Agree with you there mate, around 15cm apparently.
Iniesta vs Zidane
- Thread starter TheNewEra
- Start date
Agree with you there mate, around 15cm apparently.
It has more to do with his charisma, charm (are those words related btw?) and the whole image of him than with his level. And, again, the case of the favourite vs the best, the discussion that we had over Twigginator's thread. Hollywood ending to his career also helps (actually if something like that were created in Hollywood they would've labeled it unrealistic)
It's not that, with all due respect. He wows me with his exaggerated movements, the flicks and pirouettes combined with the ability to influence the most important games with the damnright outrageous. That goal for Real in the CL final is just one example. He was the main man everytime he walked out on the football pitch. I agree with Ronaldo (Brazil) being up there, but Zizou trumps the lot for me. This debate will just go around in circles, as the heart wants what the heart wants.....or summat like that anyway. I guess when you consider that, charisma is a factor, but the charisma was the beauty with which he played the game.
Last edited:
Thinking about charisma and flamboyance, I find many of the reasons I revere Zidane, I see in Cantona. Zizou being on a different level but branches from the same tree. Maybe Zizou is the tree. MMMM, maybe I need to go to bed!!!
It was still a form of 433. He played it at times with Madrid and Juventus too. I know what you're saying but very few teams have ever played a strict 433 with three out and out forwards like Barcelona are currently doing.
We need a poll. I vote Iniesta.
Neither do I.
Ability wise Iniesta edges it for me, he can play at a higher tempo than Zidane while having the same technical excellence, he is a better passer of the ball. He was more consistent as an individual over his career and had an amazing international career. Zidane was the key to the France side and we can say he had two international tournaments where he was the best player (EURO 200 and World Cup 2006). But comparing across eras against different opposition and in different condition is always iffy to me. I like to compare holistically and Iniesta is the better player for me.
Zidane has a higher peak, Iniesta a higher bottom level. Zidane wins you big matches, Iniesta gets you to those matches. I don't think one is definitively better than the other but most would prefer Zidane because his "moments" stick better to memory than Iniesta's.
That's not a fair comparison at all. Iniesta has been the man of the match in as many big matches as Zidane (if not more) and scored so many crucial goals. I'd argue that Zidane had more bad big games than Iniesta as well, especially up to the 1998 World Cup final. The CL finals in 1997 and 1998 come to mind for example.
For someone who's often hailed for being the ultimate big game player, Zidane has quite a bad record when it comes to winning finals:
He won only 1 out of 3 CL finals, 0 out of 1 UEFA Cup final, 0 out of 2 Copa del Rey finals, 1 out of 2 World Cup finals and 1 out of 1 Euro finals. That's overall not that impressive to be honest and in quite a few of them his performances were a big reason for his team's failure.
Iniesta has more outstanding performances in the finals than Zidane. Just saying.
Iniesta is better but I prefer Zidane in the same way I prefer Cantona over everybody else.
He is also more consistent
Zidane. different era's but Zidane was just in another league to everyone else in his time.
I'm not discounting Iniesta's performances in big matches. I just don't consider him as critical a match winner as Zidane. The 97 CL you mentioned for example, I remember Zidane having a hard time that game with a Dortmund midfielder hounding him throughout. For me, Zidane's team chances in a big match hinges a great deal on him, as you point out they fail when he fails too. Iniesta performs very well in general but I don't think his big matches stand out as much as Zidane's. Again, could be false perception because Zidane's "moments" stick better.
Iniesta has been in quite a few more finals than Zidane. I remember him scoring the WC winning goal against Netherlands but that's it. I can't claim to have watched his copa del rey matches or the classicos. Base on memorable games like finals and United games with them, Iniesta for me performs very well but he comes as part of a good team performance. I'll give it to you if you feel that's unfair on judging Iniesta but ultimately, if I were to choose a difference maker in a big game that's too close to call I would still bet on Zidane.
UEFA team of the year was only introduced in 2001 so pretty unfair to include that as a comparable stat (Zidane would alomst certainly have been in another 3 or 4 from his time with Juve - especially when you consider he won FIFA world player of the year in 98 and 2000 (and was third in 1997) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Player_of_the_Year
I also presume stats for appearences / goals are league only
European games would be
Iniesta 122/10
Zidane 117/23
Overall club games
Iniesta 647/59
Zidane 681/125
International
Iniesta 107/13
Zidane 108/31
I think Zidane only won three league titles as well - 2 with Juve and 1 with Real
Yeah, the mighty Paul Lambert took Zidane completely out of the CL final. I personally wouldn't call that a good excuse for looking absolutely shit in such an important game, but that's just me.
It's not a good excuse indeed but it does say that once they shut out Zidane, poof goes Juve's chances at winning. The mighty Paul Lambert and his Dortmund team also knocked United out that year when I was really hopeful of us making it to the final. So, I would say that team knew what they were doing.
Edit: The mighty Park Ji Sung also took Pirlo out. Don't discount these 'mighty' players.
This I can understand. Zidane is much more of an individual, an icon and has a certain cult of personality about him that Iniesta doesn't. I can certainly see why he'd be people's favourite player, especially if they grew up with him at his peak.
That doesn't actually make him a better player though.
Of course that Dortmund side was brilliant, with some alltime great individuals (Sammer + Kohler in defense) but also tactically. And yes, Zidane was probably more crucial to his sides than Iniesta was, because Zidane always had the teams built around him in a way Iniesta never had. That doesn't change how often Iniesta actually took over as the main man in big games, not only scoring crucial goals but also running the show and outperforming Xavi and Messi in his own team.
You made it sound as if Iniesta was consistent throughout a season, but didn't step up in the finals while Zidane was the exact opposite. At least that's what the following sounds like to me:
It's simply not true. Iniesta's best matches came in big games, often in finals. He rarely was a passenger and often was happy to let the game just flow with Xavi, Messi shining on the way to the finals. But when his team struggled in important games, he was there to step it up, showed his absolute peak form and took over as the main man. It wasn't just the World Cup winning goal in 2010, he was clearly man of the match in the Euro final in 2012 and in the CL final in 2015. And he was brilliant in all CL finals he played, starting with his impact in the CL final win in 2006 when he came in at halftime.
Last edited:
That's more about how a team is built and, in the same spirit, that Zidane would get in ahead of Iniesta in France 1998-2002 or Juventus 1996-2001. Because great teams are built to play to the strengths of their stars and compensate for any relative weaknesses.
I'm unconvinced he was better than Ronaldo (1996-1999) or Rivaldo (1997-2002): both of whom were generally more consistent but also had the same big-game bollocks to back it up.
Not even a contest. Zidane of course.
What mod can make polls?
If you took it as that, does that mean you took it as Zidane doesn't win games for his team at all except in big matches? I'm sure that's not the case. It's a generalization of their strengths. Already said, I am not discounting Iniesta's performances in finals but...
So, I'm really not saying Iniesta goes missing in big games or Zidane goes missing in every other game else we would have to dig out all the MOTMs, goals and what not Zidane had. Consider this, Giggs (or Keane) was United's version of Zidane and Beckham was our Iniesta in 98/99. Giggs had the deciding moments, late equalizer against Juve, solo run against Arsenal, the shot that Sheringham followed through in a certain match. That shouldn't take anything away from Beckham because apart from being our biggest contributor that season, he also stepped up with two huge corners in the biggest game.
I wonder if there is a difference in opinion that splits largely on age?
Those that saw Zidane play live at his peak and have seen Iniesta play vs those who have only seen Zidane on clips / highlights but have grown up watching Iniesta play?
I think that when you've hit the levels that Iniesta and Zidane have, it comes down to preference rather than agonising over individual attributes and deciphering their games.
Maybe. I have seen Zidane live, but not Iniesta unfortunately.
I also think style of play is a factor. While freely admitting that Pep's Barca were fantastic and probably the best team of all time, I never much liked their style of play, so I guess that also affects my judgement.
Yeah, absolutely agree.
No, all I'm saying is that Iniesta usually played his best football in the biggest moments. You make it sound as if he didn't and his best quality was consistency. In a way both are actually quite similar. Iniesta's consistency gets a bit overrated while Zidane's big game mentality gets overrated. Iniesta had the advantage that he could go through full seasons without being the main man. He often looked good to great in the Barca machine just by keeping the flow of the game alive and by looking elegant on the ball and in many regular season and less important CL games he wasn't actually that decisive. Come the big games, he often stepped up, increased his productivity and effectiveness and regularly took over as the main playmaker.
You're generalisation paints a picture that's massively flawed in my opinion, which is why I also disagree with your comparison to players in the United treble winning team.
I'm lucky as I have seen both and yes style effects my judgement as well - seeing the way Zidane almost acted like a quarterback and would call for runs off other players, the respect that the likes of Ronaldo (MK1) and Raul / Figo had for him, the way he glided around the midfield - still putting in a shift but popping up in space and creating time with the little flicks and turns... but mostly just how great he was off the ball (carlos was onother who stood out in this respect as the tv cameras didnt always catch the work he did up and down the touchline looking to break forward then sprinting back).
Both are great players - and you could probably play both in a three man midfield with a holding midfielder as there are enough diferences in their game to compliment each other... if I had to have one though - it would be Zidane (unless i could have Plattini or Maradona)
since some believe ( rightly I would imagine ) that without messi and Ronaldo , Iniesta would have at least one ballon d'or, would any of his season performances been enough to stop zidane winning any of his 3 best player in the world accolades ( had Iniesta been around late 90s early 00s)
Not exactly the same position.
One could be viewed as a central playmaker and the other one as a left-playmaker. The second one is more versatile.
One could be viewed as a central playmaker and the other one as a left-playmaker. The second one is more versatile.
Tough to say as we'd have to imagine the team Iniesta would be playing in. Plus Zidane and Iniesta couldn't *both* be the best player in the various international tournaments so something would have to give. It's a head melter.
Given that Michael Owen managed to grab himself a Ballon D'Or though I think it's safe to say that Iniesta would have done alright for himself in individual awards. The standard just wasn't the same without the two mega-freaks dominating things.
Well, Zidane only won one Ballon d'Or (I'm not a big fan of the old FIFA world player of the year award). And he won it pretty much based on a single game, the World Cup final performance in 1998. Ronaldo was clearly the better player during the season and at the World Cup up to the final (he won Serie A player of the year, the Golden Ball at the World Cup and UEFA club footballer of the year). Similarly Iniesta finished 2nd at the Ballon d'Or behind Messi in 2010, when overall his year wasn't actually that special (he was injured in the run-in of the 2009/10 season for a few months and almost missed the World Cup) and it was mostly based on his World Cup final performance.
That's the problem with all these awards, they don't necessarily were won in their best season or mean that they were the best player that season. Both Zidane and Iniesta had their best tournament performances at the Euro (Zidane in 2000, Iniesta in 2012) and I'd say there wasn't much in it between the two, but neither actually won the Ballon d'Or for it. It's all a bit difficult because neither of them ever combined a real consistent elite season with one of their big moments. Zidane wasn't anything special in the league in 2002 when he scored that goal in the CL final for example and was injured/struggled with his injury at the World Cup when France went out in the group stages.
Compared to Zidane's award wins, Rivaldo or Ronaldo had more 'honest' Ballon d'or wins in 1997 and 1999, because it was obvious that they were consistently the best player in the world, showing excellent performance at club and international level throughout the season.
Iniesta's big moments most likely would have been enough to win him awards in Zidane's era. He won the UEFA footballer of the year award in 2012 ahead of Messi and Ronaldo after his brilliant performances at the Euro, which is more or less comparable to the old Ballon d'Or if you look at the voting system and ignore the name of the award. So there's no reason to believe that it would have been different 10-15 years before.
Last edited:
That's a tricky one because two of Zidane's three FIFA awards were generous at best. In 1998 he mostly got it for his match-winning performance in the final when over the course of the year there was more sustained quality from Ronaldo in particular and Rivaldo latterly especially. No arguments over his 2000 award given the brilliance of his performances that summer and generally at that point for Juventus. For me he wins that even against an Iniesta in his best campaign. By 2003 I think, again, that Nedved, Shevchenko and Henry were becoming more consistently influential performers.
Looking at awards is a bit pointless, in my opinion. UEFA team of the year and so forth even more so. If you have no idea about the level of a player, these things are useful indicators, but beyond that? We all know that they sometimes hand out awards - and include players in XIs - based on criteria many fans simply don't agree with.
If you win the Ballon as many times as Messi, you're probably quite special - but we don't need the awards to tell us that Messi is special. Would Iniesta have a Ballon (at least one) to his name without Messi? Almost certainly. Is that really a meaningful "fact"? Don't think so.
If you win the Ballon as many times as Messi, you're probably quite special - but we don't need the awards to tell us that Messi is special. Would Iniesta have a Ballon (at least one) to his name without Messi? Almost certainly. Is that really a meaningful "fact"? Don't think so.
In both Zidane vs Iniesta and the United context, I consider one more likely to produce the deciding goal/s individually. The other is more crucial at opening the path for his team through the campaign. We are just going round and round. Let's just agree to disagree.
Probably, but in the sense that those who didn't see him at his peak are those overrating him. I was obsessed with football as a kid around Zidane's time and he was revered as a great player with great vision and fascinating skill...but never as the best player in the world. That was Ronaldo 100%. Similar to Iniesta now, Zidane was one of the elite players of his time but not an undisputed king of his generation like Messi or Maradona or Pele. Statements like, 'I think he was the best player of all time' are just ridiculous. It's only since his legendary bow out of the 2006 world cup that people ever started mentioning Zidane in that light.
He was a glorious player and a glorious character but not as glorious as some would have you believe.
I've requested a poll, hopefully we can get one soon, it'll be interesting to see what the votes would be.
For me achievement wise it's Iniesta, in his prime he was up there with Messi in terms of dribbling just didn't have the acceleration, Zidane was a special player on the big stage though.
For me achievement wise it's Iniesta, in his prime he was up there with Messi in terms of dribbling just didn't have the acceleration, Zidane was a special player on the big stage though.
One things for certain, if they ever make a movie about Iniesta it HAS to be more entertaining than the one they made about Zidane! *
* For those unsure what i'm talking about, because its entirely possible it skipped you by, in 2005 they made a movie about Zidane that basically followed him for 90 minutes and had some dubbed commentary from certain individuals he'd played with/ under. He was average in the game and ended up getting sent off
* For those unsure what i'm talking about, because its entirely possible it skipped you by, in 2005 they made a movie about Zidane that basically followed him for 90 minutes and had some dubbed commentary from certain individuals he'd played with/ under. He was average in the game and ended up getting sent off
Finally a pole, thanks mods!