Rank these midfielders in an order.

Who would you choose as your midfield three?
Xavi Pirlo Scholes in their primes together would have been a sight to see
 
As central midfielder, Gerrard and Lampard should be the lowest.
 
Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Pirlo
Scholes
Kroos
Gerrard
Lampard

If I did it by tiers

Xavi

Iniesta

Modric/Pirlo/Scholes/Kroos

Gerrard/Lampard
 
Last edited:
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
Anyone who has Iniesta lower than 2 needs to check their bias, and quite frankly he has an good argument to be #1 on this list. Criminally underrated player that has a claim with Xavi has the best midfielder of all time and arguably had a greater peak than Xavi.
Click to expand...

I personally think Xavi is a clear level above Iniesta despite them not having the same role in the team.

And I think Xavi's peak is easily better too.

But I do agree with your general feeling. I don't see how anyone can make a case for the others over Iniesta.
 
It’s the trophy count that sways it heavily in some directions, so I am giving the lightest weighting possible to achievements, while still considering it.

Modric
Iniesta
Scholes
Xavi
Gerrard
Pirlo
Lampard
Kroos
 
Xavi
Iniesta

Pirlo
Modric
Scholes
Kroos

Gerrard
Lampard
 
simonhch said:
It’s the trophy count that sways it heavily in some directions, so I am giving the lightest weighting possible to achievements, while still considering it.

Modric
Iniesta
Scholes
Xavi
Gerrard
Pirlo
Lampard
Kroos
Click to expand...

Xavi 4th?

Bold list.
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
Xavi 4th?

Bold list.
Click to expand...

I know. I knew that would get called out immediately. My thinking is that Xavi’s peak years, his brilliance was when he was sandwiched by peak Iniesta and Busquets. I think Iniesta had the most irreplaceable skill set in that trio. If you’d dropped Scholes or Modric into Xavi’s role that mf would have been just as good.

I think Modric is the best midfielder I have seen in the last 15 years. His level has been so high for so long. I think Scholes could do everything Xavi could do and knock in a few worldies. Xavi himself rated Scholes higher, but then again he’d look a bit weird saying he himself was better. Either way, those four are better than all the others on the list. I have no exception to them being rated in reverse order tbh. Just my personal preference/opinion, I certainly don’t feel strongly enough to argue in defence of it.
 
simonhch said:
I know. I knew that would get called out immediately. My thinking is that Xavi’s peak years, his brilliance was when he was sandwiched by peak Iniesta and Busquets. I think Iniesta had the most irreplaceable skill set in that trio. If you’d dropped Scholes or Modric into Xavi’s role that mf would have been just as good.

I think Modric is the best midfielder I have seen in the last 15 years. His level has been so high for so long. I think Scholes could do everything Xavi could do and knock in a few worldies. Xavi himself rated Scholes higher, but then again he’d look a bit weird saying he himself was better. Either way, those four are better than all the others on the list. I have no exception to them being rated in reverse order tbh. Just my personal preference/opinion, I certainly don’t feel strongly enough to argue in defence of it.
Click to expand...

Do you agree that once Xavi waned, Barcelona and Spain's midfield control subsequently waned as well?

Also, I find Modric similar to Iniesta as that 'needle midfielder', so I'm not sure if he would have been a good replacement for Xavi.
 
simonhch said:
It’s the trophy count that sways it heavily in some directions, so I am giving the lightest weighting possible to achievements, while still considering it.

Modric
Iniesta
Scholes
Xavi
Gerrard
Pirlo
Lampard
Kroos
Click to expand...
If you are giving lightest weight to achievement, than how can you rank Modric higher than Iniesta?
I am sorry, but how?
Ability wise, none of the players in the list, including Scholes, could be considered better than Iniesta, nor anyone of them had better performances than Iniesta in big matches. Or it is Ballon D'or which is swaying it that way?
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
Do you agree that once Xavi waned, Barcelona and Spain's midfield control subsequently waned as well?

Also, I find Modric similar to Iniesta as that 'needle midfielder', so I'm not sure if he would have been a good replacement for Xavi.
Click to expand...

I undoubtedly agree, but I’ll also posit that it wouldn’t have done if they’d had a Scholes or Modric to take his place. Look, there is no doubting he’s as good as they come. I don’t see any appreciable difference between him and Scholes other than him playing in better midfields, but I’m certainly not averse to the argument he is a better player.

As for Modric….he’s that player for me that is almost Xavi and Iniesta rolled into one. He’s got those quick feet and movement of Iniesta, but the tempo controlling ability of Xavi. Xavi had a better passing range but let’s be frank, Modric is a fecking superb passer too.
 
Lord SInister said:
If you are giving lightest weight to achievement, than how can you rank Modric higher than Iniesta?
I am sorry, but how?
Ability wise, none of the players in the list, including Scholes, could be considered better than Iniesta, nor anyone of them had better performances than Iniesta in big matches. Or it is Ballon D'or which is swaying it that way?
Click to expand...

Because I honestly think Modric is just a little bit better than Iniesta. I think he’s the best midfielder I’ve seen in the last 15 years. I appreciate that isn’t a view shared by everyone, and I am definitely okay with that. For what it’s worth, the difference is negligible at best and may just come down to personal preference. I really didn’t take the balón d’or or Iniesta’s World Cup winning goal into consideration when making that call. They are both just fecking phenomenal. In the end if you had a gun to my head snd I could only have one, I’d have Modric. But it seems a ridiculous choice to have to make. These threads are ultimately so subjective.

Its kinda like if I absolutely had to make a choice of all players I’ve seen play, having to be selected for a one off match in which they were all guaranteed to perform at their absolutely greatest peak level - and it was a must win match - my front three would be Ronaldinho, Ronaldo Nazario, and Messi. It becomes very subjective.

So I have no issue you or anyone else thinking that Iniesta and or Xavi are better than Modric. I don’t think I am right, it’s just for me personally, Modric is the man. I also think that the best midfield I have ever seen - Busquets, Xavi, and Iniesta - didn’t include him.
 
nokillingmoths said:
Pirlo might be the most over rated player of all time, all because of the beard.
Click to expand...
Ironic you would say that, because he was way better before he grew a beard. He was probably the best central midfielder in the world from 2003 to 2007.
 
Tier 1
Xavi
Iniesta

Tier 2
Modric
Pirlo

Tier 3
Kroos
Gerrard
Lampard
Scholes
 
youngrell said:
The difference between Scholes having the same amount of CL titles as Modric is the exact same thing as your league title argument = Messi and Barcelona.

And Modric wasn’t the difference maker in those 2 extra wins, either.

Anyway, it’s a strange way to compare players when both have won so much. Best way is to watch them play and Scholes was a notch above.
Click to expand...
I mean you can watch both. The world decided Modric was worthy of a Ballon D'Or. That's hard to beat. Scholes was brilliant, Modric is also brilliant but will go down as the better player according to the majority of non-United supporters, and a big part of why will be an easy pointer to being key for 4 CL titles, being brilliant at international level (a huge gap on Scholes' resume), and winning a Ballon D'Or.

They've both won a lot. But 4x CL titles and a Ballon D'Or especially, as well as dragging Croatia to a WC final for me puts him a cut above all of that list apart from Xavi and Iniesta. And it wasn't a fake pity Ballon d'Or, was deserved IMO as he was brilliant at the 2018 world cup after being excellent in the latter stages of the CL.
 
simonhch said:
Because I honestly think Modric is just a little bit better than Iniesta. I think he’s the best midfielder I’ve seen in the last 15 years. I appreciate that isn’t a view shared by everyone, and I am definitely okay with that. For what it’s worth, the difference is negligible at best and may just come down to personal preference. I really didn’t take the balón d’or or Iniesta’s World Cup winning goal into consideration when making that call. They are both just fecking phenomenal. In the end if you had a gun to my head snd I could only have one, I’d have Modric. But it seems a ridiculous choice to have to make. These threads are ultimately so subjective.

Its kinda like if I absolutely had to make a choice of all players I’ve seen play, having to be selected for a one off match in which they were all guaranteed to perform at their absolutely greatest peak level - and it was a must win match - my front three would be Ronaldinho, Ronaldo Nazario, and Messi. It becomes very subjective.

So I have no issue you or anyone else thinking that Iniesta and or Xavi are better than Modric. I don’t think I am right, it’s just for me personally, Modric is the man. I also think that the best midfield I have ever seen - Busquets, Xavi, and Iniesta - didn’t include him.
Click to expand...
Nah if it personal opinion, I don't have much issue, you wrote you didn't considered achievement hence the question, no worries cheers.
 
Lord SInister said:
And had a phenomenal 2006 world cup, which often gets overshadowed due to Cannavaro's Ballon D'or
Click to expand...
His 2006 World Cup is one of the best World Cup performances ever from a central midfielder. He was phenomenal from start to finish, and was voted MOTM in both the semifinal and the final.

Pirlo is the black sheep in this thread. He was not a part of a club side that dominated Europe like Xavi-Iniesta or Modric-Kroos, nor is he English and played in the Premier League like Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard.

He’s a bit of an outsider, and that is why he is underrated on this thread.
 
432JuanMata said:
Look like any United fan here Scholes was probably my favourite and one of the best players I’ve seen play for this club but if you are putting him ahead of Xavi and Iniesta then it’s just red tinted glasses.

People use Xavi/Iniesta as a excuse to bash Messi since he never won a CL without them, yet they won 2 Euros and a WC without him. Not forgetting Busquets but there is no better 2 midfield than Xavi, Iniesta.
Click to expand...

Xavi and Iniesta were a great duo and think Xavi would fit anywhere, but I doubt it with Iniesta. He benefitted a lot from the system. For me it's Xavi>Scholes>Iniesta.
 
Kanu said:
Xavi and Iniesta were a great duo and think Xavi would fit anywhere, but I doubt it with Iniesta. He benefitted a lot from the system. For me it's Xavi>Scholes>Iniesta.
Click to expand...
Iniesta could dribble past anyone, had a great understanding of space and knew when to attack and when to be cautious, I think he would great anywhere.

I think that is what seperates these two and Thiago. Thiago is every bit as talented, but he lacks the understanding of the game at the level Iniesta and Xavi did.
 
Gerrard, Lampard, and Kroos...even Pirlo would be the bottom 3 to 4 central midfielders of that list.

Xavi, Iniesta, Scholes, and Modric can all control the entire midfielder on their own and score goals or directly influence the game anywhere in midfield.

Pirlo was never a top goal scorer or showed to have that consistent capacity. Lampard and Gerrard are the "worst" passers and orthodox central mids than those listed.
 
tompo18 said:
Really depends what you are looking for in a midfield player.

Xavi and Iniesta I always thought were a bit powder puff when it came to shooting, and it just didn't excite me to watch them.

That's why they would never be near the top of my list.

You could argue Modric doesn't have a great goal scoring record, but he has a decent shot from range as sadly we know too well.

Lampard obviously had an excellent goal scoring record but for me was too lacking in other areas.

For me; as midfielders.

Modric
Scholes
Gerrard
Pirlo
Xavi
Iniesta
Lampard
Kroos
Click to expand...
I don't rate Xavi and Iniesta because of Fuentes. They suddenly became engines that never got tired once Pep took over. previously they'd been weak
 
I would comfortably group Xavi, Modric, Pirlo and Scholes together, being similarly methodical pass masters, and would rank them in that order with Xavi the best down to Scholes the weakest. That is no slight on Scholes - this is a collection of the finest playmakers I have seen, absolutely mesmeric in circulating the ball. All of them are special players.

Kroos also fits into the 'dictator' category, but he is much more ordinary and doesn't really belong in a discussion about historically great controlling midfield players.

I don't think it's as straightforward to compare him to the rest, but if I was to slot Iniesta into that ranking it would be right in the middle, behind Xavi and Modric - I would have the latter over Iniesta in an advanced midfield position (while also coming closest to Xavi's level in a deeper role).

Gerrard and Lampard are just too different. I would group them (or Gerrard anyway) with other great powerful, direct attacking midfielders in Yaya Toure, Fabregas, De Bruyne and Di Maria. Gerrard was better than Lampard, but I have a hard time placing him amongst the rest of those names - all much of a muchness for me ( except perhaps Di Maria, slightly ahead - a sensational player in his best position). Despite the mismatch, I would certainly say that at the very least Xavi and Modric are just clearly better players than the two Englishmen.

Again though, I feel they should be on another list. As should Kroos. Having Xabi Alonso, Busquets and David Silva in place of those three would have been more fitting.
 
sherrinford said:
Gerrard and Lampard are just too different. I would group them (or Gerrard anyway) with other great powerful, direct attacking midfielders in Yaya Toure, Fabregas, De Bruyne and Di Maria. Gerrard was better than Lampard, but I have a hard time placing him amongst the rest of those names - all much of a muchness for me ( except perhaps Di Maria, slightly ahead - a sensational player in his best position).
Click to expand...
I am slightly confused on what you mean by this. Do you rate Toure, KDB and Fabregas above Di Maria? Because if you do, I strongly disagree. I also rate Gerrard above Toure.
 
MiceOnMeth said:
Who would you choose as your midfield three?
Xavi Pirlo Scholes in their primes together would have been a sight to see
Click to expand...
Would be a very one-note midfield, especially if you're thinking of post-2008 Scholes. I'd probably pick Xavi, Iniesta and Gerrard personally. Maybe Modric instead of Gerrard or Iniesta for better balance.
 
simonhch said:
Because I honestly think Modric is just a little bit better than Iniesta. I think he’s the best midfielder I’ve seen in the last 15 years. I appreciate that isn’t a view shared by everyone, and I am definitely okay with that. For what it’s worth, the difference is negligible at best and may just come down to personal preference. I really didn’t take the balón d’or or Iniesta’s World Cup winning goal into consideration when making that call. They are both just fecking phenomenal. In the end if you had a gun to my head snd I could only have one, I’d have Modric. But it seems a ridiculous choice to have to make. These threads are ultimately so subjective.

Its kinda like if I absolutely had to make a choice of all players I’ve seen play, having to be selected for a one off match in which they were all guaranteed to perform at their absolutely greatest peak level - and it was a must win match - my front three would be Ronaldinho, Ronaldo Nazario, and Messi. It becomes very subjective.

So I have no issue you or anyone else thinking that Iniesta and or Xavi are better than Modric. I don’t think I am right, it’s just for me personally, Modric is the man. I also think that the best midfield I have ever seen - Busquets, Xavi, and Iniesta - didn’t include him.
Click to expand...
kthanksbye said:
Zidane


Modric
Iniesta
Xavi

Scholes
Pirlo

Gerrard
Lamaprd
Kroos
Click to expand...


Hear hear about Modric, I too feel that he has a wider range of skillset when compared to anyone in this list, probably the most complete midfielder in the last decade or so.
 
Total football :drool:

Ronaldo Naz.

Ronaldinho ——— Iniesta ——— Messi

Scholes ——— Modric

R.Carlos —— Ferdinand —— Sammer —— Cafu

Schmeichel​

Bit off topic, sorry. Plus 3 United players :lol:
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
I personally think Xavi is a clear level above Iniesta despite them not having the same role in the team.

And I think Xavi's peak is easily better too.

But I do agree with your general feeling. I don't see how anyone can make a case for the others over Iniesta.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The memory of Iniesta playing in the World Cup final like he was having a leisurely kickabout in the backstreets of Fuentealbilla remains with me. The biggest game of them all.

Would also give the edge to Iniesta because of his ability to dribble and pass incredibly well.
 
JPB said:
Scholes is the best out of all of them. 20 years of dominance with this guy at the heart of every Fergie team. He won 25 trophies including 11 Premier League titles (more than any other English player ever) and 2 Champions League trophies. This guy is one of the main reasons we dominated for so long. it has nothing to do with overrating, Gerrard isn't fit to lace Scholsey's boots. Scholes is on a whole different level. 11 times Premier League winner, let that sink in and think before you compare the two again. Scholes won us titles, Gerrard fecked the only chance up he had of winning a single PL title himself. Don't ever compare the two ever again.
Click to expand...
The others won a shitload too. Compare Xavi’s and Iniesta’s trophies compared to Scholes.

Scholes also was not at the heartbeat of those teams. Till 2003 or so, both Keane and Beckham were better and more important than him for the team. Since 2009 till his retirement, Carrick was our best midfielder. So Scholes was our best midfielder for half a decade, during which time he wasn’t even in our top 3 players.

I mentioned before, he doesn’t have a single point for Ballo D’Or. I am not saying that he never won it, or never ended in top 3, or in top 10. What I am saying is that from all top European football experts who vote for the trophy every year, none of them saw Scholes as one of the top 3 players in the world for a season to give him a single point. All the others have many points, with Modric winning it, Xavi, Lampard and Iniesta being runners up, Gerard third, and the others all in top 10. Many experts voted them to be one of the top players in the world, but none whatsoever did that for Scholes.

I always claimed that Scholes is by far the most overrated player in this forum. He was a very good player, absolute world class but nowhere as good as some people here claim.
 
Infordin said:
I am slightly confused on what you mean by this. Do you rate Toure, KDB and Fabregas above Di Maria? Because if you do, I strongly disagree. I also rate Gerrard above Toure.
Click to expand...

Sorry no, the opposite - I rate Di Maria slightly above Toure, De Bruyne, Fabregas and Gerrard, and then all of them above Lampard.
 
MiceOnMeth said:
Who would you choose as your midfield three?
Xavi Pirlo Scholes in their primes together would have been a sight to see
Click to expand...
Guardiola tried to sign Pirlo which would have been a sight to see in how he threw all them together for Barcelona.

I think the problem is none of them are natural holders, on or off the ball. To build a functioning midfield you'd need one of them to sit and be defensive responsible. I know Pirlo and Scholes have played as the 'deepest' midfielder, but have typically been flanked by muscle and legs. From that list it's only Gerrard who has performed the pivot role with the most defensive responsibility in a team. So it would be him plus two others, probably Xavi and Iniesta.
 
el_loco_bielsa said:
I disagree. Xavi fits your definition if you’re going to keep it extremely narrow and just stick central midfielders in there who never played in the advanced midfield positions, but there is little to differentiate an iniesta from a Platini or a zico. Both would’ve been playing the iniesta role in a pep side.
Click to expand...
Platini would've been a midfielder of sorts for Pep (even for a false 9 he spent way too much time deep in midfield), but Zico would play in Messi's place without a doubt.
 
Gio said:
I think the problem is none of them are natural holders, on or off the ball. To build a functioning midfield you'd need one of them to sit and be defensive responsible. I know Pirlo and Scholes have played as the 'deepest' midfielder, but have typically been flanked by muscle and legs. From that list it's only Gerrard who has performed the pivot role with the most defensive responsibility in a team. So it would be him plus two others, probably Xavi and Iniesta.
Click to expand...
Makes sense from that point of view but I would've for sure bet on extreme possession as that extra physicality & defensive presence is negated by the difference in playing style. Can't really see Gerrard gelling well with Xavi & Iniesta, while Scholes or Pirlo (the latter would probably be a more natural choice) would be able to replicate Busquets role at least to some extent.

For what it's worth, I've been shitting all over Gerrard in this thread, but if we were picking a goalscoring central midfielder into a more direct set up, I'd pick him ahead of everyone on this list bar Lampard maybe (it's a coin-toss between those two), with Scholes being third and Iniesta right behind him (he never scored enough, but I'd imagine that he'd be great in this role as well).
 
Xavi
Iniesta
Modric
Gerrard
Kroos
Pirlo
Lampard
Scholes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.