Is Luka Modric the greatest midfielder of the 21st century?

I really don’t want to engage with any of these personal attacks more than is absolutely necessary (and it goes without saying that I completely disagree with these characterizations—and others can read prior post exchanges and make up their own minds), but for the record for others reading this thread, I will just say I have absolutely no idea what is being referred to when I’m accused of making “a sorry attempt of trying to ostracize me from the community.” This isn’t the first time this sort of accusation has been made—all seemingly suggesting I’ve tried to get others to ignore him—and I have no idea what the basis is for it at all. At no time have I tried to get others to ignore this poster. I have not done so in public posts (anyone can feel free to search my posts), nor have I done so in any private message with anyone. So I’m genuinely baffled by that accusation. Just felt like that needed to be addressed.

 

Aye the Xavi hater like Estel, how does that feel that Xavi has toyed with Madrid as both player and now as coach. Fantastic.

Modric has strong case to be viewed as the best midfielder btw. Insane longevity.

 

Perharps you should open a chat room with your clone Estel or whatever instead of polutting this forum.

If you don't welcome other respones then just lock this thread.

 

Why would anyone hate mediocrity?

Madrid has its own issues which have nothing to do with Xavi. Gotta give it to him for being insanely lucky though.

True, but he has his own weaknesses as well.

Good try, but I think you have a better case to be an alt account.

Anyway, why would a person welcome responses of a poster that they are actively trying to avoid? Especially when this person goes to the extent of creating their own threads so as to stay away from said poster. If anything, the insistence of the other party to keep following this person around, screams of desperation and other more serious issues.

 

Regarding the bolded, is there an analysis that you can do to compare this phenomenon for Xavi, Iniesta with other players like Modric, etc.? I recall @leadleader mentioning that Xavi was subbed a lot in Euro 08 as well in another thread, so it would be interesting to compare IMO.

 

Lol. Go look up the definition of stalking. I know you’re not good at moderation, having seen your performance over the past decade, but this takes the cake. It’s like the police threatening to put you in jail when you don’t ignore the suspicious individual continuously harassing you by following you everywhere and butting in on every conversation you’re having in a social gathering.

Also, infract away if you can find the justification to, instead of using threats to try and stifle my speech. My involvement in this forum is so minimal at this point in time, that it’s immaterial to me.

 

Non-Finals Champions League knockout stage matches are not as important as major NT tournament knockout stage matches. I don’t think that that’s an even remotely controversial position. So it is perfectly reasonable (and I think objectively correct) to define the very biggest matches in football as being major NT tournament knockout stages matches and Champions League finals.* There are no other categories of matches as important/big as those. Ultimately, your argument was that Xavi did not directly contribute to goals enough “when the stakes were high.” I showed that he actually contributed to goals quite a lot in the sport’s very biggest matches (easily more than Modric and similar to Zidane). So your argument can’t possibly be that he didn’t do that. And I believe you yourself have conceded here (as you must) that Xavi did contribute to plenty of goals in general—including having 30 assists in one season. So if your argument can’t be that he didn’t contribute enough to goals in general and your argument can’t be that he didn’t contribute enough to goals in the very biggest matches, then what is your point? I guess you’re arguing that, while he contributed to lots of goals in general and in the very biggest matches, he didn’t contribute to goals enough in a certain tier of matches that are big-but-not-the-biggest (such as CL knockout stage matches, or major tournament group stage matches)? I guess you can try to make that argument, but it seems obviously nitpicky and not remotely persuasive.

As for talking about non-penalty goals, it is very typical on this website for comparisons to be made using non-penalty goals + assists. See Trachta’s goal involvement thread for instance. That is essentially the standard way people compare such stats on this forum, so I don’t understand why you’re implying that me doing so is some kind of manipulation. And it’s even harder to understand the issue you have with this analysis or how you think it displays “dishonesty,” when I explicitly mentioned Zidane’s penalty goals multiple times in the post you quoted and said they should get some credit.

As for Xavi taking corners and long free kicks, so did the others in that analysis except Iniesta (for instance, where did Zidane’s assist in WC 2006 against Brazil come from?), and the primary exception to that would be Zidane often instead being one of the main targets to score headers off corners (which he was able to do, as we all know, and so obviously corners weren’t really a lesser opportunity for goal involvement). And Xavi’s teams often took short corners and free kicks anyways. So it’s really hard to see how anyone is being shortchanged by making a typical count of assists, except maybe Iniesta, but somehow I highly doubt you’re concerned about Iniesta being shortchanged.

_____________

* Note: If I’d actually been aiming to narrowly tailor my criteria as favorably as possible for Xavi, I wouldn’t even have done it the way I did it. You see, Xavi’s goal involvements in these matches I’ve defined as the very biggest are almost entirely focused in CL finals and major NT tournament semifinals and finals (while the others’ aren’t). Therefore, including all major NT tournament knockout stage matches instead of just semifinals and finals actually makes Xavi look less good than he could’ve looked with an even more narrow definition of the very biggest matches. I used the criteria I used because I think it’s the objectively correct definition of the very biggest matches, not because it optimized my argument. And yet, despite me actually taking an approach here that in no way maximized my argument, you still accuse me of taking “a page from some dishonest man’s guide to statistical analysis.” Which, I have to say, I find a bit confusing especially given that it came very soon after you were apparently very persuaded that Xavi was deficient in producing direct goal involvement “when the stakes were high” based on an analysis that did not include major NT knockout stage matches at all and did include UEFA Cup matches.

 

A few more points to address (which will essentially entirely ignore the personal attacks):

1. Regarding Alleged Double Standards about Group Stage Match Importance: As for this idea that I have exhibited some kind of double standard regarding the importance of WC group stage matches, that’s just objectively not the case. The posts I made regarding Messi’s NT tournament group-stage performances actually repeatedly and explicitly conceded that group stage matches are not as important as knockout stage matches. I simply pointed out that they still matter (since getting through the group isn’t guaranteed). There is nothing at all inconsistent between saying that and defining the sport’s “very biggest matches” as major NT tournament knockout stage matches and CL finals. Ultimately, if one wants to make an argument that Xavi isn’t the best midfielder this century because, even though he contributed to tons of goals in major NT tournament knockout stage matches, he didn’t directly contribute to enough goals in major NT tournament group stage matches, then I guess one can go ahead and do that. But that’s not an argument that Xavi didn’t contribute to enough goals in the biggest matches, and ultimately if that’s the best counterargument to Xavi as the best midfielder, then I think it’s safe to say his case is excellent.

2. Regarding Xavi being Substituted: As for Xavi being substituted in Euro 2008, I’ve actually already addressed this exact argument, in the Xavi/Iniesta/Zidane thread. I’ll just quote what I said here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/xavi-iniesta-better-than-zidane.2021285/page-100#post-41117396

“Regarding being substituted, I think that’s a bit misleading. All of the attacking players on that team got substituted or benched multiple times in that tournament (not even counting the last group stage game, where they used backups). I assume they rotated attacking players because they had lots of great attacking players on the bench (when your bench includes Xabi Alonso and Cesc Fabregas, you want to get them in) and they wanted to keep everyone fresh. I think it’s clear who mattered the most to the team when you look at who wasn’t subbed in the finals and who they didn’t risk injury to by playing against Greece in the last group stage match. Which, among the attacking players, both things were true only for Xavi (Iniesta was risked against Greece, but their one sub was to get him out an hour in).”

In any event, contrary to what was suggested, Xavi being substituted out actually isn’t “the basis for calculating per-90” stats in my analysis. In fact, my post explicitly stated the primary bases for why Xavi has fewer minutes in these matches despite having a similar number of matches. As I previously indicated, the main reason is because he has a WC knockout stage match at the very beginning of his career (WC 2002 against South Korea) where he was a sub and played 27 minutes, and a Champions League final at the very end of his career (in 2015) where he was a sub and played 13 minutes. Of course, being a second-half sub in those matches hardly reflects badly here, when the only player close to him in this measure (Zidane) had only played a total of 46 minutes for France at the age Xavi was in WC 2002 and was already retired from football at the age Xavi was in CL 2015. Meanwhile, a secondary reason is that Spain had notably fewer extra times than France or Croatia did. As a result of these two factors, we could actually tally Xavi’s minutes as if he played all the minutes in matches he was subbed out in and he would still be way above the others on a per-90 minute basis in terms of non-penalty goals + assists in the game’s very biggest matches (it’d still be 0.55 non-pk goals + assists per 90 minutes, way ahead of Zidane’s 0.40, and essentially equal to Zidane even if you counted penalty goals).

Of course, none of this really matters much anyways, because my analysis did not rest on per-90 minute stats at all. Xavi was ahead of everyone in raw stats, and simply was ahead by even more on a per-90 minute basis (and I merely noted the latter in a paragraph at the end labeled “NOTE”).

3. Regarding Xavi allegedly “stat padding”: The idea that Xavi’s numbers in the biggest matches were derived from “stat padding” is odd. Out of his 8 goal involvements in major NT tournament knockout stage matches or CL finals, 5 of them were to put his team ahead 1-0. These are clearly not even remotely stat padding. Two of them were to go ahead 2-0 well before the end of the game, which again is obviously not stat padding (and if it is, then I guess Zidane’s second goal in the WC 1998 final was stat padding too, and his 90th minute goal to go up by 2 against Spain in 2006 would definitely be stat padding). One of them was to go up 3-0 near the end of Euro 2012. That one is the only one that could even remotely be described as “stat padding” (though it’s not unheard of for a team to score 2 goals at the end of a game, so going up 3-0 in the 84th minute isn’t meaningless). But the analysis plainly doesn’t rest on that assist at all. Xavi had seven other non-penalty goals or assists in major NT tournament knockout stage matches or CL finals—several more than Modric and Iniesta, and equal to Zidane.

4. Regarding Spain “not really obtain[ing] pens”: The claim was made here that “Spain did not really obtain pens in their runs.” I’m not entirely sure the point there, but I think it’s that he couldn’t have gotten more goals if he were the penalty taker. The word “really” must be doing an immense amount of work in that sentence, because it’s not at all true that Spain didn’t get penalties. Indeed, Spain actually got three penalties in major NT tournament knockout stage matches that Xavi played in (vs. France in WC 2006; vs. Paraguay in WC 2010; and vs. France in Euro 2012). Xavi simply didn’t take them.

 

If a player takes set-pieces and corner kicks, its most often because they are the best on their teams at that skill and deserve to take them. Assists from set-pieces, mostly, are just as well earned as open play assists. You can't say one player is stat-padding their assist numbers because they get some from corner kicks and the other does not. If the other player was as good at assisting from corner kicks, they would be taking them more frequently for their team.

 

Yeah not debating that (although there is a nuance to be considered even within this aspect), but that logic applies to PK takers and PK goals as well, especially in high pressure situations. Xavi was clearly not considered for those duties ever by his teams, which says something as well.

More importantly, Barcelona fans who were all adamant till 2019 that national team games and trophies are at a much lower level and importance than CL games and trophies, are suddenly now agreeing with each other on the assumption that CL knockout games shouldn’t even be considered alongside NT knockout games when doing an analysis focusing on important games. The hypocrisy is so stark that Greek theater enthusiasts from the 1st century BCE are rolling in their graves.

Bottomline is - one poster does an analysis which while focusing on specific situations and games, isn’t clearly set up to favour specific players, while a second poster does an analysis which does exactly the opposite but acts like there’s nothing wrong with it. Too bad that pulling something like that off successfully requires an intelligence threshold which this second poster is unable to reach, thus making such efforts quite transparent and rather laughable.

 

I don’t think you’ll find that I’ve ever said NT trophies are less important than CL knockout stage matches. It’s quite obvious that NT knockout stage matches are more important than non-final CL knockout stage matches. That was true when Messi had not won a major NT tournament—the question was only whether Messi could be considered the greatest player ever without having won those most important trophies. Having previously concluded yes to that question (while others concluded no, precisely because of those tournaments’ higher importance) did not require arguing that major NT tournament knockout stage matches aren’t the game’s biggest matches.

And if you think that an analysis of the game’s most important matches that includes major NT tournament KO-matches + CL finals is somehow using a worse measure of what the biggest matches are than an analysis of the game’s most important matches that includes UEFA Cup matches and not major NT tournament matches, then I guess I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve also already explained that my analysis was clearly not set up to favor Xavi, since the most favorable analysis for him would’ve been to further limit things to just talk about major NT tournament semifinals and finals + CL finals. I included what I think most would agree are the game’s biggest matches, and honestly I think what I included is pretty well aligned with what players would say are the most important matches to them. If you think that that measure is set up to favor Xavi, then perhaps that’s actually just because Xavi contributed immensely in the game’s very biggest matches.

Finally, please stop personally attacking me. I am getting very sick of not being able to make posts without being subjected to personal attacks from you and others (and actually, here, the attacks came in a reply to someone else, not even me, so the attacks are coming seemingly regardless of whether I’ve posted). It is getting really ridiculous. Please just try to engage respectfully—I’m quite certain you’re capable of it.

 

I found the below a while back and thought it was relevant here. I actually forget what the exact date on this is (I guess someone else could dig it up, but I can’t be bothered—I think it’s from the end of the 2020-2021 season), which limits its usefulness for deriving stats for active players, but it is definitely from after Xavi retired, so it gives us a good idea of his progressive passes stats.



Xavi is listed there as having 1,859 progressive passes completed since 2010-2011 in league + CL. From the start of 2010-2011 onwards, Xavi played a total of 14,575 minutes in league + CL for Barcelona. Thus, that means that he completed 11.48 progressive passes per 90 minutes in that timeframe. As reference, using FBref, we know that Modric has completed 9.50 progressive passes per 90 minutes in league + CL since the start of the 2017-2018 season. And, more generally, I have not been able to find anyone who has 11.48 progressive passes per 90 minutes in league + CL in FBref’s data (i.e. from 2017-2018 onwards). Kroos is closest and Messi’s pretty close too, but neither one is quite there. So, assuming this data is correct, this is suggestive of Xavi’s progressive passing output being absolutely elite—probably the most prolific of his era.

 

I'll go one further: we're about to thread and forum ban people who continue to play the man rather than the ball.

 

Yes, but for a player like Xavi though, who created a lot from open play and from set-pieces, it is only a positive and a benefit to the team to be able to do both. If another player, in comparison, only creates from open play and not set-pieces, that is fair advantage to Xavi, not stat-padding or inflated numbers due to corner kicks.

 

Please ask your guy to stop following me around on the forum. I have had him on ignore for most of the past 5 years now(if not more) and have initiated conversation/quoted him maybe twice in this time period. Your guy on the other hand has consistently been trying to get my “attention” by quoting me over and over again till the point it’s become quite annoying and tiresome. You can check our respective posting histories for evidence of this one-sided interaction. I’m quite sure it’s possible for your guy to engage with the multiple other posters on this forum to spend his time here, and leave me alone to spend my time conversing with people that I prefer to engage in conversation with.

If it’s not possible and since you’re standing by him and even threatening me via PMs, please consider this to be my final warning. Else, I can help get the community looked at for allowing harmful behavior. See the following, especially the bolded -

Cyberstalking is a crime in which someone harasses or stalks a victim using electronic or digital means, such as social media, email, instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a discussion group or forum. Cyberstalkers take advantage of the anonymity afforded by the internet to stalk or harass their victims, sometimes without being caught, punished or even detected.

Although cyberstalking is a general term for online harassment, it can take many forms, including slander, defamation, false accusations, trolling and even outright threats. In many cases, especially when both the harasser and victim are individuals, the motive may be the following:

• monitor the victim's online -- and, in some cases, offline -- activities;
• track the victim's locations and follow them online or offline;
• annoy the victim;
• intimidate, frighten, control or blackmail the victim;
• reveal private information about the victim, a practice known as doxing; or
• gather more information about the victim to steal their identity or perpetrate other real-world crimes, like theft or harassment.

California was the first U.S. state to pass a cyberstalking law in 1999. Other U.S. states with at least some kind of cyberstalking legislation include the following:

• Alabama
• New York
• Illinois
• Hawaii
• Arizona
• Texas
• Florida

 

From those pass charts, Pirlo seems to be playing significantly higher up the field. Xavi isn't going to make a lot of threatening passes into the box when he's at the middle of the pitch.

 

It’s also just an abnormal game for Pirlo. WhoScored stats for that game say he made 131 passes and made an astounding 30 long balls that game (which we can certainly see in the pass chart). But of course for his career (or at least the years WhoScored has data for—i.e. 2009-2010 onwards) Pirlo averaged 68.6 passes and 9 long balls per match. And it was 70.5 passes and 9 long balls in Euro 2012 itself. So that match against England was not the norm at all. Ultimately, I don’t think many people would say Xavi was better against France in Euro 2012 than Pirlo was against England. But Pirlo had possibly his greatest match ever against England in Euro 2012. If there were someone that played like that every match, then we wouldn’t be having this debate at all, because that player would be the obvious answer to the question of who the century’s greatest midfielder is. There’s no such player though. In terms of how players play more generally and how much they progress the ball, I’ve provided statistics in this thread already that suggest Xavi was extremely prolific in terms of volume of progressive passes, making progressive passes at a higher rate per 90 mins than anyone has done in the past 5 years: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/i...the-21st-century.2124565/page-3#post-41198916.