Andrés Iniesta

[Manuel Traquete]

Iniesta is better than Zidane; the opposite perception is mostly influenced by the fact that Zidane didn't have a supernova like Messi playing in the same era or even team to take the spotlight off him, while Andrés does.

 

[Barcaman]

I do miss those Serie A matches. It was indisputably the best league in the world.
I could never judge a player from highlights though. Still fun to watch, cheers.

 

[mitkoa7x]

Iniesta is better than Zidane; the opposite perception is mostly influenced by the fact that Zidane didn't have a supernova like Messi playing in the same era or even team to take the spotlight off him, while Andrés does.

Probably the best way to describe Leo I've ever heard
also agreed with the rest

 

[abual3bed1]

Zidane was suspended for 2/3 matches (?) after stamping on a Saudi player in their GS match and France made it through without him.

 

[kostasgtc]

Both Iniesta and Zidane cannot be evaluated through statistics. They did not score or assist as much as other midfielders. But that is only part of the story. Football is not basketball or baseball where you can explain 99% of the game through statistics. Football has aspects to it that are extremely difficult to quantify. Therefore there is an epistemological problem in football. Even though I take football statistics extremely seriously, in the case of Iniesta and Zidane, I believe that they must be left in the background. Both these players brought to their teams a certain X-factor, and I am not saying this in any mystical kind of way (ooh, this player has this aura about him and all this stupidities)
I am only saying that Iniesta for example, brings something very concrete to our game, even if that does not show in goals or even assists. It is difficult to measure, but I will attempt at describing it. I think that Iniesta brings first of all a calmness to our midfield, he is a reliable outlet both for relieving pressure from opposing markers, and for launching forays into the opponent's third. He links midfield with attack in a brilliant and reliable way. He maintains possession, that is our number one mode of defending. He draws players onto him, therefore creating space. He can interrupt the game when it is not going our way and so on. He can dribble or maintain possession in the tightest of spaces and sometimes makes fools of the opponents which results in fouls and yellow cards, and/or has a negative effect on their morale. He makes our game more effortless and less tiring. He can also carry the ball forward (Pirlo, Xavi and Cesc cannot do that) He also comes up occasionally with some epic goals and some awesome assists, but his end product is the least of his attributes.

Some of his best games:

Against Munich (4-0 in 08/09)

Against Madrid (the 1-3 in Madrid)

Against United (the Rome final)

Against Chelsea (both semis in 08/09)

Against Madrid (the 5-0 kickassico)

Against Shaktar (5-1, CL QF 2011)

Against Arsenal (3-1, CL Last 16)

Against Madrid (Supercopa first leg 3-2)

Against Italy (both the GS game and the final)

Against Russia (Euro semi 2008)

Against Paraguay (WC QF 2010)

Against Chile (WC GS 2010)

Against Holland (WC final 2010)

He was also absent when we lost to Inter in 2010.

Those are the big games that I can now readily think of. There were many others, but I cannot recollect them at the moment.

nice:beer2:

 

[Barcaman]

Xavi also played in 'dem olden days when they used to have so much space' but behold, his best years came only recently when the game evolved. So much for that argument.

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.

 

[kostasgtc]

Xavi also played in 'dem olden days when they used to have so much space' but behold, his best years came only recently when the game evolved. So much for that argument.

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.

xavi HAS evolve football and made it his bitch.

 

[lessthanjake]

Xavi also played in 'dem olden days when they used to have so much space' but behold, his best years came only recently when the game evolved. So much for that argument.

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.

I think there are three reasons the average fan would rate Zidane over Iniesta.

1. He is retired. There is a certain bias towards retired players that we have some level of nostalgia for. People don't remember retired players' bad performances, just the good ones, which get romanticized. Meanwhile, with a player who is still playing, we do still remember the bad performances because we see them in real time. If you took two 100% equal players, but one retired a while ago and one was still playing, the VAST majority of people would say the retired player was better. It doesn't mean he actually WAS better.

2. Zidane was, arguably, the best player of his era. Many people would say Ronaldo was better (and I tend to agree, except that Ronaldo had such injury problems), but it is certainly arguable that Zidane was the best player in the late-90s to early-2000s. It is not arguable whether Iniesta is the best player of his era. He is not. Messi is. However, Messi is also better than Zidane, so whether each was the best player of his era is not really a valid comparison. However, people will ALWAYS look back more highly on someone who was the best of their era. Many would generally assume that the best players of different eras are roughly equivalent, and ahead of everyone else. However, this is not a logical belief. Messi is better than both Zidane and Iniesta, so Iniesta not being the best of his era does not tell us anything about how he compares to Zidane.

3. Aesthetics. I talked about this already, but people really hold Zidane in such high regard due to how graceful his game looked. Iniesta has that quality too, but Zidane probably had it even more. People tend to hold an irrationally high opinion of players who look graceful. Again, though, how aesthetically pleasing a player's game is does not tell you anything about how effective a player they are.


So the average fan's belief that Zidane > Iniesta is premised on 3 illogical factors. First, the nostalgia for a retired player. Second, that Zidane was the best of his era and Iniesta is not. Third, that Zidane looked better while playing. Since those points are illogical, I wouldn't put much stock in them, and therefore wouldn't necessarily put much stock in the beliefs of fans who rest their opinion on that (which I really do think is most fans on this matter).

 

[oz187]

Zidane played a more advanced role and was more of a goalscorer. He's more of a flair player like Ronaldinho and Bergkamp. Both Xavi and Iniesta play a lot deeper and do a lot of the dirty work of supporting the defense and getting the ball upfield. That's why they were both criminally underrated for years. Of course having Balon D'or winners in Ronaldinho and Messi alongside them also kept them off the limelight whereas Zidane was a winner 3 times.

 

[khorne]

So the average fan's belief that Zidane > Iniesta is premised on 3 illogical factors. First, the nostalgia for a retired player. Second, that Zidane was the best of his era and Iniesta is not. Third, that Zidane looked better while playing. Since those points are illogical, I wouldn't put much stock in them, and therefore wouldn't necessarily put much stock in the beliefs of fans who rest their opinion on that (which I really do think is most fans on this matter).

But then again, the question is if the average fan is "wrong" when he believes that? there is no objective criteria for the best player, because as Malappapper has said very well, statistics and hard facts are only one part of whole that is football. and for me personally, the equation was always a football player is as "good" as his technique. So for me best player = most skillfull player. that doesn't mean he is automatically the most effective or successfull player, but the one who i enjoyed the most to watch. Which was zidane 10 years ago, and iniesta today. And while i certainly agree that messi is more important because of the goals, and xavi is more important because of the dominance in midfield, iniesta, for me is the "best" player. aesthetics, man.

 

[footyfan]

Aesthetics are pretty subjective too. For me, I would consider Ronaldo and Messi as the "best"...because they basically seem like Zidane and Iniesta on drugs. But I can understand why some people would prefer the slower, hence more graceful players. While yet others like perfectly placed finishes or through passes or sliding tackles. While few others like complete players (and no, I don't mean Cristiano complete) eg. Cruyff, Maradona, Messi, Beckenbauer

 

[lessthanjake]

But then again, the question is if the average fan is "wrong" when he believes that? there is no objective criteria for the best player, because as Malappapper has said very well, statistics and hard facts are only one part of whole that is football. and for me personally, the equation was always a football player is as "good" as his technique. So for me best player = most skillfull player. that doesn't mean he is automatically the most effective or successfull player, but the one who i enjoyed the most to watch. Which was zidane 10 years ago, and iniesta today. And while i certainly agree that messi is more important because of the goals, and xavi is more important because of the dominance in midfield, iniesta, for me is the "best" player. aesthetics, man.

I hear that, but what you are talking about is what player you like to watch the most and saying that player is the "best." I certainly see liking to watch a certain type of player the most, but that doesn't make that type of player objectively better.

To me, the objective quality of a player is solely defined by their expected effect on the goal differential (or maybe their expected effect on the number of points their team would get in a season; slightly different but basically the same). The subjective quality of a player is defined by what I like to watch. In my case, I'm a sucker for flair-heavy players who give creative through balls and one touch passes (players like Ronaldinho and Totti). A player one likes to watch is typically going to be a player who has high objective quality as well. However, conflating what we like to watch with what is objectively good is not entirely logical. When we like to watch a certain thing, we naturally will believe that thing indicates a higher level of quality than it actually does. So when you watch highly technical players, you'll believe they are better than they actually are, and when I watch a player like Ronaldinho or Totti, I'll believe they are better than they actually are. So subjective belief is not a good measure of objective quality.

If these two things were the same, then everyone's favorite players to watch would be Pele, Maradona, or Messi. That is not the case. They are the best players, but it's perfectly reasonable not to like watching them as much as other players. These are two separate things. So I can say Messi is better than Ronaldinho even though I'd rather watch Ronaldinho. Similarly, someone should be able to say Iniesta is better than Zidane even though they'd rather watch Zidane.

 

[khorne]

I hear that, but what you are talking about is what player you like to watch the most and saying that player is the "best." I certainly see liking to watch a certain type of player the most, but that doesn't make that type of player objectively better.

To me, the objective quality of a player is solely defined by their expected effect on the goal differential (or maybe their expected effect on the number of points their team would get in a season; slightly different but basically the same). The subjective quality of a player is defined by what I like to watch. In my case, I'm a sucker for flair-heavy players who give creative through balls and one touch passes (players like Ronaldinho and Totti). A player one likes to watch is typically going to be a player who has high objective quality as well. However, conflating what we like to watch with what is objectively good is not entirely logical. When we like to watch a certain thing, we naturally will believe that thing indicates a higher level of quality than it actually does. So when you watch highly technical players, you'll believe they are better than they actually are, and when I watch a player like Ronaldinho or Totti, I'll believe they are better than they actually are. So subjective belief is not a good measure of objective quality.

If these two things were the same, then everyone's favorite players to watch would be Pele, Maradona, or Messi. That is not the case. They are the best players, but it's perfectly reasonable not to like watching them as much as other players. These are two separate things. So I can say Messi is better than Ronaldinho even though I'd rather watch Ronaldinho. Similarly, someone should be able to say Iniesta is better than Zidane even though they'd rather watch Zidane.

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:

 

[Malappapper]

When Zidane was 20, he got relegated with Cannes to Ligue 2. When Iniesta was 21, he came on at half time and completely changed Barcelona's game in a CL final where 2 times World Player Of The Year Ronaldinho was bottling it pretty hard, playing the throughball for the winner.

When Zidane was 25, he failed to make any sort of impact in a CL final with reigning champions Juventus and got owned 1-3 by Dortmund. When Iniesta was 25, he played with an injured leg in a CL final and wasn't even allowed to shoot. For a Barcelona team with a complete makeshift defense. Manchester United, reigning champions with the reigning Ballon d'Or winner Cristiano Ronaldo were all over Barcelona in the first 10 minutes. Until Iniesta glided through their midfield like a hot knife through butter to assist the opening goal which shell-shocked United for the rest of the game. Needless to say whose goal brought Barcelona to that CL final in the first place of course. Needless to say that he was a star peformer in Spain's EC winning team the year before as well.

At 26 both won their first World Cups. Zidane missed 2 1/2 games of the tournament for stomping on a player (one of 14 red cards in his career) and scored the winner against a Brazil side whose star player Ronaldo was unfit to play. Some say Nike forced him to play for marketing reasons. Whatever it was: Brazil's attack wasn't functioning "without" Ronaldo (the player of the tournament) and Zidane scored from 2 corner kicks. Iniesta scored against a Netherlands team which was kicking the shit out of him and his teammates.

At 27 Iniesta won his third Champions League trophy. At 27 Zidane was still waiting for his first.

At 28 both won a EC (in Iniesta's case his second), being voted players of the tournament.

Iniesta with 28 is on course to win his 6th domestic league title as one of the top 3 performers in what is described by many as the best team of all times. Competing against the most expensive Real Madrid team of all time coached by one of the best coaches of all time according to many. Zidane at 28 had won 2 domestic titles in Italy where he was involved in doping alongside other Juventus players. He admitted taking Creatine, analgesics, Esafosfina and other intravenous drugs.

With 29 Zidane joined Real Madrid where he got booed by the Bernabeu for being an inconsistent and lazy bastard, winning a total of 1 CL and 1 league title in 5 years, in a project that is knows as the "Galactico failure 1.0". Let's see what Iniesta will do in the next 5 years from now on.

Conclusion: Come at me, Zidane fanboys.



According to you this forum:

- is biased
- hasn't watched Zidane
- is full of fanboys
- and hating on Zidane for playing for Real Madrid and dominating us

And only you remember him. This is a very solid basis to discuss.

I also remember Zidane. He was really "dominating us" when his team regularly finished 3th and 4th bar 2003 and behind Barcelona in 3 of his 5 seasons in Spain. He was totally beasting it up week in week out I'm sure. Fact of the matter is: He was a player who produced on a few big occasions. But unlike Iniesta, who did the same, he wasn't unlucky enough to play in the same generation as Messi. So his 2 WC goals brought him a Ballon d'Or. Iniesta's didn't. His volley against Leverkusen brought him another Ballon d'Or. Iniesta's Iniestazo didn't. He retired and is being romaticised. Iniesta didn't yet. He was an asshole and a "character". Iniesta isn't. That's life.

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.

 

[Malappapper]

nice:beer2: