Impossible to know for sur but just like Henry had to adapt his game by doing intense pressing like he never had to before at Arsenal, Zidane would have adapted his game to become a more integral of the Barca team. Would he have been as good as Iniesta at it ? I don't think so but it's just conjectures.
Iniesta vs Zidane
- Thread starter TheNewEra
- Start date
Impossible to know for sur but just like Henry had to adapt his game by doing intense pressing like he never had to before at Arsenal, Zidane would have adapted his game to become a more integral of the Barca team. Would he have been as good as Iniesta at it ? I don't think so but it's just conjectures.
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.
Dear god just look at both of those sides, no wonder football feels so bland and flat these days.
There are not many sides today that could live with that Juventus side.
Can or cant? Zidane played in a 433 plenty of times.
Is this a Barcelona forum or something. Iniesta is an amazing player, but Zidane was something else. Best player of his generation and absolute leader of his France team.
For me Iniesta is more comparable to someone like Michael Laudrup.
For me Iniesta is more comparable to someone like Michael Laudrup.
A poll needs to settle this. @brewlio can you help?
Something else isn't quantifiable. Iniesta is. Most of whom who have commented here including @Bob Loblaw and @RobinLFC have seen both perform and have a very practical, unbiased view.
This.
If both played the peak game of their lives, i would think Zidane would come off better.
No he isn't, Ronaldo is. And the comparison is very appropriate, as you can see if you look through this thread. Zidane is a more cinematic figure, with all the mythology already written about him. His career looks like it's been scripted - a great world cup final>leverkusen goal>amazing 06 tournament with dramatical ending to it and his career (brilliant performance with the tragic ending).
Iniesta's path is simpler, he became a regular>one of the outstanding players in the team>won everything with being MotM in most finals. He has almost no drama to him, he is too humble for it - Zidane is quite the opposite.
But if you compare their actual level as football players, there aren't much between them. For me, Iniesta edges it. And Laudrup is easily comparable to both also.
I often wonder how humbling it must be to be Ronaldo and seeing Zidane everyday in training since he joined Real, for in Zidane, therein lies true greatness.
Zidane wouldn't win a Balon D'Or in the Messi/Ronaldo era. This point definitely skews the debate, we all know were it not for the two freaks Xavi and Iniesta would each have one Balon D'Or at least.
When was that? When he was like 20? Maybe, i don't really know him during his french period. But after that i can't remember when his team employed 4-3-3 formation on regular basis. Like Barcelona does. Did he play in 4-3-3 occasionally, sure, but it's a big difference to spend a whole season in a team that mostly plays 4-3-3 and play it a couple times a year.
Ronaldo was the best player of Zidane's generation. Zidane as great as he was is a player who's reputation seems to go up the longer he's been retired.
Ronaldinho
That was a past his best (but still immense Ronaldo).
Peak Ronaldo was a whole other level.
I started watching football around 2006 and the World Cup was the 1st big tournament I saw. I remember not being able to judge players properly but even to completely untrained eyes it was obvious that Zidane was on a completely different plane in that France v Brazil game. Special.
I think the way he retired (pushing his national team to the final, then scoring, hitting the post, and getting sent off) makes sure his story had an absolutely epic ending and his reputation has gone up after retirement because of that. Because, objectively speaking, Iniesta has done it in countless big games against every type of opposition. As a sub vs Arsenal, the 90th minute "winner" at Stamford Bridge, the assist to Eto'o in 2010, scoring or assisting most of Spain's 1-0 goals in 2010 including the final, dominating Euro 2012, a couple of Clasicos where he destroyed Madrid all on his own, and now this masterclass with 10 men vs Sevilla.
I think the way he retired (pushing his national team to the final, then scoring, hitting the post, and getting sent off) makes sure his story had an absolutely epic ending and his reputation has gone up after retirement because of that. Because, objectively speaking, Iniesta has done it in countless big games against every type of opposition. As a sub vs Arsenal, the 90th minute "winner" at Stamford Bridge, the assist to Eto'o in 2010, scoring or assisting most of Spain's 1-0 goals in 2010 including the final, dominating Euro 2012, a couple of Clasicos where he destroyed Madrid all on his own, and now this masterclass with 10 men vs Sevilla.
France 98 for one.
Then you are mistaken. They've played a version 4-3-2-1 transforming to 4-3-1-2 with Djorkaeff playing a second forward. Different system that. The main thing is Zidane played centrally as a AM as he did in most games during his career.
This position is non-existent in the current Barca team, because they have three forwards (not your typical 4-2-3-1 when you have more of a midfield players on the wings that are positioned closer to defence) and also they have Busquets as holding midfielder so they employ 1-2 formation in their midfield trio.
You're right about France in 1998. Zidane usually operated in three-man central midfields with the support of two more defensively minded midfielders and the typical shape was 2-1 rather than the 1-2 that Barcelona have got.
No matter how good Iniesta is, he's never reached the levels of not giving a feck that Zidane did by nutting that guy in a World Cup final of all places.
That alone raises Zidane above all others for me.
That alone raises Zidane above all others for me.
One of the best midfielders of his generation (Iniesta) vs many peoples best player of all time. (Yep, including Maradona). I rate him better than any player playing today, and alongside Maradonna as the greatest ever. Just my type of gravy, YMMV.
Anyone who thinks he's the best player of all time isn't even worth talking to.
Iniesta plays well more often than Zidane did, plays poorly less often than Zidane did and has stepped up in big games at least as (and probably more) often than Zidane did.
In which case you're massively overrating Zidane.
It's posts like this which reminds me why I believe of all the greats Zidane is the most overrated player of all time.
The consistency point is one that's often made but doesn't always acknowledge that it's easier to be consistent when your team dominates 99% of the games during a season. It's little different to comparing the goalscoring of a striker of an elite club today (90+points a season) with a striker who played for a less dominant side 15-30 years ago.
I don't think there would be place for Zidane in Barca 2008-2011.
For balance, Not too similar from my own thoughts!
Iniesta is more effective, Zidane had more panache. I prefer my greats with personality and charisma. Zidane for me.
Zidane every day of the week for me, he was a constant threat on goal and equally as good on the ball as Iniesta.
Very relevant - and good - point.
That said, in Zidane's particular case I do think you can (rightly) accuse him of being somewhat inconsistent in the sense that he would often enough - well - NOT impose himself on the match in circumstances where this was precisely what you wanted him to do: He went missing, as people say - that isn't an unreasonable claim, I think.
Doesn't mean he was genuinely patchy - but he wasn't a player who always stepped up and took charge.
Plus Iniesta at his worst contributes more than Zidane at his worst.
Yes, I think that's fair. Zidane was more likely to have an actual stinker.
However, that too has to be seen in light of the overall machinery. As mentioned before (in this thread), the worst I've seen of Iniesta coincided with the worst I've seen of Barcelona in recent years - the machinery itself seemed to have gone stale, and Iniesta certainly wasn't capable of transcending that with any individual feats. That too is interesting. In an absurdly hypothetical scenario where you put Zidane in (somewhere) in that stale machinery, I'd argue that he'd be more likely to pull something out of the hat - but, yes, it's absurdly hypothetical.
However, that too has to be seen in light of the overall machinery. As mentioned before (in this thread), the worst I've seen of Iniesta coincided with the worst I've seen of Barcelona in recent years - the machinery itself seemed to have gone stale, and Iniesta certainly wasn't capable of transcending that with any individual feats. That too is interesting. In an absurdly hypothetical scenario where you put Zidane in (somewhere) in that stale machinery, I'd argue that he'd be more likely to pull something out of the hat - but, yes, it's absurdly hypothetical.
I do enjoy this debate, mostly because there's absolutely no reason to compare the two apart from the fact that they were both wonderful footballers. Also one of the few debates where stats aren't that important as both players were special in ways that sheer goals/assists numbers don't really capture.
wat
Zidane wasn't playing in the same era as Messi or C. Ronaldo, if he was he wouldn't even come close.
It's not all about stats, which if you go by then yes, he wouldn't come close, but you wouldn't compare Vardy with Bergkamp ( a ridiculous comparison) but you get my drift. Irrespective, of how people 'measure' one's greatness, I'd pick Zidane and Maradona as the best players I have ever seen. Some people may pick Stephen Hendry as the best snooker player, I'd pick Ronnie. It's a matter of taste.
Sorry but as good as he was Zidane wasn't to the standard of Messi or Ronaldo, there are precious few who are.
Sure, that's the way you see it and all good. For me, if I was a kid on the playground, i'd want to be Zidane, simples.
This. The gap between Zidane and Messi is pretty significant.