Luka Modric

There is serious overrating of Xavi individually on this forum. Both Xavi and Iniesta were very important parts of a machine-like system both in Barcelona & Spanish NT and that made them look like untouchable. That doesn't mean they were better individuals than Modric though. And the fact that both were not seen as world beaters until 2008 when Barcelona & Spain's domination began proves my point. I can somewhat understand Iniesta as he had some aspects to his game where he was better than Modric like better close control, better dribbling etc. but Modric is better than/or at least on par with Xavi in all aspects of the game.


Fer said:
I still remember that I wanted Modric and Bale to replace Scholes and Giggs... Time flies.

The last midfielders I wanted were Kroos and Eriksen (when he was playing for Ajax).

Let's hope Fred improves our midfield.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. Summer of 2011 that was. Not going for both of them especially for Modric when Scholes was retiring & our midfield already needed reinforcements before his retirement was a huge mistake imo. Instead, we went with Cleverley & Anderson in midfield for the next season. Fast forward a couple of years, one of them plays in Watford and the other one has been out of contract for the last 6 months in Brazil.
 
adexkola said:
You're mental putting Modric above Xavi or Iniesta. The duo dominated club and international football in a way Modric has never done. 2 Euros, 1 WC. Come back when he's gone deep into the World Cup or Euros.
Click to expand...

But they played for Spain who has a complete team, I’m not saying he is better but you can’t use team achievements to argue individual brilliance.

For instance he has won 3 back to back UCLs you could say they never achieved that. Thats even with 2 of then in midfield and the best player in the world Messi ahead of them
 
Last edited:
With Iniesta and Xavi you have to account for the explanation that they were doped up to the nines under former club Barcelona and former manager Pep Guardiola.

Modric is clean.
 
CA1 said:
With Iniesta and Xavi you have to account for the explanation that they were doped up to the nines under former club Barcelona and former manager Pep Guardiola.

Modric is clean.
Click to expand...
Lol so Xavi and Iniesta are juicing but Modric who is 32 and is box to box at the highest level playing every game for club and country is clean.

Every top player is probably on something. They probably have scientists making them milkshakes, the players don’t know what’s going into them.
 
Best CM in the world, he is an absolute joy to watch and is at the peak of his powers. Little genius. For the plaudits he gets, he is still underrated in my opinion.
 
Incredible midfielder, never thought he would turn out to be better than Scholes when he was playing LW for spurs.
 
Why are some posters saying he's better than Scholes? During Scholes' peak there were plenty of fantastic CM's walking around, more than there are now. Peak Scholes today would stand out even more.
 
CA1 said:
With Iniesta and Xavi you have to account for the explanation that they were doped up to the nines under former club Barcelona and former manager Pep Guardiola.

Modric is clean.
Click to expand...
Wow, such certainty.
 
MrMourinho#7 said:
There is serious overrating of Xavi individually on this forum. Both Xavi and Iniesta were very important parts of a machine-like system both in Barcelona & Spanish NT and that made them look like untouchable. That doesn't mean they were better individuals than Modric though. And the fact that both were not seen as world beaters until 2008 when Barcelona & Spain's domination began proves my point. I can somewhat understand Iniesta as he had some aspects to his game where he was better than Modric like better close control, better dribbling etc. but Modric is better than/or at least on par with Xavi in all aspects of the game.

Yeah, me too. Summer of 2011 that was. Not going for both of them especially for Modric when Scholes was retiring & our midfield already needed reinforcements before his retirement was a huge mistake imo. Instead, we went with Cleverley & Anderson in midfield for the next season. Fast forward a couple of years, one of them plays in Watford and the other one has been out of contract for the last 6 months in Brazil.
Click to expand...

For all SAF's brilliance he was incredibly stubborn, stingy and short-sighted at times. He should have spent big on players like Modric, Aguero, Bale instead of saying there was no value in the market, what it would have cost to get them and the service they would have given would have been a bargain, and think of what we could have achieved with them instead of putting up with the Cleverly's, Andersons, Obertans etc over the years.
Modric is a little genius who has been doing it at the highest level for so many years now.
 
Isotope said:
It's no secret I'm a big fan of Modric.
And I see the similar trade of him in Verratti. A workhorse midfielder who can control the game beautifully. If I were Mourinho, I'd not hesitate to put all of our transfer budget to get Verratti.
Click to expand...

Veratti is not fit to lace Modric's shoes.
 
VorZakone said:
Why are some posters saying he's better than Scholes? During Scholes' peak there were plenty of fantastic CM's walking around, more than there are now. Peak Scholes today would stand out even more.
Click to expand...

When was peak Scholes for you? 06-10?
 
VorZakone said:
Why are some posters saying he's better than Scholes? During Scholes' peak there were plenty of fantastic CM's walking around, more than there are now. Peak Scholes today would stand out even more.
Click to expand...

Peak Modric would have stood out then too
 
£30 million back in the summer of 2012, an absolute steal for Real Madrid. It always struck me as odd that, during the same period, we were linked mostly with #10's like Sneijder while simultaneously we were trying to convert players like Anderson into central midfielders. The old midfield issue that still awaits to be sorted out... Just imagine him next to prime Carrick and with RvP spitting fire in 2012/13. Not to mention that he's the perfect #8 for Mourinho's 4231. But i guess the truth of the matter is that Spurs would have never sold him to us.
 


This was Modric dominating at a match v spain with Xavi and Iniesta. For me Modric is the best midfielder I've ever seen, and also my favourite player to watch. The discussion of who has been the best midfielder is a rather subjective call, but glad to see him in the conversation.
 
FootyGirl88 said:
In what aspects do people rate Modric higher than Scholes? ❤
Click to expand...

Personally I think he is much better defensively than Scholes, I also think he was able to perform on the international stage better than Scholes.
I think he is a better dribbler than Scholes was too.
 
MrMourinho#7 said:
There is serious overrating of Xavi individually on this forum. Both Xavi and Iniesta were very important parts of a machine-like system both in Barcelona & Spanish NT and that made them look like untouchable. That doesn't mean they were better individuals than Modric though. And the fact that both were not seen as world beaters until 2008 when Barcelona & Spain's domination began proves my point. I can somewhat understand Iniesta as he had some aspects to his game where he was better than Modric like better close control, better dribbling etc. but Modric is better than/or at least on par with Xavi in all aspects of the game.
Click to expand...

You can't prove anything by using common sense. As time goes by, ex players are always better and better in the eyes of the average football fan.

If Xavi had to play in a system like Modric played at times in Real Madrid, he'd be lost in traffic.
 
He is GOAT level, up there with Xavi and Iniesta.
 
FootyGirl88 said:
In what aspects do people rate Modric higher than Scholes? ❤
Click to expand...
Probably better track record in big games?

Great yesterday and it wasn't even all that compared to what he can be. That goal tho :drool:
 
FootyGirl88 said:
In what aspects do people rate Modric higher than Scholes? ❤
Click to expand...

Modric is always in control, he always knows where the ball is and where the first defender is coming from. Master of escape routes without panicking. Scholes was much more physical and relied on tackling to get out of certain situations. They are close, but to me Modric is one tad higher on the list purely because of his immaculate control of the ball and all situations. Four CL’s for Real, perhaps Modric is the one player that makes the team tick like they do.
 
Cassidy said:
Personally I think he is much better defensively than Scholes, I also think he was able to perform on the international stage better than Scholes.
I think he is a better dribbler than Scholes was too.
Click to expand...

giorno said:
Probably better track record in big games?

Great yesterday and it wasn't even all that compared to what he can be. That goal tho :drool:
Click to expand...

James Peril said:
Modric is always in control, he always knows where the ball is and where the first defender is coming from. Master of escape routes without panicking. Scholes was much more physical and relied on tackling to get out of certain situations. They are close, but to me Modric is one tad higher on the list purely because of his immaculate control of the ball and all situations. Four CL’s for Real, perhaps Modric is the one player that makes the team tick like they do.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of you guys tbh - what are your thoughts on their passing? I think I would rate Scholes higher his accuracy was ridiculous.
 
FootyGirl88 said:
I don't disagree with any of you guys tbh - what are your thoughts on their passing? I think I would rate Scholes higher his accuracy was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think they were both good, but Scholes certainly had a better range of passing, so did Xavi
 
Zehner said:
I don't really care if it were the FIFA votes that changed it. If Iniesta and Xavi didn't win it in 2008, 2010 and 2012 even with only the Ballon D'Or votes counting then this would also mean that they've abandoned their criteria. The fact that Cannavaro won it in 2006 despite being leagues below Zidane and Ronaldinho suggests that it should always go to the best player of the best team. And it has at least been like that since the 90s. Because otherwise the prizes between 1998 and at least 2006 would have gone to Ronaldo, Zidane and Ronaldinho since they were comfortably ahead of everyone else in the game in this period. Laudrup didn't win one single Ballon D'Or besides being probably the best player in the 90s.

I mean, the whole idea of giving an individual trophy to the best player of the most successful team is ridiculous (since you honour individual quality not collective accomplishments) but if you started with that approach you should stick with it. So, if you ask me, the list should be:

2008: Xavi (respectively Cristiano, if you value the Euro as high as the CL)
2009: Messi
2010: Iniesta
2011: Messi
2012: Iniesta (Chelsea had no standout player and were quite lucky to win the CL)
2013: Ribery
2014: Kroos/Neuer/Schweinsteiger (either would be fine)
2015: Messi
2016: Cristiano
2017: Cristiano
2018: ?

Maybe you can even leave the Euro out of the equation or equal it with the CL. But this would still only change the title of 2008 which would go to Cristiano instead.
Both would be far more reminiscent of the Ballon D'Or history pre Messi and Ronaldo when the prize switched quite often and someone like Figo or Nedved could "steal" a Ballon D'Or from the "greats". But they abandoned these criteria in order to artifically boost the rivalry between Messi and Cristiano..
Click to expand...
I think you're a bit wrong. It has never been 'give it to the best player in the team winning the most important competition'. Shevchenko won it in 2004 without winning UCL or Euros, Owen won it when Liverpool got the shit Treble, Nedved won it without UCL and so on. It has always been a subjective voting with high weights given to the top competitions, but not an automatic process to give it always to the winner of top competitions.

So 2008 stays with Ronaldo, Xavi probably should have been second instead of Messi.
2009, clear Messi.
2010, Sneijder for me. Arguably the second best player in both WC and UCL, while winning the Treble and reaching the finals in WC (a bit like Cruyff in 1974, right).
2011, clearly Messi.
2012, again Messi. No UCL but the best individual season in the history of the game.
2013, undoubdetly Ribery.
2014, Ronaldo, clearly.
2015, Messi
2016, Ronaldo
2017, Ronaldo clearly
2018, looks Ronaldo so far, and Messi is one Iceland victory away from getting excluded.

Pretty much the voting for Ballom D'Or actually went like this and the only harmed players were Sneijder and Ribery. They could blame FIFA about it.
 
kerryman said:
For all SAF's brilliance he was incredibly stubborn, stingy and short-sighted at times. He should have spent big on players like Modric, Aguero, Bale instead of saying there was no value in the market, what it would have cost to get them and the service they would have given would have been a bargain, and think of what we could have achieved with them instead of putting up with the Cleverly's, Andersons, Obertans etc over the years.
Modric is a little genius who has been doing it at the highest level for so many years now.
Click to expand...

We were not as rich as we are now back then until the appointment of Woodward. Woodward brought even bigger commercial success to United with Chevrolet and Adidas deals among all other clever business.

Back then, we are very much concerned about our debt rather than signing players on record fees.
 
Cassidy said:
But they played for Spain who has a complete team, I’m not saying he is better but you can’t use team achievements to argue individual brilliance.

For instance he has won 3 back to back UCLs you could say they never achieved that. Thats even with 2 of then in midfield and the best player in the world Messi ahead of them
Click to expand...

In either metric they are ahead of him. I don't care about back to back CLs. Xavi and Iniesta have 4 CLs. Modric has 4 CLs. They have more league titles. They've made an impact on the international stage he hasn't, and especially in Xavi's case, the dominance his teams exerted on the pitch would have been impossible without his presence and play.

Again. To suggest Modric is their equal or superior, either it's recency bias or sheer cluelessness.
 
adexkola said:
In either metric they are ahead of him. I don't care about back to back CLs. Xavi and Iniesta have 4 CLs. Modric has 4 CLs. They have more league titles. They've made an impact on the international stage he hasn't, and especially in Xavi's case, the dominance his teams exerted on the pitch would have been impossible without his presence and play.

Again. To suggest Modric is their equal or superior, either it's recency bias or sheer cluelessness.
Click to expand...

Again your talking about the teams achievements and not the individuals. Its only recency bias if you base everything on their teams winning trophies.

Like the line I have bolded, they also played for a much better nation.
Take someone like Ryan Giggs, what impact did he have on the international stage? Does that mean he wasn't a great player or better than some players who played for better nations and were able to make an impact? Some like Pedro for instance?

Like I said before I'm not even saying Modric was better, but your argument against isn't valid. The only part that resonates in what you said was that Xavi was integral to the Barca dominance.
 
adexkola said:
In either metric they are ahead of him. I don't care about back to back CLs. Xavi and Iniesta have 4 CLs. Modric has 4 CLs. They have more league titles. They've made an impact on the international stage he hasn't, and especially in Xavi's case, the dominance his teams exerted on the pitch would have been impossible without his presence and play.

Again. To suggest Modric is their equal or superior, either it's recency bias or sheer cluelessness.
Click to expand...

The thing with Xavi he has to be in a specific possession style system to be effective i do think Modric is more versatile and it's not really fair to compare international careers when you look at the quality of teammates.

And i don't think Xavi's Spain were that dominant at all, yes they hogged a lot of possession but they were pretty toothless going forward, Spain 2010 are up there with the most boring winners ever. And they only just managed to beat a poor Dutch side in the final who had plenty of opportunities to win that game, they didn't really dominate.

I can understand people saying Xavi is better but so say he's equal isn't an outlandish claim either.
 
MrMourinho#7 said:
There is serious overrating of Xavi individually on this forum. Both Xavi and Iniesta were very important parts of a machine-like system both in Barcelona & Spanish NT and that made them look like untouchable. That doesn't mean they were better individuals than Modric though. And the fact that both were not seen as world beaters until 2008 when Barcelona & Spain's domination began proves my point. I can somewhat understand Iniesta as he had some aspects to his game where he was better than Modric like better close control, better dribbling etc. but Modric is better than/or at least on par with Xavi in all aspects of the game.
Click to expand...

I think you don't really understand Xavi's strengthes. Ability wise, Modric is clearly ahead of him. Quicker, better dribbler, better shot taker, probably a better passer. But Xavi's greatest strength was his intelligence. He would always find solutions and barely lose any balls. Modric never came close to him in this regard. Xavi was the absolute master of doing the easy things and also occasionally had absolutely mindblowing passes. Modric takes much more risks and thus loses more balls. You should compare him to Iniesta because he had a similar mindset. And Iniesta's abilities are at least up there with Modric's although it is pretty, pretty close.


Revan said:
I think you're a bit wrong. It has never been 'give it to the best player in the team winning the most important competition'. Shevchenko won it in 2004 without winning UCL or Euros, Owen won it when Liverpool got the shit Treble, Nedved won it without UCL and so on. It has always been a subjective voting with high weights given to the top competitions, but not an automatic process to give it always to the winner of top competitions.

So 2008 stays with Ronaldo, Xavi probably should have been second instead of Messi.
2009, clear Messi.
2010, Sneijder for me. Arguably the second best player in both WC and UCL, while winning the Treble and reaching the finals in WC (a bit like Cruyff in 1974, right).
2011, clearly Messi.
2012, again Messi. No UCL but the best individual season in the history of the game.
2013, undoubdetly Ribery.
2014, Ronaldo, clearly.
2015, Messi
2016, Ronaldo
2017, Ronaldo clearly
2018, looks Ronaldo so far, and Messi is one Iceland victory away from getting excluded.

Pretty much the voting for Ballom D'Or actually went like this and the only harmed players were Sneijder and Ribery. They could blame FIFA about it.
Click to expand...

Well, between 1982 and 2006 there were only two prizes that didn't go to a WC winner and these were in the two years an American team won it (the Ballon D'Or at least used to be "Europeans Player of the Year". And if Cannavaro won it in 2006 because he won the World Cup then Schweinsteiger and Iniesta have very profound claims to 2010 and 2014. We are talking about prime-Ronaldinho and a Zidane who had just set the clock back a few years at the WC. There was much more distance between them and the CB Cannavaro than between Messi and Iniesta in 2010 or Ronaldo and Schweinsteiger/Neuer/Kroos in 2014.

Anyway, I think the criteria change way too much in order for this to be a consistent prize. You can't compare the trophies of say Messi and someone like Ronaldinho, Laudrup or Ronaldo since they had completely different standards applied to their performances.
 
CA1 said:
With Iniesta and Xavi you have to account for the explanation that they were doped up to the nines under former club Barcelona and former manager Pep Guardiola.

Modric is clean.
Click to expand...

Indeed - Messi for Argentina is a technically impressive gnome, but lacks that intense burst that’s defined his club career. Xavi was often riding bench behind Van Bommel and Deco until Spanish football (and sport in general) suddenly, collectively found an unnatural sustained intensity.

The biggest indicator of how filthy Spanish football is isn’t the big clubs, but Sevilla - they won three Europa League’s with a load of mediocre players who’ve failed elsewhere; Steven N’Zonzi, of Stoke and Blackburn obscurity, went from Patrick Star to Patrick Vieira after a few months in Andalusia.

Modric may currently be immersed in such shady practices, but he was fantastic for Spurs as well and for me ranks higher than Xavi and Iniesta. I’d even rate Cesc Fabregas higher than those two - in his prime he was an incredible player and a far more productive player in a number of different environments too.
 
adexkola said:
In either metric they are ahead of him. I don't care about back to back CLs. Xavi and Iniesta have 4 CLs. Modric has 4 CLs. They have more league titles. They've made an impact on the international stage he hasn't, and especially in Xavi's case, the dominance his teams exerted on the pitch would have been impossible without his presence and play.

Again. To suggest Modric is their equal or superior, either it's recency bias or sheer cluelessness.
Click to expand...

The only clueless guy in this discussion is you. Modric has more in his locker then Xavi and Iniesta combined. That's exactly what makes him so special.
 
AP88 said:
Indeed - Messi for Argentina is a technically impressive gnome, but lacks that intense burst that’s defined his club career. Xavi was often riding bench behind Van Bommel and Deco until Spanish football (and sport in general) suddenly, collectively found an unnatural sustained intensity.

The biggest indicator of how filthy Spanish football is isn’t the big clubs, but Sevilla - they won three Europa League’s with a load of mediocre players who’ve failed elsewhere; Steven N’Zonzi, of Stoke and Blackburn obscurity, went from Patrick Star to Patrick Vieira after a few months in Andalusia.

Modric may currently be immersed in such shady practices, but he was fantastic for Spurs as well and for me ranks higher than Xavi and Iniesta. I’d even rate Cesc Fabregas higher than those two - in his prime he was an incredible player and a far more productive player in a number of different environments too.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Deco was one of the best midfielders in the world on his prime, and if injuries didn't get in the way, Xavi would probably had stayed a few more seasons at the bench, easily.
 
FootyGirl88 said:
I don't disagree with any of you guys tbh - what are your thoughts on their passing? I think I would rate Scholes higher his accuracy was ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Mine was a guess, not my opinion :D

Passing....depends what type of passing we're talking about. Scholes i'd say had more range and variety in his locker, Modric is more unpredictable though. Modric sometimes is Zidanesque/Messiesque. Don't remember that from Scholes
 
Luka Modric is so good that there are compilations of his outside of the foot passes alone on youtube.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.