Xavi:
1 World Cup
2 Euro Cups
4 Champions League
Zidane:
1 World Cup
1 Euro Cup
1 Champions League
This argument is just as simplistic as yours.
Iniesta vs Zidane
- Thread starter TheNewEra
- Start date
1 World Cup
2 Euro Cups
4 Champions League
Zidane:
1 World Cup
1 Euro Cup
1 Champions League
This argument is just as simplistic as yours.
Well we were discussing individual performance in a tournament now we are talking about team trophies. Will we put ballon d’or and world player of the year trophies in there too?
Yes, 30 indeed. Ozil was the next highest with 20. Forlan third with 17.That's 30
In Zidane's "legendary" 2006 World Cup, he created 12 chances. Pirlo created 24, but didn't even get half the hype Zidane got.
Wow... I never saw those stats. Now thanks to you I know Xavi was way better than Zidane, who judging by those stats was kinda crap I figure.
You must be really good at Football Manager!
That's the problem with kids these days, they think football is like baseball and that you could break it down into batting average and strikeout percentages.
Might as well add the CL won as a manager, cuz you know, stats...
30 chances over 7 games is 4.28 chances per game, not as extreme as it sounds.
This is usually the response I get from Zidane defenders when I bring up those statistics.
Zidane played further up the pitch than Xavi did, yet created significantly less chances. Zidane was never even the biggest chance creator on his own team in a World Cup. He created 18 chances in 1998. Djorkaeff created 22. He created 12 chances in 2006. Ribery created 14, while Henry also created 12.
Zidane was a hype machine. I rate Pirlo just as highly.
Agree with this.
First time i watched him was 98 against us funnily enough and he put in a fairly good performance but come 03/04 he was already one of the best in the world in his position.
Just no. Stop.
I watched those games, there's no way Xavi alone created 4.2 chances per game. That must be a very weird definition of what a 'chance' means.
Besides, comparing those statistics is useless without understanding how their roles, teammates, circumstances of the game, etc. afected them. They can easily be manipulated.
I agree that Zidane's 1998 and 2006 World Cups aren't as good as many fans seem to remember them though
Last edited:
If you want, we can go into a game-by-game analysis of Zidane's two World Cups which have inflated his legacy. He wasn't anywhere near as great in these tournament as people claim he was.
Pirlo was vastly superior to Zidane in the 2006 World Cup.
He won the Golden Ball for his 2006 World Cup after two good performances in the entire tournament.
He was a hype machine.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Would you concede that these people know more than you?
Zlatan Ibrahimovic
“When Zidane stepped onto the pitch, the 10 other guys just got suddenly better. It is that simple. It was magic. He was a unique player. He was more than good, he came from another planet. His team-mates became like him when he was on the pitch.”
Franco Baresi
“He was as elegant as a dancer - he even used the soles of his boots efficiently. Everything was easy for him; he made such movements that if I tried to copy them I would break my legs.”
Gary Lineker
"The most elegant footballer I have ever seen.”
Marcel Desailly
“A true artist. What he could do with the ball was incredible. Only Maradona could do the same. Zizou was also a player capable of rising to the occasion at important moments, and deciding games."
Paul Scholes
"To see Zidane in action was to witness poetry in motion. The skills, the vision, the goals . . . he was a sublime performer. When he was at his peak, winning the World Cup, the Champions League and all the rest, he was unquestionably the finest player on the planet.”
Ronaldinho
“Zidane is one of the best footballers of all time, one of my idols. He had such elegance and grace, a wonderful touch and superb vision.”
Edwin van der Sar
“A very normal guy. I remember guys coming in with their Ferraris, Porsches and Lamborghinis, and Zizou comes in with a Fiat Punto. The aura he had, the way he moved on the pitch was special.”
Alfredo di Stefano
“He dominates the ball, he is a walking spectacle and he plays as if he had silk gloves on each foot. He makes it worthwhile going to the stadium - he’s one of the best I have ever seen.”
David Beckham
“To train with Zidane for three years was a dream. For me, he is the greatest player of all time.”
Pele
"Zidane is the master. Over the part 10 years there's been no-one like him, he has been the best player in the world."
Franz Beckenbauer
"Zidane is unique. The ball flows with him. He is more like a dancer than a football player."
Marcello Lippi
"The greatest player of the past 20 years? It has to be Zidane. He had everything. You never needed to tell him anything as he did it all by himself and knew what was expected."
Cesare Maldini
"I would give up five players to have Zidane in my squad."
I never said that Zidane was a bad player, he was a great player.
But he wasn't as great as people make him out to be.
I rate Xavi and Iniesta above, rightfully so.
Ok, let's go, I'm curious now.
Some of the greatest players in the history of the game have made him out to be great. You're wrong, they are right. He'll rightfully be in the top 50 footballers of all time for as long as any of us are alive.
Pirlo was never, ever the best player in Serie A (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migliore_calciatore_italiano_AIC), nor was he the best in WC 2006. You may have case for Cannavaro or Totti, but Pirlo no.
Anyways, I have heard it all - Pirlo is just as good as Zidane, this is officially silly.
Anyways, I have heard it all - Pirlo is just as good as Zidane, this is officially silly.
Zidane's 2006 World Cup:
France vs Switzerland
No real impact on the game, gets a yellow card.
France vs South Korea
No impact on the game, gets another yellow card and is suspended for France's final group stage game, which is a must win.
France vs Togo
France win this game without Zidane
France vs Spain
A good game, he scored a nice goal at the end. Vieira was MOTM though.
France vs Brazil
A great performance, not nearly as great as some people make it out to be, but a great game nevertheless.
France vs Portugal
He converted a penalty won by Henry, but otherwise had very little impact on the game. Portugal dominated possession, France defended well.
France vs Italy
He converted a penalty won by Malouda, but again he didn't have much influence on the game otherwise. Pirlo and Gattuso largely marked him out of the midfield. Then got sent off.
Overall, Zidane had one MOTM performance (Brazil), one good performance (Spain), and the rest was meh. Pirlo had three MOTM performances (Ghana, Germany, France). Pirlo is the only player in recent memory who has been MOTM in both the semifinal and the final. Overall his tournament was much better than Zidane, he created more chances and got more assists. Despite this, Zidane got the golden boot.
No doubt.
But I don't rate him higher than Xavi and Iniesta (both of whom are also in the top 50 IMO).
you don't have to, but your comments about zidane are completely baffling.
Huh? I don't think you got what I meant. I assumed that when the poster said Xavi was never mentioned under the same breadth as Scholes and Zidane, they were talking about the period of 1998-2004 when Zidane was the best in the world and Scholes was part of a dominant United. This would make sense because Xavi was still making a name for himself, suffered a bad injury and is the much younger player with a shorter career at that point. The poster could not possibly be talking about prime Xavi as that would not make sense as he was frequently hailed as the 3rd best player in the world. Just like we are comparing prime Zidane to prime Iniesta. I refuse to accept that somebody would say something as stupid as prime Xavi was never spoken about in the same breadth as SCHOLES and Zidane because that would simply be a joke and I would assume they are stalking football forums without having followed football.
One thing about Scholes is he proved he can go toe to toe with the greats but then again so did Gerrard and so did Lampard.
For me Scholes,Gerrard and Lampard whilst on their day not "that" far away from Xavi,Iniesta and to a lesser extent Zidane should realistically be in a tier below Xavi,Iniesta and Zidane if we are talking about all time greats and sheer dominance.
Regarding whos better out of Xavi,Iniesta and Zidane,for me its a hard one.
On sheer dominance you would have to give it to Xavi.
Never have i seen a midfielder be as dominant as him.
If we are talking about consistency its probably Xavi or Iniesta.
If we are talking about career defining moments then its gotta be Zidane.
For me i prefer the dominant one so im going to have to pick Xavi.
For me Scholes,Gerrard and Lampard whilst on their day not "that" far away from Xavi,Iniesta and to a lesser extent Zidane should realistically be in a tier below Xavi,Iniesta and Zidane if we are talking about all time greats and sheer dominance.
Regarding whos better out of Xavi,Iniesta and Zidane,for me its a hard one.
On sheer dominance you would have to give it to Xavi.
Never have i seen a midfielder be as dominant as him.
If we are talking about consistency its probably Xavi or Iniesta.
If we are talking about career defining moments then its gotta be Zidane.
For me i prefer the dominant one so im going to have to pick Xavi.
I would have thought that 1998 would be a much better example of Zidane's WC performances being overrated than 2006?
Though I will say the fact that Zidane stupidly got himself sent off in the 2006 final should probably be mentioned in these comparisons. If we're going into the detail of comparing players' performances in the biggest games then imploding like that in arguably the biggest game of his career is a definite negative.
Though I will say the fact that Zidane stupidly got himself sent off in the 2006 final should probably be mentioned in these comparisons. If we're going into the detail of comparing players' performances in the biggest games then imploding like that in arguably the biggest game of his career is a definite negative.
Well this is not true is it? All those players listed above, Only Messi was rated above Xavi (in his pomp) in all the "best player in the world awards" so those wiki links are pretty important as it debunks your next point. If they were the stars and Xavi wasn't, why was he chosen as the 3rd best player in the world every season?
The consensus was if you take ANY top tier-ish attackers and put Xavi and Iniesta behind them, you will dominate. It does not need to be Messi, Eto'o, Henry, it can be Pedro, Villa, etc.
The same could not be said about the others who, including Messi, simply were not as dominant at international level during that period.
touche
Pirlo was better in that tourney
The most reasonable post so far in this thread. The funny thing is Iniesta is my favourite midfielder, Xavi is probabaly the most dominant and consistent as you say, but Zidane I feel is better than Iniesta as he has that goal in him, sometimes wonderous ones.
Again the "chances created" argument. Football is way too subjective for the overall quality of a player be reliably measured on stats, let alone on ONE.
Zidane had so much more on him than stats can show. Xavi, on the other hand, is a statician's wet dream. Judging both by that measure alone reminds me of the tree climbing competition between a monkey and a shark.
I don't think Xavi had a particularly good WC2010 and Spain was surprisingly toothless during the entire final stages, winning all matches 1-0. They had very few chances to score in every one of those matches hence all those "chances" created weren't all solid good chances in the real world. In WC2014, an aging Xavi had underwhelming performances, and the whole signature style of tiki taka to which he was so integral was badly exposed.
Zidane, on the other hand, completely bossed a World Cup at age 36, so your case of Xavi vs Zidane using WCs as parameters is weak to say the least.
I rate Pirlo highly but he can't be compared to Zidane at all. And him and Xavi are so very different players to Zidane that I have a hard time understanding the need to compare them. I find much more sense in comparing him to Iniesta, who is another genius. There is not much between the two, but Zidane will always be remembered by unbiased people who watch him play as one of the greatest players of all time.
Your Zidane revisionism doesn't seem to be making a lot of success here. Go complain to OPTA that the ignorant people on the internet are not reading their stats as gospel.
They weren't toothless. They had the ability to score enough to progress, and they kept the other team out. I know it's hip to call tiki-taka boring, but they were just as effective as the Italian teams of old, and I don't recall anyone calling those teams toothless.
If I had a choice I would choose Zidane skillsets over iniesta, although iniesta is my favourite
It’s an interesting debate for sure, Zidane was capable of doing things no other midfield player at the time could excecute so smoothly, and will go down in history as the more “special” player out of the two.
He had a great physical build too and was strong as well as technically flawless, whilst Iniesta will always be remembered playing a huge part in the the most dominant club team in history, although he was a flawless technical player and a scorer of big goals as well.
He had a great physical build too and was strong as well as technically flawless, whilst Iniesta will always be remembered playing a huge part in the the most dominant club team in history, although he was a flawless technical player and a scorer of big goals as well.
Give me a break. You make it sound like they had everything under control all the time and won with minimum effort while completely negating the enemy attacks. It's not as if they nearly lost to Paraguay in the QFs but were saved by a penalty miss. Also won the final because Robben lost a goal he'd score 9 out of 10, but your selective memory ignored those facts.
Spain's WC10 were boring as hell and borderline ineffective when compared to Aragones' team that had won the Euro a couple of years before, that team was much more vertical and sharp, and they won the tournament in a much more convincing fashion.
Won the Portugal match with an offside goal on top of it too.
Spain 2010 was an ugly but effective team. As I neutral, I much preferred Germany's football in the tournament.
Barcelona fans are extremely protective of there players. The poll says it all really. Zidane with almost twice as many votes on a neutral forum.
Zidane had the higher ceiling and was a better footballer overall. But Iniesta was far more consistent in many kind of ways. He had a much more "consistent" impact on the games he played, always being involved and running the show while Zidane drifted in and out of games but completely outshone everyone else when he decided to turn up. Iniesta never really had a bad season after his break through and you can't say the same about Zidane. Then again I'd have loved finding out what prime-Zidane would have been capable of in a Guardiola system. I believe it would've enabled him to shine much more consistently. On the other hand Iniesta has the disadvantage of being completely outshone by one of the absolute best players in history. I'm pretty sure Zidane would be considered a lesser player if he had played with someone like Messi during almost his complete career.
After all, I'd say that Zidane was the better player but Iniesta was a lot closer to him than he is given credit for. He really wasn't that far away. After all a very similar player. A little bit more agile while Zidane was more elegant. But his superior shot and goal threat just edges it for me.
After all, I'd say that Zidane was the better player but Iniesta was a lot closer to him than he is given credit for. He really wasn't that far away. After all a very similar player. A little bit more agile while Zidane was more elegant. But his superior shot and goal threat just edges it for me.
Zidane did not boss the 2006 World Cup (he was 34 btw, not 36). He had two good games against Spain and Brazil, that’s it. He was toothless against Portugal and Italy.
Regarding Xavi’s performance in 2010:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUi_lx5P74
Germany was the only team who had the balls to play open football against Spain (not defend and counterattack). This was the result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_MEYtjAk7I
Still put two huge penalties away, you can't expect incredible performances every single game. Xavi and Iniesta did none of that either.
Put away is an understatement. He chipped a pen in the world cup final. Takes maassive cojones to even think about that. Let alone pull it off.
That was his closing moment of genius, before his closing moment of madness. Buffon knew him so well, he had to do something out of the ordinary as usually Zidane always fired it in the same direction throughout his career, he shot penalties so well that even though you knew he would fire it to the right of the goalkeeper, they couldn't stop it.
I only wish that header late on went in, would have been a beautiful deserving end. Alas buffon was a monster in goal in his own right.
I hadn't even seen he supports Barcelona. That explains the bias.
My bad in writing the wrong age. I wrote it from memory and I was wrong about that.
Still, my points stand. I don't recall Xavi having the magical performances he had with Barcelona in the WC, nor Iniesta for all that matters. I never said they didn't play well, but they weren't particularly good for their very high standards.
Zidane wasn't magical every game either, but he had all time memorable performances in both WCs that France reached the final with him. He was their best player in both tournaments, "chances created" or not. That sounds unfair in 98 with the team thriving through the knockout stages without him, but I'm sure they wouldn't have walked over Brazil if he wasn't there.