There always nostalgia involved when discussing past players....

You can deny it if you wish, you can even believe it but fact is the past always has been and always will be overrated in any entertainment medium you can think of.

I'm not even going to get involved in the debate because its a waste of time with both sides being blinded by delusion to what ever side they wish to pick.

What kind of levels are we talking about ? And how do we even measure what 5 levels above or below even means ? Like levels in Pokemon ? If it is then yeah id say Zindane like a level 95 blastoise (that knows headbutt) and iniesta is like a level 92 Typhlosion ( came a few generations after)

With the ball at their fit, there isn't much difference, but I still think Zidane was better. The difference is that Zidane was a leader, a talisman, that Iniesta isn't. At Barca it's Messi and with Spain it's Xavi.

You think it's flawed to say that a player who serves the role of 2 (Xavi and Iniesta) at an all-time great level is a flawed argument? It's one of the reasons that Messi is being considered one of the all time greats.... his incredible playmaking abilities to go with his scoring. This is the main reason he surclasses CR7.

If a player can do more than the other... then of course that greatly influences if he is better or not.

Of course Zidane had some poor games. Everyone does and even in big games. I can't recall one player who didn't fail on the big stage at least once. But what makes a great player is that he creates so much more magic on the big stage that his lesser performances are forgotten.

There's no nostalgia or overrating. If you google any "best player of all time" list, you see Zidane in the top 10. Not Iniesta. In fact I don't think I've ever seen Iniesta mentioned in the top 20.

Biggest thing going against Iniesta is that he's never been considered the best player in the world any year he's played while Zidane won the award 3 times and would have won it a 4th if he hadn't stomped on a player late in a season out of anger (sound familiar) and the politics of footy decided he should not be named as a result. It was actually his best year too lol... In 2000, he was incredible at club and at NT when France won the Euro and he was the best player in serie A for 2000-2001 (Figo got the award).

Maybe not 5 levels better... but come on.

If Messi played in Zidane's time, he wouldn't have a single Balon D'or to his name.

That's a fact you have to deal with.

It is flawed because had Xavi played for France then you wouldn't be making that argument, but because Xavi coincides with Iniesta in both team and country and they naturally overlap in responsibilities that makes you undervalue him.

Also I googled it and he was not in the first (and only) link I clicked
http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/players/tp/Greatest-Soccer-Players-Of-All-Time.htm

(not that this proves anything, but it's another flawed logic)

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:If Messi played in Zidane's time, he wouldn't have a single Balon D'or to his name.

That's a fact you have to deal with.

I don't buy that either lol. Only reason Messi won the ballon d'or when Spain won the WC was that Spain wasn't dominated by one player. You had Villa, Xavi and Iniesta... Spain has a total team. I guarantee you that if Portugal had won the WC in 2010, CR7 takes the ballon d'or with a landslide. And this year would have been a toss up if Portugal had won the Euro.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:It is flawed because had Xavi played for France then you wouldn't be making that argument, but because Xavi coincides with Iniesta in both team and country and they naturally overlap in responsibilities that makes you undervalue him.

Also I googled it and he was not in the first (and only) link I clicked
http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/players/tp/Greatest-Soccer-Players-Of-All-Time.htm

(not that this proves anything, but it's another flawed logic)

Any website with the term "soccer" in it is lol.....

Iniesta is of course better than Zidane. Does that even need explanation? On club level this shouldn't even be a discussion. It's insulting Iniesta tbf. On international level you might maybe discuss Zidane's Euro 2000 and that's about it. His 98 WC was a non show bar 2 corner headers and his 06 WC got hyped up for pulling 2 stepovers against Kaka and Ronaldinho. LOL

Anyhow, it's pretty clear that 99% of the people who agree with this stupid comparison are Barca fans as this thread shows lol...

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:If Messi played in Zidane's time, he wouldn't have a single Balon D'or to his name.

That's a fact you have to deal with.

A fact?? hahaha.

Nope.

also, they played for several time in the same competition and messi was already better 3rd at the ballon d'or when Zidane was still playing.

sportsczy wrote:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:If Messi played in Zidane's time, he wouldn't have a single Balon D'or to his name.

That's a fact you have to deal with.

I don't buy that either lol. Only reason Messi won the ballon d'or when Spain won the WC was that Spain wasn't dominated by one player. You had Villa, Xavi and Iniesta... Spain has a total team. I guarantee you that if Portugal had won the WC in 2010, CR7 takes the ballon d'or with a landslide. And this year would have been a toss up if Portugal had won the Euro.

No the reason Messi has won so many because he's been the most dominant club footballer on the planet since Pele....

For all Zidane's exploits at international level, his club career was never what you would call dominant.

If Messi wasn't around then Iniesta would have more individual awards.

Go through any era, Pele era aside and he would dominate.

Cruyff and Di Stefano might give him some competition but that's it.

I think Zidane is better btw, but the flawed logic and constant hyperbole is a bit annoying.

futbol wrote:Iniesta is of course better than Zidane. Does that even need explanation? On club level this shouldn't even be a discussion. It's insulting Iniesta tbf. On international level you might maybe discuss Zidane's Euro 2000 and that's about it. His 98 WC was a non show bar 2 corner headers and his 06 WC got hyped up for pulling 2 stepovers against Kaka and Ronaldinho. LOL

That's why they didn't score a goal at WC 2002 and why they couldn't qualify for WC 2006 until he returned in the last 2 matches. He was the one that made the difference.

The French lobby did a good job on Zidane. One of the top 10 players of all time.

Iniesta is poor mans Zidane. What Zidane did for France NT Iniesta couldn't even come close.

Iniesta is a great player and fantastic with ball on his feet. but Zidane was much more valuable footballer. he was the heart of his teams and he was way stronger. a complete player.

at the moment i consider Iniesta 2nd best player in the world. but as good as Zidane? come on. It's not even close.

Futbol

Without Zidane, France don't even get out of the group stage in 06 lol.

I do agree somewhat with the overhyping of the 98 WC though, he was suspended for the majority of the tournament and scored from 2 set pieces in the final.

If you really want to see Zidane and dominance, you watch Euro 2000.

futbol wrote:Iniesta is of course better than Zidane. Does that even need explanation? On club level this shouldn't even be a discussion. It's insulting Iniesta tbf. On international level you might maybe discuss Zidane's Euro 2000 and that's about it. His 98 WC was a non show bar 2 corner headers and his 06 WC got hyped up for pulling 2 stepovers against Kaka and Ronaldinho. LOL

Let the big boys debate. This isn't the right back section

Flawed argument. France lacked a playmaker without Zidane. Zidane being the only playmaker in the French squad doesn't mean that France were reliant on Zidane per se. It simply means without Zidane they lacked a certain type of player who could fulfil a certain role. If you take Carrick out of United, their midfield would totally crumble. He's the only player who's holding their midfield together. If you take out Iniesta out of Barcelona, Barcelona would still not crumble. Because Busquets, Xavi, Fabregas and Messi is still an immense midfield. Is Carrick better than Iniesta now just because Barcelona has more squad depth?

I said this 18 months ago, once again I'm ahead of the curve

futbol wrote:Flawed argument. France lacked a playmaker without Zidane. Zidane being the only playmaker in the French squad doesn't mean that France were reliant on Zidane per se. It simply means without Zidane they lacked a certain type of player who could fulfil a certain role. If you take out Carrick out of United, their midfield would totally crumble. He's the only player who's holding their midfield together. If you take out Iniesta out of Barcelona, Barcelona would still not crumble. Because Busquets, Xavi, Fabregas and Messi is still an immense midfield. Is Carrick better than Iniesta now just because Barcelona has more squad depth?

Not even going into how silly this argument is but i will just point out your wrong reasoning.

Without Iniesta, barcelona do suffer. See the Winning percentage of Barcelona with and without iniesta. No other midfielder can replace iniesta and still make barcelona as dominant as the are with him.

Secondly, Zidane wasn't the playmaker in the 98 team, Djorkaeff was. So your argument holds no value

sportsczy wrote:You think it's flawed to say that a player who serves the role of 2 (Xavi and Iniesta) at an all-time great level is a flawed argument? It's one of the reasons that Messi is being considered one of the all time greats.... his incredible playmaking abilities to go with his scoring. This is the main reason he surclasses CR7.

If a player can do more than the other... then of course that greatly influences if he is better or not.

Of course Zidane had some poor games. Everyone does and even in big games. I can't recall one player who didn't fail on the big stage at least once. But what makes a great player is that he creates so much more magic on the big stage that his lesser performances are forgotten.

There's no nostalgia or overrating. If you google any "best player of all time" list, you see Zidane in the top 10. Not Iniesta. In fact I don't think I've ever seen Iniesta mentioned in the top 20.

Biggest thing going against Iniesta is that he's never been considered the best player in the world any year he's played while Zidane won the award 3 times and would have won it a 4th if he hadn't stomped on a player late in a season out of anger (sound familiar) and the politics of footy decided he should not be named as a result. It was actually his best year too lol... In 2000, he was incredible at club and at NT when France won the Euro and he was the best player in serie A for 2000-2001 (Figo got the award).

Maybe not 5 levels better... but come on.

So iniesta won the European footballer of the year award and was in the top 3 for ballon d or yet you've never seen him rated even in the top 20....
They've got a name for that.

RG he is talking about 2006 not 98 but yeah.....

I specifically used the term "totally crumble", not "suffer". Barca would suffer without a player of Iniesta's quality. Barca wouldn't crumble. Too many playmakers of high quality at Barcelona who can make up for his absense. United without Carrick would crumble. Who's going to make up for his loss? Jones? Cleverley? Surely you are getting the analogy that it can't be held against Iniesta's individual quality just because he's playing alongside Messi and Xavi with Fabregas on the bench.

No one talked about 98 btw. The topic was France failures in 2002 and 2006 qualifiers.

Poor logic, I expect better Sports.

Google? Who gives a crap. Its just various other peoples opinions..no facts in there.

Iniesta never considered best in the world...well yeah duh, thats what happens when you play in the same era as Messi...and even worse, on the same team.

Circumstantial stuff.

If Zidane is better, he is better...I dont know why we need to talk using all these qualifiers.

zidane simply has left his mark as a legendary individual,
iniesta won't do so, they will remember him as an important barcelona player, as a player that played in the best barcelona ever and prob the best club ever, the best spain NT and maybe best NT ever.
and thats where they differ, one was partly the bigger image himself, and the other just a part of the image and will be rememberd as so.

Idiot wrote:zidane simply has left his mark as a legendary individual,
iniesta won't do so, they will remember him as an important barcelona player, as a player that played in the best barcelona ever and prob the best club ever, the best spain NT and maybe best NT ever.
and thats where they differ, one was partly the bigger image himself, and the other just a part of the image and will be rememberd as so.

I somewhat agree with that. Zizou as an individual might be more remembered but that in itself doesn't make one better than the other. If iniesta keeps up this monstrous form its only a matter of time before he surpasses Zidane.