This is one of the best description of Xavi I've ever read and the reason why a lot of people can't truly grasp the magnitude of his influence in a game.
So where is Modric rated in best CM’s of all time ?
- Thread starter 432JuanMata
- Start date
He forgot to mention that Xavi also had knockout power and would use it on an almost weekly basis. In boxing terms, he would be an exact mix of Mayweather and Mike Tyson. I don't know if people have been fooled by the simple esthetic of his game but his skill level when it came to controlling and passing the ball was as high as it gets:
still slightly behind Xavi, but they're pretty much the same tier for me. it's incredible he's still doing it at this level, and at Madrid of all clubs. Iniesta was semi retired at 33, Xavi around 35 I think... insane longevity.
Ok you Eddy_JukeZ must know football better than Xavi, Pep, Zidane etc.
https://onefootball.com/en/news/pau...ldo-zidane-and-other-football-greats-34082439
I don't see the point of this condescending reply, but I'll bow out before the Scholes quotes come roaring in.
No that isn't the only argument. He doesn't have enough memorable performances in the CL compared to Xavi, Iniesta, Modric, etc. And while Scholes was mismanaged at times for the English NT, he never performed as well as he did for the club.
And no one was disputing Scholes' ability here. He's just not as good as Xavi was, which is okay. It doesn't mean that Scholes is a lesser player all things considered.
And I'd pick Keane over Scholes for greatest CM in the Prem, but you can make arguments for both.
That's not what I am saying - I said before Xavi exploded onto the scene at 28 years old and prior to that he was a good CM, but not spectacular. The few CL matches I saw (such as the Juve quarters in 2003, or the Chelsea RD 16 in 05) he really didn't stand out. He didn't play in the 2006 Barca CL win, he didn't stand out in Euro 04 or WC 06 either. Barcelona were on the verge of selling him in 08.
My point was he burst in the scene under Arragones and later Guardiola and Del Bosque in a system that was tailor-made for Xavi -- double pivot, some of the best midfielders of the generation, tactical changes to have superiority in midfield, special colleagues like Iniesta, Busquets, Xavi Alonso, Marcos Senna, David Silva and a certain Messi at Barcelona. Football is not played in a vacuum and the players you play with can you make you look a lot better. Xavi is a system player albeit a very successful one.
Modric for me shows more versaility, bite and drive. He took plucky Croatia to a WC final and a WC semifinal. Put him with better players at Real Madrid and he won 5 CL. That's all.
Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard don't belong in this conversation - they're not in the same tier as Zidane, Modric, Iniesta, Xavi, Pirlo etc.
This is ridiculous from a United fan. Scholes belongs easily, the other two pace and power merchants don't.
Incredible. One of the top 3 at the very least in the modern era.
I love Scholes, one of my favorites, but to be considered truly great and part of Zidane, Modric, Iniesta, Xavi, Pirlo group, one has to have amazing international career. Scholes did not have memorable international tournaments with England.
Clearly you're a Xavi fan mate, and we can respect your opinion. But Xavi pre 2008 was in Barcelona's 2007 transfer list because he wasn't good enough for the team. He was 27yo and couldn't manage to be a regular starter on the team. It was till he was matched with Iniesta every game when they started to dominate. Stats don't lie, see what Xavi won before Iniesta, and what Iniesta won after Xavi. Together they were amazing, but when they weren't together, neither of them shine. If you're talking about individual players, you can't take a duo as a reference. And to say that Barcelona team is argubably the most dominant team ever, when they only won 2 UCLs between 2007 and 2014 (the first one with the Stanford Bridge UCL greatest robbery ever) while there are teams like this real Madrid who won 4 UCLs between 2014 and 2018, or Di Stefano's Madrid who won five in a row, Sacchi's Milan, 70s Liverpool, 90/2000s Madrid, 70s Ajax. No, they are not, not even near.
You just don't want to see it mate. Such a pathetic effort to deny the fact and play dumb.
Bring up that comparison in a neutral forum, you'd get laughed at.
You'd get laughed at here by some United fans too.
If we're honest neither Scholes or Pirlo should be there. Modrić, Xavi, Iniesta and Zidane are the best midfielders in the modern football era, without a doubt.
Absolutely not. In my country when we talk about the best CM ever it's always Scholes, Xavi, Pirlo, Iniesta. And surely Modric. And I've never seen anyone laughing at that except here, by some of our supposedly fans. That's so fecking weird tbh.
As I said it's very difficult to evaluate CM or argue who's better than who because their influence over the game simply can't be proved by stats or numbers. So I tend to believe my eye test and my own evaluation. And if my eye test telling the same with what the greatest players/coaches ever in the game said regarding the matter then of course I'd rather believe in that than believe in some random poster on the internet. Especially when that said random poster couldn't give any solid argument than 'it's so because I tell you so' or 'your opinion is laughable'.
Zidane doesn't belong either. If he does, haul Nedved up with him.
Regarding Scholes, I don't think he's up there either (Xavi/Iniesta/Modric: more dominant at their best). But United fans on here get peculiarly weird with his name being mentioned (in a neutral section of the forum, one of the best places to talk football).
Forgetting trophy talk, he's one of the best PL midfielders ever. He's shown versatility in his career from advanced midfielder to deep lying playmaker. And you don't get Ferguson's brand of attacking football, "throw the kitchen sink" without Scholes driving the tempo from midfield. Even in Europe he was a key component of our more patient play that got us to 3 CL finals.
He's more a victim of circumstance and greedy American meddling, because if we hadn't let our team atrophy after 2008 and pushed the advantage, and Scholes finished with 2 more CLs to his name, it probably wouldn't be scorned when suggested that maybe Scholes belongs with the names being mentioned. Not as an equal, because I'm not that biased, but maybe not as an utter joke to even mention his name.
Back to trophy talk for a second: He probably has more league trophies than anyone on this list. It's too much to ask players to show dominance in their league against lesser opponents. You can take a break for 3 years and have one great international tournament and boom, your lack of consistency is excused. What a joke.
It really is weird.
I can honestly say that I believe if you replaced Xavi with Scholes, peak Barcelona would drop a level in performance. Conduct the same experiment with Modric at Madrid? They'd drop probably half a level. (I'd say the same applies for Pirlo somewhat). But it wouldn't be some huge variance, where fans of both teams are like, "who is this joker who's replaced Xavi/Modric?"
I'd disagree with that. Scholes was used as a teaching model at La Masia for a reason. He was as good as Xavi in his vision, beating the press and dictating the tempo of the game or controlling the game. You can say his ability to find the space is not as good as Xavi but imo he could make up for that with his better range of passing. Only Pirlo was comparable with Scholes if we talk about long passes.
Xavi himself said Scholes was the best midfielder he has seen in the last 15, 20 years. Of course he was simply being modest what he really mean was he and Scholes were the best midfielders in the last 15, 20 years.
Modric is a different type of midfielder with Scholes. In Madrid midfield Kroos is more the pass and control type which actually closer to Scholes than Modric. So if you replace Modric with Scholes of course the Madrid midfield would not be the same and agree the performance of their midfield might drop. But it simply doesn't prove Scholes is worse than Modric.
Modric is one of the greatest of all time and he’s better than Scholes (who I adore but resume doesn’t come close). Modric international career alone proves he’s different gravy.
How long have you been watching football for?
If we talk about international career then we must blame the English managers and their stupid media. Basically all the English managers around that period were trying their best to fit both Gerrard and Lampard into their midfield. And they moved Scholes to the wing.
I love Scholes, how could I not. But the only time I ever really see him come into this discussion is among United fans. It’s usually always Zidane, Xavi, Pirlo, Platini, Iniesta, Laudrup and now Modric on account of what he’s done in the CL and at WCs.
If Scholes was one of the greatest midfielders of all time those managers would have never even contemplated moving him to accommodate anyone else.
Scholes has said on record that he liked playing there and had done so for the club while being interviewed by Gary Neville.
He pulled the pin on his international career because he did not like travelling.
Since 1993 and as anyone that’s followed my posts here long enough - I love my football history and trust me Scholes is not in the same league as Modric. That’s pure United bias coming through.
Even made this video on Scholes so someone I’ve analysed extensively:
Without doubt one of Britain’s greatest all round midfield talents and a step head of likes of Lampard but Luka is in league with likes of Xavi, Matthaus where it’s beyond just a talent thing at that point but mentality wise they’re super special and pushed their teams to unparalleled heights.
The only thing Scholes surpasses Modric in - his eye for goal, and possibly his passing accuracy - but outside of that Modric impact on international tournaments and business end UCL has been far far greater.
Scholes had a solid enough platform at international level in 1998, 2000 and 2002. Was he tactically mistreated in 2004 - yeah he was but he was still part of a damn good side and played pretty well IMO but Luka body of work with Croatia would have been beyond him - no way is Scholes taking that Croatia side to a World Cup final.
I do not trust anyone that says Scholes is not in the same league as any other midfielder that has played the game in recent times to be fair.
I just wondered how long some posters had been watching football for to comment on a greatest of all time thread so thanks for the reply.
As much as I loved Scholes Modrić is tier above. Hell, Modrić is one of the best midfielders of all time imo, which doesn't mean Scholes himself wasn't great.
as @Raees says Scholes had a better eye for a goal and maybe pass accuracy but everything else is on Modrić's side. Not only he has a fantastic close control, passing, outside of the boot shot, long balls, he guards the ball near perfectly, you cant take the ball of him or it's extremely difficult and he does his shift defensively too. He's an all round world class midfielder, he excels in everything you need from a midfielder and more.
as @Raees says Scholes had a better eye for a goal and maybe pass accuracy but everything else is on Modrić's side. Not only he has a fantastic close control, passing, outside of the boot shot, long balls, he guards the ball near perfectly, you cant take the ball of him or it's extremely difficult and he does his shift defensively too. He's an all round world class midfielder, he excels in everything you need from a midfielder and more.
I don't believe you've been a United fan for longer than 10 years. No one over 30 would underrated Scholes so much. He was every bit as good as Modric. Fact
It's because of the pressure from English media that no manager would dare to drop the fans favorite Gerrard or Lampard. Goals are always much more recognized by fans than something abstract and alien as tempo, control of the game etc. imo.
Then you have Southgate dropping Rashford for Sterling just couple months ago. Might have cost England a final imo.
Tbh it's the first time I heard this. I'd bet he was simply trying to be diplomatic. Of course he couldn't go on the record and say he quit because his managers were clueless. The English media would eat him alive. And he's no Dennis Bergkamp and was travelling all over the world just fine with United I think.
Xavi and Scholes were actually very similar. Imagine what if the Spanish managers moved Xavi to the wing in a traditional 442 and you'd see how absurd that is.
Scholes is one of the best midfielders of all time
Yup, I'd put him in top 10 certainly and Modrić in top 3.
And posters berrating each other on the - how long have you been watching football - based on opinion on Scholes and Modrić is a bit childish.
This is worth a watch;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wqsBegQIBxAF&usg=AOvVaw3vQtHXQJHbakNCuzuOaLU3
Fecking hell. The parallel Scholes universe people are at it again. Only on the caf.
Seems a nice watch indeed. I'm a bit busy atm so will save it for later I think. Thanks mate.
I bet you think Gerrard was better.
Thinking Scholes is on Xavi/Modric's level is worse honestly.
Well put. A system player only so far as he was the system, as the lesser versions of Barcelona and Spain that came before and after his peak years demonstrated.
Xavi and Matthaus are as good as it gets as the ball-retaining and box-to-box types of central midfielder. I struggle to think of anyone better than Modric at marrying the two styles. That versatility has driven his longevity and his ability to shine for dominant and less dominant sides alike. It has also driven his ability to decide games irrespective of the game state. Team under the cosh? He can win the ball in midfield to unleash the counter that wins the game. Team in control but can't make the breakthrough? He can pick the pass or provide the goal to break a deep block.
Keep defending your point without a single worthy any argument is actually the worst honestly
Keep defending your point without a single worthy any argument is actually the worst honestly
You need to stop tagging me if my posts annoy you so much.
People in this thread have already made arguments why Scholes doesn't really belong in the conversation. @Raees laid it out perfectly.
You also should stop defending your opinion if you don't have a single worthy argument. And no your posts don't really annoy me. I found those kinda funny tbh.