It's one game of each player. One is a game in which Spain went 1-0 up in the first 20 minutes and then controlled it easily from there. France couldn't land a glove on them because ... Xavi and co controlled the ball and didn't let France get it in dangerous areas. The other is a game which lasted 120 minutes, Italy were on top and were pushing for a goal. So inevitably Pirlo was playing riskier, more forward thinking passes, to try and get that goal. Trying to draw conclusions from one game's worth of data is completely pointless.
Quite frankly, I took pass maps I immediately had access to - but the truth is they are quite illustrative of the point. I will provide additional data. Look at the difference in percentage of forward passes for the 12/13 season: Pirlo 50.5% Xavi 27.2% (this is actually high for Xavi) Pirlo also occupies a higher percentage of successful passes for his team - he is more integral to the offensive motions of Juventus than Xavi is for Barca - though they are both the dedicated playmakers of their teams. You look at a game such as this where Barca was eliminated by Atletico in the CL: Xavi has 100% completion rate, but notice just how few passes are forward and penetrative. This is a mockery of the role of a playmaker. This is an advanced class in keep-away. Another one (vs PSG in 2013) #Xavi....100% pass accuracy for #Barca Vs #PSG @CNNFC pic.twitter.com/dPCoDppInC— Squawka (@Squawka) April 10, 2013 No penetrative passes, all passing is distributed to wide areas - especially the left side because that's Jordi Alba who is often a free man in these situations due to overloads (ie. passes are not under pressure). Most forward passes in Europe last season: Michael Carrick (2040), Mikel Arteta (1760), Andrea Pirlo (1734), Xavi (1730) & A.Chedjou (1675).— Squawka (@Squawka) September 12, 2013 2011/12 Season (Still within Xavi's peak) - you can see the declining efficiency. Huge number of passes / game, and yet the return is decreasing and worse than players with far less passes. When you compare to Pirlo, it is rather shocking - Xavi is operating in a far more pass-heavy team. Pirlo has 4.2 more long passes per game, twice the number of assists, 1.4 more key passes per game, and his pass completion rate is magnificent at 86.8. Here is another passmap I can find for Pirlo at the 2014 WC (he is past his peak obviously): Notice the cluster of passes forward in the center. These are penetrative passes. These are longer balls. This is clearly more adventurous than Xavi. As a matter of fact, Xavi produced less forward passes in terms of total volume than Carrick, Arteta, and Pirlo in 2011/2012 (within Xavi's reported peak) - despite having more touches of the ball and passes overall. This is a sign of inefficiency in possession. Source: Most forward passes in Europe last season: Michael Carrick (2040), Mikel Arteta (1760), Andrea Pirlo (1734), Xavi (1730) & A.Chedjou (1675).— Squawka (@Squawka) September 12, 2013 In this post: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/w...o-little-direct-impact.2124742/#post-41199907 I detailed how top midfielders cluster near 30% of passes being forward. Xavi at 20% (14% in later season - will find the source soon) is not in the same league. When we look at Ballon D'Or placings: 2004 - not nominated (50 player shortlist) 2005 - nominated, 0 votes (50 player shortlist - not 30 as in later years) 2006 - not nominated (50 player shortlist) 2007 - not nominated (50 player shortlist) 2008 - 5th 2009 - 3rd 2010 - 3rd (behind Iniesta) 2011 - 3rd 2012 - 4th (behind Iniesta) 2013 - 13 (Iniesta 6th) 2014 - not nominated For further reference, age 24, Xavi does not play a single minute at Euro 2004. At the Euro 2008, he is subbed at the 60th minute in a deadlock against Sweden in the 2nd game, and again at the 60th in a deadlock against Italy in quarters. By 2007, Xavi was on the rocks and Barcelona leadership was going to sell him (https://www.football-espana.net/2015/09/15/xavi-nearly-left-in-2008) In 08/09, he recorded 23 assists in La Liga in 35 matches, which is a monstrous output, so clearly at his peak he is a player that is more than capable of a return. You look at this and you realize this is a player you had a reign shorter than a leprechaun. This is shorter than Ronaldinho territory, who was more scintillating during his reign. In fact, he has at THE MOST 6 years as a world class player - let alone 6 years as the best midfielder (forget a single year in contention as the world's best player). He is the world's best midfielder for 2 years, max 3. He is clearly behind Iniesta and never managed any success without him. Iniesta who won the 05-06 CL all the way to the 13-14 CL, both of which were accomplished without Xavi. By 2013, Xavi had devolved his game into an absolute mockery of the sport, and was quickly and quietly ushed out of modern football - which he ironically played a significant part in ushering in. He cannot be compared to guys like Pirlo and Modric, to cite two examples.
Just to be clear, the percent of passes being forward passes listed in the above post is not accurate. For instance, the percentage given for Pirlo in that graphic is not 50.5%. It is 33.4%. The math is: 842/(842+265+1412) = 0.334. Not sure what math was being done in the above to get the numbers provided. In any event, it seems like discussion is veering towards critiquing a tactical system, rather than a player. It seems fairly obvious that team-wide tactical differences would result in Xavi having a lower percent of his passes be forward passes. That’s inherent to a slower tempo style—which his teams played. And, crucially, that’s a style that found immense success at both club and NT level—resulting in arguably the greatest club team of all time and arguably the greatest NT of all time. So this is certainly not an inherently inferior style. Meanwhile, ultimately, as I’ve pointed out, Xavi actually made an immense amount of progressive passes. That was interspersed with a ton of sideways and backwards passes too—as the tactical system essentially demanded—but he was clearly not ultimately lacking in ball progression. We can actually even see that indicated with the above numbers as well. If we map on the forward pass numbers in the first chart above with minutes played that season, we see that Xavi made 25.4 forward passes per 90 minutes, while Pirlo made 26.5. It’s essentially the same. And since those numbers appear to be forward passes attempted (since the total number of forward + sideways + backwards passes listed there is greater than the accurate passes per game listed), and Xavi’s overall pass completion rate was a decent bit higher, it actually may well be that Xavi completed more forwards passes per 90 mins than Pirlo that season. Relatedly, what I think is missing here is that these sideways passes are actually useful, because what you do in attack in football has a huge effect on what happens in defense. Keeping possession is the main defense in a highly possession-based system. The opponent can’t score if they don’t have the ball, and when they do get the ball they’re less likely to score if they get it in non-dangerous positions (and, when you play with a high defensive line, more positions are dangerous positions for your defense so this gets super important). That sideways/backwards passing is typically in service of preventing the other team from getting the ball and getting it in dangerous positions. There’s a reason that teams did not score even a single goal in 10 knockout stage matches against Spain in Euro 2008, WC 2010, and Euro 2012. That historically immense defensive record was actually largely a product of what was happening on attack (though of course their defenders/GK also did well)—where Spain almost never let teams get the ball in dangerous positions. And Xavi was at the absolute heart of this. Ultimately, a tiki-taka/possession-based system can be tremendous defensively, but that really requires freakishly mistake-free play in midfield (as well as immense pressing). In fact, without that, it can become disastrous defensively, because of the high defensive line. We eventually saw that even with Xavi still playing in WC 2014 and in CL 2013 (where lowered offensive and defensive work rates in midfield contributed to getting out of form defenders holding a high line exposed badly). And we have seen it with a whole host of massive defeats Barcelona has had since Xavi left—where even really good midfielders simply weren’t quite mistake-free enough to prevent the team’s relatively mediocre defenders from getting exposed. So, in the end, that sideways passing is a necessary component of the tactical style, and doing it extremely well (as Xavi did) is a big part of what allowed his teams to be great defensively despite playing a style that can be almost suicidal without freakishly mistake-free and high-work-rate midfield play. It’s not something to criticize—especially when also combined with high numbers of progressive passes.
There is zero argument that this player is the best midfielder of his era. Absolutely none. At best one can argue that from 2008 to 2009 he had the highest peak for a CM. Beyond that, I have never seen a top player with such short a time as a world class player. He is at a maximum the best midfielder for 3 years in his long career. By 2011-12, his productivity had clearly dropped off, by 2013 he forgot how that there is more to football than playing keep-away. By 2014, his team dropped him and won the CL after successive humiliations with him on board.
Pirlo Ballon D'Or / FIFA Best 2003 - not nominated 2004 - nominated, no votes (50 man shortlist) 2005 - nominated, no votes (50 man shortlist) 2006 - 9th. World Cup win. 3rd place golden ball. (highest rated midfielders are Ronaldinho 4th, Zidane 5th). 3rd highest rated midfielder. 2007 - 5th (highest rated midfielder is Kaka 1st). 2nd highest rated midfielder. 2008 - not nominated (30 man shortlist) 2010 - not nominated 2011 - not nominated 2012 - 7th (Iniesta 3rd, Xavi 4th). 4th highest rated midfielder. 2013 - 10th (Xavi 14th). 2nd highest rated midfielder. 2014 - not nominated Modric Ballon D'Or / FIFA Best 2015 - not nominated 2016 - 17th. 3rd highest mid behind Pogba, Vidal (tied 14th). FIFA Best: 13th. 3rd highest mid after Iniesta (9), Kroos (10). 2017 - 5th. Highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best: 6th. Highest rated midfielder. 2018 - Ballon D'Or winner. FIFA Best winner. 2019 - not nominated 2020 - no ballon d'or. FIFA Best: not nominated (11 nominees, including 3 mids) 2021 - 29th (8th highest mid) 2022 - 9th (3rd highest mid behind Mane, De Bruyne) Iniesta 2007 - Not nominated. 2008 - Not nominated. FIFA Best: 9th. 3rd highest rated midfielder (Kaka 4th, Xavi 5th) 2009 - 4th place. 2nd highest rated midfielder. (Xavi 3rd place) FIFA Best: 5th. 3rd highest rated midfielder (Xavi 3rd, Kaka 4th) 2010 - 2nd place. Highest rated midfielder. 2011 - 4th. 2nd highest rated midfielder. 2012 - 3rd. Highest rated midfielder. 2014 - 6th. Highest rated midfielder. 2015 - 17th. 7th highest rated midfielder. 2016 - 20th. 5th highest rated midfielder (tied with a bunch of players with 0 votes). FIFA Best: 9th. Highest rated midfielder. 2017 - no nomination. FIFA Best: 15th. 6th highest rated midfielder. Zidane Ballon D'Or / FIFA Best 1996 - Nominated in 30man shortlist. 1 vote. 6th highest rated midfielder. 1997 - 3rd place. Highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best - 3rd. Highest rated midfielder. 1998 - Winner. FIFA Best - Winner 1999 - 19th. 8th highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best - 4th. 2nd highest rated midfielder (Rivaldo 1st) 2000 - 2nd place. Highest rated midfielder. (this was an obvious DQ due to Hamburg red card). FIFA Best - winner 2001 - 9th. 2nd highest rated midfielder. (7th Rivaldo). FIFA Best - 4th. Highest rated midfielder. 2002 - 4th. Highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best - 3rd. Highest rated midfielder. 2003 - 5th. 2nd highest rated midfielder (1st Nedved). FIFA Best - winner. 2004 - 23rd. 7th highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best - 5th. 3rd highest rated midfielder (Ronaldinho 1st, Nedved 3rd) 2005 - 18th. 9th highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best: 13th. 6th highest rated midfielder. 2006 - 5th. 2nd highest rated midfielder. (4th Ronaldinho) (lost points given final red card). FIFA Best - 2nd place. Highest rated midfielder. Kroos 2013 - not nominated 2014 - 9th. 2nd highest rated mid. (James 8th) 2015 - 21st. 7th highest rated mid. 2016 - 17th. 3rd highest rated mid. FIFA Best: 10th. 2nd highest rated mid. (Iniesta 9th) 2017 - 17th. 6th highest rated midfielder. FIFA Best: 7th. 2nd highest rated mid. (Modric 6th) 2018 - not nominated. FIFA Best: not nominated (11 man shortlist) 2019 - not nominated. FIFA Best: not nominated (11 man shortlist) 2020 - no ballon d'or. FIFA Best: not nominated (11 man shortlist) 2021 - FIFA Best: Not nominated (11 man shortlist) 2022 - not nominated It is extremely obvious that Xavi is extremely lacking in terms of longevity. When you compare to a contemporary like Iniesta - Iniesta has an argument as a top 3 midfielder for up to 7 years. He gets POTY nominations from 2008 to 2017 inclusive. Xavi's career is the anthesis of consistency, unless you define consistency as pass completion percentage . This is an open and shut case. There is no argument in Xavi's favour. Then there is Zidane who is a complete alien. Career-wise in the modern era, only Messi and Ronaldo rank above in terms of consistency at the top.
Xavi was top 5 in Ballon D’or voting five years (all in a row). Zidane was top 5 six years. Iniesta was top 5 four years. Pirlo was top 5 one time. Modric has been top 5 twice. Kroos has never been top 5. Even if we took exact award voting particularly seriously (which we probably shouldn’t), this is really not a story that makes Xavi look bad. Meanwhile, even if one could argue Xavi’s peak as a world class player was shorter than some others (really not sure that’s right, since he was actually a really great player for a top team for a very long time—just not yet being played in his ideal system to dominate as much as later), his peak 6 year span in many ways was better than the entire career of these other players (and it certainly was the most dominant peak span for any of them). Indeed, he was so completely dominant in his peak 6 year span that he won more major trophies (WC, Euros, CL, top 5 league) in that span than Modric or Zidane has/did in their entire career—and did so with teams that were known specifically for their midfield domination, which was led by him. The amount Xavi and his teams dominated world football during that timeframe is completely unmatched by these others. He won the biggest trophy he could win every year for 5 straight years (along with a bunch of other titles)—again, with all of those teams being legendary for their midfield dominance. His club and national teams in that 5-year span were both really strong candidates for being the greatest football teams ever—and those teams have not been even remotely as dominant (or even all that successful) without him, despite having many of the same key players as before (and nor has Guardiola dominated while implementing a similar style with other loaded teams). He came through again and again in the most important matches in that timeframe—dominating virtually every opposing midfield, and even getting 5 assists in those 5 finals, as well as the winning assist in a WC semifinal and opening goal in a Euro semifinal. He and his club team historically toyed with their greatest rival and the second best team in the world at the time (Real Madrid)—utterly embarrassing them multiple times with their complete dominance in midfield, led by Xavi. This midfield dominance so scared opposing teams that virtually no one even tried to play football against them—even heavyweight teams usually resorted to anti-football. We’ve really never seen anything like it before or since—a midfield that just embarrasses everyone, forcing even the best teams to play like relegation-threatened minnows against them. And Xavi was the heart and soul of that. So yeah, I’m comfortable saying that someone who did that for 5-6 years—and was also at the very least a consistently really good player for a top club (even while not being played in his ideal role/tactics) for a whole bunch of other years—is above the others.
"historically toyed with their greatest rival" "utterly embarrassing them multiple times" "We've neve really never seen anything like it" and the best one : "resorted to anti-football" which takes the tale in this bizarre propagandist quasi-eulogy. The facts are above and are so self-evident, it is far more troublesome than I anticipated before this venture. Here are the facts, not this weird pseudo-mythologizing: -Xavi at 24 years old and a starter for Barcelona did not play a single minute at Euro 2004. In a 50 player shortlist, he does not get nominated. -25 years old, he gets a nomination among 50 players, but gets zero votes. There are 11 midfielders with votes / placement. He is part of 26 players without votes, so who knows where he ranks compared to other midfielders. With FIFA Best, he is not nominated in the top 30. You could try arguing he is world class here, but it's probably the biggest stretch of the imagination. -26 years old - not nominated in the top 50. Ronaldinho, Deco are obviously. His team wins the CL with him out injured for all of knockouts. A younger Iniesta plays throughout the tournament and wins. At the WC, he starts and loses to a 34 year old Zidane's France, and is substituted sometime in the 70th for a Marcos Senna (not some world beater) - obviously because he was not up to scratch. -27 years old - not nominated in top 50. Barcelona plans to sell him, the word around town is he's a disappointment. -28 years old - Breakout year. He places 5th in Ballon D'Or and 5th in FIFA POTY. This is the highest ranked midfielder in the world. Even in 2008, with Spain right before Pep arrives he is not an undisputed starter: He is subbed out in the 2nd match in the 60th in a deadlock vs Sweden (team goes on to win after he is subbed out), rested for the 3rd group game, subbed out vs Italy at the 60th in a deadlock (team wins on pens), subbed out vs Russia (rest / defensive tactic). This is supposed to be his crowning international tournament - since it is the only one he wins Player of the tournament or even places in top 3. -29 years old - places 3rd in BDor. Highest ranked midfielder in the world. Undisputed starter. -30 years old - places 3rd in BDor BEHIND Iniesta. Does not place top 3 at World Cup, nor is he on the team of the tournament. -31 years old - places 3rd in BDor. Highest ranked midfielder in the world. -32 years old - places 4th in BDor BEHIND Iniesta. -33 years old - places 13th in BDor BEHIND Iniesta (and others). Humiliating elimination to Bayern in CL. In fact (excluding Iniesta), no midfielder in the modern era suffered such a humiliation in CL - this is a failure of historical proportions and Xavi was subbed out early in the return match when it got ugly - this is a collapse of the Tiki-Taka/ Xavi system. -34 years old - not nominated. Decreased minutes. -35 years old - benched for CL. Barca wins. Not nominated. There is no world, or rationale that could ever be employed to say that this man is better than Iniesta. At best, a higher peak could be argued based on numbers in 2008/09, but that's it. This is a reign as a world class player shorter than Ronaldinho - and Ronaldinho could be argued to have been the more impressive player during that span. No justification can be brought forth - it is not like Xavi was an unknown player. He was a starter and La Masia product for FC Barcelona. He is not even a world class midfielder or a notable player outside of a 6 year span. Anything before these 6 years does not even remotely qualify as world class. And this is while having a platform like Barcelona - he wasn't some relative unknown working his way up in Cannes or Dynamo Kiev. There is no excuse. During those 6 years that we can consider as world class (outside of those he is practically a nobody in historical terms) - He is the highest ranked midfielder 3x. Iniesta ranks ahead of him on 4-5 occasions when their careers overlap. He achieves 0 trophies without Iniesta. In fact, FC Barcelona and Iniesta won in 05/06 and 13/14 precisely when he dropped out of the squad. This is enough to close this discussion. Nothing can be said further. Frankly, to say that he is better than Iniesta is an insult to Iniesta and world football. I've said enough in the statistical breakdowns to show that he was not an impactful player in terms of direct contribution to Barcelona and Spain's success - I won't do the match but we're talking 98% of his goal contributions in NT/CL knockouts being goals/assists that did not qualify his team for advancement or winning finals. His passing completely deteriorated into an absolute mockery of the sport - a high volume sideways passer by 2013. This was an insult to his own talent and craft. Xavi had more quality in him than what he gave us as time went on. This is either the worst case of poor longevity, or the worst case of a system player. Either way, there is no favorable conclusion that can be drawn. The only thing that can be said is he may have hit a higher peak than his contemporaries. Aka Ronaldinho syndrome.
Some pretty remarkable stats here: Xavi's last season under Pep, the dial went to... 23.95th percentile of deep progressions is 11.1. 23 is... I can't... IT IS SO MANY.How did Messi score FIFTY goals in a season? Spectacular natural talent, the world's best coach, and a little help from his friends. pic.twitter.com/k3W538DaDW— StatsBomb (@StatsBomb) July 27, 2019 In 2008-2009, Xavi had 16.10 “deep progressions” per 90 minutes. In 2011-2012, Xavi had 23.02 deep progressions per 90 minutes. Statsbomb defines “deep progressions” as “Passes, dribbles and carries into the opposition final third per 90 minutes.” In other words, it’s equivalent to adding together passes into the attacking third + carries into the attacking third These numbers are completely enormous. I actually previously did analysis of current players in this exact thing, combining FBref’s passes into the attacking third and carries into the attacking third stats. See here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...6-vs-messi-2022.2123982/page-42#post-41165532 There, we see that the highest player in this measure in recent years was Toni Kroos, averaging 13.23 passes + carries into the attacking third. Xavi’s stats blow that away completely. Not even in the same stratosphere. Xavi is just in a league of his own in progressing the ball into the attacking third. And that’s on top of the progressive passes stats I already showed, which show Xavi’s progressive passes per 90 minutes from 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 being higher than anyone has in FBref’s data from 2017-2018 onwards. It is quite clear that Xavi’s ball progression stats were absolutely off-the-scale enormous. Was Real Madrid not utterly embarrassed when Xavi got 4 assists in a 6-2 victory in Madrid? Was Real Madrid not utterly embarrassed when Xavi and Co. wrecked them 5-0 in a game where Real Madrid could barely even get a touch of the ball and Barcelona was basically openly mocking them by playing rondo with them while the crowd chanted ole? More generally, in the league Clasico matches Xavi played in the six years from 2008-2009 through 2013-2014, Barcelona won 8, drew 2, and lost 1. That is point accumulation per match that would be on pace for a 90-point season. Against Real Madrid. They outscored Real Madrid 27 to 12 in those matches—which would be on pace for a +52 goal differential in a full season. Against Real Madrid. And the one time the two teams met in the Champions League in that timeframe, Barcelona won 3-1 on aggregate, in a tie where Real Madrid could barely string passes together (even in a match where Seydou Keita played instead of Iniesta). So yeah, “historically toyed with” was a pretty fair characterization of what happened to Real Madrid in Xavi’s peak years. Thinking through all this, I can understand why you might not be very fond of the man, to be honest. But, really, just try to look at things beyond a Real-Madrid-fan lens. This is an absolutely immense player we are talking about. You’re definitely downplaying Xavi in his earlier years. He was a really great player for many years before those peak dominant years. For instance, he won the award for best Spanish player in La Liga in 2004-2005. This was a really great player, despite not really playing in his ideal role and tactical system until 2008. This is actually something that I recall either you or Estel (I forget which, but I think it was Estel—am too lazy to check) readily admitted years ago in the Xavi/Iniesta/Zidane thread—even going so far as to suggest Xavi’s prime years were pre-Guardiola (not something I agree with, but the sentiment that he was really good in those prior years is correct). The idea that he wasn’t great because he didn’t feature much in Ballon D’or voting in those years is kind of silly. Because their role isn’t to do super noticeable stuff individually or to put up high stats, central midfielders don’t really feature highly in those sorts of votes if their team doesn’t win major stuff—or a least get to a final of a big tournament, or have won major stuff in recent years (which makes people still think of them in the one or two subsequent years). You see that with pretty much all these guys. None of them feature very prominently if they didn’t have that sort of team success that year or at least in the prior year. Until those peak years, Xavi didn’t have a healthy season where Barcelona was at the very top of the pyramid, nor was Spain doing super well before that, so it makes sense he didn’t get much award recognition yet. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t really good, just like with Kroos not getting much award recognition recently or Pirlo not getting much award recognition in large swaths of his career where he wasn’t experiencing major team success. There’s no “may have” to it, honestly. He did hit a higher peak. And it was such a high peak that he basically dominated world football for 5 years—controlling the midfield for probably the most dominant club and NT midfields in history, while winning the most important competition he could win every year.
2004 Euro he is 24 years old and the starter for Barca and sees 0min. This is not a world class player. Not getting nominated to a 50 player shortlist so deep into his career is poor. Warms the bench. Barca does better without him in CL in 05/06. His best international tournament Euro 08, he is not an undisputed player - subbed out twice VERY early because the team struggled to score. Wc 2010 he is not in the top 3 or on the team of the tournament. BD'Or and FIFA Best are actually by far the best indicator of a player's level. They correlate spectacularly with one another and with a player's career. The years Xavi is finally recognized are precisely the years when he exploded on the scene and played great. Lastly, and I can't say enough, there is no Xavi without Iniesta, Iniesta outranked him in individual award placements during the years they overlapped and actually won the two CLs XAVI sat out. There is nothing to argue. XGYZ / PROGRESSIVE blabla is all fluff. Sure, XAVI was a top 2 mid for a period of 4 years, but he wasn't a top mid for any period outside of that - while Iniesta found success before, with, and after him. Name a top midfielder and I doubt you will not find a shorter peak. In Ronaldinho's 4-5ish peak, it's two POTY, a ballon d'Or as the undisputed best player in the world, a WC win with key assists / goals, a copa win, and entertainment that will last us a lifetime. And besides, he had a decent run after 2006 but I'll ignore that for now. Xavi never was in contention for the best midfielder of his generation, Iniesta is clesrly ahead - aa serial winner, a more skillful player who operated in more difficult areas, a clutch player, and a bigger trophy cabinet as well as more yesrs as a top player. I have no interest in dissecting Xavi's peak right now, but his yesrs as the best mid in the world were short as leprechauns. This is undisputed, undeniable fact. Not an opinion Fact. He won 2 CLs in that time span. Iniesta has 4 across 3 different systems / cycles. Modric has 5. Kroos has 5. Won every competition every year? Excuse me? Xavi has some infamous failures - like not beating a 10men chelsea - no amount of progressive pass xg wtvr bs will justify that, or the 7-0 humiliation to Barca where he suffered the indignity of being subbed off at the 50th minute. You think a single one of these alltimers ever had these experiences? Imagine the humiliation of losing 5-1 to netherlands and being subbed out for the rest of comp? Do you think that could ever happen to Zidane for example? Enough. Enough. Enough. We can have opinions but we can't distort reality.
I will respectfully have to disagree on iniesta being better than Xavi (I personally dont think he’s even close in terms of a defined peak) This point you raised at the end is very thought provoking though and of course no version of Zidane would ever be subbed off in a game of such magnitude whether he was performing at a WC level or even if he was completely anonymous Zidane was too big for that Attributing 4 champions leagues to iniesta is some major stretch though He was probably the most ineffective player in the 14/15 run and way way way down the rung of important players in the 2005/06 run Even Henrik laarson was more important then him...even Lionel Messi
Carlito, I've written a lot, may be too much, so I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I said Xavi arguably has the highest peak of any midfielder of his generation - 08/09 to 09/10. His prodctivity as evidenced by his large volume of assists is a testaament to that. However, is the question which midfielder reached the highest peak? That is a different discussion. Iniesta had a lot more years at the top, and I never claimed Iniesta to be the protagonist of 05/06, 13/14 CLs - im fact he was the protagonist of none of the CL wins, he was a key part in at least 3 wins with diminished influence in the third. He found success before and after Xavi and his individual placements in awards bear that out. Nobody can place Xavi above him overall given Xavi had such a short peak. Xavi before 2008 is a different beast to the 2008/09 version which was a different beast to the 11/12 version and a very different one to the 2013 and beyond version. 08/09 post- Euro Xavi was a monster. But he slowly started decreasing in directness and efficiency - and we saw how Barcelona's style became more caricatural over time. By 2013, he is unrecognixable compared to his 2008 version - literally a sideways pass merchant.
Which was a clear mistake by the Spain coach—who was promptly sacked after Spain failed to make it out of the group stage, and Xavi proceeded to win Best Spanish player in La Liga in the season immediately after that. This reflects on the coach much more than it does on Xavi—who had previously gotten playtime in the World Cup at age 22, an age where Zidane had only played a grand total of 46 total minutes for France. This is silly. There was no natural experiment with regards to 2005-2006 Barcelona. They lost the previous year to Mourinho’s Chelsea, but had Messi against Chelsea in 2005-2006. That was the difference that time, as I’ve explained. And Xavi’s role in the later Rijkaard years didn’t make full use of his talents—since the system was much more focused on the forwards, and consequently Xavi was in a much less featured role than he would later have, focused a lot more on just recycling possession. So that role could actually be filled by someone else without too much drop off. And while one might think that was a mistake from Rijkaard given how good Xavi was, sometimes the personnel of the team requires players to be played in suboptimal roles in order to get all the most talented players on the pitch, and often a relatively positionally versatile player like Xavi gets the short end of the stick in that. As for Euro 2008, again, I’ve explained this. You can read my earlier post for more detail, but the gist is that every single attacking player (i.e. CM/AM/Forward) for Spain in that tournament was subbed multiple times that tournament. They had Xabi Alonso and Cesc Fabregas on the bench, so the optimal strategy is obviously to rotate subs to get those guys in and keep everyone fresh. And it makes a lot of sense as a strategy, because Xabi Alonso and Fabregas were so good that them with fresh legs is legitimately an upgrade over any midfielder whose legs are an hour or so into a match. It’d be dumb not to rotate those guys in, and to swap who is rotated in order to keep everyone fresh. Ultimately, though, we can tell Xavi was deemed the most important amongst the attacking players, because he is the only attacking player who was both (1) not subbed out in the final—where keeping people fresh for later matches no longer matters; and (2) not risked in the final group stage match that was effectively a dead rubber. The stuff about WC 2010 is silly. That “team of the tournament” was a marketing ploy with Castrol, not a real team of the tournament. No one really cares about Castrol ratings (and he was in the team of the tournament voted by fans). Meanwhile, the golden ball voting that year was peculiarly goals-based. It ultimately became pretty obvious that he was deemed to have been one of the very top performers in that World Cup, given that he got a close 3rd in Ballon D’or voting (in a year that his club team did not win the CL), won World Soccer’s player of the year, etc. If you really care about something like Castrol ratings, then perhaps you might be interested to know that Xavi had the highest average SofaScore rating amongst any finalist in that tournament. Most anyone that takes the time to go back and watch Xavi from before 2008 ends up surprised at how great he was even back then. For instance, PrimoCalcio actually spoke about this recently, noting that he rewatched AC Milan matches against Barcelona in 2004-2005, and Xavi looked great and Barcelona actually dominated the midfield against a truly great AC Milan team. As I’ve said, I also recall Estel saying Xavi was really good back then. For my part, I think he was great before, but maybe a very slight bit less freakishly mistake-free as he’d later become. This was a really strong player, who didn’t shine quite as much as he later did, in large part because he was not being put in his ideal tactical system/role yet. Other players, such as Zidane, got that for a much larger portion of their career, and yet didn’t achieve as much as Xavi did when he had it for 5 or 6 years. And that’s perhaps because Xavi is the superior midfielder. I don’t have much interest in going down a rabbit hole comparing Xavi and Iniesta, and they’re different types of players, but I think the fact that Iniesta really did not shine as much after Xavi left, despite still having a great team for Barcelona (including prime Messi) and having much of the same team as before for Spain, suggests to me that Xavi was the more important player on those teams. My eye test as someone who has watched these players quite a lot also just tells me Xavi was a better and more consistent player. Iniesta was really great though. Worth noting that the Ballon D’or revisited thread here also has Xavi being voted ahead of Iniesta during all but one of the seasons of the peak years of Barcelona/Spain dominance: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...bigsoccer-users.2119696/page-48#post-41185774. So I think the overall consensus here is probably similar to my view on this. You can say Xavi’s peak was short, but the fact is that that peak was long enough to win more major trophies than Modric or Zidane did in their entire careers (so far, of course, for Modric). So it obviously wasn’t that short. Xavi is not just easily in contention for best midfielder of his generation—he is in contention for best midfielder ever. For instance, he was voted to the IFFHS’s all-time starting XI in 2021: https://www.iffhs.com/posts/1110. And this is not surprising because he controlled the midfield for top contenders for greatest club team ever and greatest NT ever, with those teams being particularly marveled at for their midfield dominance. It seems fairly obvious that the most common answer for greatest midfield ever would be a Xavi-led midfield. That says quite a lot. I realize you probably don’t like him because of how much he dominated Real Madrid in his prime, but you just have to respect his ridiculous quality. The fact that he dominated your team really should make you think more highly of him, knowing how hard that was to do. I said he won the most important competition every year for five straight years. And that’s undeniably correct: 2008: Won Euros 2009: Won Champions League 2010: Won World Cup 2011: Won Champions League 2012: Won Euros That is utter dominance of world football that has no parallel with Modric or Zidane. Obviously it has parallel with Iniesta, but I think Xavi was the better and more important player of the two (see above for a bit more on that). Every player has failures—though Xavi spent 5 years coming as close as anyone has come to not having any. As for losing 7-0 to Bayern, I think you may not quite understand the context of that season. Barcelona’s coaching situation at that time was very bad (for really tragic reasons), and they came across probably the best Bayern team ever, while needing to start Marc Bartra at CB and having a totally unfit Messi (who had gotten injured in the prior CL round, and the Bayern first leg was the only match the rest of the season that he started except a match he had to get subbed off after all subs had been used). Barcelona was not going to win that tie. And tiki-taka is an extremely risky playstyle, so when it breaks it breaks badly. It happens. The fact that that sort of thing didn’t happen more often—as it started doing much more in the years after Xavi left—is a testament to Xavi’s influence as a stabilizing and controlling force for the team. Xavi getting subbed off in that tie really doesn’t matter—he obviously got subbed off for a forward because they were 5 goals behind. You mention losing to 10-man Chelsea, but Xavi played pretty well. For instance, see this match report from that second leg: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/barcelona-2-2-chelsea-daily-mirror-805971. “Xavi The driving force behind Barcelona's midfield again. He kept the ball, rarely wasted a pass and launched attack after attack.” Barcelona dominated the midfield and had 23 shots but didn’t win. Stuff like that happens sometimes in cup football. This is like when you mentioned Barcelona’s group stage loss to Celtic. You seem to think Barcelona dominating the midfield and getting tons of shots but losing is Xavi’s fault, when it’s really not. Sometimes there’s just bad luck with finishing. No, I don’t think that could’ve happened to Zidane, because at the age Xavi was when that happened, Zidane was no longer a professional footballer. Hard to get subbed out when you’re busy sitting on a couch.
A lot of misinformation, bad faith arguments, and spinning. Sometimes, when I give you the benefit of the doubt, I get lured into thinking that you have even the faintest interest in a discussion - rather, it devolves into an interminable spin fest. You're better than this. Which was a clear mistake by the Spain coach—who was promptly sacked after Spain failed to make it out of the group stage, and Xavi proceeded to win Best Spanish player in La Liga in the season immediately after that. This reflects on the coach much more than it does on Xavi—who had previously gotten playtime in the World Cup at age 22, an age where Zidane had only played a grand total of 46 total minutes for France. This is an unsubstantiated opinion and a complete disregard of the point that was being raised. I will tackle the point (as irrelevant as it is) nonetheless: There is no evidence that you can bring forth that this was a mistake. Spain prior to 2008 had a lamentable record in competitions: 98 - group stage elimination 00 - first knockout round elimination 02 - quarters (the farthest they reached - DESPITE Xavi as he did not play Ro16) Spain not proceeding out of the groups is par for course. To claim that this was a clear mistake is not substantiated by even the slightest piece of data: In 03/04 Xavi is busy disputing the UEFA Cup and being eliminated in the R016. He is not nominated in any POTY list (50 nominations) in 03, 04. So, there is no argument to be had that Xavi deserved to play. Zidane at the age of 24 plays every minute of Euro 96, and is retained in the team ahead of a legit star that is Cantona. Your little dig was poor sport, off the mark, and simply not an honest attempt at debate. Zidane at 22 is working his way up with Bordeaux - Xavi at the same age is a La Masia golden boy starting for Barcelona. Zidane at 24 is being nominated to a 30 player shortlist of the Ballon D'Or playing for freakin' Bordeaux. Xavi is warming the bench. That is absolutely an indictment of Xavi's level at the time. If he was a world-beater, he would be an undisputed starter. Xavi in 2004 can only be judged on the merit of his level in 2004 - not some retrospective qualifier based on a slightly good year in La Liga. He was justly acknowledged with a nomination to the Ballon D'Or in 50 player shortlist. He does not appear in the FIFA POTY 30 player shortlist. If you want to qualify 2005 Xavi as some world-beater, this reeks of desperation mate. This is silly. There was no natural experiment with regards to 2005-2006 Barcelona. They lost the previous year to Mourinho’s Chelsea, but had Messi against Chelsea in 2005-2006. That was the difference that time, as I’ve explained. And Xavi’s role in the later Rijkaard years didn’t make full use of his talents—since the system was much more focused on the forwards, and consequently Xavi was in a much less featured role than he would later have, focused a lot more on just recycling possession. So that role could actually be filled by someone else without too much drop off. And while one might think that was a mistake from Rijkaard given how good Xavi was, sometimes the personnel of the team requires players to be played in suboptimal roles in order to get all the most talented players on the pitch, and often a relatively positionally versatile player like Xavi gets the short end of the stick in that. Xavi could not light a candle to Ronaldinho and Deco in those years. They simply had better players at their disposal. The rest of the paragraph is an elaborate way of saying Xavi is a system player. If Xavi was the best player on that team, he would have been treated as such. There is no grand conspiracy against Xavi. Your analysis of 05/06 Barca in the CL is so flimsy I will not address it. Your article, by the way, is a biased 2021? retrospective - not a contemporary account. Messi did not play the latter stages of the tournament. They won without him ... and without Xavi of course. At the very least, this tells us that Xavi was completely dispensable when it came to the team's success. Whether they are better or worse off with him in those years is not an argument I am interested in pursuing. The day Madrid wins a CL without Modric, or Barca a CL without Messi you can let us know. As for Euro 2008, again, I’ve explained this. You can read my earlier post for more detail, but the gist is that every single attacking player (i.e. CM/AM/Forward) for Spain in that tournament was subbed multiple times that tournament. They had Xabi Alonso and Cesc Fabregas on the bench, so the optimal strategy is obviously to rotate subs to get those guys in and keep everyone fresh. And it makes a lot of sense as a strategy, because Xabi Alonso and Fabregas were so good that them with fresh legs is legitimately an upgrade over any midfielder whose legs are an hour or so into a match. It’d be dumb not to rotate those guys in, and to swap who is rotated in order to keep everyone fresh. Ultimately, though, we can tell Xavi was deemed the most important amongst the attacking players, because he is the only attacking player who was both (1) not subbed out in the final—where keeping people fresh for later matches no longer matters; and (2) not risked in the final group stage match that was effectively a dead rubber. This is easily the worst offense I have seen from you yet. Here are the hard facts: -Xavi is substituted at the 59th minute vs Sweden in a must-win game to secure qualification. This is the 2nd group game and they are tied. This is a very early tactical sub. No player worth their salt is not able to produce at the 60th minute. Xavi at 60minutes is beyond fresh - in fact, you have a vested interest in keeping your best offensive players late in the game because that is where they have the highest probability of scoring. This is an indictment of Xavi. You will not be able to find one example of this sort of thing with any modern great. -He is rested in the 3rd group game. -He is subbed at the 60th after being rested for a game and missing another 30minutes in a must-win deadlock 1-1 vs. Italy. This is an early sub and an absolute indictment of Xavi. -These substitutions when the game is not going favorably is nothing new in Xavi's case. I have detailed them extensively here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/w...-problem-and-so-little-direct-impact.2124742/ (The same story can be seen in the 3-1 loss to France in the Round of 16 at WC 06 - 26 year old Xavi being substituted in a high profile knockout match early). -That Xavi was the best midfielder at Spain's disposal in 2008 is not a question. That much is clear so your point about his selection in the final is absolutely moot and obfuscating the real point - he still was not operating at an appreciable level of offensive efficacy, lacked directness in his game, and was not trusted by his coaches to find solutions in tough situations. If you're being repeatedly subbed out at the 60th when your team is trying to score, you're not operating at an all-time level. This sort of thing does not happen to the other midfield greats. The most egregious part of all this is it comes in his only tournament performance where he is awarded something. The stuff about WC 2010 is silly. That “team of the tournament” was a marketing ploy with Castrol, not a real team of the tournament. No one really cares about Castrol ratings (and he was in the team of the tournament voted by fans). Meanwhile, the golden ball voting that year was peculiarly goals-based. It ultimately became pretty obvious that he was deemed to have been one of the very top performers in that World Cup, given that he got a close 3rd in Ballon D’or voting (in a year that his club team did not win the CL), won World Soccer’s player of the year, etc. If you really care about something like Castrol ratings, then perhaps you might be interested to know that Xavi had the highest average SofaScore rating amongst any finalist in that tournament. I've detailed this in the other thread. The facts are he is not Top 3 of the tournament. Villa is the highest rated player. If Xavi had been the best player at the WC (like Modric), he would have undeniably clinched the Ballon D'Or. Placing 3rd in the Ballon D'Or is not remotely evidence that he was a top 3 player that tournament. There is no grand conspiracy against Xavi. He got his dues when he earned them. I never said that Xavi did not have a good WC 2010, nobody believes that and I certainly don't. He just wasn't a Top 3 player. You are free to think otherwise, but then again, this devolves once again into a case of @lessthanjake thinking the world is wrong about his favorite players when it suits him, and right when it does, and back to the world being wrong if it is a favorable placing for a player he has an agenda against. For my part, I will stick to the hard facts, not by subjective retelling of history. When Xavi wins an individual award, I don't question it. There is more honesty in that. Most anyone that takes the time to go back and watch Xavi from before 2008 ends up surprised at how great he was even back then. For instance, PrimoCalcio actually spoke about this recently, noting that he rewatched AC Milan matches against Barcelona in 2004-2005, and Xavi looked great and Barcelona actually dominated the midfield against a truly great AC Milan team. As I’ve said, I also recall Estel saying Xavi was really good back then. For my part, I think he was great before, but maybe a very slight bit less freakishly mistake-free as he’d later become. This was a really strong player, who didn’t shine quite as much as he later did, in large part because he was not being put in his ideal tactical system/role yet. Other players, such as Zidane, got that for a much larger portion of their career, and yet didn’t achieve as much as Xavi did when he had it for 5 or 6 years. And that’s perhaps because Xavi is the superior midfielder. Xavi was always a talented player - otherwise he would not integrate Barca's first team and become a starter. I'm not really sure what your point is here? Do you think that I am saying that Xavi was a bad player? He simply was not operating at a world class level before 2008. 1 nomination with 0 votes in a 50 name shortlist for the Ballon D'Or in 10 years with the Barca first team is not evidence to the contrary - it reinforces the notion. Listen, he was on the bench at age 24 for a whole Euro. If you actually watched Xavi, you would understand that your mistake-free assessment is simply off the mark - he was always a volume passer with the best pass-completion of his era, he always played short square passes mostly, etc. All you're saying in the rest of your text is that he is a system player. That makes perfect sense - as I said this is either the worst case of poor longevity or the worst / most extreme case of a system player - neither reflect favorably on him. Again, for some reason you love to drag Zidane for some weird digs, as if Zidane is some pinata you relativize cheap shot arguments at. Why was that point even relevant? Furthermore, you should not dare compare the two in terms of their relative situations predisposing them to success - Zidane started from the bottom with AS Cannes and qualified them for their first European Cup ever ... Xavi was at FC Barca his whole life. One had to fight tooth and nail to the top, the other was already there. Again, there is no grand conspiracy against Xavi. If he was such a good player, he was in the perfect environment to show his quality. Coaches and teams want to win, they don't have some secret agenda against him. I don’t have much interest in going down a rabbit hole comparing Xavi and Iniesta, and they’re different types of players, but I think the fact that Iniesta really did not shine as much after Xavi left, despite still having a great team for Barcelona (including prime Messi) and having much of the same team as before for Spain, suggests to me that Xavi was the more important player on those teams. My eye test as someone who has watched these players quite a lot also just tells me Xavi was a better and more consistent player. Iniesta was really great though. Why don't you have much interest? They are contemporaries and midfielders. Is that not the topic at hand? Sure, Iniesta did not shine as much with Xavi. They were the perfect duo / midfield partners. But the point is he did shine. He did win trophies and earned individual placements in awards without Xavi. Xavi had a head start and never did anything of note without him. Xavi cannot be considered a more consistent player. That is ludicrous. Iniesta has far more years as a world class player. We've been over this. If your criterion for consistency is a high percentage of completed passes, then I don't know what to tell you. Worth noting that the Ballon D’or revisited thread here also has Xavi being voted ahead of Iniesta during all but one of the seasons of the peak years of Barcelona/Spain dominance: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...bigsoccer-users.2119696/page-48#post-41185774. So I think the overall consensus here is probably similar to my view on this. Nothing worth noting here. There is reality and there is historical revisionism by some dudes on a forum. The POTY / Ballon D'Or awards bear this out. I would agree that Xavi hit a higher absolute peak, but that does not tilt the argument in his favor. Iniesta went on to win a treble while Xavi was a pensioner. Xavi is not just easily in contention for best midfielder of his generation—he is in contention for best midfielder ever. For instance, he was voted to the IFFHS’s all-time starting XI in 2021: https://www.iffhs.com/posts/1110. And this is not surprising because he controlled the midfield for top contenders for greatest club team ever and greatest NT ever, with those teams being particularly marveled at for their midfield dominance. It seems fairly obvious that the most common answer for greatest midfield ever would be a Xavi-led midfield. That says quite a lot. Sure, and Zidane is the greatest european player of the last 50 years, and the greatest UCL player of all time? Give me a break. These are not contemporary awards, and beyond that IFFHS literally counts for nothing. Greatest club team ever? Are you certain? What is your criterion? Average possession per match? Passes completed per match? By other metrics, there are more dominant teams. Just recently, Madrid won 5 CLs in 9 years, 3 of which were back-to-back. Are they more dominant than AC Milan of late 80s early 90s? Give me a break. This is just propaganda at this point. You are not discussing with facts. I realize you probably don’t like him because of how much he dominated Real Madrid in his prime, but you just have to respect his ridiculous quality. The fact that he dominated your team really should make you think more highly of him, knowing how hard that was to do. I missed this part scanning your post, but this might be the most egregious thing you've ever written. I do not dislike Xavi. That is a preposterous statement. Any player that has given this much to football is worthy of respect. I'm not some Real Madrid die-hard btw, I literally could not care less. You're back to saying things that have no substance, pushing ad hominen, rather than speaking facts because the facts cannot be argued against. Just endless spinning. I said he won the most important competition every year for five straight years. And that’s undeniably correct: 2008: Won Euros 2009: Won Champions League. 2010: Won World Cup 2011: Won Champions League 2012: Won Euros That is utter dominance of world football that has no parallel with Modric or Zidane. Obviously it has parallel with Iniesta, but I think Xavi was the better and more important player of the two (see above for a bit more on that). This is obviously one of the most dominant displays in the modern era. Except Xavi as a player does not really exist in a noteworthy way either before or after. As I said, a peak as short as leprechauns. But you're tragically mistaken for your information: 1996 - UEFA Cup final with Bordeaux. BDor Nomination (30man shortlist) 1997 - CL final. Consensus 3rd place BDor / FIFA Best (highest rated mid). Serie A 1998 - CL Final. World Cup Winner. BDor / FIFA Best. Serie A 1999 - FIFA Best 4th (2nd highest rated mid in the world) 2000 - Euro Win. Player of the Tournament. FIFA Best 1st. BDor 2nd. 2001 - Bdor 9th. 2nd highest rated midfielder. (7th Rivaldo). FIFA Best - 4th. Highest rated midfielder. 2002 - CL Win. UEFA Club Footballer of the Year. FIFA Best 3rd. BDor 4th (highest rated mid in the world) 2003 - FIFA Best 1st. IF you think that is a more dominant display, you are smoking something special. Reminder all the above is in a more competitive era before the superteams of the 2010s. And Zidane does this while actually being the consensus best player / best midfielder in the world. These are heights Xavi never saw. Modric: 2014 - CL 2015 - 2016 - CL 2017 - CL 2018 - CL, WC finalist, BDOR 2019 2020 2021 - CL Is another more impressive run. IF you come at me to tell me something about winning a WC - remind yourself that one is a Croat, the other is playing for Spain in a team of other monsters. Both these guys have a BDor to show for it. As for losing 7-0 to Bayern, I think you may not quite understand the context of that season. Barcelona’s coaching situation at that time was very bad (for really tragic reasons), and they came across probably the best Bayern team ever, while needing to start Marc Bartra at CB and having a totally unfit Messi (who had gotten injured in the prior CL round, and the Bayern first leg was the only match the rest of the season that he started except a match he had to get subbed off after all subs had been used). Barcelona was not going to win that tie. And tiki-taka is an extremely risky playstyle, so when it breaks it breaks badly. It happens. The fact that that sort of thing didn’t happen more often—as it started doing much more in the years after Xavi left—is a testament to Xavi’s influence as a stabilizing and controlling force for the team. Xavi getting subbed off in that tie really doesn’t matter—he obviously got subbed off for a forward because they were 5 goals behind. No context is needed. There is no loss of this dimension and proportion. This game was the death of Tiki-Taka and Xavi on the European stage. Tikii-Taka is anything but risky - for 4 years, it stifled the opposition completely. What happened is that there was a tactical evolution, and teams figured out how to bypass the press and attack spaces. Xavi getting subbed off matters. You can't just skip through such a historical loss like it it's nothing. Go find such a loss in Modric / Zidane / etc's resumes. I'll wait. 7-0. Not 2-0. Not 3-0. A humiliation. Your Messi excuse exposes your contradiction. Firstly, he was fit enough to play - great players often play with some injury or niggle. Secondly, if an unfit Messi is a difference maker of this proportion - any credit for the club success should solely lie on his shoulders - not Xavi etc. This is one of your worst spin attempts. You say Xavi is the midfield / Tiki Taka style, but when it collapses, Xavi is absolved? Your bias is suffocating. You mention losing to 10-man Chelsea, but Xavi played pretty well. For instance, see this match report from that second leg: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/barcelona-2-2-chelsea-daily-mirror-805971. “Xavi The driving force behind Barcelona's midfield again. He kept the ball, rarely wasted a pass and launched attack after attack.” Barcelona dominated the midfield and had 23 shots but didn’t win. Stuff like that happens sometimes in cup football. This is like when you mentioned Barcelona’s group stage loss to Celtic. You seem to think Barcelona dominating the midfield and getting tons of shots but losing is Xavi’s fault, when it’s really not. Sometimes there’s just bad luck with finishing. These are embarrassing losses. Barcelona "dominating midfield" is a meaningless statement. They were playing against 10 men. You seem to think that high possession without conversion is some laudable goal. I challenge you to find equivalent losses in Modric and Zidane's resumes. Xavi has several high-profile losses. No, I don’t think that could’ve happened to Zidane, because at the age Xavi was when that happened, Zidane was no longer a professional footballer. Hard to get subbed out when you’re busy sitting on a couch. Your cheap dig is a reflection of your character. You're also clearly missing the point. Xavi at WC 2014 34 years old, 4-5 months older than Zidane at WC 06, so your point is nothing more than meaningless jest. You're better and smarter than this. Try to engage in discussions meaningfully, because you are failing at even scoring internet points here. If you want to educate yourself as to how often Xavi was substituted in high-profile matches and how often his teams did better after his substitutions, please refer to this thread. I have compiled it all: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/w...-problem-and-so-little-direct-impact.2124742/ Zidane played virtually every minute of every knockout that was ever available to him except the 04-05 Juve tie, where his team lost from a winning position after his substitution. Don't you dare make your cheap quips, they are embarrassing. The obvious point is that it is unthinkable to remove Zidane from the pitch - he is a player from a diff dimension compared to Xavi. Be well.
I don’t expect I will be substantively responding to that above post. For one thing, it generally just repeats things I’ve already addressed, so any response would just involve me spending a long time to mostly write things I’ve already said. For another thing, it has started devolving once again into personal attacks against me (personal attacks throughout, including: “Your cheap dig is a reflection of your character”; “This is one of your worst spin attempts”; “You're back to saying things that have no substance”; “This is easily the worst offense I have seen from you yet,” “A lot of misinformation, bad faith arguments, and spinning.” etc.). And I’d prefer to avoid receiving those sorts of responses. Ultimately, I’ll just say this: I think these are largely just nitpicks around the edge of an undeniable player. You say you’re not a Real Madrid diehard who doesn’t like Xavi for that reason. Perhaps that’s true, but I find that difficult to reconcile with prior statements, such as: “I don't like Messi because my club is Real Madrid. Simple as that.” (https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/t...do-as-best-ever.2016490/page-37#post-31895688). There’s nothing inherently wrong with having an attitude like that—in fact, I think it’s probably quite common in a sport like football, with passionate fanbases and strong rivalries between teams. But I don’t know that it’s conducive specifically to having a productive discussion about great Barcelona players (particularly as they compare to great Real Madrid players).
@comme - Please check your PMs for evidence for the above (50+ individual post links). Took a while for me to collate all of them, considering my RL commitments, but I would appreciate my efforts not going to waste and being able to elicit a positive response from you and the mod team on this forum.
Gem of a response here with quite the clear result in terms of lying to rest this 15 year long hype train surrounding Xavi. But I do feel that we are digressing from the topic. So, let's talk about Modric, and how in the world a 37 year old like him, after playing for 66 minutes against a high intensity EPL team like Liverpool at their home ground, still pull off something like what he did at 2:08 in the below highlights video - And have an overall performance of a level which led to the opposition fans applauding him after their team's worst defeat in the CL in their history - Colour me impressed. This guy is making a very serious case for the best longevity for that position throughout football history. Thoughts? And how does this impact his overall ranking?
Thank you Estel. Yes, I wanted to post the same sequence. The burst of speed, drive through the midfield, and physically fighting off other players while doing so to create that goal was stupendous. For a 37 year old to do so against a team with the physicality of Liverpool, now that goes beyond what the imagination can allow for. If you check one of the charts I posted, Modric already posted more substantive key passes / game back in 11/12 with Spurs. 10 years later, he is a driving force in a CL win as underdogs in every round against teams of surpassing physicality. And now 11 years later, after leading Croatia to a 3rd place finish (what top player in this era has back-to-back Top 3 finishes at the WC? Let alone with Croatia...), he is doing this sort of thing? That's what led me to writing this thread, because the sheer longevity and trophy output quite possibly make him the greatest mid of the century.
Agreed, it is indeed remarkable. But let me play the devil’s advocate for a bit and tell me how you’d defend against it - 1) To start with, I’ll assume that other great players with similar longevity existed. First of all there is Di Stefano, the guy who smoked cigs at halftime and still managed to win 5 CLs in a row and League titles till his last season with Real at age 36. Didi was another who was winning titles with Botafogo till he was 35. Both these gents did this during a much more difficult era to maintain fitness across a long timespan. Other more recent players are there as well like Matthaus, Hagi, Giggs and Totti. I might also be missing a few other names. 2) As a box-to-box midfielder, Modric’s offensive numbers seem to be a bit on the lower side, both in terms of assists and goals. Consider comparing him to the likes of Lampard, Gerrard one one hand or Ozil, KDB on the other and you see where I’m coming from. While Modric brings a lot more to the team defensively than these players that I mentioned, playing in a midfield alongside Casemiro and Kroos clearly makes him the most offensive minded midfielder. Add that to the fact that he played behind very strong forward lines, and the return seems to be a bit too low. 3) Modric’s league title count with Real Madrid is sketchy. He has 3 league titles across a 10 year time span. During this period he can get a pass for 2014/15 when he was injured for half the campaign and probably 2012/13 when Barcelona reached 100 points and he was playing in his debut season. But the remaining return of 3 titles across 8 seasons, especially considering that the winning team didn’t go above 93 points in any season during that timespan (mostly hovering in the high 80’s) is rather paltry. FYI, I don’t necessarily think any of his competitors who primarily played in the 21st century during their careers would do better in his place, but I’m not so sure about older players. Conversely though, it would be difficult to find older era players who lasted so long at a high level. All-in-all, I think it’s a very interesting topic to debate.
To your first point, it is very difficult to compare cross-eras. If anything, one can argue that modern players have an easier time having long careers for numerous factors (sports science, better pitches, protection, etc.). This is evidenced by the growing number of above 30s at WCs, and older squads. That does not make Modric any less remarkable - I do not know a CM of his caliber performing at this level, reaching deep stages of competitions, while playing something around 65-70% of available minutes at this age. How to relativize the longevity of players in the 50s compared to those today is not something I can reliably answer. Probably best to limit the comparisons within their respective eras. Those players are all fantastic shouts, the caveat is that Modric is still fully representing his NT - and surpassing expectations with that team at that. Per FBref, he is in the 98th percentile in the last 365 days for assists (per 90) in comparisons to players in his position, and 82nd percentile for NPG. I think this is multifactorial - for one, Benzema covers a lot of that space, secondly, Modric is probably less proficient in the final third, and probably most importantly, he is simply best deployed from deep to break the first line and to cover the area defensively. Real Madrid just has a really hard time in the league compared to Barcelona. For whateve reason, Barcelona just does a more consistent job of beating and punishing weak teams. 3 league titles in 9 in a two to three-horse race does not seem historically-great - it simply isn`t, but I am not sure that it is poor either.
Can I ask you two what your impression is of Modric's La Liga level over the years? Modric always comes up with big moments in the UCL it seems. But how is he week-in week-out in La Liga? He has only been in La Liga TOTY twice and his WhoScored ratings are low for a midfielder of his class, even during his prime years. They peaked at 7.48 in 2014/15 and have been steadily declining each year since. Yet, he continues to be good or amazing in UCL and international tournaments.
I don't know why there is a subset of Barcelona intent on disrespecting history. For them football history is 2008 to 2012 and that's it. Roberto Carlos had a far more dominant run 95 Copa final 96 - 97 La Liga. Copa. FIFA POTY 2nd place. 98 CL, Confed Cup, WC final 99 CL, Copa 00 La Liga, CL win 01 - 02 CL win. WC win. Ballon D'Or 2nd place. 03 La Liga @PrimoCalcio will get back in detail.
One interesting data point regarding top midfielders of the century is the number of ESM team of the month appearances a player has—which can give us some information about how often the player was playing at a truly completely world class level. I’ll list the top players that I think can fairly be considered pure midfielders, ordered by how many ESM teams of the month they’ve made. But, first, a few caveats regarding what ESM team of the month appearances do and don’t tell us: - ESM team of the month doesn’t include months in which virtually all major NT tournaments are played, so it effectively is about club team play and tells us nothing about NT play. - It seems fair to say that not all months are of exactly equal value, since later months involve the latter stages of cup tournaments. Counting sheer number of team of the month appearances obscures that a bit. - Number of ESM team of the month appearances tells us nothing about how well the players played in months that they did not make the team of the month. Maybe they played badly, or maybe they played great and barely missed making the team of the month. This measure does not distinguish at all between those two scenarios. - As with any awards, ESM team of the month is heavily dependent on team success, so being on a better team might unduly benefit a player relative to someone on a lesser team. It’s also voted on by journalists, who probably did not actually watch all the matches for each player, so it’s obviously not an exact science and surely involves reputational benefits for some players compared to others. - ESM team of the month awards started in 1995-1996, so there’s a few years in the data that comes before this century, but I think those years give a good indication of things regarding great players who played at the turn of the century, so I’ve still counted them in the below data. All that said, I thought it might provide some interesting info. I’ll list pure midfielders by number of appearances, and will include the years of the first and last seasons that they appeared in at least one team of the month, as well as the total number of seasons they actually appeared (info found here: https://erubik.xyz/esm/players.php; note that this does not include data for the current season): Midfielders’ ESM Team of the Month Appearances (1995-1996 to 2021-2022) 1. Kevin De Bruyne: 25 appearances (7 total seasons; 2014-2015 to 2021-2022) 2. Xavi: 24 appearances (8 total seasons; 2004-2005 to 2012-2013) 3. Zinedine Zidane: 23 appearances (7 total seasons; 1996-1997 to 2003-2004) 4-tied. Frank Lampard: 18 appearances (8 total seasons; 2003-2004 to 2012-2013) 4-tied. Andres Iniesta: 18 appearances (11 total seasons; 2005-2006 to 2017-2018) 6-tied. Pavel Nedved: 14 appearances (6 total seasons; 1997-1998 to 2004-2005) 6-tied. David Beckham: 14 appearances (8 total seasons; 1996-1997 to 2008-2009) 8. Cesc Fabregas: 13 appearances (7 total seasons; 2005-2006 to 2014-2015) 9. Kaka: 11 appearances (7 total seasons; 2003-2004 to 2009-2010) 10-tied. Luka Modric: 10 appearances (6 total seasons; 2013-2014 to 2021-2022) 10-tied. Joshua Kimmich: 10 appearances (6 total seasons; 2016-2017 to 2021-2022) 12-tied. Paul Pogba: 9 appearances (4 total seasons; 2013-2014 to 2018-2019) 12-tied. N’Golo Kante: 9 appearances (4 total seasons; 2015-2016 to 2021-2022) 12-tied. Clarence Seedorf: 9 appearances (7 total seasons; 1995-1996 to 2006-2007) 12-tied. Michael Ballack: 9 appearances (4 total seasons; 2001-2002 to 2007-2008) 12-tied. Patrick Vieira: 9 appearances (5 total seasons; 1998-1999 to 2005-2006) 17-tied. Stefan Effenberg: 8 appearances (5 total seasons; 1995-1996 to 2000-2001) 17-tied. Andrea Pirlo: 8 appearances (6 total seasons; 2003-2004 to 2013-2014) 17-tied. Yaya Toure: 8 appearances (4 total seasons; 2008-2009 to 2014-2015) 17-tied. Mesut Ozil: 8 appearances (6 total seasons; 2008-2009 to 2015-2016) 21-tied. Juninho: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 2003-2004 to 2006-2007) 21-tied. Ilkay Gundogan: 7 appearances (3 total seasons; 2012-2013 to 2021-2022) 21-tied. Luis Enrique: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 1996-1997 to 2000-2001) 21-tied. Steven Gerrard: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 2001-2002 to 2008-2009) 21-tied. Wesley Sneijder: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 2003-2004 to 2010-2011) 21-tied. Esteban Cambiasso: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 2005-2006 to 2009-2010) 21-tied. David Silva: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 2006-2007 to 2018-2019) 21-tied. Thiago Alcantara: 7 appearances (4 total seasons; 2014-2015 to 2021-2022) 21-tied. Casemiro: 7 appearances (5 total seasons; 2015-2016 to 2021-2022) Beyond some implications regarding players who have been spoken about a lot in his thread, and keeping in mind the caveats listed above, I think there’s actually some other interesting things that stick out here. For instance, Frank Lampard is higher up than I would’ve expected. Perhaps that’s just journalists looking at goal totals, but he definitely comes off looking quite good here. This also is a reminder of how good Pavel Nedved was. And it also goes to the point I recall @poetgooner making recently that Cesc Fabregas was truly elite at Arsenal. David Beckham is higher up than I think most would think—though perhaps that’s partially due to how marketed/famous he was in general. I’m sure others might see other things in here that they find interesting too, so I figured I’d post the list.
First of all, I did avoid comparing Xavi to Modric, explicitly. I had next to no interest in doing so. I understand that was the purpose of the post/thread, but I simply addressed one part of the post that I think was wrong, which was: This sentence clearly implied that Xavi's main contribution were his two match-determining assists in the quarters and beyond. And my whole point was simply that I don't think his contribution could be boiled down to those two assists. I would even go so far as saying that even if he had 3 assists, I'm not sure those 3 assists would be his main contribution, and if he had zero, I would still have considered him a key contributor to Barcelona's success. I've posted many times (although I'm not expecting you to know my posting record) that I do rate Modric (and Xavi) very highly. This was mostly in the context of the CR7 and Messi debates. I've always maintained that the younger version of Messi benefitted greatly from playing in the Barcelona super team. And I've made the point many times that Madrid (and therefore CR7) didn't start winning UCLs until the likes of Modric (and Carvajal and Bale) arrived. None of this was to say that they were more important/better than Messi and CR7, but I made these points to counter the narrative that either one of those "carried" their team to the UCL victories. If you want to argue that Modric is greater than Xavi, go ahead. I haven't argued otherwise, nor do I have any interest in engaging in that conversation. And yes, I've also posted before that Messi (and by extension, the rest of the Barcelona team, including Xavi) had their fair share of luck. I think if the argument was simply that Xavi was "not a player of this dimension" you wouldn't get much opposition from anyone else, me included. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to argue that Xavi was a particularly productive player in terms of these types of actions. And yes, Iniesta was better in this aspect. To be clear, I was not at all making a stylistic argument. In fact, I'm really not that big a fan of either Pep's Guardiola or Del Bosque's Spain (enjoyed 2008 Spain more, in comparison). On a side note, those Barcelona fans between 2008-2012 were quite obnoxious really. I legit met a group who asked me why I was "against beautiful football" for not supporting their team. My points are specifically on the effectiveness of Xavi's contribution. I'll try to be clear so that my position is not misunderstood: I believe Xavi was a foundational piece of a historically dominant Barcelona team of 2008-2012. Especially as the dominance was mainly displayed in a game-to-game basis and not in terms of titles won. My high rating of Xavi is much more than just liking his pass completion rate and positioning in TWO successful CL runs. It is the total impact of his contribution, which I see more than just those two things (for example, his decision-making, vision and his movement, among other things) in 4 league campaigns, 4 UCL campaigns, 2 EUROs campaign, and 1 World Cup campaign. But no, I don't think he completed more deep runs or final products (assists/goals) than Iniesta. I think the numbers would prove that, although I don't have it on hand. Once again, I won't try to argue against the belief that Modric contributed more than anyone. I would just say that I don't think "there are a lot of midfielders who have contributed far more in the competition" because I believe the toality of his contribution is far higher than what you believe it to be. At this point, it's probably okay for us to agree to disagree and move on.
Modric is arguably the third best Midfielder from his 'region' behind Piksi,prosinecki and on par with Boban I think in the 1990s he wouldn't stand out to anywhere near the degree he has in his own generation The technical side of football reached its apex back then and has declined ever since Very good players today seem great and great players appear to be legendary even someone Zidane never stood out as much until 2000 and 2001
You cannot be serious So, in your view, the only explanation for me avoiding participating in a UCL-Messi thread while being active in a Luka Modric threat to only argue against a specific point on Xavi is because I tacitly approve of what is said in the UCL-Messi thread? It cannot possibly be because as someone who's been on this forum for a long time, I've sat through literally hundreds if not thousands of pages of Messi discussion, and cannot be bothered to get involved in another one? No no, it must be because I know exactly what's being discussed in another thread and I tacitly approve of it. We don't have to do this. We don't have to assign some sort of agenda to each other. We can just address the actual content made by posters rather than try to find intention in not only things people say, but also in things people don't say. I brought up Ibra as a hyperbolic example of someone with a different role. I still think someone like Xavi played a different role to someone like Zidane. So even there, I don't think assists and goals mattered as much to Xavi as it did to Zidane (and in turn, they didn't matter as much to Zidane as it did to someone like Gerrard). Yes, other midfielders established their legend by producing these sorts of moments more than Xavi. Personally, I don't see that as a big minus in terms of Xavi's legendary status, mainly because I don't think it is a big part of his total contribution. Also, I would argue that those who do produce more of these types of moments than Xavi, very few can match him in his contribution in other areas. This is of course, understandable. It doesn't negate anyone's greatness, just an understanding that players played different roles. Lastly, I think Xavi is far beyond just "capable midfielders," which is why I rate his contribution and impact in a football game over players who may be "capable midfielders" and have better final products than him. But I didn't just quote. I reiterate your point to make sure that I understood it correctly. I don't see why we need to go down this route of attacking one another at all, when we can just attack the content. If I didn't understand your point correctly, you can just point it out. I understood that you thought "Xavi wasn't a significant contributor because he lacked decisive goals/assists in big games, as defined by QF and beyond." If that's not correct, you can just say so. I don't think I've made any attempt at all to be dishonest or take you out of context or spin things, and I don't appreciate you accusing me of such actions. Well yes, and I do do that. I do elevate Busquets game for similar reasons. I rate Busquets very highly too. I've always been very clear. I don't view assists/goals in late KO stage games as being a particularly big part of Xavi's role. You think it does. We can agree to disagree here. It's fine if you don't see any merit in this line of argument. I'm not really trying to make you agree to my worldview. I just wanted to make sure that you see that there are other views of Xavi, and lay out the reasons why people (me included) have those views. I strongly disagree that those players retained the ability to do what Xavi did, and I think this is where we differ significantly. You think others can do what Xavi did and more, while Xavi could only do what he did and not the things others could do also. Well...yes, Xavi wouldn't win as much without playing with other great players. That is true for him as it is true for any other great players. I don't think anyone is trying to argue otherwise, at all. My point is only that Xavi was also a major contributor to his team winning and in some specific senses, was a foundational piece for why players like Messi, Villa, and Iniesta were able to make the differences as often as they did. Maybe not, but I do think there are some differences there. I'm not sure that other players could've done what Xavi did for Barcelona and Spain. Now, this is not to say that nobody could've done it better, differently. It's impossible to know what Zidane would've looked like, for example, and I can entertain the idea that it could've been even better, at least in terms of results.