That's the thing though. A lot of Zidane's greatness is based on artistry - which captures the imagination, and is romanticized endlessly (you will see several arguments of him being the best ever, because XYZ liked watching him play - even though he isn't even the best France produced - that would be Platini). That, rather than a more tangible footballing measurement - which is especially pertinent vs a master of 'keeping things relatively simple' like Iniesta. And that adds more layers to Zidane's mythology, particularly when people start reminiscing about his peaks, which hasn't happened with Iniesta (yet) - because he's more current. I guess this particular point boils down to the value that should be allocated towards aesthetics (a lot of which are superficial - because they don't add something 'definite' to matches) vs sustained, understated effectiveness.
Yep, that's fair enough. But I'm kind of wary of arguments based around proving it in other leagues - because afterall, Iniesta is playing in the best (qualitatively) league in the world, and that has been the case for the bulk of his career.
And it's worth bearing in mind that outside of Maldini at Milan, and what was to become of Buffon in later years, Zidane's biggest rival in all-time terms within the Serie A was Ronaldo L - who played only 1 full season at Internazionale from 1997 to 2002. So the label of Zidane being the best in that league should be considered against the relative greatness of the players he was facing (in terms of them being his historical peers).
In comparison with that, when Iniesta was starting out - he was teamed with Ronaldinho - who was spectacular for Rijkaard's Barcelona. Then came Messi, who's already considered to be on par with Pelé and Maradona. Meanwhile, Iniesta was sharing the middle portion of the pitch for both club and country with arguably the greatest European central midfielder (Xavi). Infact, Iniesta's relation with his more illustrious team-mates draws parallels with Müller who shared that Bayern and West German glory with GOAT Beckenbauer, and got severely underrated vs Hero Franz. And apart from Iniesta's team-mates, there was the small matter of Ronaldo at Madrid - who was at loggerheads with the GOAT, and pushing the productivity argument to new limits.
And to add a bit more to that, Iniesta has suffered (from an individual accolade perspective) because of the fact that he shared the era with not just Ronaldo, but 2 team-mates in Xavi and Messi. In another era, the likes of Ribéry and Sneijder and one of the Bayern World Cup winning lot would have won the Ballon D'Or. But not while Messi and Cristiano are around. And that has affected Iniesta who finished runner-up once, and 3rd once vs Zidane winning it once, being runner-up once, and 3rd once.
Agreed. There's not much between Zidane, Iniesta, and also - Laudrup, IMO. Though the Dane is probably the most underrated of the three.
Another thing to consider is that Zidane had the Juventus teams built around him:
Almost no-one there to challenge his authority as the creator in chief. Deschamps would be the defensive midfield foil/ 'water carrier', Davids the midfield lungs, Del Piero would operate behind Inzaghi - who was a stereotypical poacher. Zidane had a great deal of luxuries afforded to him, as opposed to Iniesta - who worked hard off the ball in the pressing setups (something that Zidane didn't do a lot), sacrificed himself for Messi and Xavi, was a tactical outlet on the left, and so forth. Though conversely, all the burden fell on Zidane in those teams, whereas Iniesta was the third wheel for most of his club career - so less pressure on him. Credit to Zidane there, because when he floundered - Juventus and France usually suffered on the big stage. Iniesta never really had to bear that overwhelming responsibility, particularly in terms of Zidane's cultural importance for France.
TBH, I think he is brilliant for the bulk of the season. It's just that he is also brilliant at sharing the limelight. As mentioned before, he can't always be the dominating presence on the pitch (upwards of 30 games) when he has Messi, had Xavi, and now has a striker who's evidencing the greatest peak since El Fenómeno in Suárez. A lot of times, he just keeps things at a fundamental level rather than trying to do extravagant things at every other turn to upstage his team-mates. A bit like Scholes - who was also consistent for years upon years, and got due credit at a later stage of his career.
I think Zidane had far more poor games vs average teams than Iniesta - and his bottom level was inferior to Iniesta's. Which is one category where Iniesta definitely pulls ahead. When Zidane was a passenger, it would be hard to find him on the pitch because he didn't do a lot off the ball. Iniesta makes meaningful contributions even when's having an off-game, which gets underrated.
I said you'd prefer Gerrard to Scholes because that's an obviously damning thing to say about someone on a United forum. I wasn't seriously comparing Gerrard to Zidane ffs. I thought it would be obvious I was being deliberately fatuous given you're a fecking United fan. Yikes.
