Sneijder, of course. He won a treble with Inter and played a final on the World Cup. What more to say? I voted for Dario Conca, too, just because I was surprised to see someone remember to include him
In term of "pure talent", Messi and CRonaldo made the best two out there. It was just that last year CRonaldo did not have a great one, along with just a good WC, so his name is missed out in TOP5,6. Anyway since we talk about STATS, here are their updates (Dec 12th) ----------------- Messi -- CRonaldo Minutes Played 1221......... 1419 Goals....................17.............18 * Penalties .......1..............4 * Freekicks ........0..............2 * First goals.......7...............3 Total Shots.............65..........108 . (On target)...........34..........40 Assist ....................8........4 Passes................872....677 Passes Completed.737....486 Fouls Suffered .......19...........40 Fouls Committed.....10...........12
Ronaldo didn't have a great year? In 5 starts in the Champions league, he had 7 goals. In 28 starts in La Liga, he had 26 goals. This, mind you, in a new country, during a season where he was injured for weeks on end. If anyone else had these stats, they'd have been considered as having an "amazing" year.
I must say that I largely agree with phil80 comme, although the numbers are objective and concrete, actually, Iniesta is the perfect example that it's a poor resource to value the real dimension of a player just only counting his goals and assists, even when is an offensive player, and seems a very limited base of opinion if the player hasn't been followed continuously by the person who analyzes. Iniesta has had and impressive influence on the game of Barcelona during this year, impose his own rhythm in the so possesive style of play of his club, incredibly effective in creating spaces, destroy the order of opposing defenses, super fast mentally for the distribution and excellent ball retention, that has become already legendary the "Blaugrana" game. To be honest, I firmly believe in a general comparison (not sharing the same function) his level was even higher than Cristiano Ronaldo, beyond the great numbers of Portuguese. Just to clarify that this poll refers to the chronological year, from January to December 2010, because it's a global survey and not only refers to the leagues of Europe what follow a calendar spread over 2 different years. His level during this year has been extraordinary and influential in the championship of Fluminense in the Brazilian league, probably together Neymar, the 2 best offensive players who have played all of 2010 in a South American league.
No matter how often you say this it isn't going to become true. You may or may not watch the matches, to be honest it doesn't matter if you aren't able to judge what you're watching. If you're easily impressed with a little shimmy or a turn in your own half to the extent that you don't see the actions of real value in the game it doesn't matter how much you watch. I don't even like Ronaldo particularly but to say that he started sub-par misses the fact that in the early games in La Liga he was still the difference maker. He gave the assist for the win against Osasuna, an assist in the game against Sociedad, a goal and an assist against Espanyol. Even before he hit top form he was vital in picking up points for Madrid. Then he has kicked on and been in unbelievable form. Iniesta in comparison will always look great if you don't desire any end product from him. If you are happy to see a little 1-2 or a player beaten in his own half. The act of actually deciding a game is far more difficult.
That is the criticism that is often used with admirers of players like Iniesta, Zidane, Scholes, Laudrup. People claim that it is their aesthetics that is looked fondly upon, the fact that they can shimmy past a player or the ease in which they float past a defender but they think nothing comes out of it. In actuality, it is the effectiveness of their football IQ, the fact that they are constantly opening up the opponents and destabilizing the balance of the defense. If all Iniesta did was quick pretty little dribbles then he would hardly be of any use, then he might as well be Quaresma. I have addressed this elsewhere so I dont want to repeat myself, but the likes of Iniesta, Xavi are the difference makers in games. There is no way you can determine it from a stats sheet, but when you look at the team's record with the player on and off the field (with the overall loses of the team) there is significant disparity. For one to recognize their contributions, they have to abandon the thought the effectiveness of midfielders solely relies on their statistical output. A midfielder can be influential without it ever showing up on the stats. As for Ronaldo, imo he did underperform in the beginning of the season. Yes, he did get the occasional assist, but you had a player who was taking a significant amount of shots on goals, several errant freekicks, and losing the possession of the ball an unnecessary amount of times. His form has picked up and I have given credit to him, but the criticism was justified early on this term.
You are comparing Iniesta to players here who are levels above him so far in his career. Laudrup and Zidane both played in eras in which the assist stat was far less (if at all reported), and both were far heavier scorers and assisters than Iniesta has ever been. Scholes is a completely different type of player, but he too has been a far heavier scorer than Iniesta was. The Scholes comparison is just off the wall basically because for the majority of his career he was primarily noted for his offensive output. To try and suggest that Iniesta is underrated because other greats were not heavy scorers or assisters and then point to a group of players who did far more than him is a complete joke. A midfielder can of course be influential and not show up statistically with goals and assists, but the really great ones do both. Iniesta is not the type of controlling playmaker that mitigates an absence of productivty in the final third. Nor does he contribute anywhere near enough defensively to compensate for his lack of penetration. Even in his own team Iniesta is far from being this sort of conductor that is often suggested. It is Xavi that is the pass master, not Iniesta. Iniesta completed roughly half the number of passes that Xavi did and at a worse coversion rate. Somehow Iniesta is being given credited with the same sort of impact as Xavi when it's just not the case. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/statistics/players/passes.html
The comparison to players like Zidane, Laudrup, Scholes is all were more influential than their statsline would suggest (as was Iniesta). It's a line of logic, not a basis of comparison. It would be a complete joke for you to think anything was implied beyond that. No, you think only the great ones do both, and that is why you consistently underrate players like Zidane, and overrate Lampard. Xavi and Iniesta play off of each other, it is simplistic to pigeonhold them to one task. They are a dynamic tandem with different roles. Xavi is more of the orchestrator while Iniesta is the more creative offensive distributor. So to say Iniesta converts less passes than Xavi shows ignorance in their games. Iniesta takes more risks, dribbles at defenders, and attacks and pushes forward more, he is obviously going to have a less pass conversion rate to Xavi, but to discredit that and claim he is then not as influential is amateurish and lacks insight.
To understand the influential plays Iniesta makes that are never recorded on the stat sheets, watch from minute 1 to 1:30 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuG-7BqV6r4"]YouTube - Andrès Iniesta Vs Tenerife (10.01.10) By Sjurinho[/ame]
It's a perfect example of a fallacious argument. If that counts as logic to you then so be it. You want to bring Lampard into this yet again? Seriously? We argued over about ten pages in another thread about a month ago and you ended it by giving up. Now you want to bring him up again? I do find it astonishing that you think that you admit Iniesta attacks more, pushes forward more, and yet you fail to see the problem that he scores less and assists less than Xavi. If he is such a great player, how come he doesn't use his attacking freedom and forward positioning to better effect?
Just one question comme, how much you've seen Iniesta this year?, because I find extremely difficult anyone who has followed him considers his game has been unproductive. Without wanting to be arrogant mate, I think you haven't seen or understood the great form of the horizontal game, it just have dominated the world this year with Spain and Barcelona, not mean irrelevance if not the opposite, making the numbers rather shallow and even misleading if you only guides by them.
Of course he had a "very good" year (could be "amazing" to others like you said) but he is CRonaldo with label 80mils transfer. He got a great start in new league allright but his International games were still sub-part (8 WC qual+friendlies = 0goals) and 1goal in last WC vs the naive NKorea. Same with Messi, he wuld be 101% to win this year title as best player if Argentina could be in the final! Both Xavi and Iniesta got LUCKY to pass them (Mesiah and CRonaldo) for the WC TITLE - PLUS the fact taht many other midfielders performed below their standard due to form or fitness i.e. Sneijder, Robben, Ribbery , Gerrard ... just helped to make them standing out more!
I guess we can agree to disagree. I refuse to discount Ronaldo and Messi because of their international games simply due to the fact that they were led by terrible coaching. Both of them have already started scoring under their new coaches. Xavi and Iniesta are great team players, on Bracelona and Spain, but individually theres absolutely nobody right now that can touch Ronaldo or Messi in terms of pure individual talent and output.
It's a simple line of logic: There are players that get underrated because their stats are not indicative of their influence and overall performance, and those listed are among them including Iniesta. It is in no ways a comparison or a ranking of the players. Hardly, your arguments were predictably going nowhere with your repeated undertone of personal insults, and I mentioned Lampard to show the types of mids you wrongfully overrate. It is befitting of you to keep repeating 'if he is an attacker, why doesnt he have better stats'. I've dumbed it down, explained it thoroughly (in many threads), and even showed the types of plays I was referring to. When one shows blind ignorance and stubbornness over a topic, a discussion can not be had. And if you think that's the only instance when Iniesta had a play similar to that (where it doesnt translate on the stat sheet), then it reinforces the fact that you truly do not watch him play and only rely on stats to judge players.
I believe you, surprised me more now you find his game unproductive after his extraordinary influence for Barcelona and Spain from my point of view.
No love for Nasri? I would like a chance to see Hernanes and Conca, I've not heard of the latter. Brazilian football coverage in the UK is poor.
That's called inductive reasoning. It's basically worthless. I can point to a hundred unproductive midfielders, just because Zidane was also less productive doesn't make them all great players. That is the level of logic you are operating at. The fact is that every uber-great attacking midfielder was a far heavier scorer than Iniesta. The stat sheet is not available for any of them, but from having watched them, it is also safe to say that they were all far heavier assisters as well. If I was insulting you, you'd know about it. If I wasn't a moderator I'd have you on ignore. Of course it's not the only instance. It is the fact that it doesn't happen enough that counts against him and keeps him from being among the very top rank. I understand Iniesta, I get what he is about as a player. In the 2008-9 season I placed him among the 5 best players in the world. What I think though is that his subtle play and retention of possession (while important) is not enough to carry him above the a player who truly dictates play or those who can combine exceptional playmaking with heavy scoring and assisting. That is all. For the 2009-10 season he was injured for long stretches and when he did play he was rarely the difference maker. At the World Cup, he was good but not exceptional (people like Sneijder and Oezil were better). Then so far this season he has been very good, but there are a couple of other players who have been just as good if not better from attacking midfield (like Oezil and Nasri). Overall for 2010 (and in particular for 2009-10 + WC which is what these awards tend to be for) there were numerous attacking midfielders who were better. Now get back to doing your thing and telling me that I haven't watched the games.
Barcelona plays 4-3-3, which means a player has to perform the task at the spot he is at that moment. So if Xavi happens to be in a defensive position and the defender is else where, Xavi is the defender.
Very good point. overall career: XAVI is a DM/CM and Scheintegger is AM/Side midifelder 2 typical examples: - Xavi used to be a DM/CM but just this season he became more attack and less in defense responsibility. - Scheintegger: used to be an AM (wing or center) but just last season he became more of a CM/DM
That logic can not be used for unproductive midfielders, and Iniesta is not an unproductive midfielder. Forget attacking mids, there are defensive mids with better stat lines than Iniesta, but an observer with any semblance of football knowledge would know gameplay production has to be taken into account. So you can keep talking up all the attacking mids with better stats, and I'll tell you there are even defensive players with better stats, but that has no detraction on Iniesta's influence or productivity. If you want to ignore, dont reply. Then explain why you typed 'that is ONE instance.' If you understand his play then why do you continually ask why his stats are so underwhelming? Someone that understands his influence and role on the squad would not need an explanation for it. What games are you talking about where he was unproductive last season? I've listed several where he has been integral for the squad, and with the exception of a few matches, he was their most influential after messi, xavi. At the WC, the only player that convincingly outperformed him was Forlan. Sneijder's performances were overrated, Villa was the best in the group stages for Spain then trailed off, Ozil was impressive but was not able to open defenses the way Iniesta did. Iniesta constantly unlocked teams, including Netherlands where his play in overrtime was game changing (even before his goal). The problem is there is a significant difference in the way you interpret players' performances. Either you do not understand or refuse to acknowledge the influence of an individual's gameplay on a match that is not related to stats. That is why when you watch a match like Zidane vs Brasil in WC06 you think his only contribution was an assist. You refuse to acknowledge his impact leading up to that point and everything he did in that game. So it seems like it is best to agree to disagree on players' influences.
Eh? WTF are you on about? Of course it does. If one player does everything that another one does and scores goals and assists then of course it has an impact on their influence. To say anything else is just ridiculous. Xavi controls the play more than Iniesta, retains the ball better than Iniesta, scores more goals than Iniesta and makes more assists than Iniesta. Xavi is a better player than Iniesta. You initiated this. I am merely responding to your constant tubthumping for a personal favourite and snide comments about "bitter" and "foolish" posters. Are you really this thick? If I say that someone doesn't make enough secondary assists and generally contribute sufficiently to compensate for their underwhelming goalscoring and assisting and you say look at this video of one instance, you don't see the problem? If he did something like that every game it would be fantastic. He doesn't. This is honestly getting tiresome. I have never said that Zidane's only contribution was an assist. I know that you are pretty desperate and you have resorted to lying in the past but give it a rest. What I said was that Zidane's assist in that game was his decisive action. Had he played the exact same game, but without that one assist France would not have progressed. You do realise that the objective of the game is scoring goals and winning games don't you? What I have consistently said is that while allround gameplay (such as rentention of possession, movement etc) is a key element to every player's performance, the vital element of the game for an attacker is around the scoring of goals. This isn't rocket science in any way. It's very simple, for all his neat and tidy play Iniesta does not hurt defences enough in dangerous areas to compensate for his lack of goalscoring and assisting. That is what I have been saying now for months, but you consistently choose to willfully misinterpret it and try to suggest that my only interest is in stats. The stats are merely illustrating the play that I see when I watch these players on a regular basis.
The problem is you dont understand what 'everything Iniesta does'. You pay no attention to gameplay and the intricacies of midfield possession, so you lack the ability to understand the player's contributions. You think Lampard does everything Iniesta does (and more because Lampard is a defensive juggernaut ) and gets himself on the stat sheet. Xavi does all those things better than Iniesta, and that's why I have always rated Xavi ahead, but Xavi does not open up the defense and create attacking opportunities as well as Iniesta (for the most part). Rewatch the overtime of the Netherlands game (and Im not referring to the goal) to comprehend the subtle touches a player makes to open up defenses. You can pretend to imply something differently now, but stating this is 'one instance' implies that it is a singular moment. If you meant that is one of his few instances (which you would still be wrong), then make that distinction and quit insinuating differing meanings. You said his gameplay was meaningless if it wasnt for his assist, which exposes your ignorance on his performance. And show one time when I have lied in the past. Either find examples or quit posting this garbage. WTF are you talking about? He doesnt do it enough? He is currently displaying the best performances at opening up defenses from the midfield. This is exactly why you get criticized for not watching the games. It is one thing to question the player's lack of stats, it is utterly foolish to claim he doesnt open up defenses, which is the player's main strength.
Continuing this discussion further would be pointless. You have consistently demonstrated an aversion to logic and appreciation of any facts, while choosing to continuously misrepresent my points and finally suggest that anyone who doesn't share your vision of Iniesta doesn't watch the games. There is nothing in your posts which offer more than your opinion, so this discussion is dead.