So where is Modric rated in best CM’s of all time ?

[Mike Smalling]

I put Modric at the same level as Xavi and Iniesta. Different players, but equally dominating.

People will point to Xavi and Iniesta only playing in that tiki-taka style, but they weren’t just cogs in that machine - they pretty much defined it. And it’s not like Modric has played with bad players himself. Kroos and Casemiro were world class in their own right as well.

 

[Deery]

I’ve probably chatted too much shite in this thread, but really what I was trying to say is Modric has so many strings to his bow and so much in his locker he deserves to be talked about in the same breath as the best.

As the guy above says different players hard to compare, but they’re all worthy of being mentioned as the best.

 

[Bebestation]

I can see Modric playing for Barcelona and doing just aswell.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I put Modric at the same level as Xavi and Iniesta. Different players, but equally dominating.

People will point to Xavi and Iniesta only playing in that tiki-taka style, but they weren’t just cogs in that machine - they pretty much defined it. And it’s not like Modric has played with bad players himself. Kroos and Casemiro were world class in their own right as well.

Not to get into the whole ‘other leagues’ argument but I do think it’s great we’ve seen Modric play at a non elite club and seen the effect he had on Spurs in the PL. I’m not going to pretend I watched Zagreb regularly but at Tottenham he joined them when they were a mid table team and left them as a CL/EL club, he was always someone rival clubs admired and I do think he’s the best all round CM I have seen.

Something that will always be a shame forma neutral fan’s perspective re Xavi/Iniesta is they only played in one league, in one team with a very specific style who were always elite and even the national team was heavily influenced by that style. It would have been fascinating to see if they could adapt to a different way of playing.

 

[Moby]

I can see Modric playing for Barcelona and doing just aswell.

As has been mentioned a few times all the claims that other top midfielders could do the same job in that midfield fall apart when you observe their style of play when Xavi was at the peak and how that utter domination and absolute top tier level coincided with his peak and hasnt been seen before or after. Gio put forward brilliant evidence of how Spain who had a plethora of highly gifted CMs still could not keep up that level as soon as Xavi was absent.

Barca themselves had the likes of Fabregas Thiago Rakitic etc come in after Xavi but the difference was straight up night and day when you compare it to the 09-12 years for them. It's a rare case of a system coming about due to the presence of a one of a kind orchestrator that went on to dominate everything and entirely change how managers approach tactics from there on out. There are great CMs who achieved amazing things in their careers and there are players who define the way the game is played.

 

[Hammondo]

Some really crazy stuff being written here. Xavi only good when Barcelona is dominating? He is the main reason they were dominating opposition, he was beating everyone in midfield hands down.

 

[altodevil]

Call me a pleb but it's Iniesta over Xavi or Modric. I agree they aren't direct comparisons.

 

[Righteous Steps]

I can see Modric playing for Barcelona and doing just aswell.

I don’t think so.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Not to get into the whole ‘other leagues’ argument but I do think it’s great we’ve seen Modric play at a non elite club and seen the effect he had on Spurs in the PL. I’m not going to pretend I watched Zagreb regularly but at Tottenham he joined them when they were a mid table team and left them as a CL/EL club, he was always someone rival clubs admired and I do think he’s the best all round CM I have seen.

Something that will always be a shame forma neutral fan’s perspective re Xavi/Iniesta is they only played in one league, in one team with a very specific style who were always elite and even the national team was heavily influenced by that style. It would have been fascinating to see if they could adapt to a different way of playing.

This might be reaching a bit, but would it be fair to say the play style of the 2008 Spain team that won the Euros was different? If I recall correctly, they played 4-4-2 with two out-and-out strikers and were more direct than later versions, when they basically copied Barca.

Otherwise, I agree. Although we did get to see Iniesta in Vissel Kobe

 

[mctrials23]

Modric is and always has been an absolutely world class player. To be in that RM side consistently over such a long period of time when RM were so good speaks volumes. The fact that he is the only player to have won a ballon dor apart from Messi and Ronaldo and the fact that the ballon dor is basically heavily weighted towards those 2 again, speaks volumes.

The perfect creative midfielder and there are few players that I would take over him. Very few players have been better than him in the last decade in that position and I would argue that none have been as consistently influential and quality.

Only player that I would probably put in a similar ball park is De Bruyne.

 

[Fortitude]

As has been mentioned a few times all the claims that other top midfielders could do the same job in that midfield fall apart when you observe their style of play when Xavi was at the peak and how that utter domination and absolute top tier level coincided with his peak and hasnt been seen before or after. Gio put forward brilliant evidence of how Spain who had a plethora of highly gifted CMs still could not keep up that level as soon as Xavi was absent.

Barca themselves had the likes of Fabregas Thiago Rakitic etc come in after Xavi but the difference was straight up night and day when you compare it to the 09-12 years for them. It's a rare case of a system coming about due to the presence of a one of a kind orchestrator that went on to dominate everything and entirely change how managers approach tactics from there on out. There are great CMs who achieved amazing things in their careers and there are players who define the way the game is played.

This is something that is overlooked or even something that Xavi tends not to be acknowledged for.

 

[Vapor trail]

Xavi and Iniesta were unplayable, the technical elegance of Iniesta and his control are unmatched from any comparison. I wouldn't define Modric as unplayable but he too is brilliant they all have different midfield profiles.

Modric is certainly the more well rounded can play as a deep 6 but is also creative enough to be an 8. Whatever the elite midfielders categories are they all belong. It's like comparing a prime Aguero vs prime Henry different profiles but equally excellent influences for their clubs and leagues.

 

[BerryBerryShrew]

A lot to unpack here:

Keane was completely different player than Xavi and of course he could not influence games in the same way Xavi did. If Keane was that good, and if Scholes was that good, then how come they didn't dominate like Barcelona? That would only suggest that Ferguson was backwards thinking manager who didn't know how to use them, which I completely disagree with.

Xavi is comfortably better player, no comparison here really.

The current Man City team dominates the ball in a similar way to Xavi's Barca and far more so than any of SAF's United teams. Does this mean that Rodri and Bernardo Silva are better players than Keane? It's a style of play. One that Keane would have had absolutely no trouble in replicating if he was in the Barca setup given his attributes.

What the actual...

Like I say, Keane excelled in retaining possession, passing between the lines, press resistance, and making space to receive the ball as well as anyone (with functioning eyes). It's not outlandish to think that he would have comfortably slotted in to a Guardiola midfield and thrived. Just like it's easy to see that someone like Verratti would have.

What games was Xavi marginalised for from 2008 to 2012?


Come on that’s not true, Xavi has the second most assists in La Liga history and 20 assists in one season, 2008/09. Proper assists too, many unbelievable defence splitting passes.

There are a few reasons for this:
1. He was an excellent player (not disputing that- just saying that he wasn't the demi-god that the football hipsters make him out to be)
2. He played consistently for one of the two dominant sides in La Liga for 15 odd years. It's the same reason that Rooney is our highest ever goalscorer: very few players get to line out week in week out for a decade and a half for a dominant side. If RvN had played for us for 12 years he'd be our highest ever goalscorer.
3. James Milner clocked up 9 assists (at least) in a single CL campaign. Great figures in a single season don't necessarily mean that much.

How are these allowed to be promoted ? Inspirational stuff.


And then there is this. Kill me now.

Answer me this then: replace Keane with Xavi in a midfield 2 for United and replace Xavi with Keane in a midfield 3 under Guardiola. Which team suffers more?

Also, how come nobody puts any respect on Schweini's name in these midfield discussions? He bossed a World Cup and humiliated Xavi's Barca (7-0) as a midfield controller lest we forget.

 

[Grande]

Who’s downplaying him to win an argument for Modric? I was saying the other poster had a good point about Scholes and international level, wasn’t even the one to bring Scholes up, but I also believe how good as Scholes was he wasn’t in the same tier as the other 3 and mostly that is because of international success.

The poster I quoted did. The post I answered underplayed Scholes performances at international stages, not just for the National team. Scholes was one of our most important players in Europe, playing 134 games, winning CL twice, reaching four CL finals; seven times SF, twelve QF’s. He has shone plenty on international stages, was my point to the said poster.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I told some guys at work last week that he makes my all time favourite team and I stand by that statement. Also makes my most entertaining team, just watching him play is unreal.

The guy is a magician, unreal touch, technique, passing, tempo, match control, stamina, running and defensive nouce as well. Just an unreal talent and to think he is 36, still producing.

 

[Righteous Steps]

The poster I quoted did. The post I answered underplayed Scholes performances at international stages, not just for the National team. Scholes was one of our most important players in Europe, playing 134 games, winning CL twice, reaching four CL finals; seven times SF, twelve QF’s. He has shone plenty on international stages, was my point to the said poster.

I didn’t underplay it I just said he’s performances at that level aren’t comparable to Xavi and Modric and even Pirlo, which is why these players would be rated much higher generally.

For what it’s worth all three of those players have been to World Cup finals and named in World Cup team of the tournaments, Scholes hasn’t for reasons not particularly down to his own but also hasn’t ever been named in a champions league team of the season either.

 

[Grande]

I didn’t underplay it I just said he’s performances at that level aren’t comparable to Xavi and Modric and even Pirlo, which is why these players would be rated much higher generally.

For what it’s worth all three of those players have been to World Cup finals and named in World Cup team of the tournaments, Scholes hasn’t for reasons not particularly down to his own but also hasn’t ever been named in a champions league team of the season either.

With how you wrote that post, I think you did, which was my point.

 

[bosniamanutd]

one of the best for sure. there is no such thing as best player ever. Modric played at high level for many years, we cant say that for many others

 

[Hammondo]

The current Man City team dominates the ball in a similar way to Xavi's Barca and far more so than any of SAF's United teams. Does this mean that Rodri and Bernardo Silva are better players than Keane? It's a style of play. One that Keane would have had absolutely no trouble in replicating if he was in the Barca setup given his attributes.

Hard to compare. I think this City team was better than that United team overall.

Answer me this then: replace Keane with Xavi in a midfield 2 for United and replace Xavi with Keane in a midfield 3 under Guardiola. Which team suffers more?

Also, how come nobody puts any respect on Schweini's name in these midfield discussions? He bossed a World Cup and humiliated Xavi's Barca (7-0) as a midfield controller lest we forget.

I think both teams suffer a similar amount. I think Barcelona have the advantage that Busquets can cover a lot of what Xavi did as someone who dictates and runs the game for the team, Keane could cover the defensive work if needed, where as Xavi is not a defensive player like Keane, and would clash with Scholes.

If United was able to get a DM behind Xavi and Scholes to compensate then United would gain more from the switch.

 

[Adam-Utd]

I don’t think so.

He definitely could have. Modric is one of the best/most rounded CM's ever.

He could have slotted into Iniestas role alongside Xavi and they'd have been just as dominant. In his prime he was simply untouchable.

 

[Moby]

He definitely could have. Modric is one of the best/most rounded CM's ever.

He could have slotted into Iniestas role alongside Xavi and they'd have been just as dominant. In his prime he was simply untouchable.

Modric skillset is quite different to Iniesta. He didn't display the level of insane dribbling and close control in tight areas especially in the final third that Iniesta did. And then there's the fact that Iniesta can claim to be one of the greatest big game players of all time and decided some.of the biggest games in his career like the goal vs Chelsea or the WC final winner or the performance in 09 cl final where he absolutely destroyed united who were the defending champions. Iniesta is one of the most unique talents that we have ever seen and very few players in the game can think of replicating that entire skillset to go along with the mental fortitude that made him an absolute beast when it mattered the most. Barca didn't have to wait for their CB to score clutch headers in dying moments of CL finals to avoid defeat.

 

[Hammondo]

He definitely could have. Modric is one of the best/most rounded CM's ever.

He could have slotted into Iniestas role alongside Xavi and they'd have been just as dominant. In his prime he was simply untouchable.

Modric is much closer to xavi than iniesta.

 

[Pink Moon]

Quality player but not in the same tier as Xavi or Iniesta. I'd also say Busquets was better but sadly Busquets has never had that media love in that drives a narrative the way Modric has had since 2018. Probably because he's a pretty unlikeable figure unlike Modric.

 

[Righteous Steps]

He definitely could have. Modric is one of the best/most rounded CM's ever.

He could have slotted into Iniestas role alongside Xavi and they'd have been just as dominant. In his prime he was simply untouchable.

He’s way more likely to fit into Xavis role, Iniestas role he simply doesn’t have the dribbling and close control to do, as good as Modric is you don’t see him ghosting past 3-4 players on a consistent basis like Iniesta did, which was a key part of that role, Xavi couldn’t do it either, Iniesta was the bridge between Xavi and Messi having qualities that both these players had but not to the extreme level of either.

 

[EtH]

How are these allowed to be promoted ? Inspirational stuff.

With posts like this you’re a dead cert.

 

[B20]

Like I say, Keane excelled in retaining possession, passing between the lines, press resistance, and making space to receive the ball as well as anyone (with functioning eyes). It's not outlandish to think that he would have comfortably slotted in to a Guardiola midfield and thrived. Just like it's easy to see that someone like Verratti would have.

He clearly was not as good at those things as Xavi. Not near.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Modric skillset is quite different to Iniesta. He didn't display the level of insane dribbling and close control in tight areas especially in the final third that Iniesta did. And then there's the fact that Iniesta can claim to be one of the greatest big game players of all time and decided some.of the biggest games in his career like the goal vs Chelsea or the WC final winner or the performance in 09 cl final where he absolutely destroyed united who were the defending champions. Iniesta is one of the most unique talents that we have ever seen and very few players in the game can think of replicating that entire skillset to go along with the mental fortitude that made him an absolute beast when it mattered the most. Barca didn't have to wait for their CB to score clutch headers in dying moments of CL finals to avoid defeat.

Modric is much closer to xavi than iniesta.

I'm saying he could play alongside Xavi and it would work.

People questioned whether he could fit into that Barca side. Swap out whoever you like - Modric would play in it comfortably.

Lets not forget he did play LW for Tottenham, very similar to how Iniesta played off the wing for Barca at times.

 

[WeePat]

Feck Harry and Spurs for refusing to grant him his wish when all he wanted in this world was to join Chelsea.

 

[Hammondo]

I'm saying he could play alongside Xavi and it would work.

People questioned whether he could fit into that Barca side. Swap out whoever you like - Modric would play in it comfortably.

Lets not forget he did play LW for Tottenham, very similar to how Iniesta played off the wing for Barca at times.

Oh then in that case I think he would suit Barcelona more than RM.

 

[Pink Moon]

He clearly was not as good at those things as Xavi. Not near.

Why does it say that was me that posted that?

 

[B20]

Why does it say that was me that posted that?

Phone being weird. At the desktop now and fixed it in edit.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Yeah, I don't understand why some people feel the need to talk in absolutes. We're lucky to have seen the likes of Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta, Scholes and Modric. If they gave you joy, you won.

Trying to convince some rando on the internet that one is better than the other is much less fun than appreciating the craft and accepting the differences. Not everything needs a conclusion. They were all fantastic to watch in very different ways as part of very different sides.

Zidane wouldn’t have got a game for Pep. But I’d rather have him for a decade at my club than anyone else above. Honestly don’t give a shit who’s best. Ronaldinho is among my favourite players. He’s another you wouldn’t pick in a world 11 to beat another world 11.

People forget why football is beloved.

 

[MrEleson]

Modric skillset is quite different to Iniesta. He didn't display the level of insane dribbling and close control in tight areas especially in the final third that Iniesta did. And then there's the fact that Iniesta can claim to be one of the greatest big game players of all time and decided some.of the biggest games in his career like the goal vs Chelsea or the WC final winner or the performance in 09 cl final where he absolutely destroyed united who were the defending champions. Iniesta is one of the most unique talents that we have ever seen and very few players in the game can think of replicating that entire skillset to go along with the mental fortitude that made him an absolute beast when it mattered the most. Barca didn't have to wait for their CB to score clutch headers in dying moments of CL finals to avoid defeat.

Who do you think assisted that goal?

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

A lot to unpack here:



The current Man City team dominates the ball in a similar way to Xavi's Barca and far more so than any of SAF's United teams. Does this mean that Rodri and Bernardo Silva are better players than Keane? It's a style of play. One that Keane would have had absolutely no trouble in replicating if he was in the Barca setup given his attributes.




Like I say, Keane excelled in retaining possession, passing between the lines, press resistance, and making space to receive the ball as well as anyone (with functioning eyes). It's not outlandish to think that he would have comfortably slotted in to a Guardiola midfield and thrived. Just like it's easy to see that someone like Verratti would have.



There are a few reasons for this:
1. He was an excellent player (not disputing that- just saying that he wasn't the demi-god that the football hipsters make him out to be)
2. He played consistently for one of the two dominant sides in La Liga for 15 odd years. It's the same reason that Rooney is our highest ever goalscorer: very few players get to line out week in week out for a decade and a half for a dominant side. If RvN had played for us for 12 years he'd be our highest ever goalscorer.
3. James Milner clocked up 9 assists (at least) in a single CL campaign. Great figures in a single season don't necessarily mean that much.



Answer me this then: replace Keane with Xavi in a midfield 2 for United and replace Xavi with Keane in a midfield 3 under Guardiola. Which team suffers more?

Also, how come nobody puts any respect on Schweini's name in these midfield discussions? He bossed a World Cup and humiliated Xavi's Barca (7-0) as a midfield controller lest we forget.

Kroos bosses the 2014 World Cup more than Schweinsteiger. Great 2013 CL though, agreed. Schweinsteiger was very good but just not the level of Xavi or Modric.

 

[totaalvoetbal]

Zidane wouldn’t have got a game for Pep. But I’d rather have him for a decade at my club than anyone else above. Honestly don’t give a shit who’s best. Ronaldinho is among my favourite players. He’s another you wouldn’t pick in a world 11 to beat another world 11.

People forget why football is beloved.

This is sadly where the game is going. I have heard people even say that Zidane wouldn't get into this Manchester City team. People here are young but Zidane was actually going to sign for Barcelona before Johan Cruijff got fired. The game is moving away from intuition and more with automatisms and mechanistic approach. even Johan Cruijff complained about this before he passed.

 

[Lord SInister]

I think one of the things that people mostly miss is the way Xavi and Iniesta dominated the games. I see a load of kids in social media, have a kind of belief that Madrid midfield of Zidane era are same level as Barcelona trio. Which IMO is quite simply bullshit. While great job they did with 3 UCL titles(4 but Kroos and Casemiro were not there and Modric wasn't even the top 5 player of that season for Real Madrid), but I have never seen any team dominate their opponents like Barcelona of Pep did in those peak years, City are great but even they don't compare with the way that midfield worked. I mean almost every team they played either went super defensive or just stop playing football and resorted to underhand tactics(although Barcelona countered that by being the biggest group of playactors). Madrid midfield as great as they were, never impacted the game like that. While everything fell for them in the right place, Xavi and Iniesta individually are absolutely marvelous players. Why do we act or forget that Xavi was seen as a star for Barcelona even before Pep happened. I think people tend to overlook his contribution during Ronaldinho era because of his injury during the 05-06 season.

 

[Lord SInister]

Zidane wouldn’t have got a game for Pep. But I’d rather have him for a decade at my club than anyone else above. Honestly don’t give a shit who’s best. Ronaldinho is among my favourite players. He’s another you wouldn’t pick in a world 11 to beat another world 11.

People forget why football is beloved.

Why would Zidane not get a game for Pep? I think this "Zidane was inconsistent" myth needs to end. It is tiresome and absolute bollocks.

 

[Member 109952]

I think one of the things that people mostly miss is the way Xavi and Iniesta dominated the games. I see a load of kids in social media, have a kind of belief that Madrid midfield of Zidane era are same level as Barcelona trio. Which IMO is quite simply bullshit. While great job they did with 3 UCL titles(4 but Kroos and Casemiro were not there and Modric wasn't even the top 5 player of that season for Real Madrid), but I have never seen any team dominate their opponents like Barcelona of Pep did in those peak years, City are great but even they don't compare with the way that midfield worked. I mean almost every team they played either went super defensive or just stop playing football and resorted to underhand tactics(although Barcelona countered that by being the biggest group of playactors). Madrid midfield as great as they were, never impacted the game like that. While everything fell for them in the right place, Xavi and Iniesta individually are absolutely marvelous players. Why do we act or forget that Xavi was seen as a star for Barcelona even before Pep happened. I think people tend to overlook his contribution during Ronaldinho era because of his injury during the 05-06 season.

I mean part of it is because the teams have gotten better. Who was the best team aside from Barca in that era? Real were still a bit shit, it'd be years before they got Modric, Kroos, Casemiro, Bale, Carvajal etc.

United were probably the best English team and even then we'd regressed a lot from the 07-08 team that beat Barca. In the 09 final we were missing Scholes, Hargreaves, Tevez and Brown compared to the previous year.

Bayern and Inter were probably the two other good European teams at the time.

Since then we've had PSG, City, Juventus, Liverpool and Spurs all get significantly better.

I mean it's apples and oranges but I think the peak Real team would give the peak Barca team a very good game. It had very few if any weaknesses.

 

[Lord SInister]

He’s way more likely to fit into Xavis role, Iniestas role he simply doesn’t have the dribbling and close control to do, as good as Modric is you don’t see him ghosting past 3-4 players on a consistent basis like Iniesta did, which was a key part of that role, Xavi couldn’t do it either, Iniesta was the bridge between Xavi and Messi having qualities that both these players had but not to the extreme level of either.

Tbf Iniesta quite frankly struggled in the Xavi role as he was quite different. He just like Messi, played a employed variations of play-making, but never could replicate Xavi as neither have the conductor skills of the latter.

Modric IMO would have been great in Barcelona, but he wouldn't replace Xavi nor Iniesta. They were every different and the Barcelona system just made them reach a prime which is not easily replicated.

 

[Lord SInister]

I mean part of it is because the teams have gotten better. Who was the best team aside from Barca in that era? Real were still a bit shit, it'd be years before they got Modric, Kroos, Casemiro, Bale, Carvajal etc.

United were probably the best English team and even then we'd regressed a lot from the 07-08 team that beat Barca. In the 09 final we were missing Scholes, Hargreaves, Tevez and Brown compared to the previous year.

Bayern and Inter were probably the two other good European teams at the time.

Since then we've had PSG, City, Juventus, Liverpool and Spurs all get significantly better.

I mean it's apples and oranges but I think the peak Real team would give the peak Barca team a very good game. It had very few if any weaknesses.

The same peak Real team who struggled to beat or dominate Barcelona during those peak years. Remember they were not even facing the best version of Barcelona. So I doubt they would have be a great match for Barcelona peak version. They would have put on a great fight, but it wouldn't be Liverpool vs Manchester City in terms of two attacking teams having a go at each other.