A bit insulting to charizard tbh. He's in the Messi/Ronaldo category
Iniesta vs Silva
- Thread starter Lord SInister
- Start date
A bit insulting to charizard tbh. He's in the Messi/Ronaldo category
I think there is actually. Xavi, Zidane and Laudrup were phenomenal floor and ceiling raisers. Iniesta was a phenomenal ceiling raiser, but not much of a floor raiser imho. If Iniesta was your best player, you weren't gonna win much. The other 3 all lead their teams to success as the best players
I disagree about that honestly, but nonetheless, i was talking about being the team's best player, the one the team is built around, not the best performer
He wasn't really. I mean, he was more similar to Zidane than Iniesta. Laudrup...yeah ok
Iniesta didn't play a more advanced role than Xavi. But sure, Xavi also wasn't as great before Iniesta came in
I just look at the respective careers and it's obvious to me that Iniesta was an accessory to Xavi more than the other way around. Like comparing a great conductor to a first violin
Silva's a great player.
Iniesta is levels above him though. I don't think it's close at all.
Iniesta is levels above him though. I don't think it's close at all.
Absolutely this! It should be Iniesta vs Zidane/Laudrup and Xavi vs Scholes/Pirlo/Fabregas
Gold vs Silva
No, that's Mega Charizard X and Y.
So you're the one that started this.Why Fire though? Usually it's for striker, shooter and aggressive types of players.
Flying or better yet Water maybe is more suitable, because their movements, playmaking, dribbles and passing are all flowing. Their shootings too have good techniques instead of raw power. Hmm.. maybe grass types suits them more because physically they seems "fragile" or "weak" but turns out on the floor, they have mad skills, precision tachniques with their "vines" and "leaves" passes and tough as hell the higher they evolve.
Iniesta is the better maestro,
Silva is the better athlete.
Silva is also very robust, despite his size. But no disrespect to Silva, Iniesta is the better player.
Silva is the better athlete.
Silva is also very robust, despite his size. But no disrespect to Silva, Iniesta is the better player.
The thread should've ended here. What a blast burn of a post.
Why Fire though? Usually it's for striker, shooter and aggressive types of players.
Flying or better yet Water maybe is more suitable, because their movements, playmaking, dribbles and passing are all flowing. Their shootings too have good techniques instead of raw power. Hmm.. maybe grass types suits them more because physically they seems "fragile" or "weak" but turns out on the floor, they have mad skills, precision tachniques with their "vines" and "leaves" passes and tough as hell the higher they evolve.
Hmm. I thought I'm the only nerd with love and passion for football in caf.
Finally explained perfectly for us laymen.
Iniesta ducked Wednesdays at Stoke - We'll never know.
He was amazing but let's be honest, Messi did something ridiculous in virtually every game he played that year, and clearly outshone Iniesta in the same team.
Haha I just went for the better known types
Why Fire though? Usually it's for striker, shooter and aggressive types of players.
Flying or better yet Water maybe is more suitable, because their movements, playmaking, dribbles and passing are all flowing. Their shootings too have good techniques instead of raw power. Hmm.. maybe grass types suits them more because physically they seems "fragile" or "weak" but turns out on the floor, they have mad skills, precision tachniques with their "vines" and "leaves" passes and tough as hell the higher they evolve.
Personally I'd see them as Abra, Kadabra & Alakazam!
Iniesta is the better player. One of the best midfielders of all time. Not really a fair comparison. Having said that Silva is one of the best midfielders of his generation. It's a shame we didn't see more of him at false 9 for Spain
You replace Messi in that team with pretty much any other player and Barca don't win those CL titles. Yeah, Iniesta and Xavi were amazing but it was Messi who made the difference.
Iniesta and it’s not close for me. His contribution in big games is right up there with the best
I wasn’t being serious mate, I got your point. Just weird to see it done through Pokémon..
They dominated International football without Messi?
Ah I had so much fun with my Gameboy and Pokemon Yellow. They still sell them?
Anyway, apt description. And no disrespect to Silva or Maya, they were great players in their own right.
tbh Iniesta was fairly injured for a part of season 2009/10.
And Messi while not winning either of WC/UCL, was entering his peak version, scoring and assisting at a rate of one goal contribution per 75 min. I know stats can be lying, but a goal contribution every 75 min, is no lying.
Plus if it wasn't for Messi, most probably it would have gone to Sneijder.
They weren't creating much and were winning a lot of games with 1 (and sometimes 2) goal(s). In the course of a 6-7 games tournament, that wasn't a problem, but in the course of a whole season, i doubt they would have won everything Barca won. Messi was clearly the difference in attack for Barca which made them score a lot more, Dani Alves too.
And for the NT, you can't ignore the impact that Ramos, Cassillas and Alonso had also in the team.
So saying that Xavi and Iniesta dominated international football without Messi, is just ignoring a whole lot of context
They did dominate though? Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta, Villa, Pique, Pedro Puyol.. I mean
Iniesta is Zidane level, David Silva a few levels below that while still being brilliant himself. Just not all time football legendary level.
That was because other sides parked the bus and refused to do anything. So all Spain needed to do was score 1 or 2 goals. When teams took the game to Spain the games were very entertaining. But either way I can't think of a more dominating side in international football over the last 20 years.
You are joking right? They made the other teams look silly, they walked matches.
Spain were arguably the most dominant national team of all time, at worst being the second most dominant.
In fact they were so dominant that teams fundamentally adjusted their approach in facing them to a degree that was unprecedented in my lifetime of watching international football. Spain's approach didn't make those games dull but rather the combination of their approach and the countermeasures their opponents were fearfully forced to adopt (deep defence, as many men behind the ball as possible, nullify Spain at whatever cost to your own attack).
It's a problem few teams have faced as few teams were good enough to provoke that sort of reaction from their opponents. So it seems rather churlish to then claim that the resulting lack of goals was down to them not being dominant enough.
In fact they were so dominant that teams fundamentally adjusted their approach in facing them to a degree that was unprecedented in my lifetime of watching international football. Spain's approach didn't make those games dull but rather the combination of their approach and the countermeasures their opponents were fearfully forced to adopt (deep defence, as many men behind the ball as possible, nullify Spain at whatever cost to your own attack).
It's a problem few teams have faced as few teams were good enough to provoke that sort of reaction from their opponents. So it seems rather churlish to then claim that the resulting lack of goals was down to them not being dominant enough.
Heck, even teams that were normally dominant like Germany, had to sit somewhat low against them in 2010, and they were on fire in the games before, but even they couldn`t really go toe to toe with that Spain-side.
Kind of shows you how the PL hasn't always had the cream of the crop in terms of talent, when Silva is one of the all time PL greats but sometimes couldn't get into the Spain national team at his peak ahead of players who mostly played in Spain. He's not touching Iniesta for me.
Exactly
Iniesta better than Silva and better than Zidane too
Yes (though Villa joined Barca after the WC), along with Cassillas, Ramos, Xabi Alonso and Cesc and Silva (to a lesser extent) who were all essential to the team too.
Yes I agree that they were the most dominant team the way they controlled the games.
Teams parked buses against them, but so did they against Barca but the difference why Barça created much more and scored much more was Messi (and Alves too to a lesser extent), that was the point i was making.
Fair enough, good assessment.
They were without Muller, and the game was ultimately close, despite spain's territorial and possession dominance(which anyways was fine for germany which was mostly a transition and counterattacking side). For all the dominance Spain still needed San Iker to win the world cup
Also no, they weren't the most dominant national side ever. That title belong to either 1970 Brazil, or the Pelé-Garrincha sides, unbeaten in over 60 games
I understand but youre telling me that i cant claim Barca players were the dominant force for Spain then argue that it was all Messi that won the CLs? Surely you see the contrdiction?
I believe I recall there was once a discussion on who is better, Mata or Silva. Whilst most would recognise Silva as the superior player, if Silva was substituted with Iniesta, there would be no discussion. Although lacking in goal output, his overall play was outstanding. I'd argue that his overall play was on Messi's level, but his numbers weren't (not even close). Iniesta had brilliant dribbling, good acceleration and was very nimble. He was also a great passer and link-up player. Silva were also most of these things, but he would always be a level below in most aspects of their games. That is not a disservice to Silva, as he was truly a brilliant player; it was just that Iniesta is one of the best I have seen, and one of the greatest players of the last two decades.
I think there would have been an argument, especially when Mata was at Chelsea. Think he got like 19 goals and 35 assists in one season. I am not sure even Bruno would be able to get those assist numbers. While Mata has won more european trophies, Silva has absolutely bossed the EPL. If we had maybe built the attack around him when he arrived here, things could have been different.
As the Pokemon post says Silva is kinda like the guy in the middle of Mata and Iniesta. He plays like Mata only he's tougher, works harder and while I'd have them almost the same technically, both mentally and physcially Silva was worlds above Mata (Mata had 2 amazing seasons where he was at peak Silva level just couldn't sustain it). I think its fair to say theres merit in and Iniesta vs Silva discussion, merit in a Silva vs Mata discussion and absolutely no merit in Iniesta vs Mata discussion, simply because most people would say Iniesta is a level above Silva and Silva the same above Mata. Mata's peak seasons though was almost as good as either of them.
Fair enough. Not diasagreeing much with this.