You'd be forgiven for thinking that that barca side was not one of the most dominant and successful of all time reading that description. Same goes for Spain where he was also the fulcrum. Neither have been able to replicate that dominant style of play without him.
Xavi more than anyone defined the most dominant club and international side in more than 25 years with unparalleled consistency throughout that period. You'd need to go back to Matthaus before you start finding midfield peers.
I think you need to do a search of my Xavi posts if you think I'm knocking him. Being objective and dissecting these players down to what they are at their core is a necessity as that's where we get a clear assessment of them in and out of their speciality and comfort zone. People do not hesitate to do this to Scholes, but when it comes to Xavi, he should be beyond reproach just because he was excellent at a very specific set of aspects in a pair of midfields literally optimised to get the absolute best out of him?
About peerage, it depends on what you want from your midfield and who he is going to be combining with, because he is not going to prosper if you put him in less than optimal conditions like others did. I don't consider Xavi a peer of Matthaus - one could go up against Maradona and best him for a whole game and be a one-man army, the other hasn't a hope in hell of doing the same. Xavi's ball retention via passing and recycling of the ball is practically unparalleled, but then, who else has used Tiki-Taka as a complete style of play? It's an oft ignored caveat that lauds this team whilst nary a thought is put towards it being a concept foreign to other truly dominant sides of the past. There is more to midfield play than that, especially so when going up to the level of a Matthaus, Neeskens or the like.
Another seamlessly unquestioned factor is how Xavi would fare in a system that was not perfectly optimised for his game; a 4-4-2 with two CM's as an example. Where Scholes stands or does not, as the case may be, there can't be any doubt that he had worse team-mates in a formation not catered to him; scored more goals and proved himself in a host of systems and positions throughout midfield. His international career is an extension of how a midfielder like him or Xavi would be treated in a hustle and bustle national team, and yet, it's used against him in these discussions. I'm mentioning this because he was not afforded the luxuries Xavi had at club or international level so comparing them as if they did is a false equivalency that needs to be rounded out one way or the other. He's not the first name I'd pick out of the hat for an all-time team playing a 4-4-2, but then, neither is Xavi, whereas Matthaus is getting in, or having a very close run of it to do so, in
any system, such is the difference between them as all-rounders.
If you want a metronomic midfield with exceptional rates of ball retention, Xavi is one of, if not the first name down on the team-sheet. If you want a dynamic and rounded midfield that is not beholden to a style of play, he isn't.
If you want to match Xavi with others, you'll have to give me
your definition of what kind of player he is because comparing him to Matthaus, outside of trophy haul, doesn't make sense to me.
I agree that the Chelsea/Inter ties are the best or arguably only examples of a peak Xavi-led midfield not dictating the biggest games. Yet that forms a fairly small part of a portfolio of league, European and international dominance that outstrips what almost any of those midfield peers have produced. The other central midfielders who I would place in his bracket, Matthaus and Rijkaard, will have a similar or possibly longer list of big games that they did not boss. That's notwithstanding the likes of Bozsik and Didi who, from what we know, could claim to have been as dominant within their era but it's difficult to assess with the same lens we're applying here. Inevitably he has benefited from being a part of the superclub era and from a concentration of talent and style that enabled him to maximise his own talent. But it's important too to acknowledge that he didn't just benefit from the system, he became the system. So much so that his career peak and performance trajectory either side of that mirrored the success of Barcelona and Spain (and their relative falls when he started to fade).
Barcelona came along at a time when there were few teams with a culmination of brilliance individually and collectively to contest them and they still didn't assert total dominance by going back-to-back in the CL. In the CL-winning 7-year span of the Xavi era, they were in 3 finals, with no runners-up spots. That doesn't paint the same narrative of complete dominance. Aesthetically, and in any open game of football of the era, everyone knew they were the best, by a distance, but at the same time, the teams with the right components to shut them down, did so. The question here is: can you be dominant if you are given the ball and asked to break down a side whilst failing to do so? In terms of statistics, sure, you're miles ahead, but in reality? You've been given a clear and outlined scenario and not managed to best it. Have you then dictated the game?
You'll get no argument from me about the international side of things, but I think it skews the total picture and paints a narrative, in combination, that didn't actually happen in the same way it did for a Bayern/West Germany or Ajax/Holland to a lesser extent.
On what basis are you bracketing Matthaus and Rijkaard with Xavi? Trophies? As I said above, I don't really consider the former peers with the latter. He is a specialist in a unique, almost unprecedented level optimal conditions for club and country - in terms of combination games played with a midfield of two other people, I would be astonished if any other midfield great has had such a perfect run.
I don't dispute what Xavi is, and have no bone of contention about him becoming the system, but at the same time, he, Busquets, Iniesta and Messi are so watertight within it, that it's unique and unparalleled throughout the history of the game, as far as I know. It has to be a caveat... Rijkaard and Matthaus spanned countries, differing systems and philosophies and were imperious as individuals independent of opposition, system or supporting cast. You put Xavi in a team with poorer passers and his influence is going to wane because he needed flawless synergy to play his game where others did not.
If the overall game of these players is opened up to scrutiny, Xavi's passing and retention of the ball may be through the roof, but in other aspects of the game compared to this calibre of player, he doesn't fare well, imo. You put him in a midfield and you have to cater to him specifically and put the other pieces in around him to enable his game, which is not necessary with any of the others.
