi played pre 2008. and any great player in a bad environment will play a few great games here and there. but playing under guardiola allowed him to thrive in a way that you could count the number of poor games he had on one hand from 2008-2012. so few bad games he had. obviously this is an exaggeration but i am just trying to make a point. i don`t know if this covered the point, i vaguely remember the question. but what does this have to do with comparing zidane, exactly??? completely forgot the point of this question actually i disagree with this. don`t forget that real madrid made the semifinals of the CL in 2010-2011 and lost to a very difficult barcelona team. remember, real madrid put up more of a match against barcelona than Manchester United did in the 2010-2011 final. so you could actually make a case that real madrid was the 2nd best team that year. but of course, football doesn`t work out that simple. in season 2011-2012, they won La Liga also against a strong Barcelona team and they lost in the CL semifinal against an extremely strong Bayern Munich side (and only in penalties). in 2012-2013 with Modric, they again lost in the semifinal against strong Dortmund team, but only by a goal over both legs. these madrid teams were not as strong as from 13-14-present day, but they were still as a competitive team as it gets again, taking all of these things that we have argued it is very difficult to decide. in terms of pure winning, zidane never played with a player as lethal as messi while iniesta and xavi did. however, without messi, xavi and iniesta dominated on a NT and did something that no NT has ever done. on the other side, it is unsure how zidane would look on a team with another caliber midfielder that is on his level as iniesta and xavi had each other. unfortunately zidane did not have that pair. the closest was figo but figo played on the opposite side. what works against zidane, is that it seems that he does best when given a free role as he was given at the NT (which you also think is best for zidane). so if this is best for zidane, then how could he perform better if his role would be restricted given that he played with an equivalent in the middle and a player as good as messi or R9 up front??? this is very interesting because it seems that for every argument that could be made for zidane, a counter argument could be made against him. in the same way, i think it is fair to say that xavi can only really thrive on a very small select number of teams with a very niche style. and this is where i give zidane the biggest advantage. because zidane could still show worth playing on multiple different styles and structures something that xavi did not prove to do. for this reason, i put zidane as a better player than xavi overall. however, if i were to form an extremely possession oriented, high pressuring team as prime Barcelona, i would choose xavi first. but in general, i would put zidane 1st. but, my big question would be iniesta vs zidane. to where i currently give iniesta the edge. though iniesta did strive on guardiola`s team, he was also able to play extremely well, specifically in season 15-16, where the team was becoming increasingly direct. and remember, iniesta was past 30 at this point. but zinedine zidane also proved to play an excellent season for real madrid when we was 30 yrs old in 2003-2003. it is safe to say, that zidane was the best player that season. but i have also seen barcelona, several times without iniesta in the era of enrique. and i tell you, when iniesta is not there, barcelona have humongous struggles moving the ball from defense to offense, especially when they are put under pressure.
Spot on Estel..people do tend to be on the emotional side in this type of decision. I hate Brazil, so if you asked me 20 years ago, if ronaldo was one of the greatest, i would certainly would have given hundreds of reason to convince everyone he was not the greatest. But now being able to set aside my emotions, ronaldo together with zidane, ronaldinho and messi, is the players i would include in my all time great list for the past 20 years. These are wonderful players, and like i say ticks a lot of boxes to be considered one of the all time greats
Hahaha. Zidane fans like yourself are, with all due respect, laughable... My so-called 'argument' (which in fact was not much of an argument, but rather a 'lazy' run over a few points) was not even 40% as long as the pro-Zidane propaganda piece that was posted in this thread. But somehow, the fact that 'lead leader' had to mention less than 40% of the 'things' that the pro-Zidane argument had to mention, somehow does not prove how hard pro-Zidane fans have to LIE about those 'things' that Zidane purportedly did, but somehow does demonstrate how 'lead leader' had to try 'hard and long' to argue against Zidane. In other words: lead leader's so-called argument was over 60% shorter than the pro-Zidane hit-and-run propaganda piece, but for some reason (NOTE: BECAUSE YOU ARE BIASED AND EMOTIONALLY INVESTED IN THE PRO-ZIDANE ARGUMENT) you happen to think that lead leader's so-called argument was longer than the 60% longer pro-Zidane propaganda. The fact that you @shac78 are not even intelligent enough to understand basic mathematics (e.g., basic mathematics such as the fact that my 'long argument' was not even 40% as long as the pro-Zidane propaganda piece), puts a big dent on anything you have to say about my so-called 'emotional argument'. Because if any person is 'emotional' here, it definitely is the person who cannot tell that one argument is 60% longer than the other so-called argument. If you cannot be objective about a 60% difference, then no reasonable person should expect any form of sensitive, balanced, or thoughtful, insights from you. Same goes for @Estel , who is something of a laughing stock in this forum.
Dude, you really do not consistently understand @ Estel's intentions, do you? Estel has absolutely no interest in having an honest and an open discussion with you. Estel wants to manipulate the argument and therefore manipulate you, to make you look like an unintelligent 'modernist' who does not understand Zidane's greatness. And @ Estel will use any strategy to make you look bad, which is precisely why he used the 'Flamingo' typo to try to somewhat ridicule/mock you. Nobody else in this forum would have used 'Flamingo' against you, because it's self-evidently obvious that it was an honest typo - but Estel will use an honest typo against you, because Estel thinks it makes you look uneducated, unintelligent, and essentially 'inferior' to him. Because Estel is severely emotionally attached to this argument, he will readily use a TYPO against you, because he does not want to win an argument over an argument (the argument being - is Zidane overrated??), he just wants to win an argument over how educated and/or how intelligent you are as a person (Estel's argument essentially is - are you educated and/or intelligent enough to even understand just how great Zidane actually was??). It's the essential reason as to why Estel can never win an argument against posters who aren't manipulated by his 'attack the person behind the argument' rhetoric. But anyways, if you're going to continue to have interactions with @Estel - I thought you should know that Estel probably thinks that you're a dumb uneducated idiot. And honestly, Estel doesn't even hide his repulsive arrogance very well, if at all. Bottom line: I do not think @Estel deserves your attention/disposition to have an honest and an open discussion. Here is the difference (again): you want to have an honest discussion over an argument; Estel wants to have a dishonest discussion about how uneducated you are as a human being.
You come off as a nutcase in your posts. Zidane must've traumatized you as a child for how obsessed you are with him, somehow figuring in every post of yours in other threads. I have yet to understand how the moderators in this forum allow you to regularly insult other members without consequence.
Traumatized as a child by one of my favorites players (Zidane along with Riquelme). How intelligent you must be to figure that out all by yourself... You get a smiley face and a pad-on-the-back for that great insight you've enlightened me with. Bottom line: Just another Zidane ideologue who systematically uses the 'attack the person, not the argument' rhetoric. Good luck convincing intelligent people with rhetoric of that low quality. I'm sure that people who can't count will tend to agree with you.
The only laughing stock here is you lead leader..there are many like you, who really doesn't understand anything (i assume there is nothing up there that works)..but can talk loads of crap..i have no time for people like you, as i found out it would be a waste of my valuable time Don't bother to reply..i wouldn't even waste a few seconds to glance through your post from now on
From what you mention above, as I understand, it seems you personally actually did agree with me and had only mentioned Kempes in the way that you did because you felt that he is widely regarded for his WC 78. So if that's the case, guess we don't have too much of a difference of opinion. The way I see it, Kempes 78 was similar but maybe a bit better than Rossi 82, due to having better overall gameplay. So I give him a similar amount of respect. But I wouldn't go around comparing him, on an overall game perspective, to a midfield playmaker. I am in a similar boat as you, but for an entirely different reason. I get about an hour each day for recreational activities (which includes following up on football news and posting in forums) due to being extremely busy with work. Anyway, to jog your memory, the point of the question was to highlight the contrast between Xavi's Balon d'Or ranking appearances till 2008 (which wouldn't be affected by Messi's presence or absence) and your perception of his ability and greatness as a player, and how individual recognition eluded him due to Messi casting a big shadow. The 2010-12 Real Madrid side was competitive, but the issue with it was that it was typically setup very defensively in midfield when playing other big teams and relied on counterattacks exclusively to damage them. Thus they always played other big sides (like Barcelona) from a position of inferiority. Wherein comes my comment about Modric's arrival being key, as he was the first midfielder that Real Madrid signed after 2008/09, that could really compete on level terms with the Barcelona midfield, allowing them to overcome that inferiority. I agree with a lot of the above, except for a few points. I'll put those down and you can decide what you think about them. 1) Xavi/Iniesta, dominating with their NT is not as exceptional IMO, as you obviously feel it is, considering the following reasons, They won all their trophies in a overall weak era competitively in terms of football talent spread and also a weak era for NT teams overall with major regular powerhouses like Brazil, Italy, France and Germany at a low or rebuilding state i.e. during the period of their dominance from 08 to 12, as compared to these powerhouses' historic highs in terms of team quality (not results, since those are era competition dependent) Their major NT achievements are all too close together to a very strong group of players' peaks, missing something like a Zidane's WC06, one that would make them the saviours of a more out-of-form, aging or simply underperforming team They played with a striker (Villa) who had a comparable overall NT record to Ronaldo Nazario (59 goals in 97 games vs 62 goals in 98 games) and who had a 5 goal World Cup tournament They played with almost as good a backline when compared to their competition from their own era, as any NT great did for his own era, considering the presence of Puyol, Pique and Ramos at different times They also had as their goalkeeper an arguable all time great at his NT peak (Casillas), who came up with big saves in two Euro PK shootouts and the WC final 2) Zidane requiring a free role vs Xavi-Iniesta operating as duo behind Messi, is a false equivalance leading to a unnecessary contradiction, considering, Zidane in a free role (for his NT) was pretty damn successful without needing another equivalent all-timer playing alongside him, and had at least as good an NT career as the Xavi-Iniesta duo together (2 player of the tournament for Zidane vs 2 for Xavi-Iniesta together; 2 major international titles and a final for Zidane vs 3 major international titles for Xavi-Iniesta together) Zidane not in a free role (for his clubs) was decently successful, but of course Xavi-Iniesta as a duo playing behind Messi while all were at or near their peaks, in a relatively weaker era competition-wise, were considerably more successful The requirement though was never for Zidane to have both the go ahead to play a free role and also the benefit of having equivalent all-timers playing beside him, rather it was either/or of the two i.e. either Zidane should have been played in a free role or he should have been given another couple of greats of equivalent capability playing at their peaks alongside him Thus the free role and lack of equivalent greats playing alongside him are not requirements which need to be provided simultaneously, which means that they never end up contradicting each other Iniesta always had quality and I have always considered him a superior player to Xavi. The only problem is that when compared to Zidane, he falls drastically short on a large set of quantifiable individual aspects, even though he is more similar to Zidane than Xavi ever was and should thus have had a more similar statistical output as well. The above shortfall, when considered alongside the fact that Iniesta doesn't have a Bordeaux 95/96 or France 06 like run (yet) with any of his teams, to prove his individual worth away from Xavi and Messi, is what holds him back IMO. He had a great chance to give such a performance in the last Euro in 2016, since he was Spain's only bonafide star in that tournament by my reckoning. But he couldn't take it. He might get another chance in WC 2018, but I feel that if Spain do end up doing well in that tournament, the younger generation players like Isco or even Asensio, would have a greater case to take the plaudits.
Thanks. Also, you made me pause there for a bit, since it is rare to find anyone who hates the Brazilian NT. Any specific reason?
As the emotional bigot that you are, you 'hated Brazil' for no justifiable rational reason. You would have -- in your own words -- certainly given hundreds of reasons to convince 'everyone' he was not the greatest... And by 'everyone' you obviously mean the people that were too dumb to realize that you had manipulated them, i.e., that you had deliberately lied to them. By your own admission: you are an emotional bigot who will manipulate 'everyone who listens to you' about your irrational hate for an entire nation (Brazil). You are not able to set aside your emotions - you clearly are the same old single-minded ideologue who gets emotional when he gets confronted with a different/opposing point of view. Such thoughtless emotion - a triggered Zidane ideologue with a clear emotional attachment to this subject. Thank you for proving my point better than anyone not yourself, could. You can't count, and evidently, you also are incapable of making a thoughtful argument without sounding like an emotional mess. Unlike you, I do have time for people like you - it's priceless to see how emotional you get over nothing. Cheers.
Zidane ideologues are so very bizarre... Person A says he hates Brazil, and not only that, but Person A also affirms that he would have given hundreds of reason to convince 'everyone' that R9 was not greatest. And keep in mind: Person A hates Brazil... Person A never explicitly stated that he hated R9 himself. Person B, on the other hand, wants to know the specific reason why Person B 'hates' Brazil... Is there any good specific reason that could even begin to justify how a Dutch person just 'hates Brazil' to such a degree that said Dutch person explicitly admitted that he manipulated anti-R9 arguments whenever he could (in the past)?? There is no 'specific reason' in the world that could even begin to justify @shac78 and his repulsive behavior. Hating a specific player, is one thing. Hating a specific players BECAUSE that player was born in Brazil, is an entirely different 'thing' altogether. It does not surprise me at all, that @shac78 would employ such dishonest, hurtful, direct rhetoric against a person he perceives to be an 'anti-Zidane' aggressor (who deserves to be insulted for no justifiable reason). As @shac78 admitted himself, in the past he hated R9 because R9 just happened to be Brazilian... Today, @shac78 just hates the anti-Zidane aggressors, because the anti-Zidane aggressors can only ever be emotional/irrational with their conclusions (apparently this is an established 'science' that Zidane ideologues have agreed upon). Today, @shac78 is projecting that same degree of irrational 'hatred' (that he hated R9 for) to the people who, in his opinion, just hate Zidane. This quality of projection and hatred isn't exclusive to Zidane zealots, but it's one of those predictable tell-tale signs.
Honest question: was Zidane better than Rivaldo, Figo or Nedved by a significant margin? If not, why is his legacy far more lasting than the three players mentioned above?
can agree with this point. but the general audience would tend to disagree. so i believe. at club level without messi, he never proved his worth on such a high level. but he did at NT level. again, i believe that xavi can only really perform under a very specific style, which is why i put zidane over him. i really don`t have any qualms about putting zidane over xavi as i believe 80+% of people who understand the game would probably do the same all things considered. though i think xavi is a better center midfielder, zidane is the better player, plain and simple. sticking to the point of modric and unbalance in the midfield, i would say that real madrid was a player away in the midfield from competing with barcelona. they did have alonso and özil, but they were missing another top caliber midfielder. the 3rd midfielder was typically diarra if i am not mistaken. if i play devil`s advocate, i could also debate you with you that you don`t need to have 3 type caliber midfielders of busquets, iniesta, and xavi to compete, or rather you can still do well with 2 world class player and one other midfielder who performs his role well. if you look at a large part of real madrid from 15-17, they had 2 world class midfielders kroos and modric, and an upcoming casemeiro (who is certainly not world class). however, they have a balance and chemistry that is good for the team. casemeiro does not compete with either busquets, iniesta, or xavi in terms of class. anyway, this is a whole nother topic that would lead from the main topic. but having said that, even if you consider real madrid not on a competing level as barcelona, although they did win the league and spanish super cup against barcelona in 11/12. barcelona from 08-12, probably won more trophies than any team in history within a 4 yr span. but as i don`t see this topic as too important to the point, we can agree to disagree. you can make the case that spain did not play in a competitive era as when zidane played for France. but i could also make a counter argument that Spain did not play against a dominant era of NT because Spain was just too damn good! and so much better than the competition. if i were to play on your point, i would say that spain may not have played as many competitive games but they did play tough teams such as germany in Euro 08 and WC 10, Holland WC 10, and italy euro 12 (unfortunately injuries hurt italy in the final meet-up, but they were tough in the group stage against Spain). portugal was also a tough game for Spain in Euro 12 this is a fair point. zidane performed under multiple and different types of teams. whereas, xavi and iniesta for their NT performed under the same exact playing style with virtually the same players. so the advantage would go to zidane. i would disconsider this, if i thought that iniesta and xavi played soooo much better than zidane but that is not the case. casillas was better than barthez. but just as lizerazu, blanc, desailly, and thuram, abidal later, were considerably stronger defensively and physically than the comparitively ramos, pique, capdevilla, etc. i would however, put alba who joined only in Euro 12 and Puyol on the same level defensively as the france back 4 that zidane played with. in addition, spain`s ball possession is what kept other teams from scoring not necessarily their defense. if the other team can`t have the ball, then they can`t score. which is the same reason why spain was not a high scoring team. i can agree with that. which is why i could and have agreed that zidane was better at NT level than xavi and iniesta, all things considered. this is something that i must say is not a legitimate point. the fact of the matter is that Spain and barcelona were in the same competitions with the best clubs in the world. you are punishing xavi and iniesta for being part of a team that was so good. you are not taking into consideration that they were a huge driving force for the team`s success. what you are doing sounds like not crediting mcdonald`s as that great of a company because they are so much better than the competition. and you would consider another fast food company bigger, 20 yrs earlier because they did not dominate the competition as much. the point you are making could actually be used to give iniesta and xavi that much more credit than zidane for being on NT and club teams that were so much better than everyone else. xavi and iniesta are humans like everyone else. they don`t have super powers that no one else had. in addition, spain was not more athletic than the teams they were competing against as was the case for Zidane`s france, if any super powers will be talked about. i see your point. but i can`t make a judgement on something i didn`t see. such as zidane playing with an equivalent. obviously zidane had a very good career. and as i`ve said, i put him over xavi. but the vast majority of people would probably put both iniesta and zidane ahead of xavi. it`s difficult to say. the 1 time where xavi was clearly above everyone on his team was in Euro 2012. the only player competing with him was Andrea Pirlo. who would have won player of the tournament had italy won, probably. xavi was a favorite was not close to iniesta in that tournament. it is the 1 tournament where iniesta seperated himself. zidane did play with figo, and from the time he did, i would give zidane the edge over figo in terms of performances and i think most people would. this is an EXTREMELY tough decision!!! but of course, to give zidane credit, he was definitely capable of scoring goals much more so than Iniesta. that could be the edge in rating zidane over Iniesta, so i wouldn`t be apposed to coming to that conclusion. what i would also have to decide is whether iniesta overall ball retention and dribbling would be enough to override zidane. of course, zidane`s ball retention and dribbling is very good, but i would give Iniesta the edge in that department. but it also could be argued that more of zidane`s ball retention and dribbling will result in more direct chances for the team on average. as of now, zidane is ranked higher than iniesta generally speaking, it will be interesting to see where iniesta ranks in 5-10 years.
The legacy is tied to the moments and the clubs/teams he played for. It's a good question because all four players were actually born in 1972. In terms of depth it might very well be one of the deepest cohorts. Let's look at Zidane vs Rivaldo when both played in an European top league. Rather than asking who played better, it's most of all related to prominence. 1997: Zidane more prominent. Rivaldo played for unfashionable Deportivo La Coruna, and then needed to settle at Barcelona. Zidane played well in the Champions League and played the final. It was still seen as the #1 league in the world, at least this year. 1998: Zidane, no question. 1999: Rivaldo. Not because he won the Ballon d'Or and world player vote, but Zidane had simply a weak year with his club and didn't set the world alight with the national team (except for one game against England). Ronaldo had a weaker year as well. 2000: Zidane. The pinnacle of his career. As Alan Hansen said: "you think he cannot do better, and he does." Ronaldo was in the hospital. 2001: Zidane. Now we have some years where Barcelona was poor. Not only that, Rivaldo was often rated lower than his team mates by Mundo Deportivo in the advanced knockout stages. What can be raised against Zidane at Champions League level, can be raised against Rivaldo too (Rivaldo was rated lower than team mates as Luis Enrique, Kluivert, Overmars, Panathinaikos against Liverpool, AS Roma in the more advanced stages). He just doesn't get the same scrutiny. Zidane got hyped up in 2001 to unprecedented heights. 2002: Zidane/Rivaldo. The story was mostly about the ressurection of Ronaldo. 2003: Zidane. Obvious. 2004: Zidane 2005: Zidane 2006: Zidane Rivaldo might well have played better in 1997, parts of 1998 and also 2002, but it is understandable Zidane had the greater legacy in his time and then afterwards. In many of the years he was the more prominent player. Figo played arguably better in 2001, but Zidane just stole all the attention away. That's what it was. It's possible that both Figo and Nedved were more consequential and influential players (over multiple games and seasons) than the selfish Rivaldo and Zidane.
This Zidane compilation was recently uploaded. Thought I should share it with you, since you mentioned you were a big fan and this is a very interestingly well-made compilation. Nothing new in terms of the footballing moments ( at least not for me), but the placement of the commentary in the background really makes it a great video. - Doubt anyone is even reading these exchanges at this point, but I understand what you are saying. Got it. As per you, Zidane as a player > Xavi as a player. Since the above is what you are concluding, then I guess my point was moot. But just to clarify, my point was not about Xavi simply showing his worth without Messi. Rather it was about him playing 10 years of his career without having a single Balon d'Or ranking appearance, inspite of Messi being a non-factor during that period. This was since you mentioned Messi being the biggest reason earlier in this exchange, for Xavi's lack of individual awards. I can agree to disagree, not a problem. Would just like to share some additional thoughts before I do so though. 1) It was Khedira not Diarra who was the typical third spoke of Mourinho's midfield. Though Mourinho would also use Pepe from time to time when he was feeling really insecure. 2) Casemiro is actually really good, he's just not recognised as such yet, outside of people who follow Real Madrid closely. He could end up becoming one of the great DMs for all we know, in which case Real Madrid would be seen to have had 3 great midfielders during this recent period of success. 3) I don't disagree that Mourinho's Real Madrid without Modric found a way to win against that Barcelona side. Just that the way found was, as I mentioned originally, a hit-and-run tactic used by that team due to it being in an inherent position of inferiority, considering the midfields of the two teams. In context of their own era, Spain definitely was very successful. Also, I completely understand that they could only beat what was in front of them. I was just making the other point i.e. about many of the traditional footballing powerhouse NTs being not as strong as they were in older eras, from a perspective of the talent and depth that they could call on. For instance, when considering only results, Holland 98-00 which made back to back SFs in a WC and a Euro, might not look as good as a Holland 10-14 which made a WC final and another semifinal. But talent-wise, the older team was probably more stacked, or at least that is how I see it. Brazil and Italy were in a similar boat, when comparing 08-12 teams to 98-02 teams, again IMHO. Spain and Portugal too were pretty stacked back then, from a perspective of talent, even if they weren't very successful. To conclude, I think this whole aspect of that era having a lot of quality NTs comes through really well in Euro 00, and to a certain extent in WC 98. We seem to agree on a surprisingly wide variety of things. Don't disagree on the possession aspect being key to Spain's defence, but just want to clarify one thing. Through my point about Spain's defenders, what I was trying to say was that - for their era (08-12), from a perspective of great defenders, Spain was pretty stacked (especially when looking at it in retrospect). I was definitely not saying that man-for-man Spain 08-12 had a better set of defenders than France 98-02, since I strongly believe that none of the defenders who peaked during the Messi/CRonaldo era are at the level of the best defenders of Zidane/Ronaldo's era. Just like the below, the point that you responded to with the above, was actually just a factual statement. I think you misunderstood. The point about Xavi-Iniesta as a duo playing behind Messi being more successful than Zidane, was simply meant to be a factual statement. It was not intended to suggest anything more, by itself. I think we agree more than it seems on first glance. I also think that you'd be surprised by the number of people who put Xavi ahead of Iniesta, unlike you, or me. Anyway, this third point to which you replied with the above, was what I was coming to and for setting up which I used the earlier mentioned 2 factual statements. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding with the factual statements' intent. This is something that I had missed in my earlier response. I wanted to highlight something about the above description, which is not related to this discussion but to the other discussion that we were having in the other thread, on whether Messi now plays as an attacking midfielder or not. On that thread, you were vehemently opposed to my thinking that Messi has been more of a playmaking forward than a playmaking midfielder. But I think the above picture that you have painted yourself, of Barcelona struggling to move the ball from defence to attack without Iniesta, should give you a big reason to doubt your opposition to my thinking about Messi's role. This is since Barcelona should not have had any trouble on that regard if Messi was indeed operating as a playmaking midfielder.
I disagree with the statement in bold... France rarely ever played against a full strength powerful national team. Here are my reasons: 1. Brazil 1998 played the World Cup Final 1998, with an unfit and an inactive version of Ronaldo. Ronaldo looked more like he belonged in a hospital bed, than in a football pitch. Ronaldo's lack off match fitness for the most important game, was particularly destructive for Brazil, because Rivaldo who played behind R9, is the type of player who will tend to look bad if the striker (in front of him) is as unfit and as inactive as R9 was throughout that World Cup Final. Put differently: Not only did Brazil loosed in-form R9 due to an untimely freak event, but Brazil also arguably lost Rivaldo, because Rivaldo was never going to look good if R9 was unfit to play (and if the unfit version of R9 was forced to play). Let me summarize it with different words: Holland 1998 very nearly eliminated Brazil 1998, that is, Holland 1998 was a Penalty Kick Shootout away from the World Cup Final. Brazil's Ronaldo had his best World Cup game ever, against Holland 1998, and Holland's best player (Bergkamp) was injured for the match, and yet Holland 1998 very nearly eliminated Brazil 1998. Now let's reverse the situation: Brazil's Ronaldo is clearly visibly unfit and inactive for the entire game, Holland's Dennis Bergkamp is a 25 year old player more or less at the peak of his powers (and in form, in fact, also enjoying the benefit of having not played 2 out of 7 games, which is a great benefit at the World Cup where stamina is known to play a huge factor in the final 3-2 games of the 7 game tournament), and Holland is also playing the World Cup Final in Amsterdam... Holland's chances of winning would be at least twice as good, under such lucky (EXTRAORDINARY) circumstances. Those are the type of extraordinarily lucky circumstances that Zidane enjoyed at the World Cup Final in 1998, a game where France could've easily scored 4-6 goals, and a game where Brazil were demonstrably far from their best (clearly as a result of R9 not being fit for that match). This is rarely if ever mentioned, but Zinedine Zidane 1998 benefited from lucky/extraordinary circumstances; Brazil 1998 played essentially without their best player (and Brazil's second best player was greatly nullified by the lack of fitness of Brazil's number one player); Del Piero was out of form, so much so that Roberto Baggio enjoyed more minutes than what was expected pre-tournament; France eliminated Italy, but only after the Penalty Shootout; etc. That's a lot of luck going for the home court team. 2. Brazil 2006 is, curiously enough, a very similar story to Brazil 1998 - the similarity is that R9 should not have been standing on that pitch. Ronaldo 1998 looked like he belonged in a hospital bed somewhere, and Ronaldo 2006 looked like he belonged in retirement (because he was so morbidly fat for what should be a relatively young legendary striker). In 1998, the lack of fitness and the inactivity greatly nullified Rivaldo. In 2006, again the lack of fitness and the inactivity greatly nullified Ronaldinho-Kaka. Ronaldo--as great as he was when he was fit, and when he was younger--in my opinion is the single biggest reason as to why Brazil never looked good vs. Zidane's France. With an active hard-working striker, Zidane wouldn't have looked as good, simply because Brazil would've attacked more. Ronaldinho at club level had high energy active strikers like Samuel Eto'o, Henrik Larsson, and Ludovic Giuly... In contrast, Ronaldinho at World Cup 2006, had a visibly (if not morbidly) out of shape R9, who was also mentally out of shape. For players like Rivaldo 1998 and Ronaldinho 2006, having an unfit and inactive striker can be incredibly destructive, in large part because players like Rivaldo 1998 and/or Ronaldinho 2006 are not pure midfielders, and therefore they considerably depend on the activity of the striker/strikers in front of them. A player like Zidane would be much less affected by an unfit striker - which does not make Zidane a better player overall (certainly not at club level), but it arguably might make Zidane a better player for the World Cup... (The World Cup being a tournament where Zidane seems to have an advantage in terms of being able to play at a good level, even when the striker/strikers in front of him are not particularly active and/or efficient.) 3. Italy 2000 was a full strength powerful national team - Italy created more clear-cut chances than France, Italy played better than France, and Italy (on merit) deserved to win the Euro Final. Zinedine Zidane had a subpar performance vs. Italy 2000. 4. Italy 2006 was a full strength (minus prime Francesco Totti) powerful national team, and whilst Zidane was not 'subpar' against Italy 2006, Zidane was also nothing impressive vs. Italy 2006. Of course, Zidane's stupid red card that kept him out of the Penalty Shootout, is an added factor that worsens Zidane's unimpressive performance in that World Cup Final. 5. Portugal--with all due respect--was always clearly inferior to the top tier national teams. Of course... "Luis Figo's Portugal vs. Zinedine Zidane's France, who will prove to be the best in this very balanced Semi Final?" That sounds much better than... "Luis Figo is arguably exactly as great as Zidane is, but Portugal as a team simply does not have the fire power to go toe to toe with the likes of France, Italy, or Brazil. France is demonstrably superior to Portugal in 10 out of 11 positions." The media has a known tendency of overrating national teams like Portugal 2000, Portugal 2006, Argentina 2010, etc. Simply because it generates more money all around, to create the illusion that Figo could actually win, in a situation where Zidane plays for the superior team. On the other hand, the dull reality is that Figo played for a significantly inferior national team, i.e., Zidane outclassed Figo, but Zidane also clearly benefited from the fact that he played for the superior team (the team that was expected to win). Bottom line: Say what you will about Spain 2008-2012 (not exactly my cup of tea, mind you); but Spain played against full strength German teams in 2008 and 2010. Spain also played against full strength underrated Portugal 2010 and 2012. Also Holland 2010, with prime Arjen Robben and prime Sneijder (in what was a great season by Sneijder), was a difficult national team (arguably more difficult than Holland 2014). And yes: Xavi and Iniesta as individuals might not have been as single-handedly impressive as Zidane was in only 3 out of 24 games, but that's in large part because Xavi and Iniesta are different type of players, that is, less spectacular players who do more of the subtle hard work that Zidane didn't do. Like it or hate it: it's difficult to argue against 2 Euros and 1 World Cup in consecutive fashion.
Zidane had a demonstrably better career than Rivaldo, overall. Even at club level, Zidane arguably had the better career. On the other hand, Luis Figo imo achieved a higher peak at club level, than Zidane ever did. And Pavel Nedved, has a very similar career to Zidane's club career - except that Nedved did so playing for weaker teams on average. Furthermore, definitely Francesco Totti and arguably Alessandro Del Piero, were just as good as Zidane was at club level.
Nedved and Figo need a bit better thought, especially since I liked both of them (except for Figo's theatrics on the field at times). One thing is at least that Figo himself pointed at Zidane (for ex. a 2013 Four Four Two retrospective on the 'Galacticos') and Ronaldo Luis too, although both have named team mates they liked more to play with than 'team mate' Zidane. This relates to those two MJ videos and Rio Ferdinand video I highlighted; Figo himself often points at Zidane, and maybe Zidane had also simply the better seasons when both played in the same team? From 2001 to 2005? Had they played between 1998 and 2001 in the same team, then maybe Figo had left the greater impression. His absolute peak in the Champions League was (I think) around 2000, the 1999-00 season. His peak as a regular season and national team footballer was between 1998 and 2001 I think, although I increasingly get the feeling he was underrated between 1995 and 1998. In his first 1995-96 season he had already 15+ league assists, in 1997 he played very well when Ronaldo was out. In the 1997 Copa del Rey final against a fairly decent Real Betis he took the game over I think with Ronaldo not available. This seems to be a decent impression of what I mean:
at this point i think i`ve seen every clip of zidane on the web. i have even bought real madrid and juventus games on dvd`s from individuals on this forum. in addition, i have been watching edited videos of zidane since before youtube came out. if a player is playing a number 10 position, he can only do so much in advancing the ball from defense to offense. yes, he has his role, but at this level you cannot expect the number 10 to go all the way back to get the ball from the defenders and then transiton the ball to the forwards, make runs going forward, and repeat the process. there are only so many times you can do that in a game. this is why busquets and iniesta are crucial to ball movement in the midfield, specifically in their own half of the field when they are under pressure. in addition, when you have gomes in the midfield the way that he has performed, then there is no way that you can move the ball upfield under pressure. and the only time i remember zidane playing as an attacking midfielder is when iniesta was playing as a midfielder. in any case, arguing on such an issue of playmaking forward and playmaking midfielder seems futile in the grand scheme of things. honestly, i think we become so hung up on trying to win an argument that we argue on such meaningless things like the difference between a playmaking forward and an attacking midfielder, when in reality, they are virtually the same position. i pretty much agreed on the other points we made and/or the differences made little to no difference in the grand scheme of things. it`s funny, after all this arguing i forget the 1 original point of why we argued. you have definitely brought up some points that are worth thinking about. if i`m not mistaken, it was which player iniesta/zidane played a more dominant role on their respect teams and who generally would be considered as having a more dominant effect in the midfield. based on everything we have argued, if it is who would have a more dominant effect in the midfield, it is very, very close. obviously the more lethal player in terms of goals and creating more offensive 3rd chances would go to Zidane. but in terms of ball retention, escaping danger, ball possesion, etc. i would give the edge to Iniesta. taking everything into consideration, usually the upside goes to the player who was more lethal in the offensive 3rd, which would go to Zidane. and because it is sooo close when considering all factors, the overall edge might go to Zidane.
Hmm, that almost sounds like a ... challenge. How much of his time at Bordeaux and Cannes have you seen? Anyway, the clip was unrelated to our discussion and I did mention it doesn't have anything new as such. Thought it was something worth sharing simply because of the the way it was cleverly edited, with the audio including game commentary and anecdotes from what other players, managers or journalists have said about Zidane. I understand what you are saying, but I think the offensive output of Messi only gets hurt if he's actually playing deep enough to transition the ball from the defenders to the forwards consistently. That was the original point which was being discussed in that thread when this position/role of Messi aspect was brought in. Agree on the point that it is difficult to definitively see the difference in roles to that minutiae. There are a lot of intangibles where Iniesta scores highly, don't disagree on that. Agree with your final conclusion that the edge, when considering all factors, would go to Zidane.
i`ve seen quite a lot of him at bordeuax but only a few highlights of him at Cannes. but even at cannes you could tell that he was a very intelligent player. seeing him at bordeaux, i feel that he was always inevitably going to be picked by a top club. i can acknowledge that even if Messi did officially play attacking midfielder than obviously given his freedom on the team he would not have to come back to defend. if so very rarely. so you could in theory say that he was a withdrawn forward and then he could effectively be called either an attacking midfielder or a withdrawn forward. but i think we should stop it here before this becomes a ronaldo, messi thread it depends on what we are clarifying. as a number 8, i would put iniesta ahead, but as an overall player i would give Zidane the higher ranking all things considered. and like i said, as a midfielder i think iniesta dominates more. but as a player who creates direct opportunities for the team and who is more lethal in front of goal then zidane wins that category. and this is coming from an analysis of what they actually did throughout their careers.
Had asked this question from a perspective of looking at the feasibility of taking up the challenge of sharing some game film of Zidane with you, which you had not seen previously. This is since I had some of his rarer games from that time with me. But I think you might have already seen even those rare games from his time at Cannes and Bordeaux, considering what you have written above. No problem. Had just pointed it out because you made a pertinent point about Iniesta which IMO tied directly to our discussion on Messi's recent position. Got it. I think I am pretty clear on your perspective now. I do find what you mention about Iniesta's dominance a bit odd though, since I have read Barcelona fans stating that Iniesta has not been able to dominate in the same way, post Xavi's retirement. Although, it is typically the same group which holds Xavi in a higher regard, so maybe that is the reason for them making such statements.
No specific reason..just i am a fan of argentina, so tend to dislike brazil since i was young. But of course i respect the good football brazil plays
yeah, that`s true. iniesta has not dominated in the same way since xavi left. just as xavi cannot dominate as much when iniesta is not there. both of them grew up playing football in the exact same environment as young kids, so their chemistry is on point. i do think some of it has to do with the fact that iniesta is older, as well. iniesta did play very well individually in 15-16, but we must also remember that when enrique came, the philosophy of barcelona changed. the style was much different than with guardiola. and of course, xaví is a world class player. i could agree that xavi is a better pure midfielder than iniesta, but xavi would not be playing the same if he had played with rakitic in a more direct system, that focused on the front 3 more so than the midfield. but between the 2, iniesta is more adaptable to xavi, and zidane probably be the most adaptable between all of them because of his ability to play in a way that is more direct and more capable of scoring goals. so perhaps, zidane would be best of the 3.