Re: Iniesta vs Zidane (revisited)

by LeBéninois Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:28 pm

Both are in the same brackett for sure. Now who is better ? It's a matter of personnal choice and let me remind you that it's a collective sport so depending of the others players around one could be better than the other.

Personnal choice : Iniesta but had Zidane played for Barca I may have said Zidane. Also I didn't see Zidane play on a weekly basis.

I totally understand why Zidane is more popular tho.

by farfan Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:37 pm

El Messico wrote:
Valkyrja wrote:How did France cope without Zidane in the 02 world cup ?

Was waiting for this post to come up. Surely France did not do well without Zidane. They lost to Senegal and drew with Uruguay. But Zidane played the final group game and even then lost to Denmark 2-0.

Bringing up France 02 paints the picture that France was useless without Zidane during his time with the team. But France was still eliminated by the Czechs in Euro 96 and the Greeks in Euro 2004 despite having Zidane in both those tournaments.

Even in World Cup 06, France was on the brink of elimination from a group containing South Korea, Switzerland and Togo. Having received yellow cards amid poor performances in both draws against the Swiss and Koreans, Zidane was suspended for the final must-win group game against Togo. France ultimately qualified, and it was clear that Ribery was the best player in the team, atleast until the end of the Spain R16 game.

Then came the Brazil QF and with it the hype overload.

You didn't exactly refute the notion that France sucked without Zidane ....

by Robespierre Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:45 pm

Imo that France 98 was a GOAT squad overall , and it wasn't at all Zidano-centric. Infact he scored " just " in final . 16round with golden goal by Blanc :bow , quarter final ... uhm I don't remind ... , semi-final double by Thuram . He got also a red card in group. Amazing team tbh , the only one man show- team was that Brazil with Ronaldo . France deserved it definitely.
Euro 2000 (despite he didn't play a great final , but he was dominant for the rest ) and WC 2006 ( France 2006 = Zidane. I got we 'd won this with his red card. Before he was easily the best player on 22 in pitch . Impressive difference with the rest, and we talk about a great NT as Italy) rotated around Zidane
I voted Zidane because basically he is closer to my ideal player than Iniesta but anyway they're close and you can choose one or the other... it's just a matter of taste

by sportsczy Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:47 pm

With the same system on NT and club and the same club... basically optimum conditions. Never had to adapt to anything or anyone.

by El Messico Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:49 pm

farfan wrote:
El Messico wrote:
Valkyrja wrote:How did France cope without Zidane in the 02 world cup ?

Was waiting for this post to come up. Surely France did not do well without Zidane. They lost to Senegal and drew with Uruguay. But Zidane played the final group game and even then lost to Denmark 2-0.

Bringing up France 02 paints the picture that France was useless without Zidane during his time with the team. But France was still eliminated by the Czechs in Euro 96 and the Greeks in Euro 2004 despite having Zidane in both those tournaments.

Even in World Cup 06, France was on the brink of elimination from a group containing South Korea, Switzerland and Togo. Having received yellow cards amid poor performances in both draws against the Swiss and Koreans, Zidane was suspended for the final must-win group game against Togo. France ultimately qualified, and it was clear that Ribery was the best player in the team, atleast until the end of the Spain R16 game.

Then came the Brazil QF and with it the hype overload.

You didn't exactly refute the notion that France sucked without Zidane ....

Err no I didn't. Because that was never my intention.

by El Messico Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:56 pm

sportsczy wrote:With the same system on NT and club and the same club... basically optimum conditions. Never had to adapt to anything or anyone.

Spain 08 and Spain 12 were quite different. One played with 2 strikers and 4 midfielders, the other played 0 strikers and 6 midfielders. In 2008, Spain lined up in a 4-4-2 with Marcos Senna and Xavi as the main central midfielders, with Iniesta nominally playing on the left. In 2012, Iniesta played more centrally off the main "striker" Fabregas with a completely different role.

Stylistically Barca 06, Barca 09, Barca 15 are also all quite distinct. Playing as a DM responsible for circulating the ball in the 2006 team, to playing a possession-dominant AM responsible for creating chances and destabilizing defences in the 2011 team, to playing a CM with additional significant defensive responsibilities in the 2015 team, Iniesta has mastered almost every role in central midfield for Barcelona.

Never had to adapt is quite far from the truth.

by sportsczy Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:06 pm

Tweaking the same style with largely the same players at the same club who has a very finite philosophy is FAR FAR FAR different than playing in different countries for different clubs with VASTLY different players and styles... and doing it while only briefly taking time to adapt (we're talking a few months).

Not to mention Zidane played for some of the most pathetic managers that ever lived and still managed do be great and lead the teams to greatness.

France looked absolutely pathetic without him. Madrid looked like a mid-table team without him when he was injured.

by futbol_bill Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:28 pm

i find this debate painful!!! bOth these guys are favourites of mine. Their skills are very similar, bith criucial to their teams success. dIfference IMO is Zidaine was top player on his teams (there were other good players but Zidaine was the leader) while Iniesta was one of top players (you have to put Xavi and Villa in same class) on his teams.

by CBarca Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:00 am

I love Zidane but it has to be Iniesta.

If it's not Iniesta now, it will be by the end of his career.

by LeBéninois Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:15 am

Tbh anyone who didn't watch Zidane his entire career or at least his prime ( like Iniesta ) is biaised.

by Cruijf Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:53 am

Yeah I didn't watch Zidane in his prime, can't comment. I will say that Iniesta is being (as usual) vastly underrated. Not a big game player rofl

by Bankz Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:57 am

I watched zidane in his prime from 1996 - 2006 maybe not on a weekly basis (from his bordeux days) but I was able to watch at least 10 matches each from 1996 - 97 and at least 30 matches each season in his juve days (serie A was the in thing then) from 97 - 01 and 40+ matches in madrid each season. And I practically watched all of zidanes international tournaments..

Zidane vs El phenomeno was the ronaldo vs messi of today (till R9's injury at least).. :bow:

by guest_07 Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:14 am

farfan wrote:
El Messico wrote:
Valkyrja wrote:How did France cope without Zidane in the 02 world cup ?

Was waiting for this post to come up. Surely France did not do well without Zidane. They lost to Senegal and drew with Uruguay. But Zidane played the final group game and even then lost to Denmark 2-0.

Bringing up France 02 paints the picture that France was useless without Zidane during his time with the team. But France was still eliminated by the Czechs in Euro 96 and the Greeks in Euro 2004 despite having Zidane in both those tournaments.

Even in World Cup 06, France was on the brink of elimination from a group containing South Korea, Switzerland and Togo. Having received yellow cards amid poor performances in both draws against the Swiss and Koreans, Zidane was suspended for the final must-win group game against Togo. France ultimately qualified, and it was clear that Ribery was the best player in the team, atleast until the end of the Spain R16 game.

Then came the Brazil QF and with it the hype overload.

You didn't exactly refute the notion that France sucked without Zidane ....

to be more precise regarding the france 2002 wc,

france (without zidane + pires) vs senegal was suck

france (without zidane + pires + henry (played only 25min cause of red card) vs uruguay was suck

france (with zidane but without pires + henry) vs denmark was suck

by Mamad Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:32 am

The fact that Iniesta fans try to compare him to Zidane everytime he shines shows how good Zidane was.

Zidane was a team on his own. a leader. Iniesta is poor mans Zidane.

by titosantill Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:36 pm

@guest...just for the record, zidane was still injured vs denmark. he wasn't supposed to play in any of the group games, they played him as an act of desperation, guy was limping around with his leg wrapped up in tape....he wasn't close to being fit and shouldn't have played that game

by guest_07 Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:32 pm

titosantill wrote:@guest...just for the record, zidane was still injured vs denmark. he wasn't supposed to play in any of the group games, they played him as an act of desperation, guy was limping around with his leg wrapped up in tape....he wasn't close to being fit and shouldn't have played that game

i'm aware about his injury

i just to act like a devil's advocate here

by futbol Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:43 pm

Bankz wrote:I watched zidane in his prime from 1996 - 2006

Did you just pretend to be older than 12?

by Lucifer Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:59 pm

futbol wrote:
Bankz wrote:I watched zidane in his prime from 1996 - 2006

Did you just pretend to be older than 12?

by Donuts Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:10 pm

futbol wrote:
Bankz wrote:I watched zidane in his prime from 1996 - 2006

Did you just pretend to be older than 12?

by Bankz Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:50 pm

futbol wrote:
Bankz wrote:I watched zidane in his prime from 1996 - 2006

Did you just pretend to be older than 12?

U pos

by guest_07 Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:36 am

i found this in bigsoccer:

Real Madrid without Zidane: Champions League title in 1998 and 2000; Liga title in 1997, 2001 (note: and Real Madrid won La Liga in the 2006-07 season, right after Zidane retired).

Real Madrid with Zidane: Champions League title in 2002; Liga title in 2003.

Juventus without Zidane: UEFA Cup Final appearance in 1995; Champions League title in 1996; Serie A title in 1995, 1997, 1998 (note: and another Serie A in the 2001-02 season, right after Zidane left, and with Nedved quickly making the fans forget about Zidane; followed by another Serie A title in the 2002-03 season, as well as a Champions League Final appearance in the 2002-03 season, as well as Nedved winning the Ballon d'Or around the same time).

Juventus with Zidane: Champions League Final appearances in 1997 and 1998; Serie A title in 1997 and 1998 (note: Zidane failed to win a single Serie A title after Del Piero's knee injury).

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/xavi-iniesta-better-than-zidane.2021285/page-58

by jibers Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:27 am

Bankz wrote: at least zidane got to 2 world cup finals to begin with, all despite having far inferior suards..

Multiple titles? Lol, so u think zidane wouldn't beast it up in dem pepcelona teams? Try putting iniesta in that galactico team and the 03 - 06 french team and see him do the hazard ghosting impression.

Saying iniesta was one of the best players in those finals in just lol worthy tbh, every big game player is always ONE OF the best players in almost every game they play, so I don't see how saying iniesta was one of the best players at so and so final is proving anything or has there being a final where zidane wasn't one of the best players?

Moreso, loosing more finals doesn't make one player inferior to the other.
Again, zidane was equally the man of the match against brazil in the 98 & 06 world cup finals,
was a 2002 CL final MVP,
was euro 2000 MVP,
was world cup 06 MVP,
was a 3 time FIFA wpoty winner,
was a one time balon d'or winner,

Btw, didn't iniesta loose the confederations cup final by a neymar designed 0 - 3 dishwashing? Wasn't spain disgraced out of the 2014 world cup?

In conclusion, there's nothing, and I mean nothing that iniesta has done/achieved that zidane hasn't and then some.

You can't be serious. Zidane was in front of the best defensive unit in world cup history...Desailly, Thuram, Blanc, Lizarazu then Deschamps and karembeu (RM Cl winner in 98). Biggest myth in football second only to Maradona carrying Argentina by himself.

guest_07 wrote:i found this in bigsoccer:

Real Madrid without Zidane: Champions League title in 1998 and 2000; Liga title in 1997, 2001 (note: and Real Madrid won La Liga in the 2006-07 season, right after Zidane retired).

Real Madrid with Zidane: Champions League title in 2002; Liga title in 2003.

Juventus without Zidane: UEFA Cup Final appearance in 1995; Champions League title in 1996; Serie A title in 1995, 1997, 1998 (note: and another Serie A in the 2001-02 season, right after Zidane left, and with Nedved quickly making the fans forget about Zidane; followed by another Serie A title in the 2002-03 season, as well as a Champions League Final appearance in the 2002-03 season, as well as Nedved winning the Ballon d'Or around the same time).

Juventus with Zidane: Champions League Final appearances in 1997 and 1998; Serie A title in 1997 and 1998 (note: Zidane failed to win a single Serie A title after Del Piero's knee injury).

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/xavi-iniesta-better-than-zidane.2021285/page-58

Anyone that watched Zidane back then knows that his myth is overblown. In his first 2 seasons ADP was far better than Zidane and more impornant. If ADP didn't get injured, he would have been on R9s level. Zidane's reputation exploded after that 98 final.

sportsczy wrote:One is asked to make the difference in the final 1/3 and or from one side while the other is asked to control the flow of the game across the pitch. Xavi played Zidane's role and now Rakitic. Iniesta doesn't play Zidane's role. You're not comparing the right players.

Scholes - Pirlo- Xavi - Zidane - Schweini - etc.... these are proper comparisons.

I get where you are coming from and I sort of agree. He dropped deep to pick the ball from mf and then drove forward similar to Xavi. Stylistically he more similar to Iniesta which is why I did this comparison and the parallels between them is frightening

Both scored winners to win their countrys maiden WC
Both where best players in the Euros: 02 and 12
Both are balding Laughing

Zidane was the holding player at the start of his Juve career iirc. Then he was pushed forward. TBH, comparing Zidane to Xavi as CMs, Xavi is a level above Zidane in that role or any other player. Only thing Zidane is better at is dribbling directly. That's why Iniesta is more appropriate. Zidane is rated more based on his elegance.

Anyways passing, Iniesta is better, Iniesta is a better dribbler, better ball control and better in tighter spaces. Zidane was stronger, better in the air and better at set pieces. Iniesta is a far bigger game player and has beeen motm in almost every major final he played where as Zidane flopped in 2 finals for Juventus. R9s injury was the biggest saviour for Zidanes myth.

Zidane is a great player but he is nowhere in the category of Cruijff, Messi, Pele or Beckenbauer for me.

@Mole I think Iniesta is underrated and ZIdane is ovverated. The fact that Zidane is mentioned in the same breadth as Pele says it all for me. It's outrageous. He isn't the best controller, or the best assister or best passer yet he is in that category. Laughable.

Anyways, they are both around the same level for me. For me Iniesta is the little version of Zidane.

by The Franchise Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:24 pm

I keep the same opinion I had before.

Iniesta is the same skill level as Zidane, some slight differences in some abilities but overall they play a somewhat similar game and at a similar level with some strange knack for clutch goals despite not being regular goalscorers.

Iniesta gave alot more defensive effort, while Zidane was physically bigger and give him more forcefulness with his runs. But that being said, its impossible to shake Iniesta off the ball anyhow, he protects the ball with his body better than anyone I seen and you have to foul him to take the ball if he goes ahead and decides he isnt going to lose it.

Iniesta to me can drift past more players in succession than Zidane could, Zidane was a guy you pass to in a difficult position and he makes an impossible directional control turn, go past another and then the final ball or action. I dont need a youtube of Zidane dribbling 3 players, I know it happened before...I merely say that Iniesta is more capable of it.

Zidane had a better shot from distance, while not looking at the stats I assume this didnt lead to him being that much a better goalscorer than Iniesta, the threat of him shooting with either foot was real and I think defenders had more difficult with him on the edge of the box than normal.

All this who won what titles with which players is a whole lot of useless noise. It makes no difference at all. Speak about their qualities and what you actually see, not some irrelevant things with no logic to the actual games being played.

by sportsczy Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:32 pm

It's not a question of who won what titles...

You can't knock Iniesta for having played on only one team in one league under the same style since he was 12... and many of the same club teammates on NT.

HOWEVER, you can and must credit Zidane for playing in different leagues, in different styles under many different managers YET, with very minimal exceptions (early months at Juve and Madrid), he had the same impact and performance. It didn't matter to him.

Was Iniesta great? absolutely. But Zidane proved more (not Iniesta's fault) because he had a much more varied and challenging football career while winning everywhere.

Also, Zidane was the superstar player everywhere. He was the man regardless of how great his teammates were. Iniesta was not the star with Ronaldinho, Messi and even Xavi there. Heck, Villa was a bigger star for NT for many through 2010. There was no doubt with Zidane at all and his teammates had equal pedigree as Iniesta's teammates.... actually more when you look at it. France NT, Juve and Madrid were super elite teams.

by Winter is Coming Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:48 pm

So, in other words X player is better then Y, because Y player decided to be loyal to one club. Sounds about right.

If Zidane played in an era were goals counted the most he wouldn't have been a superstar, especially not in this Messi/CR world.

by sportsczy Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:55 am

That's not what i'm saying...

You can project that Iniesta would perform similarly in different circumstances but you don't know because it never happened. For Zidane, you know because he did perform at legendary level in different circumstances.

You can't discount Iniesta for it. But you can't give him credit for something he didn't achieve either. For Zidane, you can give him credit because he did achieve it.

And the fact that Zidane was the top player on all his clubs other than a handful of months is undeniable.

As an analogy.... compare Zuckerberg v Jobs. Jobs not only founded and brought Apple to what we know today, he also bought Pixar from Lucasfilm for $10 million in 1986 and sold it for $7.4 billion in 2005. He made CGI animation into what it is today to go along with his Apple innovations. So although you can't question Zuckerberg's brilliance and you can guess that his brilliance would transcend Facebook... it hasn't yet and maybe never will. Doesn't take away from Zuckerberg's brilliance and maybe he is equally as talented as jobs. But you're just projecting that he is... Jobs, on the other hand, is proven. So in my mind at least, Jobs > Zuckerberg.

by Sponsored content