Andrés Iniesta

M

Malappapper

Guest
The bias of our forum towards our players is natural. And many of the current members haven't even seen Zidane play. Then you have the fanboys and the fact Zidane played for our bitter rivals and in the times when they dominated us. Plenty of reasons to dislike or disregard the great Frenchman but I still remember his game very well and have to say that Zidane was a better player than Iniesta is.
And I am sure you'll find this is a predominant opinion among majority of neutral fans.

We are biased when we tend to overhype Biscuits sometimes (not that he is not brilliant, but we tend to hype him sometimes) We also tend to hype Pique and Puyol sometimes as well, as we also do with Pedro and certainly Valdes. We also tend to hype our youngsters a bit also (many Cules tend to believe that everything that comes out of La Masia will be the next Messi, or the next Xavi, or the next Puyol or whatever) But when it comes to Messi/Iniesta/Xavi I believe that our bombastic claims are well and truly justified, and in this you will find that countless neutrals (hell even Madridists and EPL fanboys) tend to agree.
 

lessthanjake

New member
well said. In the end, i suppose it's really semantics, and your definition is perfectly fine. I described the ability to manipulate the ball with his feet as what makes a player the best, which is not true, otherwise, the world's best player would be some dutch street soccer artist. one thing though, would you call it a coincidence, that certain players seem to shine the most during the toughest, mentally most challenging games like the world cup or champions league final? i believe it has a lot to do with the calmness that stems from being really skillful with the ball, and I have only seen very few players who could play this kind of football under huge pressure. Which in turn leads to them being the decisive players for the most prestigious games. Which, if i got this correctly, is the objective quality you spoke of. But then again, maybe you are talking about a season or even a career and I only think of big tournaments...
you know what, let's just say messi is the best, I enjoy iniesta the most and barca still crushes everyone :beer2:

I think my measure of objective quality has a place for players who are clutch in big moments. I said I basically defined it as a player's effect on the goal differential, but theoretically, that could be weighted for importance of the match. So someone who has a HUGE effect on the goal differential in World Cup and Champions League matches and is average otherwise would be better than someone who has a HUGE effect on the goal differential in Copa Del Rey and international friendlies but is average otherwise. Furthermore, I suppose there is something to be said for players who excel in clutch moments of individual games (i.e. a player who performs well in close matches rather than one who performs well in blowouts). So coming up with an EXACT criteria for objective quality can get a bit complicated. l suppose maybe it's just the player's effect on a team's ability to win important trophies also taking into consideration good performances in not close matches (scoring a hat trick in a 5-0 win might not add anything to your team's ability to win trophies, but it DOES indicate quality nonetheless).

The exact criteria is difficult, but my point was a little more general, I suppose. I just meant that a player's objective quality should be measured by how he affects the outcomes of matches. If he consistently does stuff that looks amazing but has no chance to affect the outcome (I say chance to affect because a player shouldn't be penalized if he creates chances that others on his team fail to convert), then I don't think he's objectively the best.
 

misterplatin

New member
We are biased when we tend to overhype Biscuits sometimes (not that he is not brilliant, but we tend to hype him sometimes) We also tend to hype Pique and Puyol sometimes as well, as we also do with Pedro and certainly Valdes. We also tend to hype our youngsters a bit also (many Cules tend to believe that everything that comes out of La Masia will be the next Messi, or the next Xavi, or the next Puyol or whatever) But when it comes to Messi/Iniesta/Xavi I believe that our bombastic claims are well and truly justified, and in this you will find that countless neutrals (hell even Madridists and EPL fanboys) tend to agree.
Well said :barca scarf:
As for Zidane's case I am not going to argue anymore as I really don't believe the challenges faced by him are same as Iniesta.Different times ,different setups and different roles .I could find many qualities in Iniesta that Zidane never showed in his game. For example Iniesta has been a better team player for Barca's passing and quick pressing style.
The only qualities of Zidane that I feel made him a better player than Iniesta probably were physical strength and range of passing .That he could act as a one man creative midfield because he was so well-rounded. But then again Iniesta is part of a complex setup of Barca and not a soloist. He plays the role given to him in best possible way.
 

Ode to Django

You're not even a real journalism
Zidane was just too elegant for his own good, the way he was soo slow & still dribbled people with ease (Pirlo also does this, but not as stylish) yeah Zidane was the man, i never caught him for Juventus though so i can't really say who was better tbh.
 

kostasgtc

New member
:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:


Some further views on the Iniesta v Zidane debate:


1. There is no doubt that Zidane was a colossal player, but many will tell you (I am certainly one of them) that he has been overhyped due to some iconic moments.

2. His lack of consistency cannot be easily put aside, even though his fanboys are always in the business of performing just that. For most of his Madrid games, he was quite average and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Madrid's league positions during the time are indicative of his inconsistency as well as that of his teammates of course. To be honest, there were many games in which he was not much more of a tourist at Real Madrid.

3. Iniesta has achieved more, both on club level and international level. Of course it's a team game, but it's not as if Zidane was playing for weak times, it was anything but in reality. He was playing for a great Juventus side (then considered by most as the best in the world) and a star-loaded Madrid side that had just won 2 CLs in 3 years. And Iniesta has years ahead of him, while Zidane has terminated his career long ago.

4. To be certain, the only thing that Zidane had over Iniesta was his much better shot, and that's it, maybe the long range pass as well. In everything else, Iniesta has the upper hand. Better control, much closer control, superior dribbling, superior work-rate, better running, better short range passing, more discipline, total lack of selfishness, team ethic and so on...But the area in which Iniesta totally pawns Zidane, is CONSISTENCY Yes Zidane had his big moments, but so did Iniesta as well. But on top of that Iniesta plays 50 games a year or so, and in 35 of those he is mostly outstanding. Zidane could not do that.

5. I have still not heard a rational argument from the Zidane crowd as what makes him better than Iniesta. Their arguments are always of the irrational subjective kind: "Zidane was a leader" "Zidane had this something" "Zidane could dominate games" "Zidane carried France to the WC final in 2006" "Zidane had a better header" as if Zidane scored many headers outside that final.
nice again ,except the "To be certain, the only thing that Zidane had over Iniesta was his much better shot, and that's it"part.there are some others too but in those u write that iniesta is superior it cant beany doubt by anyone i suppose
 

kostasgtc

New member
Zidane was just too elegant for his own good, the way he was soo slow & still dribbled people with ease (Pirlo also does this, but not as stylish) yeah Zidane was the man, i never caught him for Juventus though so i can't really say who was better tbh.
yeah pirlo was and still (in his 34!) is an underestimated giant too. from a slightly different position (closer to xavi) but equally importand and special as iniesta and zidane.
 

Xtroverto

Member
Wc 1998 is remembered so badly by some, Zidane wasnt epic the whole tournament, he became legendary in the final but until that point he was average.
Ronaldo was dissapointing as well, i think he made claims about scoring 10-15 goals beforehand and then didnt do much till he scored vs the Netherlands.
Player of the tournament up until the final was Bergkamp who was as talented as Zidane, a similair gracious player but is rated lower cause he lacks accomplishments that Zidane had.
It was Euro 2000 where Zidane was at his absolute best bossing it for France.

I'd say Deschamps, he was so overlooked by fans of the game that it's not even funny. He was consistently the best player on the pitch for France throughout the WC, if ever there was a player carrying his team it was Deschamps in the 98 WC, but since his contribution to the team was in the defensive department, he never got the recognition beyond Aimé Jacquet who said he was France outstanding player of the tournament.
 

Deco 20

Scandinavian 101
I can only really speak of the last years of Zidane's carreer, and there's two things I noticed:
1. He was sublime for France
2. He wasn't that special when playing for Madrid. Ronaldo, Figo, Guti, Makelele, Raul etc were on the same level or better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAIGu47rOpk and all that in a single game?ok respect.
even by that i thing its obvious the amount of space he has to make his moves.nothing comparable to what don has now days,specially in derbies.
that control in 2:23:worthy:
Some nice touches there, and a couple of good crosses, with that said not that special.
Should just delete the first 2 minutes, he does well after that though!
 
Last edited:

BerkeleyBernie

Senior Member
Watching Zidane and Iniesta dribble, what stands out is their ability to keep the ball perfectly in stride with their body, rather than push ahead and catch up (which gives them the ability to change direction on a dime). One would think that's a key skill coaches would encourage youth players to practice endlessly.
 
M

Malappapper

Guest



It's been a while since I've last watched The Don's highlights, and now that I have re-watched them, well, I cannot exactly fathom what makes some people claim that Zidane was better.
 
Last edited:

kostasgtc

New member
its just amazing how he finds almost always space between 2-3-4-5-6 (it doesnt matter) defenders.he is like a dog between dinos.they are stronger,bigger,more angry and badasses but they can touch it:lol:
 

GiantKiller

New member
Not gonna argue with you lot on Zidane over Iniesta (didn't expect anything else but Iniesta being favorite here) nor derail Iniesta's topic further. But I do suggest reading some other opinions from neutral fans and see what the world outside Barca thinks on the topic and get a more realistic look.

This. I wouldn't expect much since it's obvious what most of the opinions would be on a Barca forum.

I've only watched one full match though, and that was the 2006 WC final ( I was too young, so I only remember Zidane's goals and that sending off :p ), so I woudn't participate in this "debate" .
 

Home of Barca Fans

Top