Luka Modric

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
17,638
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
So who would you choose out of the three if you could: Xavi, Scholes or Modric?
I would still have Scholes even though Xavi and Modric had better careers in better/more dominant teams
Modric. I wouldn’t even need much time to dwell on it, either.

• Better defensively than the other two
• Better stamina
• Better dribbler
• Equally gifted passer

Scholes may edge the goalscoring stakes ahead of Modric and Xavi, but Modric can strike a mean ball when he finds himself within shooting range.
 

matherto

ask me about our 50% off sale!
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
17,542
Location
St. Helens
I could just watch him all day.

Would love to go to a match just to focus on him for most of it, he's a genius and so gifted technically.
 

El Pasillo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
272
Amazing player.

Unfortunately, Modric is seen as a shady fecking cnut in Croatia for giving false testimony in Zdravko Mamić trial
 

izec

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
27,221
Location
Lucilinburhuc
I could just watch him all day.

Would love to go to a match just to focus on him for most of it, he's a genius and so gifted technically.
When i watched Real in the CL, i only focused on Kroos and Modric, almost missed Ronaldo scoring :D. You should go if you have a chance
 

TheFlagStaysDown

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
1,110
Location
Prague
Supports
Shamrock rovers
Modric. I wouldn’t even need much time to dwell on it, either.

• Better defensively than the other two
• Better stamina
• Better dribbler
• Equally gifted passer

Scholes may edge the goalscoring stakes ahead of Modric and Xavi, but Modric can strike a mean ball when he finds himself within shooting range.
I don't see modric having better stamina, better/quicker feet and dribbling skills yes, also Scholes is remembered in his late years, when he was 38 he was still orchestrating the game without any need to run, so is seen a bit of slot, he was never the best tackler but the older he was the worse it got with his timing.

On the other hand Scholes was also almost never dispossesed even though he rarely ran through defensives on his own but could always rather find one two while looking for a pass way ahead and his long range passing is superior to both Xavi and Modric in my view, the kicking technique and power gives him a slide edge, better goalscorer and power shooter too but his game evolved a lot over years. Modric is the best all round and defensively of them. Xavi the best short passer but there is nothing much between them in the vision and passing itself
 

Keeps It tidy

Hates Messi
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
17,638
Location
New York
Modric. I wouldn’t even need much time to dwell on it, either.

• Better defensively than the other two
• Better stamina
• Better dribbler
• Equally gifted passer

Scholes may edge the goalscoring stakes ahead of Modric and Xavi, but Modric can strike a mean ball when he finds himself within shooting range.
Saying Modric is better defensively and has better stamina than Xavi did is flat out wrong. Xavi's pressing was the biggest reason for Barcelona's 7 second rule being effective and Xavi would often lead Barcelona in distance covered.
 

criticalanalysis

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
6,173
Saying Modric is better defensively and has better stamina than Xavi did is flat out wrong. Barca's pressing was the biggest reason for Barcelona's 7 second rule being effective and Xavi would often lead Barcelona in distance covered.
Fixed for you.

Wanna know what an intelligent player pressing with uncoordinated team mates look like? See our own Herrera.
 

MrEleson

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
2,528
Modric is a level up from Scholes and Xavi IMO. He seems to carry much more responsibility for Madrid than those two did for their respective sides. He often makes players like Kroos (who is good in his own right) look much better. Madrid largely went trophyless in 14/15 and lost out in the league after being top till January because of his injury. Absolutely pivotal player for them.

Most complete midfielder I’ve seen in the last 30 years. Every aspect of his game in his position is at lowest an 8.5/10 if not 9/10.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,653
Location
india
Xavi
Iniesta
Scholes
Modric
Schweinsteigher

Modric is great and probably one of my 2/3 favorite players to watch but no chance he's ahead of Xavi and Iniesta. Those two were different gravy. I'd have Scholes on consistency, adaptability and longevity while Modric has a hight peak.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,653
Location
india
Modric. I wouldn’t even need much time to dwell on it, either.

• Better defensively than the other two
• Better stamina
• Better dribbler
• Equally gifted passer

Scholes may edge the goalscoring stakes ahead of Modric and Xavi, but Modric can strike a mean ball when he finds himself within shooting range.
May? Scholes smashes the senses out of the competition in terms of goalscoring and being able to excel as a DLP, CM and SS. His club career is far better than Modric's btw. 11/12 league titles and 2 CLs to 2 league titles and 4 CLs. That's not everything of course but it's worth pondering.
 

SpyLuke10

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
807
I think you're a bit wrong. It has never been 'give it to the best player in the team winning the most important competition'. Shevchenko won it in 2004 without winning UCL or Euros, Owen won it when Liverpool got the shit Treble, Nedved won it without UCL and so on. It has always been a subjective voting with high weights given to the top competitions, but not an automatic process to give it always to the winner of top competitions.

So 2008 stays with Ronaldo, Xavi probably should have been second instead of Messi.
2009, clear Messi.
2010, Sneijder for me. Arguably the second best player in both WC and UCL, while winning the Treble and reaching the finals in WC (a bit like Cruyff in 1974, right).
2011, clearly Messi.
2012, again Messi. No UCL but the best individual season in the history of the game.
2013, undoubdetly Ribery.
2014, Ronaldo, clearly.
2015, Messi
2016, Ronaldo
2017, Ronaldo clearly
2018, looks Ronaldo so far, and Messi is one Iceland victory away from getting excluded.

Pretty much the voting for Ballom D'Or actually went like this and the only harmed players were Sneijder and Ribery. They could blame FIFA about it.
Ronaldo's Ballon D'or in 2017 is easily the most undeserved one he's won and definitely the most undeserved Ballon D'or I've ever seen in the Messi-Ronaldo era. Messi was SOOO much better in 2017. Like that was an absolute joke.
 

Mettaur

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
202
Supports
Liverpool
2014 - Ronaldo? OK, he won the UCL but Neuer and Kroos won Germany the World Cup so that should be considered as well.
2017 - The only things he did was score in the semi-finals and final of the UCL. Other than that, he has been average for his standards.
2018 - Clearly Ronaldo. His form since January is ridiculous. The only thing that can change that is if Neymar or Coutinho won Brazil the World Cup.
 

MVBDX

Full Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
782
Supports
Real Madrid
It's the Luka Modric thread, let's not turn it into another Ronaldo/Messi/Ballon d'Or thread.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
27,600
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
The only clueless guy in this discussion is you. Modric has more in his locker then Xavi and Iniesta combined. That's exactly what makes him so special.
Only on redcafe
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
28,022
Location
Moscow
So who would you choose out of the three if you could: Xavi, Scholes or Modric?
I would still have Scholes even though Xavi and Modric had better careers in better/more dominant teams
It's close, but probably still Xavi. Depends on the rest of the team though, if you can build a team around Xavi, then him, while Modric allows a bit more variety. Although I'm not saying that Xavi can only play in a tiki-taka system like some do. His peak was absolutely ridiculous — I don't remember any other recent player making 30 assists in a season, even Messi (I could be wrong, of course, haven't checked those stats).

It's hard to say no to Scholes, who is in my top-3 favourite United players (alongside Cantona and Sir Bobby), but I think that those two surpassed him — not by much though.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,764
Scholes, Xavi or Modric....

Scholes was the best all rounder from the 3

all 3 have fantastic passing and vision

if you think about all 3 playing for United I think they would have all been excellent but Scholes had more of a combative presence than the others
 

Renegade

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,393
Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Scholes
Schweinsteiger
Alonso
Kroos

In terms of controlling midfielders
 

luke511

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
6,959
Scholes is the most decorated English player of all time, to say Modric is better is very kneejerk. Both in the same tier.
 

Cassidy

No longer at risk of being mistaken for a Scouser
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
31,359
So who would you choose out of the three if you could: Xavi, Scholes or Modric?
I would still have Scholes even though Xavi and Modric had better careers in better/more dominant teams
Modric is the most complete of the 3
 

FrantikChicken

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,329
Location
London
Scholes is the most decorated English player of all time, to say Modric is better is very kneejerk. Both in the same tier.
And Modric may be the most decorated Croatian player of all time. How is that relevant? I don't think it's kneejerk to have such an opinion whatsoever.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
34,008
So who would you choose out of the three if you could: Xavi, Scholes or Modric?
I would still have Scholes even though Xavi and Modric had better careers in better/more dominant teams
Xavi was in his own stratosphere.
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
57,654
Location
Krakow
I hope he leads Croatia to a medal at this World Cup. They have been consistently good at international tournaments for a while (well at Euros, they have disappointed at the last two World Cups) but have nothing to show for it.

They really are one of the strongest teams around, that midfield. :drool:
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,653
Location
india
Xavi
Iniesta
Scholes
Modric
Schweinsteigher

Modric is great and probably one of my 2/3 favorite players to watch but no chance he's ahead of Xavi and Iniesta. Those two were different gravy. I'd have Scholes on consistency, adaptability and longevity while Modric has a hight peak.
To elaborate a little more on this, Modric at his best is just sublime. Such a wonderful central midfielder who is oddly enough more skillful than most attackers. At times I'd argue he has been even more important to Madrid than Ronaldo. But the level Xavi and Iniesta and that Barcelona midfield/team reached was frightening and like nothing I've ever seen. It was miserable for me to watch but I can't help but admire the complete and utter midfield dominance those two managed. Modric is definitely a notch below them for me.

And Modric may be the most decorated Croatian player of all time. How is that relevant? I don't think it's kneejerk to have such an opinion whatsoever.
It's not knee jerk but Scholes' successes aren't relevant? As if you'd rate Modric as highly had he not won 4 CLs. Scholes has been the more successful footballer given his part of the complete dominance for over a decade of english football.
 

FrantikChicken

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,329
Location
London
To elaborate a little more on this, Modric at his best is just sublime. Such a wonderful central midfielder who is oddly enough more skillful than most attackers. At times I'd argue he has been even more important to Madrid than Ronaldo. But the level Xavi and Iniesta and that Barcelona midfield/team reached was frightening and like nothing I've ever seen. It was miserable for me to watch but I can't help but admire the complete and utter midfield dominance those two managed. Modric is definitely a notch below them for me.


It's not knee jerk but Scholes' successes aren't relevant? As if you'd rate Modric as highly had he not won 4 CLs. Scholes has been the more successful footballer given his part of the complete dominance for over a decade of english football.
So basically Scholes' successes should be relevant but Modric's shouldn't. Gotcha, makes so much sense. I rate Modric as highly because he's been one of the best midfielders in the world for a very long time. I swear if he were English we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,653
Location
india
So basically Scholes' successes should be relevant but Modric's shouldn't. Gotcha, makes so much sense. I rate Modric as highly because he's been one of the best midfielders in the world for a very long time. I swear if he were English we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Seems you haven't gotten anything.

I also rated Scholes highly because he was one of the best for a decade or more. Only one of us has claimed of their successes is irrelvant.

Yes we only rate Scholes highly because he's English despite many of us not being English. Well done on that bit of irrelevance.
 

FrantikChicken

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,329
Location
London
Seems you haven't gotten anything.

I also rated Scholes highly because he was one of the best for a decade or more. Only one of us has claimed of their successes is irrelvant.

Yes we only rate Scholes highly because he's English despite many of us not being English. Well done on that bit of irrelevance.
You're having trouble reading. I'm not saying that Scholes being successful is irrelevant, I'm saying that just because he's one of the most decorated Englishmen doesn't mean that others can't be better. You basically said 'he's successful and English so it's knee jerk for anyone to have the opinion that Modric is the better player'

For the record I rate them at the same level, I just don't think it's knee jerk for someone to think otherwise.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,653
Location
india
You're having trouble reading. I'm not saying that Scholes being successful is irrelevant, I'm saying that just because he's one of the most decorated Englishmen doesn't mean that others can't be better. You basically said 'he's successful and English so it's knee jerk for anyone to have the opinion that Modric is the better player'

For the record I rate them at the same level, I just don't think it's knee jerk for someone to think otherwise.
You dont even know who you're responding. Calm down and get a grip. I never said that.
 

Cascarino

Magnum Poopus
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
7,616
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Scholes
Schweinsteiger
Alonso
Kroos

In terms of controlling midfielders
That's exactly how I would list those players too.
Xavi at the top is an easy choice for me.
 

Renegade

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,393
That's exactly how I would list those players too.
Xavi at the top is an easy choice for me.
Cheers, Scholes’ international career is the worst out the whole list, although not entirely his own fault with the LW thing. It’s a shame he didn’t get to represent England when he made the deep midfielder transition in 2006.

I’ve always been interested to know which version of Scholes posters on here prefer. The pre 2006 box to box or the post 2006 deep midfielder? A question for another thread obviously.
 

totaalvoetbal

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
865
Location
Netherlands
Supports
Ajax
So who would you choose out of the three if you could: Xavi, Scholes or Modric?
I would still have Scholes even though Xavi and Modric had better careers in better/more dominant teams
Modric doesn't have the same function as Xavi and Scholes as far as I'm concerned.

Xavi and Scholes (Post 2006) were both organisers. Modric is a needle player like Iniesta.

Xavi was the most complete passer at all ranges of the 3. His technique was excellent and he almost always passed it to your stronger foot and in a way that allowed you to take half a touch and control it easier. First touch wise he has the best first touch I have ever seen and almost always never lost the ball.

In terms of long Passing I would give it to Scholes but Xavi was his equal, short passing there is no contest between the three, Xavi is the best short passer for the reasons I gave in the last paragraph. Throughballs Xavi is the best followed by Scholes and Modric. Modric is relatively weak in this area. Xavi has pssibly the best slide rule pass, it is up there with the best I have seen such as Ivan de La Pena, Michael Laudrup and Messi.

In terms of ground coverage there is no contest. From 2008 to 2014, Xavi covered the mmost ground in every game, made the most passes every game and was involved in all 3 phases of his team, especially in the 08/09 season where Yaya Toure was the holding midfielder and Xavi had to drop deep to collect the ball from the defence, organise the game in the midfield and then make through balls in the final 3rd. That is the most dominant season from a midfielder in the modern era.

In terms of press resistance (facing your own goal) Xavi is arguably the most press reisistant central midfielder I have ever seen. Modric is his equal in this area and Scholes is the weakest, particulalry when he transitioned from his mobile days to the conservative deep lying playmaker post 2006.

In terms of Ball Carrying (going towards the opposition goal) Modric is arguably the best I have ever seen and is the great needle player of this generation alongside Iniesta. Xavi is a bit behind in this area and Scholes is far behind. Modric will use his press resistance and the his ball carrying to relieve his team of pressure which is why he is one of the best players in that position.

In terms of organising/organising/dictating the game, Xavi is the best I have ever seen. He is the main reason it was very difficult to counter attack Barcelona and Spain as he got the ball in congested areas and did the pelopina/faints to avoid getting into culdesacs and that allowed his team to stay very high up the field and not reset attacks when he was pressed. He was the apex of that. When Xavi's physical attributes declined (he had achillies problems for a long time due to covering the most ground in every game for 5+ years), Barcelona and Spain where much easier to counter attack. We saw this especially with Spain as he did not have the legs to carry the ball in all areas and 'out fires high up the pitch' as he could not be all over the pitch so they got dismantled with counters through the centre that would not have happened in Xavi's hey day. The next is Scholes and then followed by Modric.

In terms of vision to spot passes, Xavi again is the best for me followed by Scholes and then Modric. Modric has a lot of situations in Madrid where he could play between the lines but then he checks back and then plays an outside the foot pass to the opposite flank missing a runner. I have seen this in almost every game in Madrid.

Another area is using your weaker foot. In this area Scholes is ahead of both Modric and Xavi as Xavi had to use feints when he couldn't use his left foot and Modric resorts to using the outside of his right foot to try and create the angles if not he checks back using a feint like Xavi. Scholes long range passing with is two feet was superior.

Defensively, when the team sits in a deep block, Modric is better in one vs one situations whilst Xavi was better at covering passing lanes and intercepting when pressing. I don't think I need to talk about Paul Scholes in this area...

The above cannot be analysed without the context of the teams they will play in and the opposition. If I had to pick one of the three (ideally I would partner Modric with one of them), I would follow a general rule:

In a team that depends on tranistions and there is no controller, I would take Paul Scholes as he is a good passer with both feet.

In a team that depends on transitions and has a controller, Modric as he a fantastic ball carrier.

In a team that has a needle player (Modric/Iniesta type player) I would pick Xavi as he would organise the game and get the needle player in better positions to ball carry in the final 3rd.

In a team that plays high up the field and faces low blocks regualry, Xavi as he is extremely press resistant coupled with the ability for his team to not reset ball possession (passing back to the goalkeeper).

It has to be said that Paul Scholes was unfortunate to not play with a needle player in his career. Modric played with Xabi Alonso and now Kroos (Controllers) Whilst Xavi had Iniesta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus