Maradona's was a free kick, wasn't it? A very misleading pic, if so.
Uncanny.
Iniesta vs Zidane
- Thread starter TheNewEra
- Start date
Uncanny.
Looks like Cheilini has the ball there.
Iniesta is every bit as good as Zidane was, IMO. He's just never been the main man like Zidane so doesn't quite get the same recognition. Ability wise he certainly isn't inferior to ZZ.
Iniesta. A poll would be good.
You mean the period around when Luis Ronaldo also enjoyed some great years?
He's the one who belongs to the era between Maradona and Messi more than anyone. He defined that generation.
This is a fecked up question, how the hell can you choose?
In the end I'd say Zidane. But it's very very close. Iniesta has better pace/acceleration, but there's no way he is a better dribbler like someone said earlier. If I had to describe what Zidane has over Iniesta it would probably be something slightly vague like 'dominance', like Cantona at United there was just something about his presence and when he was on, everything revolved around Zidane and he'd make it happen. On the other hand, Iniesta is great at letting other players shine. Of course that's easy when Messi is in your team, but still it's amazing that he can make other players play better and sacrifice himself for the team. A lot of players need to be the absolute main man in a team in order to play well. But in the end I'd still choose Zidane over Iniesta, by the smallest margin possible.
What's also fecks up my mind is asking myself how Neymar right now would fit in compared to Iniesta and Zidane. The kid is 23, has already scored more goals in his career than Zidane and Iniesta combined if I'm not mistaken. He's a phenomenal dribbler too, and faster than both. Maybe not such an intelligent passer though. He's not been the decisive player in a World Cup winning side either, but neither has Messi. But thinking about this really confuses me and it's not really relevant to this topic.
In the end I'd say Zidane. But it's very very close. Iniesta has better pace/acceleration, but there's no way he is a better dribbler like someone said earlier. If I had to describe what Zidane has over Iniesta it would probably be something slightly vague like 'dominance', like Cantona at United there was just something about his presence and when he was on, everything revolved around Zidane and he'd make it happen. On the other hand, Iniesta is great at letting other players shine. Of course that's easy when Messi is in your team, but still it's amazing that he can make other players play better and sacrifice himself for the team. A lot of players need to be the absolute main man in a team in order to play well. But in the end I'd still choose Zidane over Iniesta, by the smallest margin possible.
What's also fecks up my mind is asking myself how Neymar right now would fit in compared to Iniesta and Zidane. The kid is 23, has already scored more goals in his career than Zidane and Iniesta combined if I'm not mistaken. He's a phenomenal dribbler too, and faster than both. Maybe not such an intelligent passer though. He's not been the decisive player in a World Cup winning side either, but neither has Messi. But thinking about this really confuses me and it's not really relevant to this topic.
Zidane, no contest
Interesting point to raise. Thing is, the galacticos were never as organised and hard-working as Barcelona are. I wonder if those who followed Zidane's entire career feel he generally didn't work as hard as Iniesta or whether it was a Madrid thing.
If I had to choose between them and it was a Champions League final, Zidane. If I was playing Genk, Iniesta. If I was playing a Champions League final against Genk, Iniesta.
The two most elegant players I've witnessed.
Iniesta is much better career wise.. I think Zidane is a bit overrated imo. He appeared in the right moments, in the right games. But in the "marathon" Iniesta is way ahead
Like Zidane never went invisible in a champions league final. Please go read about 1997 cl final.
I like Iniesta alot, but I'll go for Zidane. He is simply the best midfielder I've ever seen.
this thread is perfect for some @adexkola
Iniesta was the more consistent player, but Zidane was the better player. Would have to go with Zidane, very likely the third best player of the last 20 years (after Messi and C.Ronaldo). Iniesta on the other hand would barely make my top 10 (after the other Ronaldo, Xavi, Ronaldinho and Pirlo, maybe even Henry).
Last edited:
Zidane.. it is a close call and the fact it is a close call says volumes about the player Iniesta is. For any footballer to even merit comparison with Zidane.. they need to be something incredibly special.
Things like Iniesta was more consistent in the league and what not matter feck all when you're comparing all time greats. Plenty of legends i.e. Maradona, they did well in league football but they weren't spectacular.. i.e. he flopped during his time at Barcelona. So yes consistency in the league can be a factor but to be totally honest we are comparing them based on their big match temperament, trophies, aura, skill level, footballing intelligence, versatility and importance to their side or sides, both for club and country. Consistency comes into play i.e. were they one off big match wonders or did they consistently stand out across a variety of competitions against a variety of teams.. and did they do so against fellow greats and still stand out.
That is a true measure of who is better.. not who consistently played well against Getafe and Espanyol.
Any back to the debate as to who is better..
Both possess top notch big match temperament.. I'd say equal here, maybe even edging towards Iniesta as it is so rare to see him have a bad game especially in the truly elite encounters. Feck it.. going to hand it to Iniesta based on 'consistency'.. I have seen Zidane have bad games on the big stage, but very rarely have I seen the same from Iniesta.
Trophies - easy win for Iniesta.
Aura - Zidane. The man is a walking icon.. a cultural reference point for the game. Zidane & Ronaldo were the 90-early 00's period in a nutshell. He oozed arrogance on the pitch and you just knew he was the primary playmaker in his side and the undisputed boss.
Skill level - easy win for Zidane. In every facet of the game he is superior to Iniesta.. aside from maybe through balls. He is better in the air, two footed, all manner of tricks to beat opponents (better than the greatest wingers ever in this regard), unrivalled set piece ability, better shooting ability off either foot, ambidextrous, better first touch.
Footballing intelligence - Both super intelligent with fantastic reading of the game. That said I think footballing intelligence is something which also incorporates how effective you can be when facing different scenarios on the pitch and for me Zidane was more of a 'solutions' man than Iniesta. Zidane could read a very tight situation and produce brilliant skill despite being a more marked man than Iniesta whereas the latter is a tad more conservative and likely to seek the more safer solution. Marginal.
Versatility - Iniesta has pretty much played in one style of football from the beginning till the end of his career. Zidane has played in a variety of styles and excelled. Could someone like Iniesta come to modern day United and still be the same player.. could he be the icon of the side and dominate the game beautifully despite being in such an alien environment? it is doubtful, I think certain conditions have to be met for him to be able to play his game. Whereas Zidane has featured in some mediocre sides i.e. France 2006 and still been Zidane. He has an individual skillset and a unique mentality (typical 10) where he thinks he is the playmaker who can win the game for any side. He is of that Maradona ilk where he could play for any shite side and still make his mark.
Importance to their sides - Without Iniesta, Spain would not have won the World Cup for me. I think Iniesta was that genius player that took a potentially sterile possession obsessed side into something more beautiful and uncontrollable. He gave the side imagination and mystery.. which that side was very much in need of.
Instrumental for the first Pep side, one of the big 5 alongside Puyol, Xavi, Messi and Eto'o.. he helped defined their style of play and was along with Xavi the physical embodiment of peak Tiki Taka.
Zidane, the key player for the Galactico side and whilst they weren't as dominant or consistent as the Barca side.. you only have to watch their game against us in 2002 to guage how magnificent that side was and just how instrumental Zidane was. They were up against an exceptional Man United side, one of the greatest english sides of all time and european legends in our own right and he made us look like kids..
The team that Iniesta bossed in 2009, wasn't of the same calibre as that United side. Defensively the later United side was better but in terms of attack/midfield talent...2009 was not a great United side.. Scholes was definitely feeling the pace, Giggs was one year older, Tevez was dropped.. Rooney was poor and it was literally Ronaldo - that was it. It isn't too hard to see why Barcelona dominated us so badly, we were a ridiculously static team and I don't think we had the talent in that side to really give them a good game. Contrast that with the 2002 encounter.. Ruud, Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Keane.. all pretty close to their pomp.
Internationally, Zidane is pretty much the French team.. yes they had some great players in their ranks but no way would they have won any trophies without Zidane. He was the 'bottle' in that team.. the guy who took them from contenders to winners. Guys like Viera and Henry proved how average they were in terms of big match brilliance when playing for their clubs in the Champions League. Zidane was the main man, unquestionable. Whereas many would argue that Iniesta and Xavi were both important to Spain.
In conclusion, whilst it is close.. I think Zidane edges it. I'd have Zidane ahead of C. Ronaldo because for me it isn't just about consistency but about who was a better footballer under extreme pressure in respect to the positions they played on the pitch. You can't expect someone like Zidane to bang in 60 goals a year, just like you can't expect Iniesta too. But that shouldn't diminish their worth.. could Ronaldo run a team like they do and produce beautiful football in the big games like they do? can he playmake? no.
What makes Messi stand out is that he can both playmake better than all of them and he can score more goals than all of them.
1) Messi 2) Zidane 3) Fat Ronaldo 4) C. Ronaldo 5) Iniesta
Things like Iniesta was more consistent in the league and what not matter feck all when you're comparing all time greats. Plenty of legends i.e. Maradona, they did well in league football but they weren't spectacular.. i.e. he flopped during his time at Barcelona. So yes consistency in the league can be a factor but to be totally honest we are comparing them based on their big match temperament, trophies, aura, skill level, footballing intelligence, versatility and importance to their side or sides, both for club and country. Consistency comes into play i.e. were they one off big match wonders or did they consistently stand out across a variety of competitions against a variety of teams.. and did they do so against fellow greats and still stand out.
That is a true measure of who is better.. not who consistently played well against Getafe and Espanyol.
Any back to the debate as to who is better..
Both possess top notch big match temperament.. I'd say equal here, maybe even edging towards Iniesta as it is so rare to see him have a bad game especially in the truly elite encounters. Feck it.. going to hand it to Iniesta based on 'consistency'.. I have seen Zidane have bad games on the big stage, but very rarely have I seen the same from Iniesta.
Trophies - easy win for Iniesta.
Aura - Zidane. The man is a walking icon.. a cultural reference point for the game. Zidane & Ronaldo were the 90-early 00's period in a nutshell. He oozed arrogance on the pitch and you just knew he was the primary playmaker in his side and the undisputed boss.
Skill level - easy win for Zidane. In every facet of the game he is superior to Iniesta.. aside from maybe through balls. He is better in the air, two footed, all manner of tricks to beat opponents (better than the greatest wingers ever in this regard), unrivalled set piece ability, better shooting ability off either foot, ambidextrous, better first touch.
Footballing intelligence - Both super intelligent with fantastic reading of the game. That said I think footballing intelligence is something which also incorporates how effective you can be when facing different scenarios on the pitch and for me Zidane was more of a 'solutions' man than Iniesta. Zidane could read a very tight situation and produce brilliant skill despite being a more marked man than Iniesta whereas the latter is a tad more conservative and likely to seek the more safer solution. Marginal.
Versatility - Iniesta has pretty much played in one style of football from the beginning till the end of his career. Zidane has played in a variety of styles and excelled. Could someone like Iniesta come to modern day United and still be the same player.. could he be the icon of the side and dominate the game beautifully despite being in such an alien environment? it is doubtful, I think certain conditions have to be met for him to be able to play his game. Whereas Zidane has featured in some mediocre sides i.e. France 2006 and still been Zidane. He has an individual skillset and a unique mentality (typical 10) where he thinks he is the playmaker who can win the game for any side. He is of that Maradona ilk where he could play for any shite side and still make his mark.
Importance to their sides - Without Iniesta, Spain would not have won the World Cup for me. I think Iniesta was that genius player that took a potentially sterile possession obsessed side into something more beautiful and uncontrollable. He gave the side imagination and mystery.. which that side was very much in need of.
Instrumental for the first Pep side, one of the big 5 alongside Puyol, Xavi, Messi and Eto'o.. he helped defined their style of play and was along with Xavi the physical embodiment of peak Tiki Taka.
Zidane, the key player for the Galactico side and whilst they weren't as dominant or consistent as the Barca side.. you only have to watch their game against us in 2002 to guage how magnificent that side was and just how instrumental Zidane was. They were up against an exceptional Man United side, one of the greatest english sides of all time and european legends in our own right and he made us look like kids..
The team that Iniesta bossed in 2009, wasn't of the same calibre as that United side. Defensively the later United side was better but in terms of attack/midfield talent...2009 was not a great United side.. Scholes was definitely feeling the pace, Giggs was one year older, Tevez was dropped.. Rooney was poor and it was literally Ronaldo - that was it. It isn't too hard to see why Barcelona dominated us so badly, we were a ridiculously static team and I don't think we had the talent in that side to really give them a good game. Contrast that with the 2002 encounter.. Ruud, Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Keane.. all pretty close to their pomp.
Internationally, Zidane is pretty much the French team.. yes they had some great players in their ranks but no way would they have won any trophies without Zidane. He was the 'bottle' in that team.. the guy who took them from contenders to winners. Guys like Viera and Henry proved how average they were in terms of big match brilliance when playing for their clubs in the Champions League. Zidane was the main man, unquestionable. Whereas many would argue that Iniesta and Xavi were both important to Spain.
In conclusion, whilst it is close.. I think Zidane edges it. I'd have Zidane ahead of C. Ronaldo because for me it isn't just about consistency but about who was a better footballer under extreme pressure in respect to the positions they played on the pitch. You can't expect someone like Zidane to bang in 60 goals a year, just like you can't expect Iniesta too. But that shouldn't diminish their worth.. could Ronaldo run a team like they do and produce beautiful football in the big games like they do? can he playmake? no.
What makes Messi stand out is that he can both playmake better than all of them and he can score more goals than all of them.
1) Messi 2) Zidane 3) Fat Ronaldo 4) C. Ronaldo 5) Iniesta
Last edited:
Zidane is a big big game player.
Inniesta plays his part in a star studded team.
Cant say
Inniesta plays his part in a star studded team.
Cant say
Definitely Zidane and the world will remember it that way as well. No matter how good he is Iniesta is still and always has been the supporting act. He's not the guy people buy tickets to come and see.
All this talk about consistency, Iniesta has had the luxury of playing in the same role all throughout his career for club and country. It hasn't really changed until Luis Enrique took over and since then he's been talked about as being inconsistent and not playing so well. Of course Iniesta is going to be more consistent when the environment he's in the players he's surrounded by stay so consistent.
All this talk about consistency, Iniesta has had the luxury of playing in the same role all throughout his career for club and country. It hasn't really changed until Luis Enrique took over and since then he's been talked about as being inconsistent and not playing so well. Of course Iniesta is going to be more consistent when the environment he's in the players he's surrounded by stay so consistent.
Ha!
I have been harsh on both players in the past. Both brilliant and sublime players with the ability to deliver in big games. Well, some. Real had a prolonged trophy drought after Glasgow. Iniesta has been found wanting sometimes. Enough has been said about their tendencies to let the less important games pass them by. We may have been spoiled by Messi and C Ronaldo in that regard.
In my opinion they are surpassed by Messi (obviously), and Xavi, who's metronomic consistency hides the fact that during his peak, he stamped his dominance on every midfield he came across, big game or not. As to who is better between the two, I would slightly lean towards Zidane. Iniesta probably has more final winning goals/moments, but Zidane during World Cup 2006 was just a force of nature from beginning to headbutt.
I would say Zidane as well, but to say Zidane because he is a big game player is wrong IMO. Iniesta is as clutch in a big game as any. Incredible either way, fine margins.
Personally, I've always thought Zidane was a bit over-rated.
Don't get me wrong. At his best he was amazing, and better than Iniesta. However in terms of delivering week-in week-out on a consistent level, I'd take Iniesta every time. Zidane's consistency over the course of the season was never at the same level as some other top players. But he was the ultimate big-game player (of course Iniesta has a claim of being the best big-game player of his generation as well).
Basically, if you were to build a team to play a one-off match of huge importance, Zidane would probably be the first person I'd pick. But if building a side to play a full season of games, season after season...he wouldn't even be in the reckoning for me.
Same reason I've never rated Kaka anywhere near as high as many others. Again he was great at his best, but didn't have the consistency of some others.
Don't get me wrong. At his best he was amazing, and better than Iniesta. However in terms of delivering week-in week-out on a consistent level, I'd take Iniesta every time. Zidane's consistency over the course of the season was never at the same level as some other top players. But he was the ultimate big-game player (of course Iniesta has a claim of being the best big-game player of his generation as well).
Basically, if you were to build a team to play a one-off match of huge importance, Zidane would probably be the first person I'd pick. But if building a side to play a full season of games, season after season...he wouldn't even be in the reckoning for me.
Same reason I've never rated Kaka anywhere near as high as many others. Again he was great at his best, but didn't have the consistency of some others.
Zidane.
Drop Zidane and Iniesta into average sides. Honestly, who do you think would make more of a difference?
The consistency argument loses weight with me the more I hear it.
Nani would have found consistency within that Barca philosophy, surrounded by the Barca core players and the general stability at the club.
Zidane meanwhile was shifted around in various set ups for countless managers then had deal with external factors such as accomodating Perezs latest galactico.
Nani would have found consistency within that Barca philosophy, surrounded by the Barca core players and the general stability at the club.
Zidane meanwhile was shifted around in various set ups for countless managers then had deal with external factors such as accomodating Perezs latest galactico.
Iniesta for me every time. My favourite player to watch!
Depends on all sorts of factors, as always. But it's obvious that Zidane wouldn't have excelled in Iniesta's standard, prime role for Barca, which entailed all that off-the-ball work which was essential for the machinery as such to work properly. I wouldn't call Zidane “lazy” as such, not compared to the true, old school brand of playmakers who rarely, if ever, got their hands dirty – but he was certainly more of that school than Iniesta ever was. The question is how the latter would've fared as the main man – a role he has never played in any Barca incarnation, nor even for Spain (where you'd have Xavi down as, ultimately, the most important cog).
Zidane did work at the highest level Iniesta never did – but then again, that sort of work was never his to do, which makes it very hard to compare the two directly in terms of what impact they actually had – and what impact Iniesta could have had in a different role is a matter of conjecture. He's a part of that Barca team in his prime incarnation – and in that particular role he was superb (still is, for that matter, albeit in a slightly different role), no questions asked. The worst version of Iniesta I've ever seen was in that role too, though – when Pep's Barca (and later Tito's) began to struggle a bit, and Iniesta stood out (for me, at least) as the very symbol of that struggle: A player who couldn't or wouldn't (which was it?) transcend his fixed role and who looked perfectly impotent when the machinery wasn't running smoothly. He looked nothing like a Maradona then, whereas Zidane had – to the very end – the ability to step up and take matters into his own hands.
Zidane, for me, was almost perfect on the ball - he could make the ball...sing, whereas Iniesta was/is "just" brilliant, a level below the absolute best with regard to...manipulating that ball any way you want.
Generally, I agree with both @Gio and @Aldo: Zidane would've in all likelihood been honed as more of a finisher in the modern game (and his pace may have been more of a problem in such a role) - and Fat Ron was, ultimately, the better player in the post Maradona/pre Messi era.
Iniesta I think.
Taking into account that Football has become faster and more intense I`d say it was a bit easier for elegant Players in the times of Zidane or Figo etc. to shine.
Sums it up.
Always found Zidane overrated personally. That said, I've never dropped my jaw more than when he scored THAT goal against Leverkusen.
Feck is Pirlo better than Iniesta.
The two Italians who deserve a shout are Buffon & Nesta for possibly being as good as anyone has ever been in their position.
Big 2
Xavi & Ronaldo
Decent sized gap, with the chasing pack containing Ronaldinho, Zidane, Iniesta and Nesta & Buffon.
Completely different players I don't think the comparison is really fair.
Zidane could hit a higher level than Iniesta but consistently Iniesta performed better throughout his career.
If I had to pick a player it would probably be Iniesta though because you know exactly what to expect from him.
Zidane was a bit inconsistent and couldn't guarantee he would have a good game.
Zidane could hit a higher level than Iniesta but consistently Iniesta performed better throughout his career.
If I had to pick a player it would probably be Iniesta though because you know exactly what to expect from him.
Zidane was a bit inconsistent and couldn't guarantee he would have a good game.
People who say that Zidane was a big game player are right but it doesn't really matter in a comparison with Iniesta who was just as good as Zidane in big matches as well.
I wished Iniesta had joined another team that was built around him, he is the one player i think could have broken the ballon d'or Monopoly, Ronaldo and Messi have had over the last few years.
That said, Zidane for me, he could control a game, few players could ever match
That said, Zidane for me, he could control a game, few players could ever match
Maybe if Zidane played in the 1970s. But even as a 34-year-old he dominated many younger, quicker and more athletic players in the knockout stages of a World Cup - and that was only a year or two before Iniesta entered his peak.
Iniesta has a case for being the harder-working player - because he's been deployed in Guardiola's high pressing system - but it's a pretty marginal one (neither are going to win any work rate awards) and fairly inconsequential to the bigger picture of their overall influence on the park. Latterly at Real Zidane was guilty of floating through many games, but at Juventus Lippi praised Zidane's work rate and was not the type of manager to tolerate a lazy fecker (his Juve and Italy teams were founded on graft).
To those saying they'll pick Zidane in a final its worth noting Zizou played in 3 CL finals and won one while Iniesta played in 4 and won all 4 while being one of the best players (if not the best) in those finals.
Saying that I really want to give it to Iniesta because he's so consistent and almost flawless but Zidane has a presence on the field that holds so much weight. You were just in awe of him on the football pitch.
Saying that I really want to give it to Iniesta because he's so consistent and almost flawless but Zidane has a presence on the field that holds so much weight. You were just in awe of him on the football pitch.
Need a poll in threads like this.
The general pace of the game has been increasing since the Scots "invented" passing well before Queen Vic kicked the bucket, so that doesn't disqualify anyone. Supremely technical and tactical players have always excelled, in any system, at any pace, regardless of their individual pace - so that isn't even a factor. It's a matter of adjusting to the pace - nothing more.
An old Zidane looked like a Rolls Royce in the midst of a pack of pacey hounds - no problem there. It's the Valderrama syndrome, if you will - a great player imposes himself on the match even if he's slow as feck in a sprint, even uses the general pace of the match to his advantage.
An old Zidane looked like a Rolls Royce in the midst of a pack of pacey hounds - no problem there. It's the Valderrama syndrome, if you will - a great player imposes himself on the match even if he's slow as feck in a sprint, even uses the general pace of the match to his advantage.
It's also ironic considering how Iniesta ran rings around your midfield like no one else in both finals against you and won man of the match when they won the final in 2015 on top. Also That's man-of-the-match awards in the 2010 World Cup final and 2012 European Championships final.
Delivered important goals in loads of semi finals too.
He and Messi are far and away the most reliable performers in finals and big games in the last 20 years.
Zidane had more aura - I think in euro2000 he hit a peak higher than Iniesta's.
Overall, Iniesta is definitely the better player though. Zidane would have less aura too playing alongside messi all the time.
Pirlo is probably the greatest italian midfielder of all time. He was immense throughout most of his career. Slowed down a bit but he still had it.
Not many midfielders have been better than him in his career.