Luka Modric

Murray3007 said:
massive fan of Modric, would have love him here to replace Scholes,


in fairness not sure how you can just say the top 20 players, almost impossible to compare players not from the same position, from a midfield point would have him as the same level as Xavi, prob below a Iniesta
Click to expand...

Ban said:
I stand by my point. Besides those kind of lists are a bit daft.
Click to expand...

I was not the one suggesting Modric definitely belongs into the Top20 players:confused:

Someone makes a claim, I thought it would be fun to check if that claim has much substance and drew up a quick list.

For what it's worth, I think it is absolutely fine if he pops up in some lists of Top20 players since 2002. Just not a definitive shoe-in like Messi or Iniesta. More of a player worthy of discussion, which I attempted to do by raising alternatives.
 
Don Alfredo said:
I was not the one suggesting Modric definitely belongs into the Top20 players:confused:

Someone makes a claim, I thought it would be fun to check if that claim has much substance and drew up a quick list.

For what it's worth, I think it is absolutely fine if he pops up in some lists of Top20 players since 2002. Just not a definitive shoe-in like Messi or Iniesta. More of a player worthy of discussion, which I attempted to do by raising alternatives.
Click to expand...
All good man. I just think the best midfielder in the world right now imo deserves a place in top 20 however pointless those lists are. :)
 
Let's be honest, these lists are never the ultimate truth. There are people claiming that Iniesta was better than Zidane and also some who say Modric was better than Xavi and Iniesta and all of them have valid points, although I disagree with those opinions.

Modric suffers a little bit from being in the shadow Ronaldo and Messi. Earlier generations of star players had occasional seasons of bad form and then the second row could shine, but it wasn't like that during Modric's career. I exemplarily rate Modric higher than someone like, say, Figo, Nedved, Seedorf, Del Piero or Beckham but he never got the same attention as these three.
I'd say, since 2002 there was only a handful of players who were clearly better than him and those were Messi, Cristiano, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Zidane. Neymar could be on the edge of entering this tier but he's not there yet. For me, Modric belongs in the tier below that with players like Xavi, Iniesta, Robben, Ribery, Kaka, Ibrahimovic, Kroos, Rivaldo, Henry, Shevchenko, Eto'o, Figo, Nedved, Beckham, Scholes etc. and it is up to interpretation and preferences how you order this list.

However, in my opinion he is the best CM I've seen after Iniesta and Xavi and I'd even say he would is in my top 10 since 2002. There are many players who scored and assisted more but ability-wise, few come close to Modric. His close control, pressing resistance, passing, intelligence and so one are just absolutely incredible. If he played pre-2008, he would probably be a classic number 10 and would get much more attention. Don't think the guy has to hide in comparison to some of the greatest playmakers we've seen in the game.
 
Isotope said:
I don't think Modric has 'a far better stamina'. We used to play a 90 mph game, end to end style. In a 2 CM system, he's often get to the end of cross on opponent box, and back defending in our box. A trademark of almost every game in EPL.

Also Scholes has a far better shot and heading, and able to re-invent himself as DLP in his later years.
Click to expand...

Beckham and Keane were why you could play Scholes in that role. He never did get back as much as most 4-4-2 CMs, but Keane and Beckham made sure he didn't have to often. When he did have to, he was almost always subbed by 70. By contrast, Nicky Butt never got forward as much as most 4-4-2 CMs.
 
Ban said:
All good man. I just think the best midfielder in the world right now imo deserves a place in top 20 however pointless those lists are. :)
Click to expand...
I think he doesn't but for what it's worth only 3 midfielders would make my list(rest are all AM or forwards)

And the reason Scholes didn't get as many plaudits as Lampard or Gerrard is because he was never the main man for United. Kinda line how most of the world never realized Pirlo's greatness until he left milan. And Pirlo is one of the 3 best midfielders of the last 30 years and one of the best ever, with a WC win to his name in which he was comfortably the best player of the tournament not named Zidane
 
giorno said:
I think he doesn't but for what it's worth only 3 midfielders would make my list(rest are all AM or forwards)

And the reason Scholes didn't get as many plaudits as Lampard or Gerrard is because he was never the main man for United. Kinda line how most of the world never realized Pirlo's greatness until he left milan. And Pirlo is one of the 3 best midfielders of the last 30 years and one of the best ever, with a WC win to his name in which he was comfortably the best player of the tournament not named Zidane
Click to expand...

And people did not really fully appreciate those type of midfielders until the Spain/Barcelona domination. Early-mid00s people were more obsessed with box to box midfielders.
 
I think quite a few opposition fans rate Scholes above Gerrard and Lampard, myself included. Although I think Gerrard and Lampard are both quite different from Scholes, and I don't know why this comparison is continually forced.
 
andyjgt1 said:
Beckham and Keane were why you could play Scholes in that role. He never did get back as much as most 4-4-2 CMs, but Keane and Beckham made sure he didn't have to often. When he did have to, he was almost always subbed by 70. By contrast, Nicky Butt never got forward as much as most 4-4-2 CMs.
Click to expand...
I don't recall he often was subbed by 70 min.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/paul-scholes/leistungsdaten/spieler/3397/plus/0?saison=1999

There he mostly played 90 min. in that Treble year.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Who was better is subjective, and a tough call, but I don't believe that for a second. Modric doesn't have any weaknesses as a CM that I can tell. He's as complete as you get. I'm not sure how Scholes could have been more complete than that.
Click to expand...

Scholes was a better passer of the ball than Modric. In both range and accuracy. He was also the better goal scorer and had a superior ariel ability. During his career he was a far better AM than Modric and as it moved to the end changed his style to DLP.

Both have weaknesses but I don't think Modric will ever be the AM Scholes was whilst as DLP I'd say it's a close affair.
 
TheReligion said:
Scholes was a better passer of the ball than Modric. In both range and accuracy. He was also the better goal scorer and had a superior ariel ability. During his career he was a far better AM than Modric and as it moved to the end changed his style to DLP.

Both have weaknesses but I don't think Modric will ever be the AM Scholes was whilst as DLP I'd say it's a close affair.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. Scholes was better at pinging them from range but Modric is better at close range and with defense splitting passes, I'd say it's about 50/50. Agree Scholes was the better goal scorer but Modric is better defensively, fitness levels, and at carrying so it evens out on that.

I also don't see your point around the AM thing, yeah Scholes was better but he also played there a lot longer than Modric did so why does it matter? We're discussing them both as midfielders in general, not specifically at AM, that's just nit-picking.

For me Scholes edges it because he was world class for longer than Modric has been but I think Modric of the last 4-5 seasons is just as good, maybe better at times, as peak Scholes.
 
Massive Spanner said:
I would disagree. Scholes was better at pinging them from range but Modric is better at close range and with defense splitting passes, I'd say it's about 50/50. Agree Scholes was the better goal scorer but Modric is better defensively, fitness levels, and at carrying so it evens out on that.

I also don't see your point around the AM thing, yeah Scholes was better but he also played there a lot longer than Modric did so why does it matter? We're discussing them both as midfielders in general, not specifically at AM, that's just nit-picking.

For me Scholes edges it because he was world class for longer than Modric has been but I think Modric of the last 4-5 seasons is just as good, maybe better at times, as peak Scholes.
Click to expand...

The AM thing is worth mentioning as Scholes has over 100 career goals whilst Modric has around 13... Massive difference really and not even close.

In my opinion Scholes was the better passer at both long and short range. Short range might be closer but he still wins this area. Seriously I think some people are forgetting just how good Scholes was. Xavi and Iniesta weren't such big fans for nothing.
 
TheReligion said:
The AM thing is worth mentioning as Scholes has over 100 career goals whilst Modric has around 13... Massive difference really and not even close.

In my opinion Scholes was the better passer at both long and short range. Short range might be closer but he still wins this area. Seriously I think some people are forgetting just how good Scholes was. Xavi and Iniesta weren't such big fans for nothing.
Click to expand...
Huh? Modric has 74 goals at club level, Scholes had 155 (in 200 more appearances). Still a gap but nothing like you're trying to claim there.

And yes, it's your opinion, it's all opinion at the end of the day. Two of the best midfielders of their generation so it's natural that people will differ on who was better.

Oh and to add, I'm not forgetting how good he was. He's my favourite player and an incredible midfielder, for sure, but so is Modric.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Huh? Modric has 74 goals at club level, Scholes had 155 (in 200 more appearances). Still a gap but nothing like you're trying to claim there.

And yes, it's your opinion, it's all opinion at the end of the day. Two of the best midfielders of their generation so it's natural that people will differ on who was better.

Oh and to add, I'm not forgetting how good he was. He's my favourite player and an incredible midfielder, for sure, but so is Modric.
Click to expand...

Yeah had a brain fart with the goals. Scholes has double the amount of Modric mind so the point still stands. Scholes has 169 by the way not 155.

I also think Scholes was the better one touch player. Whilst he didn't have the dribbling ability his one touch pass and move style didn't require it.
 
All this praising, complimenting, hyping him, Modric vs Scholes thread, just made me convinced he will be absolute crap come tomorrow.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
:lol: Come on now. He's never ever going be among the best 10 players ever. He isn't that special. Also, Croatia are a very good side. I don't see why beating England and France is that far fetched. This isn't Peps Barca theydt be facing FFS. They have a good chance of winning the cup.
Click to expand...

He will have won 4 Champions Leagues in 5 years as a starter (and vital player) in Real Madrid, and taking Croatia (yes CROATIA :confused:) to win the fecking world cup...

Now that Croatia is in semifinals, are you really going to say that they were title contenders before the WC started?

Croatia was below Mexico, Sweden, Uruguay, Poland, Switzerland, etc... in the contenders lists in all betting sites, and qualified to the world cup 2nd of his group, below Iceland! Come on...

Cruyff and Beckenbauer for example, are in the GOATS list because of that kind of achievements, Maradona is in that list because he took an average/good Argentina team to win the World Cup.

Modric has been destroying Europe the last 5 years with Madrid, if he makes this and manages to win Ballon D'or, we won't need to have a discussion anymore... time puts everyone in the place they deserve.
 
Different class.
 
Yeah he’s been outstanding. Completely ran the show.
 
The little magician is class. Has it all and is also a real workhorse.
 
Player of the tournament imo, regardless of what happens in the final.
 
Incredible player. Can’t believe he was able to stand let alone run after his efforts the last 3 games.
 
If Croatia wins the world cup I think it wouldn't be out of place if Modric wins Ballon d' Or. Maybe finally he'll get rewarded for his brilliance over the past few years.
 
World class. Grew and grew as the game went on.

Looks like he weighs about 8 stone max but he's a real monster of a midfielder.
 
He ruthlessly exposed England’s lack of true quality in the centre of midfield tonight.
 
Been my player of the tournament
 
England midfield made him look like a combo of Edgar Davids + Iniesta.
 
Having said that he played well after the first half, its no surprise to me that people are going to talk like he did it alone.

Brozovic played very well getting on the ball even more than Modric and playing teammates into dangerous areas. He also had a Barcelona midfielder next to him in Rakitic. But yeah Brozovic for me rivaled Modric today, Rakitic wasnt quite as good on the day
 
England being knocked out today feels a tad better knowing that Modric makes it to a world cup final
 
You must log in or register to reply here.