What other reason is there? We've already established that the other 2 were (for the most part) considered better when they were all at their physical peaks.
So where is Modric rated in best CM’s of all time ?
- Thread starter 432JuanMata
- Start date
What other reason is there? We've already established that the other 2 were (for the most part) considered better when they were all at their physical peaks.
Spain had so many good midfielders at their peaks during that era that even in spite of mentioning five of them (not counting Xavi), you forgot to mention the best during that 2008 tournament, Marcos Senna.
But it would have looked weird to give the best player of the Euro award to a Brazilian guy.
Now there’s an argument that Modric has had greater longevity at the top. But I wouldn’t underestimate that Xavi was very good for most of his career and, when he moved up a gear from 2007/08, it was to a level unmatched by anyone before or since. And that was both with and without Messi. None of Scholes, Modric or De Bruyne ever controlled games as relentlessly and invariably as Xavi did during those peak years. The midfield never revolved around those guys to the extreme way it did with Xavi.
Take Messi away, tearing defenses apart on his own and I think he doesn't look so impressive.
If that's your recollection (I assume from watching him play), then say that. You don't have to refer to 'contemporary reports' like you're talking about someone who played in 1930
If that's your recollection (I assume from watching him play), then say that. You don't have to refer to 'contemporary reports' like you're talking about someone who played in 1930
Maybe we have to if, as you say, we are all prisoners of the moment
Jokes aside, I agree with the concept and how it affects many fields, not just football.
I think his late age peaking skews people perceptions a bit, because everyone looks to compare Modric at 35 to Iniesta or Xavi at 35. But at say 28 both Iniesta and Xavi were regarded amongst the greatest of all time whilst Modric was being voted the flop of the season in Spain and probably wasn't a top 10 midfielder in the world, never mind all time.
Is he showing any signs of slowing down yet? Haven’t watched Madrid this season outside of the derby where he was pretty good.
que?
But Messi didn’t play for Spain.
It thought it was clear already as Spurs just how good he is. Don't think I've ever wanted a player more than him. I don't remember his early Madrid days that well, but did he actually not play well or was it just a bit of a transition for him?
Yes and we established that doesnt mean they're better players overall. I wont go into who's better territory mind you, just speaking about arguments.
Behind Xavi and Iniesta but that's it really. I'd put him slightly ahead of Pirlo.
The certain type of system you're talking about revolved completely around Xavis ability to control games. I've never seen anyone come close to him in that regard. He basically WAS the system.
Modric is fantastic and an all time great but sits below Xavi and Iniesta for me.
Yes, that was in 2012.
The latter. He was the best midfielder in the league in his second season, and has more or less been that in following seasons as well.
To me Xavi remains untouched, by Iniesta wasn't better than Modric
Completely disagree with the bolded. Spain didn't collapse without Xavi, teams figured out how to play against tiki-taka which greatly nullified the team. Xavi was playing against Holland when they were lucky to only lose by 4 goals at the 2014 WC and was also playing against Bayern in the CL when they lost 7-0 on aggregate.
Xavi was a very good midfielder who benefited greatly from a system that no teams were capable of dealing with. When sides started counterpressing tiki-taka got found out.
Messi was the real X factor/protagonist of Pep’s Barcelona. However, Xavi was a real backbone of that Barcelona and I would say in Spanish National Team Xavi also didn’t have Messi and still performed at the highest level in World Cup 2010 and Euro2012.
Every time I watch him, I feel like I’m leaving in heaven.
Last edited:
Between top 10 - 15 for me.
Point is that there's not a huge amount between them in terms of how long they've been world class for but because Iniesta's came earlier in his career, whilst Modric's came later on, people's perceptions are skewed.
You almost see them as being from different generations as Iniestas peak was probably 08-16 where he was consistently regarded as a top 1-3 midfielder in the world, whilst Modric has been for 14-present pretty much, despite them only being a year apart.
Surprised Scholes barely gets a mention along with Xavi and Iniesta. The ginger god played many years with vision impairment but his ability to pick a pass, dictate the play and score a screamer never stopped. Xavi, Scholes, Modric, Iniesta, Piro for me. Either way, I feel blessed I saw each of them throughout there careers.
Xavi was in decline at that point (which you can point to as a plus point for Modric that he is still going strong). A year later Xavi was off to Qatar. But in fairness he played a lot of elite games (up to 70 a year for club and country) for a few seasons in the latter stages of everything.
The other thing was Del Bosque at that World Cup overdid it. They had a midfield 5 against Netherlands of Busquets, Alonso, Xavi, Silva and Iniesta, of which Xavi was 34, Iniesta was 30, Alonso was 33. I rewatched that game during lockdown and it was the ultimate too many cooks spoil the broth. The midfield was passive and slow and then it had Diego Costa up front who hadn’t been part of the previous success and looked completely disjointed from the 5 behind him, who weren’t making any runs in behind.
You’re right that things changed tactically but it was also because when Xavi declined physically, tika taka declined. It’s not fair to say a team was set up for Xavi to dominate… he was the reason there was a system. He conducted the whole show and most of the players since that have tried to do it haven’t been able to.
Best I have seen personally. We’ve seen him in multiple leagues, in non dominant teams, in a relatively weak national team and he’s just superb under any manager and any system.
Spain had some good uns too. Why wasn't he highly rated before he was 28 is my question. Answer: Messi and the golden generation.
He was a cracking midfielder but he wasn't the best at all.
I think Modric is among top 10 (CMs) of all time. Things get more difficult when talking about top 5 of all time. Not sure if Modric crosses that line.
It’s difficult to define what’s in-/outside the scope. If we talk about best nr10 true history, Modric isn’t among top 5. A nr10 isn’t always a CM, but often also a great great CM.
It’s difficult to define what’s in-/outside the scope. If we talk about best nr10 true history, Modric isn’t among top 5. A nr10 isn’t always a CM, but often also a great great CM.
Last edited:
Agreed.
He was highly rated, just not best in the world rated. He and Guardiola said moving him up 10 yards in midfield made a world of difference. Earlier in his career they were pushing him to be more like Guardiola and just sit in front of the back 4 whereas his real skills came a little bit more offensively.
Just because he had his best years from 28 (normal enough for that style of midfielder, Modric won his first CL at 28), doesn’t mean that much.
As for winning a lot with Messi, Modric won a lot with Ronaldo too, didn’t he? All midfielders are helped by good forwards, that goes for both Modric and Xavi.
Not entirely wrong but not correct either. Barca were planning on selling him before pep became the manager. If he looked like the world's best cm they wouldn't have been eager to let him go.
Ironically, your perception of Xavi is skewed because of his late peaking too.
Xavi was 28 years old when Spain won the Euros and he won player of the tournament. That was his first big performance in a major tournament, as Spain hadn't won anything for ages, and he was absent for Barcelona's CL winning season. He was not regarded as one of the greatest of all time back then, not off the back of one good tournament.
At 22 Modric was named in the best 11 of the 2008 Euro, so if there were so many better midfielders I wonder why they were not selected instead of him or maybe it's that they were all Argentinians, Brazilians and Uruguayans.
Probably among top 10.
Best I have seen:
Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta, Modric, Pirlo, Scholes, De Bruyne
Other past greats:
Platini, Charlton, Rivera, Kopa, Gullit, Matthaus
I may have mixed a few of AM there though.
Best I have seen:
Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta, Modric, Pirlo, Scholes, De Bruyne
Other past greats:
Platini, Charlton, Rivera, Kopa, Gullit, Matthaus
I may have mixed a few of AM there though.
Or English
But seriously, it's no slight on Modric to say he probably wasn't a top 10 midfielder in the world until he went up a level under Ancelotti.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/modric-vs-sneijder-vs-nasri-a-muppet-poll.334604/
The Caf considered him a Nasri level player after the 2010/2011 season.
It was literally one year and an over reactionary one at that. Modric has been unreal since the first Ancellotti year when they won the UCL in 2014. He just doesn’t have the same PR as other famous midfielders.
when Xavi retired they did not get to another final or close.
Xavi played 45-50 games in all Barca teams since 2002. If he wasn't so great why did he play so much in a stacked team? Modric was a big fish in a lil pond.
modric didnt win anything until he was 29
No different to Modric to took 3 years to win Spurs player of the year with far more modest comp (Palacios, VDV, Bent, Zokora, Huddlestone, Jenas, Defoe,
You say this as though Modric has been pulling the strings behind an attacking trio of potatoes
To be fair that was Nasri's best season. In the first half of that season he and Nani were clearly the two best players in the league, although Nasri did fall away in the second half of the season (as did Nani near the end after the terrible tackle from Carragher).Or English
But seriously, it's no slight on Modric to say he probably wasn't a top 10 midfielder in the world until he went up a level under Ancelotti.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/modric-vs-sneijder-vs-nasri-a-muppet-poll.334604/
The Caf considered him a Nasri level player after the 2010/2011 season.
From memory that was the first season Modric mostly played in central midfield for Spurs, and it was the following season (his last for Spurs) where he really stepped up to a fantastic level. Obviously got even better at Real, but 11/12 was the season that he stepped up to being one of the best around, so he would have been 26 at that time.
Personally, in the 25 or so years that I've been watching football, I consider Xavi to be the best central midfielder I've seen but Modric is in a small group competing to be second. A competition that if I absolutely had to choose I'd probably pick him.
Or English
But seriously, it's no slight on Modric to say he probably wasn't a top 10 midfielder in the world until he went up a level under Ancelotti.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/modric-vs-sneijder-vs-nasri-a-muppet-poll.334604/
The Caf considered him a Nasri level player after the 2010/2011 season.
Wasn't there a better argument from authority?
It was transition but also he joined in a terrible season in which Mourinho went to war against the players. Real Madrid as a whole were not playing well.
According to wikipedia he'd won various awards in the lower level leagues he played in (Bosnia, Croatia), player of the year for Spurs in 2011, and had been in the 'team of the year for the Euros 2008.
His individual accolades look similar to Xavi's, where they just explode after they're in their late 20s.
That's normal for CMds