So where is Modric rated in best CM’s of all time ?

rainey

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 21, 2022
Messages
24
Supports
DZG
Define complete in this context. Both Xavi and Iniesta were better passers, better playmakers and better string pullers than Modric. Iniesta was also a better dribbler. Yes Mod got around more with his great engine, is also a top playmaker, and he lasted longer but when you're talking about pure skill, the Spaniards are ahead of him.
Iniesta was never a better passer or string puller than Modric. He was flashier at times with his assists but he was never consistent enough to be the engine. Modric was and remarkably still is an engine and has done it in a system (Real) which has been way more improvisation heavy in the last decade than the ridiculous well oiled possession machine that Barca was during their peak.

Iniesta was very good at a lot of things, but his one defining trait at which he was basically unrivaled (save arguably Messi), was his close control. Had he had Luka's brain (discipline, vision, and then the lungs to carry it all through) and a better killer instinct he'd probably be a part of many GOAT conversations. Xavi is much more similar to Modric, and they are both 10/10 generational CMs. Nuances here and there, but accolades and honestly just plain old eye test tell me they belong in the best midfielders of all time category, without need to put one over the other.
 

Andrade

Full Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
735
Modric is a better passer than Iniesta, can get past his man better than Xavi, is as press resistant as either, has better engine than both, and is head and shoulders above either of them defensively. He can do it all, with no weaknesses.

Xavi and to a lesser extent Iniesta need a particular system, the right coach, the right setup etc. (imagine Xavi at Chelsea, Inter, Real, or even pre-Pep Barca or pre-Aragones Spain, he wouldn't be a good fit), Modric on the other hand, can be as effective in any team, no matter the environment, due to his versatility and flexibility, which is second to none.
I stopped reading at 'Modric is a better passer than Iniesta,'
 

giorno

boob novice
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
22,904
Supports
Real Madrid
Define complete in this context. Both Xavi and Iniesta were better passers, better playmakers and better string pullers than Modric. Iniesta was also a better dribbler. Yes Mod got around more with his great engine, is also a top playmaker, and he lasted longer but when you're talking about pure skill, the Spaniards are ahead of him.
Disagree that Iniesta was a better passer or string puller. He was a better final third playmaker, Modric better in deeper areas and build up. Iniesta was more comparable to a De Bruyne really, he was an attacking playmaker more than a midfield general.

Xavi yes, Xavi was better. Xavi was arguably the best (non-attacking)midfielder in the history of the sport. Not sure I'd rate Iniesta above Modric though
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
51,128
Location
Hope, We Lose
Modric is a better passer than Iniesta, can get past his man better than Xavi, is as press resistant as either, has better engine than both, and is head and shoulders above either of them defensively. He can do it all, with no weaknesses.

Xavi and to a lesser extent Iniesta need a particular system, the right coach, the right setup etc. (imagine Xavi at Chelsea, Inter, Real, or even pre-Pep Barca or pre-Aragones Spain, he wouldn't be a good fit), Modric on the other hand, can be as effective in any team, no matter the environment, due to his versatility and flexibility, which is second to none.
If you dont think Iniesta and Xavi could have done just as well if not better than Modric at Spurs or for Croatia then you have a screw loose. You are just speculating

Modric isnt as good in attack as either of them and is better at defending after he learned from Xabi Alonso and took over the role. He failed in the attacking role Madrid first had for him and was successfully converted to a DM duo with someone else doing the bulk of defending - and most likely being the best actual DM in the world, Casemiro. With his accomplishments he deserves to be mentioned in the same discussions with Xavi and Iniesta, but when they played against each other when they were all playing it was clear that the Barcelona players were on top.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
12,157
I stopped reading at 'Modric is a better passer than Iniesta,'
I think most would agree he was. Iniesta’s skill wasn’t dictating play and having a great range of passing (something Modric is increíble at) he was much cleverer in attacking positions, more of goal threat especially coming in towards the box and in finding space/going past his man in those areas.

Of course caf logic dictates if he’s not great he’s shit but that’s not the case, we’re talking about elite players here. I’d say Modric’ passing range is probably more akin to Busquets, who is probably the best all round passer I can think of bar Xavi (and obviously Scholes as this is a United forum:))
 

Andrade

Full Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
735
I think most would agree he was. Iniesta’s skill wasn’t dictating play and having a great range of passing (something Modric is increíble at) he was much cleverer in attacking positions, more of goal threat especially coming in towards the box and in finding space/going past his man in those areas.

Of course caf logic dictates if he’s not great he’s shit but that’s not the case, we’re talking about elite players here. I’d say Modric’ passing range is probably more akin to Busquets, who is probably the best all round passer I can think of bar Xavi (and obviously Scholes as this is a United forum:))
I really don't think they would. Is Modric also a better passer than Zidane now as well? Where does it end?!
 

Andrade

Full Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
735
Disagree that Iniesta was a better passer or string puller. He was a better final third playmaker, Modric better in deeper areas and build up. Iniesta was more comparable to a De Bruyne really, he was an attacking playmaker more than a midfield general.

Xavi yes, Xavi was better. Xavi was arguably the best (non-attacking)midfielder in the history of the sport. Not sure I'd rate Iniesta above Modric though
I prefer Iniesta over Xavi but they were both better than Modric. I'd submit that anyone who thinks otherwise has simply forgotten what football was like when they were ruling it.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
6,690
Early years Scholes was actually decent at this and quite nippy admittedly in a more advanced role, issue for him is he's over a decade older than Modric and most on the caf probably only saw him as a deep sitting CM with sat nav passing and comical tackling.

From his rough age group, I'd probably put Modric top now. Seen him be class in a relatively weak team in Spurs, seem him be class under multiple RM managers and systems, seen him be class in a good and a shit national team, seen him be class with a comparatively weaker RM side. Doesn't really have a weakness from what we've seen over the years and has the longevity of consistency others don't.
I watched Scholes (and Giggs for that matter entire career) and while he had his moments he was never close to the dribbler of Modric or Iniesta.

Scholes is an odd one to me in how he is perceived, great player, but I think he has become a little overrated while Giggs is now massively underrated. Scholes didn't really nail down a place in starting line up until he was 23/24, Giggs had already had 6-7 years as a key starter and our best attacker along with Eric by that point. Scholes probably better between 24-31, Giggs better 32-end.
 

DevTheRed

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
724
Probably on par Iniesta and Xavi.. I would’ve liked to have seen Modric play in that Barcelona side.

Edit: Zidane was better than all of them.. obviously!
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
6,690
Iniesta was brilliant, and I love him for an additional reason, he confounds the stat obsessed, he scored 57 goals in 674 games for Barca playing in attacking roles for the vast majority of his career.
 

sherrinford

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
1,104
I really don't think they would. Is Modric also a better passer than Zidane now as well? Where does it end?!
I would say he was. Modric had that rare rhythmic, methodical quality in his passing that Xavi and Pirlo had. Iniesta didn't have 'it' - his dribbling was special though.
 

Iker Quesadillas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,667
Supports
Real Madrid
If you dont think Iniesta and Xavi could have done just as well if not better than Modric at Spurs or for Croatia then you have a screw loose.
Modric was at Spurs until he was 26. Xavi hadn't had a particularly remarkable career for Barcelona or the Spanish national team until he was like 28 years old. So I don't know how obvious this is.
 

ColoRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
622
Location
deep in the west where the sun gets dusty
Supports
Cologne / Manchester
I prefer Iniesta over Xavi but they were both better than Modric. I'd submit that anyone who thinks otherwise has simply forgotten what football was like when they were ruling it.
Modric is on the same level as Xavi and Iniesta in terms of passing. For me, however, Modric is better at pressing and winning the ball, even now at the age of 36 he is top.
 

Eckers99

Michael Corleone says hello
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
5,793
I'd have Xavi and Iniesta ahead of him, which is no slight as they're probably the best midfielders I've ever seen. Modric is an absolutely sublime footballer though.
 

Andrade

Full Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
735
I would say he was. Modric had that rare rhythmic, methodical quality in his passing that Xavi and Pirlo had. Iniesta didn't have 'it' - his dribbling was special though.
Mod's not on the level of Xavi or Pirlo or Iniesta as a passer for me. Iniesta's defence splitting balls were second to none. He does have things in his locker that those guys didn't have though.
 

Andrade

Full Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
735
Modric is on the same level as Xavi and Iniesta in terms of passing. For me, however, Modric is better at pressing and winning the ball, even now at the age of 36 he is top.
He's not on the same level as them. Those guys could thread a camel through the eye of a needle. Yes Mod has range and variety but he's not the surgeon that they were.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
51,128
Location
Hope, We Lose
Modric was at Spurs until he was 26. Xavi hadn't had a particularly remarkable career for Barcelona or the Spanish national team until he was like 28 years old. So I don't know how obvious this is.
Because its Barcelona and the likes of Deco were competing for places in midfield there. Who was Modric competing with and in which competitions? Where did Spurs finish compared to Barcelona?

Silly
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
12,157
I really don't think they would. Is Modric also a better passer than Zidane now as well? Where does it end?!
Weird player to use. Zidane was class, one of my favourite ever players but his skillset was different. Zidane was one of the best CM/AM I’ve ever seen, he was deceptively strong, could go past multiple players, two footed, great vision, creative passer, beautiful technique, good on the air, fit as a dog but solely on passing, range of passing and consistency I’d pick Modric over him. That’s also more Modric’s role as well, you would play Zidane as a CM and have him just díctate in the way Modric does because it’s a waste of his talent.

For direct comparisons off the top of my head I’d say Xavi, Pirlo, Alonso, Modric, Kroos, Jorginho could all be loosely grouped together as CMs with world class passing range and I’d put him behind Pirlo and Xavi.

PS was tempted to put Shelvey in there just to see if I could get a nibble but refrained.
 

Iker Quesadillas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,667
Supports
Real Madrid
Because its Barcelona and the likes of Deco were competing for places in midfield there.
You can't really argue for the superiority of a player while also saying they couldn't be expected to compete against Deco until they were 28 years old.

But even if you could, it's a false argument. Xavi played 3985 minutes in 04/05 and 4136 in 03/04, he was an undisputed starter for Barcelona.
 

TenonTen

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2022
Messages
674
Supports
Neutral
Iniesta was brilliant, and I love him for an additional reason, he confounds the stat obsessed, he scored 57 goals in 674 games for Barca playing in attacking roles for the vast majority of his career.
No one is obsessed with statistics for a CM/Number 8. People will praise you if you can offer goals from midfield which is a great asset to have but it's never seen as compulsory when rating a midfielder at all.

Statistics are very important for forwards not midfielders.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
51,128
Location
Hope, We Lose
You can't really argue for the superiority of a player while also saying they couldn't be expected to compete against Deco until they were 28 years old.

But even if you could, it's a false argument. Xavi played 3985 minutes in 04/05 and 4136 in 03/04, he was an undisputed starter for Barcelona.
And Modric at the same time would have been? He didnt even start for Spurs in CM when he first went there. And when he left he was nowhere near the quality of Xavi at 28

Modric was also sold for 35 million euros at age 26. Barcelona never sold Xavi, he was untransferable and at 24 years old hes vice-captain of Barcelona as they win the league and then la liga player of the year in 2005.


Lets see if you remember this one
 
Last edited:

BigDycheEnergy

New Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2022
Messages
182
I'm not quite sure if I'd rate him as highly as Iniesta or Xavi. I just know that he's world class and one of the best central midfielders in history.
 

RacingClub

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
1,106
Supports
Racing Club
I would have Xavi and Iniesta over him but wouldn't argue with anyone who rates him higher than those 2 which says it all really because those 2 were magic.
 
Last edited:

Kanu

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
897
Location
Holland
Supports
Feyenoord & United
Xavi>Modric>Iniesta

Xavi is the greatest midfielder I've seen and that's purely for his vision and passing. Incredible player. I usually got bored when Barcelona dominated every match so I would focus on individual players, Xavi in particular. What a player. Unreal vision, quick turn and accuracy on the pass.. There's no midfielder like him. Give it to Xavi in the tightest situation and he will find a solution. The phrase: "eyes in the back of his head" belongs to him and him only.

Modric is most all round of the 3 and has the best longevity.

Iniesta most technically gifted and could dribble out of any tight situation. His passing was maybe better than Modric as well, at least in the final third. scored some important goals, but overall I feel Modric and Xavi offer more to a team.
 

antohan

gets aroused by tagline boobs
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
40,351
Location
Montevideo
My recollection is that Fergie was not comfortable spending 35 million on a player. It seemed like 30 million or so was his absolute limit. I don't think it was anything to do with the club's fiancial situation, he just had a certain impression of the value of money and likely felt that these kinds of fees were disgusting and possibly an insult to working class people who supported the club. That's just me, though.
Yeah, that was the "no value in the market" period. I found it compelling with Hazard and agent fees. With hindsight you would go back, pay up and get Hazard, sure, but I'm OK with the rationale and how it panned out.

Modric though... we literally didn't have a midfield. We were starting Giggs, Park, JOS, Rafael... it was bizarre how we were contemplating life after Scholes and not signing a nailed on midfield fulcrum for the next decade.

We had sold Cristiano for 80M so you couldn't really say 35M was off the charts for the right player.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
4,686
And Modric at the same time would have been? He didnt even start for Spurs in CM when he first went there. And when he left he was nowhere near the quality of Xavi at 28

Modric was also sold for 35 million euros at age 26. Barcelona never sold Xavi, he was untransferable and at 24 years old hes vice-captain of Barcelona as they win the league and then la liga player of the year in 2005.


Lets see if you remember this one
Yes but in the PL I do not think Xavi would have been appreciated either. Modric was fantastic in the PL, but only really spoken about when he joined RM.
 

Wayne's World

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
8,396
Location
Ireland
Yeah personally I'd have Xavi and Iniesta ahead of Modric, think the generation of people following football who are 20 or under don't know how absolutely incredible Xavi and Iniesta were. The two performances in the CL final against us stand out for me, they ran rings around us and anything we did didn't stop what they could do.

Modric is an absolutely incredible footballer too but just a bit below the two Barcelona boys for me
 

giorno

boob novice
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
22,904
Supports
Real Madrid
I prefer Iniesta over Xavi but they were both better than Modric. I'd submit that anyone who thinks otherwise has simply forgotten what football was like when they were ruling it.
Prefer as in, you liked watching him more than Xavi?

Because i submit that anybody who believes Iniesta was better than Xavi shouldn't be allowed to talk about this sport, myself
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
14,661
Prefer as in, you liked watching him more than Xavi?

Because i submit that anybody who believes Iniesta was better than Xavi shouldn't be allowed to talk about this sport, myself
I know a lot of people who believe that and I shake my head.

Xavi is a level above Iniesta for me.
 

giorno

boob novice
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
22,904
Supports
Real Madrid
I know a lot of people who believe that and I shake my head.

Xavi is a level above Iniesta for me.
They're not even in the same league. One was the most dominant midfielder of all time. The other was a sublime complementary player
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
14,661
They're not even in the same league. One was the most dominant midfielder of all time. The other was a sublime complementary player
Pretty much.

Iniesta's goal vs Chelsea and goal vs Holland probably sways people a lot.
 

giorno

boob novice
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
22,904
Supports
Real Madrid
Pretty much.

Iniesta's goal vs Chelsea and goal vs Holland probably sways people a lot.
I mean, he's an all time great, one of the best midfielders of all time too. Incredible big game player. Ultimately key for his teams. And his game was incredibly aesthetically pleasing and entertaining, and that tends to hold a lot of sway, and not unreasonably so either

But if we're talking pure, hard objective evidence, how good they were, how much they affected their teams success, etc...they really don't belong in the same conversation. For all his greatness, a lot of Iniesta's success and indeed legacy in the sport is tied to the fact he played on Xavi's teams, being a perfect foil for Xavi
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
51,128
Location
Hope, We Lose
Yes but in the PL I do not think Xavi would have been appreciated either. Modric was fantastic in the PL, but only really spoken about when he joined RM.
Why not? Xavi was an assist machine leading the league in the numbers. Modric was criticized for his end product not being in the same stratusphere

Who has been a midfielder that had the most assists in the league and wasnt appreciated in the premier league?
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
14,661
I mean, he's an all time great, one of the best midfielders of all time too. Incredible big game player. Ultimately key for his teams. And his game was incredibly aesthetically pleasing and entertaining, and that tends to hold a lot of sway, and not unreasonably so either

But if we're talking pure, hard objective evidence, how good they were, how much they affected their teams success, etc...they really don't belong in the same conversation. For all his greatness, a lot of Iniesta's success and indeed legacy in the sport is tied to the fact he played on Xavi's teams, being a perfect foil for Xavi
Pretty much.

Xavi's stretch from 2008 to late 2011 is the greatest stretch a midfielder(excluding attacking midfielders) ever had IMO.
 

Scarecrow

Having a week off
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
11,980
That was about 2008 group stage games mate, at the time they were good CMs, not best in the world, or anything like that.

They were not. Modric is more complete than either of them.
Are we talking about the same thing? That clip is from 2012.
 

iamking

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
90
Not sure why Iniesta is popping up in this discussion as he is a different type of player. A no non-sense dribbler, with deadly efficiency in and around the box - that's Iniesta. Yes He did make the killer pass, but he was a ball carrier who danced at the edge of the box. Only Laudrup and Messi did it better than Iniesta.

Modric is a different type of player. Xavi/Scholes would be the better comparison and off the lot of them I rate Modric slightly higher (sorry scholesy) simply because he has been deadly for far too longer. Modric is a complete midfielder and an extremely underrated one. 9 times out of 10 Modric will make the deadly progressive pass and more often than not you wont see it coming. The goal against Liverpool stems from Modric beating the monster press from Liverpool taking out almost 3 of their players and releasing the counter. His pass to Rodrygo against Chelsea with the outside of his boot was sensational. He has been doing this for over a decade. All three of them were fantastic players, but Modric just edges it, simply because he has maintained a 90+ level all of his career. Xavi had the higher peak, but Modric had the longer one in my opinion and will rate top 10 all time amongst his mold of players.
 

Dannn411

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
329
He's top 10 Central midfiders (this includes more attacking and more defensive ones as well) of all time obviously but he's still behind the creme de la creme: Zizou, Xavi, Iniesta, Matthaus.
 

Jim Beam

Gets aroused by men in low socks
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
11,949
Location
All over the place
Modric was also sold for 35 million euros at age 26. Barcelona never sold Xavi, he was untransferable and at 24 years old hes vice-captain of Barcelona as they win the league and then la liga player of the year in 2005.
:lol: I mean, you must realize how dumb this argument really is.

To make things worse Modric was captain of Dinamo Zagreb and even they sold the poor bum!
 

TenonTen

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2022
Messages
674
Supports
Neutral
Prefer as in, you liked watching him more than Xavi?

Because i submit that anybody who believes Iniesta was better than Xavi shouldn't be allowed to talk about this sport, myself
Exactly. The thing is many people who are new to Football call Xavi boring or a 4 yard passer. Iniesta has those moments of magic where he dribbles past players and people have always overrated dribbling as a skill because it looks easy on the eye.

Xavi was the heartbeat of that system and ran the game.

Iniesta was more the cherry on the top.

Xavi was the main man in that midfield.

Plus, despite Xavi playing significantly deeper he had better end product than Iniesta.
 
X