Xavi vs. Pirlo - Let's Revisit This In Our Own Way

I feel the same as Dani, and I think you know how I feel about Xavi anyway JD. Although I would love to answer you properly, I feel this topic has been done to death a bit, here, in other sections and its brought some hostile, very stubborn opinions which have just resulted in boring, unhelpful discussion.

Its as if every time somebody states a valid opinion with an explanation somebody has to come in and say 'Are you serious you idiot? Have you even seen ****?' and leaves their post at that... nothing helpful, no explanation given. This is why I post less and less....

"Pre-injury" Pirlo. What happened to Pirlo? Did he suffer a career-threatening injury or what?

Everyone gets injured and then they come back, Xavi too.

Pirlo is a great player, and is better than Xavi at some stuff, especially long shots and high-trhough balls. But I think Xavi has been far more dominant in midfield than Pirlo ever was in his career. Some performances from Xavi like those in the CL finals, Eurocup 2008, several Barça - Madrid were in a level that I think Pirlo never reached.

Also, I always felt that Pirlo is a defensive liability to whichever team he plays in. He is just ill-suited at DM as Xavi was. I don't understand why no one put him as CM in his career.

hi, this may be off-topic but is anyone else concerned about this ''dry/slow pitch tactic''

its proving such a useful tactic vs passing teams- even now being used at international games.

barca are gonna need to significantly adjust nxt season bcz frankly they wont be no match strengthwise to compete.

i dont want to appear like a sore loser bt watching the game ysterday was so frustrating knowing how much better spain can pass. good passing is everything to their style, a fast pitch even renders closing down by other teams not as effective

Anyone who has watched both knows Xavi is the better player. To me that's way more clear than the Ronaldo-Messi debate who also does have a clear winner.

Xavi is better in almost every aspect of his game aswell. Really, it's no competition but in GL people will always drink a large dose of haterade before rating a Madrid and Barca player, along with the Juve section overrating their players.

Xavi anyday of the week. Best CM in the world that much is clear.

7amood11 wrote:

II Capitano wrote:Who cares, stop making a big meal out of it, and be grateful that we're watching two amazing midfielders. Truth is, we won't get to see similar players for a while, out of this current generation. For the record, Xavi has been more consistent than Pirlo over the past four seasons LOL, so you can't really argue any point. Pirlo had a better season last season, that's about it.

I'm not sure that you have watched the pre-2008 Pirlo? His injury made him dip in form, but before that, he was completely unrivaled. Even last season, he was somewhat back to his best and outperformed Xavi.

Did you read my post? Past four seasons excluding this one is what I said, so 07/08 08/09, 09/10, 10/11, didn't mean to phrase it that way. I have watched a lot of Pirlo and Xavi, and it wasn't until Guardiola came into Barcelona when Xavi really started to dominate the stats in emphatic fashion. Last season, I already acknowledged who was better, it was a one-sided affair.

This debate again

You don't have to read it, you know? The thread title is rather clear about the contents of the thread.

I know this is sort of an old debate, however I've never really engaged with it because it generally begins with some sort of cringeworthy statement and dogmatic bickering that I have little time for. However Dani's claimed that I can't change his mind, so what sort of poster would I be if I didn't try?

I think it's safe to say that I love Pirlo, even if part of me wants to punch him in the face for joining Juventus. Just the once. I don't believe him to be a better player than Xavi though. Do I believe there's a strong argument that they are to an extent equals, such that anyone could reasonably prefer the other without causing offence? I do, though I'll come back to the issue of minutiae later.

I don't want to take quotes out of context or generalise specific poster's points in order to respond to arguments I've seen in the past, so I'll just write a short spiel about my views then leave it at that.

Pirlo has, in my opinion, been absolute everything that his team has ever needed him to be. There is absolutely no doubt that he has been surrounded with quality, excellent, versatile footballers. At the same time, he's been isolated to an extent. I want to approach this in a way that gives a realistic view of the support Pirlo has always been given and a short summary of what he has lacked.

The most prominent example is the Italian national team. No other team can be so aptly described as Pirlo's team. It's as much as insult to everyone else on the team as it is a compliment to Pirlo. I've never seen a collection of genuinely quality midfielders look so lost in the absence of a single player. On paper, in his absence, Italy should still be a very solid team, a beast no one particularly wants to play. On the pitch, we may as well not show up if Pirlo isn't on the pitch.

Under Lippi's disastrous second instruction, Pirlo played just twenty minutes during the World Cup. When he was on, we controlled the ball, moved it purposefully, created chances and nearly rescued out of the fire a performance that deserved bottom place in a group which included New Zealand. Had you not known any of the scores and simply watched that period of the match, you'd have thought Italy were the dominant force in the group, the team who topped it with ease. Pirlo gave us an illusion of control that made even Lippi's disastrous line-ups seem like they could offer the world something. For 250 minutes before, our best opportunities consisted of Monty taking pot shots from 30 yards out.

It was a problem for us in 2008, 2010 and if Pirlo is injured during this tournament, we'll go crashing out 90 minutes of play later. Football is a team game and it makes comparisons such as these particularly difficult given the nature of a midfield battle. One can only work with what one has and in Pirlo's case, his supporting cast has quality and compliments him well, however at the same time their lack of direction without him raises serious questions about how they have inhibited his ability to control the game.

A point that is often raised at this point by those who love Pirlo is somehow worse because he has such a great supporting cast that Pirlo lacked. That idea is complete and utter nonsense. That arguments concerning individuals rely on interpreting their contributions to a team game leads to this sort of utter madness being spewed isn't surprising, however it's often hurt the debate and it was worth addressing on the basis of what both can be said to have done. Both Xavi and Pirlo have raised their respective teams to another elite level that could not have been achieved in their absence.

They've both been to their teams what each needed them to be. Jibers expressed it best in my opinion when he stated that Xavi, Pirlo and Scholes have been the central midfielders of their respective leagues. Not each team needed them to grow in the same way, to contribute in the same way. To suggest how they might have thrived or struggled in each other's position remains speculation, particularly inserting our ideas of the players they are now as they reach the end of their primes into the world of yesteryear as they each started off in their clubs.

If a gun were held to my head and I were asked to pick one? I think Pirlo's poorer games are too loose, particularly in comparison, though it is a culmination of a more direct style and whilst I don't consider him defensively poorer without the ball, I could probably steal half a dozen balls off Pirlo in training before I got Xavi. That athletic ability also should be taken into due consideration does present Xavi a further advantage in my eyes, though again, it really depends on what you are searching for. A team game can't always pivot around one player, so I've never been a fan of dogmatically declaring one player better for all extents and purposes. A team isn't simply one player and just as a defence isn't a back four, so a midfield isn't just a trio.

I don't think I'm changing anyone's opinion, however I haven't really participated in such a discussion, so I thought I might as well join it where it's actually relevant, rather than in the Iniesta thread in the right-back section.

Xavi's done too much, too consistently, too well for me to suggest that Pirlo's better than him but Andrea's lifted us his teams so many levels on his own though that I do object to dismissing him as an unworthy comparison.

7amood11 wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Pirlo was better than Xavi last season..In Europe..you know, where the best of the best play?


No, thought not.

Yeah, Juve didn't qualify for the CL last season, but that's not Pirlo's fault. Compare them through their domestic leagues to see Pirlo's dominance last season.

It's not his problem... maybe
Xavi had to play a game every 3-4 days, including UCL games.. while Pirlo played once a week... that'sa big difference..

Still, Xavi had a very good season, Passing? (still he had best % in europe)...
Scored 14 goals (personal record) and assisted 14... although, he played some of the games (Milan, Chelsea) with an injury...

Plus, Xavi had lots of injuries lately still he's doing pretty good..
not to forgot that in 2005/06 Xavi was out for 6+ month.. Its very normal that players get injured... so...

dostoevsky wrote:I know this is sort of an old debate, however I've never really engaged with it because it generally begins with some sort of cringeworthy statement and dogmatic bickering that I have little time for. However Dani's claimed that I can't change his mind, so what sort of poster would I be if I didn't try?

I think it's safe to say that I love Pirlo, even if part of me wants to punch him in the face for joining Juventus. Just the once. I don't believe him to be a better player than Xavi though. Do I believe there's a strong argument that they are to an extent equals, such that anyone could reasonably prefer the other without causing offence? I do, though I'll come back to the issue of minutiae later.

I don't want to take quotes out of context or generalise specific poster's points in order to respond to arguments I've seen in the past, so I'll just write a short spiel about my views then leave it at that.

Pirlo has, in my opinion, been absolute everything that his team has ever needed him to be. There is absolutely no doubt that he has been surrounded with quality, excellent, versatile footballers. At the same time, he's been isolated to an extent. I want to approach this in a way that gives a realistic view of the support Pirlo has always been given and a short summary of what he has lacked.

The most prominent example is the Italian national team. No other team can be so aptly described as Pirlo's team. It's as much as insult to everyone else on the team as it is a compliment to Pirlo. I've never seen a collection of genuinely quality midfielders look so lost in the absence of a single player. On paper, in his absence, Italy should still be a very solid team, a beast no one particularly wants to play. On the pitch, we may as well not show up if Pirlo isn't on the pitch.

Under Lippi's disastrous second instruction, Pirlo played just twenty minutes during the World Cup. When he was on, we controlled the ball, moved it purposefully, created chances and nearly rescued out of the fire a performance that deserved bottom place in a group which included New Zealand. Had you not known any of the scores and simply watched that period of the match, you'd have thought Italy were the dominant force in the group, the team who topped it with ease. Pirlo gave us an illusion of control that made even Lippi's disastrous line-ups seem like they could offer the world something. For 250 minutes before, our best opportunities consisted of Monty taking pot shots from 30 yards out.

It was a problem for us in 2008, 2010 and if Pirlo is injured during this tournament, we'll go crashing out 90 minutes of play later. Football is a team game and it makes comparisons such as these particularly difficult given the nature of a midfield battle. One can only work with what one has and in Pirlo's case, his supporting cast has quality and compliments him well, however at the same time their lack of direction without him raises serious questions about how they have inhibited his ability to control the game.

A point that is often raised at this point by those who love Pirlo is somehow worse because he has such a great supporting cast that Pirlo lacked. That idea is complete and utter nonsense. That arguments concerning individuals rely on interpreting their contributions to a team game leads to this sort of utter madness being spewed isn't surprising, however it's often hurt the debate and it was worth addressing on the basis of what both can be said to have done. Both Xavi and Pirlo have raised their respective teams to another elite level that could not have been achieved in their absence.

They've both been to their teams what each needed them to be. Jibers expressed it best in my opinion when he stated that Xavi, Pirlo and Scholes have been the central midfielders of their respective leagues. Not each team needed them to grow in the same way, to contribute in the same way. To suggest how they might have thrived or struggled in each other's position remains speculation, particularly inserting our ideas of the players they are now as they reach the end of their primes into the world of yesteryear as they each started off in their clubs.

If a gun were held to my head and I were asked to pick one? I think Pirlo's poorer games are too loose, particularly in comparison, though it is a culmination of a more direct style and whilst I don't consider him defensively poorer without the ball, I could probably steal half a dozen balls off Pirlo in training before I got Xavi. That athletic ability also should be taken into due consideration does present Xavi a further advantage in my eyes, though again, it really depends on what you are searching for. A team game can't always pivot around one player, so I've never been a fan of dogmatically declaring one player better for all extents and purposes. A team isn't simply one player and just as a defence isn't a back four, so a midfield isn't just a trio.

I don't think I'm changing anyone's opinion, however I haven't really participated in such a discussion, so I thought I might as well join it where it's actually relevant, rather than in the Iniesta thread in the right-back section.

Xavi's done too much, too consistently, too well for me to suggest that Pirlo's better than him but Andrea's lifted us his teams so many levels on his own though that I do object to dismissing him as an unworthy comparison.

Cheers for the mention bra and great post. This is the post he refers to.

jibers wrote:At the end of the day the way I see it,
Pirlo is the standard for Cms in Italy. He is a regista
Xavi is the standard for Cms in Spain. He represents the peak of a CM
Scholes is the standards for CMs in England. After Arguing with ALex I haver come to the conclusion that neither of them are better. They are the best in their leagues in the last 20 years bar none tbh. We don't know what would have happened if they where in each others shoes, they might have been compoletely different players. I would say this, Barcelona enable Xavi to optimise his talent, United never did that for Scholes as most EPL teams played through the wings and didn't care about retaining the ball, so controlling the game was pretty much impossible. How would Xavi fair in a team like Tottenham for example? My point is, I appreciate each of them and I will not bash anyone of them. They are all the standards for CMs. No one is better, they are the peak products for the leagues they play in terms of abilities.

Right, generally I have refrained from posting seriousl;y seeing as most of the forum just troll. But this thread I will try and return to my old ways-ish.

Look, I have tried to fight it, I have argued with Alex back and forth of Xavi's merit, but the fact is, Xavi is the better football player. I will say that Xavi has become slightly more negative (I don't care what key passes stats say, I know what I see with my eyes). Yesterday for me well, Pirlo was better, but when I think about their jobs, it is hard to say. The whole systems arguement is a load of bull as Pirlo has played in a system for years at Milan and played his typical regista position for Juventus. Xavi on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say this, is the quite possibly the best dictating CM I have ever seen. For whatever reason, be it system, or the players, the point is that he did wat no other cm has done. Xavi's vision is better and he is better at keeping the ball than Pirlo, hell the best I have evr seen bar maybe iniesta. Those two just never lose the ball. On a technical level, Xavi is better at what a good dictating Cm needs. Pirlo is a riskier player, but if we use the sytems arguement, that could be because more players in Juventus and Milan run in behind the defence. There is a reason that Messi has the higher assist and goals in Barcelona.

I have rewatched a lotof Barcelona matches from 09 season and the 2011 season especially and you sort of notice that Xavi kind of performs two jobs as a central mf, he brings the ball from deep and he distributes it to the front line. Pirlo sprays diaginal balls to the wings and in front of the running forward. My point is as I stated in the last post, they are very different players, andplay in very diferent set ups, so for me, in terms of comparing achievments it is hard. Same thing with scholes as well. Xavi has shown he can perform in a two man mf as he did in the EUros in 08 with Senna helping out.

What bugs me is when people say that Xavi is A LEVEL above PIrlo. Xavi is better than Pirlo, but I would say they are still in the same league. Although this past season I feel that Pirlo did ore for his team than Xavi did (Xavi was suffering from Achilles tendon issues, but again, it is what it is). Xavi's consistency over the last 4 years has been unreal, only Messi has been more consistent for me over the same period (I'm leaving that freak out of this ASAP!)

One problem I find with Pirlo is that when he is man marked like a few games in serie A this season he became ineffective, whereas I can only think of Banega in the last 4 years having a better game than Xavi and taking him on. So what is the basis of this arguement? Last season, it was Pirlo, the SPain vs Italy game, Pirlo edges it for me only becasue of the assist, but Xavi dictated the way Spain played, but is that not more down to the playing styles? See what I did there? My point is that Barcelona have shown that they can have that amount of possession and so have Spain without Xavi, but when Pirlo's missing from both his sides, they literally look lost.

To finish my debate on this, I would say Xavi is the superior player, but the gap is nowhere as big as people are making it out to be.

7amood11 wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:Over the past 4 years Xavi has played at a level that Pirlo never played at.
He has played atleast a couple of levels above a prime Pirlo during this time.
He has been outplayed in midfield just once in 4 years.Nobody has dominated a midfield like Xavi has over the past 4 years.

That is very, very wrong.

I have a sincere question to you: How many Juve matches have you watched last season? If you've watched just a handful, you'd know how great Pirlo is. I've watched Barca plenty of times last season and don't get me wrong, Xavi is great, but imo Pirlo out shined him.

At the beginning of Pep's era, Xavi was unrivaled, because Pirlo was having a dip at that time. But if you were to talk about last season or pre-2008, it's Pirlo >>> Xavi by a healthy margin. Both statistically and by just watching both of them play.

Pirlo played against piss poor midfields in Italy.There isnt a single world class midfield in Serie A.The bottom sides in La Liga have better midfields than the top sides in Serie A.
Pirlo beating it up in Serie A is no great accomplishment.Xavi can do it with his eyes closed and hands tied behind his back.
Also Xavi proved himself in the CL this season.He also proved himself in the league and put in a MOM performance in the CWC final.
Passing at over 90% this season and scoring 14 goals.
Xavi>Pirlo this season.
Comeback when Pirlo actually does something in Europe.

right this is just ridiculous now!! had to come on and post!

anyone who says that any team that pirlo plays in looks lost without him is the best way to prove that he has a bigger effect is a fool!

lets look at pre-guardiola barca shall we?!
xavi is NOT a guarenteed starter or even an important player! in fact, the club and he himself seriously considered a move to Man Utd! He was played out of position, not trusted to be the main CM, and suffered a 6month injury the year they won the CL!
during this time, Spain also suffer and dont win anything!! the only trophy they win is an olympic gold medal in 92(?)

so then Pep comes along and Xavi is given the free reign to play the way he wants in the system that he wants, the game plan is changed to suit is talents as a CM and watch what happens! Barca win 3 league titles, 2 CL titles, Copa titles, CWC titles, SuperCup titles!! they win more in 4 years then the previous 20!!
Spain go from perenial tournament flops who can be backed to screw it up in the knockouts to the most dominant team in the world as they win the Euro 08 and the World Cup in 12!!

so yeah pirlo has a huge effect on how is team performs and can single handedly at times change games but having witnessed just what has happened since Xavi has been trusted to do what he can do best in the CM theres very little real arguments that say Pirlo is better!!

Prometheus wrote:right this is just ridiculous now!! had to come on and post!

anyone who says that any team that pirlo plays in looks lost without him is the best way to prove that he has a bigger effect is a fool!

lets look at pre-guardiola barca shall we?!
xavi is NOT a guarenteed starter or even an important player! in fact, the club and he himself seriously considered a move to Man Utd! He was played out of position, not trusted to be the main CM, and suffered a 6month injury the year they won the CL!
during this time, Spain also suffer and dont win anything!! the only trophy they win is an olympic gold medal in 92(?)

so then Pep comes along and Xavi is given the free reign to play the way he wants in the system that he wants, the game plan is changed to suit is talents as a CM and watch what happens! Barca win 3 league titles, 2 CL titles, Copa titles, CWC titles, SuperCup titles!! they win more in 4 years then the previous 20!!
Spain go from perenial tournament flops who can be backed to screw it up in the knockouts to the most dominant team in the world as they win the Euro 08 and the World Cup in 12!!

so yeah pirlo has a huge effect on how is team performs and can single handedly at times change games but having witnessed just what has happened since Xavi has been trusted to do what he can do best in the CM theres very little real arguments that say Pirlo is better!!

Bitch please Out of positioned Xavi and he was still one of the greats and formed good partnerships with Toure and Messinho. He was a better player when Pep came around though

Anyone who says Xavi wasn’t a regular pre Guardiola just embaraces himself.
He was playing deeper alongside Edmilson/Van Bomel/Motta in a more Busquets-ish role.
For me Jibers’ last sentence sums it up perfectly. Xavi is superior but the gap is really slight.

P.S. the star rating of this article was really inaccurate

When Pirlo played at Milan I used to watch some of their big games, just to see him, his quality transcended club boundaries for me.

Xavi is another player I've appreciated for a long time, I remember in 2003 he scored against us in our CL home leg, even back then it was clear to see he had a extraordinary skillset, even if it wasn't widely appreciated.

This subject is a tough one to debate though.

While I think it's fair to say that these past few years Xavi has shone so much brighter than Pirlo ever has, Pirlo has shone for a greater length of time; albeit with less brightness...

Xavi edges it statistically and with his achievements but for the sake of this argument my personal preference is still Pirlo, never I think has there been such a fine long range passer. Why? Honestly, I don't know.

To be honest I think everyone should lap up what these two players give us on the pitch and stop the tiresome comparisons, it could be a very long time before we see players of their calibre again coinciding with tactical validity in European football.

Looks increasing likely, for the Italian game at least, that the 3 man backline and a sweeper like player in the center of the 3 represents the next evolution, or rather reinvention. Could potentially marginalise the role of the classic Italian regista, I sincerely hope not though.

Try and leave the bias aside . For 1 minute . And think of the question i will make you . I have no need for an answer.

Is there something the other wouldn't do if they swapped teams for a year or two ? Honestly , do you believe Xavi does something more or significantly better than Pirlo can't/wouldn't do; and vice versa ?

Try and leave the bias aside for 1 minute. You ll see it right away . The exact same job Xavi has done for Barcelona and Spain , Pirlo would do too.
And the exact same job Pirlo has done in Milan , Italy and now Juventus , Xavi would do too , as well .

These days that i am a lot lesser biased towards Pirlo , i seriously have a more clear image . Note that i don't try to convince or change opinions. Just raising some questions , because even though it's understandable you think that high of Xavi ,

Pirlo can do everything Xavi does and once again , the same goes for Xavi .

The truth is always somewhere in between. Equals seems correct to me.

Tbh, Pirlo wasn't that great against Spain. Xavi absolutely bossed him around though when he did have the ball, he did string in some good passers. I thought Xavi again, bossed him around and Pirlo was always chasing him around. Del Piero was the one who really made the difference for Italy.

Cotes wrote:

@ 1:10 Pwning Vagi(Xavi)
@ 1:14 Pwning Iniesta
@ 1:25 Pwning Alonso
@ 1:38 & 3:00 Pwning Busquets
@ 3:32 Pwning Fabregas
& basically everyone pwned Arbeloa... :p

lol... that video actually lessened your argument... Particularly the moments you've picked out... He didn't actually 'pwn' half of those guys at all lol

The best was how you mentioned Busquets at 1.38, when its actually Busquets pulling a move on Pirlo... at the time I thought, wow... that was nice, he owned Pirlo. I can't see how that counts as well played by Pirlo, he gets owned and concedes a foul.

If you wanna find little highlight vids good for you.. I could do exactly the same. Pirlo's dribble for the goal was wicked, but Xavi did some jizz-worthy plays in this game as well. At one point near the end he kept the ball and turned away from 2-3 players who were right on top of him (one of them Pirlo), I thought that was quite symbolic really. Then another notable one he did a beautiful run and one-two'd it past 2 players.

Both players played well, and I perfectly accept someone saying Pirlo shaded it, but I don't agree. I definitely don't agree that Pirlo OWNED Xavi.

"Modern greats | The two midfielders have stood out during an era of technical decline"

Era of technical decline

paxtonpale wrote:Tbh, Pirlo wasn't that great against Spain. Xavi absolutely bossed him around though when he did have the ball, he did string in some good passers. I thought Xavi again, bossed him around and Pirlo was always chasing him around. Del Piero was the one who really made the difference for Italy.

Well, I disagree with you about that, I think Pirlo played better. And Del Piero has retired lol.

De Rossi sorry...

Thanks for all the replies. While I understand that some people didn't like the topic and/or the way it was presented and the reference to that article and some posted reluctantly, I still read every single word of almost every post. So thanks everyone.

As to the one question that has been asked what makes Xavi better I do want to attempt an answer to it even at the risk of starting a fight with more than one individual. alex, dani, etc. have already talked about the brilliance of what he's done and achieved. So I am only trying to talk about aspects of his game. I would say the quickness of his mind is unrivaled and if you have quick feet to work in tandem with the quickness of your mind, the result is mind boggling especially when the mind is that special. Then comes his work rate which pretty much every one agrees that Pirlo lacks and that when allied to his tactical qualities allows him to orchestrate games more consistently and dominantly than anyone I have seen. Lastly I must mention his consistency which is super human - there are so many games when he is not less than perfect for even a second and he very rarely has an average game leave alone a bad one.

jibers wrote:Right, generally I have refrained from posting seriousl;y seeing as most of the forum just troll. But this thread I will try and return to my old ways-ish.

Look, I have tried to fight it, I have argued with Alex back and forth of Xavi's merit, but the fact is, Xavi is the better football player. I will say that Xavi has become slightly more negative (I don't care what key passes stats say, I know what I see with my eyes). Yesterday for me well, Pirlo was better, but when I think about their jobs, it is hard to say. The whole systems arguement is a load of bull as Pirlo has played in a system for years at Milan and played his typical regista position for Juventus. Xavi on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say this, is the quite possibly the best dictating CM I have ever seen. For whatever reason, be it system, or the players, the point is that he did wat no other cm has done. Xavi's vision is better and he is better at keeping the ball than Pirlo, hell the best I have evr seen bar maybe iniesta. Those two just never lose the ball. On a technical level, Xavi is better at what a good dictating Cm needs. Pirlo is a riskier player, but if we use the sytems arguement, that could be because more players in Juventus and Milan run in behind the defence. There is a reason that Messi has the higher assist and goals in Barcelona.

I have rewatched a lotof Barcelona matches from 09 season and the 2011 season especially and you sort of notice that Xavi kind of performs two jobs as a central mf, he brings the ball from deep and he distributes it to the front line. Pirlo sprays diaginal balls to the wings and in front of the running forward. My point is as I stated in the last post, they are very different players, andplay in very diferent set ups, so for me, in terms of comparing achievments it is hard. Same thing with scholes as well. Xavi has shown he can perform in a two man mf as he did in the EUros in 08 with Senna helping out.

What bugs me is when people say that Xavi is A LEVEL above PIrlo. Xavi is better than Pirlo, but I would say they are still in the same league. Although this past season I feel that Pirlo did ore for his team than Xavi did (Xavi was suffering from Achilles tendon issues, but again, it is what it is). Xavi's consistency over the last 4 years has been unreal, only Messi has been more consistent for me over the same period (I'm leaving that freak out of this ASAP!)

One problem I find with Pirlo is that when he is man marked like a few games in serie A this season he became ineffective, whereas I can only think of Banega in the last 4 years having a better game than Xavi and taking him on. So what is the basis of this arguement? Last season, it was Pirlo, the SPain vs Italy game, Pirlo edges it for me only becasue of the assist, but Xavi dictated the way Spain played, but is that not more down to the playing styles? See what I did there? My point is that Barcelona have shown that they can have that amount of possession and so have Spain without Xavi, but when Pirlo's missing from both his sides, they literally look lost.

To finish my debate on this, I would say Xavi is the superior player, but the gap is nowhere as big as people are making it out to be.