that's so true!!! it makes me laugh when people talk about figo's career at real madrid without regard to what he did at barcelona. at real madrid, we was already declining. he was only a shadow of himself, outside of perhaps his first season at madrid. yes, he did play very well for barcelona in his later years, but check our his early years for barcelona in 96/97 as well, he was a standout player even alongside R9, throughout the course of 90 minutes on average despite what the media would cause one to believe. Figo was a big part of their 2nd place finish.
You need to do better research so that you don't parrot other people's patently incorrect opinions. I stated that Juventus was unwilling to maintain or buy quality, though I should have added that I was being specific to the 1996-2001 period, because, - They were not the ones getting Ronaldo in 1997, it was Inter. - Nor were they the ones to get Shevchenko in 1999, it was Milan. - Neither did they get Crespo in 2000, it was Lazio. - They sold Vialli, Ravanelli, Vierchowood and Sousa who were all starters from the 96 CL win and key to Juventus winning the 1995 Serie A, in summer 1996 i.e. the year Zidane was bought. - Then they sold Vieri and Boksic, who were bought a season earlier, in 1997 after almost getting the double, ultimately settling on Inzaghi (not exactly an upgrade on Vieri) and buying for cheap a Davids (luckily turned out great) who hadn't been able to establish himself after an injury, in a Milan team which finished 11th the previous season. Still they again almost got a double in 1998 (with Zidane getting a team high, 5 ESM monthly appearances, keeping aside the Balon d'Or considering his WC win). - After an injury crisis impacted campaign (in which Zidane played injured almost throughout, missing games here and there and going for surgery only once Juventus were knocked out of the CL and had no hope left of winning any titles), during which they also switched coaches, in summer 1999 they sold their no.1 keeper Peruzzi to Inter, as well as letting go of Deschamps along with an Henry who had been bought in the winter window to cover for the injuries, but had failed to impress. They did get Van der Saar, but his performances made them buy a replacement and got him to end up transfering to Fulham, 2 years later. - Getting Trezeguet to play for one year alongside Zidane in 2000 was a quality buy, but like Vieri and Boksic in 1996, it was short term from a perspective of Zidane's time with Juventus. In the end, the only long term quality buy made during Zidane's era at Juventus, was Davids. Immediately after Zidane left though, they used that money to buy not just Nedved but Thuram and Buffon as well, all three of which were their most expensive buys till they got Higuain for 90m in 2016, 15 years later (not even Dybala was more expensive than any of those 3). Next year they got Cannavaro too and ultimately reached the CL final again. So yeah, Zidane did get the short end of the stick there. But the above was not the only reason. Zidane did not have that opportunity to elevate Juventus as much as he could have, since neither did he have the freedom as you incorrectly assume he had, nor was the team built around him. The team was built around Del Piero, if anyone at all. He was the local north italian hero ffs. He took the majority of freekicks (though zidane had come in with a record of 12 fks in 4 seasons at Bordeaux) and he took the pks when on the field (e.g. 9 of his 10 goals in the 99/00 serie a season were pks). While Zidane was played much deeper than his ideal position for the first 6 months, and then had to wait till his performances in Euro 00 finally convinced the Juventus heirarchy to treat him and play him as a star bigger than Del Piero (who was the world's best paid footballer till as late as mid-2000, before Zidane extended his own contract with Juventus), a move which Zidane rewarded with a 14 assist, 6 goal season (a big deal for a playmaking midfielder in the Serie A at that time). And yeah, I see you mentioned below that Messi got to within 3 points of winning the league this season with a poor team against top competition. Well, with a poor Juventus, Zidane got to within one/two points of winning the league in back-to-back seasons (in a time when Serie A had the 7 sisters, which meant top competition over 14 matchdays out of the total 34). Messi's mention was not an excuse for Zidane. It was a way to show you the flaw in your logic. How Messi, while obviously being at a level high enough to elevate a team (as per your own belief, though I don't agree), still couldn't get his team elevated enough to win any title apart from a Copa del Rey. So, if the best forward and playmaker ever (again as per your own belief, though I don't agree) couldn't do enough in his best season to elevate his team, which conceded fewer goals (across competitions if compared till the same stage) than it's rival who won more trophies, playing beside a striker who scored almost as many goals as the rival's best player, then why pray tell me do you feel Zidane needed to do it to showcase his ability? And yet, Zidane actually did do it, with his NT. As an aside, when you bring up Messi's performance against Real Madrid, I hope you do realise Real Madrid has had a pretty poor defensive record this season. In the league itself, they have allowed 2 goals (the same number as Messi scored against them in that game), on 10 separate instances across 38 games. In the CL (against more decent opposition) this has happened 5 times across 13 games, while it happened 3 times across 6 games in the Copa del Rey. The strength of this Real Madrid team is obviously not its defence, but its ability to come back from games to win them through its attack and never-say-die attitude. Something which, if this Real Madrid team had not tried to do, while being a man-down vs Barcelona in that 2nd clasico, would probably have made Messi's performance a lot less memorable. So I am not sure why one should consider Messi's exploits against such a defence, scoring the winner in quite favourable circumstances i.e. with a man advantage and on a counter attack where another player from his team did most of the work, while the opposition has no compulsion to even avoid defeat (considering their in-hand game cushion in the league), against players who have played 120 mins midweek (as opposed to Messi's team's 90 mins), as some kind of benchmark. Hell, what you should actually focus on is why Messi couldn't score against Real Madrid at the Camp Nou in the league this season, since that would have won it for Barcelona, considering how things went down at the end. Or maybe not, considering that Real Madrid would probably have taken the second clasico a lot more seriously and not thrown away their points advantage. Lastly, there is no carrying of teams when it comes to forwards. The closest a player gets to carrying a team is when he is a playmaking midfielder performing at his peak, one who is able to control, albeit only to a certain extent, both how his team and the opponent play, for extended periods of the game.
Zidane diehards all suffer from a painfully-evident 'tunnel vision' that doesn't allow them to access the big picture. I don't have neither the time nor the interest to truly get into all the points, but just glancing at your many badly formulated conclusions, I can make the following corrections: 1. Ronaldo played at Inter 1997/98, which was an inferior team to Juventus 1997/98. Figo played at Barcelona, which at the time was not a great team by any stretch, as their Champions League record demonstrates. Mendieta played at Valencia, was the best midfielder of the Champions League for two consecutive years, and played two consecutive Champions League Finals. Nedved played at Lazio, a clearly inferior team to Juventus. Totti played at Roma his entire career, and won the Serie A 2000/01 which coincidentally was Zidane's best Serie A season. Bottom line: all the best players in the world at the time -- Ronaldo, Figo, Rivaldo, Del Piero, Zidane, Mendieta, Nedved -- all of them played for flawed teams at any point between 1996 and 2001. Zidane did not get the short end of the stick any more than R9, Figo, Rivaldo, Del Piero, Mendieta, Nedved, etc. Context matters. Within the proper context: Zidane was actually lucky to be playing in one of the Top 2 clubs from the best league in the world at the time. The fact that you are trying (HARD!!) to argue that Zidane was unlucky to be playing in one of the Top 2 clubs from the best league in the world at the time -- honestly truly beggars belief. If Zidane got the short end of the stick (by playing in a Top 2 team in the best league in the world at the time), then how much shorter was the short end of the stick that R9 had at Barcelona 1996/97 and at Inter 1997/98?? Context matters... 2. Borussia Dortmund 1997 did not have better quality than Juventus 1997. Juventus 1997 had Del Piero, who was extremely high rated at the time. Even if you take Zidane out, Juventus 1997 was still superior to Borussia Dortmund. Zidane failed to win the Champions League 1997, not because he got the short end of the stick there, but because he disappeared when Juventus needed him the most - and back in those days, clubs like Borussia Dortmund could still compete, even if inferior. 3. Real Madrid 1998 was also not superior to Juventus 1998. Seedorf, Redondo, Raul, Morientes; are not superior to Zidane, Deschamps, Del Piero, Inzaghi. Again: Zidane did not win the 1998 Champions League, not because he got the short end of the stick, but because for the second consecutive time he failed to show up in a Champions League Final. Real Madrid 1998 vs. Juventus 1998 was perfectly balanced, and Zidane failed to show up. 4. Zidane was disappointing at the 2000/01 Champions League. Are you suggesting that Hamburger, Panathinaikos, and Deportivo Coruna, were better teams than the 'low quality' Juventus that surrounded Zidane?? 5. Nedved, Thuram, and Buffon, were playing against Real Madrid's Zidane, Ronaldo, and Figo. In other words: Juventus strengthened their team, when it became clear that in order to compete at the Champions League, Juventus would need to make some big signing -- particularly after Zidane's transfer record to Real Madrid. It was the beginning of the modern 'super club' era, and it began with Zidane himself. That era did not affected Zidane at any point between 1996 and 2001. The above is your opinion, and whilst you're welcome to share it, it honestly is a very irrational opinion to have both in the present as well as in the past. 1. If Zidane was 'carrying' his teams in a way that only a playmaker midfielder like himself could -- what exactly happened to Zidane when he actually played against good teams like Inter 1997/98, Real Madrid 1997/98, Borussia Dortmund 1996/97, Manchester United 1998/99?? What exactly happened to the mighty carrier of teams?? And why did Zidane failed to 'carry' Real Madrid after Makelele was kicked out?? For a player who 'carried' his teams, Zidane certainly needed a lot of world class players in pretty much all areas of the pitch, in an era of football that wasn't dominated by super clubs. Here's the fact that you are trying hard to avoid: Zidane only ever 'carried' teams that could well win without him, at club level and also at NT level. 2. Maradona was not a playmaker midfielder. Maradona did not controlled both his team and the opponent play for extended periods of the game. Maradona 1986 was not a factor for long spells of the games against Germany 1986, Italy 1986, England 1986, and Bulgaria 1986. Bottom line: yes, it is very much possible for playmakers who aren't midfielders, who do not control the tempo, to 'carry' a team. That's what Maradona 1986 did. That's what Platini 1984 did. That's what Pele 1970 did. That's what Cruyff 1974 did. That's what Messi has done at club level, too many times to count. And that's what Zidane very rarely did at NT level, but especially at club level where he practically never actually 'carried' his clubs any further than the clubs would go without him. See how far Real Madrid went post-Makelele. Real Madrid post-Makelele could've benefited greatly from Zidane's ability to carry a team, but of course, Zidane only ever carried great teams. Zidane never carried a team like Argentina 1986 nor a team like Valencia 1999-2001. In conclusion: you view everything about this sport through Zidane, as if Zidane was somehow the inherent measure of everything good about this sport. And you are wrong. There are different styles of 'carrying' a team, and that's part of what makes football such a fascinating sport pre-Zidane and also post-Zidane. And whilst you are welcomed to have your opinion, it comes off as foolish that you evidently think that your opinion is an objective truth.
It is indeed very rare for a playmaker to also be the one dictating the tempo of the game. even Xavi, probably a top 3 midfielder orchestrator of all time, had Iniesta (and of course Messi) to do a lot of the playmaking. Not very many teams play with a classic no.10 anymore. If you look back at Ancelotti's Milan, Rui Costa was the playmaker, but Pirlo was the one dictating the midfield. In present day, Ozil is another good example of a playmaker who doesn't dictate. In fact, he has struggled very badly whenever Cazorla isn't there because he's had to drop very deep to pick up the ball. When Cazorla is there to transition the ball, Ozil could stay high up the pitch, roam around, and do what he does best in the final third. A rare exception I can think of is Cesc at Arsenal. That was a very poor team, and I think Cesc did what he did more out of necessity than anything. That team was more reliant on Cesc than even the days of Ian Wright.
Zidane essentially never really did it. Zidane literally did not do it, not even once, at World Cup 1998. At World Cup 2006, only vs. Brazil did Zidane arguably dictated the tempo - but we're still talking about ONE game out of 7 games. Zidane didn't dictated the tempo in 6 out of 7 games. At Euro 2000, in what game did Zidane dictated the tempo? His performance vs. Portugal was my favorite game of his, but I wouldn't say that two or three good plays here and there, is dictating the tempo for extended periods of the game. Logically the sport gets faster and faster, and the faster it gets the more impossible it becomes for one single player to dictate the entire tempo of the game. Then again: the sport was already too fast for Zidane, before Zidane retired. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that the sport never really has been slow enough for one single player to dictate the entire tempo for his team. The players who 'dictate the tempo' is essentially a result of nostalgia and tunnel-vision for a specific beloved player. If you watch them closely, Pirlo had Kaka, and Kaka dictated a lot of AC Milan's tempo. Xavi had Iniesta-Messi at club level, and Iniesta-Alonso at NT level. Zidane was never an exception to that rule, and it is almost a cliché what happened to Real Madrid after 'metronome' Makelele left the building. Bottom line: there are physical limits, logical limits, to what one player can do.
i refuse to further carry on with messi and zidane in the same conversation. concerning, the willingness of juve to maintain quality when zidane was there, i can only say this. juventus went to the finals, 2 times with zidane from 96-2001. it's no wander they got ronaldo, schevchenko, or crespo. del piero was the main striker at juventus. how often times even today do you see two of the top 4 or 5 center forwards in the world on one team??? it's extremely rare at an time. the fact is they had arguably the best midfielder in that time, and the one of the best forwards in that time. in addition, they had a very tough midfielder, who was also technical named davids. super teams did not exist back then like they do today. juventus was no super, neither was ac milan, inter, or any other team that zidane faced in the champions league. it was an even playing field. even if you want to assume, that zidane got his freedom on juventus after 2000. you could easily make the case that juventus was a team that was better before year 2000, when zidane didn't have all that freedom that he did after euro 2000. perhaps he was better off being restricted. again, 6 goals and 14 assists can be misleading because it depends on the situations that these stats arise in general. sometimes, you can appear to do more but in the context of everything, it is actually more detrimental to the team. to go further in terms of zidane only being offered freedom because of how well his national team did, as he got huge recognition after WC 98 and again after Euro 2000. i also find it interesting that the only 2 times that juve won the league, were the 2 seasons before zidane got the actual world recognition of WC 98. the rest of the three seasons after, when zidane got recognition because of national team performances, juventus never won the league again. not only that, but juventus never again went to the champions league finals, like they did 2 times before zidane got international recognition from the national team. so perhaps, zidane did not deserve the freedom that he only have seemed to have gotten after he played well in the natioanl team tournaments.
You have all the right. I do think though that you are being unnecessarily sensitive, since I was not even comparing the players directly (though personally, I obviously don't see any problems with doing that either). I was only comparing their circumstances. This was done to show you that even a player like Messi (whom you consider streets ahead), needs his team to be the strongest amongst their competition, to actually maintain his level of success. Del Piero played with Vieri/Inzaghi/Trezeguet in the same team for all those years. He was a playmaking forward and not an out-and-out striker. So I don't see why he could not have played with the likes of Ronaldo, Shevchenko or Crespo (who were themselves out-and-out strikers). But because Juventus were simply trying to make money (bought Vieri for 2.5m and sold him for 15m the next season) with no thought to building/maintaining a CL winning team, they never went for the really expensive/top names in the market. All that changed, after these policies backfired for 3 consecutive years and they had to then go on a buying spree in 2001. In any case, you are basically agreeing to the point that in that era, it was more of an even playing field. Thus, it is obvious that it was a lot more difficult for one team to dominate, unlike in the current era. For instance, after Zidane's Juventus won back-to-back league titles, a different team won the Serie A each season between 98/99 and 00/01. So I am not sure why you keep trying to compare Zidane on titles won (a clear function of how uneven the playing field is and not vice versa), with the same from the players of the current generation (when the playing field is actually uneven). Juventus got comprehensively more points in 99/00 and 00/01 than they did in their title winning season of 96/97 in the Serie A. Comparing amongst 99/00 and 00/01, they got more points in 00/01, when as I suggested, Zidane got more freedom. They got only one more point in the 97/98 title winning season than they did in 00/01. Hell, they even got less points while winning titles in 01/02 and 02/03, with Nedved, Thuram and Buffon in the team, as compared to 00/01 while finishing 2nd with Zidane in it. At least, look at these details before making such blanket assumptions man. As for the CL, they didn't participate in it in 99/00, and in 00/01 they got kicked out of the group stages as Zidane and Davids ended up getting red cards in back-to-back games. Immediately after the World Cup, in 98/99, they had so many injuries that they actually had to call up reserve team players and make panic buys in the market. Even then, they missed out on the CL final simply because of a miraculous comeback from Manchester United in the 2nd leg of the SF (Zidane was playing those games injured and even had his knee taped up in the 1st leg, but was still a part of 2 or the 3 goals his team scored). So your assumption simply doesn't hold any water. And btw, since you are going on and on about Juventus doing better after Zidane, do explain how Juventus could only get last place in the 2nd group stage in the CL (group had Leverkusen, Deportivo and Arsenal) in 01/02, after Nedved, Thuram and Buffon and joined the team. In fact, Nedved didn't even feature in 1 of the only 2 games that they won in that group stage (although featuring in all the 3 losses), after which they finished bottom of the group.
i don't want to get lost in details that stray away from the topic but in your argument of Zidane not receiving enough freedom because juventus didn't buy enough top quality players, how the hell does it help zidane's case of playing with more freedom to fulfill his potential, if you are claiming that they (juventus) should have bought a player like R9 to fulfill zidane's potential. If R9 was on juventus, he (zidane) would be overshadowed and given less freedom. and i think it's safe to say that given that R9 was voted world player for 2 years straight. he (zidane) would be given a good restricted role as Iniesta is given playing alongside with Messi. and if you are making the case that zidane needs more freedom to play well, then he would have looked worse if R9 joined juventus and 'maintained the quality' as you said. in other words, you seem to be contradicting yourself. which one is it, should zidane receive more freedom to look better, or should they acquire R9 and better players, zidane get less freedom, and Juve 'improve or maintain the quality'???
This was not the topic. Rather it was your query regarding 'Why Zidane did not elevate Juventus?' which was the original topic to which I responded (while also stating that Zidane did elevate his NT). At that time, I gave my reasons for Zidane not being able to elevate Juventus as much as he could have, which included - 1) Juventus not buying or maintaining quality 2) Juventus not playing with Zidane as the focus (in a free role) 3) Greater parity of competition in Zidane's era, as compared to an era of superteams Since then, you have done the following, 1) Scoffed at the mere idea that Juventus could have done better in terms of building a team 2) Suggested that Juventus playing with Zidane in a free role i.e. in the 00/01 season, or even as a bigger star in the team i.e. from 98 onwards, was detrimental to them (odd for a self confessed Zidane fan to suggest that btw). I have provided factual evidence supporting my claims and explaining how your suppositions do not hold any water. You have ignored every point that I have made, while simply piling on new assumptions, one on top of the other, as soon as your older assumptions show a bleak outlook. The latest in this list of assumptions being, how Juventus buying a player like Ronaldo would have contradicted with Zidane being given a free role by them. Well I'll answer that as well, though I would prefer if you go over my post and think about the query regarding Juventus' performance in the CL in 01/02 (especially Nedved's contributions to it), which I made in my earlier post. So to answer your concern and explain how, what I am asking is not actually a contradiction - You have to consider that Zidane could have easily played a free role behind a forward and a striker (exactly like what he did in the 00/01 season with Del Piero and Trezeguet). Ronaldo would simply have played in place of Trezeguet, and there would have been no problems whatsoever. Iniesta on the other hand plays more restricted because Barcelona play with three forwards instead of two unlike what Juventus used to do. This means that Iniesta playing as a traditional playmaker would lead to a situation similar to the one that Real Madrid found themselves in during the 14/15 season, when Ancelloti tried to shoehorn James in the 3 man midfield next to Kroos and Modric. This lead to the other two midfielders burning out near the business end of the campaign, leading to a trophyless season for Real Madrid. But Juventus played with two up front and could thus afford giving Zidane the free role. Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges here when you bring in Iniesta as a comparison. Oh and btw, this restriction (of playing behind 3 forwards) did happen with Zidane as well. But this was only during the time that Lippi tried to experiment with Del Piero as a playmaker behind two forwards (Boksic and Vieri) in the first couple of games of the 95/96 CL campaign (when he was not fully aware of Zidane's abilities). Still Zidane played well in that deeper and more restricted role in those games and got an assist as well, but Juventus couldn't score enough to put the games to bed (scoring solitary goals to win those games). Their control of the midfield was tremendous though, especially in the first game vs Manchester United, who were completely shut out (as per Gary Neville in an interview that he gave when Manchester United were paired with Juventus in the 98/99 CL SF, IIRC). However, when Lippi changed tactics and moved Zidane up to play in a free role beside Del Piero and Boksic against Rapid Wien, Juventus put 5 goals past them, with Zidane assisting three of those. In any case, since during most of Zidane's tenure Juventus tended to play in a 4-4-2, there was no question of Zidane needing to be restricted to accomodate any of those three strikers. However, Del Piero was the player whom many in the Juventus heirarchy wanted to see succeeding as the team's playmaker, and thus he was continued to be made the focus for the team more so than Zidane, but while playing closer to the goal as a playmaking forward. This, in spite of Zidane being a much more natural choice, considering that his best role was that of a traditional midfield playmaker.
For me Andrea Pirlo was better than Iniesta (talking about natural year) but yes, I think is a very close decision to take and I understand when the people say Iniesta was better. Between 2012-2013 Iniesta reached his highest peak in my opinion but I saw an remarkable Andrea Pirlo and better playmaker, even in the Euro 2012, Pirlo played good 5 matches while Iniesta 4 and even in my point of view Jordi Alba was amazing and debatable if he was the best player from Spain. My personal top 15 about the natural year 2012 was: TOP 15 1. Lionel MESSI 2. C. RONALDO 3. Andrea PIRLO 4. Zlatan IBRAHÍMOVIC 5. Andres INIESTA 6. Wayne ROONEY 7. Radamel FALCAO 8. Robin VAN PERSIE 9. Marco REUS 10. Arturo VIDAL 11. NEYMAR 12. Franck RIBERY 13. Edinson CAVANI 14. Gareth BALE 15. Eden HAZARD
About the original question, who is better. I consider Zidane better very clear, no doubt about it. Zizou reached a higher peak with clear difference and longer ... better in playmaking skills, more intelligent, with better vision and game reading, more versatil for sure. I think the careers of the 3 players were equals in longer in a regularity sense but Zizou's was with better peaks. The dominance of Zizou was very superior, I mean, he was one of the most dominant players oh his era and finally in national team Zidane showed higher peaks and was better.
Time to consider Luka Modric in this conversation? Is Modric over the past few years as good as Zidane/Xavi/Iniesta?
What does he have to do to be considered in this conversation? Modric is along with Ronaldo the biggest reason to why Real Madrid have won 3 of the last 4 Champions Leagues. Zidane won 1 in his entire career. Modric is one of the most complete midfielders I have ever seen.
Actually I consider Modric as the best player of Real Madrid since year 2015 until today. But Zidane, Xavi and Iniesta reached a higher peak ... they have a longer consistent and more brilliant careers, speaking individually. And not mate ... Zidane didn't win a Champions league, the Real Madrid did ... the tittles are the achievements of the team ... when I'm talking about the peaks of the players I already considered his performances in all the scenarios, even final matches.
So Modric is the best player of a back-to-back CL winning side burn Zidane reached a higher peak? OK then. Modric played for Tottenham until he was 27. Zidane joined Juventus at 24 and Xavi/Iniesta began their careers at Barcelona. This gives the illusion of longer consistency, but it really isn't true tbh. Modric just joined a top club later.
Modric and Kroos could both be in the conversation alongside Xavi, Iniesta and Pirlo. Adding Zidane to that mix is simply trying to hype up the aforementioned players. Why not include guys like Deschamps, Redondo, Seedorf then? Each has more than 1 CL, which is more than what Zidane won.
Yes ... Zidane reached a higher peak by far between 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 ... in all those 4 years Zidane was a serious candidate to be the best in the world and was one of the most dominant player alongside Ronaldo and Zizou had other 5 good years. About Xavi ... he was very regular since the last of 90's and early of 00's and in the middle of the 00's began to be remarkable in La Liga and he was one of the best players of the world by far from 2008 to 2011. About Iniesta ... I considered him in 2007 as one of the best offensive midfielders of the world, in that time the standard in that position was very good ... and well, we know very well what happened after about his career. And well ... in the last days I was asking me about Modric's place in a historical ranking about central midfielders (the position of Modric) and probably he is a top 30 but I see players like Paul Scholes, Stefan Effenberg, Arturo Vidal, Yaya Touré, Steven Gerrard, Andrea Pirlo, Xavi over him, yet.
Based on...? Ronaldo is the undisputed best player on 4 champions league winning sides 2007/08 Voted uefa best player Uefa Best forward Top scorer CL final MOTM 2013/14 Arguably the greatest champions league season in history 17 goals+4 assists+2 pre assists in 11 games This is the achievement that won him the 2014 ballon dor by a clear margin 2015/16 Ronaldo was clearly real madrids best player up until the quarter finals. He was awarded 7 man of the match performance in 12 matches (including Roma and Wolfsburg in the KO stages) He was also directly involved in a unprecedented amount of goals for a champions league winning side He was involved in 20 goals in 12 matches games (including assists and 3 penalties) 2016/17 Undisputed best player in the most crucial matches (Top scorer with 10 goals in 5 games QF to final matches And 2nd best assister with 6 assists behind 1st place Neymar Jr on 9 assists Modric should be credited for real madrids champions league success in the same way xavi was for Barcelona In 2008/09(as the clear 2nd best player on legendary side) Or even like iniesta in 2010/11
I remember well ... the best players of Real Madrid were Ángel Di María and Luka Modric ... actually Ancelotti found in Di María the equilibrium the team needed (for that reason Isco went to the bench in that season because he didn't give the equilibrium that Ancelotti tried to find). CR7 won the ballon d'or (I was agree with that) thanks his amazing 2nd semester of the year 2014 ... you have to remember that in his 1st semester of the year 2014 his performances were low. In the year 2016 the team had not a clear tactic, I mean, the game creation and the ball distribution of Real Madrid was pathetic to be honest but in that time Marcelo was the key player ... he was the player who gave more unbalancing against the opponent teams. And well ... as usual Modric provided the equilibrium in midfield. Here ... the same history but the year 2017 has not finished ... In this year I see Messi as the best player with very clear difference followed by Modric and Marcelo. By the way ... why you are only talking about Champions League? what about the other 45 matches through the year?
Zidane vs Ajax 1996/1997 One of the greatest performances by a playmaker in champions league(uncharacteristically he didn't misplace any passes and was not wasteful in any way whatsoever) His dribbling/chance Creation was also top class. Modric/Iniesta simply don't have comparable performances at CL level and certainly not against big sides (I even read zizou ranked this as his career best performance just can't find the source ATM)
Too bad that Zidane's best performance (and I agree that that is Zidane's best club performance) came against a relatively weak opponent. Ajax 1994/95 won the league (106 goals scored; 28 goals against). Ajax 1994/95 won the UCL (16 goals scored; 4 goal against). Ajax 1995/96 won the league (97 goals scored; 24 goals against). Ajax 1995/96 was 2nd place at the UCL (22 goals scored; 2 goals against). Ajax 1996/97 was 4th place in the league (55 goals scored; 31 goals against). Ajax 1996/97 was humiliated in the Semi Finals of the UCL (14 goals scored; 13 goals against). Juventus without Zidane won the Champions League Final 1996, against a much stronger Ajax team. Bottom line: Juventus without Zidane would have easily eliminated Ajax 1997. Ajax 1997 was 4th place in the Dutch league. Ajax 1997 was clearly inferior to the top clubs of the top leagues of the time.
I sincerely hope that you are having a laugh when you rate Toure above Modric. Out of the midfielders you mentioned above I rate only Xavi higher than Modric (by a small margin). Pirlo is my personal favourite but I don't rate him above Modric anymore either. Modric is better than the rest you mentioned, and so is Kroos.
From 1998-2001 there was not a single player who was at the level of Messi or CR7. Ronaldo was supposed to be that player but his knee injuries ruined him. If you take Messi and CR7 out of the equation, then there hasn't been a better player than Modric from 2013/14 to 2016/17. Also, Del Piero was a more important and impactful than Zidane. You want evidence? Look at what happened to Juventus in 1998/99 when ADP got injured.
I never talked about Messi or CR7 and I don't know what they have to do with Zidane and Modric but I would like to clarify something. Cristiano Ronaldo is a historical (in my opinion he is the 10 or 11 greatest player of all time) thanks for his great consistency and regularity from the beginning of his career and for having kept a high peak but he has never reached nor has been close to reaching the peak of Messi and I see many players who have reached a higher peak than CR7. In fact I have CR7 in a second group in terms of the highest peak. In this same group I have considered Zinedine Zidane. And yes, in 1998 there was still Ronaldo and he reached a higher peak and CR7 has never achieved but still I don't understand what Ronaldo, Messi and CR7 have to do with the comparison between Zidane and Modric. Probably Luka Modric has been the best player after them in the time period you point out but that doesn't mean than Modric is better than Zidane. If you read my comment again you could notice that I have never referred to the year 1999 by Zidane because that wasn't a good year for him. However, I'm not talking about the Juventus year but Zidane's year. If you want evidence that a player can be the best player of the world or one of the best by far I would say the season 2000-2001 in where Zidane was considered the best player of Serie A and the best of the world too, although the Juventus was eliminated in phase group and the Juventus didn't win. And obviously that the injured of Del Piero affected Juventus ... in that time Alessandro was one of the best players of the world, surely a top 5-8.