Real Madrid (old thread)

[poncirus]

Zidane is not superior to Iniesta. For me Iniesta is better. Overall in terms of skill they're pretty much even although they are different. Iniesta is quicker while Zidane is stronger, all their differnces in terms of skill are variations of that basic difference.

Where Iniesta completely trumps him is workrate and defensive play. No contest. In fact I can't recall was there ever a player so sublimely skillful while also completely 'team oriented' and hard working (making himself available all the time, pressing...).

However Zidane is one of the most flamboyant players in history of football and that makes him a public favorite. He looked dominant and imposing, while Iniesta is completely low profile. That is the reason of misconception that Zidane was 'better individual' who 'carried his teams'. He did it on a few occasions, but so did Andres. Not to mention how inconsistent Zidane tended to be during the course of the season, in contrast to Iniesta who will always make a damn good shift, if not produce some magic.

 

[El Gato]

Counting 5 is a stretch because you can't call playing a one-two with a teammate to pass two players by as a dribble.

I don't get what are you even trying to prove. It's obvious not a single player can do that, and Iniesta didn't do it either.

 

[UberNjufer]

How the fuck did he "lose" the final for France? Would Zidane beat 11 players by himself? That's not what I said. Carrying a team is a whole different thing than running past 11 players for the entire game, which nobody can do (not even Iniesta!!!!111oneone) Iniesta won WC for Spain? Samely it can be said that Zidane won WC for France in 1998.

Besides you're not even responding with arguments to anything I said.

Nolan, Euro 2000 for a mere example?

Just realised that starting a Zidane vs Iniesta argument in BarcaForum is futile as it turned out to be earlier.

i'm sorry but what arguments did you show. 'Except Iniesta never carried a team like Zidane has-is that what you consider as an argument.FRANCE-ITALY final,red card for ZZ in extra time Ring a bell

 

[ammarfcb]

Counting 5 is a stretch because you can't call playing a one-two with a teammate to pass two players by as a dribble.

I don't get what are you even trying to prove. It's obvious not a single player can do that, and Iniesta didn't do it either.

what i'm saying is iniesta's dribbling ability is beyond awesome. and what you were saying about carrying a team, i don't see how carrying a team makes you any better of a player. sure u have more responsibility but for me when a team is all built around you - your job is much easier because it suits you more.

 

[Birdy]

Well, read the whole debate Galacticos vs This Barca,

and it is quite obvious (That barca would have mopped the floor..)
The difference is huge.. And it is more what Boyan said, football has changed..
It is not much to compare individually Zidane Vs Busquets, Figo Vs Abidal etc, as Beast contests..

It was obvious since 04 when Porto won the CL (and real eliminated by Monaco), Greece winning the 04 Euro, then Liverpool winning the 05 CL..
These were landmarks that the era has changed and football is somehow different from now on. And by 04 any chance of a side winning big by playing like the Galacticos was minimized.
It is not needed to go as far to barca 08-present to understand that, because you enter a quite different transformation of the sport - and a quite profound -, because of - only - Barcelona and Guardiola..
If you just take a first chapter right after the boundary of 04, Chelsea first year under mourinho and you imagine an encounter with the 02 Galacticos, it is not difficult to conclude -unless you are quite biased - who would win that..
You must try to understand the evolution of the sport..

And the reason this Barca team is so great is not mainly the titles. The titles are just fair reflections of the fact that we did changed - and are still changing - the way football is played and understood..

 

[barcelonista]

Except Iniesta never carried a team like Zidane has. He alone would not make a team win stuff and his backside was always watched by other dudes, mainly Xavi because he wouldn't cut it on his own. He isn't a complete player, for majority of his career he was that kind of a flashy playmaker with quick feet and great technique, but he didn't really revolutionise anything even on the dribbling side of things. He never was a leader, just another guy in the pack and what was (and still is) special about him is that he comes up big when a team needs it because not everything is going according to the plan.

Zidane's backside was LITERALLY watched by some of the finest defensive midfielders of the past 2 decades: either Deschamps or Makelele or Vieira (or Makelele AND Vieira). He was as dependant on certain players as Iniesta (or any other player for that matter, this is still a team sport after all) is. He did fuck all for Real Madrid once Makelele left you. Difference is that France's key players weren't in the category "shiny". Mostly defensive players, so Zidane got all the plaudits by himself. France around 2000 was the most cohesive defensive unit in the world. Zidane didn't win them the WC. The fact they conceded only 2 goals in the whole tournament (1 from a penalty kick) did. They could play for hours and not concede. Iniesta plays in a different system alongside different types of players. But the principle remains the same. Xavi complements Iniesta as much as Makelele complemented Zidane. Zidane wasn't more complete than Iniesta is. In fact, Iniesta is the more complete player since he started his career as a holding midfielder, plays as an attacking midfielder for Barcelona and as a winger for Spain. Zidane was a #10 throughout his career. Truth is though, that Iniesta isn't a leader. But he never needed to anyway, did he?

 

[ricknattery]

Only Madridistas will try to compare Pep's Barca with the 'Galacticos', it's absolutely ridiculous. This Barca is hailed as one of the best teams that ever existed. Only compared with Brazil of the 70s, Sacchi's Milan, Cruyff's Netherlands, and few others. The galacticos were good but are in no way an Historic team, they are many steps below from the other teams mentioned

 

[El Gato]

Zidane's backside was LITERALLY watched by some of the finest defensive midfielders of the past 2 decades: either Deschamps or Makelele or Vieira (or Makelele AND Vieira). He was as dependant on certain players as Iniesta (or any other player for that matter, this is still a team sport after all) is. He did fuck all for Real Madrid once Makelele left you. Difference is that France's key players weren't in the category "shiny". Mostly defensive players, so Zidane got all the plaudits by himself. France around 2000 was the most cohesive defensive unit in the world. Zidane didn't win them the WC. The fact they conceded only 2 goals in the whole tournament did. They could play for hours and not concede. Iniesta plays in a different system alongside different types of players. But the principle remains the same. Xavi complements Iniesta as much as Makelele complemented Zidane. Zidane wasn't more complete than Iniesta is. In fact, Iniesta is the more complete player since he started his career as a holding midfielder, plays as an attacking midfielder for Barcelona and as a winger for Spain. Zidane was a #10 throughout his career. Truth is though, that Iniesta isn't a leader. But he never needed to anyway, did he?

That's not what I meant by that term. Every team that plays to win has a defensive minded midfielder and it's no surprise Zidane had Makelele or Vieira. He's a #10 so it's not his role to run back and forth working in every zone of the pitch. What I meant is that he was the pinnacle of formations, he was the piece of reliance and Iniesta was never one of them for various reasons, but that doesn't change the fact he was cannot be compared with Zidane on that planefield. Iniesta always had Xavi or Ronaldinho who were the main offensive forces and he was just given a side role in which he found his talent most suitable. It's the responsibility that marks the greatest players in history and Iniesta was not the main guy, just a player who took advantage of the missing role, filled it in and expressed his best talents. A great sidekick, but not someone on whom formations are dependent upon.

I didn't say Zidane won them the WC. It's an invalid argument of a person who says Iniesta won Spain the WC.

PS: UberNjufer,
He got a red card. How does that mean he lost the final for France? If anything it's the Trezeguet dumbass missing a penalty or someone who missed a glorious chance for France to score, or someone who allowed Materazzi to equalize for 1:1 is the one to blame for France losing that game.

And you shouldn't mistake a complete player for a universal player. Iniesta was more universal than Zidane, no doubt, but not more complete.

 

[dalitis8]

When the "leader" argument comes into the fore, then you know that someone's case is definitely weak.

 

[gingerless]

When the "leader" argument comes into the fore, then you know that someone's case is definitely weak.

was going to say the same about 'more complete'

 

[Xavi_78]

That is why I am almost sad that neither Xavi or Iniesta did win the Balon d'Or because a lot of people will still not give them the credit they deserve, talking down their talent and importance

 

[Chainsaw]

Zidane is not superior to Iniesta. For me Iniesta is better. Overall in terms of skill they're pretty much even although they are different. Iniesta is quicker while Zidane is stronger, all their differnces in terms of skill are variations of that basic difference.

Where Iniesta completely trumps him is workrate and defensive play. No contest. In fact I can't recall was there ever a player so sublimely skillful while also completely 'team oriented' and hard working (making himself available all the time, pressing...).

However Zidane is one of the most flamboyant players in history of football and that makes him a public favorite. He looked dominant and imposing, while Iniesta is completely low profile. That is the reason of misconception that Zidane was 'better individual' who 'carried his teams'. He did it on a few occasions, but so did Andres. Not to mention how inconsistent Zidane tended to be during the course of the season, in contrast to Iniesta who will always make a damn good shift, if not produce some magic.

Well said.

 

[Yugi]

comparing laudrup with zidane would be fair, iniesta edges them both

 

[xaviniesta]

laudrup > all

 

[Yugi]