15 million euros last year of his contract bargain at the time and he has proven to be worth double that at least.
Iniesta - Is there another? | Announces retirement
- Thread starter SAred
- Start date
15 million euros last year of his contract bargain at the time and he has proven to be worth double that at least.
His unselfish nature goes beyond football. He helped his former club Albacete avoid relegation in 2011 to the 4th division by paying 240.000 euros of players' wages.
I agree I remember Guardiola saying Iniesta came to him to ask him about scoring more goals and Guardiola said why are you asking me I only scored 5 my whole career!
Laudrup was another terrific player one of the most creative and best passers of the ball I have ever seen. He is a legend and some say he could have been better. I don't think Iniesta is as good as him.No the 240,000 was today/this week in 2011 he gave them 460,00 euros he is a majority shareholder I think.
He can probably afford it. Still, a fine gesture - and he does strike me as a sympathetic sort of bloke, no bollocks and vanity there. Much like Xavi too, be it said. They seem like alright lads, down to earth - nothing against 'em. They both rate Scholes highly too - might be a connection there, apart from the footballing side, I mean.
Xavi is an arrogant man in all honesty he has a quiet profile off the field though but yes Scholes is a player highly rated on the continent and by former pro's. A footballer's footballer.
Xavi is hardly arrogant. He has a good off field personality.
The only thing I dislike about him as well as some other Barca players is when they lecture others on how their way of football is the most pure etc etc.
The only thing I dislike about him as well as some other Barca players is when they lecture others on how their way of football is the most pure etc etc.
That's the arrogance I mean 'are way is best' etc etc. he constantly does it and he is not a gracious loser either. Amazing player though.
This is pure conjecture. He's struggled throughout his career with regards to goal scoring and assisting. Someone with his technical ability in the final third should have more impressive stats.
It's odd, the same people who dismiss the value of stats regarding certain players/teams stress the importance of stats regarding other players/teams. 
It's odd, the same people who dismiss the value of stats regarding certain players/teams stress the importance of stats regarding other players/teams.
Proof of this, good sir? Personally I'm rather consistent in my standards
He should score more but for me his ability to create goals and play then final ball is as good as it gets in the modern game. If Iniesta plays a defence splitting pass to Pedro who then squares it for a tap in who really created the goal but who gets the assist? That is the sort of play Iniesta makes time and time again. Looking at assists is somewhat lazy all you have to do is watch him to see his influence on the game. The only thing that can be questioned is his goal return. But in a Barca team who pass to death and have one reliable goal scorer in comparison to real who [play a more direct counter-attacking game and have 3 reliable goalscorers I don't think it is conjuncture to suggest he would get more assists. For me stats are only relevant with added context he has a greater influence on the game than Ozil as good as his stats are which says it all really.
Ah Laudrup .. I literally drool over his youtube videos. Very similar styles but it's like in every aspect, Laudrup had something a bit more than Iniesta. Two really magnificent players that's for sure
I don't really buy the excuse with Iniesta that his lower basic productivity comes from 'unselfishness'. His unselfishness is nowhere to be seen when he glides past three players from a standing point, or when he does incredible things by that left corner flag instead of passing immediately. Someone as good as he is should be scoring more, and I'm sure there have been quotes of Iniesta's that have surfaced at some point whereby he has stressed this concern to Guardiola.
This is obviously not to say that Iniesta should be measured solely by stats, but he is consistently in the sort of areas whereby a player of his talent should be looking to increase his tally.
This is obviously not to say that Iniesta should be measured solely by stats, but he is consistently in the sort of areas whereby a player of his talent should be looking to increase his tally.
I agree, I've seen fluff chances, miss shots that you would think a player of his talent would never. Maybe it's lack of belief, maybe stress I don't know. Yes he's unselfish but he still takes shots and should be more regularly around 14-15 goals each season
He actually produced a lot last season. He does poorly finish quite often but as long as he's setting up the goals its not the biggest of deals. Same as with Silva
When Barca struggled last season - and the one before that - because Messi wasn't up to his usual standards, Iniesta looked very ineffective and devoid of killer instinct. He would opt for the standard Barca pass-and-move every time, even when it was blatantly obvious that a direct approach would have been more to the point. He looked almost brainless at times - literally like a cog in the machinery, incapable of invention beyond the limitations of the system. In many ways he personalized their lack of a plan B: An incredibly gifted player but for all practical purposes useless when the game wasn't flowing their way.
As for Zidane's lack of goals and - God forbid - assists...with a player like that it's never about the "end product" in terms of sheer numbers. You'll miss out on his greatness if you just look at numbers. He had an almost unbelievable ability to control the flow of the match at his best: He would be right in the middle of the action, hogging the ball, making the entire thing revolve around him and his next move - not the sort of thing which can be reflected in stats at all. It sounds romantic, perhaps, but it's real enough. He had that rare knack of slowing it all down whenever he had the ball, which comes from reading the game perfectly and having that particular "slow-motion" skill which only few players possess. Cantona had something of the same, if that reference makes it easier to grasp. Scholes too, one might argue - or Pirlo. It's about presence on the pitch more than anything - the ability to run the flow of play. So called "assists" mean feck all compared to that.
As for Zidane's lack of goals and - God forbid - assists...with a player like that it's never about the "end product" in terms of sheer numbers. You'll miss out on his greatness if you just look at numbers. He had an almost unbelievable ability to control the flow of the match at his best: He would be right in the middle of the action, hogging the ball, making the entire thing revolve around him and his next move - not the sort of thing which can be reflected in stats at all. It sounds romantic, perhaps, but it's real enough. He had that rare knack of slowing it all down whenever he had the ball, which comes from reading the game perfectly and having that particular "slow-motion" skill which only few players possess. Cantona had something of the same, if that reference makes it easier to grasp. Scholes too, one might argue - or Pirlo. It's about presence on the pitch more than anything - the ability to run the flow of play. So called "assists" mean feck all compared to that.
So much wrong in this I don't even know where to begin. I think you mixed up Xavi with Iniesta. Iniesta has always been the one who stepped up when Barcelona are lacking penetration. Even yesterday when Spain looked devoid of inspiration, Iniesta was the one who kept driving through the Italian defence.
I think Chesterlestreet has a point but I don't know how much of that can really be used as a criticism. Certainly Iniesta was the most likely one in the midfield to add a bit of spark and creativity to the team when the machine isn't quite in full flow but you rarely see him carry the team when it's simply not functioning in the way someone like Zidane did. Against Milan, PSG and Bayern last season - as Chesterlestreet referred to - he clearly didn't step up in any great way.
I think that's simply a result of a selfless devotion to a system that has brought almost unparalleled success on club and international level, though. Zidane wasn't lazy but he simply didn't possess the capacity to be a part of Barca's intense pressing game. Likewise I don't think he possessed the selflessness to play in Barca's somewhat cautious possession game or to play in a setup that allows Messi to be at the centre of everything while scoring 70-odd goals.
On the other hand I think if Iniesta were to move to a club like United he could come out of this "shell" and take the game by the scruff of the neck on a consistent basis. He did that to an extent for Spain in Euro 2012 but not in a huge way. He was just consistently the best of an uninspiring bunch. He didn't really carry the team. I would say it's grossly unfair to call him "an incredibly gifted player but for all practical purposes useless when the game wasn't flowing their way.". That's how he has been in Barcelona's system but then that attitude across the board is a big part of what made them such a magnificent team. I don't think it's fair to suggest that's who he is as a player, regardless of the environment.
I think that's simply a result of a selfless devotion to a system that has brought almost unparalleled success on club and international level, though. Zidane wasn't lazy but he simply didn't possess the capacity to be a part of Barca's intense pressing game. Likewise I don't think he possessed the selflessness to play in Barca's somewhat cautious possession game or to play in a setup that allows Messi to be at the centre of everything while scoring 70-odd goals.
On the other hand I think if Iniesta were to move to a club like United he could come out of this "shell" and take the game by the scruff of the neck on a consistent basis. He did that to an extent for Spain in Euro 2012 but not in a huge way. He was just consistently the best of an uninspiring bunch. He didn't really carry the team. I would say it's grossly unfair to call him "an incredibly gifted player but for all practical purposes useless when the game wasn't flowing their way.". That's how he has been in Barcelona's system but then that attitude across the board is a big part of what made them such a magnificent team. I don't think it's fair to suggest that's who he is as a player, regardless of the environment.
My point is summed up nicely by Brwned above: Iniesta sticks to the plan, he doesn't have a game of his own, beyond that plan. When the team clearly struggle (as they did on some very conspicuous occasions last season and the one before that) his ineffectiveness - his inability to affect the match positively and directly - stood out for me, and it did so because he is such an immensely gifted player, someone who should be able to really step up to the plate and deliver, regardless of how his little mate from Argentina is doing.
I also agree with Brwned: He might look a very different player in terms of this (direct impact, the ability to step up on his own) in a different set-up. His skill-set certainly would indicate this, more so than any other Barca player bar Messi.
this... Iniesta is called "el cerebro" for a reason. When everybody else runs out of ideas, he is the one to break the mould.
He didn't do that - break the mould, as you say - against Milan, PSG and Bayern this season, nor in a couple of crucial matches last season; those few occasions during the last few years when Barca have come up short (not least because their main asset, Messi, has failed to shine - whether this is due to form or because the opponent has actually figured out how to neutralize the machine to some extent is another discussion).
What you claim simply hasn't been the case in the biggest matches he's featured in during the last couple of seasons. He has been exceptionally good along with an exceptionally good side for a long time, but when this side has struggled - as a side - he hasn't been able to use his "cerebral" power to bail them out. He has - strikingly, I'd say - failed to use his rare abilities as a footballer to turn the tide for them. And I think this is down to - as Brwned suggests above - his fidelity to the system: Like all their players, Messi included, he sticks to the script - whether that script is working or not.
He wasn't needed to play out of the template. He has already won more titles than Zidane ever has, both club and international level by doing what he does regularly. Can he win more if he starts playing like a Zidane? I really doubt so. Zidane had more big game "exhibitions" than Iniesta because France needed that kind of player and have a team build around him, Barcelona doesn't. However, on the international front where Spain lacks a Messi, Iniesta has shown many times what he is truly capable of when given the license to attack.
What you said about Iniesta more aptly describes Xavi. At the start of Barcelona's dominance, he was build up to Zidane-esque levels. But in recent times when Barcelona's dominance has waned and teams start sussing them out, it has becoming increasing apparent that Xavi is a great player made to look even greater in a system that benefits his play. At his best, he is no more than just a facilitator of play, someone who lacks that "X-Factor" ability to make the step up when things aren't going right.
I find this inaccurate and knee jerk of an opinion. The team was clearly not able to work the plan against Chelsea in 2009, he decided to take the shot from long range, nowhere near a tiki taka principle and took the team to the final.
He's actually doing the opposite of what you say in big games, when the tike taka or possession footie is not leading the team anywhere he changes it to add directness and unpredictability and that is how has changed so many big games throughout his career. One bad outing against Bayern and suddenly Iniesta is not capable of making a difference at the biggest of occasions? Laughable.
What about the El Classico couple of seasons ago when the game was deadlocked, Iniesta was playing down the left and it wasn't working, he amde the change, came to the middle and destroyed every remaining shred of Madrid? You have to be the only person who thinks Iniesta of all people can be out of ideas just because he was thwarted by an extremely strong Bayern team, and in particular an individual Javi Martinez who had a great game against him. Right now there is no one in the world who can think outside the box more than Iniesta.
I think it is unfair to pick on a few crucial games where Barca has faltered and point fingers at Iniesta. What Iniesta lacks over Zidane is not the big games performance, I'm Zidane himself has failed in many more big games in his career than Iniesta ever has, especially on the club level where he has only won one CL title, what he lacks is the the romantic "moments" in Football that Zidane has produced - two goals in the WC final, THAT volley in the CL final, coming back from retirement and leading a poor France team to the Final. Zidane's profile as a player and superstar status meant that he will receive more hype and nostalgia, whereas Iniesta has been doing his job quietly and consistently for Spain and Barcelona, racking up the titles in the process. Its like that discussion I had with another guy at the newbs on Messi and Ronaldinho. Ronaldinho has more "moments" in Football that will forever be embedded in people's minds, people will look back at it with nostalgia and romanticism, but he is definitely not the better player than Messi.
It wasn't just against Bayern. Against PSG they desperately needed someone to step up but Barca were terribly limp without Messi on the pitch. People will say Iniesta was Barca's best player until Messi came on but that's besides the point, they would have gone out of the CL in that round if not for Messi's contribution and Iniesta could do nothing to prevent that. Against Milan in the first leg they were similarly ineffective and he couldn't do anything to make a direct impact on the game. That's not just picking out the odd game, that's their entire knockout phase. It's the first knockout phase in a while where they've come up against tough opposition in both the last 16 and quarter-finals, actually. If you look at the knockout games they've struggled in/failed to win during this decade with Iniesta in the team you have:
Stuttgart (1-1, away leg, last 16, 2010)
Arsenal (2-2, away leg, quarter-final, 2010)
Arsenal (1-2, away leg, last 16, 2011)
Milan, (0-0, away leg, quarter-final, 2012)
Chelsea (0-1, away leg, semi-final, 2012)
Chelsea (2-2, home leg, semi-final, 2012)
Milan (0-2, away leg, last 16, 2013)
PSG (2-2, away leg, quarter-final, 2013)
PSG (1-1, home leg, quarter-final, 2013)
Bayern (4-0, away leg, semi-final, 2013)
Bayern (3-0, home leg, semi-final, 2013)
In how many of these games do you think Iniesta stood out amongst the rest and almost single-handedly turned the tide of the game? His best performance was probably against Chelsea at the Camp Nou because of his goal but he was pretty peripheral by his standards outside of that. You've been vocal in the past about how Zidane's big-game player tag is over-stated so I'll suggest the same about Iniesta. Zidane's had more poor games in the biggest matches but Iniesta's had much fewer games where he's been clearly better than the rest of his team.
Iniesta's had plenty of games where he's been the best player on the pitch in big games but that's generally come at a time when the team is working in perfect unison. His performance has often been just the cherry on top rather than the decisive factor. If you look at his very best games you'll generally see Xavi right at the top of his game conducting things alongside him. Zidane had a lot of support in midfield from great players (Davids, Deschamps, Vieira, Petit, Makélélé etc.) but none of them came close to Xavi's ability to dictate the pace of the game so generally he had to take on more responsibility for controlling things and making the difference. In the game against Brazil in '06 Zidane was their creative fulcrum as well as the man controlling the midfield and in the '98 final he was their goalscorer and their sole creator. People talk about Zidane's two goals in the final as if that's all he did but he created more in 90 minutes than Iniesta did in 120 minutes in the World Cup final. He rose above his team-mates in a way Iniesta rarely has. You could argue that's because he didn't have to but then the CL knockout ties above suggest there's been more of those occasions than is often remembered.
Like that half-volley v Chelsea in stoppage time in '09, the following MOTM performance in the CL final and the only goal of the 2010 WC final in the 116th minute amongst others? Zidane had a profile because he rose above the rest of his team-mates and dominated games single-handedly. Iniesta has never had the opportunity to do that for Barcelona but I do think he could have done so for Spain. He showed glimpses of it in the Euros but that's it. Romanticism is a huge part of football but you seem to be grouping it alongside nostalgia as something that clouds people's minds and distracts them from the truth. Strange.
I'm pretty much with Brwned on this topic. Iniesta has had telling contributions in big matches but usually when the team isn't playing terribly well, he isn't either.
This is like that discussion I had in your "Classic Man Utd side" thread in the other forum. I've never for once think that Iniesta is a better player than Zidane. What Zidane gave to football is something Iniesta can only dream of. If you ask me, a legendary football team or player is much, much more than just than footballing excellence. Ability wise, there is not much difference between Iniesta and Zidane, there is nothing Zidane can do with a football that Iniesta couldn't, Footballing wise, he has already won more titles than Zidane. What Iniesta lacks that can elevate his status to Zidane's level is really the romantic football moments.
Zidane came at a time when a young French football was about have its breakthrough on the international stage and he was there heralding its arrival right up to its decline. He's the man who put France on the footballing globe, the face of French football. He had a "story" behind it all. Iniesta doesn't have a "story" like that. During Zidane's time, International football was very strong and exciting, France weren't always the favorites, they had their foils, their falls and their romantic moments. Right now Spain just steamrolls whatever opposition they came up against. Won one of the most boring and forgettable World Cups and Euros ever, and had a final that featured a one-sided thrashing. There was no coming back from a 3-match ban to score 2 goals in the final against the favorites Brazil, there was no Wiltord scoring the equaliser with virtually the last kick of the game and Trezeguet smashing the winner to the top corner, there was no comeback from retirement to lead an aging French team to the final.
The half-volley is something that will remain in football history but other than that, if you think about it, there is no more. We were so outclassed in that final that people will probably remember that one volley against Bayern Leverkusen more than Iniesta's MOTM performance. As for the WC Final, it was the worst final in recent times. Spain for all their talents also played some really negative football throughout the WC.
This simply isn't true, in terms of technique.. Zidane is perhaps one of the most gifted of all time in terms of how complete he is in terms of technique. Truly ambidextrous, the fact his greatest goal was with his left foot and on the greatest club stage says it all, he was tremendous in the air and his passing technique and ball striking technique whether it be laces, curls, volleys, set pieces of any kind were exemplary off either foot. Then there's the flair they have for the game, the tricks and the way they go past players... again Zidane was more gifted, step-overs, roulettes... he mastered any trick and used it in relevant situations, this is what made him unpredictable and hard to mark out of a game in the biggest matches - he could win a game himself... but his lack of pace did hold him back to some degree.
Iniesta is not on the same level in terms of how complete he is in terms of technique, he's gifted and looks very elegant but he's not as complete technically... he doesn't take set pieces, rarely passes off his weaker foot let alone score amazing goals with it.. headers??. Iniesta may be inferior technically overall in my opinion, but his close control dribbling is arguably superior and allied to his superior pace, makes him dangerous in his own right but in terms of pure footballing ability, only one winner for me.
In terms of impact, this has been an interesting discussion but just thought I'd make clear that in terms of how gifted and complete they were as players, Zidane is on a different playing field in my opinion. If Zidane had a little more pace, he'd be far ahead of Iniesta.
Well apart from the ability to rattle one in from distance off either foot. These sort of goals were part and parcel of Zidane's repertoire, but not really within Iniesta's scope:
Be fair now. Zidane was part of a great time for France and like wise Iniesta with Spain. Scholesy, mostly played under inept coaches and England had no where near the depth of talent in terms of winners. Would Scholes have made France and Spain a worse nation? I don't think so. They wouldn't have put him out on the left either.
As good as Scholes is, even at his peak he would not have taken France to World Cup glory or taken them to the final like Zidane did in 2006. What made Zidane stand apart other than his superior technique, which again is better than Scholes likewise Iniesta is his character... he was a big time player, liked to be the centre of attention. Its what separates talented great players from all time legends.
So yes I don't think Scholes would have made France as successful. Spain is another matter though, he'd get into their side... but it is perhaps Xavi/Fabregas he could emulate, the role Iniesta enjoys is quite unique and requires more of a playmaker who likes to carry the ball which I wouldn't classify Scholes as.
Some are being quite harsh on him. How many play well when their team is struggling?? I wouldn't say he is a system player when Barca are having a bad game he almost always the best of them, that contribution may not be enough to take over games like Zidane but is still telling on a field that has Messi, Xavi and Busquets most times. He can always be relied on to have a solid game. What he doesn't have is Zidane's ability to make the whole game become about him and then go on and make decisive plays. He has never scored enough and with Barca's and Spain's slow patient play the 'moments' he has had are enough for a great career world cup winner, Champions league winner, best Spanish player at Euro 2012 and his '09 performance standout. Zidane has just done it more and on bigger stages.
When discussing the all time great are fans have a tendency to always mention Scholes. He was a great player but below the level of the very best.
Scholes may have not had a system suited to him in England, but even for Spain or France he'd have struggled to have had the influence of Iniesta or Zidane when you consider that both men scored in World Cup finals and both men had a Euros where they were one of the best players in the world.
Even on the club stage though, both men have probably had a better impact than Scholes overall. Scholes biggest moment came in the CL semi-final arguably, but Zidane has won a final with a stunning volley while Iniesta produced an incredible performance against us back in 2009 and was Barca's best player that game, with both men either being or coming close to being recognised as the best in the world in a respective year when the awards came. I know they're not the most definitive way to judge a player, but they can be quite telling.
Barcelona and Spain loose a couple of games and suddenly Iniesta is up for debate...
When the question is "does Iniesta deserve to be ranked alongside Zidane" then it was always up for debate. No-one's debating whether he's one of the best midfielders and players of his generation.
Odd bump for a thread that hasn't been bumped since Spain lost their first game in 30 last night.
Did you even read the thread ?