Xavi/Iniesta better than Zidane?

Thanks for the explanations. I suppose it is the subjective nature of football which causes opinions to vary so much. Cheers!

 

Major tournament sf and final matches (WC, EU/CA, EC/CL)

Goals (Scored + Assisted + Involved)

Zidane 22 (10 (3p) + 5 + 7) out of 35 team goals in 20 games = 63% importance (+ 1 SO goal)
Iniesta 14 (3 + 5 + 6) out of 30 team goals in 23 games = 47% importance (+ 1 SO goal)
Xavi 16 (1 + 7 + 8) out of 35 team goals in 25 games = 46% importance

 

Zidane by such a biased metric will always beat players like Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, etc. Because Zidane was a lot more attack-oriented (and a lot less defensive-oriented) than the other players -- obviously, significantly more defensive players will never win or even compete at all, when the metric recognizes zero defensive virtues. But let's look at a different metric,

Major tournament Finals (WC, EU/CA, EC/CL)

Wins (and Defeats)

Zidane 1 out of 3 UCL; 0 out of 2 League Cup; 1 out of 2 WC; 1 out of 1 Euro = 3 wins (5 defeats)
Iniesta 4 out of 4 UCL; 5 out of 6 League Cup; 1 out of 1 WC; 2 out of 2 Euro = 12 wins (1 defeat)
Xavi 3 out of 3 UCL; 5 out of 6 League Cup; 1 out of 1 WC; 2 out of 2 Euro = 11 wins (1 defeat)
Messi 3 out of 3 UCL; 5 out of 6 League Cup; 0 out of 1 WC; 0 out of 1 Copa America = 8 wins (3 defeats)

You will probably say something about "team edge" like you always do (whenever you don't have a rational answer for something), but Zidane's awful record in the club-level Finals is indicative of the fact that he never won a Final when his team was not on-form, which by extension means that his Goals + Assists + Involved = a lot to do with the "team edge" and with the actual position/role of the player in question. You cannot actually simply extract Goals + Assists + Involves and magically get "Importance."

 

Regardless of all that, any metric that only recognizes Goals + Assist + Involved, will always be (ridiculously) biased in favor of the primary playmaker of the team (or in favor of second-strikers or false-striker or other similar roles). Still, though, Zidane has zero assists from open play at NT level, if I'm not mistaken; which isn't something one should expect from a player like Zidane, and particularly so when Patrick Vieira has at least two assists from open play having played less KO games than Zidane.

Look at Iniesta's passing at Euro 2015 -- totally indicative of a player who gets barely any assists per season... (Of course when Messi is the primary playmaker, and Neymar is somewhat the secondary playmaker, you simply don't get to see Iniesta doing much in the form of an assist.)

 

Iniesta seems to have dissapeared once he was given the reigns after Xavi's departure. No more evident than the last two tournaments.

 

Imagine if Zidane had back to back failures of this magnitude...

 

At Xavi's time (since 2008) every Spanish player was at his peak at the same time, "the planets were aligned". Xavi was it his peak, Iniesta too, Fabregas too but he was a sub (he never totally fitted to that system of play at the same time, as seen at Barça), even David Silva was someway at his peak when he was that brilliant young player of Valencia. There was a stong Senna too in 2008, then Busquets in a quite different style but with still great Xavi, Iniesta, Silva's and everybody. There was strikers who were more involved in the game too with Villa and Torres.

Spain won as a team and lost as a team. Xavi won nothing before 2008.

There is no evidence that De Gea is really a so great goalkeeper for now in my opinion too. His game is much about to deviate the ball with the thig from what I've seen in this Euro, a bit like a handball goalie. He is much sollicited in English football so maybe he looks better than he actually is in this context, like a Schmeichel before him. Courtois, we saw him blocking the shots with his hands for example. But wait, it has much to do with the level of his team, and in truth I think that de Gea is a very good keeper. But during that Euro he looked a bit panicked, at the image of his team, and a great keeper must be strong and sure of his game in all the siuations (even if in the end he concedes goals because he's not helped enough by his defense, that's not the problem).
All of that to say that Spain had a keeper in great confidence in 2008-2012 too and not anymore, despite the talent.

Iniesta can't resolve all the problems of this selection which has not so much renewed in terms of selected players and not at all tactically. How it comes that a player like Koke was not in the team or at least in the squad too? He could have played in the Xavi's role if the solution is more about keeping a game spirit more than changing it.

Maybe the well-known players since some years were less angry and that the new ones were a bit too tender and not really compatible with Spain's...or Barça's system of play, but it all starts with the headcoach maybe, this question of envy and the question of tactics?

Iniesta is not NT coach. And starts to be a bit old that's true (it's long time that he plays a the very very high level). But his leadership on the field should not be questionned I think, because if there can be a leader in this team for the next 1-2 years, it is well him imo, can't see others.

I think that Del Bosque relied on the success of the Barça system of play (+ some basic elements brang by Aragones) and that he has not selected the good new players for this Euro 2016 no more that he really provide work tactically. The grand uncle type of management it works a while, not eternally. It worked for a good period of time for him, good. But now it's over. Well that makes some years that it is actually over now.

Iniesta knows this bad perod like Xavi knew the unsuccessful period of the early 2000s. Both were at their top and on the same level in their respective function from 2008 until 2012, when playing together.
They're defintively inseparable (in terms of success at NT level at least).

Would have like to see a Koke in this team though, once again. Even if it would have not resolved everything.

 

Iniesta was one of the few Spanish players who was doing something, and arguably the best player in the Spanish squad; there's a big difference between "disappearing" and what Iniesta was doing. Comparatively, Vieira was better than Zidane was in the Round of 16 at World Cup 2006; Zidane didn't even played the Round of 16 at World Cup 1998; and at Euro 2004, Zidane was eliminated in the first KO round. Not to mention the Final of Euro 2000, where Zidane was not even half-as-good as Iniesta was vs. Italy 2016.

 

It was a complete and utter failure. He lost against Croatia. Second major tournament that his team is eliminated in humiliating fashion. He had a great game against Turkey (really poor team) - deserved MOTM - and that's about it. You are an incredible PR machine with how hard you go at it with the justifications - it's unfortunate that these guys will be disappointing you for here on out given the absurd standard you hold them to.

 

He lost two matches back to back. If Zidane's team wins, it's not because of him. If his team loses, it's because of him. Laughable.

Finally, that Euro 2004 he was played out of position to accomodate the Arsenal players. He delivered one of the most legendary comebacks ever vs. England. Scored 3 goals (+1 the deflected FK vs. Croatia). Lost to the eventual winners.

 

If Zidane's team wins, it usually was because Zidane AND a good number of other amazing players played well. However, Zidane was subpar at the Euro 2000 Final, and France won, which is just one out of essentially infinite examples of the fact that football is a team sport. Another such example would be the WC 1998 Semi Final, where Zidane was average or below-average, and Thuram scored 2 goals. Iniesta had an above-average game, if not a good game, vs. Italy, but unlike Zidane he wasn't carried by his teammates into the next KO game.

Overall, I'm bored with your anger and your obvious fixation on me; nothing you've stated actually corresponds to the critiques I've aimed at Zidane, and furthermore, it's not my fault that you're obsessed with Zidane to the point that you basically follow me around with the sole intention of insulting me.

Against Croatia, Iniesta was the player that created the situation that ended up as a PK for Sergio Ramos -- that was a very good pass by Iniesta, and the resulting situation was a PK to make it 2-1 for Spain. Ramos failed to convert from the PK spot, and then Spain's defense was to blame for Croatia's goal. Funny how you seem to hold Iniesta responsible for when a defender fails to score a PK that was created by Iniesta, and for when Spain's defense fails to keep it at 1-1.

Do you remember Zidane's legendary defensive "supporting cast" ever failing him that badly? Vieira has assists vs. Spain Euro 2000 (Quarter Final) and Spain 2006 (Round of 16). Thuram was MOTM vs. Portugal 2006 (Semi Final) and Thuram scored 2 goals AND was MOTM vs. Croatia 1998 (Semi Final). Not only did Zidane's defensive teammates ever failed him as badly as Sergio Ramos and Pique have done for Spain, but Thuram and Vieira actually produced key assists and/or goals in important KO games.

 

I have to somewhat agree with Carlito here that Xabi Alonso is very underrated; for some reason neither @lessthanjake nor @leadleader considered Alonso to be worth mentioning in the same breath as Xavi or Iniesta.

I personally believe that neither Spain 2010 or Spain 2012 could have happened without Alonso. He provide cover for Xavi and Iniesta when they pushed up the field. We saw what happened in 2014 against Holland when Alonso got taken off for Pedro. Spain got annihilated by Robben as the defense had zero cover.

Now I know that Senna and Fabregas were preferred over Alonso in 2008, as he was used mostly as a sub in that tournament. Alonso had just recovered from an injury riddled season with Liverpool where missed over 20 games. Perhaps that's why he doesn't get much credit for Spain's success in 2010 and 2012.

My only problem with Alonso was that at times he lacked discipline. His completely unnecessary tackle against Bayern in 2014 when they were 4-0 up on aggregate cost him a place in the final.

 

Senna 2008 was better than Alonso at any NT tournament. The reason why I don't mention Alonso in the same breath as Xavi or Iniesta, is the same reason as to why I don't mention Vieira in the same breath as Zidane, nor Gattuso in the same breath as Pirlo. Long story short; if Alonso legitimately deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Xavi or Iniesta, then Deschamps and Vieira and Makelele definitely deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Zidane, and so does Gattuso with regards to Pirlo, etc. Of course, for some reason said "balanced" logic only ever seems to apply to Xavi or Iniesta or Messi, but not to Pirlo or Zidane or Maradona.

 

Senna was a pure defensive mid whereas Alonso was more box to box (but slightly more defensive). I would say that Busquets replaced Senna whereas Alonso replaced Fabregas.

Make no mistake about it, Busquets right now is a better DM than Senna ever was, for both club and country. As for Alonso vs. Fabregas, it's hard to argue that Fabregas is better when Alonso was preferred in both 2010 and 2012. He probably would have been preferred in 2008 as well if his season with Liverpool was not so injury-riddled.

You know from previous posts that I really don't rate Zidane all that highly compared to others. I would say that Vieira was just as important as Zidane. Why should a defensive player not be considered as important as an attacking player?

Pirlo and Gattuso is a completely different case altogether. Gattuso had half the technical ability Pirlo did (something you cannot say about Alonso vs Xavi), and Gattuso was a pure DM (much like Makelele or Busquets); whereas Pirlo's role is actually closer to Alonso than it is to Xavi (Pirlo played deeper than Xavi does, right in front of the defense, much like Alonso).

 

Not to insult your intelligence (in fact, I consider you a reasonable and logical and intelligent person), but I think you're extrapolating there; I mean, Alonso's role with Spain, was essentially identical to Senna's role with Spain. In fact, Senna 2008 was more "box to box" (if memory serves me well) than Alonso ever was for Spain; Senna had more of a license to roam from box to box (again, if memory isn't letting me down here).

Alonso when he played for Spain, really wasn't a "box to box" midfielder, as far as I could tell; I mean, Alonso very rarely ventured further up-the-field, very rarely was given the chance to unleash his powerful shot, and typically he just stayed behind Xavi and Iniesta, essentially playing as a secondary defensive midfielder (one that isn't as technically efficient as Busquets was), essentially playing as the "tactical foul" type defensive role, but without the creative license to roam from box to box. And so, I think you're conflating how Alonso played at club level (where he did have the license to roam from box to box), and how Alonso played at NT level (where he didn't have the license to roam freely from box to box). In other words, the type of role that Xabi Alonso played for Spain, is precisely the type of role that Claude Makelele would've been as good or better at; Alonso's role when he played for Spain, did not required a great deal of vision, didn't required a great deal of creative license, and didn't required a "special" player; it was a very rigid, very limited defensive role, that many defensive midfielders of the past would've "fulfilled" with about the same efficiency as Xabi Alonso.

As for Alonso vs. Fabregas; Alonso has a much stronger/bigger physique (compared to Fabregas) to counter for Xavi's and Iniesta's small physique; Alonso also had clearly superior work-ethic (compared to Fabregas); and the role that was being contested by Alonso and Fabregas, was a very limited defensive role that would obviously favor the player whom is bigger, stronger, and with the better work-ethic -- Alonso was the easy, logical, decision, and the fact that Fabregas unequivocally disappointed at Barcelona (where he played with Xavi and Iniesta), further made the decision even easier than it would've been otherwise (and even still, I believe that "otherwise" Alonso was the clear and easy decision).

And lastly, my opinion (for whatever its worth) is that Senna 2008 was better than Alonso (at any NT tournament) and also better than Busquets (at any NT tournament). But yes, I would agree that Busquets has surpassed Senna as a pure defensive midfielder, but that being said, I still believe that Senna's 2008 Euro was better than any of Busquet's NT tournaments. But as you well know, NT tournaments are just 7 games, in one month, played once per every 4 years.

I don't have any problem, at all, if defensive midfielders get the credit they deserves -- but what I ask for, is for the logic to be applied evenly (not selectively).

For instance, I've watched Gattuso 2004 recently (playing for AC Milan), and I know for a fact that Gattuso could play with the ball a lot better than he's given credit for, even if he wasn't a master technician. And I also know, for a fact, that Claude Makelele could routinely do difficult skills on-the-ball. Same goes for Edgar Davids (who could actually routinely do a wide array of skills). Basically, defensive midfielders get ridiculously underrated, on the basis of their boring roles.

And yes, Pirlo's role (at club and NT level) is very close to Alonso's role (at club level), but the problem is that Alonso arguably never actually played the "Alonso Role" at NT level; the role that Alonso played at NT level was very limited. On the other hand, Pirlo did played his role at club level and also at NT level (but to be fair, he also had Gattuso at his side at club level and at NT level). Overall; the more I watch Pirlo, the more I believe that Pirlo was ridiculously underrated for the larger portion of his career; 2003 to 2010, I'd say. I believe that Pirlo was one of the best technicians of all time, and also one of the best passers of all time, even if you completely ignore what he did after 2011. I currently believe that he definitely belongs to the same tier as Zidane, Xavi, and possibly Iniesta.

 

I think the community we discuss football with can play a role in how we think players are rated. I mean, this is the first time I've ever heard someone think that Pirlo is under-rated. The people I routinely discuss football with, loves Pirlo. There is a cult of Pirlo fans out there and they make sure that you know that he's one of the best deep playmaker of all time. Even if you tell them that you agree with them, they won't stop.

And I couldn't agree more about DMs being technically under-rated. For example, so many Man Utd fans don't even know that Roy Keane was a well-rounded B2B player before he became a dedicated DM. Someone like Makelele did have decent technique, but because his role commands that he plays risk-free, you will rarely ever see him do anything flamboyant.

Defensive players are rated as much less of a technician because their roles do not permit them to take as much risk as the attacking players. It is also why someone like Busquets is so admired. He is able and allowed to occasionally showcase some fine technique without putting his team at any great risk.

 

Pirlo was overrated at Juventus, but underrated at Milan.

At Juventus, specifically after Euro 2012, he had a lot of hype around him; simple passes were labelled as genius. He was in the top 10 shortlist for the 2015 best player in Europe award when he was arguably the biggest weakness in Juve's midfield that year. Marchisio was much better than Pirlo in 2015 yet barely got any credit in comparison. In 2015, Pirlo was old and slow, and could not deal with Barcelona's fast paced game in the final.

However, Pirlo was clearly underrated at Milan; especially under Ancelotti from 2003 to 2007 when Milan were in the Champions League final every other year. He was also an absolutely critical part of Italy's World Cup triumph in 2006. However, for some reason he was largely ignored at the time.

At the World Cup, he had the joint-most assists (4) and scored one of the best goals against Ghana. He won 3 MOTM awards, including both the semi-final and the final; yet for some incomprehensible reason Zidane won the golden ball. He ran the show in the 2007 CL final and was, once again, largely ignored.

Basically, Pirlo was underrated until his performance against England at Euro 2012; but by then he was already past his prime.

 

Dont agree about Pirlo being overrated at Juve. In his first season (2011-12 + Euro 2012) I strongly believe he should have won the Balon D'or. He was still great the next season however his decline was showing vs the likes of Bayern and the next 2 seasons. He should not have started in the CL final.

Marchisio was not just much better than Pirlo that season he was also MUCH better than Vidal and Pogba in 14/15.

 

That's exactly it. Pirlo was underrated for the majority of his career (certainly when he was at the peak of his powers), and Euro 2012 is arguably the only reason as to why we have "the Pirlo cult" of fans today. Before Euro 2012, Pirlo was always underrated; always.

 

I found it hilarious to see how the world went crazy for his Euro 12 performance when his performances for Juve that season were at an even higher level. He definitely deserved his cult following but its sad to see that he needed an amazing performance vs the "mighty" england in order to get it.

 

Case in point... Pirlo was arguably overrated at Juve, and no offense, but you'd really, really, need to hate Barcelona players (with a passion) if you honestly believe that Pirlo 2012 "should have won the Balon d'Or in 2012." I mean, if we're honest, Messi and Iniesta were both clearly better than Pirlo.

Pirlo 2012 was amazing, but let's not forget that he played in a "rather weak period" for the Serie A, and he didn't played the Champions League, and his great performance at Euro 2012 was against England (read: a good team, but definitely not a great team). That's definitely not enough to win the Balon d'Or.

Messi and Iniesta were playing at more or less the same level as Pirlo (read: Pirlo was playing at an incredible level), but Messi and Iniesta were playing against the best teams in the world, and Pirlo was not playing against the best teams in the world -- it's virtually impossible to win the Balon d'Or when; (a) you do not win the Euro; (b) you do not play the Champions League; and (c) you play in a "somewhat weak" Serie A. Pirlo at the very least, needed to win the Euro, in order to have a realistic chance of winning the 2012 Balon d'Or.

And for the record: I rate Pirlo's 2011-12 Serie A season very very highly, but Messi 2011-12 was an all-time great performance (compared to Pele and Maradona), and Iniesta 2011-12 was an all-time great performance for a midfielder. Pirlo 2012 was unlucky to play in the same year as at least two all-time great performances.