Also, if you insist on talking about Xavi's earlier years as if he were playing the same role (despite the fact that he played many many matches as the furthest back midfielder, and certainly was never the featured playmaker until Guardiola), then let's look at his assists overall, shall we? I cannot find data on Xavi's assists in his first three seasons. But he was very often a substitute in those years anyways, so it wouldn't really be a helpful comparison anyways. Moreover, I think Zidane's assist numbers from his Cannes years are pretty unknowable too. Fortunately, this gives us a pretty even comparison, because both men were essentially the exact same age from the point where I have data for them (Zidane was 20 and Xavi was 21). And comparing output for a midfielder before that age is a bit silly anyways. So here's what we have: As I've mentioned in this thread, Zidane got 38 assists in 155 league matches for Real Madrid. He got 26 assists in 151 league matches for Juventus. You all say he got 27 assists in 80 Champions League matches. And you also say he got 38 assists in 139 league matches for Bordeaux. This leaves out some matches (particularly, lower level European competitions and domestic cups). But it's pretty comprehensive. And it gives him 129 assists in 525 matches. That's 0.246 assists a match. As for Xavi, I believe Transfermarkt's data is good on him from the 2001-2002 season forwards. It gives him 164 assists in 655 total matches. That's 0.250 assists a match. So Xavi still comes out slightly ahead here. And that's despite the fact that Zidane was his team's main playmaker essentially that entire period, while Xavi was not the primary playmaker except for a few years. That's an enormous disadvantage for Xavi. It's despite the fact that, no matter what you try to claim, Xavi played many many matches in this period in a DM role. It's also despite the fact that I think Xavi was used more as a sub than Zidane was. So the per minute assist numbers would surely be even more in Xavi's favor (hard to say by how much, since minutes played data for Zidane is incomplete). There are, of course, factors that make Xavi's numbers look less good (primarily the high-scoring nature of his teams in like half of those years). But overall, I'd personally say the stuff I just mentioned more than mitigates that. And Xavi comes out slightly ahead. The idea that there is no data that shows Xavi to be superior in assists is just absolutely fantasy.
My own quote once again supports my view and therein you will find no contradiction. I was explicit when I said that it was an important resource (as it represents a key piece of primary source documentation, rather than a retrospective piece) and my words clearly characterize the rating as a measure of "value" which "reflects the player's productivity" as in, it is indicative. The final sentence is a statement comparing Zidane to Xavi. My words could not possibly be clearer as I have quoted them in my previous post, but you seem to see something in them that nobody else can. As for what the Opta index represents, I did not err - it is clearly a measure of net offensive output. It very much gives points for passing, assists, goals, etc. which are considered typically as offensive/creative parameters, while deducting points for offside and fouls which are actions which unequivocally surrender possession of the ball to the opposition. It is clearly a reflection of offensive productivity since it does not include aerial duels won, ball recoveries, tackles, and the like according to the very definition you supplied. I am clearly not in the wrong. Finally, I have been explicit time and time again that I am not a fan of basic statistical analysis and my words could not be clearer than what I quoted, so I will not waste time trying to re-explain myself when you have demonstrated a consistently obnoxious behaviour of "making a mountain out of an imaginary moehill".
@Estel @lessthanjake @PuckVanHeel @Pipiolo @babaorum With some very hard and time-consuming work (and I mean extremely hard), I was able to dig up some OPTA stats from back in the day (as well as a definition of the OPTA index if you still care about that). I will share my findings. EURO 2000. La Liga 2001/2002 Note the absolutely mind-boggling success rate as well as the sheer number of successful dribbles. Please note Xavi and Zidane's stats in 2001/02 and remember @lessthanjake's absolutely ridiculous and uninformed claim that Xavi operated as a DM rather than a "featured playmaker" (his words). Clearly Xavi's role at the heart of Barcelona's passing system was established very early in his career and his playstyle and role never truly changed (but his stats saw a massive jump with Guardiola - as did everybody's on that team). Xavi has a 87.7% pass completion in that era, while Zidane has a 83.7%. One must scratch his head that Xavi as a supposed DM had poorer pass completion stats (where he is supposed to have more time and space) than in later years as a "featured playmaker" where he was consistently in the 90s%. But the numbers actually make sense as one would expect everybody in that era to have lower pass completion stats as the numbers increased as part of a huge trend in football over the years that can be empirically demonstrated (ie. extrinsic factors, rather than a quality of the player). And finally, Djorkaeff has also been impressive from wide areas in the same period. His crossing accuracy of 41% is phenomenal when compared to the likes of David Beckham and Robert Pires’ 2001-02 averages of 31% and 24% respectively. Zidane was successful with 40% of his crosses last term so Djorkaeff is certainly up with the best of them from the flanks on recent form. This lends credence to a point that I (and @Estel) insisted on that Zidane was absolutely class playing on the wing and putting in quality crosses.
I've dug up some more: For the 2002/03 season: Zidane had 15 assists and 12 goals (9 in La Liga and 3 Champions league) in all competitions (3882 minutes played), not counting Copa Del Rey. You can adjust the numbers per minute if you are interested. Source: http://www.xtratime.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-111109.html (for more detailed statistics and other players) I found a team of the week report by Opta following a 2001/02 match vs. Sevilla: "If Figo cost £41m then what do you get for £46m these days? Well, Zidane set up both of the Real Madrid goals which comes as no surprise when you see that he completed 84% of his passes. He had the ball more often than any other player on the pitch and recorded 75 accurate passes as well as successfully completing all 10 of his dribbles and runs - yes, all 10 of them. You get what you pay for in this life and here is the proof. "
Should we attribute Zidane's creativity to the fact that his system allowed him to have three more times more creative freedom than Xavi ever enjoyed? It seems that some posters are crediting players for changes and tactics brought upon by a coach, rather than qualities that are intrinsic to said players? Of course, your logic is just irrational, just like the rest of your arguments against the modern era players. The obvious truth is that no system can do what you Zidane fanboys claim it can do -- a system cannot make Xavi as good as Xavi was, and no, Zidane would've never replicated "Xavi's game" under any circumstances. Systems can only maximize the talent that's already there, systems, however, cannot create talent out of thin air. Such a shame that Guardiola hasn't created the "new Messi" at Bayern Munich. Going by your hateful but laughable argument, one would believe that Guardiola would absolutely have no problem finding another player like Messi -- but then, Guardiola has failed to do just that, and not only that, but every other coach has failed to do that as well. But sure, it's the system that makes Messi go from 16 goals to 40 goals. One must wonder how Zidane would've played had Zidane been given 50% of the creative freedom that he enjoyed throughout his career in an era in which super teams weren't the established norm -- that is, in an era in which super teams weren't around to reduce Zidane's freedom (read: Zidane would've never, ever, enjoyed anywhere near that level of creative freedom at any of the modern super teams). But yeah, sure, Messi definitely is a Guardiola patented invention -- that's why he's already widely regarded as a top 5 all timer. What happened to Xavi at Euro 2008? Was that Guardiola too? What about Messi vs Getafe 2005/2006? An extraordinary goal scored by an extraordinary player. What happened in 2014/2015? The current Barca team is far removed from Guardiola's Barca -- so why did Messi actually produced more or less the same output as in the previous three or four years? Please tell me more about Guardiola's secret recipe,
That explains why Real Madrid actually won more titles in the five years prior to Zidane, than they did in their five ears with Zidane -- they got what they paid for... an inconsistent player who requires a great deal of creative freedom to be relevant. That also explains why Juventus didn't missed Zidane at all.
I didn't leave out segments of your comments due to some convenient reason. It's just that I prefer to leave out the parts that can be left out. And the parts that I left out, definitely weren't relevant. The truth is very simple, you narrowly defined what a "defender" is and therefore what "defending" is -- I merely pointed out that the tactical context is the biggest factor, in terms of defining what "defending" is. You did say that Zidane was not good defensively (which is obvious, and which is a self-evident truth that only a hardcore fanboy would try to refute). However, you also discredited Xavi as a defensive player, and that's what 90% of my post was about. In Barcelona's system, the way Xavi could impose his presence, the way he could transition between pressing and then having the ball, arguably made him Barcelona's most important defensive player. Here we go again -- you are putting words in my mouth. I never even came close to implying that Xavi was similar to Emerson, or to Busquets. And Busquets is a "street fighter" type player? Really? I've never ever seen Busquets as some type of "street fighter," in fact, I have heard that Busquets isn't "violent enough for a defensive midfielder," and I have heard that multiple times -- the humiliation against Bayern Munich was one such occasion, but far from the only one. But anyways, you are intentionally putting words in my mouth, or you just misinterpreted my argument: in either case, your statements do not relate to any of my claims. Now having said that, I will clarify myself -- I never said nor implied that Xavi was a "street fighter" type player; what I did said, was that within the tactical context of Barcelona 08-12, that Xavi was arguably the most important defensive player. And again, I already explained to you how defending cannot be narrowly defined as "critical with tackles and interceptions " when Barcelona's primary form of defense is overwhelming the opposition by monopolizing the possession of the ball. The inescapable fact is that within the tactical context, Xavi had a very rare mix of skills: the work rate, the awareness, the pass completion, the unbeatable ball retention (note: he really was unbeatable in that department, and is massively underrated in that department as far as I'm concerned), the passing skill, etc. Xavi was the guy who you knew would not be dispossessed, and he was also the guy who was running all the time, with and without the ball, the little guy was always bouncing around -- that's why he was called the "little engine from Terrazas," because he could lead a team with and without the ball. So all things considered, the opinion that Xavi very arguably was the biggest defensive factor for both Spain and Barca, is grounded on solid reasons. So yeah, we can indeed compare statistics with interceptions and tackles, but before doing that, I have to ask you... Just how many "slide tackles" do you expect from Xavi when Barcelona always had the ball? And when Xavi was literally the actual player who was hogging the ball most of the time that Barca had the ball? Just how many "sliding tackles" would you expect from a player like Xavi Hernandez when the system itself dictates that not even Gerard Pique will be required to consistently produce sliding tackles? You answer me that question, with a convincing answer at that, and we can then try to entertain the idea that "interceptions and tackles" hold the same relevance regardless of the actual tactical context.
Huh??? The clear point in what I said was that you specifically brought up that data in a discussion with me. I was refuting your claim that "[you] providing that list initially was more for Estel than for [me]." I suppose you later bringing it up with me doesn't disprove what your initial intention was, but you sure did make sure that you and I talked about it. Which in retrospect is funny, because it really didn't support you at all once we delved into it. No. You're taking the quote I gave you far too literally, when it is quite clear it shouldn't be. Here's the quote: "Opta determines productivity by analyzing 302 actions a player makes in a match, including different types of passes, shots and dribbles. Points are deducted for things like fouls and offsides." It very clearly just gives examples of things it looks at ("including" and "for things like"). I don't see how you could possibly read that and conclude that it must not include "aerial duels won, ball recoveries, tackles, and the like." It's very clear that it measures tons of actions beyond what was mentioned. And there's absolutely no reason to believe it only measures offensive actions, given that fouls were included in the examples. Now, you claim that you have found the definition of the OPTA Index. What did you find? I'll tell you what I found: "The Opta Index awards points for various actions like shots, passes, tackles or saves depending on their effectiveness and the area of the pitch where they are performed. Opta collect between 1600 and 2000 events per match. All players' points are totalled to give a game score and the Index is an average point per 90 minutes rating. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...luding-Chelseas-John-Terry.html#ixzz3iOAAtPCM That certainly indicates I am right that it was not just offensive actions. It hardly matters, since it's also true that these catch-all statistics never seem to do a great job of measuring defensive output (basically because so much less of defensive output is encompassed by measurable events like tackles and interceptions). But for what it's worth I think I'm right, and I could be wrong but I imagine if the definition you had found didn't say something similar, you'd have posted it and told me I was wrong. The bolded part in your post looks a little silly now, I'd say. You have certainly demonstrated that you're not a fan of basic statistical analysis, as you get owned pretty hard every time you use them (see, e.g., "Well, [Zidane] is making significantly more dribbles than Messi. I don't know what you're trying to say. Maybe this is something that you don't like to hear, but the numbers are there. It may be uncomfortable for you to admit, but you have no basis for argument.").
Xavi's role never truly changed. But before Guardiola, he was player of the tournament at the Euro. And then with Guardiola, he immediately delivered what he'd already shown he could do at Euro 2008. But somehow, Xavi's role never truly changed, and Guardiola is the reason why Xavi could consistently play at a level that wasn't better than what Xavi had already done at the Euro. Circular logic will be circular.
Off-topic but I'm stunned how effective Thuram was at making a lot successful dribbles and runs in both Euro2000 and CL 2002-03. Thuram is often described as a defensively minded player with little offensive capabilities. I've always thought the contrary based on what I saw, and I'm glad those stats show this.
@lessthanjake Huh??? The clear point in what I said was that you specifically brought up that data in a discussion with me. I was refuting your claim that "[you] providing that list initially was more for Estel than for [me]." I suppose you later bringing it up with me doesn't disprove what your initial intention was, but you sure did make sure that you and I talked about it. Which in retrospect is funny, because it really didn't support you at all once we delved into it. Just because I integrated the information within the context of our discussion, does not mean that the primary reason for posting it is for @Estel. I have already been explicit about what I think of the very debate question as well as your overly pedantic debating style. In short, this is not a question that interests or that I take seriously. I am still here because the discussion serves to bring out new information, deeper analysis of two of my favourite players. No. You're taking the quote I gave you far too literally, when it is quite clear it shouldn't be. Here's the quote: "Opta determines productivity by analyzing 302 actions a player makes in a match, including different types of passes, shots and dribbles. Points are deducted for things like fouls and offsides." It very clearly just gives examples of things it looks at ("including" and "for things like"). I don't see how you could possibly read that and conclude that it must not include "aerial duels won, ball recoveries, tackles, and the like." It's very clear that it measures tons of actions beyond what was mentioned. And there's absolutely no reason to believe it only measures offensive actions, given that fouls were included in the examples. Now, you claim that you have found the definition of the OPTA Index. What did you find? I'll tell you what I found: "The Opta Index awards points for various actions like shots, passes, tackles or saves depending on their effectiveness and the area of the pitch where they are performed. Opta collect between 1600 and 2000 events per match. All players' points are totalled to give a game score and the Index is an average point per 90 minutes rating. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...luding-Chelseas-John-Terry.html#ixzz3iOAAtPCM What you're missing is that the Opta Index is calculated independently for each player position: attacker, attacking midfielder, holding midfielder, and so on. That certainly indicates I am right that it was not just offensive actions. It hardly matters, since it's also true that these catch-all statistics never seem to do a great job of measuring defensive output (basically because so much less of defensive output is encompassed by measurable events like tackles and interceptions). But for what it's worth I think I'm right, and I could be wrong but I imagine if the definition you had found didn't say something similar, you'd have posted it and told me I was wrong. The bolded part in your post looks a little silly now, I'd say. I addressed this, but the point was that the numbers represented value and were only indicative of production which has been my stance all along. You have certainly demonstrated that you're not a fan of basic statistical analysis, as you get owned pretty hard every time you use them (see, e.g., "Well, [Zidane] is making significantly more dribbles than Messi. I don't know what you're trying to say. Maybe this is something that you don't like to hear, but the numbers are there. It may be uncomfortable for you to admit, but you have no basis for argument."). We've already talked about this in length. I didn't exactly know how Opta defines dribbling. The way I understood dribbling makes me believe that Zidane partook more and was more successful in these actions and the "dribbles and runs stat" had simply confirmed my views. I had made a mistake conflating dribbles and runs with dribbles, I hope I can be forgiven - since like I said I never gave these things much attention. But, I've provided some new statistics that suggest that Zidane was a much superior dribbler than Messi at the very least.
No you didn't. I quite like the information you provided, and I'm glad you spent the time digging it up (I even repped the post, despite conclusions I obviously disagree with). But it doesn't show Zidane was a superior dribbler to Messi AT ALL. I assume you're referencing the fact that Zidane's success rates are really high. The problem is that the stats you've dug up are clearly "Dribbles & Runs" again, because the numbers of dribbles for everyone are so high (and because it expressly says "Dribbles & Runs" multiple times). So it's impossible to compare Zidane's success rate at "Dribbles & Runs" to Messi's success rate at dribbles. It's real easy to be successful at a dribble when no one is challenging you, and that's the type of run that "Dribbles & Runs" counts. The fact that the success rates in general are enormous in that data bears this out. Moreover, a midfielder is more likely than others to have a super high success rate at that, because he's more likely to have the space to make an unchallenged "run." This fact is made even clearer if you look who has the highest and lowest success rates in your data: the high success rates are pretty much all full backs and midfielders, while the low success rates are largely wingers and strikers. This isn't a surprise. Basically, the "& Runs" part boosts the success rate of the full backs and midfielders more, because they're more likely to have the space to make an unchallenged "run," rather than having to make a "dribble" past defenders (which obviously would yield a lower success rate than the "run"). Lastly, within that context, Zidane still doesn't have the highest success rate except in the Euro numbers anyways. Thus, within its proper context, a good deal of Zidane's high success rate in that data is clearly a function of his position on the pitch. So I like the information you gave. It's interesting. But it doesn't at all say what you think it says. It certainly doesn't tell us that Zidane was a "much superior dribbler than Messi." You will never be able to prove that, so stop repeatedly trying to do so.
You call me "pedantic," but you literally posted a reply to me in which you quoted the dictionary definition of a word to tell me I must have used it wrong or not know what it means. Doesn't get more pedantic than that. So get off your high horse.
Except as you yourself graciously explained to me a while back, Opta clearly makes the difference between completed dribbles and "dribbles and runs". If you looked at the table yourself, you would see the following: Player with the most dribbles and runs: (1) Denilson (344) (2) Joaquin (286) (3) Figo (258) whereas the statistics for "completed dribbles": (1) Denilson (252) (2) Figo (193) (3) Joaquin (185) ... (5) Zidane (174) And sure, it is easier to dribble in less congested areas where you can knock the ball into space and still recover it after the execution of the move, but it's pretty apparent that these are different statistics so I don't know what you're talking about. 27 dribbles in Euro 2000 at a 77% success rate is pretty massive, as is the 87% success rate posted for Zidane's 2001 dribble stats.
No. Do the math. Look at the "Dribbles & Runs" stat, the "completed dribbles" stat, and the reported success rate. Figure it out. They map on perfectly. The "completed dribbles" number you've given is very clearly simply the number of successful "Dribbles & Runs," whereas the larger number is the number of attempted Dribbles & Runs. The math make this obvious. As does the fact that the numbers for everyone (both in total dribbles and in success rate) are just absolutely sky high in a way that makes it obvious it is a different statistic. Seriously, stop trying to use statistics. You really never know what to do with them. They might have used inconsistent wording back when they first started in the early 2000's, but what is happening in the data is obvious.
Xavi and Zidane's Opta Index in 2002/2003 @lessthanjake edit: Yeah, it seems you're right about it being dribbles and runs for the La Liga stats. Fault Opta for the inconsistent wording.
Hahahahahahaahahaha. Did you read the chart??? It says "Top 10 form players in each position over the last six league matches."
Also, where are you getting all this stuff? Did you subscribe to OPTA or is this stuff actually accessible?
How do passing numbers show what his role was??? He'd have lots of passes either way. Busquets completed the most passes per match for Barca this past season, for instance. It's not curious at all. Barca wasn't really playing tiki-taka that season.
That it's pretty meaningless to show that over a random 6 match span, Zidane was rated the highest out of players in his position… Also, you saying "Xavi and Zidane's Opta Index in 2002/2003" was highly misleading.
This is so very bizarre. Zidane was not only a better dribbler, but also a much better dribbler, than Messi at the very least... I mean, SayWhatIWant actually thinks that being a better dribbler than Messi is an "at the very least" type of accomplishment, which is basically like saying "Zidane was a much better passer than Platini at the very least" -- that's the level of grand delusion that certain posters actively delude themselves with. No. The fault is on you, for trying to argue against an extremely self-evident truth. Nobody in their right mind, would ever say that "Zidane was a much superior dribbler than Messi at the very least." But evidently, "faulty" wording is enough of a reason for you to voice out loud a statement that would be hastily laughed off by any slightly informed person.
I said "in" rather than "for". I thought the graphic had all the necessary information outside of the year which I provided for context. I am pretty sure it is not league, but champions league (but I may be incorrect), since the stats are for Cl and the Veron paragraph explicitly laments his poor form in the league while mentioning how well he is doing in Cl - which would make no sense unless it was Cl. Those are 6 consecutive matches. I thought Zidane was inconsistent. How is he doing better than Xavi? I thought Xavi was better than Zidane and more consistent? So how is he going through a period where he is not performing (According to these stats mind you) as well as Zidane. I'm also certain your assist stats that you provide are incorrect/false. Zidane had 15 assists in League + Cl matches in 2002/2003 and 12 goals (3882 minutes played) which is an outstanding return. edit: "via Opta @OptaJean 90% - Zinedine Zidane completed 9 of the 10 dribbles he attempted vs. Portugal in the EURO 2000 semi-final"
Are you really saying Zidane must not be inconsistent because he had a good 6-match span? And that he must be better than Xavi because he was better over one 6 match span (not to mention that that 6 match span occurred when Zidane was in his prime and Xavi was 22 or 23 years old)? Those are both manifestly absurd. Temember, I'm not saying Zidane isn't a good player. Hell, I have him in my top 20 of all time. A top 20 all time player is certainly capable of being at or near the top of the world over a 6 match span, even if he's relatively inconsistent compared to other greats. Nor am I saying that there's such a giant gulf between Zidane and Xavi that Zidane couldn't sometimes perform better. So I really don't see what your point is. As far as I'm concerned, the main takeaway from that chart is that a 22 or 23 year old Xavi was already being rated as one of the best players in the world. Which is pretty remarkable. Other than that, the question you've posed above are grasping at straws. http://soccer-europe.com/Biographies/Zinedine_Zidane.html Says Zidane had 9 league assists in 2002-2003. And we know he had 6 CL assists that year. So that agrees with 15 total assists that season. It also agrees with you about him having 14 league assists in 2000-2001. So it's perfectly congruent with your numbers. It's certainly possible there's errors there, of course, but that is the best I've found, so those are the numbers I've used. Yep. That was a good match from him. Do you think that that one match proves correct your outlandish claims that he's a better dribbler than Messi, though??? Of course not. Not to rub salt in the wound, but I am still shocked that, for a second time, you tried to claim Zidane was a significantly better dribbler than Messi. Despite that just being manifestly false to anyone with eyes.
I completely disagree with that. Everyone that played on Barcelona was a defensive beast. It was not just Xavi. Xavi had only such presence when Guardiola was on Barcelona and he played in a system where everyone was required to put an extreme amount of defensive effort which helped to cover the defensive weaknesses of Xavi. In no other time of his career was he able to replicate anything like this defensively. Beckenbauer never made hard crunching tackles. He would intercept balls and make tackles on numerous occasions without contact. Perfect example of a player who is defensively very present with very little physical presence. Someone who replicated that his whole career without having to depend on one coach to create a defensive system in which everyone was required to give the same amount of effort. Laurent Blanc is another good example, not physically a hard player but very intelligent defender with presence. Point: If Xavi was a defensive beast, then so was Iniesta, Pedro, Messi, Villa, etc. Xavi is no defensive beast. @lessthanjake @leadleader