Xavi/Iniesta better than Zidane?

In 2004, I thought the Henry/Trezeguet duo was pretty dysfunctional as well. Both players never really played with a similar type player. Playing two up front meant Zidane had to play wide, where he of course, made more crosses, which actually suited Trezeguet well enough, at least in theory.

Pires and Zidane also had to rotate between the two wings. It was weird to see. Neither were obviously comfortable wide right.

However, what other choice did they have? Govou was average. The fact that the injury-plagued Wiltord (how many games did he play? like 15-20 all season?) even made the squad, said it all.

Also didn't help that they still had to rely on an old Lizarazu at left-back. I don't even remember who played RB for them in that tournament, but I don't think it was anyone amazing. When you got Zidane and Pires as your wide playmakers, you at least need pace from the fullbacks. They didn't have that.

 

Still in awe how Iniesta manages to have a handful of great games (which he gets praised for massively everytime it happens) in the past 3 season and getting away with being mediocre a lot without anybody giving a damn

 

I think the goals-based perception of the events largely misses the point, because in my opinion, Henry was essentially a playmaker striker, that is, Henry was never a conventional striker whose performance level could be accurately measured on the basis of his GPG. Thierry Henry was impressive in the Euro Final 2000, and Henry did not scored any goals in that game... That's more or less the essence of my argument; Henry would've never been perceived as a Top 5 talent, had Henry's club career been identical to Henry's national team career. There is a world of difference between performance level and goal-ratio, especially for a "striker playmaker" like Henry was in his prime.

The British had a very good understanding of Thierry Henry, "When he gets the freedom to drift to the left, he is amazing... When he plays like a conventional striker and does not drift to the sides of the pitch (the left), Henry can often look quite ordinary."

Thierry Henry was a unique playmaker striker whose performance level could severely inflate or deflate on the basis of the tactical system. (Same as Zidane, who also needs a specific system in order to be relevant, and who could severely inflate or deflate on the basis of how much the tactical system catered or didn't catered to him.) In other words: it was relatively simple to understand, why Zidane was always going to have a relatively negative effect on Henry... It's because Zidane also liked to drift to the left, and Zidane slowed down the entire left side of the pitch (unlike Robert Pires who played quickly through the left, therefore suiting Henry's style of play), and when Zidane did that, he inadvertently greatly deflated Henry's performance level. In simple terms: Henry was forced into having to consistently look for crosses, when at Arsenal it was typically Henry who was consistently delivering those crosses (from the left or the right, but more often than not from Henry's favored left). Henry's goal-ratio with France does not accurately measure Henry's disappointing performance level, relative to his much more thrilling (entertaining) club form.

Moreover: the simple fact is that Henry was Henry, because Henry was statistically outstanding at Arsenal. Without the statistics, Henry never had the dribbling ability nor the "innate ability" to consistently justify a career of low statistical output. (Conversely, Zidane always justified a career of low statistical output, because Zidane was widely perceived as uniquely talented at the non-statistical aspects of football.) In any case, Thierry Henry was a comprehensive and a demonstrable disappointment for the national team... Any analyst can arbitrarily define Henry's disappointing national team form as "subpar" in universal terms or as "above average" compared to average strikers, but the obvious fact of the matter is that Henry rarely ever looked like a legitimate super star in any NT tournament not played in 2000. Had Henry's club career consisted of the same unimpressive (AND BORING) performances that typify Henry's national team career; Henry would've never been considered as a Top 10 talent -- perhaps not even as a Top 20 talent, let alone as a Top 5 talent -- at club level.

1. Whatever Henry did between 1998 and 1999 is largely irrelevant in my opinion... Because Henry was a relative "nobody" in club football between 1998 and 1999, in fact, he failed so badly at Juventus that he was mostly used in a rather defensive wing role. The fact of the matter is that between 1998 and 1999, Henry's club career was more or less just as unimpressive as his national team career. Furthermore, even as late as in season 2001-02, Henry was not yet widely perceived as a Top 5 talent. (For reference: Henry was 9th place in the Ballon d'Or 2001; Henry was not included in the 10 player shortlist for the 2001 FIFA Player of the Year; Henry was 6th place in the Ballon d'Or 2002; Henry was 9th place in the 2002 FIFA Player of the Year; etc.)

In conclusion, I think that whatever Henry did or didn't do between 1998 and 1999 should have no relevance in this debate... How Zidane arguably devastated Henry's national team career in the 2003-2006 years, has no relevance with the 1998-1999 years, nor even with the 2000-2001 years. Henry was a Top 5 talent in the 2003-2006 years... Henry was not a Top 5 talent in the 1998-2001 years... Henry was not a Top 5 talent in the 2007-2010 years... And Henry was a very physical player who declined heavily after 2006. In other words: Zidane was there in a big way, exactly when Henry enjoyed his short-lived prime between 2002 and 2006 - more or less the same short-lived prime as Ronaldinho.

2. Henry began to be perceived as a Top 5-10 talent at some point in 2002-03, and the problem is that between 2002 and 2006, Zidane always played in the important tournaments; and the other perhaps more important problem is that Zidane played differently in different games... In the qualifiers I think that Zidane was arguably at his best (even if he wasn't at his most impressive), because Zidane was less greedy and more willing to share his spotlight. But when the Euro came and/or when the World Cup came, Zidane became a lot more selfish, and Henry became more disappointing - with the exception of Euro 2000, where Henry was good, in part because Zidane was not yet intimated by Henry's talent, and in part because Zidane was still athletic enough to be great himself without also devastating Henry's share of the creative license.

In contrast, Zidane 2003-2006 lacked the athletic ability that he displayed at Euro 2000, that is, the athletic ability that allowed him to create chances, but without also inevitably slowing France's tactics to the point where Henry would obviously negatively suffer the consequences of Zidane's monopoly over France's creative license/stock. Furthermore, Zidane 2003-2006 was arguably intimidated by Henry's intimidating form (i.e. Zidane arguably deliberately didn't do as much as he could've done, to accommodate for the meteoric rise of Henry), and Zidane 2003-2006 was unquestionably the untouchable idol of France... On aggregate, that's one of the worst conceivable scenarios for a player like prime Thierry Henry - he must play under the shadow of an untouchable hero named Zidane, and Zidane at that point in his career was slower and less athletic, and Henry thrived in speed-based systems that didn't suited Zidane's slower version, etc. (The prime version of Ronaldinho suffered similar consequences at the hands of Nike's chosen one: the indefensibly fat version of Ronaldo, who devastated Ronaldinho's chances at World Cup 2006.)

3. Robert Pires was never given a real chance by France. When France played without Zidane, France more often than not also played without Pires. When Zidane retired, France did not used Pires because Raymond Domenech (France's coach) had a creative way of refusing to use Pires; Domenech believed that Scorpios and Leos were a liability, and both Pires and Pedretti were Scorpios and/or Leos. As Domenech explained, "When I have got a Leo in defence, I've always got my gun ready. I know he's going to want to show off at one moment or another and cost us."

The only two legitimate creative talents in the French midfield not named Zidane, were denied a place in France's starting eleven, because Raymond Domenech believed that astrology was more important than actual empirical reality. So Zidane had retired, and Pires was bizarrely canceled out by Domenech's stubborn belief in astrology-tactics, and Henry was never the type of player who could single-handedly compose the music of what was a defensive group of players... Especially when crucial players such as Patrick Vieira -- who had been desicive in every trophy that Zidane won with France -- begin to show their age, and begin to look like shadows of their former selves, which is more or less exactly what happened to Vieira quickly after 2004. Long story short: had Pires been given the opportunities that he thoroughly deserved (at least when Zidane wasn't available), perhaps Henry would've enjoyed a lot more success in those months after Zidane's retirement - and even then, Zidane was always going to play World Cup 2006.

So overall: at World Cup 2002, Henry had neither Zidane nor Pires, and France lacked a midfielder playmaker who could share the creative license with Henry, which is how Henry thrived - Henry never really thrived when he didn't have another legitimate "magician" in the team, be that Bergkamp or Pires, or both Bergkamp-Pires as supporting players. And after Zidane retired, Raymond Domenech decided to not use Pires, to not use Pedretti, ultimately forcing France into playing without a legitimate creative midfielder - which was detrimental for Henry's style of play, and which served to legitimize the opinion that Henry simply didn't have it in him to perform for France, and which served to legitimize the myth that France was average without Zidane.

In summary: Henry was just another boring player not named Zidane at World Cup 1998, impressive at Euro 2000, at World Cup 2002 he suffered the consequences of France's lack of creativity when France played without both Zidane and Pires, at Euro 2004 he was just another boring player not named Zidane, in the qualifiers of World Cup 2006 again he suffered the consequences of France's lack of creativity when France played without both Zidane and Pires, in the qualifiers of World Cup 2006 he also suffered the consequences of France's old age at that point in time (and of course the old age became all the more palpable, because of the absences of both Zidane and Pires), and again Henry was just another boring player not named Zidane at World Cup 2006. In conclusion: I think that Thierry Henry was uniquely unlucky in his national team career.

I'm not trying to see you as a Zidane fanboy, and you probably aren't a fanboy in any true sense, but... your observations are almost always too convenient for Zidane. In this specific instance, I think you put too much importance on Henry's GPG with France, when Henry was some form of playmaker striker at club level (i.e. the type of player that shouldn't be reduced to his GPG stats). And most importantly: I think that you're definitely downplaying or perhaps not even aware of the fact that when Henry played without Zidane, Henry was almost always left with relatively bad circumstances - the confederations cup being the only exception, and an exception that nobody truly cares about anyways.

You're obviously not a Zidane fan the same way that Zidane fanboys are, and your opinions about Zidane are not one-track all the time, and more often than not you offer a lot more than the circle-jerk logic that fanboys offer (e.g. Estel's and Carlito's method of argument), etc. But I do think that you're a Zidane fan to enough a degree that you have no real genuine interest in finding flaws in him, which is probably why you repeatedly miss or downplay factors that really shouldn't be missed nor downplayed imo, which ultimately makes you imo an unreliable source when it comes to some of the typical Zidane debates. (The "Henry didn't click with Zidane" debate being one of those typical Zidane debates.) So not a fanboy in the true sense of the word, but you also appear to be almost too reluctant to criticize a player that you truly admire... And to be fair: most of us fans have a player that we are reluctant to criticize, so most of us will have that specific subject where we are too charitable towards the player at the center of the debate/criticism.

 

@PuckVanHeel
i think leadleader may have a valid point. zidane being a playmaker never really was known with consistently providing service for forwards. mainly zidane in known for his individual moments of brilliance excusing his service to forwards at NT level.

to leadleaders point, france consistnetly underplaying pires could have greatly been detrimental to henry`s success. of course, as zidane lovedd to occupy the left side, it`s no mystery that pires was not included in the squad despite his immense talent. pires`style greatly supplemented thierry henry. as we can see in confederations cup 2003. france won and henry was player of the tournament. i understand that it is confederations cup and i don`t consider it of the greatest regard but it does support leadleaders point.

and again, honestly, of zidane`s great NT perfromances, how often do we see clips or even hear about zidane`s great service to the forwards at NT level?? having said that, i don`t take away from zidane`s quality level of play at the NT level

 

i would have to disagree with you on this. how often has iniesta been in the limelight since enrique has taken over??
all we hear about is neymar, messi, and suarez. iniesta is merely a passenger at this point, despite arguably being the most consistent player for barcelona in 2015-2016. although i will agree that he did not play well by his standards in 14-15 and 16-17.

 

1st of all i think zidane`s performances on an individual level have been excellent for france. but you could hardly say that is has been clearly above par if we are evaluating his play in terms of service to the forwards. even in tournaments like Euro 2000 and even in WC 2006. henry had to create a large proportion of his plays through his own doing. leadleader made some good points about zidane and his playstyle being detrimental to henry, whereas pires was much more complimentary to henry`s style. still puzzled at the lack of inclusion of pires at the NT level.
althoug i do not consider confederations cup a high tier tournament henry was able to look much better as pires playing an important part on the team. much more of a direct style of play then a style that was more welcome to being slowed down at any chance when zidane played.
i`m not taking away from zidane`s quality of play at NT level but it was certainly not the pinnacle of a midfielder who was giving his forwards tons of service with his time at France.

 

He was injured at the end of the season he was EPL's best player, so he missed WC2002. He was starter in EURO2004, but that team was dysfunctional. By 2006, he was already declining.

 

I was not aware of his injury before WC 02. in saying that it still seems that the only time pires played very well for france was in confederations cup in 2003 (zidane not playing), when henry also happened to play very well. it could have been that zidane`s role on the team could have hindered pires`ideal style.
i`m not saying that france should have limited zidane`s role to fit pires because it could be argued that what france did for zidane was justified given their success

 

Since you do not consider the Confed Cup a high tier tournament and since the one in which Henry looked "much better" as you put it, had France playing against Colombia, Japan, New Zealand, Turkey and Cameroon, I'll be disregarding the same in this conversation.

Anyway, I would like to understand how Zidane's playmaking was detrimental to Henry even though Henry scored 10 times more goals in only 3 times more games, when featuring alongside Zidane in NT tournaments vs when not featuring alongside him.

Was Xavi's playmaking detrimental to David Villa as well, considering that they shared 15 games between them across three major NT tournaments but Xavi had only 1 assist for Villa across those games, although Villa scored 12 goals across those 15 games?

Look, I don't have a problem if you simply happen to prefer an opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to buy it considering that there is factual evidence which renders it invalid. Frankly, I have to agree with @schwuppe here (when he points out the consistency issue with Iniesta, an issue that is often used against Zidane), as there definitely seems to be one set of rules for Zidane and another for Xavi/Iniesta.

Irrespective of your opinion regarding Zidane's ability to provide service to his forwards, during NT tournaments, Zidane did provide Henry with the below service (amongst other instances) -







Now maybe you do have readily available examples of forwards who received tons of chances to score from in NT tournaments, from the same playmaking midfielders, which were at par with the above 3 in terms of quality, but drastically higher in terms of volume since there are tons of them. Maybe you use the Xavi-Villa example I gave above and are able to show me those tons of chances. Or maybe you don't have any equivalent examples and this is all a lot of hot air.

Point is though, when you talk about tons of chances being created, you actually don't take into consideration the fact that for a large part of those NT tournaments France was setup in a defensive fashion, which is not really ideal for creating tons of chances. Nor the injury that hampered Zidane in WC 2002, thus possibly taking away his best chance of putting up a numbers-heavy tournament during his prime. Since you tend to compare his chance creation to that of other playmaking midfielders who didn't necessarily have both these aspects going against them.

 

look my friend. i am trying to be as open as possible to every comment that a poster makes in regards to my arguments. of every point that i have made, not once have you been open to the idea that maybe you were not 100% correct. yes, you did omit certain points that i also ommited but not once in the whole conversation did you change any of your points. i understand as human beings we always think that we are always right and that the reasons we come up with to support our arguments make our reasons more valid when more often then not, it has been proven that we only look for reasons to support our claims with no intention of changing them. now even when i say not once, i could be wrong because we argued on several posts. if you can prove me otherwise, then i rest my case. (in saying that, i also admit that i am guilty of doing the same thing)

yes, it`s true, confederations cup is a low level tournament. but i am not raising henry`s status because he did well in the tournement. i am merely saying that if a french team catered to Zinedine Zidane as you claimed (which they did not do at juventus according to you) then zidane on the pitch would have hurt henry`s potential. as in 2003, with pires and a different style of play or lack of a focal point (zidane) it enabled henry to look better given that the team knew that zidane would not be participating.
i am also aware on the other hand that you could say that henry performed well because it was in the confederations cup. but never, not even in european qualifying or world cup qualifying as bad as those teams can be, have i seen henry play so well for a number of games as he did when zidane was not there. and part of this could have been because france was not set up as defensively.

this is a completely different conversation. you stated that france gave zidane the role that he should have had at juventus. in no way, shape, or form, do i see xavi getting more freedom at spain than he did at barcelona. not only that but his role was exactly the same given that barcelona and spain played exactly the same style. not only that, but spain did not make xavi the focal part of the team like france gave zidane the free role that you claim.

what are you talking about. myself and pretty much everyone on this forum puts Zidane ahead of Iniesta at the national team level. iniesta played at a more consistent level than zidane ever did from 08-17 at barcelona. the only years iniesta was below a high level performing as a center midfielder, or #8, are 14-15 and 16-17. 2 seasons which were very low for iniesta. i will also admit that what zidane has to do given his role at juventus and his role at france is more difficult. as zidane is expected to carry a greater weight in creating final chances and scoring goals for his team. so all in all, that is why i decided to put zidane above iniesta.

i understand that france was set up in a defensive fashion, which naturally reduces a team`s chances. understand, that i am also not saying that france was a better team without zidane. it is possible that henry may perform better when they play in a more attacking style without zidane but that does not mean that it is a stronger team than the defensive team with Zidane.
where i see @leadleader point, is that for a player like zidane to have such a free role on the national team as a #10, it seems unusual that a a player like henry in his prime looked so poor while zidane looked so great. as a matter of fact, henry`s most influential game for france in a major tournamanet came in the Euro 2000 final in one of zidanes worst games. where henry was constantly having to take on the entire italian defense on his own. yet, in zidane`s best games for france, henry or any other number 9 for that matter was hardly much of a factor.
in saying this, i am not saying that suiting zidane was unjustified because france did very well when zidane played. though, i believe zidane looked better from an entertainment value rather than effectiveness as a #10, who should be providing the forwards with service

 

of all the clips you could have posted....

 

That's the textbook definition of a fanboy/ideologue, and it is the single largest reason as to why I cannot take an excessively pedantic person such as Estel seriously. Also, Estel's argument about how, "Xavi and Iniesta only took over after Zidane retired..." That argument is so obviously incorrect, that it makes you wonder if Estel even watched football at any point between 2003 and 2006. What is there to gain from such an uneducated, biased, fan of Zidane??

Zidane after 2003, was a shadow of himself... Xavi Hernandez was better than him already in 2004 and 2005, and the 2006 calendar year was ruined for Xavi, as a result of a serious knee injury which happened in December 2005 (i.e. the injury happened in season 2005-06, and Xavi obviously lacked match fitness when he came back for World Cup 2006). Kaka was definitely better than him, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Ronaldinho was better than him, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Riquelme was better than him, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Steven Gerrard was better than him, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Nedved was better than him, in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Ronaldo was better in 2003, and again in 2004, and again in 2005, until injuries ruined his career in 2006, a point in his career that he never recovered from. In conclusion: Zinedine Zidane was a shadow of himself in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and World Cup 2006 really turned around Zidane's entire legacy. World Cup 2006 single-handedly changed the perception about Zidane, from a player who declined heavily post-2003, to a player with amazing longevity because "did you see him at World Cup 2006."

And furthermore: World Cup 2006 is not just 7 games (because remember: Zidane was unimpressive in the Group Stage), Zidane's World Cup 2006 legacy can reasonably be reduced to just 2 games, the Round of 16 vs. Spain, the Quarter Final vs. Brazil, other than those 2 games Zidane was definitely unimpressive at World Cup 2006. Zidane's legacy changed dramatically because of 2 games, one game vs. unfit Xavi, and another game vs. Ronaldinho playing in a tactically mediocre Brazil team.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2005/m=12/news=spain-suffer-xavi-setback-21019.html

^ Xavi in December 2005 was already good enough that his serious injury was considered a "setback" for a talented Spanish team. An average player would never be considered a "setback" for a top tier national team.

 

There has to be a strong enough logical and evidence-based case, to make one change one's stance. I won't do it without being made to feel so, and that is my personal prerogative.

Also, if the above is what you feel, then I don't understand why you are picking up my posts like https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/xavi-iniesta-better-than-zidane.2021285/page-95#post-35704547 to respond to. After all, that's the only reason that we are even having this current discussion.

I think you missed the crux of my points from my post to which you have written the above response. Be that as it may, rather than getting into a discussion on those again, I'll ask you a simple question -

According to you, how many clear cut chances did Zidane create for his team mates (through open play) during the major international NT tournaments that he participated in?

I ask the above question because you keep repeating this statement in one form or another, whose latest form I'll quote here, that being, "i believe zidane looked better from an entertainment value rather than effectiveness as a #10, who should be providing the forwards with service". So I need to know exactly what is your basis, regarding Zidane's own clear cut chance creation numbers, which allows you to make this comment in response to my talking about his clear cut chance creation for Henry in international NT tournaments.

 

A lot of Ronaldinho's best passes are NOT created by Ronaldinho's speed, but are instead created by Ronaldinho's ability at stationary ball retention (same as Riquelme). Stationary ball retention creates time for strikers, but without stretching the pitch - stretching the pitch can have big consequences on the striker. For example: if Zidane runs 20 feet towards the direction of the striker, the defenders will tend to run away from Zidane and at the same time the defensive midfielders will tend to run towards Zidane, and as a result a player like Henry will rarely ever beat the off-side trap that he expertly beat at Arsenal - because there is no off-side trap to beat, because Zidane has scared the defenders into running backwards so much that there is no off-side trap to beat, there is no space to beat the off-side trap, and so Henry has no off-side trap to beat and one of Henry's main attributes - his amazing speed - is largely canceled out bu Zidane's playing style. I think this is one of the big factors that made Zidane an overall unimpressive assist provider.

Zidane was relatively great at short passes, primarily because Zidane was great at the type of ball retention that works very efficiently when creating passing angles for short passes (not necessarily when creating angles for long passes), but not really because Zidane was uniquely great at short passes. So in simpler terms: Zidane was a great short passer, but an unimpressive assist provider. (And that could and probably should significantly hurt a player like Thierry Henry, especially when Henry plays in a defensive national team.)

Furthermore, Zidane used his type of speed efficiently when he occupied the left side of the pitch (i.e. the left side that Henry also liked to occupy at Arsenal), but Zidane could not use his type of speed efficiently when he tried to run through the more crowded central areas of the pitch. Add the lack of genius passing ability... And the logical result is an entertaining player, but an entertaining player whom is evidently not uniquely talented in terms of creating top notch assists for the striker/strikers in front of him.

Also: Zidane was relatively great at first-touch assists (i.e. assists that are already automatically-timed by the timing of the pre-assist itself and the pre-situation itself, but not by the timing of the resulting assist itself), but Zidane was never great when he had to create the timing of the actual assist itself. I think that's why Zidane was capable of some impressive first-touch assists, but then he was also capable of consistently looking unimpressive when he had to deliver the difficult non-first-touch passes. Honestly, I can't think of another high profile creative midfielder who was quite as hit-or-miss as Zidane was as a passer.

 

@Estel

I could make those short passes, because those type of short direct passes are relatively easy to do. In each case, it is the pre-situation that created the pass itself, with the pass itself being the type of pass that any half-competent passer would easily reproduce. Can you offer at least one example of Zidane playing Henry on the basis of a highly difficult pass?? Well maybe the left-footed cross is a relatively difficult pass because Zidane was right-footed, but then again, serving a difficult cross to a player like Henry is not really much of a situation in the first place - Henry always lacked ability in the air. Can you offer at least one example of Zidane playing Henry on the basis of a highly difficult pass (preferably a pass that would suit Henry's strengths instead of Henry's weaknesses)??

 

@leadleader

let`s look at arguably zidane`s most highly regarded game... zidane vs brazil WC 2006
here is a link to the match:

the #1 rated statement in the youtube comment section with over 400 likes on a view count of well over 2 million.

``best performance of a soccer player that i've ever seen. what he did on that evening in frankfurt, at the age of 34, was more jaw dropping than all the goals and skills of messi and ronaldo.``

this is exactly where the kids of the generation stand. the one`s who cry out in outrage when ferdinand does not put zidane in the top 10.
not only does this statement show a complete ignorance of the history of football before zidane played, it shows complete ignorance of effectiveness and what actually wins teams games. an audience that is regards players highly for entertainment with a disregard to effectiveness.

i rest my case...

even to be regarded as one of the best performances in even world cup history, i couldn`t even bring myself to say that. it was a good match nonetheless.

 

For sure, the cult of Zidane is quite ridiculous. I think it's too late anyway.

Google any top 10-20 footballer list that Zidane is eligible for, and he consistently makes it high. I don't think there's a single top 10-20 footballer list in Google's first page that doesn't include Zidane very high up.

 

You didn't answer my very simple and straightforward question, so I'm not sure why you even bothered to quote me.

If we get into YouTube comments, I am sure that you'll also find a lot of examples that you don't agree with, which have a high number of likes, which don't pertain to Zidane. I personally have never given them more than a second's thought.

 

I don't think anyone that takes football history with any sort of seriousness gives youtube comments on highlight compilations a gram of credibility.

I think the idea is that Youtube comments is dominated by more casual and new generation fans, which is possibly the majority of football fans. The concern is that this means the majority of fans have a very inflated perception of Zidane, while disregarding so many other players.

 

there is no way in hell i can know zidane`s chance creation for his teammates in all NT competitions. how do you expect me to know that? i suppose i could go back and rewatch every single game and count his chances. some things don`t have to be counted down to the exact specifics. in the same way, messi`s passing ability last season, 16-17, was at an elite level, or that CR7 was crucial and effective in terms of his accuracy rate to goal last season, 16-17, regardless of whether we have all the statistics, simply by watching the games.

but my point was not in question necessarily to how many chances he created in all tournaments. it was rather, in what is arguably regarding as zidane`s best NT performance, vs Brazil in WC 2006,.... as a number 10, what he is known to be. how many chances did he create for his team? he probably created 3-4 chances the whole game. now, if i was to judge him as a number 8, a central midfielder, as opposed to an attacking midfielder then i would rate his performance much higher. because in this case, we could say that his role would be more defined in terms of keeping possession and not creating chances.

if i did rate a game that i personally think is arguably zidane`s best number 10 performance, i would choose italy in WC 98. he may not have been as flashy as against Brazil WC 2006 but he was far more direct in terms of creating chances for the team.

but who knows, perhaps zidane`s role on france was some mix between a #8 and a #10. in this case, i would rate his performances more highly because he would be asked to perform 2 roles within one game, which would obviously affect his mindset. because let`s be honest, of all the attacking players from the National Team in WC 2006, how many of the forwards truly benefited considering that some people consider it one of the best WC performances, which is far from the truth. albeit, this opinion comes from kids and the younger audience

 

of all the debates i have had on this forum you are the only person that i seem to misunderstand the questions. and it has happened multiple times.

of course, the youtube comment section is heavily dominated by kids and a very young audience. so of course, several comments should be ignored. the reason i pointed this comment out is because it had a ridiculously amount of likes on that 1 comment (show me how many likes you can find on any comment on any player that are over 400).

the point is that many people prefer zidane`s WC 06 performance against Brazil to any and all of messi and Cr7s goals and skills. there is nothing wrong with that! but when people cannot distinguish between the importance of effectiveness and entertainment, that`s when people start outraging when zidane is not put as a top 10 all time.
and because of this, it is why i question the overall end product of zidane if we are to rate him so highly as a true #10.

 

The BIG problem that I have with Zidane vs. Brazil 2006 - is primarily that brazil 2006 was a mediocre team in my opinion. Ronaldinho 2005-06 was visibly slower than Ronaldinho 2004-05, Ronaldinho was already slowing down in season 2005-06. With that in mind: Barcelona had a perfect system for Ronaldinho - Samuel Eto'o and Henrik Larsson and Ludovic Giuly did a lot of defensive pressing, which allowed Ronaldinho to deliver between 3-4 of his difficult signature passes... Barcelona's system was largely constructed around Ronaldinho's ability to deliver early passes. When Ronaldinho's passes were off-target, the Barcelona targets immediately pressed for the ball - Barcelona's system of high pressing (using hard working forwards) arguably started with Barcelona 2004-05 and Barcelona 2005-06. In the context of that system, Ronaldinho 2005-06 was extremely efficient.

When you replace hard-working players like Samuel Eto'o, Henrik Larsson, and Ludovic Giuly, with a fat version of R9 who was the epitome of lazy; the unwanted result is that Ronaldinho will probably (and perhaps inevitably) become inefficient, because Ronaldinho cannot connect with a striker who does not create passing angles. Moreover, to make matters worse, Kaka and Ronaldinho were not a good mix, not necessarily because of the way Kaka played, but simply because Ronaldinho at that point in his career could only be great if he was the only creative playmaker in the team. (Same as Zidane.) Ronaldinho with a hard working creative player like Deco, was a good mix. But Kaka was not hard working enough to mix well with the playing style of Ronaldinho. Furthermore: Kaka and Ronaldinho, with fat R9 in front of them, was uniquely dysfunctional.

In conclusion: Brazil 2006 was in fact a dysfunctional team, a tactically mediocre team, and more importantly, Zidane had plenty of space around him. The teams in the Group Stage did a much better job defending against Zidane, than Brazil did. Because the teams in the Group Stage, or Spain for that matter, or Portugal for that matter, or Italy for that matter -- did not have Ronadinho, Kaka, and R9, not defending, and allowing Zidane a "hole" where he could comfortably roam around. Having Ronaldinho, Kaka, and R9, was the perfect complement for a player like Zidane, who likes to roam around in deep midfield. Zidane would never have that space against Barcelona's Samuel Eto'o and Ludovic Giuly and Deco; players who actually do a lot on the defensive end as well as on the attacking end.

NOTE:

Zidane would've never looked as impressive against Dunga's much more defensive Brazil 2007. Honestly, Zidane was very lucky vs. Brazil. At the 1998 World Cup, Zidane enjoyed home court advantage, and Brazil was collectively traumatized by the fact that R9 suffered a scary "foam in his mouth, I thought he was going to die" incident just a few hours before the game. At the 2006 World Cup, Brazil was a mediocre team, and the World Cup was played in the heart of Europe.

 

I am not sure why there should be any "concern", unless one wishes to dictate the opinion of the masses. I think it is very dangerous to start thinking that other people do not have a right to their opinion, regardless of whether it is educated or not. I understand that one can get annoyed by this, but that is exactly why I mentioned how I hardly pay any attention to that whole set.

Also, it is not as if old generation or non-casual fans don't have their own controversial opinions.

Thank you for answering my question. Having seen your response, I can say that while I respect your opinion regarding Zidane's chance creation, I definitely disagree with it.

Also, I think you should be careful in the future when generalising, considering your disinclination towards researching the topic of your generalisations. From our above discussion, I understand that you like to make comments based on the "impressions" that players leave in your mind. In a way, the YouTube commentators that annoy you so, also tend to do the same i.e. make comments based on the "impressions" that have been left in their minds.

Maybe you are slightly ahead of those YouTube commentators having gotten involved with more non-casual fans and picked up on some of these fans' opinions. But having joined such company, you should probably reconsider your approach since ultimately you will need some hard evidence to fall back on, when you get involved in discussions with people who are not the generic casual audience.

 

You`re right. brazil was awful! even against ghana, it was obviously how terrible they were despite winning 3-0.

having said that. zidane was capable of playing against strong defenses. one of the games that i believe was perhaps most zidane`s effective games was against a strong italy team in WC 98 in the quarterfinals. perhaps his best NT game in my opinion