Pirlo

pasquale22 wrote:^^ lol is that serious or humour? Pirlo is amazing, he is like Mozart in the middle. The way he finds so much time on the ball is incredible and his first touch is second to none

Yep and explain how that is anything different to what Xavi does?

The both do the same thing..... they both control the flow, they both have amazing first touches, they both have an amazing range of passing.....

Seriously this system bullocks has got to stop, just to make your favourite player seem better

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I'll be interested to see this BS that comes my way, btw theres nothing wrong with this its what a regista is supposed to do ffs.

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

AttacanteBG wrote:

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I can do the same with Xavi or any other regista......

My point is Regista's are supposed to control the flow and dominate the team with brilliant passing and overall control the game.....

And to say Xavi is worse than Pirlo because thats all he can do is complete and utter fanboyism bullshit

Pirlo for me is technically better.his close control is just amazing.

Short passing ,Xavi is better.He is a master at that.

Long passing i would have to go with Pirlo.

Pirlo is a better dead-ball specialist than Xavi.His shot accuracy for me is better than Xavi.

Xavi is also a lot quicker and he constantly surges forward and involves himself a lot in attack whilst Pirlo always orchestrates from deep.

Tackling ?Both are hardly renowned for their tackling.So an even stevens for me.

Both are legends but i think Pirlo is slightly better in my opinion.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

pasquale22 wrote:^^ lol is that serious or humour? Pirlo is amazing, he is like Mozart in the middle. The way he finds so much time on the ball is incredible and his first touch is second to none

Yep and explain how that is anything different to what Xavi does?

The both do the same thing..... they both control the flow, they both have amazing first touches, they both have an amazing range of passing.....

Seriously this system bullocks has got to stop, just to make your favourite player seem better

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I'll be interested to see this BS that comes my way, btw theres nothing wrong with this its what a regista is supposed to do ffs.

Not much, to be honest. But is that considered a bad thing? No, not really. It's like asking: "What does Trezeguet do other than scoring goals?". How good a player is with his greatest asset is what decides how good that player is.

Pirlo's so damn amazing at controlling the flow and passing which makes him one of the greatest players to ever play in his position.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

AttacanteBG wrote:

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I can do the same with Xavi or any other regista......

My point is Regista's are supposed to control the flow and dominate the team with brilliant passing and overall control the game.....

And to say Xavi is worse than Pirlo because thats all he can do is complete and utter fanboyism bullshit

Yes but with that he offers great shooting and set piece ability and plus he can defend a bit.

Mole isn’t playing down Pirlo’s ability.
On the contrary he highlights his best attributes, which happen to be Xavi’s as well.
For me there can’t be any unbiased fan who recognizes the one and bashes the other.
Those two legends are both maestros of the midfield with many similar strengths (and weaknesses).
Since this thread is about Pirlo: He is one of my 5 favourite midfielders ever

7amood11 wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

pasquale22 wrote:^^ lol is that serious or humour? Pirlo is amazing, he is like Mozart in the middle. The way he finds so much time on the ball is incredible and his first touch is second to none

Yep and explain how that is anything different to what Xavi does?

The both do the same thing..... they both control the flow, they both have amazing first touches, they both have an amazing range of passing.....

Seriously this system bullocks has got to stop, just to make your favourite player seem better

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I'll be interested to see this BS that comes my way, btw theres nothing wrong with this its what a regista is supposed to do ffs.

Not much, to be honest. But is that considered a bad thing? No, not really. It's like asking: "What does Trezeguet do other than scoring goals?". How good a player is with his greatest asset is what decides how good that player is.

Pirlo's so damn amazing at controlling the flow and passing which makes him one of the greatest players to ever play in his position.

of course it isnt, i wish people would read all my posts and replys before posting ( sorry Momo iam in a mood)

I was saying is people are putting Xavi down because supposedly all he does is control the game and passing, so i ask you what does Pirlo do over than that ?

As you said not much, iam not downing Pirlo he was one of the greatest midfielders of his generation if not the greatest but the excuses people use to make their favourite players seem better is complete and utter bullshit.

Pirlo for me is the best CM in the world and always has been but its individual

My problem with xavi is he seldom try to make a long ball pass to the opposite area teams even when they are available. It's very useful when your teammates clueless to break the defense line. While Pirlo always take a risk to pass to opposite area with his long ball even it will risk his teammates to lose position.

SO It's not because Xavi is better, I just Prefer Pirlo if I have to choose between the two consider the way their style of play...

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

7amood11 wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

pasquale22 wrote:^^ lol is that serious or humour? Pirlo is amazing, he is like Mozart in the middle. The way he finds so much time on the ball is incredible and his first touch is second to none

Yep and explain how that is anything different to what Xavi does?

The both do the same thing..... they both control the flow, they both have amazing first touches, they both have an amazing range of passing.....

Seriously this system bullocks has got to stop, just to make your favourite player seem better

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I'll be interested to see this BS that comes my way, btw theres nothing wrong with this its what a regista is supposed to do ffs.

Not much, to be honest. But is that considered a bad thing? No, not really. It's like asking: "What does Trezeguet do other than scoring goals?". How good a player is with his greatest asset is what decides how good that player is.

Pirlo's so damn amazing at controlling the flow and passing which makes him one of the greatest players to ever play in his position.

of course it isnt, i wish people would read all my posts and replys before posting ( sorry Momo iam in a mood)

I was saying is people are putting Xavi down because supposedly all he does is control the game and passing, so i ask you what does Pirlo do over than that ?

As you said not much, iam not downing Pirlo he was one of the greatest midfielders of his generation if not the greatest but the excuses people use to make their favourite players seem better is complete and utter bullshit.

what do you expect ppl to say though? If no one did that, then there would never be any debate as to who is the best in any position/generation/team/etc. But I get your point... you cant ignore another players abilities (most of which are similar) to make another sound better.

The fact of the matter is that both are legends, both have won world cups, both have won multiple champions league trophies, leagues, etc. Both have complete control over the flow of the game and both players dictate what happens in the game by being able to make pinpoint passes and involve others in the game.

Pirlo probably has better long passing skill
Xavi probably has better short passing skill
Pirlo is probably slightly better in tight spots
xavi is probably a better goal scorer

at the end of the day, the difference is so small that all it comes down to is preference, hence the fanboyism by most. Logical ppl will be honest with you and say both are great, but I simply just prefer X player. In this case, as an italian, its Pirlo for me

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.

king_alex10 wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

7amood11 wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

pasquale22 wrote:^^ lol is that serious or humour? Pirlo is amazing, he is like Mozart in the middle. The way he finds so much time on the ball is incredible and his first touch is second to none

Yep and explain how that is anything different to what Xavi does?

The both do the same thing..... they both control the flow, they both have amazing first touches, they both have an amazing range of passing.....

Seriously this system bullocks has got to stop, just to make your favourite player seem better

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I'll be interested to see this BS that comes my way, btw theres nothing wrong with this its what a regista is supposed to do ffs.

Not much, to be honest. But is that considered a bad thing? No, not really. It's like asking: "What does Trezeguet do other than scoring goals?". How good a player is with his greatest asset is what decides how good that player is.

Pirlo's so damn amazing at controlling the flow and passing which makes him one of the greatest players to ever play in his position.

of course it isnt, i wish people would read all my posts and replys before posting ( sorry Momo iam in a mood)

I was saying is people are putting Xavi down because supposedly all he does is control the game and passing, so i ask you what does Pirlo do over than that ?

As you said not much, iam not downing Pirlo he was one of the greatest midfielders of his generation if not the greatest but the excuses people use to make their favourite players seem better is complete and utter bullshit.

what do you expect ppl to say though? If no one did that, then there would never be any debate as to who is the best in any position/generation/team/etc. But I get your point... you cant ignore another players abilities (most of which are similar) to make another sound better.

The fact of the matter is that both are legends, both have won world cups, both have won multiple champions league trophies, leagues, etc. Both have complete control over the flow of the game and both players dictate what happens in the game by being able to make pinpoint passes and involve others in the game.

Pirlo probably has better long passing skill
Xavi probably has better short passing skill
Pirlo is probably slightly better in tight spots
xavi is probably a better goal scorer

at the end of the day, the difference is so small that all it comes down to is preference, hence the fanboyism by most. Logical ppl will be honest with you and say both are great, but I simply just prefer X player. In this case, as an italian, its Pirlo for me

Ofcourse and thats fine i was more responding to those who say Pirlo is better than Xavi because all Xavi does is control the tempo and passing when Pirlo doesnt do much more but both of them are legends in thier role as deep line playmakers.......

yeah... you cant credit one for somethiong, then discredit the other one just bc u like the other better.

and about the system mularky... Yes, Xavi thrives in the barcelona system, but one can argue that Pirlo is even more system dependent in that he must have AT LEAST 1 hustler in the midfield to allow him to paly his game.

Xavi doesnt necessarily need THAT, but similar to pirlo he needs certain things around him to enable him to play at the level he plays at

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.

But what about scholes lack of success at the international level? I agree with most of what you said, but the fact is that without the big one, he isnt on the same level as the other 2. In a world where trophies trump stats, and in a world where trophies make up the bulk of ones legacy, Scholes doesnt have that in his corner (sadly)

king_alex10 wrote:

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.

But what about scholes lack of success at the international level? I agree with most of what you said, but the fact is that without the big one, he isnt on the same level as the other 2. In a world where trophies trump stats, and in a world where trophies make up the bulk of ones legacy, Scholes doesnt have that in his corner (sadly)

Being on the same level requires trophies? So maradona has a WC but lacks cl so he isnt the best? Scholes abilities are up there with or without the WC tbh. Laudrup never won the WC, but he is superiro to all of them at everything tbh bar controlling the tempo of the game. SO becaue he ddnt win the WC he is less of a player? Judge for yourself. He was played out of position to accomodate lamps and gerrard. He even retired because of it. Scholes ability is on par with all of them. Baggio didnt win the WC but he is one of the best footballers I have ever seen.

I had posted in the other thread that Xavi has scored 24 goals for Barca under Pep.So that certainly debunks the he is only good at tempo control theory.I dont think Pirlo has scored more.So who has more to his game?

and king_alex
I dont think there is anybody better than Xavi in the modern game at controlling the ball in tight spaces and i include the likes of Iniesta and Messi when saying that.

king_alex10 wrote:yeah... you cant credit one for somethiong, then discredit the other one just bc u like the other better.

and about the system mularky... Yes, Xavi thrives in the barcelona system, but one can argue that Pirlo is even more system dependent in that he must have AT LEAST 1 hustler in the midfield to allow him to paly his game.

Xavi doesnt necessarily need THAT, but similar to pirlo he needs certain things around him to enable him to play at the level he plays at

In the euros he had on Senna covering him and in the WC he had Busquets and Alonso covering him and for Bace he is covered by his whole team so rarley has to do any tackling. He had the lowest tacklingrate in Europe for Cms last season.

alexjanosik wrote:I had posted in the other thread that Xavi has scored 24 goals for Barca under Pep.So that certainly debunks the he is only good at tempo control theory.I dont think Pirlo has scored more.So who has more to his game?

and king_alex
I dont think there is anybody better than Xavi in the modern game at controlling the ball in tight spaces and i include the likes of Iniesta and Messi when saying that.

I agree he is the best Cm in tight spaces, but he is not in Messi league and is in a shade below iniesta. He is better at reading the game atm though but Messi is catching up.

jibers wrote:

king_alex10 wrote:

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.

But what about scholes lack of success at the international level? I agree with most of what you said, but the fact is that without the big one, he isnt on the same level as the other 2. In a world where trophies trump stats, and in a world where trophies make up the bulk of ones legacy, Scholes doesnt have that in his corner (sadly)

Being on the same level requires trophies? So maradona has a WC but lacks cl so he isnt the best? Scholes abilities are up there with or without the WC tbh. Laudrup never won the WC, but he is superiro to all of them at everything tbh bar controlling the tempo of the game. SO becaue he ddnt win the WC he is less of a player? Judge for yourself. He was played out of position to accomodate lamps and gerrard. He even retired because of it. Scholes ability is on par with all of them. Baggio didnt win the WC but he is one of the best footballers I have ever seen.

I think your misunderstanding a bit. I feel like he IS on the same level. But what i mean is that compared to his peers (Pirlo and Xavi) he doesnt have the international success to back up an argument for him being "better" than either of them. I think that this is sad, and the only reason i bring it up is bc most people (myself EXCLUDED) value trophies and stats over "the eye test"... if u were to watch him play, u could easily see he is one of the best, but the trophy isnt there to back up that kind of claim (which for some people, means more than his displays on the pitch). Does that make more sense?

king_alex10 wrote:

jibers wrote:

king_alex10 wrote:

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.

But what about scholes lack of success at the international level? I agree with most of what you said, but the fact is that without the big one, he isnt on the same level as the other 2. In a world where trophies trump stats, and in a world where trophies make up the bulk of ones legacy, Scholes doesnt have that in his corner (sadly)

Being on the same level requires trophies? So maradona has a WC but lacks cl so he isnt the best? Scholes abilities are up there with or without the WC tbh. Laudrup never won the WC, but he is superiro to all of them at everything tbh bar controlling the tempo of the game. SO becaue he ddnt win the WC he is less of a player? Judge for yourself. He was played out of position to accomodate lamps and gerrard. He even retired because of it. Scholes ability is on par with all of them. Baggio didnt win the WC but he is one of the best footballers I have ever seen.

I think your misunderstanding a bit. I feel like he IS on the same level. But what i mean is that compared to his peers (Pirlo and Xavi) he doesnt have the international success to back up an argument for him being "better" than either of them. I think that this is sad, and the only reason i bring it up is bc most people (myself EXCLUDED) value trophies and stats over "the eye test"... if u were to watch him play, u could easily see he is one of the best, but the trophy isnt there to back up that kind of claim (which for some people, means more than his displays on the pitch). Does that make more sense?

That is fair. Xavi only started being talked about when he started winning trophies. Scholes has always been admired by his peers though. Anyone that understands football would see that tbh. Atm the only player in the mold of these guys is modric. Thats it tbh. There is no Cm atm that can dictate the tempo that well. Apart from Xavi and Pirlo. If Pirlo gets injured Juve are *bleeped*

jibers wrote:

king_alex10 wrote:

jibers wrote:

king_alex10 wrote:

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.

But what about scholes lack of success at the international level? I agree with most of what you said, but the fact is that without the big one, he isnt on the same level as the other 2. In a world where trophies trump stats, and in a world where trophies make up the bulk of ones legacy, Scholes doesnt have that in his corner (sadly)

Being on the same level requires trophies? So maradona has a WC but lacks cl so he isnt the best? Scholes abilities are up there with or without the WC tbh. Laudrup never won the WC, but he is superiro to all of them at everything tbh bar controlling the tempo of the game. SO becaue he ddnt win the WC he is less of a player? Judge for yourself. He was played out of position to accomodate lamps and gerrard. He even retired because of it. Scholes ability is on par with all of them. Baggio didnt win the WC but he is one of the best footballers I have ever seen.

I think your misunderstanding a bit. I feel like he IS on the same level. But what i mean is that compared to his peers (Pirlo and Xavi) he doesnt have the international success to back up an argument for him being "better" than either of them. I think that this is sad, and the only reason i bring it up is bc most people (myself EXCLUDED) value trophies and stats over "the eye test"... if u were to watch him play, u could easily see he is one of the best, but the trophy isnt there to back up that kind of claim (which for some people, means more than his displays on the pitch). Does that make more sense?

That is fair. Xavi only started being talked about when he started winning trophies. Scholes has always been admired by his peers though. Anyone that understands football would see that tbh. Atm the only player in the mold of these guys is modric. Thats it tbh. There is no Cm atm that can dictate the tempo that well. Apart from Xavi and Pirlo. If Pirlo gets injured Juve are *bleeped*

red: exactly... u cannot deny what you see. If you watch/watched him, u recognize his genious

Blue: dont remind me

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

AttacanteBG wrote:

Again what does Pirlo do outside of controlling the flow and passing?

I can do the same with Xavi or any other regista......

My point is Regista's are supposed to control the flow and dominate the team with brilliant passing and overall control the game.....

And to say Xavi is worse than Pirlo because thats all he can do is complete and utter fanboyism bullshit

Mole read my post ast the top ofpage 3 thats why pirlo is better.

Xavi was a late bloomer pirlo was wc way before him.

Simply put pirlo has been doing it better and longer than xavi in way less talented teams than the one xavi has had these last 4 years which is really when he has come
To prominence.

I personally thought he is finished after 2008, but now everybody jumped onto his bandwagon.

There's already a thread on Pirlo mate.