CatalinR10
Senior Member
I didn't follow Zidane through whole his career but was he at one point as inconsistent as Iniesta, for a long period of time ?
Ini8
¡Gr?*cies Xavi!
As I remember it, he was very inconsistent well into his 30's. His season leading up to the WC 2006 was his worst.
Ini8
¡Gr?*cies Xavi!
Nostalgia.
F
Flavia
Guest
Iniesta has had a far better career than Zidane. And Zidane had the luck of not having someone like Messi to outshine him.
Would you put Arbeloa over Zidane then? Trophies doesnt neccessarily say much about individual quality.
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
Iniesta had the talent and skill as well though. So having the more decorated career allows him to edge a comparison against Zidane.
Arbeloa, not so much.
StarLord
New member
Iniesta definitely takes it over Zidane:
a) Superior career.
b) More consistent performances.
Zidane (as you very rightly point out) also had the good fortune of not having a player like Messi (or even Ronaldo and Xavi) around to inevitably outshine him. Zidane's legend has been irrationally supercharged by a few clutch moments such as the CL final goal and WC headers. Iniesta has those clutch moments as well, but also far more consistent performances in the big games. Anyone who has been following Iniesta over the years will attest that his main attribute was to play extremely well against the toughest opponents that Barca/Spain ever faced.
If we had peak Iniesta during this season, I would consider us overwhelming favorites for the Treble, since our forward line cannot really fully be utilized due to our nefound weakness in midfield.
Far more consistent overall, yes, big games? I dont know, you cant deny Zidane was very good in the big games as well.
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
He was, which is why he is rated so highly, I'd go on to say he is overrated when is put up there together with the likes of Maradona, Pele and co.
When he retires iniesta will be rated just as highly if not more so than Zidane simply because he's adored by the sporting media and they'll gush over him forever and ever. Once he retires we won't remember this season or any bad moments and if you only remember Iniesta's good moments his career is only surpassed by Maradona and Pele. Cause of the world cup loss right now Iniesta's Career looks more picturesque than Messi's even (Not saying he's better just saying achievement + big game moment wise).
mark1nhu
New member
Zidane retired playing a very good World Cup. His game against Brazil, for instance, was just superb. One of the classiest moments of World Cup history.
And he also makes to the final.
I think the last impression will be CRUCIAL to place him above Iniesta in football history, despite that Materazzi incident.
It is unfair, but depressing final moments of career could have a high impact at the overall impression we had of a player history.
And he also makes to the final.
I think the last impression will be CRUCIAL to place him above Iniesta in football history, despite that Materazzi incident.
It is unfair, but depressing final moments of career could have a high impact at the overall impression we had of a player history.
BBZ8800
Senior Member
He was a Late Bloomer. Almost unknown till the Uefa Cup final with Bordeaux in 1996.
Then he went to Juventus, and he was a key man there.
Juve won titles in 97 and 98, and lost Champions league finals in 97 and 98.
He was a key man in 1998 when France won the World cup, and with Henry and Trezeguet, he was a part of golden trio that again won Euro 2000, achievement that no team managed till then (Spain achieved it later).
So, in those years, he was something like Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, winning domestic titles, winning a World cup and Euro, and playing in 2 CL finals in a row.
And he was also the best in all key matches, he was never missing or hiding.
Around 2000s, 3 best players in the world were: Zidane, Figo and Rivaldo.
Real bought Figo, and then even Zidane. (Compared to today, he was something like Messi or CR, and better than Ney, Hazard, Reus, Koke or similar)
-- so, he would cost 100-120 Millions today, roughly
Even then, when Seria A was the strongest league in the world (90ies and early 2000s), Juventus decided to sell him only for an insane 75 Millions Euros.
(Again, in those days prices were much lower, so that would really be something like 100-120-130 Millions today for a 29 years old player).
About Real, in those years, La Liga was different, and it wasn't a 2 horse-race.
Deportivo and Valencia were insanely strong in that era.
But again, that was because La Liga wasn't as popular as today.
Seria A was the most popular and the richest league back then.
And EPL and La liga were on the 2nd place.
So, Barca and Real weren't as rich as today, and because of that other teams were able to catch up, unlike today.
(So, when someone says that Neymar scores XX goals, or that Barca is winning 100s of points, that is not too fair comparison, because those were different times, and it was impossible for Barca to win 100 points and score 100s of goals, because we didn't have money for Neymar, Suarez and similar players back then.)
But Italian government introduced too high taxes in early 2000's and then Italian teams weren't able to pay huge wages to their players anymore, and then Seria A died, and all top players were starting to play in La Liga and EPL, like today.
Anyway, Zidane was an absolute superstar back then. Like CR7 today.
And even his years in Madrid were good.
La Liga champions in those days were:
2000 Deportivo
2001 Real
2002 Valencia
2003 Real
2004 Valencia
2005 Barca with Rijkaard, Laporta, Ronaldinho, Etoo
So, imo:
= it isn't too fair to compare La Liga titles then and NOW.
Today, a team other than Barca and Real will win 1 title in 15-20 years (like Atletico did last year).
But again, back then, winning La liga wasn't "as easy" as today.
Also, Real won La Liga with Zidane in 2003, and CL in 2002 thanks to his spectacular goal in a final.
So, imo, saying that Zidane won only 2 major titles with Real is the same as saying: but Ronaldinho also won only 2 La ligas and 1 CL with Barca in 5 years.
(And again, in Ronnie's time, La liga already turned into a two horse-race, unlike in Zidane's case)
He was an example of a Late Bloomer.
His "world class career" was from 96-2003, with best years 1998-2003.
He was a granny in his last years, don't look at those matches.
Plus, in his last years, the whole Galacticos project crashed when they had 32-34 aged players like Ronaldo, Raul, Figo, Zidane, Beckham.
He was poor then, the same as Ronaldinho after 2006 when our whole team crashed...
Last edited:
Alik
Moderator
Zidane didn't have to compete with Messi and Ronaldo. If he did, he wouldn't have those awards. Not to mention the Ballon d'or was a separate award, which now it isn't.
As for the best European player in the last 50 years Uefa award, it was done in 2004, at the last stages of Zidane's career whilst Iniesta had broken through yet.
Even so, Iniesta has:
FIFA Ballon d'Or: 2nd place 2010, 4th Place 2011, 3rd Place 2012
Again, Messi is a game changer: "The best player ever". Plus looking back, we can say that Barca's team was superior to Madrids. Being 2nd or 3rd best in that team isn't really a disadvantage imo. Nobody can say that Iniesta was not a key man.
Reading this, I just wondered, do you agree with me or not?
I think we both agree that Zidane will be perceived to be the greater player by the public. But that is a result of circumstances beyond the player's talent and performance.
Last edited:
Home of Barca Fans
