Gemini wrote:I think Pirlo tries and is capable of more adventurous balls and I like that. Xavi works harder and plays it more simple and I like that also lol.

Hard to pick 1 but I do think if you replaced Italy's Pirlo with Spain's Xavi Spain would still have the talent to win the wc while Italy would get worse.

Having said that just because Italy needs Pirlo more then spain need Xavi I still think they are quite equal but Xavi is definitely surrounded by better talent for club and country.

Dont agree at all with both statements.I dont think Spain would have won any of the 3 tournaments that they did without Xavi.
They won their latter 2 tournaments by playing a slightly defensive possession style of game and Xavi is crucial for it.Take him out and the possession style is not the same,especially against the best sides.
Spain wouldnt have beaten Germany at WC 2010 without Xavi nor would they have thrashed Italy in EC 2012 final without Xavi.Both were vintage Xavi performances.It is easy to say that all he does is pass sideways.There is a lot more to it than that.He is their MVP and I am willing to bet that the day Xavi retires is the day Spain stop winning.
Also dont see how Italy would get worse with Xavi instead of Pirlo.Could you elaborate on the reasons?
Maybe a slight shift in system to accommodate Xavi as a more box to box playmaker instead of the DLP role that Pirlo plays.Italy would be just as good.
On the adventurous balls thing,the lack of final balls from Xavi these days is a direct result of Messi's enhanced role and importance in the team.If anything it makes Xavi a greater player,not lesser.
For Spain,its because they play with no runners.So how is he supposed to play final balls?

Am I the only one who would prefer a player like DDR over both of them? My goodness he's just incredible. Adjustable to any system, completely versatile, great a long passes, great at short passes, incredible work rate and incredible tackling and incredible in big matches.
But as for this argument I don't think the whole "needs a particular system to do well" argument works... if they can succeed with a particular system then why does it matter how they would do in a hypothetical situation that will never arise?