For what reason? He has won everything he would possibly win, took Croatia to a bloody WC final and semi, and at 37 is still performing at the highest level in one of the best teams in the world? He belongs in the category with Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta for sure.
So where is Modric rated in best CM’s of all time ?
- Thread starter 432JuanMata
- Start date
For what reason? He has won everything he would possibly win, took Croatia to a bloody WC final and semi, and at 37 is still performing at the highest level in one of the best teams in the world? He belongs in the category with Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta for sure.
Your metric is entirely explained with system of play or in general with tactical nuance of Barcelona and Spain`s NT. Decades of specific style grooming and fantastic players converging at absolutely perfect timing. Match made in heaven. To put emphasis on Xavi when alongside you have brilliant Iniesta and Busquets... well... "Spearheaded" indeed.
In reality, Modrić is the GOAT CM. Elite in every aspect. Absolutely unbreakable mentality. Versatility deluxe. Nobody beats that. That is why he is still rocking the boat despite "old age", while others are spearheading blanco checks in the desert.
He is not of noble birth.
United fans salty about 09/11 is the only rational answer here.
If a thread for Xavi was bumped every time he turned in a majestic performance back in his heydey his thread wouldn't be 25 pages, that's for sure.
There's also this trick being done where Xavi's successes were because "he played in a collective" or "rondos"... I'm sorry I must have missed the dross Modric was inconvenienced playing with (one of whom leaves a gaping hole in our midfield today when he's absent)
To make your point, you've done exactly what I was referring to. Xavi is no more at 'fault' for his supporting cast than practically any other all-time great not named Maradona. Or should we reduce others in these tiers because their team-mates rendered their contribution a redundancy out the box?
The last team-mate Xavi had who had more influence on midfield than him was Marcus Senna, but during Xavi's rise and period of dominance, there isn't a name that goes before him as the midfield metronome - he is the top 1 of 1. Unparalleled at what he did. In any fantasy lineup for a retentive midfield, he's the first name that goes into that role as the influence and control exerted is nothing we've seen before or since. If you'd like to put a name forth over Xavi for this, go ahead; I'd like to see what you'd come up with, truth be told.
I don't know whether it's a 'hard on' for Xavi, or just plain acknowledgement of what he was and what place that earns him in the history of the game. I feel as though his is a name people want to dilute or reduce for reasons that cannot detract from what he did for his club and country. You mention him being part of a particular system - the reality was, he became the system i.e. 'we pass to Xavi, wait for his lead and become satellites orbiting him all game' exactly how the DLP version of Scholes dictated everything for us, on a grander scale with even more control and influence.
re. the age of his ascendency and rise to absolute prominence. I'm not sure that's so important in a discussion like this. That's reserved for the chosen ones who were earmarked to become the greatest players of all-time in their teenage years. The likes of Maradona, Pele, L.Ronaldo, Messi and so on and so forth. Absolutely nobody had Xavi or Modric penned as what they became in their early 20's - you can't beat one with that brush when the case is the same for the other (who was literally a figure of ridicule on this very site during his time at Spurs, with the majority believing him not to be good enough to come to us! The prophet, Scholesly, stood alone in his foreseeing of what Modric became). They weren't prodigies in the same sense as the aforementioned, but nor do they need to be to take part in such a discussion.
And yes, you are clearly taking away from his brilliance; I don't think you've particularly highlighted his brilliance in the entirety of your post, rather, you've stated the things you perceived him to not be good at, then reduced him to a system player.
re. Modric having more to his game, that would depend on the context of discussion. The general consensus regarding Xavi's game and tools he utilised to make his game possible is that he's the best at those things with a level of nuance that is barely acknowledged by the wider audience at large. His shape to receive the ball; to turn out or in with it; his manipulation of the ball and resets to receive it again and again and again; his processing of angles and timing of those actions - it doesn't matter who you put there to rival him, as a package, there's a reason why he holds the esteem he does as the consummate or apex player of his type.
I don't know whether that should exist in a bubble, but it certainly shouldn't be swept under the rug or played down - it's gotten to the point where the people that would speak up about it don't really do so anymore because it's a thankless task for them. I only mention it now myself, because I see the same patterns repeating on themselves as have been for at least the last 5-years, and it's really a curious affair to see a player of such influence and impact on the sport - itself - slowly but surely be scrubbed from the consciousness as Xavi is being. Maybe the other pinnacle player in a position this happened to is Gerd Muller, but even he has had a renaissance in the public consciousness compared to in the past where his goal-scoring skills were looked down upon in numerous ways.
I know another reason Xavi is disliked is that Barcelona's football of that time was despised by many and he was the captain in-chief of said style and killed games to such a degree they became parades and processions that have been deemed boring, or against the nature of the game (it's our ball, and you can't have it. Ever.), perhaps that generates unconscious bias against him, I don't know.
But he really is talked about like some chancer who lucked his way into being the most dominant midfielder we've ever seen.
Since I’ve been watching only Xavi, Iniesta and Zidane are in the same bracket.
Zidane is the best of the lot technically but I think Modric shades it due to longevity, trophies won and the fact he never has a bad game.
Zidane is the best of the lot technically but I think Modric shades it due to longevity, trophies won and the fact he never has a bad game.
He exploded into the scene way before Busquets did and he exploded for Spain first which didn't have Messi in it. He was also Spanish player of the Year in 2005 and a key performer for Barça since 01/02, ligament injury break excluded.
If you discard Xavi's achievements pre-07-08 then you should probably note that at the age of 28 Modrić was seen (harshly but that's how Madrid is) as a flop for Madrid and his 4 seasons in an entertaining but far from a truly top Spurs side was the best he achieved in club football.
Xavi didn't shine in a system that was created for him. Xavi was that system and he, at his peak, transformed every team he was in — even that Barça side (09-11, before Enrique's side) gravitated around Xavi, not Messi, which sounds ridiculous, considering that the latter is arguably the greatest footballer of all-time.
Agree.
Imo it's really difficult to evaluate CM let alone comparing them. I could write an essay on that but tbh maybe whole books are required. But for me it's really simple regarding Xavi.
If my memory serves me right once Xavi started his decline they simply couldn't go far in the CL or look like the so called prime Barca again despite having the trio MSN arguably the three best attackers in the world around that period. I hate Barca btw.
During Xavi's prime, the way most teams set up vs them was to shell up like mad and try and hit aggressively and physically on the break - he rendered 'open football' a non-starter for most and killed the spirit of the opposition by simply making them run after shadows and become dispirited, and then he'd exert the influence on the game with expansive passing whilst retaining simply absurd passing stats.
In analysing him, you're not really talking about the most rounded CM or the best box-to-box or most aesthetically beautiful player, you're talking about someone who knitted things together in ways we've not seen before and killed games so absolutely that they weren't fun anymore. He's not Mattheus or Rijkaard or any of those big hitting athletic specimens; he's little, annoying Xavi who will drain the life out of you with a thousand cuts, and then put another thousand in for good measure. That's how he earns his place at the table in these CM discussions.
With his decline, Barca lost that absolute control and became a fairer side to play against because they could no longer kill games or hog the ball for literal minutes at a time anymore. And with that, they became beatable for a broader spectrum of teams playing in differing ways.
It's annoying, because if Xavi played in great United side people here would fecking wax lyrically about him like they do Scholes (who wasn't as good). Really does feel like he's just thought of as the cnut that passed the ball in a circle for years and gave it to Messi to score the goals
Speed was just one of many criteria I used to compare both players. But indeed I think speed is one of the most important, if not the most important asset a player can have in modern football, regardless of his position on the pitch. Modric stands out from the other great CM's of his era due to the physical dimension of his game.
Since Liverpool-Real is fresh in everyone's mind, I have two examples to illustrate how important overall athleticism and the ability to make individual differences are in today's football.
Ceballos-Valverde: Ceballos is a better technician than Valverde, but he's on the bench because he's slow and weak while Valverde is fast and powerful. If I wanted to play possession football like Barca and Spain 08-12, I would pick Ceballos over Valverde. Outside of this specific system, Valverde is the vastly superior player.
Kroos-Modric: The reason Kroos has not been performing as well as Modric for the past two-three years and has even struggled at times is because Madrid is a shambolic team that doesn't control games through possession and collective organisation, especially defensively, but instead relies on physicality and individual prowesses. Kroos is still in his prime and still a phenomenal central midfielder, but he's at his best in a team that plays at a slower pace and controls the game through possession where he can use his passing ability and his vision. Unlike Modric, he doesn't have the physical attributes to shine in a game where high intensity offensive and defensive runs are required, and has been outshined by younger players like Valverde and even Camavinga in high level CL games for the reasons explained before.
Anyone knows where i can watch his interview with Rio? Can't find it anywhere
Yeah, that's what he's been reduced to. Even when it's pointed out his teams functioned the same with or without Messi, the sentiment is indelible.
You can be influential and impactful without being technically the best or the most pleasing to the eye. Xavi had a very specific skillset - as you say "his shape to receive the ball; to turn out or in with it; his manipulation of the ball and resets to receive it again and again and again; his processing of angles and timing of those actions" was world class yet... he needed Iniesta, Busquets and Messi at a minimum to work at Barcelona and Iniesta, Busquets, Xavi Alonso, Senna and or Fabregas at Spain to work. Put him in 'normal' midfield like in 2006 and he was owned by Zidane and Vieira in the world cup for example or the countless international tournaments before 08. Xavi was great but for Xavi to really shine Spain had to play with double pivot ans sacrifice a forward (and sometimes played without a striker with a false nine) to assert the dominance in midfield, and let's face it, it was a boring, sterile, dark period of football.
I think Iniesta was the better of the two
Yeah prime barca was surely boring af to watch if you're a neutral fan. They simply killed their opponent and also the bloody match.
What [any] possession-based midfield needs is players who can pass and recieve the ball. That's all Xavi needed - others who could pass the ball, beat the press and relay back to him. As long as this was met, he'd take over the midfield and the game.
What you're referring to is a different type of midfielder - the all in one Roy of The Rovers, do it all by myself, kind. Matthaus, Robson and the like have that locked, but it doesn't make them better than Xavi as CM's because as equally as putting Xavi in a disfunctional midfield will garner sub-optimal results, putting those types of CM's in consummate possession-based sides will see their impact reduce considerably. Horses for courses.
Xavi couldn't contest either for a spot as a helter-skelter CM, but they'd never take his spot in a ball-rentative midfield, either. And his style of play is more than a match for any, too, so we categorise them as great, but ultimately different sides of the CM coin. Fire and ice, I suppose.
Ultimately, it's not a mark against Xavi - provide him the components and he'll make a premium product.
So, Xavi would take over the midfield and the game when he was paired with others who could pass the ball, beat the press and relay it back to him. Got it. So pair Xavi with the greatest midfielders in the world (Iniesta, Busquets, Alonso, Senna have Messi and David Silva drop into the false nine for good measure to create a numerical superiority in midfield) and Xavi would control the game. Amazing!
Xavi was great by the way, but there's an aura around him that is a bit undeserved. It's a subtle point.
Well, no. You're creating a narrative of your own there. And again, it's as nonsensical as playing down the impact of other greats who played their part in a chain. In fact, if you go down that route, we can strip 'lists' down to bare bones with plenty of those considered elite then falling by the wayside.
He's amazing but Xavi was better. His longevity is certainly better than Xavi's was but the peak of Xavi was the peak of CM for my lifetime.
I think the best answer for me is that Modric is essentially the perfect combination of Xavi and a more old school box to box type that others in here prefer. He's absolutely right there with the top CM's of all time and I probably agree that peak Xavi is the GOAT CM, but Modric is a great mixture of old and new school footballers.
I think you are missing some very relevant information in your post, given the angle you are using to analyze both players careers.
First, somehow Xavi being considered best Spanish player of La Liga in 2005 deserves a mention but not Modric being included in the best team of the 2008 Euros at 23 years old?
Regarding being seen as a flop for Real Madrid, that was the result of a poll conducted by Marca three months after his arrival. Modric's fitness levels were low due to lack of proper pre-season (he did not take part in Spurs training sessions) and enjoyed few minutes the first games, but gradually improved after Xmas and had a very good end of the season (12-13). Mourinho even joked about it with him:
https://www.marca.com/2012/12/30/futbol/1adivision/1356898954.html
2013-14, he was named best midfielder of La Liga alongside Iniesta and until the present season his consistency has been phenomenal. Therefore, the result of the poll has more of an anecdotal value rather than that of a well defined assessment of the player's sporting status at the age of 28.
Also, in 2008 Xavi, at 28 yo, was about to be sold to Bayern just after the Euros, a move that Guardiola stopped.
https://www.mundodeportivo.com/2014...unto-de-fichar-por-el-bayern_54399182674.html
Why would Barcelona even think of getting rid of a key performer, the tag you used, since 2001? Simple, because he had had very poor seasons in 2006-07 and 2007-08. During those two seasons he was a weak performer, something that he managed to radically change from 2008 on which deserves great credit.
So in summary, you are highlighting the negatives in the case of one player but not in the case of the other and same applies to the positives.
Last edited:
Imo it's really hard to tell Xavi is better or not.
It's true once Xavi started his decline Barca could no longer go far in the CL. But looking at Madrid you'd notice even after Ronaldo, Bale left or declined they're still able to win the CL. Tbh I don't watch them much but imo their midfield is the real reason behind their incredible success in the CL in the last years. Not Ronaldo, not Bale, not even Benzema. Sometime I feel like as long as that guy Modric can run they're always a force to be reckon with. I also hate Madrid btw.
I reckon Xavi and Modric are on a par, but can understand people arguing in favour of either. I wouldn't say one is definitely better than the other. Also, I think a lot of former players have been overlooked, most likely due to recency bias.
Matthaus, for me still the greatest CM of all time and yet to be dethroned. Souness has to be up there. Breitner as well, redefined himself as a CM and was one of the best of his era. Then you still got the likes of Pirlo, Masopust, Falcao, Bozsik, Didi, Van Hanegam all to consider. Guys like Schweinsteiger, Scholes and Fabregas, whilst very good, fall short of the names aforementioned.
So I don't think it's straight forward to crown Modric as the greatest, firstly because no one, in my opinion, has surpassed Matthaus and secondly, because there are so many names that should be considered alongside him and Xavi. It's far from a definitive debate.
Matthaus, for me still the greatest CM of all time and yet to be dethroned. Souness has to be up there. Breitner as well, redefined himself as a CM and was one of the best of his era. Then you still got the likes of Pirlo, Masopust, Falcao, Bozsik, Didi, Van Hanegam all to consider. Guys like Schweinsteiger, Scholes and Fabregas, whilst very good, fall short of the names aforementioned.
So I don't think it's straight forward to crown Modric as the greatest, firstly because no one, in my opinion, has surpassed Matthaus and secondly, because there are so many names that should be considered alongside him and Xavi. It's far from a definitive debate.
That was my point. He was discarding multiple important things about Xavi to make his opinion look better, I did the same in reverse. Thinking that Modrić is better than Xavi is not an outlandish opinion at all (I think at this point Modrić is probably 3rd and certainly not below 4th in my own all-time CM list with Xavi topping it) but you shouldn't try to belittle Xavi's abilities or achievements in order to justify it — which he did.
Im sorry but how can you compare Vieira to Modric? The latter dominated Europe and possesses a string of absolute elite performances again the cream of Europe over 10 or 15 years. How many elite performances can you name of Vieira outside the PL? Modric is easily as good as anyone I’ve seen in my lifetime
Said it for ages but of this generation he's #1
I think anyone who argues for Xavi probably can make a case but I can't see anyone outside of those 2
I think anyone who argues for Xavi probably can make a case but I can't see anyone outside of those 2
Zidane, Bochini, Modric, Xavi are on the same level.
For me Scholes, Pirlo and Iniesta also belong to this. Who is the best or who's better than who I've no idea though.
Modric and Xavi are the best I've seen. It's even between them and then quite a gap to number 3. Xavi reached the highest level of pure playmaking, but Modric can do anything on the pitch. Those 2 are clear. I don't count Zidane as cm.
My favourite player is Scholes but he's quite easy to discount from the #1 spot for me because he was so terrible at tackling. Makes me love him even more, those awful slides and wipe outs when players were breaking on us.
Xavi was never good at tackling. I'd say both Scholes and Xavi were equally shit on this.
Imo what's so special about Xavi, Scholes, Modric, Pirlo, Iniesta is simply their ability to control matches at the highest level. Just touch, pass and brain.
Xavi was excellent on the press though, like Rolls Royce on the ball and an aggressive Shetland pony off of it. Agreed though all special players - for control of a game the first four were masters. Iniesta I always think of being a bit more advanced.
The real question though is where does the legend of Riquelme fit into all of this?
Oh surely somewhere between the likes of Xavi and Fred
He rendered closed Football a non-starter for most too. It was a bad idea to let him have the ball in all scenarios because to this day there isn't a single player that was able to thread a ball into the smallest of space at the proper velocity better than Xavi. Messi, Scholes and Pirlo were great at it but nowhere near Xavi, especially when it comes to volume.
It was a surreal period in the history of the game; it’ll probably sound like mythical bullshit to future generations, but fortunately they’ll have all the footage to back up the words!
Scholes is the greatest CM to ever play in the PL and one of the greatest midfielders period. The only argument anyone ever uses against him is trophies and that is not his fault. If Scholes played with prime Messi he'd have several more CL titles too.
Despise is the word.
May I also proffer the radical idea that it wasn't Xavi and his team that killed games, it was the opponents who sat back and went, "shit, you got 90 minutes to breach this wall"?
The nature of dominance they demonstrated is something most teams would bite your hand off to accomplish. I've probably seen only Mourinho's 1st Chelsea team be that dominant in my time of watching football, from the defensive end.
It's that singular dominance that has me place him a shade above Modric (cannot be said enough that he's in the pantheon of greats as well and Scholesy was a Caf prophet scorned in his home forum, we were not worthy)
Last edited:
Modric for me is comfortably in that Xavi/Iniesta tier. Simply an immense player.