Xavi/Iniesta better than Zidane?

By that argument, winning the Copa America, Gold Cup, ANC, etc. is also a bigger success than losing in the WC final. Of course the final of the WC is the biggest game in the world for four years, it's a higher and more prestigious honor to make it farther than the rest of the world but one team than to win a less prestigious and less global tournament like any of the continental championships, including the Euro.

The score was already 1-1 at halftime, so France did not lose any ground in the second half or even in overtime since the match was decided on a penalty shootout. If anything, Pirlo's game diminished a bit after the first half while Zidane remained consistent. I doubt the red card would affect any votes particularly since it was so controversial and most voters probably felt it was harsh at the time it was happening.

 

I am not claiming anything about the other continental competitions, I am just following your argument that losing at the WC final is failure as opposed to winning the Euro final which is success. By that logic of itself, the same can be said of any of the other continental competitions. Of course I don't agree with it, not for the Copa America, ANC, Gold Cup, Asia Cup and not for the Euro.

By the way, these were the top eight teams at the WC in Brazil: Germany, Argentina, Netherlands, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Belgium and France. That only puts half of the best teams in the World at the Euro and I would say, Colombia, for example, wipes the floor with any European NT except four or five of them.

Italy didn't win the match, they won the penalty shootout after an official draw so it would seem all these stats you are making up are naturally incorrect. I don't feel that Trezeguet hitting the bar as opposed to having made the shot one inch lower is the difference in favor of Cannavaro, who didn't even take a penalty kick. Cannavaro was the hero of the semifinal match against Germany, and since no Italian player shone in the final by default he became the name for Italy's triumph. The title was won on a penalty shootout in which Cannavaro didn't even play a part of, his performance in the previous match is what carried him to challenge Zidane. Even if Zidane's performance ended on a bad moment, his first half of the final is still much closer in the voter's perceptions than a match that took place four days prior.

 

Why would you be so reluctant to enter any debate? The worst that could happen is that some random person will disagree with you, maybe call you "delusional" or some other insult. And if such a thing really gets to you, then yeah, maybe you shouldn't have entered this debate (although I don't remember offending you, though).

Don't take this thread, or this forum for that matter, so seriously my friend.

I also enjoy watching him play, so it's not just that I made a video about him; I also consider myself a fan of his. To be honest, I think my reservations about him are considered "reservations" in the first place, because Zidane typically gets a lot of hype for not a lot.

If Zidane was better than Iniesta, it was by an extremely small margin. And Zidane just wasn't better than Xavi. A lot of stubborn fans want to elevate Zidane into Maradona/Cruijff level, and to me such claims are simply laughable. That makes me a "Zidane hater" in the eyes of the fans. And that's fine by me. In any case, I appreciate that you seem to understand that my "reservations" (about him as a player) are genuine.

That's not quite the message that I thought your posts contained. My main critique about the theme that I think your post contained, is that it read as though you were heavily disregarding consistency, whilst highly regarding talent, and if you do that, of course Zidane will come out looking like a decidedly superior player.

I just disagree with that. And as much as I'd rather watch Zidane over Xavi or Iniesta, to me it is patently obvious that Xavi easily was as good a player as Zidane. I suspect you and I won't agree on that, but that only means that I could be wrong, which is fine by me. And for the record: I'm more than willing to respect any opinion for as long as the opinion isn't as patently exaggerated (at times I think he must be trolling?) as @SayWhatIWant's clearly is, for example.

 

Yeah, my comment about calling myself names was a joke really mate so don't worry about that - it did cross my mind that I'd possibly entered a long debate (and that's not to criticise you or others indeed, but obviously I know and knew before I posted that the topic is likely to create prolonged and probably tense debate - so I was just thinking along the lines that my recent random posting in various threads might have ended up or might end up requiring some long and considered defence of my position! - like you say I could have considered that before but of course I can keep things concise if I choose - I'll still go back and inspect the previous posts of you and lessthanjake to see if there are more things to say and I assume there should be but don't want to commit to that before I've checked them out more carefully to see what I can add or try to expand on in terms of my thoughts). You're probably right that I shouldn't take the forum so seriously at times though (I try to be light hearted in the main but maybe I read some posts as stepping over the line where they probably aren't going to offend anybody - I think it's best if people can get on well and jovially myself but a bit of heated argument at least is surely ok).

Yeah, I understand that your main gripe with Zidane's standing is that some other creative midfield players get far less credit for nearly as much performance, and also that he gets thrown in with names like Maradona, Cruyff etc indeed at times (of course there could be questions about the consistency in all competitions of even those sorts of players too). I think SayWhatIWant is, like Estel, a fan and certainly full appreciater/admirer of Zidane's game (I know you might think, as might others, that they could over-appreciate Zidane but I guess it's natural that these unusually brilliant players, in general terms, draw such admiration from those who enjoy them and rate them the most - I know you see Messi on a different level but he too draws that sort of thing or even more from Bada Bing for one example on Big Soccer, or from lessthanjake to some extent - I don't think SayWhatIWant or Estel put Zidane forward as the best ever but I know that some people do even if they might be more casual fans).

Ah, I understand now what you were getting at then - for some reason I logged on to my computer quite late last night and then checked Big Soccer too so I wasn't really looking carefully at your response. I think I've always, when for interest/entertainment/editing computer games lol or whatever, leaned more towards peak period rather than longevity at least when assessing players and deciding who I might think is the 'best' out of different options. Being on Big Soccer I certainly appreciate that that approach is different to some others. Whether I also put too little weight on consistency is certainly a fair thought, but I do think that can be harder to gauge, particularly for players outside the league in someones own country. That's arguably where ratings sources can help, although of course it's possible to get a reasonable idea in real time about how well a player is said to be generally playing, and players that are very hit and miss are often not considered among the best anyway, whatever talent they might occasionally show. Zidane doesn't seem to be that sort of case so much as someone who plays ok or 'well' a lot but 'brilliant' less often. I do think his 'brilliant' on an individual level is more brilliant than what Xavi or Iniesta are quite capable of, but maybe the average level comparison is something that people can indeed explore on this thread. The career comparison (even just talking about the players displays, not trophies won in themselves) is different to the peak period comparison I suppose and maybe we should consider them separately. Maybe Xavi's top performances are more concentrated in one phase of the career, arguably giving Zidane the advantage over the longer term actually (just a thought, not a statement as yet)?

I do think SayWhatIWant did make some valid calls on range of ability, and varied characteristics of Zidane's game but I guess that's what I'll be getting into more later. I don't think you completely disagree on those sorts of points anyway, and it could still be it's the consistency issue that draws most debate (and maybe that will be interesting). And of course I could also be wrong. In a way nobody can really be 'right' with subjective judgements like these. And the question of 'how much better' Player A was than Player B is hard when Players C, D, E, F etc could be considered by someone to be even closer to Player A and Player B looks distant on a list more than reality says or the person intends to portray.

 

Exactly. The video that I linked of Zidane vs. Scotland was to illustrate the breadth of his ability: volley goal, the different passes he could execute, the dribbling, etc. that someone like Xavi simply could not produce. As footballers, Zidane is evidently better; he can simply do so much more than Xavi can. In terms of pure CM ability, that's where things get closer. But then again, we are comparing a classical playmaker to a CM acting as a central pivot.

I mean, does Xavi even have the capacity to score a goal like this:



I won't be bothered to post a plethora of other goals which demonstrate outstanding footballing ability, and I fear Xavi simply does not have a comparable resume.

 

The WC semifinals consist of four teams, if three of them are European that still means the Euro is ridden with many average teams that actually would not even make the round of 16 of a WC. The last WC featured only six UEFA teams in the knockout stages: Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Greece. Also, weren't you talking about how the past greats, including Pele, would not compare to Messi today due to the development of the game, but here you are hanging your argument on the historical success of European sides back in 50s, 60s and 70s. If setting up an international tournament and have to pick amongst Colombia, Nigeria and Poland for an entry, if the purpose is to make a competitive, quality tournament, Poland would not get 5% of the vote despite what they may achieved in the 70s since Colombia and Nigeria are better NTs with more notable players. By saying that UEFA plus Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are the only NTs that matter, you are giving an overinflated importance to forty + teams while undermining others that are actually much better. The teams may differ ten years from now, but the principle remains incorrect. In any event the trend seems to be that the mid-tier European NTs, that is all but five or six, are increasingly underachieving at the World Cup, their previous success being usurped by South American, African and even Concacaf teams. This is all to say that winning the Euro is an important achievement, but one where the hurdles are far less than winning the World Cup, or for that matter reaching the final of the World Cup.

The World Cup final was actually a draw, this is the official outcome from FIFA. Incidentally neither Zidane nor Cannavaro participated in the pk shoot, so the Cup was actually settled by other players. Also, you are focusing on Zidane's one moment of madness/anger that resulted in his sendoff without mentioning that he was almost universally regarded as the best player of the match (there is not one serious publication that mentions Cannavaro as MOTM). As for the Ballon D'Or, you seem to forget the small detail that Zidane had retired right after the WC and did not play for half of the year, on an award that usually places higher importance on the second half of the season. Giving the award to a player that had not played in the last six months of the year would have risked damaging its credibility, and given Ronaldinho's disappointing performance at the WC and subsequent fall, the default candidate was Cannavaro. In addition, neither Xavi nor Iniesta ever finished even in the top five for the WC Golden Ball, so whether Zidane should have won or be runner-up in WC06, he still places much higher than them.

 

Iniesta is to a large degree a similar type of player as Zidane and that is basically no contest.

Xavi is a different player, and a good argument can be made that he was more influential and impacted the team results to a larger degree, but was for fewer years relevant as Zidane was relevant. While Zidane started his career further removed from the familiar top teams.

I've always been more of a Zidane fan than a Zidane sceptic though.

What is always gone missing in the heated/controversial Zidane debates is how Zidane won everything fair and square at the international level. Yes, he had a few suspensions but it is impossible to pinpoint where he was extremely 'lucky' (an extremely wrong ref call) or where he cheated. When he deserved red cards or suspensions, he saw them. France in 1998 as host also did it fair, at least almost entirely (e.g. without venue messing, referee appointment interference, ticket and accreditation tricks, state organized eavesdropping). Sceptics that mention his 1998 and 2006 suspensions miss the point that he faced them, and in 2006 he wasn't saved from a yellow under the guise of star protection (if he hadn't received the 2nd yellow at the group stage, nobody would talk about it today).

 

I don't disagree with this logic but is there something that might hint at host advantage? An extremely partisan crowd? Only thing I can think of that might make sense is that they gave the famed and state-of-the-art Clairefontaine fortress to themselves (one of the better locations). Just a question.

 

I really don't have the time nor inclination to answer your humongous posts in detail, it seems some posters feel they are right simply by overwhelming the discussion.

In any event, a quick reply to some of your points.

Those are the only teams that are actually good enough to win a World Cup, and if most of them are present in the Euros, then it's almost as hard to win as the World Cup.

You had brought examples of European teams who had reached the semifinals in past WC's, not winning the tournament but reaching the semis which is why I mentioned that "rest of the world" NTs like Colombia, Nigeria, Mexico offer a lot more than a NT like Poland, Czech Republic, etc. It depends on how "almost" is measured, but I can assure you we will not see the likes of Greece or Denmark winning the World Cup in our lifetime.

First of all, your comparison is a bit odd. The World Cup is ALSO ridden with teams that would not even make the round of 16 of a WC. In fact, by definition, half the teams at the WC would not make the Round of 16.

Obviously, since that is the format of the tournament nowadays. That was not the case for WCs 86, 90 and 94 however. The point is that most of the Euro teams, well over half of them, would fail to advance to the knockout stages of the World Cup and it looks to be an increasing trend as Concacaf, CAF and possibly AFC all strengthen up.

Anyways, just think about the path a team takes to winning the Euros compared to making the World Cup finals. Let's compare the difficulty of Argentina's World Cup finals run with the difficulty of Spain's Euro 2012 win. In 2012, Spain was in a group against Italy, Croatia, and Ireland. Argentina was in a group against Nigeria, Bosnia, and Iran. Spain's Euro group is definitely tougher (and this will often be true, since the WC group stages are littered with lowly teams that would not make the Euros). Then, in getting to the finals, Argentina beat Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands, before losing to Germany. By saying that merely making the WC finals is better than winning the Euros, you are basically saying that those first three knockout stage wins are more impressive than the three knockout stage wins of a Euro winner. And, in 2012, those knockout stage wins were against France, Portugal, and Italy. That's simply not a less impressive cast of teams to defeat than Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Let's compare the first round teams first:

Italy > Iran
Croatia < Nigeria
Ireland < Bosnia

Not sure if you remember Euro12 well, but Ireland was absolute rubbish and has no business in being compared to any of Argentina's first round opponents.

Now on to the knockout stages:

France > Switzerland
Portugal < Belgium
Italy = Netherlands

Going by history, Italy should be the greater team but I am comparing their forms at the Euro versus the Netherlands' at the World Cup. Thus far, Spain's run has two matches up in its favor while Argentina's has three plus the match against Germany, which they lost but it was closely contested and obviously a further obstacle that makes the WC clearly more difficult to win. Then there is the situation where the Netherlands trashed Spain at WC14, while Argentina tied the Dutch and won the shootout in the semifinals. Conversely, I just don't see any of Spain's rivals at Euro12 thumping Argentina.

And when we add in the obvious fact that the World Cup finalist ultimately lost a match, while the Euro winner did not, it seems pretty clear which one is more impressive overall.

This is not much of a valid point given that the World Cup is a tougher and more prestigious tournament. Argentina could well have won Euro12 with Spain's route had they been in it without losing a match. Also, how about you compare Greece's Euro04 win versus France's WC06 runner-up?

The question is whether getting through the World Cup group stages, winning the first three rounds of the knockout stages, and then losing in the finals is more or less impressive than getting through the Euros group stages and winning the three knockout stages. I do not believe it is. The victories are roughly equivalent. That is basically to say that the top 16 at the World Cup are similar in quality to the top 8 in Europe, the top 8 in the World Cup are similar in quality to the top 4 in Europe, and the top 4 in the World Cup are similar in quality to the top 2 in Europe. The difference, then, is mainly just that the World Cup finalist lost a match at the end of all that, while the Euro winner did not. Adding a loss on top of a roughly equivalent set of victories makes the World Cup finalist a less impressive achievement.

Not when one tournament is clearly tougher to win than the other as I argued above. The loss that the Euro winner does not experience can likely happen to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, or even Nigeria, Colombia, Mexico, etc.

Would the journalist voters have thought of it as a draw? That's the only relevant inquiry here, since we are talking about how those journalists would have voted. And, since no one actually thinks of it as a draw when one team wins the World Cup and the other doesn't, I think it's pretty safe to say that the journalists who voted on it would feel the same way. People don't vote based on what FIFA's official records technically say.

Honestly, I can't even believe you are trying to act like people do not see a difference between losing a World Cup final on penalties and winning a World Cup final on penalties. It is so self-evidently obvious that it is different in people's minds, regardless of what FIFA's official records say.

I'm pretty sure everyone sees the match as a draw decided on penalty kicks. The actual game is discussed as it developed, so for the WC94 final most everyone agrees that Brazil were the better side and had the initiative, while for the WC06 final is viewed as a closely contested match that could have gone either way with some luck for that side.

I'm not focusing on anything. I'm just telling you what journalists would focus on. And they'd absolutely focus on whose team won the World Cup and on something as dramatic as a red card for violence. And you obviously know this already, but are putting on blinders as it relates to this specific topic. You're the same person who talked so much about how merely having won a title has such a huge effect on awards voting, when that position defended Maradona. Yet you are now trying to argue that it would not have ANY effect AT ALL. I've pointed out this inconsistency multiple times now, and you've not addressed it.

Surely you are not comparing Cannavaro's WC performance with Maradona's. Or who knows, maybe you are since it appears to support your argument.

I didn't "forget the small detail." I actually specifically mentioned that detail in the post you quoted!

You must not follow the Ballon D'or, if you are trying to say it "usually places higher importance on the second half" of the year. It's actually quite the opposite. The second half of the year typically matters much less, since it's just the beginning of a new season. The award is very heavily weighted towards how the first half of the year went. That's why we already know, merely halfway through the calendar year, that Messi will win the 2015 Ballon D'or.

Anyways, I don't think the retirement had the massive effect you think it would on Ballon D'or voting. In a World Cup year, the Ballon D'or is often entirely about the World Cup, especially back then when the award was only voted on by journalists. Hell, Paolo Rossi won the 1982 Ballon D'or in a landslide despite having only played 17 matches for his club the entire year (not even playing at all until May). Zidane played 27 club matches in 2006, so it actually would've been less absurd to give him the award than it was to give it to Rossi. Yet there were not significant worries about "credibility" back then. Perhaps Zidane lost some votes due to retiring, but Cannavaro's subpar club play likely lost him votes too, so we're probably pretty even on how much out-of-World-Cup stuff affected the voting. In the end, though, the Ballon D'or voting in a World Cup year is virtually all about the World Cup. And Zidane was not even close to Cannavaro.

Even if you still think the Ballon D'or vote isn't a good indication of how the Golden Ball voting would have gone, we just come back to the patently obvious facts. Titles affect award voting, especially with journalists. You know this. You have argued this yourself. Yet you refuse to admit that the voting would have changed at all if it had been done after Italy won the World Cup. You are clinging to the irrational belief that journalists' votes would not be swayed because technically FIFA lists the match as a draw. You have to know that that is ludicrous, right!?

The latter half of the year sure helped Ronaldo win it in 2013 and 2014, the latter being a WC year no less. Typically you ignore any event that does not help your argument and instead of looking at Ronaldo's win only a year ago you rather go back to 1982 when the footballing landscape was much different. Cannavaro's wasn't even Italy's best player in the final, he certainly did not have the same influence as Zidane did throughout the match. There is absolutely no evidence that Cannavaro would have won over Zidane had the voting taken place after the final ended. By the way, didn't Messi, the losing finalist at WC14, was given the Golden Ball over Muller, Neuer or Kroos?

 

Are you aware of the circumstances in which France failed to qualify for WC 94? Cause frankly, the way that the WC 94 qualification campaign ended for France would put paid to any talk about home advantage for the French in WC 98. Rather, it would raise massive doubts about playing a WC at home (doubts further cemented by the NT's dismal ranking in the Tournoi de France in 97). As expressed exquisitely by Hristo Stoichkov -
"The French were so scared they played with their buttocks clenched. We knew that's how they would be and our tactics were based on that. They played for a draw and never went looking for a win. They didn't deserve to qualify and we hit them where it hurt most."
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/nov/16/from-vault-ginola-houllier-france-feud
Also, for every Germany 74 or France 98, you can also have a Spain 82 or a Brazil 14.

And speaking of luck, with a bit more of it Zidane could have ended up scoring the winner in the WC 06 final, instead of going out with a red card. Or he could have had 3 assists to go along with his 2 goals in the 98 WC final. Conversely, he could have ended up without either a Euro or a WC, if he had a bit less of it. In the end, he probably had as much of it as most NT trophy winning players do.

In any case, I think you should be giving quite a bit more credit to Zidane's NT career than you have been doing up till now in this thread. This is since he has one of the strongest NT resumes of any playmaker ever, while not having a major impact during what would probably have been his peak NT tournament, due to injury (referring to WC 02 here). I doubt any player with as great an NT career can say that (precious few that there are).

As for the club level comparison, I would have liked to see how well Zidane would have done as well, if he had been brought up in the youth ranks of a huge club and if he had a couple of other players of equal or greater caliber playing alongside him for most of that duration. All in a more favorable era for attacking players with most of the relevant competition concentrated in fewer teams and few defensive stalwarts plying their trade. But maybe it was for the best, since in that case his achievements would suffer from the same doubts that plague the achievements of players who actually have such luck.

 

As a general historic trend there's no doubt that hosting a World Cup upgrades the performance. There are exceptions and the effect has maybe decreased over time, but generally there's a benefit. Spain 1982 and Brazil 2014 saw by the way both going decisions to their way that became explained as potential host advantage by some (in other words: we don't know how Brazil 2014 had performed outside their own country, similar for Spain their first group stage in 1982, against Yugoslavia and Honduras).
But like I said, it is difficult to point at these type of things, such as a very partisan crowd, for France 1998.

France was second in the bookmaker's odds.

 

I have only scan read this thread but interesting topic......

What I found interesting from a British point of view was that during coverage of the World Cup last year (and this did not happen for 2010) was that Zidane somehow was being elevated to the same category as Maradona, Cruyff, Garrincha etc....... in how they spoke of him.

My view was Zidane was a great player, but not an all time top ten. He never had an amazing club season and was in my view no better than Rivaldo or Ronaldo (different players I know but big names of the time) and did not have a WC like the players mentioned above. For example look how much better Juve did when they sold him and brought in Nedved by winning Serie A and reaching CL final that first season (again not saying Nedved is more better but arguabley more effective).

Zidane in my view certainly was not top ten of all time and borderline top twenty.......

The thing that people will remember more and put him up in people's estimation is some crucial goals and assists in the big games he played in 98 and 06 WC plus he had a great Euro 2000, he never reached anywhere near the consistency of Xavi and Iniesta at club level.

 

I agree with your post overall but do you consider either Xavi or Iniesta top ten or top twenty of all time?

 

Well sure, but if the host is winning 50% of the time that shows a clear advantage in hosting.

FTR, Brasil'14 is certainly not a counter-example. Seeing that mediocre team reach the semis actually adds to the stack of evidence which shows home advantage is big. Just like seeing South Korea reach the semis.

 

What I was hinting at was that Spain 82 and Brazil 14 ultimately had poor campaigns in spite of any help they might have had. There was a real concern that France could be in a similar boat due to the recent history of results at home prior to the 98 tournament.

Bookmaker's odds do not reflect the pressure that players are in. Did those make it easier, or allow the French to forget their recent history at home?

France is not a South Korea of World Football though to be happy with such a result.

And Brazil's WC 14 campaign is not an example of folding under pressure? Then what is it an example of?

 

If they were going to fold under pressure it would have happened in the shootout against Chile. I mean, I guess you can always argue that they ultimately lost so they must have folded under pressure, but that's a weak argument IMO. Germany were just a better team. And w/o Neymar and Silva that made them a much better team. Brasil likely loses on neutral soil also. And I have serious doubts whether they get past Chile and Colombia (not to mention Croatia) without home advantage.

 

But France didn't exactly get such help AFAIK, nor were they as shaky as Brazil were and thus needing it to advance. My point was that they certainly could have been shaky like Brazil 14 in 98, and in fact that they were like that only 4 years prior at home vs both Bulgaria and Israel. Most importantly, the manner of Brazil's defeat is going to leave some major scars. The disastrous WC 94 qualification caused the French to have a similar outlook for 98.

Also, if we are to look at odds then Brazil in WC 14 was the favorite at 3/1.
http://www.ibtimes.com/world-cup-20...and-others-chances-winning-tournament-1559015

Bottom line, France didn't receive any specific 'help' and they were in more pressure than most due to their poor run of form in the WC 94 qualifiers and the Tournoi de France 97, at home. So I don't see so much of luck in them hosting the WC at home in Zidane's case.

 

I guess I don't understand your point. They were the favorite because they were at home. Not because they were the best team. If they weren't at home, they wouldn't have been favored. Simple as that.

6 times the World Cup has been won by the home team. I think that says it all. Historically, home team > Brasil