I can't understand anyone saying Schweinsteiger is clearly better than Scholes having seen them both playing for United. I am not that into football history like few people here, but there is nothing apart from Schweinsteiger's international success(which Scholes could do nothing about anyway) that puts him above Scholes, IMO. Club wise, Scholes is easily better player than him.
Iniesta vs Zidane
- Thread starter TheNewEra
- Start date
I don't think its a case of they don't make that type of player anymore. . Just it is so hard for a player to combine all those qualities. I can see more players coming through like this once the game goes through its next phase of evolution.
Verratti is probably the only player in the modern game who could possibly be likened to them in style and he is nowhere near as complete as those two were.
With regards to Schweini v Scholes, its tough to compare them based on his form for us atm.. Scholes aged far better but they're a different type of midfielder to each other. BFS is known for his warrior qualities, brilliant physicality and leadership in addition to his versatility. His waning physical powers render him half the player whereas Scholes has never relied on his athleticism. What I will say is that his footwork is still world class for a midfielder it's just every other aspect of his game isn't what it was.
How do you think them up?!
ask your momma
That would be an unfair way to compare them given the manager and team Scholes played under/with, and the those that Schweinsteiger currently is.
It has zero to do with Iniesta supposedly falling to show up in big momments. Or that Zidane never had bad big games. Rather its the fact that Zizou tended to grab big momments and head lines even after shit to average games almost all the time. The champions league final vs Leverkursen, the group stage Euro win vs England and world cup 98 immediately spring to mind. Zidane just had a weird knack of grabbing the match winning headline most times and made a career of it. Its what has sustained and at times over inlfated his legend. Iniesta in contrast could be the best player on the pitch and hardly grab the top headline ( i.e our 2 nil loss to them in the champions league final of Barca's first treble. A game that will be remembered more for Xavi lead passing and Messi's header). Hence if I have a perfect team and only needed a 10, Id pick the consistent headline match winner over the consistent player. For his level of luck would prove more crucial in times of peril I believe. Which the French can attest to.
And this is from someone who loves Zidane's style.
You're right. I did a massive stupid. Got Iniesta momentarily mixed up with Inzhagi (it's been a busy week
). Couldn't understand why anyone would compare them. Agree that Zidane and Iniesta are very close in talent and achievement. Still rate Zidane as marginally better. Question of taste really, but he is slightly the finer artist.You're right. I did a massive stupid. Got Iniesta momentarily mixed up with Inzhagi (it's been a busy week
Makes SO much more sense now.
And this is from someone who loves Zidane's style.
Sometimes it's easy to forget just how incredible a dribbler Iniesta was at his peak.
Was close to that in the last clasico.
I was just thinking about this and how it is assumed that Xavi is a category above. Not just does Iniesta have a higher ceiling, in so many big games he didn't just dominate the midfield, he produced the big moments - the semifinal at Stamford Bridge, the assist for Eto'o in the final, the assist for 2 of Spain's 4 goals in the knockout stages of 2010, the fecking winner of the fecking final, and player of the tournament in Euro 2012.
Surely not more unfair than rating Schweinsteiger higher because of his success with his national team?
Both would be unfair. Scholes' platform at the international level was laughable in comparison to what Schweinsteiger got.
That makes no sense. When you're choosing a team you pick players based on performances and contribution, not media perceptions. Who cares whether no-one spoke about Iniesta in the 2009 final? The fact he ran the show is what counts.
And if Xavi's cross was "the headline", I don't see why Iniesta's dribble and pass weren't...
He's quite often over-rated. Many people who caught him for the big TV moments can lazily assume he was the standout of his era. The misperception that he was the star of France '98 is a classic example. But anyone who watched the likes of Ronaldo, Rivaldo and even Figo regularly recognised that for all Zidane's easiness on the eye he was never as consistent or as routinely decisive as that trio.
I agree with the overall thrust of this larger post but gonna pick out a couple of points.
Rather than the Barcelona or Spain set-ups being a barrier for Iniesta to shine, their dominance of any game ensured he had enough of the ball and enough like-minded players to connect with - in a way that Zidane rarely did. That platform has made it easier for Iniesta to be consistent. The often singular creative burden that fell on Zidane may have offered him an opportunity to be the talisman but equally made it a lot harder to be the match-winner every week. That's a simple result of playing for a team that would usually collect 60-75 points a season as opposed to 90-100. The other consistency point is that Iniesta clearly had a late/post-Xavi wobble from around 2012-2014 in what ought to have been his peak years. As for the work rate issue, I think Iniesta while being marginally superior is over-stated there relative to Zidane's. At Juve he was very much part of one of the hardest working teams and midfields the Champions League has seen under Lippi and while he had plenty of workhorses around him nobody, not even the attackers, had a free pass in that side. As part of the wider team dynamic, Iniesta has done a great job of deferring to even more capable players. Again though Zidane didn't score a relatively meagre 5 goals a season by hogging all the limelight: he too was often provider first, finisher second.
Yes, but I am quite sure majority who find him better than Scholes rate him higher only because of his dominance on international level. Fair enough if someone thinks he is better at club level than Scholes, everyone has right for an opinion, but tbh I think that would be a wrong opinion.
Not really. The only thing Scholes has over him is longevity, otherwise as far as peak performances go both at club level, specially CL and of course for their countries, Bastian is the one I'd have in my team.
Not really gonna go much into it, maybe tomorrow I'll prefer Scholes but if I'm making a team without knowing anything else I'd anyday go for players like Bastian ahead of the likes of Scholes or Pirlo, given how much more complete he is and can be partnered with literally anyone and performs well in multiple setups, knows how to tackle and doesn't need two people to do his share of running. His ability to dictate the tempo is also heavily underrated, he doesn't often go for the flash but you always get the feeling that he knows well in advance what to do with the ball.
Discounting international performances? You think the Inter goals and counters made Lothar Matthaus the legend he is in the history of the game, or was it the 1990 World Cup? Bastian's display in the 2014 was nothing short of legendary, more so as it was against possibly the greatest player ever, it simply elevates him and his career to a much higher level. \
In 20 years he will be rated much higher than he is now.
You missed the point entirely. What I said has zero to do with mere media perception. It has more to do rather with a match winner who can ran the show vs one who strictly runs the show. Zidane had the luck of a match winner but could also run the show when he so chose or rather with his skill set. Iniesta in comparison is rarely the match winner yet as long as he has form he runs the show. Its also a known fact a match winner is more likely to save you when you need it most ahead of any type who just runs the show. When you understand that in the 2009 example I gave, Iniesta ran the show yet Messi was the match winner you will get what I'm alluding to. However, if you really think that no one cares about it and it makes no sense please explain why Xavi and Iniesta's contribution to Barca's 2009 treble were completely over shadowed by Messi. Yet they ran the show all season long......Or why France 98 is constantly albeit wrongly perceived as Zizou's world cup just because of his two headers in the final?
Last edited:
I went for Zidane but I agree with all of this. Good point well made.
I don't wanna do any comparison, but comparing the Schweinsteiger of United is a bit silly. Let's compare 40 year old Scholes to the Schweinsteiger of the WC'10, equally viable.
You got a Schweinsteiger who is pretty much done.
His performance in the 2014 WC final was brilliant, but I'd say his displays in the 2010 World Cup were even better as a whole. Truly came of age at that tournament.
Iniesta for me, but it's very close. Remember watching Zidane in the early 90s and he was destined for big things, but Iniesta is probably my favourite player outside United. When he is on his game I could watch this guy all day long. His recent showing at the Bernabeu
I don't really want to get into the Scholes vs Schweinsteiger discussion. There's a good case for either in my opinion and I wouldn't want to pick between them (I would have loved to see them play together though).
But I think Scholes often gets an easy ride on here regarding his failure for England. He started out as an AM, was moved to CM for the World Cup in 2002, where he played all games in CM next to Butt if I'm not mistaken? It was a great set-up for him to shine in his prefered role with 2 United teammates next to him. Only shortly before the Euro 2004, he was moved to the wing and then he quit.
I don't buy that he could do nothing about international success anyway, like you say. He was awful against Brazil in 2002 for example, which would have been a perfect moment to step up and change the outcome of the game and leave a big impact on the tournament. He simply didn't. To me it always looked like he failed to show his best for England when he got the chance in his prefered roles and then he gave up way too quickly after just one frustrating tournament.
Agreed. If it's a big game and I can pick only one of the three for my side, it would be Xavi.
Last edited:
I see that a lot, and I don't agree with that. What exactly shows that he is done? I think people use that phrase just to either defend him, or to say that we need someone else in our midfield since that's sensible way to say that Schweini isn't good enough.
People say his legs are done, but I don't see it. He's played the most minutes out of our midfielders this season, he shows great desire in every game, running around probably more than anyone else on the pitch, he fights more than others, he tackles, he presses high, his defensive game is great as always and he is actually very underrated defensively and I think that's his strongest aspect of the game since he signed for us, but he simply isn't good enough with the ball. I don't think that alone can be excused by saying he is done, despite him showing good attributes all around.
When Scholes was done he lost his legs, he couldn't follow the tempo of games, he was slow as feck, and he ran lot less than other players, he couldn't defend against midfielders that were going past him like he wasn't there, and he was lot weaker physically. You can't relate either of those things to Schweinsteiger. And that's not just how Scholes aged, that's basically how every player ages and shows that he is done, especially midfielders. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that's how I see it. And despite all those flaws, Scholes could still control lot of games all on his own, simply because his intelligence is something else, and his passing was always great.
As for the first part, you can do that, not really 40 year old Scholes, but 35 year old Scholes returned from retirement and almost won the league for United, raising the quality of the team all by himself and scoring few important goals, with United losing the league to City just on goal difference. Not bad.
Btw, I agree with your first part, we probably shouldn't be doing the comparision.
He still does defend, he still has desire, yes. He's still fighting, he always did. But not to the heights he used to. First point. Second point: your description sounds like DM, or DLP. He was more than that. He had an offensive aspect in his game which I feel he lost. He used to sprint forwards and shoot from inside the box, he was, for quite some time, our biggest aerial threat. He used to score a lot of headers because he really did this box-to-box thing. I haven't seen this from him for at least one and a half year. His defensive game is underrated, yes, but he was at his best playing the offensive CM alongside the defensive Martinez, constantly attacking.
Is that the Schweinsteiger you see at United? No. Is is purely because of Van Gaals tactics? Looking at his last year at Bayern, I simply don't think so.
I don't remember that game apart from the Ronaldinho goal, so can't really comment on his performance, so I'll trust you. I am not sure it's fair to judge him on one game though, especially against team that won the competition that year. And it's not like England were as good as Germany is now.
If I remember well Sven said he was best England's player during his time as an England's manager so I am not sure you can call Scholes' time with England as a failure if his manager thinks he was their best player during that time.
As for the bold thing, ffs.
Zidane.
Failure is maybe a strong word, but in a comparison with the dominant CMs of the WC winning European sides of the past 20 years, it's not necessary an exaggeration. I don't think Scholes ever ran games for England the way he could, at least not at tournaments and it wasn't just down to the manager or the Lampard-Gerrard-dilemma, which was only a problem during his last tournament. I'd also argue that he played in a stronger England side than Germany was in 2010, which was really a bit of a mess after Ballack's injury and if Schweinsteiger hadn't stepped up and played his best tournament, we would have been much, much worse.I don't remember that game apart from the Ronaldinho goal, so can't really comment on his performance, so I'll trust you. I am not sure it's fair to judge him on one game though, especially against team that won the competition that year. And it's not like England were as good as Germany is now.
If I remember well Sven said he was best England's player during his time as an England's manager so I am not sure you can call Scholes' time with England as a failure if his manager thinks he was their best player during that time.
As for the bold thing, ffs.
Ah, so you're the type who'd prefer Stevie Me type Hollywood matchwinning moments over someone like, say, latter day Scholes who just consistently dominated games? Hmm, interesting.
Tbh your earlier post does a pretty good job highlighting the pro-Iniesta argument by talking about Zidane in terms of headlines, perception and luck.
It is very difficult to compare players from different eras as the football landscape is very different now to what it was back then. It is not as easy as comparing Messi with Ronaldo, the two greatest players of this generation and two of the best ever, who both play in the same league, are of similar age, and play for similar level teams that win 90-100 points every season (scoring over 100 goals in the process) and at least go very far in both cup competitions. It is nowhere near as easy in fact.
When Zidane played for Madrid, they got 66, 78, 70, 80 and 70 points. From 08/09 to now (starting at 08/09 because that is when Iniesta really got going IMO), Barcelona got 87, 99, 96, 91, 100, 87 and 94 points (Madrid have finished with points totals in the 90s also during that period). Madrid and Barcelona have stronger and more expensive squads than they had back then and that is reflected by the points amassed and their respective goal differences (69, 86 72, 71 and 70 scored by Zidane's Madrid in comparison to 105, 98, 95, 114, 115, 100 and 110 scored by Iniesta's Barcelona from 08/09 to 14/15).
Here are the average points won per game and goals scored per game by those teams during each players time at their clubs
Zidane
Iniesta
As the stats show, there is quite a significant difference and go a long way towards explaining why it is easier to be a more consistent player these days. Iniesta was more consistent than Zidane, but not by as much as some people are trying to make out (his consistency was nowhere near Messi's, Ronaldo's or Xavi's). He had a great 08/09 and 10/11, but in 09/10 and 11/12 he was criticised for his performances and inconsistency and it was said that it was Messi who had to carry Barcelona those two seasons (and Xavi too in 09/10 where he was the 2nd best player in La Liga after Messi over the course of the season). He had a strong first half in 12/13 but dipped in the 2nd half.
Serie A was a tough league back when Zidane played there and while not as competitive or of the quality, ferocity or ruggedness that it possessed in the 80s, it was still a difficult league for attackers to thrive in (so much so that the Brazilian Ronaldo was expected to fail there when he moved to Inter after thriving at Barcelona due to the hard-nosed nature of the league and when he went there and thrived, he earned lots of respect and praise). It was certainly a tougher league for an attacking player than La Liga is now.
Overall, it is hard to say who the better player is. Personally, I think Zidane was a more talented player with a higher peak (and I am sure the majority of people would agree with that), but I do not think that judging a player by their talent or peak is enough to say they are outright better than another. There is far more to a players career than that. It is hard for me to say which player of the two (or three if you are including Xavi, which plenty of people are doing in this thread), but I do not see how anyone can say "x is way better than y", "y was way more consistent", "it is not even close" etc. Especially when you look at the context. It is far easier for me to say that Messi is better than Ronaldo because I have seen them play at the same time, in the same league and in teams of similar quality. It is not quite the same when comparing Iniesta and Xavi with Zidane.
When Zidane played for Madrid, they got 66, 78, 70, 80 and 70 points. From 08/09 to now (starting at 08/09 because that is when Iniesta really got going IMO), Barcelona got 87, 99, 96, 91, 100, 87 and 94 points (Madrid have finished with points totals in the 90s also during that period). Madrid and Barcelona have stronger and more expensive squads than they had back then and that is reflected by the points amassed and their respective goal differences (69, 86 72, 71 and 70 scored by Zidane's Madrid in comparison to 105, 98, 95, 114, 115, 100 and 110 scored by Iniesta's Barcelona from 08/09 to 14/15).
Here are the average points won per game and goals scored per game by those teams during each players time at their clubs
Zidane
96/97 1.5 gpg 1.9 points per game
97/98 1.97 gpg 2.18 points per game
98/99 1.24 gpg 1.59 points per game
99/00 1.35 gpg 2.09 points per game
00/01 1.79 gpg 2.15 points per game
97/98 1.97 gpg 2.18 points per game
98/99 1.24 gpg 1.59 points per game
99/00 1.35 gpg 2.09 points per game
00/01 1.79 gpg 2.15 points per game
01/02 1.82 gpg 1.74 points per game
02/03 2.26 gpg 2.05 points per game
03/04 1.89 gpg 1.84 points per game
04/05 1.86 gpg 2.11 points per game
05/06 1.84 gpg 1.84 points per game
02/03 2.26 gpg 2.05 points per game
03/04 1.89 gpg 1.84 points per game
04/05 1.86 gpg 2.11 points per game
05/06 1.84 gpg 1.84 points per game
Iniesta
08/09 2.76 gpg 2.29 points per game
09/10 2.58 gpg 2.61 points per game
10/11 2.5 gpg 2.53 points per game
11/12 3.0 gpg 2.39 points per game
12/13 3.03 gpg 2.63 points per game
13/14 2.63 gpg 2.29 points per game
09/10 2.58 gpg 2.61 points per game
10/11 2.5 gpg 2.53 points per game
11/12 3.0 gpg 2.39 points per game
12/13 3.03 gpg 2.63 points per game
13/14 2.63 gpg 2.29 points per game
As the stats show, there is quite a significant difference and go a long way towards explaining why it is easier to be a more consistent player these days. Iniesta was more consistent than Zidane, but not by as much as some people are trying to make out (his consistency was nowhere near Messi's, Ronaldo's or Xavi's). He had a great 08/09 and 10/11, but in 09/10 and 11/12 he was criticised for his performances and inconsistency and it was said that it was Messi who had to carry Barcelona those two seasons (and Xavi too in 09/10 where he was the 2nd best player in La Liga after Messi over the course of the season). He had a strong first half in 12/13 but dipped in the 2nd half.
Serie A was a tough league back when Zidane played there and while not as competitive or of the quality, ferocity or ruggedness that it possessed in the 80s, it was still a difficult league for attackers to thrive in (so much so that the Brazilian Ronaldo was expected to fail there when he moved to Inter after thriving at Barcelona due to the hard-nosed nature of the league and when he went there and thrived, he earned lots of respect and praise). It was certainly a tougher league for an attacking player than La Liga is now.
Overall, it is hard to say who the better player is. Personally, I think Zidane was a more talented player with a higher peak (and I am sure the majority of people would agree with that), but I do not think that judging a player by their talent or peak is enough to say they are outright better than another. There is far more to a players career than that. It is hard for me to say which player of the two (or three if you are including Xavi, which plenty of people are doing in this thread), but I do not see how anyone can say "x is way better than y", "y was way more consistent", "it is not even close" etc. Especially when you look at the context. It is far easier for me to say that Messi is better than Ronaldo because I have seen them play at the same time, in the same league and in teams of similar quality. It is not quite the same when comparing Iniesta and Xavi with Zidane.
Last edited:
Zidane for me. He's one of the most graceful footballers I've ever seen - and he had a real sense of occasion.
Why was Messi the match winner? He made it 2-0 while Barca were already dominating and on course to winning the match even before Messi scored respectively if Messi had not scored. Iniesta sliced through the United midfield and set up Eto'o while United were actually on top of the game in the opening minutes. The complexion of the game completely changed after Iniesta's run so the opening goal was more important than Messi's. Messi was actually rather quiet in that final apart from his unexpected header out of the blue from a pinpoint Xavi cross.
Sir Alex before the game:
http://www.theguardian.com/football...-champions-league-barcelona-manchester-united
Rooney after the game:
It's only now in hindsight, after what Messi has become what he has become, that Xavi and Iniesta seem completely overshadowed so now Messi even retropersectively gets more praise than he might deserve because we already now that we're talking about the 5 times Ballon d'Or winner.
Aye, Ferguson said afterwards that the Eto'o goal was the one that killed us.
I'm not sure that's the logical conclusion. If I understood correctly your argument seems to be that it's easier to be consistent now because Barca and Madrid reach more point totals. But they reach more points exactly because of the players' consistent performances rather than the players playing in a high point environment that is just magically there no matter what. The 90+ points seasons have started after Guardiola brought relentless discipline to the Barcelona squad (sorting out slackers, going as far as spying on Pique's private life through a private detective etc.), treating every game like a final; and Madrid were forced to keep up to remain competitive. The Galactico 1.0 era was completely different. It's well known that Ronaldo for example wasn't the hardest worker in training and for Barca Ronaldinho gave up on football by the time he was 27, what should have been his prime.
In 09/10 Iniesta wasn't criticized for his performances by the way. He was simply injured throughout the season. Ironically enough, he was injured because he played the CL final against Manchester United in the previous season with an injury. Which caused him to miss most of the 09/10 season and almost the World Cup even.
I sort of agree with the rest of your argument. You can't always rank everything. You can rank Iniesta vs. Cazorla or Suarez vs. Giroud but Iniesta vs. Zidane becomes very tough. Who knows what Iniesta would have done at Madrid in the early 00s and what Zidane would have done at Pep's Barca? For me they are in the same bracket, one is definitely not miles ahead of the other.
Players in the past get let off too easily for slacking off in what should have been their prime.