Why "at their peak" btw given the issue with Zidane it appears was consistency?
Iniesta vs Zidane
- Thread starter TheNewEra
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
This cant be real life, you honestly think Del Piero pre injury cant be called a player better or on par with Iniesta? anyways it was never Del Piero's Juve, just ask Lippi.Funny thing, probably you could start a poll with the question "When was Zidane at his prime" and the people wouldn't have an idea where to point it. Some would say "98' WC" but he wasn't even the Ballon d'Or of the world cup. "96 til 98 Juve" but in my memory that was Del Piero's Juve and no one would dare say Del Piero was better than Iniesta at their prime, then "2006 WC" but he was in a epic role, he was nowhere close his better level 10 years before... 98 til 01? Those years there were other players at his level or even better, players that, again, few people would say were better than Iniesta
Dunno, I think this comparison either overrates Zidane or underrates Iniesta, it pisses me off
Well, I can't talk about that because Del Piero might be my favourite player ever. I'm just explaining something that a lot of people tell me "Del Piero wasn't that much of a player". To me he was the best for a great while so...
Last edited:
What he lacked was transcendental ability. The true greats (like the top 15-20 players of all time) had the kind of ability that humbled the players around them, and left fans awestruck. They tended to dominate games and provide moments in key games not just of decisive nature, but of true elite quality. The best example from Zidane is his volley in the Champions League final, but there are others. Iniesta was a quality player, and deserves particular credit for decisive roles in big games (Champions league semi final 2009, World cup final 2010) but I don't think he ever had the kind of transcendental ability that made you go "wow, how did he do that?"
Del Piero post the injury in 98 iirc wasn't all that special, but before that he was a monster. It'd be farcical for anyone to suggest that he wouldn't hold his own in a vs Iniesta argument.Well, I can't talk about that because Del Piero might be my favourite player ever. I'm just explaining something that a lot of people tell me "Del Piero wasn't that much of a player". To me he was the best for a great while so...
Pretty much this.
Disagree. I think he's even had just as many of those moments as Zidane if not more. 'Wow' was certainly what I was thinking as he was tearing us to shreds in the 09 final dribbling through our midfield and causing us all sorts of nightmares.
I used to appreciate Iniesta hugely even when Messi was 23-24 doing ridiculous things I saw Iniesta and thought.. what a player.
I was thinking yesterday how Iniesta is the perfect dribbler, perfect passer and has the perfect ball control, then Messi somehow is 1-2 levels ahead of that its just crazy.
I just imagine what if Iniesta was that little bit faster, he would be considered in a GOAT tier he's not that far off it really it's just one of two qualities that he doesn't have, all round footballer though and even at his age now he has great performances.
I think over his career he's better than Zidane, just Zidane had some absolutely incredible performances.
might have to reconsider my vote here if Iniesta owns another tournament...
Iniesta for me is at least as good as Zidane if not better because I feel they are more comparable stylistically at least. They both are very eerily similar, in career and in playing styles.
Both balding, both scored the winners to deliver their countries maiden WC, both the best players in a Euros, both scored volleys en route to Cl wins (Chelsea 09 & Leverkusen 02), both do not score that many goals or get that many assits despite being called playmakers and Zidane being called an AM. Both have repuations for being big game players. Both are inconsistent (when comparing their strengths and how they apply then over the course of the whole season).
Zidane is better marketed. Iniesta is a better dribbler and can beat more people directly and is far better at getting out of pressure, not on Xavi's level but very close. Zidane usually received the ball, rather than passing it he would try to hold it up and then get either fouled, dispossessed or he lashed out with his little kick. It was like clockwork. Iniesta is a better bigger game player and has been motm in WC final, Euros final, Champions League final, Copa del Rey final, changed the 2006 final with Larsson. Zidane is stronger, better at set pieces, perhaps the most 2 footed player I have seen, can't compare theor penalties as Iniesta has never been the man for pens with Spain or Barcelona but Zidane is THE best I have ever seen so he gets that. Freekicks and set pieces Zidane once again. Defending I would say Iniesta because under Enrique he has had to sacrifice his game to cover for Alba on the left as Rakitic covers for Messi and Alves on the right. He contributed greatly to Barcelonas defensive record although he is nowhere near Xavi's level as a controller.
I'm not sure who I would give passing to tbh, maybe Iniesta becaue Zidanes passing wasn't consistent but that could be down to the systems they played in, Iniesta has the better final ball for me. I would pick either tbh.
Again the criteria needs to be set by the OP
Aesthetics:
Zidane
Iniesta
Effectiveness:
Iniesta
Zidane
Consistency:
Iniesta
Zidane
Big games:
Iniesta
Zidane
Zidane flopped in 2 cl finals and a WC final in 2006, temperament is a big thing.
Both balding, both scored the winners to deliver their countries maiden WC, both the best players in a Euros, both scored volleys en route to Cl wins (Chelsea 09 & Leverkusen 02), both do not score that many goals or get that many assits despite being called playmakers and Zidane being called an AM. Both have repuations for being big game players. Both are inconsistent (when comparing their strengths and how they apply then over the course of the whole season).
Zidane is better marketed. Iniesta is a better dribbler and can beat more people directly and is far better at getting out of pressure, not on Xavi's level but very close. Zidane usually received the ball, rather than passing it he would try to hold it up and then get either fouled, dispossessed or he lashed out with his little kick. It was like clockwork. Iniesta is a better bigger game player and has been motm in WC final, Euros final, Champions League final, Copa del Rey final, changed the 2006 final with Larsson. Zidane is stronger, better at set pieces, perhaps the most 2 footed player I have seen, can't compare theor penalties as Iniesta has never been the man for pens with Spain or Barcelona but Zidane is THE best I have ever seen so he gets that. Freekicks and set pieces Zidane once again. Defending I would say Iniesta because under Enrique he has had to sacrifice his game to cover for Alba on the left as Rakitic covers for Messi and Alves on the right. He contributed greatly to Barcelonas defensive record although he is nowhere near Xavi's level as a controller.
I'm not sure who I would give passing to tbh, maybe Iniesta becaue Zidanes passing wasn't consistent but that could be down to the systems they played in, Iniesta has the better final ball for me. I would pick either tbh.
Again the criteria needs to be set by the OP
Aesthetics:
Zidane
Iniesta
Effectiveness:
Iniesta
Zidane
Consistency:
Iniesta
Zidane
Big games:
Iniesta
Zidane
Zidane flopped in 2 cl finals and a WC final in 2006, temperament is a big thing.
Both players are massively overrated.
Why? Actually I think that Iniesta should have got more recognition for his career
Their status in football is based on a few memorable games, not overall career, consistency wise.
What is your criteria for a great player? Consitency, big games, application of talent etc Both Iniesta and Zidane are CMs. Bar Xavi, midfielders aren't very consistent because they usually face blocks and have to create, which is the hardest job in football for me.
Ronaldinho wasn't consistent throughout his career but his highest level is higher than any forward that has played the game since his demise bar Messi. My problem with Zidane is when people start claiming that he carried France to the WC when he was not even their best player in the tournament and was pretty anonymous in it bar the WC final. The myth of that and because of how pleasing he was to watch meant that people never called him out for his lack of effectiveness throughout his career. When people start putting his name in the same bracket as Maradona, Pele and Cruijff that is when I shake my head. He is simply not on that level.
obvious wum is obvious
Iniesta and Zidane overrated? Seriously? If anything Iniesta is underrated. He's easily the most talented midfielder in the world.
Well said. Zidane is one of the most overrated footballers in my opinion. Yes. he was nice to watch, but far too inconsistent in many matches.
Maradona, Laudrupp, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Scholes - all of them are superior midfielders in my opinion.
Maradona, Laudrupp, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Scholes - all of them are superior midfielders in my opinion.
Zidane overrated!!
He was an absolute genius!
Could score with both feet, amazing in the air, ran the midfield with grace, skill and strength and he also dominated on an international level of football. Zidane was as complete a player as you could find, he was a mountain of a man and he practically carried France to the brink of World cup glory in 2006 with a team in decline. If it wasn't for his headbutt I think he'd have pulled it off as well.
Mad statements being mad in this thread. I love Scholes, but he's not in Zidane's league.
Zidane all day every day..Someone said he flopped in the WC final 2006.. Guess what - France would have been nowhere near the final if it was not for the 34-year old Zidane. His performance against Brazil is still the best individual performance i have ever watched in the WC..
Xavi > Iniesta > Zidane > Scholes
Maradona in 1986 against England and Belgium were the best individual world cup performances IMHO.
One thing I'll never understand is the post retirement propaganda concerning Paul Scholes.
Not on the same planet as Zidane, and 15 years ago people would have laughed their cock off at the suggestion.
Not on the same planet as Zidane, and 15 years ago people would have laughed their cock off at the suggestion.
Perfectly valid statement as it's your opinion... I suspect your in the majority in saying maradona was better... I suspect even on a united forum your in a minority (and an even smaller minority outside of united fans) thinking scholars was better
Zidane for me - a player like very few I have seen that had the ability to win a match by himself playing alongside team mates that couldnt perform in the match regularly. I love iniesta too but as I always say - Zidane played for Juventus, Real Madrid and french teams - was gorgeous in every single team at every single time.
Iniesta is a pure Barcelona player and theres nothing wrong with that - but me personally - I always take in to regards players like C. Ronaldo, Brazilian Ronaldo, Zidane etc who strangled many leagues in to oblivion.
Iniesta is a pure Barcelona player and theres nothing wrong with that - but me personally - I always take in to regards players like C. Ronaldo, Brazilian Ronaldo, Zidane etc who strangled many leagues in to oblivion.
When did Zidane strangle La Liga into oblivion?
Prefer Iniesta but rate Zidane higher.
2002? He again played for a rubbish team during that time - a team full of individuals. Iniesta - again I love the guy and he is one of my favourite players was a core part of a well drilled team both for spain and Barcelona.
I agree with you. The love for Scholes is because he is vastly underrated by many fans and players across the world and dont have the world wide love that he deserves; but to put him up there with zidane and iniesta is a bit over the top. For me Scholes is of the level of he likes of seedorf, davids, Nedved, - all fanastic legendary players (seedorf especially is vastly underrated himself).
For me it's not even close. Zidane at his peak was quite simply exceptional. There was nothing he couldn't do!
He made everything look so simple. His balance, control and first touch (with either foot) was extraordinary. He could ping a pass or just ghost past defenders with a drop of a shoulder.
Don't get me wrong Iniesta was a brilliant player but Zidane was on another level. The guy was a footballing genius!
He made everything look so simple. His balance, control and first touch (with either foot) was extraordinary. He could ping a pass or just ghost past defenders with a drop of a shoulder.
Don't get me wrong Iniesta was a brilliant player but Zidane was on another level. The guy was a footballing genius!
I remember watching Zidane play. In the big games he was incredible, in the rest of the games he was mostly non existent. It was the kind of player that really lived for the big games and big tournaments. Talent wise I believe that Iniesta is in the same bracket overall but is far more consistent than Zidane ever was. Iniesta is my pick. I doubt that people would rate him this highly if he played in the same age than Ronaldo and Messi. They overshadowed pretty much everyone and still a few players stood out from their shadow. Iniesta is/was one of those players
Last edited:
It's not a clear cut, but Zidane for me was the ultimate maestro. Even in his later age, he saved his best for last. The way he danced on the Brazilians in his retirement world cup was the definition of a midfielder orchestrating the whole game. There's other countless examples in his career, but this is the one that stood the most for me due to his age and people saying he was past it by that point (including the Spaniards who claimed they were going to retire him early, he scored against them the third goal of France's win and his celebration was just cherry on the cake).
If I have one game to win, and I need to pick between the two, I'm picking Zidane 10 out of 10 times. Iniesta is amazing, but Zidane can do everything he did and was bigger and stronger.
If I have one game to win, and I need to pick between the two, I'm picking Zidane 10 out of 10 times. Iniesta is amazing, but Zidane can do everything he did and was bigger and stronger.
If I'm going to take one of them for a crucial big game tomorrow, it'll be Zidane every time, sorry Iniesta.
Zidane for me. Don't get me wrong, Iniesta (like Xavi) was very good technically, and especially adept at using space (like most Barcelona midfielders). However, Zidane did things that made you want to watch football. He produced moments that made you go "wow". I could watch his highlight reels all the time. At his best, the football seemed to be an extension of him, completely under his command.
Not to make excuses for him, but he never got the supporting cast that Iniesta got. Zidane's Real Madrid was never as well constructed as Barcelona, and his accomplishments pale in comparison compared to Iniesta's from a trophy perspective.
Not to make excuses for him, but he never got the supporting cast that Iniesta got. Zidane's Real Madrid was never as well constructed as Barcelona, and his accomplishments pale in comparison compared to Iniesta's from a trophy perspective.
Iniesta was much more of a system player than Zidane as in he was given the perfect circumstances and players around him to succeed while Zidane didn't always have it that way.
Both incredible players and should be remembered alongside one another, impossible to pick one above the other.
Both incredible players and should be remembered alongside one another, impossible to pick one above the other.
There's more audacity and determination in the players surrounding Iniesta. With Maradona they look like they saw a ghost.
Uncanny.
Except nobody other than a few oddballs genuinely think he was anywhere close to Zidane. He is rated as he should be, above the likes of Lampard and Gerrard, somewhere in the region of Pirlo etc but not as high as Xavi, Iniesta and Zidane. He is one of the greatest English midfielders/footballers of all time after all. Just not as good as arguably the best Spanish and French footballers of all time.
How the feck do you strangle La Liga in a year? If he strangled La Liga, what the hell did Xavi do?
????
In the 21st century there have been only 2 players better than Iniesta. Messi and Ronaldo.