Isco will be better than both
You spelled Thiago wrong
Unless Thiago doesn't join us, then he'll be a shit flop.
Iniesta - Is there another? | Announces retirement
- Thread starter SAred
- Start date
You spelled Thiago wrong
Unless Thiago doesn't join us, then he'll be a shit flop.
Can't understand people saying he is better than Zidane. Zidane (if I remember correctly) had much more of an end product. True or False?
True he did. Iniesta the superior passer and team player and much more consistent. I think it's close.
Much more consistent? Dunno bout that. I agree Iniesta is amazing to watch. Can't believe he is already 29 though. Barca are going to struggle to replace him + Xavi.
Zidane's better imo but Iniesta would be a lot more productive if the entire side wasn't built around Messi. Put him in any other side in the world where he would be their main playmaker and I think he'd have a bucket load of goals and assists
Can't see iniesta ever scoring bucket loads of goals.
Iniesta is the only Spanish player (De Gea and eventually Thiago aside) I've truly enjoyed watching since they suddenly all became amazing. Those quick one-twos, his ability to dribble past anyone, the clever movement and the ability to play a killer ball, he's perfect.
It's dangerous for a team to rely on one player to score the majority of goals, but considering the success Barcelona have had over the last 5 years or so how can anyone contest what Iniesta brings to the table and how good he is? He might not have 20 goals a season, but he will go down as a footballing legend who helped define an era for his club and country. As a biased United fan the only player I'd put ahead of him on pure talent is Scholes.
It's dangerous for a team to rely on one player to score the majority of goals, but considering the success Barcelona have had over the last 5 years or so how can anyone contest what Iniesta brings to the table and how good he is? He might not have 20 goals a season, but he will go down as a footballing legend who helped define an era for his club and country. As a biased United fan the only player I'd put ahead of him on pure talent is Scholes.
I love scholsey. And I'd take him over xavi. But iniesta has more pure talent.
It's a matter of taste. Scholes' passing alone is just the best thing I've ever seen in football, and in his time he had everything in his locker. And in regards to productivity, there was a time when Scholes had the highest quality of end product, even though I think Iniesta's lack of goals is overstated by some.
Zidane was not so consistent over his career, Inietsa trumps him in that regard. He was a big game player but a couple of managers called him out for not punishing teams enough. Iniesta has the highest bottom level I have seen. Two great players Add Laudrup and I think you have the 3 best attacking midfielders of the last 20-25 years.
Iniesta, though, will always be behind Messi and Xavi when he is being discussed. As much as he contributed to one of the most successful footballing era's in recent years from 2009 until 2012 for Spain and Barcelona, he will always be behind those two.
Zidane won a World Cup and Champions' League on his own, scoring two and the winner.
Zidane won a World Cup and Champions' League on his own, scoring two and the winner.
I think what makes Iniesta better than what Scholes was is that while Iniesta already has a passing ability not too far off Scholes' at his very best, if off at all, he also can combine that with the skill, dribbling, speed, agility etc that Scholes had earlier in his career when he often played in a more attacking role.
Well Iniesta's record in major finals isn't bad either - man of the match in 2009 and the winning goal in 2010. In fact his South Africa tournament was better than what Zidane did in '98, although not as good as his Euro 2012, which in turn wasn't as good as Zidane in '00.
It's a difficult comparison between the two players despite the similarities in their role and style. Iniesta is a more consistent player than Zidane ever was, yet I do wonder how Zidane would have fared in the Barcelona midfield given the platform of dominance he would've been able to exploit to strut his stuff. While Zidane poses the greater goal threat, neither player has scored as many goals as their talent commands. I think the jury's out until we see what else Iniesta does between now and retirement.
I think Iniesta's big game performances trump even Zidanes. He always stands out from the rest, even in teams like Barcelona and Spain in the big games and goes up another level. Truly one of the best of all time.
Mateo Kovačić has similar style of play to Iniesta, hope he develops well.
Iniesta can pick a better through ball than Scholes, don't think many would contest that. Combine that with his general consistency of passing and there's probably not much in it on that count. Iniesta's dribbling is something to behold, though - he runs at pretty much exactly the same pace with the ball as he does without, so his merely decent pace becomes a huge threat whilst dribbling. He's also more likely to work himself out a tight space and do damage than Scholes, in my opinion.
When you compare the two though, you've got to consider which Scholes it is that you're actually comparing; the deep lying one or the productive one that played in a more advanced position earlier in his career. It'd be different if you were to bundle all the attributes he's shown throughout his career into one player, but Iniesta is better than both variants in my opinion.
When you compare the two though, you've got to consider which Scholes it is that you're actually comparing; the deep lying one or the productive one that played in a more advanced position earlier in his career. It'd be different if you were to bundle all the attributes he's shown throughout his career into one player, but Iniesta is better than both variants in my opinion.
I think I can agree to that - good post btw!
Scholes had better passing, except for those through balls, and he was better at dictating the play. Thus you might argue that he was more influential than Iniesta, who, for all his skills and talent, somehow fades slightly next to Xavi and Messi. That said, it is only in later years that Scholes gained reputation for being a world class players by most.
Xavi said he thought Iniesta was the most complete footballer and the best in the world - I think it was last year, but I can't find the quote. He also thought Scholes was the best midfielder of his generation. What will be interesting is to see if Iniesta can reinvent himself the way Scholes did. Playing up front takes more energy than staying back. When Scholes' feet faded, he made the deep-holding midfielder his own. Somehow, I don't see Iniesta doing that.
As for speed, I think at their physical prime they weren't too far off. None of them were particularly fast - Iniesta was so properly outpaced by Ronaldo, who carried the ball, that is was actually funny (most players are, but still), whereas Scholes could somehow, out of the blue, be able to catch up with fairly quick players. Both had/have quick feet, but no real pace, nor did they need it. What Iniesta has though is an insane acceleration over the first couple of yards that sees him past most players; that Scholes did not possess.
Overall, I find it very hard to say who were the best; I wish I could say hands down it would be Scholes, but trying to be objective, I would have to give a slight nod to Iniesta. Don't know who is best of him and Zidane; I found Zidane more spectacular, but as someone posted above, Iniesta must have the highest bottom level ever.
I think Zidane and Iniesta are different gravy to Scholes as sad as it is to say. Both are defining players for club and country at the highest levels, Scholes hasn't done that for me... they've been influential in World Cup Finals and in Champions League Finals and that is before we go into detail in terms of mental and technical attributes... he was a greater goalscorer of that there is no doubt but in terms of overall class and where they stand in terms of status in football, regardless of the great quotes associated with Scholes... they trump him.
I think Iniesta, Zidane and Xavi are pretty much on the same level, it just comes down to to which qualities are more important to you. I think all three are a step above Scholes or Pirlo, both of whom are still excellent. So for me it goes:
Iniesta > Zidane > Xavi > Scholes > Pirlo
Iniesta > Zidane > Xavi > Scholes > Pirlo
For me as it stands it would be...
Zidane > Iniesta > Xavi/Pirlo > Scholes
Zidane > Iniesta > Xavi/Pirlo > Scholes
Iniesta definitely wins for consistency but Zidane wins overall simply because of his aura and his attitude. He is an absolute legend and no one will disagree. Laudrup is much more similar to Iniesta in that they are almost forgotten because they are just not the same type of person as Zidane. Whether or not you agree that Zidane was superior (and he does just clinch it for me) doesn't really matter, people are always going to think of Zidane as one of the greats. Iniesta is 'just a cog' in the Barcelona/Spain machine. He 'just' makes things happen. People remember Zidane as being an absolute stand-out who carried his teams.
Also, as for Scholes - impossible to say where he ranks among the others.
I love Scholes but he'd be behind Iniesta and Zidane for me, of course they are totally different players. Scholes is ahead of Pirlo though without doubt. (If Scholes was from one of the good 'big' countries he'd be a unanimous legend world-wide) but other players seem to regard Scholes as even better than both. So there's really no right or wrong answer when it comes to placing Scholes among great midfielders for me because for some he's one of the very best and for others he's just very good.
I love Scholes but he'd be behind Iniesta and Zidane for me, of course they are totally different players. Scholes is ahead of Pirlo though without doubt. (If Scholes was from one of the good 'big' countries he'd be a unanimous legend world-wide) but other players seem to regard Scholes as even better than both. So there's really no right or wrong answer when it comes to placing Scholes among great midfielders for me because for some he's one of the very best and for others he's just very good.
For me where Scholes falters behind all the others is that he lacks the personality to be considered greater than all of them. Zidane apart, they've all been through period's where they felt overshadowed or were almost too humble but all of them have progressed past that phase and become key figures at international level. In terms of footballing intelligence and the ability to get goals and dictate the tempo, he's ahead of Pirlo and Xavi, Iniesta, Zidane too... so in terms of individual end product he's superior to all of them on the goalscoring front ... but then again so is Frank Lampard and he is not on their level.
Scholes' personality didn't allow him to completely stamp his authority in the manner of the very top players in the greatest games - Zidane's big match personality is what made him such a special player. Iniesta was in danger of falling into this trap due to someone like Messi being so dominant, Xavi possibly went through this during the Rijkaard era but they've either through their national teams and at club level completely and utterly dominated opponents with a swagger and Pirlo has also completely been at the hub of Italian success and also done it with an aura of a truly great player.
Scholes as great as he is, hasn't had that aura consistently enough in my opinion that the others had. His pass against Milan and his goal v Barcelona in the CL... clearly suggest this is a player touched by genius but I'd argue the other players have had more moments of greatness at the highest levels.
Scholes' personality didn't allow him to completely stamp his authority in the manner of the very top players in the greatest games - Zidane's big match personality is what made him such a special player. Iniesta was in danger of falling into this trap due to someone like Messi being so dominant, Xavi possibly went through this during the Rijkaard era but they've either through their national teams and at club level completely and utterly dominated opponents with a swagger and Pirlo has also completely been at the hub of Italian success and also done it with an aura of a truly great player.
Scholes as great as he is, hasn't had that aura consistently enough in my opinion that the others had. His pass against Milan and his goal v Barcelona in the CL... clearly suggest this is a player touched by genius but I'd argue the other players have had more moments of greatness at the highest levels.
Cheers, and I would also agree with the bit regarding Iniesta's influence - he can dominate games but it is the great strength for him as a player that it is with Xavi and Scholes. I imagine he needs either that or increased productivity for the Zidane comparison to be put to bed in many people's eyes. I personally think he has already already surpassed him, but taking this step would probably make him about as good as Ronaldinho at his best.
I think Iniesta will be able to re-invent himself fairly well. With Xavi ageing, I could eventually see Iniesta taking over his role as the deep lying playmaker type central midfielder. His passing ability and his ability to dictate the tempo probably isn't as good as Xavi, but then again Xavi is one of the true greats when it comes to passing. It's easy to forget because of how complete he is that Iniesta's still a fantastic passer of the ball and he'd probably be able to slot into Xavi's role for a few years if they wanted him to, presuming Xavi doesn't carry on for too much longer.
Without checking up stats, I don't agree that Zidane was much more productive than Iniesta. He was never a 20 goal man or anything, and his status has been elevated by a handful of standout performances. Take those away, and he's not performed as consistently as Iniesta for me. Iniesta has also scored yhe winner in a WC final, in addition to a last minute winner at Chelsea to get Barca to the final a few years ago.
He also stands up when called upon and is usually head and shoulders the best on the field when Spain play.
He also stands up when called upon and is usually head and shoulders the best on the field when Spain play.
He does? Strange, I could have sworn Barcelona were a one man team at times last season.
And I'd say Xavi is head and shoulders above everyone else in La Roja. His ability to dominate possession in the middle of midfield is the number one reason why Spain are the best team in international football.
And I'd say Xavi is head and shoulders above everyone else in La Roja. His ability to dominate possession in the middle of midfield is the number one reason why Spain are the best team in international football.
Of all the midfielders listed Scholes is last though that is no disrespect we are talking about all time great talents Scholes included. The others all had greater influence on their teams club wise and internationally than Scholes had. Of the cm/dm midfielders Xavi > Pirlo > Scholes. We can discuss what if's all day but we can only actually go off what happened, they are all world champions played big parts in their countries wining and bar Zidane had more success than Scholes in Europe. Zidane I feel just edges Iniesta. Iniesta the more consistent but if they where both at their best I feel Zidane is slightly better. He scored more gaols and also it was the sheer quality of the goals he scored also not to mention a terrific final pass and physicality Iniesta can't match. He defined tournaments on the International stage also in a way Iniesta though you can argue he has been Spain's best player simply has not done. I agree Zidane had the greater personality but I don't feel I watch in Iniesta a player who has surpassed Zidane's level as good as he is.
Iniesta has such a great feel for the game I see him dropping deep as he ages and still influencing matches. When he first came onto the scene he played everywhere and was immense. Quality, quality player.
Iniesta has such a great feel for the game I see him dropping deep as he ages and still influencing matches. When he first came onto the scene he played everywhere and was immense. Quality, quality player.
Iniesta making the difference for Spain:
Euro 2008:
- assist for game winning goal vs. Russia in semi; man of the match
2010 World Cup:
- game winning goal vs. Chile to qualify from group stages; man of the match
- second assist for Villa vs. Portugal in last 16
- second assist for Villa vs. Paraguay in quarters; man of the match
- gwg vs. Netherlands in final; man of the match
Euro 2012 - player of the tournament
- man of the match vs. Italy in group stage
- assist for gwg vs. Croatia to qualify from group as winners; man of the match
- second assist for gwg vs. france in quarters
- second assist for gwg italy in final; man of the match
And I think Xavi's impact for Spain is lessened by having to share roles with Alonso.
Euro 2008:
- assist for game winning goal vs. Russia in semi; man of the match
2010 World Cup:
- game winning goal vs. Chile to qualify from group stages; man of the match
- second assist for Villa vs. Portugal in last 16
- second assist for Villa vs. Paraguay in quarters; man of the match
- gwg vs. Netherlands in final; man of the match
Euro 2012 - player of the tournament
- man of the match vs. Italy in group stage
- assist for gwg vs. Croatia to qualify from group as winners; man of the match
- second assist for gwg vs. france in quarters
- second assist for gwg italy in final; man of the match
And I think Xavi's impact for Spain is lessened by having to share roles with Alonso.
He has just donated 240,000 euros to Albacete his former youth club to help them pay there players an thus save them from being relegated. What's not to love about this guy?
"It is not the first time the 29-year-old has come to the rescue of Albacete as he injected €420,000 into the club in 2011."
This confirms it, he's my favourite player outside of United.
This confirms it, he's my favourite player outside of United.
What an awesome guy.
Its funny, he's never been the fastest of players but he still manages to wriggle away from defenders.
The way he dribbles is like a Snake riggling along the ground. He never keeps the ball moving in a straight line which I think defenders find very difficult.
The way he dribbles is like a Snake riggling along the ground. He never keeps the ball moving in a straight line which I think defenders find very difficult.
Iniesta played for more consistent teams which were machine like in imposing their system. You can't expect zidane in amidst the fecking galactico circus to achieve the same consistency. It's impossible.
Perspective.
From a purely statistical point of view -
I agree but even at Juventus Zidane did he match Iniesta's consistency?? I remember reading about him being marked out of the final by Paul Lambert. Zidane is a big game player who tends to let the smaller games pass by him at times. Still not saying I prefer Iniesta but just further perspective. Also I will say teams go as far as their best player takes them. He was Madrid's best some may say Big Ronaldo but he was one of their two best players he was not particularly consistent at Real though you could always count on Zizou for one or two pieces of magic a game. Things that you just don't see other players do.
It's a fair point. The Barca machinery makes it harder to assess the individuals who make up its "cogs", there's no question about that. They're all extremely good players, that much is clear. But when it comes to comparing them to other extremely good players (like the Iniesta versus Zidane comparison) it adds something to the equation, I think. Both Iniesta and Xavi are tailor made for the parts they play. It's very difficult to gauge how well they'd do in a completely different set-up. Messi is a different kettle of fish. His raw talent is so out-of-this-world that one has to think he would shine no matter where he played. I think Iniesta would do alright too - but there's something almost timid about the way he expresses himself on the pitch: He plays a team game almost to a fault. How would he fare if he had to, as the phrase goes, take the game by the scruff of its neck to a larger degree - be the main man, the orchestrator and - not least - the finisher? His natural ability is beyond question, but perhaps he has been so drilled in the Barca philosophy (a way of playing which translates very easily to the national team as well) that he'd struggle elsewhere? I honestly don't know - but it's an interesting question.
Zidane was the main man. That was his natural role. He was more like Maradona in that sense than any of the Barca greats.
From a purely statistical point of view -
That's why stats aren't the be all and end all. Ozil is not as consistent and in Real's system Iniesta would rack of as many assists as Ozil though his goal return has always irked me. He clearly has the capability to shot and score more but he chooses not to.
Ozil is not as good as Iniesta of course but he's another one who's very elegant and graceful in his style of play. How much did Madrid get him for again?
It's his incredibly unselfish nature. His all time favourite footballer is Michael Laudrup and this comes directly from there. Laudrup would glide past a swarm of players like they weren't there and in the end just put it in front of his mate on a plate. Iniesta is sort of similar in that way.