Its an amazing coincidence that Silva is being compared to Pokémon and that he is to the suprise of many people Japanese heritage.
Iniesta vs Silva
- Thread starter Lord SInister
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
Whilist we are talking about Mata and Silva we can't deny that the Valencia team that they played for with players like Villa/Joaquin/Vicente was a great team unfortunately broken up due to there financial and management issues.
I never said that though. I said he was the main reason why they won all that they won, not the only reason.
And Banega, Albiol, Mathieu, Jordi Alba. They'd always give Barcelona hell
Nobody says that, though. Nobody sensible at least. Messi needs his team mates and his team mates need him. It's a team sport and people forget that.
David Silva was and still is an outstanding player. Andres Iniesta is arguably the best player never to have won the Ballon D'or.
Yeah arguably. However it was when Messi and Cristiano were around. I would say it’s understandable why he never.
Henry and Beckham missing out were mockeries of the award though. How Rivaldo won it over Beckham in 1999 was ridiculous.
Rivaldo won La Liga, Spanish Cup, was probably the most singularly influential player in the Champions League, and was player of the tournament in winning the Copa America. He was miles ahead in the voting for good reason.
Yeah agreed, he's up there while facing stiff competition from Xavi, Henry, Laudrup, Baresi, Rijkaard, Dzajic and Puskas (who would have won it earlier in his career had it existed).
Beckham won the PL and FA Cup which even out against the domestic Barca honours. Yes Rivaldo contributed to a lot more goals but he was playing as a CAM/Second Striker, not a right sided midfielder.
Most influential player in the CL? 6 games 3 goals 3 assists, Beckham 10 games 2 goals 8 assists. Not to mention his corners both led to goals in the final which are not counted as assists. So basically involved in 12 goals in 10 games in the CL.
Barcelona didn’t even get out of the group stage so I don’t know what you are even talking about regarding most influential in the CL.
Him, Xavi, Suarez, Laudrup and Neymar.
He only has a chance against Henry there, in my opinion - well, maybe Dzajic too.
But you're right - he's obviously up there.
Could be added to the list: Scirea and Boniek (who are both arguably - or, it actually isn't an argument - greater players than Rossi, who won it).
Just the first to jump into mind - there will be more.
Far from it.
But yes, he was superior to David Silva.
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
No it wasn`t, look beyond the score-line.
Spain dominated the game, created the best chances, while Germany sat low and created very little.
Yes, it only ended 1-0 for Spain, but thats the story of the 2010 World Cup.
There was a clear difference in quality between the two teams, though yes, Germany didnt have Muller.
Spain is very much up there with the most dominant national sides ever.
Iker was clutch, especially in the final, and its unlikely they would have won the final without him tbf.
Seeing as the Ballon d'Or was mentioned, a slightly different question.
These are all the Ballon d'Or winners since 1990 who aren't Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo:
Matthaus, Papin, Van Basten, Baggio, Stoichov, Weah, Sammer, O.G. Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Zidane, Figo, Owen, Nedved, Shevchenko, Ronaldinho, Cannavaro, Kaka, Modric.
Of those players, who would you say were definitely better than Iniesta, who were definitely worse and who (if their peak years have overlapped) would he have been neck and neck with in your opinion?
These are all the Ballon d'Or winners since 1990 who aren't Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo:
Matthaus, Papin, Van Basten, Baggio, Stoichov, Weah, Sammer, O.G. Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Zidane, Figo, Owen, Nedved, Shevchenko, Ronaldinho, Cannavaro, Kaka, Modric.
Of those players, who would you say were definitely better than Iniesta, who were definitely worse and who (if their peak years have overlapped) would he have been neck and neck with in your opinion?
Whaaaat
Matthaus, Van Basten, Ronaldo, Zidane, Ronaldinho were definitely better.
A few others were roughly on the same level. Others had peaks which definitely surpassed that of Iniesta, like Kaka.
David Silva's mother Eva is of Japanese descent somewhere down the line. Pokemon was created in Japan. That is what the poster means.
Silva was a fantastic player but Iniesta is one of the all time greats. Half of the best midfield duo we’ve ever seen. Wasn’t fast, wasn’t strong, yet he was virtually impossible to dispossess. Never gave the ball away, could dribble in tight spaces and beat people.
On top of that he’s one of the best I’ve seen when it comes to the big games. Raised his game for Spain at the World Cup and Euros, scored the big goal against Chelsea in the last minute and always showed up for the Classico’s.
On top of that he’s one of the best I’ve seen when it comes to the big games. Raised his game for Spain at the World Cup and Euros, scored the big goal against Chelsea in the last minute and always showed up for the Classico’s.
There are definitely some more. But if we limit it to Spanish players it is close between him, Xavi and Villa.
The simple fact that some, a lot at the time, would say - Beckham wasn't Man Utd's clear cut best didn't help. In teams that are generally stacked and blend together to make a fundamental great team.... the focal point of the attack gets the plaudits, even in 99's case, that was heavily split between Yorke and Cole as a pair - though clearly Yorkie was the better player that year of them two. But either way, Beckham was sharing votes everywhere.... and wasn't exactly Messi level to shut off the rest
Silva was amazing but still not as good as Iniesta, and there is absolutely no shame in that. Iniesta is one of the best ever in his position...
Worse - Papin, Baggio, Stoichov, Weah, Sammer, Owen, Nedved, Cannavaro, Kaka, Shevchenko, Modric.
On a Par - Matthaus, Rivaldo, Zidane, Figo, Ronaldinho, Van Basten,
Better - O.G. Ronaldo,
As you can probably tell I rate Iniesta very, very highly and Xavi slightly higher.
Bolded = better
Italics = neck and neck
Plain text = worse
What works against Iniesta for me is that he was never really the best player on his teams. Even in his best performances he was always part of a greater whole, and never his team's main man. Most of those other guys on the other hand had to carry their teams to success
Silva was incredible for Spain tbf. #6 all time in appearances and #4 all time in goals. That said, Iniesta is the best midfielder of all time so it's a ridiculous claim.
Considering he was teammates with Lionel Messi for over a decade, I think this is a ridiculously harsh criteria
I find it tough to judge someone like Iniesta vs someone like Ronaldinho given the very contrasting ways their careers played out.
Obviously Ronaldinho at his peak was amazing and better than Iniesta at his peak. But Ronaldinho's peak was really quite shortlived, only being at Barca for five seasons, the last of which was plagued by injury. At what point is that peak extended enough for that to be level we judge him as a footballer on entirely, without his weaker seasons informing our opinion too?
Whereas from the point Iniesta became a regular first team player he delivered 14 full seasons for Barcelona. So nearly three times as long as Ronaldinho. That's a hell of a difference.
Obviously it would be silly to argue that Iniesta was a better footballer just because he happened to have a better career. But at the same time, it's not like he had that better career through good luck or external circumstance. He had that career because he possessed qualities (physical and/or mental) that Ronaldinho simply didn't, which allowed him to keep performing and competing over and over again more often than Ronaldinho could. At which point I wonder why we exclude such crucial qualities when assessing who the better footballer was? After all, it directly impacts how well a player would perform on any given day of their career.
Whatever about Ronaldinho (who really was special at his best), it's why I'd quite comfortably say Iniesta was a better footballer than someone like Kaka. Whatever about how good Kaka might have been in a given game or season, if my life depended on it there's no way I'd back him ahead of Iniesta even in a one off game.
Spain had gold, silver and bronze medalists in the 2008-2012 crop that would make the starting XI of just about any other national team. Even their honorable mentions and also rans were solid to good players.
CAM: Iniesta>Silva>Cazorla
CM: Xavi>Fabregas>Thiago
CDM: Xabi Alonso>Senna>Busquets
Honorable mentions:
CAM: Mata
CM: Gabi
CDM: Javi Martinez
Also rans and declining: Albelda, Granero, Borja Valero, Valeron, Baraja, Raul Garcia, Guti,
In Fifa terms their ratings would be
Gold: 90+
Silver: 88
Bronze: 86
Honorable mentions: 84
Also rans: 82-
CAM: Iniesta>Silva>Cazorla
CM: Xavi>Fabregas>Thiago
CDM: Xabi Alonso>Senna>Busquets
Honorable mentions:
CAM: Mata
CM: Gabi
CDM: Javi Martinez
Also rans and declining: Albelda, Granero, Borja Valero, Valeron, Baraja, Raul Garcia, Guti,
In Fifa terms their ratings would be
Gold: 90+
Silver: 88
Bronze: 86
Honorable mentions: 84
Also rans: 82-
Interesting question.
I dunno, but definitely better would be Matthäus, Van Basten and Fat Ron. Others on that list are also better, in my opinion, but not a case of being definitely better (if by that term we understand a difference in so-called tiers).
Definitely worse would be Owen, Papin and Weah. Again, at least a couple more are worse in my opinion, but it's much closer and not a definite, obvious difference.
ETA
As for the tighter ones, it's hard to say (and one has to factor in multiple things) - but I'd put like so: I would never rank these players below Iniesta: Baggio, Stoichkov, Dinho. And I would probably not rank these players above him: Figo, Sheva, Kaka, Modric, Cannavaro, Rivaldo.
Impossible to call: Zidane, Nedved, Sammer.
Summed up: Iniesta would place somewhere between 7th and 10th on that total list - for me.
Last edited:
I thought that's because Sammer was a CB/Libero, but then he I saw him compared Iniesta vs Cannavaro.
I don't disagree, but on the other hand playing with Messi(and Xavi, and Neymar and Suarez) made it a lot easier for him as well, and lead to winning a lot of trophies. He had a big impact on those too, of course, he's an all time greatConsidering he was teammates with Lionel Messi for over a decade, I think this is a ridiculously harsh criteria
If Silva can inspire Sociedad to La Liga glory then he'll have a legitimate claim to rival Iniesta for sure. Easy to achieve greatness in a great team like Barca, but to do so with a good side is some going.
I think Messi mentioned when things would get tough he exclusively looked for Iniesta to combine with almost suggesting he had seen him as cut above the rest as well. Tells you everything.
Which team did Kaka carry? Milan had the best midfield in the world at the time. The whole "carry" and "lead man" stuff is so clichéd.
CL '07
But yeah, not sure about Kaka being definitively better. Just, well, if i had to pick one of them to be the best player on my team, i'd go with the guy who has history of being good in that role, versus the guy who never had to be in that role. Still, i guess i'm a bit sentimental about Kaka and Sheva....
I
I'd pick Iniesta. Incredible footballer.
The fact that Silva was displaced wasn't reflective of him being a weak link, so much as it was him being obsolete. They didn't need Silva as they already had more than enough finesse in the side, they needed Pedro's directness.
I think Iniesta was certainly better, but there wasn't miles between them. For me Silva is an incredible player and its been hard to watch him play for City over the years. I actually think if it wasn't for Xavi and Iniesta, Silva would get much more widespread acclaim.
I'd say Silva gets some serious under appreciation really - maybe it's because he was at City.... and not winning as much due to their being a substantial less amount of talent around him.... he only had a wingman in KdB for his final few years there, Xavi and Iniesta had a lifetime together with Messi in front of them, Aguero is obviously great, but he's not Messi, and well KdB isn't quite Xavi either.
Why would you break up the band for the national side too? Using that against him is like saying Scholes is the weakest because Sven shifted him to the wing instead of Gerrard or Lampard or being a bit more forward thinking and going with a 3 man midfield..... in the Spanish world, common sense management came through, Silva also peaked later, I'd say he's a better player in his 30's than Iniesta was.... 20's not so much.
Why would you break up the band for the national side too? Using that against him is like saying Scholes is the weakest because Sven shifted him to the wing instead of Gerrard or Lampard or being a bit more forward thinking and going with a 3 man midfield..... in the Spanish world, common sense management came through, Silva also peaked later, I'd say he's a better player in his 30's than Iniesta was.... 20's not so much.