Xavi/Iniesta better than Zidane?

If you take out the top 2 then you are still left with a bunch of guys who achieved more success(at a Individual level) than Luca modric did post 2013
Ie
Luis Suarez
13/14,14/15 and 15/16
(3 consecutive seasons where he was ranked a top 2 striker in the world)

Neymar
14/15,15/16,16/17
3 consecutive seasons where he was ranked the best WF in Europe and a top 5 overall player

There is also
Arjen robben 13/14 and 14/15(reaching the highest peak level by any Dutch player since Marco van basten)
Ribery 13/14(3rd place ballon dor and one of the main stars of a treble winning team)
There could be others but as far as these 4 players are concerned i am 100℅ sure about them being ranked above modric

Also modric was out performed by James Rodriguez in la Liga 14/15 who was at the time the 2nd best playmaker in the world after Lionel Messi

Personally I rate Luca modric quite highly (same level as Rui Costa, pirlo and Iniesta but beneath xavi for sure)
I just think we should be careful by not overestimating his achievements

There is only 1 thing worse than underrating players and that is overrating them.
Ie scholes being overhyped as a GOAT CM after a few dodgy quotes by xavi and zidane
Or hagi being excluded from most people's top 50 lists despite the fact he was by far and away the worlds best playmaker from 1991-1995

 

I agree Hagi is underrated but I don't think he was 'far and away' superior to the likes of Baggio or Laudrup

 

Hahaha... I still don't understand the Scholes hype... I mean: sure, he was a great midfielder - but how did he made the jump from a player who was considered at more or less the same level as Beckham, to a player whom is at the same level as Zidane and Xavi??

By the way, I somewhat agree about Hagi. When you think about it, it's crazy to think how Real Madrid 1991/92 basically kicked him out, despite the fact that Hagi was consistent throughout the league season, and despite the fact that Hagi scored an amazing 2-0 goal (a FK goal from way out) in the final game of the La Liga season, said 2-0 should've secured Real Madrid's Liga title, but instea, Real Madrid ended up losing 2-3 vs. Tenerife. Real Madrid 1992/92 was going to win La Liga, and only an upset in the final game of the season could give the title to Barcelona. But essentially, Real Madrid kicking Hagi out of the team, is similar to Chelsea 2015/16 kicking Hazard out of the team - it's something that was not unusual in 1992, but it's something that no modern big club would ever do. From a marketing/political point of view, football has changed dramatically over the years.

 

before i go any further, i want to say i like the points you bring up.

Yes, Del Piero was a playmaking forward and so was R9. there is a reason that R9 is so highly regarded. R9 is practically the same role as Del Piero times 10! You can't compare R9 to schevchenko or even Crespo in terms of roles. not even close! R9 consistently picked up the ball from half field and created plays on his own if need be, and constantly played combination passes with other teammates (from 96-98 at a ridiculously high level). So if you are saying Del Piero was regarded more highly as being the playmaker for the team than Zidane, then i see no way that adding R9 to the team would help zidane's case. inzaghi's role is much more comparable to schevchenko and crespo. i suppose the could have gotten a stronger defense which would have strengthened juventus and not harmed zidane's role such as juventus did with zambrotta and lilian thuram after zidane had left juventus.

yes, teams were more on an even playing field but you know what that means?? that having more star players gives Zidane less freedom on the team. that also means, that if zidane is given less stars on his team, that he also doesn't himself half to go against a super team, so the argument goes both ways. the best way as i said before would be buying a team that is stronger defensively.

ok. so they got more points when zidane got more freedom. let's say that part of it is due to the contribution of zidane's freedom. but the difference in years between 96/97 and 00/01 is a pretty big year difference to judge the impact of one player on a tea. and it's hard to judge a midfielder more so than a forward in terms of his overall production for his team outside of direct statistics. with zidane, i don't see him playmaking anymore in his later seasons for juventus than his earlier seasons in terms of actual output for the team, such as chances created. and i say this because i think it is important to not get confused the increased amount of ball touches and magic as a result of more freedom unless it gets converted to actual results. HOWEVER! and this includes zidane's freedom on the team with substance vs. mere freedom. but zidane in his first 2 seasons for juventus got more goals than any other latter season for juventus (the years where he got more freedom). this leads me to conclude if zidane actually getting more freedom was actually helpful or if it was merely a result of status given the trophies he had won for france and gained recognition. of course, goals are not the whole picture, and I readily ADMIT THAT! but it just gets me wandering, if zidane was given more freedom to not stay back as so in his earlier years, and more freedom to go forward, was he getting less goals because he preferred to start plays from the back, or did he not produce much more because the team was not committed enough to provide more firepower?

the only reason i can explain this is because many times, teams do not gel perefectly well when a new setup is made. it may take a season to adjust and then the team may dramatically improve in the next season, 02/03, after playing together.


again! it's a tough thing to judge a midfielder and i'm not saying that juventus was better without zidane. ultimately, i just want to know if zidane is actually the better player than iniesta. and it's very difficult to tell. i don't think either argument for iniest or zidane clearly puts the other in front in my opinion. for the mean time, i put iniesta in front, but that could change with time

 

Estel actively glorifies Zidane's era, and yet consistently sounds like a person who doesn't actually understands the basic facts about Zidane's era. If Estel had any real understanding of Zidane's era, he would comprehensively understand why the statement quoted above is a convenient falsehood.

The further a club goes into the Champions League, the more difficult the opponents will tend to be - which is why it is better to reduce the comparison to 4 games in the Preliminary Group Stage... Because when we look at all of Nedved's games, Nedved is playing against more difficult opponents in the Intermediate Group Stage - it isn't objective nor fair to compare Zidane against Hamburg, Panathinaikos, and Deportivo La Coruna, in the Preliminary Group Stage... And Nedved playing difficult games against Arsenal, Bayer Leverkusen, and Deportivo La Coruna, in the Intermediate Group Stage. The Champions League, unlike the league, is a competition where the further a club goes, the more difficult the competition will be on average.

Furthermore, not only did Nedved played the more difficult Intermediate Group Stage, but Nedved also played in a clearly more difficult Preliminary Group Stage. Nedved's Preliminary Group Stage included Celtic, FC Porto, and Rosenborg, which is clearly more difficult than Hamburg, Panathinaikos, and Deportivo Coruna. So overall: Nedved went further in the competition and also played in a more difficult Preliminary Group Stage.

Juventus 2000-01 / 6 goals against / 6 goals scored / out of 4 games.
Juventus 2001-02 / 5 goals against / 11 goals scored / out of 4 games.

When reduced to 4 games (which is all Zidane played, 4 games), Juventus 2001/02 has a near identical defensive record, but Juventus 2001/02 scored almost twice as many goals. Nedved being the playmaker, deserves the due credit for that increase in goals. (Buffon and Thuram are not the reason why Juventus nearly doubled their offensive output.) Also worth noting, is the fact that Nedved played 72 minutes more than Zidane. (Albeit of course 72 minutes is not enough time to explain away the fact that Juventus with Nedved scored 11 goals, compared to the 6 goals that Juventus scored with Zidane. Particularly when the 72 minutes were played against more difficult opponents.) But also worth noting, is the fact that Zidane played 72 minutes less than Nedved, because Zidane was red carded in 2 separate games, meaning that Juventus had to play 72 minutes with 9 outfield players (which greatly limited Juventus' capability of scoring goals in those games)... Zidane's ability to get red carded for violent conduct on the pitch, was obviously an inconvenience for Juventus, as is demonstrated by the fact that Juventus was not even good enough to make it out of a Group Stage that consisted of Hamburg, Panathinaikos, and Deportivo Coruna.

In other words: Juventus 2000-01 had more or less the same exact defensive record as Juventus 2001-02, but Juventus 2000-01 did it with the inconvenience of the red cards for Zidane.

Meanwhile, Buffon and Thuram failed to create a statistical improvement on the defensive end. Buffon and Thuram conceded 5 goals in 4 games; Juventus without Buffon-Thuram conceded 6 goals in 4 games. Put differently: Nedved nearly doubled the creative output, on the other hand, Buffon and Thuram barely changed the defensive statistics.

Juventus 2000-01 / 6 goals against / 6 goals scored / out of 4 games.
Juventus 2001-02 / 12 goals against / 13 goals scored / out of 6 games.

Looking at the entirety of Nedved's Champions League campaign, Juventus with Nedved scored 2.2 goals per game (against more difficult opponents), and Juventus with Zidane scored 1.5 goals per game (against easier opponents). As the playmaker of the team, Nedved provided a measurable improvement over Zidane. On the other hand, Buffon and Thuram failed to provide a defensive improvement - Juventus conceded 12 goals in 13 games, more or less the same exact defensive record that Juventus had with Zidane (the previous season).

Juventus 2001-02 / 12 goals against / 13 goals scored / out of 6 games.
Juventus 2001-02 / 16 goals against / 18 goals scored / out of 12 games.

Juventus 2001-02 without Nedved, scored 5 goals in 6 games. Juventus 2001-02 with Nedved, scored 13 goals in 6 games. Nedved more-than-doubled the creative output of Juventus.

Juventus 2000-01 / 6 goals against / 6 goals scored / out of 4 games.
Juventus 2000-01 / 12 goals against / 9 goals scored / out of 6 games.

On paper, Zidane 2000-01 appears to double the creative output of Juventus. However, what the paper fails to show is that when Juventus played without Zidane, it was because Zidane was red carded -- meaning that Juventus was reduced to 9 outfield players, that is, it was more difficult to score goals with 9 outfield players... Therefore the 2 Zidane red cards create the illusion that Juventus couldn't score goals without Zidane on the pitch, when in truth, it was the fact that Juventus was playing with 9 outfield players, that significantly limited Juventus' ability to score goals in those 72 minutes without Zidane.

And furthermore, what was particularly disastrous about Zidane's ability to get red carded in 2 games out of 6 games, is that Zidane was red carded against the most difficult opponent in the Preliminary Group Stage, that is, Zidane was red carded in the 68th minute of the home game vs. Deportivo Coruna. Deportivo Coruna was -- by far -- the most difficult team in the group not counting Juventus. So Juventus had to play 22 minutes with 9 outfield players, against their most difficult opponent in that Preliminary Group Stage. Juventus then had to play the entire 90 minutes of the difficult away game vs. Deportivo Coruna (Deportivo's stadium is known to be a very difficult stadium), without Zidane. In other words: Juventus had to play the most difficult games, without Zidane, or with 9 outfield players (because of Zidane's ability to get red carded against the most difficult opponent).

When Juventus played without Zidane, but with 10 outfield players, Juventus achieved more or less the same results that they achieved with Zidane. Overall: not only does Zidane not offer the creative improvement that Nedved demonstrated, but Zidane's volatile personality also largely killed off Juventus' chances - the two red cards for Zidane were disastrous.

Deportivo 2000-01 / 14 goals against / 18 goals scored / out of 14 games.
Lazio 2000-01 / 15 goals against / 22 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Barcelona 2000-01 / 9 goals against / 13 goals scored / out of 6 games.
Juventus 2000-01 / 12 goals against / 9 goals scored / out of 6 games.
Valencia 2000-01 / 9 goals against / 23 goals scored / out of 17 games.
AC Milan 2000-01 / 13 goals against / 18 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Real Madrid 2000-01 / 23 goals against / 35 goals scored / out of 16 games.

Deportivo Coruna (first place in the league) was better at defending than Lazio (first place in the league), better at defending than Juventus (second place in the league), and better at defending than AC Milan (third place in the league). Furthermore, Barcelona (second place in league) was better at defending than Juventus (second place in league). Valencia had the best defensive record in the entire competition, having conceded only 9 goals out of 17 games. Not one single Spanish club had Thuram, Nesta, Maldini, or Buffon...

Real Madrid 2001-02 / 10 goals against / 27 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Juventus 2001-02 / 16 goals against / 18 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Deportivo 2001-02 / 14 goals against / 17 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Roma 2001-02 / 10 goals against / 12 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Barcelona 2001-02 / 12 goals against / 19 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Lazio 2001-02 / 7 goals against / 4 goals scored / out of 6 games.
Mallorca 2001-02 / 9 goals against / 4 goals scored / out of 6 games.
(AC Milan 2001-02 UEFA Cup / 8 goals against / 18 goals / out of 12 games.)

Juventus attacked well enough, scored 18 goals, the 3rd highest amount behind Barcelona (19 goals) and Real Madrid (27 goals). Juventus was the highest scoring Italian team, ahead of any other Italian team in the Champions League. In fact, Juventus scored as many goals as AC Milan scored at the easier UEFA Cup.

Nedved being the playmaker appears to have done well enough in his very first season, considering the fact that Juventus did scored 18 goals in 12 games. On the other hand, Juventus conceded 16 goals in 12 games -- Thuram and Buffon clearly didn't offered meaningful improvements in terms of what the defensive statistics measure. Pavel Nedved is not the reason why Juventus 2001-02 disappointed at the Champions League. Juventus' average or below-average defensive record is the main reason why Juventus 2001-02 disappointed at the UCL.

Juventus 2000-01 Serie A / 27 goals against / 61 goals scored.
Juventus 2001-02 Serie A / 23 goals against / 64 goals scored.

Thuram and Buffon barely changed the defensive statistic in the Serie A. Thuram and Buffon barely changed the defensive statistic in the Champions League. Without Nedved, Juventus scored only 5 goals in 6 games at the Champions League. With Nedved, Juventus scored 13 goals in 6 games at the Champions League. A very meaningful creative improvement... When did Zidane ever made that big of a difference at Juventus and/or Real Madrid??

@ko242

 

NOTE:

Juventus 2002-03 / 19 goals against / 30 goals scored / out of 16 games.
Real Madrid 2002-03 / 19 goals against / 33 goals scored / out of 16 games.
AC Milan 2002-03 / 14 goals against / 21 goals scored / out of 16 games.
Valencia 2002-03 / 12 goals against / 24 goals scored / out of 14 games.
Inter 2002-03 / 19 goals against / 26 goals scored / out of 16 games.
Barcelona 2002-03 / 9 goals against / 27 goals scored / out of 14 games.
Roma 2002-03 / 12 goals against / 10 goals scored / out of 12 games.

The top clubs from Italy and the top clubs from Spain, appear to have nearly identical defensive records. Nesta, Thuram, Maldini, Buffon -- do not demonstrate any defensive superiority at the Champions League.

Barcelona 1999-00 / 23 goals against / 45 goals scored / out of 16 games.
Fiorentina 1999-00 / 23 goals against / 16 goals scored / out of 12 games.
Real Madrid 1999-00 / 23 goals against / 35 goals scored / out of 17 games.
AC Milan 1999-00 / 7 goals against / 6 goals scored / out of 6 games.
Real Madrid 1999-00 / 7 goals against / 15 goals scored / out of 6 games.
Lazio 1999-00 / 12 goals against / 26 goals scored / out of 14 games.
Valencia 1999-00 / 12 goals against / 21 goals scored / out of 14 games.
Mallorca 1999-00 / 1 goal against / 1 goal scored / out of 2 games.
Parma 1999-00 / 2 goals against / 1 goal scored / out of 2 games.

AC Milan 1999-00, the best team of the Serie A, was eliminated in the Group Stage of the Champions League. AC Milan 1999-00 also was not good at defending, having conceded 7 goals in 6 games against relatively mediocre opponents in the Group Stage, which is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of defensive prowess. On the other hand, Real Madrid also conceded 7 goals in 6 games, but Real Madrid also scored 15 goals in 6 games (AC Milan scored only 6 goals in 6 games): equal defensive record, but nearly 3 times superior in terms of scoring goals.

 

Glad to hear that. Most of what I have shared is available in the public domain though so if you want I can share more details on PM, if you are interested.

Ronaldo was versatile enough to play the role needed by his team, and was easily capable of being a strong presence in the box due to his size. Consider the case of WC 98, wherein he played alongside Bebeto (another forward-cum-striker) and ahead of Rivaldo/Leonardo (CAMs). Also, there is the case of Henry and Bergkamp playing together ahead of a 4 man midfield, though both were forwards. So Ronaldo and Del Piero ahead of Zidane wouldn't have necessarily gone in the way that you portray it above.

Also, regarding Del Piero, I was saying that a part of the Juventus hierarchy would have wanted him to succeed as the club's playmaker ahead of Zidane, not that Del Piero was more highly regarded as one. In fact, if anyone, it was Zidane who was more highly regarded as a playmaker, but was still relegated to a less primary role behind Del Piero, for most of his tenure in Juventus.

I think Juventus could have simply kept hold of Sousa, Vieri, Boksic, Peruzzi, etc., and they would probably have done better than they did. The Ronaldo, Shevchenko and Crespo examples were only given to show that in addition to selling key players, Juventus was not buying at the level of its competitors. Inzaghi was good for Juventus (especially at the beginning of his tenure with them), but apart from Crespo, I don't see him coming close to rivaling any of the other strikers that I mentioned.

The more level playing field also meant that a small tipping of the scale in either direction would impact results more drastically, like Juventus going from Serie A champions to 7th place (I doubt that would happen to any of the current super teams even if their best players are out for an entire season). Also, Juventus could have done what AC Milan did in the late 80s and early 90s, and achieved greater success than they ended up achieving in reality, in spite of the more level playing field in that era, by buying more ambitiously and not selling their starters. How much of that success would have reflected onto Zidane, is anyone's guess. Though his club trophy resume would have definitely looked much better than it does currently, in the above scenario.

Also, Zidane was the kind of player who could stand out even in a team like the Real Madrid galacticos (winning WPOTY in 2003), so I think his chances would have been excellent even if Juventus had bought some big stars.

It was not just the freedom that he got, but being the focus of his team, which made the difference. This meant being actively sought by his teammates as the go-to-option when they had the ball (with the backing of the coach and club hierarchy). That was the change IMO, though it came too late.

Regarding his goal output in 00/01 and its comparison with older seasons, Zidane had only one less goal in the league than he did in his best scoring season at Juventus. While in the CL/Coppa Italia he barely played due to his sending offs/being rested and only used as a sub by Ancelotti, thus not allowing him to improve upon his goal tally. Also of course, the team simply wasn't as strong as it had been in the 96-98 period, after all the player sales and lack of comparable purchases.

I agree though, it is definitely difficult to arrive at any definitive conclusion since all these aspects are rather nebulous. But, I believe that my line of thinking makes a lot more sense when put into the context of Zidane's performances and results with France. At least, more so than a line of thinking which goes - 'Juventus was dependent on Del Piero and thus fell apart once he got injured and wasn't the same player afterwards'. Since this line of thinking ignores important aspects like, Del Piero missing almost half the league campaign, when Zidane won his first Serie A in 96/97 and also ended up winning the best foreign player award.

Maybe that's the case. But then, I don't see anyone giving bonus points to Zidane for winning Serie A and reaching the CL final in his first season with Juventus, alongside two other fresh faces in Vieri and Boksic.

Either way, the assumption that Nedved immediately elevated Juventus does not seem to hold water, considering that 01/02 CL campaign (or even any other CL campaign apart from 02/03), as well as the fact that the Serie A points total that Juventus achieved in 01/02 (and later on till it remained an 18 team league), was less than what they achieved in 00/01.

I agree its tough to judge, especially considering that everyone would have their own preferences. All I ask is that when you do go on to judge, you do so by considering all relevant aspects. And if you don't have those with you, there's always the option of withholding judgement. For instance, I am yet to finalise my list of top players across football history, simply because I am not aware of each player's career to the depth that I would prefer to be aware, before I go ahead and put them in a numbered order.

 

@Estel
the thing i dont like about this type of debate is that it contains too much if. for example, it appears as if you are saying that his whole career at juventus and real madrid could have been totally elevated if he had been given the same amount of freedom that he was given at france. the fact is that in 2 months of zidanes career, euro 2000 and world cup 2006,he was regarded as the best player of the tournament. and it was not even that dominant compared to the likes of eusebio in WC66, Garrincha WC62, Maradona WC82, etc. i would say euro 2000 was his best. but even looking at the game against portugal in the euro 2000 semifinal, i would hardly say he dominated the game in either production of chances or dominating the midfield. he had some moments of brilliance. in the finals, he did not play well, which is understandable. you cant play well every match. he played good against denmark and pretty good and czech republic in the group stages. i would say against spain he played excellent!

 

At EURO2000, I would argue my boy Vieira put on a set of performances no worse than Zidane throughout the tournament

 

He did thanks to the Manchester United hype machine.

 

So let me get this straight. As per your own logic from your post (https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/xavi-iniesta-better-than-zidane.2021285/page-90#post-35522583) to which I had responded, that began this entire exchange, and considering what you have written above, the below mentioned must be the criteria that have to be followed, under which we can conduct this discourse,

1) When one of Zidane's teams (Juventus) does not have a categorically better record during Zidane's tenure with them, as compared to their record before his arrival or after his departure; then this suggests that Zidane didn't elevate his teams, and any evidence to the contrary must be dismissed

2) But when another of Zidane's teams (France) actually does have a categorically better record during Zidane's tenure with them, as compared to their record before his debut or after his retirement; then that does not have any bearing whatsoever on Zidane's ability to elevate his teams, and any evidence which can support this conclusion must be highlighted

Must say, just like you, there is one thing that I don't like about this debate either, and that is the way in which the criteria must always be set to ensure that Zidane should not be getting any credit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Anyway, since I have had these discussions way too often I'll just repost from the old ones. So here's some mandatory reading regarding Zidane and France, which is stuff that basically must be the biggest set of coincidences ever in the history of football, considering how sure you are about Zidane never being able to elevate his teams -

 

this is what i am saying.

#1. I told you that zidane would not benefit on juvntus from having more star players such as R9 because his role would be diminished. R9 was a player who consistently showed that he could pick the ball up from the other teams own half and make things happen, thus reducing zidane's influence.

#2. what i did say is that zidane would rather benefit if juventus recruited stronger defense players, as zambrotta and thuram were recruited to juventus after zidane left. notice that France in comparison to juventus and real madrid (when zidane played on those teams) had a remarkable defense with lilian thuram, laurent blanc, desailly, deschamps, lizerazu, patrick viera, petit, abidal, makelele. for this reason, even if zidane was not the most offensive threat there was, in comparison to R9 for example, the defense could hold opposing teams far better than zidanes juventus or real madrid could. even if zidane did a few things here and there, it could ultimately result in being the difference in a game.

#3. zidane was an excellent player no doubt. but given his multiple years of performances at club level and his 3 very good performances at national level, i will in no way even begin to assume that if zidane was somehow given the same role at the national team level that he would be head and shoulders above iniesta and xavi. the fact of the matter is that zidane did not show the same dominance at club level that iniesta and xavi have shown. however, i give zidane the upperhand at NT level

and besides, what about all those years that xavi was played in a role that did not suit him before guardiola came??? will we say that all those prior years should be taken into consideration to boost his career status??? like i said, you are presuming that zidanes whole club career should be looked at in a higher light essentially because he did not receive the same role from the national level with France.
c'mon man!

 

But this is not what led to this debate. Since the debate started with you suggesting that the trophies won with Zidane and without him by Juventus, was a relevant measure to assess his ability to elevate that team, though at the same time you were unwilling to apply the same criteria to consider him having elevated his NT.

So, if details did not matter to you then, when you were passing judgement on Zidane's time at Juventus, I just don't understand why they suddenly started mattering to you when the discussion moved to his NT.

For the 2nd time, I was not asking for Juventus to buy Ronaldo. He was just an example of the kind of buying that Juventus' competitiors were doing and Juventus was not doing.

What I was asking for is Juventus retaining players like Sousa, Vieri, Boksic and Peruzzi, and not selling them on simply for profit when those players were still at a very productive age, football wise. None of those players would pose a challenge to Zidane's influence.

And, even if Ronaldo was bought, I explained how it would not matter from a role perspective (Bebeto, Ronaldo playing ahead of Rivaldo) or from a starpower perspective since there is the galacticos precedent (Zidane winning major individual honours and having his influence acknowledged even while playing amongst all of them, while not even being the focus of the team).

France's defence was great when the defenders were at their peak as happened in WC 98 and WC 06. But when they were not, that defence could go on and concede 7 goals in 7 games with only 1 clean sheet (Euro 00) or 5 goals in 4 games with 0 clean sheets (Euro 04).

Furthermore, defense oriented teams are not always the easiest for creative players to perform in, due to the fact that they lack in options which results in all the work falling on the single creative player. I'm sure there is one current era player whose fans use the logic of his NT being overly defensive during some of the recent NT tournaments, as the reason for him not being able to perform as well as he does on his club team which is a lot more attack oriented.

Guess you didn't get time to read any of the NT related details that I shared. All I'll say is that it is not simply about 3 very good performances of Zidane with his NT, it is about things like his NT struggling to even qualify for tournaments before and after his departure or even when he was injured/retired, leave aside making deep runs during those tournaments or winning them, like they did when he was playing for them.

Right, then I guess you won't mind me going on to talk about Zidane's time with Bordeaux and Cannes, and how he never had the advantage of starting out at a big club as one of its youth products, unlike Xavi. Or how Xavi had successful seasons with his club team, only when Ballon d'Or winning players like Rivaldo, Ronaldinho and Messi were at their peak and playing in that team.

But all that's missing the point. You can deny it all you want, but it is obvious that Xavi got to play in his preferred role for his club team for all of his peak years. Zidane didn't for the majority of his peak years. It is as simple as that.

 

Hahaha. Estel always sounds like a conspiracy theorist, when he speaks/preaches the gospel about Zidane's unparalleled greatness... "The criteria must always be set to ensure that Zidane should not be getting any credit." For what purpose? What possible 'reward' is there in ensuring that Zidane doesn't get any credit?? And how is Zidane, widely considered a Top 7 all timer, the victim of never getting any credit??

Honestly, Estel appears to live in another reality where Zidane isn't universally praised as a Top 7-10 all timer. Like every other bad/irrational conspiracy theorist (and I specific bad/irrational, because not all 'conspiracy theorists' are inherently irrational/bad), Estel has a convenient excuse (conspiracy theory) where Zidane for some obscure reason doesn't get the credit he deserves, even though Zidane is in fact universally regarded as a Top 7-10 all timer legend. You have to wonder, just how much more credit does Zidane deserve in Estel's opinion?? Should Zidane be regarded in the same exact tier as the likes of Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Messi - and what are Zidane's arguments to be inflated in such a grand way? In any case: Zidane fans are definitely worse than CR7 fans, which is saying something.

 

this question and answer should explain to you why zidane's status or performances were not as great as you think besides the fact that you think it is so much more difficult to achieve results on a defensive team. @leadleader actually researched some good facts on how defensive teams do well at the NT level on a number of occasions despite not being strong offensively.

no, no, no. Cr7 is not performing poorly because portugal is defense oriented. he is performing poorly because he relies on his teammates to provide him chances to score. and when you are a not a playmaker like R9 in his prime or lionel messi then you will be invisible when you don`t have the current real madrid team to creat those chances. CR7 played well for portugal from 2004-2012. it wasn't until later, when he no longer created plays, did he start performing poorly for portugal. you could actually make a case that for a player like CR7 in his prime, having a more defensive team would be better. if portugal could win Euro 2016 with a team that created very few chances and relied heavily on their defense, with a relatively poor CR7, then what does that tell you about zidane's affect on the France NT??? can you imagine how much more deadly portugal would be if CR7 was in his prime in Euro 2016? the defensive team would suit him perfectly. this is the same situation that happened with greece. their defence was so strong at preventing chances that they needed only a few opportunities here and there to win the Euro 2004. despite facing a very offensive minded portuguese team, with a CR7 that produced far more chances than he did at Euro 2016, and Greece defeating Portugal 2 times on portuguese soil.
and this is what i meant hen i said that France just needed a player like zidane to produce a moment every once in a while to decide the difference in a game if even that!

ok. you win! let's say that juventus kept those players instead of selling them. let's just go ahead and assume that juventus would have won 2 champions leagues instead of zidane losing 2 champions lague finals. it's hard to tell how different things would be for zidane. but just for the sake of time, that things would have worked out much better with juventus. i will also give you the advantage on what you want to speculate about how much greater zidane's club career would have been if juventus did keep these players.

the role that R9 played for Brazil is irrelevant! R9's role at club level was given more freeedom to move around the pitch, which is what we are talking about had R9 played for Juventus. you just mentioned, how zidane's role at club level was different than NT level, so i don't see how we can assume that R9 club role would be reduced because he was playing with zidane, when you stated that the top guys in juventus gave more priority to del piero than zidane. and R9 was clearly better than both players at the time.

Deny???!! are you serious??? xavi played his role for his entire peak??? that's why xavi was going to leave barcelona before guardiola came?? xavi was not even spoke of as a top midfielder in any way shape or form among the elite players of the world until 2008!

but you know what?? i'll even give you that. let's say that xavi played his perfect role for his entire career and that zidane never played his role at club level. because i don't have the powers to see alternative universes, i still can't say that zidane performed better than xavi at club level because he never playedhis ideal role. xavi and iniesta were more dominant at club level and zidane at NT level.

 

it makes you wander. despite that zidane is already credited as a top 7-10 all timer, based on Estel's evaluation, he should be in the same tier as Cruyff and Di Stefano worst case!!! as it is, i still am debating if he (zidane) is even a top 20, although i can accept that many regard him as at least a top 20. because honestly if you take away 3 months of zidane's career in 98, 2000, and 2006, it really makes you wander if zidane should be a top 20 all timer

 

Zidane is only regarded as a Top 20 all timer, largely if not entirely on the basis of 2 months (Euro 2000 and World Cup 2006). That's a fact. I personally rate him as a Top 20 all timer, due to his achievement as an entertainer -- Zidane defined a unique style that the entire world loves and celebrates. As an entertainer (which is what Zidane essentially was), that is remarkable. As a player, there is nothing especially remarkable about Zidane's career, neither at club level nor even with the national team.

Zidane was arguably not better than Figo was at club level. On the other hand, Zidane with his national team was nowhere near as great as it is popularly believed.

1. Brazil 1998 had an unfit version of R9 on the pitch, for the Final game. On the other hand, France 1998 was playing at home, and Zidane was essentially 'rested' for 2 games out of 7 games; Zidane did not played the final group game, and Zidane also did not play the Round of 16. Looking only at the Final, it is easy to see that France benefited from extraordinary circumstances: (a) the fact that Brazil's best player was CLEARLY not fit to play; (b) the fact that Zidane was rested for 2 out of 7 games, which is a particularly great benefit in short 7 game tournaments where stamina is known to play a huge role in the Semi Finals and the Final.

To put in perspective, Brazil 1998 was almost eliminated by Holland 1998, except for the fact that Holland 1998 played against a healthy Ronaldo. Not to mention the fact that Ronaldo played his best game vs. Holland 1998. Not to mention the fact that Bergkamp (Holland's best player at the time) was injured and was largely invisible in the Semi Final vs. Brazil. In other words: Holland 1998, with a fit Bergkamp and playing in Holland, would have almost certainly eliminated Brazil 1998 if Ronaldo was not fit enough to play.

2. Brazil 2006 was an unproven team with a fat overweight overrated striker. The overrated fat version of Ronaldo that played at World Cup 2006, destroyed Brazil's chances at World Cup 2006, that is, Ronaldinho was definitely going to disappoint if the striker was too fat to exploit Ronaldinho's passing ability. Ronaldinho had Henrik Larsson (high energy, high stamina), Ludovic Giuly (high energy, high stamina), and Samuel Eto'o (high energy, high stamina); at Barcelona, Ronaldinho was surrounded by forwards who could exploit Ronaldinho's passing ability. At World Cup 2006, Ronaldinho had a fat overrated version of R9, and that fat version of R9 could barely jump for a cross, let alone create pass-openings for Ronaldinho to use his passing ability to full effect.

Zidane famously impressed vs. Brazil 2006, but Brazil 2006 was a dysfunctional team with a disastrous tactical system. When Zidane played vs. Portugal 2006 and vs. Italy 2006, Zidane did not impressed at all, and not only did Zidane failed to impress, but Zidane also looked like a 34 year old player who was definitely past his better days.

3. The Euro 2000 Final... Zidane did nothing... Italy should have won that game...

 

Xavi always played his ideal role... Zidane did not always played his ideal role... We know for a fact that Xavi did not always played his ideal role, in fact, Xavi not playing his ideal role was the exact reason why Xavi was going to leave Barcelona. This is a demonstrable fact. This fact is not open to subjective interpretation. Estel is proven wrong. (Zidane fans have a bad habit of creating their own alternate version of the events.)

In what universe are Estel's conclusions even remotely true??

And does @Estel deserve to be taken seriously when he repeatedly writes blatantly irrational statements/conclusions??

 

I was not talking about the team's results, I was specifically talking about the creative players' performance. You are conflating the two.

I simply wanted to make the above point to explain how being on a defensive team is not always an advantage, since the creative player in question has to work harder, to perform at the same level statistically, as a player on an offensive team.

You again missed my point. I was not talking about CRonaldo when I gave that example of the current era player, I was talking about Messi. After World Cup 2014, I read many of his fans making the case that he was not quite as strong statistically in that tournament, as he is generally with Barcelona, because Argentina concentrated too much on defence. And this does pan out since they conceded only 4 goals while keeping 4 clean sheets across 7 games + 3 instances of ET (which are equivalent to another additional game by themselves).

Also, what you mention above about Zidane applies equally to Messi in WC 14, since a few moments from Messi once in a while during that tournament's early games, helped Argentina reach the QF, after which it was simply their defence which got them to the final and then to extra-time in that final.

Ok, but I don't have a problem in not speculating at all. Since I don't mind going by cold hard facts, so long as you keep your criteria consistent.

So if the teams' record with and without the player is your criteria for considering that Zidane didn't elevate Juventus, I am perfectly fine with it. But then afterwards, I expect you to remain consistent and agree to the fact that Zidane elevated his NT, as per the same criteria.

And again you miss the point, third time now. Anyway, guess I don't have any choice but to go over it again, so here it is,

- When I gave the Ronaldo example, you initially suggested that having Ronaldo, Del Piero and Zidane in the same team wouldn't work
- The above was the only reason why I brought up the Brazil NT, since Ronaldo played with Bebeto (a forward) and Rivaldo (an attacking mid) in that team and it did work
- As for which player would get highlighted when they were all playing together, well that is why I gave the galacticos example to suggest how Zidane did not have a problem in standing out in a superstar filled team (even when he was not made the focal point of the team)
- And yeah, Del Piero did not win more individual honours than Zidane did during their playing time together (even the first 2 years), so your mixing of the point of 'Del Piero was getting more priority' with the point that 'better players get more priority', doesn't hold. Del Piero was made the focal point of the team (tactically) more so than Zidane, in all probability because he was a local north italian lad. However, Ronaldo wouldn't have gotten the same benefit, irrespective of his status as a player in comparison.

So I feel that what you are trying to suggest above, in the part that I have quoted, was not at all a certain thing, but only a 50-50 probability. One which would easily be compensated for, by Zidane winning more club honors and having better stats due to the presence of a player like peak Ronaldo in the team.

Ultimately though, the whole point is moot since as I explained above, Ronaldo was simply an example of the kind of buying that an ambitious club does and that Juventus were not doing at that time, even though they were in the market for a striker, after having sold Vieri. So your scoffing at my original point by writing this - "how could you say that juventus was unwilling to maintain or buy quality???", was absolutely wrong.

Xavi was 28 in 2008 when Guardiola took over. A midfielder's peak is generally considered to lie from age 28 to age 32, if the said midfielder is able to keep fit (I can provide a large number of examples of this if you want btw). So I don't see why Xavi's role prior to Guardiola's take over has a huge bearing on what we discussed.

It's not as if he was Zidane, who had a longer peak than regular players and was making Balon d'Or top-3 at age 25, even after playing with the handicap of not being the focal point of his club team.

You obviously don't credit Zidane as a top 7-10 all timer, since as you mention above you are still wondering if you want to put him in the top-20. And I am debating with you. So I don't see the point of bringing up what his ranking is, as per people who were never suggesting that Zidane wasn't capable of elevating his teams, unlike you.

Also, I love this taking away game. For instance, I take away 2 months of Pele's career (WC 1958 and WC 1970) and he becomes a slightly more lethal Zico. Or maybe I can take away 2 months of Maradona's career (WC 1986 and WC 1990) and he becomes a player of great ability who won very little in terms of team trophies. But, as I see it, that's just being disrespectful as hell to these legends. And I'll tell you exactly why that is the case. It is because actually performing in these tournaments, and especially putting in legendary performances vs top teams as these players did, is extremely tough. Just ask Messi or CRonaldo, both of whom have a yet to put in a single legendary performance vs a top team, across all the World Cup games that they have played.

 

generally speaking i can agree with you on this. it is more difficult to be creative on a defensive team. but let's look at it this way. we both agree that zidane's best play was for the natinal team. though his club teams were more offensive, he did not perform as well. can we at least agree on that???
and i know you will bring the topic that he didn't play his ideal role, but we don't have the ability to see a world wheree zidane would have played so much better at club level if he was given the same role as his NT.

actually, for me in messi's case it is not that they are too defensive but that argentina lacks the quality of players in midfield to create plays for the offense. for this reason, messi has to drop far deeper for argentina than he does for barcelona. if argentina played defensively, but they had offensive players who would actually perform unlike aguero, higuain, and having no top center midfield player, then i think messi would do much better statistically.

i don't mean that juventus would have actually been the same team without zidane. that is obviously false. my disagreement rather is how much zidane actually contributed to his teams wins. and in zidane's case, you cannot only look at statistics so it's much more difficult to determine. but i feel his game as a midfielder at club level did not have the same impact that xavi and iniesta had at barcelona. that's all i'm saying.

when zidane played for real madrid, you talk about standing out in front of the so called 'galacticos'. i really don't rate the galacticos that highly if i am being honest, at least not at that time in their careers. however, i do think that zidane was an effective and flashy player in 2002-2003 in winning the WPOY in 2003. i thought he played very well. and the award was deserved. in 2003-2004, i found his game no where near as dominant and more so flashes here and there. he had no threat to his game offensively compared to 2002-2003.

again, further speculation on your part. all we can say is that in R9's prime, he won the WPOY 2 times. i do think juventus would have performed better but it is difficult to say how zidane would have looked beside R9. maybe Zidane would look better, maybe zidane would not look as good, we can't say.
There are 2 specific modern day examples of this.
1) one includes neymar and Suarez. both are fantastic players and carry the team on their back, when Messi is not in the picture. but as long as a player with the caliber of Messi plays with anyone, good luck trying to stand out.
2) the opposite side is Özil. World Class Player at Real Madrid. Included in World Teams and in my opinion the best attacking midfielder at that time. then he goes to a low level team like arsenal and looks average. no where near his level at real madrid.

all we can do is judge things for the way they are. and it seems that no one is giving Özil credit despite the fact that Arsenal do not have ambitons to be the best that real madrid have.

i don't think zidane had a longer peak than normal players. ibrahimovic is a player that has a longer peak than normal players. don't confuse peak with actual ability. there may be average players out there performing at their peak from 24-33 years old, but because they don't have the ability that zidane has, then you will not recognize it as a peak. messi and ronaldo were in that scene at about 21-22 years old (balon d'or)

of course zidane elevated his teams. his teams would not do the same without him. what i am debating is how much impact he had. remember, at the end of the day, we are judging him against xavi and iniesta. and you damn best believe that not a soul on this forum would doubt the monstrous effect that xavi and iniesta played on barcelona from 2008-2012. and no, i do not rate zidane as a top 10 all timer. at least not today.

1) pele??? a slightly more lethal zico??? are you insane. pele's best playing days were at santos. are you insane???!! in 1962, pele hardly played. in 1966, brazil didn't go far. in 1958, he did well, but he was not the star of the show. in 1970, there are people who already consider him going downhill at that point. as a matter of fact, there are several people who consider jarzinho the player of the tournament! you really need to watch as many games as you can of Pele at Santos before you make such judgements. Pele was far more present for santos than any of the world cups he performed in.

2) when zidane performs half as well as maradona did in 1986 then we can talk about what a month can do to a player's career. the fact of the matter is that zidane's name does not come up when you regard the best world cup performances in history! players like Eusebio and Garrincha had far better world cups than zidane had. even pele in a down year like 1970 is superior to any world cup zidane had. i will leave it at that.

 

We might not have the ability to see that alternate world where Zidane got a better role with his club teams, but that doesn't mean we can't look at his club record more sympathetically by considering that when he did play his ideal role his team was pretty successful (French NT).

Well I did not make that comment based on your position, I made it based on what I had generally read. Anyway, you do seem to agree that defensive sides are tougher for creative players to play in, as you mentioned above, so I guess there is no reason to go into further discussions about this point here.

You didn't watch much of the 2003-04 season till February, in that case i.e. if you think Zidane did not have threat to his game then. The last few months of that season, fatigue set in as the entire first team of Real Madrid had been played too much and too often, which resulted in that implosion at the end. Can agree with you for the last two seasons i.e. 04/05 and 05/06, when injuries and age took their toll, though even then he had that ability to have a great game here and there.

Anyway, the whole galacticos thing was just an example of Zidane being able to stand out in an offensively star studded team, since you doubted that ability of his.

Ronaldo playing with Bebeto and Rivaldo and it working out was no speculation. Neither was Del Piero not being considered by award presenters as a better player than Zidane, even during the first two seasons of Zidane's time in Juventus. Your using completely unrelated players and circumstances (current era), some which don't even share the same position as Zidane (Suarez), certainly does look like speculation though.

And again, all of this is moot. Ronaldo was just an example used against you, when you were suggesting that it was laughable to think that Juventus was not unwilling to buy or maintain quality, even though Ronaldo to Inter happened in the same summer that Juventus sold Vieri and bought Inzaghi.

Kind of tough for Zidane to be in the Balon d'Or scene at 21-22 yrs, considering that he was with newly promoted Bordeaux at that time.

My original point was about Xavi though, how his peak was 28-32 and he did play his preferred role in Barcelona during that period as Guardiola had taken over from 2008 onwards (when he was 28). Would prefer if you actually comment on why you disagreed with this point earlier and ignored it in the above response.

Replying to both the above quotes here -

Whether you use 'impact' or 'elevate' or 'contribute', those are simply semantics. You specifically mentioned that Zidane didn't elevate his teams in that post I had linked earlier, which was the reason I replied to it. That's what started all of this.

If you are changing your position now, might as well come clean without all the caveats, or the use of three different terms to essentially talk about the same point. And yeah, I still don't understand how the team's record with and without Zidane was used as a valid measure when talking about him not elevating Juventus, but it became invalid when talking about him elevating the French NT.

Lastly, as I said, if you don't rate Zidane as high as so, I don't understand how my defence of him comes as a problem to you.

You do realise that Zico was panned for not being able to win the World Cup with the Brazilian NT in spite of having a very stellar club record, right? So he had a career which is very similar to what you are describing above with respect to Pele (when not considering WC 58 and 70), in the part of the post that I quoted. Thus is is kind of disheartening, that even when all that you write actually agrees with my judgement, you still have the nerve to ask if I'm insane.

Due to injury, Zidane missed out on making an impact in the World Cup tournament which happened during his peak (WC 02).
So I'd be really interested in you showing me how the non-peak World Cup tournament performances of any of those greats that you mentioned above, can rival Zidane's World Cup NT resume, which is stellar even without him getting to shine during his peak tournament as he had that injury.
That's because you see, I only accept comparisons when they are made apples to apples.

 

Actual quote -

Repped interpretation -

​

 

Zidane and Xavi are close, with Xavi the more consistent player (difficult to compare playing position and rules during their prime). Iniesta not really, the more so since I don't see him being as good as Zidane was at the age of 33-34.

Maybe Iniesta hit his prime a little bit earlier, around the age of 24-25, than Zidane did though.

 

@leadleader, honest question (I hope you don't deride me for this). What are for you the main mechanisms behind the gross overrating of Zidane (and R9)? I know you've talked about his games at crucial moments against overrated teams, as well as the "corporate muscle" behind him that made replays flashier, camera angles guided, better protected by refs and some other things I read. The wonder goals at big moments. But can you maybe summarize the main things in one post? Honestly curious about this.
You've mentioned as well how e.g. Rio Ferdinand gets aggressive criticism and sponsors knocking on his door when he dares to deviate from the perceived consensus. Heresy, blasphemy etcetera.




I don't really agree with on who and how it is applied but I began thinking of this and the social mechanisms. The manufactured consent.





*) never actually watched the videos, only a summary/transcript/discussion of the facts and reasoning which got me thinking of what ppl are saying about Zidane/R9/CR7.

 

sympathetically??? 1st of all, zidane`s national team and club teams are 2 different teams with different playing styles. zidane`s supposed unrivaled dominance in the midifield at club level does not guarantee that he would performed the same way at club level given that all variables are different. stop assuming that zidane`s career would be 1 or 2 notches higher because of all of these changing variables that you are assuming!

but you know what?? i`ll give it to you. let`s say that zidane would have performed exactly the same and he would performed exactly how he did at NT level for his whole club career! even saying that, i still wouldn`t agree that Zidane was more dominant than xavi and iniesta were at Barcelona during 08-12.

ok. we can agree on this.

dude. what are you on about? i watched all of real madrid`s games. i just told you that zidane has been my favorite player of all players, especially due to his style of play more so than his substance. i`m saying zidane was not as good in the 03-04 season as he was in the 02-03 season. how do you come to the conclusion that i missed 6+ months of real madrid`s games. and by the way, i would`nt call the galacticos a `star studded` team. R9 and Raul were way passed it. david beckham is hardly a galactico. but i would include figo in that category.

fine! erase what i said. if you are looking for me to use perfect examples to describe zidane`s situation then there is no other situation to describe it. stop pointing out the little things that don`t matter and look at the big picture.
the fact of the matter is that automatically saying if 1 all star played with another then everything would have worked out for the better is pure speculation! be honest! you can`t automatically assume that zidane`s career would have ascended if all of these factors that you want to change would have worked out perfectly for zidane.

what???? dude! do you realize that you just compared zidane`s situation to the average player in professional football when you said that `zidane`s peak was longer than the average player`???? you are saying that messi`s and ronaldo`s situation is different than Zidane yet at the same time refusing to acknowledge that you just compared zidane to hundreds and thousands of players that are in potentially a more difficult situation than him to win it!
and yes! ok! the peak average for a midfielder is 28-32! are you saying that if xavi was playing the same role for barcelona that guardiola had appointed him for the several years before, that the part of his career before 08 does not deserve to be looked at??? if that`s the case then let`s compare xavi and zidane from 28-32 years old and forget everything that zidane did before 28 years old, because apparently that`s not the peak so it doesn`t matter.

Ok!!! i was wrong! you caught me! i lied! i`m in trouble! i ask for your forgiveness! what else do you want to hear? if i said that zidane`s teams could have done better without him, that was false. i do dispute with you that ultimately relating to the topic, that zidane never had a greater affect than iniesta and xavi had in the midfield from 08-12.

No, No, No! Zico is not panned because he didn`t win a world cup? johan cruyff never won a world cup also and neither did Eusebio! neither of their careers were 'panned' for not winning a world cup. johan cruyff was on a level that zico was not on. and don`t forget when pele played in brazil he was playing in a time where the best brazilian and south american players stayed in their respective countries. zico played in brazil for a large part of the 80s, when south american players were already moving to europe. he went to udinese and didn`t impress.

now you are assuming that if Zidane had played in WC 2002 with no injury that he would have somehow equaled maradona`s, eusebio`s, garrincha`s, pele`s (70), or jairzinho`s (70) world cup performances??? hell, does zidane even equal johan cruyff´s world cup 74 performance?

looking at any of zidane`s world cups, i don`t regard them that highly when you talk about the best WC performances in history, and frankly i don`think many do. and if you don`t want to compare apples and oranges then we can`t compare any player at all!!! the fact is that every players experience is different and all we can do is judge what actually happened, not the idea we think would have manifested had every variable that we mention be altered.
pele got injured in his 1st game in WC 62, what seemed to me probably the most influential performance all round he had in any world cup. but he got injured and didn`t play any more games. and you know what??? pele gets very little if any credit for what could have been a stellar world cup for him in 62. so don`t talk to me about apples and oranges