TheFlagStaysDown
New Member
Champions league?How is Modric's career better?
Champions league?How is Modric's career better?
Care to explain how he is not exactly?Modric is quality no doubt about it, but don’t over-rate him and pretend he’s in the GOAT tier of midfielders
Cerezo-Falcao-Socrates-Zico. You're setting the bar pretty low
Modric doesn't have the same function as Xavi and Scholes as far as I'm concerned.
Xavi and Scholes (Post 2006) were both organisers. Modric is a needle player like Iniesta.
Xavi was the most complete passer at all ranges of the 3. His technique was excellent and he almost always passed it to your stronger foot and in a way that allowed you to take half a touch and control it easier. First touch wise he has the best first touch I have ever seen and almost always never lost the ball.
In terms of long Passing I would give it to Scholes but Xavi was his equal, short passing there is no contest between the three, Xavi is the best short passer for the reasons I gave in the last paragraph. Throughballs Xavi is the best followed by Scholes and Modric. Modric is relatively weak in this area. Xavi has pssibly the best slide rule pass, it is up there with the best I have seen such as Ivan de La Pena, Michael Laudrup and Messi.
In terms of ground coverage there is no contest. From 2008 to 2014, Xavi covered the mmost ground in every game, made the most passes every game and was involved in all 3 phases of his team, especially in the 08/09 season where Yaya Toure was the holding midfielder and Xavi had to drop deep to collect the ball from the defence, organise the game in the midfield and then make through balls in the final 3rd. That is the most dominant season from a midfielder in the modern era.
In terms of press resistance (facing your own goal) Xavi is arguably the most press reisistant central midfielder I have ever seen. Modric is his equal in this area and Scholes is the weakest, particulalry when he transitioned from his mobile days to the conservative deep lying playmaker post 2006.
In terms of Ball Carrying (going towards the opposition goal) Modric is arguably the best I have ever seen and is the great needle player of this generation alongside Iniesta. Xavi is a bit behind in this area and Scholes is far behind. Modric will use his press resistance and the his ball carrying to relieve his team of pressure which is why he is one of the best players in that position.
In terms of organising/organising/dictating the game, Xavi is the best I have ever seen. He is the main reason it was very difficult to counter attack Barcelona and Spain as he got the ball in congested areas and did the pelopina/faints to avoid getting into culdesacs and that allowed his team to stay very high up the field and not reset attacks when he was pressed. He was the apex of that. When Xavi's physical attributes declined (he had achillies problems for a long time due to covering the most ground in every game for 5+ years), Barcelona and Spain where much easier to counter attack. We saw this especially with Spain as he did not have the legs to carry the ball in all areas and 'out fires high up the pitch' as he could not be all over the pitch so they got dismantled with counters through the centre that would not have happened in Xavi's hey day. The next is Scholes and then followed by Modric.
In terms of vision to spot passes, Xavi again is the best for me followed by Scholes and then Modric. Modric has a lot of situations in Madrid where he could play between the lines but then he checks back and then plays an outside the foot pass to the opposite flank missing a runner. I have seen this in almost every game in Madrid.
Another area is using your weaker foot. In this area Scholes is ahead of both Modric and Xavi as Xavi had to use feints when he couldn't use his left foot and Modric resorts to using the outside of his right foot to try and create the angles if not he checks back using a feint like Xavi. Scholes long range passing with is two feet was superior.
Defensively, when the team sits in a deep block, Modric is better in one vs one situations whilst Xavi was better at covering passing lanes and intercepting when pressing. I don't think I need to talk about Paul Scholes in this area...
The above cannot be analysed without the context of the teams they will play in and the opposition. If I had to pick one of the three (ideally I would partner Modric with one of them), I would follow a general rule:
In a team that depends on tranistions and there is no controller, I would take Paul Scholes as he is a good passer with both feet.
In a team that depends on transitions and has a controller, Modric as he a fantastic ball carrier.
In a team that has a needle player (Modric/Iniesta type player) I would pick Xavi as he would organise the game and get the needle player in better positions to ball carry in the final 3rd.
In a team that plays high up the field and faces low blocks regualry, Xavi as he is extremely press resistant coupled with the ability for his team to not reset ball possession (passing back to the goalkeeper).
It has to be said that Paul Scholes was unfortunate to not play with a needle player in his career. Modric played with Xabi Alonso and now Kroos (Controllers) Whilst Xavi had Iniesta.
Cerezo was one of the greatest DM in the history of football, and a perfect foil for Falcao. He's the one player Modric would have no chance to replace
Still, those are 4 all time greats. Not getting into that team says nothing about Modric not being one of the best midfielders ever.
Yeah, my point about Cerezo was descriptiveOh I totally missed the sarcasm...I thought you were saying Modric was so superior it was laughable! Cerezo wasn't a DM he was an all-round CM that got forced into the role for Brazil because of the other three. Throughout his club career he played ahead of a DM like this or alongside one like this. In Brazil sometimes he was an AM. I think Modric would've done the same here.
Yeah, my point about Cerezo was descriptive
Care to explain how he is not exactly?
Taking Cerezo out for Modric would make the midfield unbalanced, Cerezo defensive ability far exceeds Modric’s. Modric is more talented of the two no disagreement there but Cerezo gives the much needed glue to stick the midfield together.What a strange comment. He'd walk into the team as the playmaker-turned-workhorse instead of Cerezo, because he's clearly more talented and has the all-round skillset and mentality to make it work, but he'd have to fight for a place against the rest. He couldn't replicate what Socrates or Zico brought to the table and Falcao has all the same qualities Modric has...just without the same level of elegance.
Modric doesn't have the same function as Xavi and Scholes as far as I'm concerned.
Xavi and Scholes (Post 2006) were both organisers. Modric is a needle player like Iniesta.
Xavi was the most complete passer at all ranges of the 3. His technique was excellent and he almost always passed it to your stronger foot and in a way that allowed you to take half a touch and control it easier. First touch wise he has the best first touch I have ever seen and almost always never lost the ball.
In terms of long Passing I would give it to Scholes but Xavi was his equal, short passing there is no contest between the three, Xavi is the best short passer for the reasons I gave in the last paragraph. Throughballs Xavi is the best followed by Scholes and Modric. Modric is relatively weak in this area. Xavi has pssibly the best slide rule pass, it is up there with the best I have seen such as Ivan de La Pena, Michael Laudrup and Messi.
In terms of ground coverage there is no contest. From 2008 to 2014, Xavi covered the mmost ground in every game, made the most passes every game and was involved in all 3 phases of his team, especially in the 08/09 season where Yaya Toure was the holding midfielder and Xavi had to drop deep to collect the ball from the defence, organise the game in the midfield and then make through balls in the final 3rd. That is the most dominant season from a midfielder in the modern era.
In terms of press resistance (facing your own goal) Xavi is arguably the most press reisistant central midfielder I have ever seen. Modric is his equal in this area and Scholes is the weakest, particulalry when he transitioned from his mobile days to the conservative deep lying playmaker post 2006.
In terms of Ball Carrying (going towards the opposition goal) Modric is arguably the best I have ever seen and is the great needle player of this generation alongside Iniesta. Xavi is a bit behind in this area and Scholes is far behind. Modric will use his press resistance and the his ball carrying to relieve his team of pressure which is why he is one of the best players in that position.
In terms of organising/organising/dictating the game, Xavi is the best I have ever seen. He is the main reason it was very difficult to counter attack Barcelona and Spain as he got the ball in congested areas and did the pelopina/faints to avoid getting into culdesacs and that allowed his team to stay very high up the field and not reset attacks when he was pressed. He was the apex of that. When Xavi's physical attributes declined (he had achillies problems for a long time due to covering the most ground in every game for 5+ years), Barcelona and Spain where much easier to counter attack. We saw this especially with Spain as he did not have the legs to carry the ball in all areas and 'out fires high up the pitch' as he could not be all over the pitch so they got dismantled with counters through the centre that would not have happened in Xavi's hey day. The next is Scholes and then followed by Modric.
In terms of vision to spot passes, Xavi again is the best for me followed by Scholes and then Modric. Modric has a lot of situations in Madrid where he could play between the lines but then he checks back and then plays an outside the foot pass to the opposite flank missing a runner. I have seen this in almost every game in Madrid.
Another area is using your weaker foot. In this area Scholes is ahead of both Modric and Xavi as Xavi had to use feints when he couldn't use his left foot and Modric resorts to using the outside of his right foot to try and create the angles if not he checks back using a feint like Xavi. Scholes long range passing with is two feet was superior.
Defensively, when the team sits in a deep block, Modric is better in one vs one situations whilst Xavi was better at covering passing lanes and intercepting when pressing. I don't think I need to talk about Paul Scholes in this area...
The above cannot be analysed without the context of the teams they will play in and the opposition. If I had to pick one of the three (ideally I would partner Modric with one of them), I would follow a general rule:
In a team that depends on tranistions and there is no controller, I would take Paul Scholes as he is a good passer with both feet.
In a team that depends on transitions and has a controller, Modric as he a fantastic ball carrier.
In a team that has a needle player (Modric/Iniesta type player) I would pick Xavi as he would organise the game and get the needle player in better positions to ball carry in the final 3rd.
In a team that plays high up the field and faces low blocks regualry, Xavi as he is extremely press resistant coupled with the ability for his team to not reset ball possession (passing back to the goalkeeper).
It has to be said that Paul Scholes was unfortunate to not play with a needle player in his career. Modric played with Xabi Alonso and now Kroos (Controllers) Whilst Xavi had Iniesta.
Taking Cerezo out for Modric would make the midfield unbalanced, Cerezo defensive ability far exceeds Modric’s. Modric is more talented of the two no disagreement there but Cerezo gives the much needed glue to stick the midfield together.
Remember the Galaticos when they got rid of Makelele, and then it fell apart, I would expect something similar would happen by swapping Cerezo with Modric
That he was one of the greatest midfielders ever in defensive aspects. He was similar to Xabi Alonso, Busquets or Schweinsteiger. But betterWhat do you mean? Outside of those 20-odd games for Brazil he was never a DM. It's just that the rest of his career, while impressive, isn't that memorable...so he's mistakenly called that on Wiki and the like because of essentially one month of football. His most frequent, most natural and best role was much the same as Falcao's or Modric's.
That he was one of the greatest midfielders ever in defensive aspects. Similar to Xabi Alonso, Busquets or Schweinsteiger. But better
Glaston, what the hell?Well Glaston, he's improved at Madrid since taking over from Alonso but doesnt have the same impact the goat CMs had.
Iniesta took some time to finally produce in the final third, but managed several seasons where he assisted and scored over 10 goals. His most productive being 19 combined.
Modric has never been over 8. He's usually come up with 6.
Iniesta made more dribbles and more passes. Modric is a bit better defensively but wasnt a completely solid holding midfielder when used there and Madrid are better with Casemiro doing most of that work for him and Kroos, just like Iniesta and Xavi needed Yaya and then Busquets
He's still obviously a very good CM, but he's some way short of the likes of Iniesta who I personally don't think is at the same level as Xavi either. So yeah one of the best now and in the past year or two but not one of the best ever.
Using Makelele more of an extreme example rather than a comparison, obviously Cerezo was much more than a water carrier, but Cerezo was better than Modric at interceptions and tracking runnersI think that comparison only works as far as them both being black, energetic and pretty quick. Otherwise he had far more in common with Modric than Makelele. The Cerezo that played in '82 Brazil bears very little resemblance to the Cerezo in Roma, Sampdoria or back in Brazil - it's just the fact that almost no-one watched him outside of the '82 WC, so the false impression is pretty widespread.
Glaston, what the hell?
Very good post, agree with everything said.Modric doesn't have the same function as Xavi and Scholes as far as I'm concerned.
Xavi and Scholes (Post 2006) were both organisers. Modric is a needle player like Iniesta.
Xavi was the most complete passer at all ranges of the 3. His technique was excellent and he almost always passed it to your stronger foot and in a way that allowed you to take half a touch and control it easier. First touch wise he has the best first touch I have ever seen and almost always never lost the ball.
In terms of long Passing I would give it to Scholes but Xavi was his equal, short passing there is no contest between the three, Xavi is the best short passer for the reasons I gave in the last paragraph. Throughballs Xavi is the best followed by Scholes and Modric. Modric is relatively weak in this area. Xavi has pssibly the best slide rule pass, it is up there with the best I have seen such as Ivan de La Pena, Michael Laudrup and Messi.
In terms of ground coverage there is no contest. From 2008 to 2014, Xavi covered the mmost ground in every game, made the most passes every game and was involved in all 3 phases of his team, especially in the 08/09 season where Yaya Toure was the holding midfielder and Xavi had to drop deep to collect the ball from the defence, organise the game in the midfield and then make through balls in the final 3rd. That is the most dominant season from a midfielder in the modern era.
In terms of press resistance (facing your own goal) Xavi is arguably the most press reisistant central midfielder I have ever seen. Modric is his equal in this area and Scholes is the weakest, particulalry when he transitioned from his mobile days to the conservative deep lying playmaker post 2006.
In terms of Ball Carrying (going towards the opposition goal) Modric is arguably the best I have ever seen and is the great needle player of this generation alongside Iniesta. Xavi is a bit behind in this area and Scholes is far behind. Modric will use his press resistance and the his ball carrying to relieve his team of pressure which is why he is one of the best players in that position.
In terms of organising/organising/dictating the game, Xavi is the best I have ever seen. He is the main reason it was very difficult to counter attack Barcelona and Spain as he got the ball in congested areas and did the pelopina/faints to avoid getting into culdesacs and that allowed his team to stay very high up the field and not reset attacks when he was pressed. He was the apex of that. When Xavi's physical attributes declined (he had achillies problems for a long time due to covering the most ground in every game for 5+ years), Barcelona and Spain where much easier to counter attack. We saw this especially with Spain as he did not have the legs to carry the ball in all areas and 'out fires high up the pitch' as he could not be all over the pitch so they got dismantled with counters through the centre that would not have happened in Xavi's hey day. The next is Scholes and then followed by Modric.
In terms of vision to spot passes, Xavi again is the best for me followed by Scholes and then Modric. Modric has a lot of situations in Madrid where he could play between the lines but then he checks back and then plays an outside the foot pass to the opposite flank missing a runner. I have seen this in almost every game in Madrid.
Another area is using your weaker foot. In this area Scholes is ahead of both Modric and Xavi as Xavi had to use feints when he couldn't use his left foot and Modric resorts to using the outside of his right foot to try and create the angles if not he checks back using a feint like Xavi. Scholes long range passing with is two feet was superior.
Defensively, when the team sits in a deep block, Modric is better in one vs one situations whilst Xavi was better at covering passing lanes and intercepting when pressing. I don't think I need to talk about Paul Scholes in this area...
The above cannot be analysed without the context of the teams they will play in and the opposition. If I had to pick one of the three (ideally I would partner Modric with one of them), I would follow a general rule:
In a team that depends on tranistions and there is no controller, I would take Paul Scholes as he is a good passer with both feet.
In a team that depends on transitions and has a controller, Modric as he a fantastic ball carrier.
In a team that has a needle player (Modric/Iniesta type player) I would pick Xavi as he would organise the game and get the needle player in better positions to ball carry in the final 3rd.
In a team that plays high up the field and faces low blocks regualry, Xavi as he is extremely press resistant coupled with the ability for his team to not reset ball possession (passing back to the goalkeeper).
It has to be said that Paul Scholes was unfortunate to not play with a needle player in his career. Modric played with Xabi Alonso and now Kroos (Controllers) Whilst Xavi had Iniesta.
Fair enough. Let's start afresh.Ah right you quoted my response to someone else, apologies. My point on the initial response still stands.
Scholes won two of them. How many league titles in a top league did Modric win ? There's no way 4 CLs and 2 La Ligas matches 2 CLs and a bazillion PLs and complete domination of English football. Sometimes going by some posts here I feel Sir Alex achieved feck all in his career.Champions league?
Oh I totally missed the sarcasm...I thought you were saying Modric was so superior it was laughable! Cerezo wasn't a DM he was an all-round CM that got forced into the role for Brazil because of the other three. Throughout his club career he played ahead of a DM like this or alongside one like this. In Brazil sometimes he was an AM. I think Modric would've done the same here.
What do you mean? Outside of those 20-odd games for Brazil he was never a DM. It's just that the rest of his career, while impressive, isn't that memorable...so he's mistakenly called that on Wiki and the like because of essentially one month of football. His most frequent, most natural and best role was much the same as Falcao's or Modric's.
Well Glaston, he's improved at Madrid since taking over from Alonso but doesnt have the same impact the goat CMs had.
Iniesta took some time to finally produce in the final third, but managed several seasons where he assisted and scored over 10 goals. His most productive being 19 combined.
Modric has never been over 8. He's usually come up with 6.
....he was one of the most complete midfielders around. He could do a bit of everything at an elite level. In Italy he mostly played a similar role to the guys i mentioned, he was basically a sort of box-to-box Xabi Alonso. With Kante's engineWhy do you think Roma played a DM behind him and Sao Paulo played him as an AM in that case? Seems a waste
Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Scholes
Schweinsteiger
Alonso
Kroos
In terms of controlling midfielders
Modric plays deeper then Iniesta so it's logical for him to have less goals and assists.
What would you say by controlling midfielders? Midfielders who can distribute the ball? I would put Kroos higher than Schweinsteiger because he is better at passing the ball than Schweinsteiger was, although Schweinsteiger was the better midfielder overall because of his ability to play both as an attacking midfielder and also a defensive one.
In terms of controlling midfielders:
Xavi
Pirlo
Scholes
Kroos
Alonso
Modric
Schweinsteiger
I don't think Iniesta is the controlling midfielder type of the others mentioned above
As overall midfielders:
Xavi
Iniesta
Scholes/Schweinsteiger
Modric
Pirlo
Kroos
Alonso
Slight generalisation from myself. I suppose midfielders involved in their sides rythem of play from a deeper area. So ignoring your direct attacking influencers like kaka, Gerrard. Although though that could be confused with Iniesta like you say who probably played a bit further on than Xavi when both lined up. I’m suprised you have Scholes so high up when he wasn’t always our first choice when he was doing that role. Although that is to do with age at the time it has to be considered. I couldn’t see the other players in list not being used by their side because of how important they were.
....he was one of the most complete midfielders around. He could do a bit of everything at an elite level. In Italy he mostly played a similar role to the guys i mentioned, he was basically a sort of box-to-box Xabi Alonso. With Kante's engine
Defensively -the main job he had on that Brazil was DM. Win the ball, shield the defence, build up attacking play. He had less licence to roam forward- he was one of the best ever. On the level of guys like Kante or Makelele.
Scholes did play that role though in his 30's and played it very well. I suppose you are referring to the period when Veron was signed and was played more in that role than Scholes? I think post 2006 with Carrick and Scholes, Scholes was amongst the best players in that role.
Well Glaston, he's improved at Madrid since taking over from Alonso but doesnt have the same impact the goat CMs had.
Iniesta took some time to finally produce in the final third, but managed several seasons where he assisted and scored over 10 goals. His most productive being 19 combined.
Modric has never been over 8. He's usually come up with 6.
Iniesta made more dribbles and more passes. Modric is a bit better defensively but wasnt a completely solid holding midfielder when used there and Madrid are better with Casemiro doing most of that work for him and Kroos, just like Iniesta and Xavi needed Yaya and then Busquets
He's still obviously a very good CM, but he's some way short of the likes of Iniesta who I personally don't think is at the same level as Xavi either. So yeah one of the best now and in the past year or two but not one of the best ever.
You are lying.
Iniesta hasn't scored 10 or more goals in a season in his whole career, not even once. His record is 9 goals in a season.
In fact, he averages 8.8 assists and 3.5 goals per season in his carrer.
And then, comapring gaols and assists between them is nosense, because Modric in Madrid plays much deeper and as an organizer, and Iniesta as an offensive mid and a lot of seasons he played in the left wing.
I also consider Xavi and Iniesta in a tier above of other MFs. But then you can't totally ignore Messi effect. It's also interesting that they all started to flourish and dominate the game at the same time around 2008 until the arrival of Enrique who built a more direct and counter-attacking team. Unfortunately, there are many factors that you can't look at them separately like assists or goals. When you are playing with a player like Messi - who brings 60-70 goals and assists for fun - then, of course, your own G+A increases significantly.Well Glaston, he's improved at Madrid since taking over from Alonso but doesnt have the same impact the goat CMs had.
Iniesta took some time to finally produce in the final third, but managed several seasons where he assisted and scored over 10 goals. His most productive being 19 combined.
Modric has never been over 8. He's usually come up with 6.
Iniesta made more dribbles and more passes. Modric is a bit better defensively but wasnt a completely solid holding midfielder when used there and Madrid are better with Casemiro doing most of that work for him and Kroos, just like Iniesta and Xavi needed Yaya and then Busquets
He's still obviously a very good CM, but he's some way short of the likes of Iniesta who I personally don't think is at the same level as Xavi either. So yeah one of the best now and in the past year or two but not one of the best ever.
This isn't really accurate. @giorno is spot on about Cerezo being a DM. Cerezo began as a DM at Atletico Mineiro and first made a name for himself as a world class holding mid. Here is Placar's Bola de Prata in 1977. Cerezo won best player in the Brazilian league as a holding mid.
Noitice that Cerezo is first place as medio-volante which is the holding midfielder in Brazilian tactics. He played for as a world class DM for Mineiro, a lot more than just 20 games for Brazil. And he wasn't put in a position that he wasn't natural in to accommodate anyone else. He was playing in his natural position where he established himself as one of the best players in Brazil. He was more of a complete CM when in Roma and then later for Sampdoria and then when he went back to São Paolo to finish his career with Tele he moved up the pitch as he got older. That 1993 Intercontinental Cup (love that match btw) was at the end of his career.
So I tend to agree with giorno that Modric's skill set simply doesn't replicate Cerezo's as a holding mid (volante) and Modric wouldn't get into that side. Not a knock on his quality but Cerezo absolutely had better holding mid credentials as shown above.
Also being part of a European Cup runner-up with Roma, then helping Sampdoria win Serie A when that league was filled with talent and finish runners-up in the EC, then go back to Brazil at end of his career and be the final ingredient in Tele Santana's São Paolo side that won two Copa Libertadores then beat both Cruyff's Barcelona and Capello's Milan in consecutive Intercontinental Cups is pretty memorable in my eyes!
I also consider Xavi and Iniesta in a tier above of other MFs. But then you can't totally ignore Messi effect. It's also interesting that they all started to flourish and dominate the game at the same time around 2008 until the arrival of Enrique who built a more direct and counter-attacking team. Unfortunately, there are many factors that you can't look at them separately like assists or goals. When you are playing with a player like Messi - who brings 60-70 goals and assists for fun - then, of course, your own G+A increases significantly.
I think we're getting to the stage where people are using different definitions of DMs and going round in circles. What your graphic tells us if you have to choose between defining him as a medio-volante or a meia-armador, he'll be put into the latter - but the Brazilian classification doesn't cover off the group of midfielders in between those two, the all-round, all-action CMs. Which is what the original discussion was about. He was a "DM" in the sense that someone who plays in the midfield 2 of a 4231 is a DM - but then by that definition Modric was a DM for a significant portion of his career, which brings us back to square 1 in the conversation. What would Falcao be defined as within that classification system?
Anyyyyyyyway, I think we've taken this off topic far enough.
He plays as 1 of 2 CMs next to a DM. He also used to play our wide just like Iniesta was used there. He is simply less productive.
When was that? I guess lot has happen since then.Just a call back to Glaston and Scholesy talking him up way beyond what he is
When was that? If the answer is Spurs don't bother replying, you really don't know what you're talking about in this thread.
When was that? If the answer is Spurs don't bother replying, you really don't know what you're talking about in this thread.
No he didn't, he played about half a season for spurs as left winger and that was it. For Croatia he always played as CM, and for Dinamo he played as attacking midfielder.He did used to play out wide. He was a wide attacker when he first came on the scene