Lionel Messi - v7

[tacticvarium]

Messi - Xavi - Iniesta >>> MSN
Not even a competition between them IMO.

 

[KingLeo10]

Very interesting responses. I personally rate Messi Xavi Iniesta higher but 2015 MSN gave me a security/confidence in winning games against any opposition like no other.

At one point, we won 12 out of 13 home or AWAY big games in 2015. Atletico x 5, RM x 2, PSG X 2, City x 2, Bayern, Juve. I don't think we had that sort of results dominance even in 2011 or 2009.


I think the way 2016 and 2017 panned out soured a lot of people on just how nuclear MSN was in 2015.

2011 Ballon D'Or was Messi, CR7, Xavi, Iniesta
2015 Ballon D'Or was Messi, CR7, Ney, Suarez

 

[khaled_a_d]

My initial response was Xaviesta but looking deeper 2015 is the best version for any football team tbh. That team was so dominant and creative home and away against every type of position. With Xaviesta we were a bit vulnerable outside of home.
That being said, Iniesta was probably playing his best football in 2015 and Busquets and Rakitic were both elites too, same with 2009 (Eto/Henry in attack) and 2011 (Pedro/Villa) so there are other factors to consider. But still I think MSN was a very small margin

 

[khaled_a_d]

but for the Spanish NT Xavi was definitely the more important player. I'm not saying he was better, but he was the most important as that team collapsed the moment the guy declined despite having several good players still playing at a very high level.

Only in 2008, Iniesta was far better by clear margin in 2012, 2010 is debatable but I prefered Iniesta.

 

[bismp]

Regarding the spanish NT,I think that Iniesta was the best player in Euro 2012,but Xavi was better in 2010 and of course in 2008.Anyway,both are fantastic.

I'd take Messi-Xavi-Iniesta over MSN to be honest.

The interesting question though is 2011 Barca vs 2015 Barca in a two-legged knockout!That would be a phenomenal match-up.Although my heart says 2011,my head says that no one could stop MSN in their prime.

 

[Barcilliant]

Xavi and Iniesta are shoe-in top 5 midfielders of all time. I personally think Xavi was the better of the pair but it's splitting hairs.

Only others in this class are Zidane, Matthaus, and Rijkaard.

For me, the attacking/goal scoring no.10s are a different category. Here, it'd be Platini, Zico, Maradona etc.

What about Gullit,? Unreal player.

 

[BBZ8800]

[MENTION=16942]BBZ8800[/MENTION]

Do not want a longer debate about Iniesta/Laudrup, today/90s etc. Just a quick correction: Denmark won the Euros without Michael Laudrup who had beef with the coach.

My bad.
I skipped Euros 1992 because it was a war in my country.
I forgot about that part.

"Hes awesome, but (...)" - you know what you did there, mate.

But kind of explains why you are so harsh about Arthur and Frenkie: you have ridiculous expectations. The only year Iniesta was good after 2012 was 2015? Under Tata Martino he was sensational and rivaled Messi as our best player for example, but no title so that doesnt count? Even before his prime in 2006 he completely changed the CL final. I think Henry said some nice stuff about that.

But shockingly enough he declined after 2015. Some may call that natural though.

Imo, fans of all teams overrate their players.
For example:
If you ask Barca's fan: Messi is miles better than CR7.
If you ask RM's fan: CR7 is better due to being more clutch in key CL matches.
If you ask Barca's fan: MSN were 3 of the best players in the world in 2015. Also, Neymar was the 2nd best player in the world. Yet, when Neymar left, we joked about him.
If you ask Barca's fan: Xavi and Iniesta are 2 of the best midfielders of all time, more or less.
If you ask RM's fans: what about Zidane, Figo?
If you ask Man Utd's fans: what about Scholes, Beckham or even Giggs?
If you ask Liverpool's fans: what about Gerard?
Not to mention some other players like Totti, Kaka, Pirlo and similar.
I mean, Totti played for Roma his whole career. I used to be a fan of Barca and Roma in 90s. When Totti started to play, Roma was like 7th placed team.
Over time, they turned into a team who won Scudetto and who was in top 2-3 for 10 years in a row.
And then you have an eternal debate: which is harder:
1) to turn a 7th placed team into a Seria A winner (Totti)
2) or to turn one of top3 teams in the world (Barca) into a best team in the world (Iniesta), surrounded by Messi, Xavi and similar.
** Something similar to whether Pep is better for turning awesome clubs into even better clubs or a coach who turns a shitty 5th placed team into a title contender.

I used to love a few other teams over years also, and I have read lots of other forums, so the same pattern happens everywhere: every club overrate their players and their legends.

For me personally, I think that Xavi is in a category of all time Goats midfielders.
On the other hand, regarding Iniesta and Busi, imo, they are awesome players, but their skills and careers profited a lot from playing in a time with Messi, Xavi and being coached by Pep.

Also, regarding both Iniesta and Busi, their peak was kinda short.

Even thinking about a comparison to Rakitic and Oleguer is already insulting in so many ways

Obviously good teams/coaches make players look better but Iniesta definitely isn't the one where this should be brought up. Iniesta was pure brilliance at his peak just like Xavi.

I could see this argument made for Mascherano, Abidal, Valdes, Pedro and maybe even Busquets but not Iniesta, he was just way too good.

The principle is the same.
Let's say it this way:

Let's say that Messi's natural level of skills is 100%.
Now: if you put him in Pep's team surrounded by perfect teammates, he will play at 120% of his abilities.
So, we will actually get even more from the "original/natural Messi".
On the other hand, if you put Messi in Argentina's NT, he will be nowhere near that 120% level.
In fact, he will be way lower than his natural level (100%).
His level at Argentina is something like 90%, let's say.

Now, imagine if Messi never played for Barca, but for some weird, shitty, disfunctional clubs.
We would never see that 120% then, isn't it?
Imagine that he played for Inter his whole career.
He would be a 90% or 100% player.

Now, go to Iniesta.
Let's say that his natural level is 90%.
Now, the same applies: if he plays in the best team ever, he will look like a 110% player.
And he played in such teams at Barca during Pep and in a Spanish NT.
Imagine that for some weird reason he played for Valencia his whole life. Do you think that we would see that 110% Iniesta? No way.

Now, go to Rakitic, the same applies.
Let's say that his skills are 80%.
If he played in a well oiled team, like 2015's Barca, he will look better, like 90% skilled player.
But if you put him into EV's team, he will look even worse than his actual self. He will be a 60% player.

So, my point was: every player, no matter how average or GOAT he is, he will look better in a well oiled team.
On the other hand, if a player will play his whole career in teams like Argentina's NT or in teams like EV's or Setien's Barca, a player will never reach his full potential.

When you take into the account that Iniesta played his whole club's career with Messi, Xavi and Busi.
And in an NT together with Xavi and Busi.
Can we say with 100% certainty that he is a better player than let's say Kaka, Totti or Zidane?

I can't.
If you ask Barca's fan=our players will usually be better.
But if you ask someone neutral, it is not that simple anymore.

I mean, Totti more or less played like as a starter and key player for Roma for 23 years.
In Totti's prime years, around 2000-2002, Real Madrid wanted to buy him (during a Galactico era) but he declined due to his love towards Roma.
If Totti went to RM, he would have 2-3 CLs under his belt, a few La Ligas and a World cup title from 2006.

But he stayed in Roma, surrounded by mostly average players so he couldn't drag them all by himself.
Roma was always mostly a team without too much money.
On the other hand, we have Barca, who were always one of the richest clubs in the world, the biggest spenders in the world and we always had world record breaking transfers since Gaspart's era (or Dembele 145, Coutinho 165, Griezmann 120m today).
So, there are a lot of circumstances which have to be considered in these debates.
It is hard to measure players when some of them played in extremely rich clubs, surrounded by the most expensive players of their generation.
While others played in average teams without money and had to drag a team alone on their shoulders for 20 years.
Not to mention that the difference between big and small teams was smaller in 90s and early 00s.
After that, big teams started to earn insane amounts of money and leagues all over the world turned into 1-2 big clubs vs Mickey mouse teams with 6:0 home wins on average.
In that era, of course that all players from big clubs will look even better in league matches, since the difference between their (big) team and the rest is insane.

No offense to anyone, we all have different opinions.
For me, Xavi, Alves and Messi are GOATs of their positions.
Iniesta and Busi are awesome players, but their career's profited insanely from playing in the perfect era surrounded by perfect team and coaches.

 

[MTL_Barca]

My bad.
I skipped Euros 1992 because it was a war in my country.
I forgot about that part.



Imo, fans of all teams overrate their players.
For example:
If you ask Barca's fan: Messi is miles better than CR7.
If you ask RM's fan: CR7 is better due to being more clutch in key CL matches.
If you ask Barca's fan: MSN were 3 of the best players in the world in 2015. Also, Neymar was the 2nd best player in the world. Yet, when Neymar left, we joked about him.
If you ask Barca's fan: Xavi and Iniesta are 2 of the best midfielders of all time, more or less.
If you ask RM's fans: what about Zidane, Figo?
If you ask Man Utd's fans: what about Scholes, Beckham or even Giggs?
If you ask Liverpool's fans: what about Gerard?
Not to mention some other players like Totti, Kaka, Pirlo and similar.
I mean, Totti played for Roma his whole career. I used to be a fan of Barca and Roma in 90s. When Totti started to play, Roma was like 7th placed team.
Over time, they turned into a team who won Scudetto and who was in top 2-3 for 10 years in a row.
And then you have an eternal debate: which is harder:
1) to turn a 7th placed team into a Seria A winner (Totti)
2) or to turn one of top3 teams in the world (Barca) into a best team in the world (Iniesta), surrounded by Messi, Xavi and similar.
** Something similar to whether Pep is better for turning awesome clubs into even better clubs or a coach who turns a shitty 5th placed team into a title contender.

I used to love a few other teams over years also, and I have read lots of other forums, so the same pattern happens everywhere: every club overrate their players and their legends.

For me personally, I think that Xavi is in a category of all time Goats midfielders.
On the other hand, regarding Iniesta and Busi, imo, they are awesome players, but their skills and careers profited a lot from playing in a time with Messi, Xavi and being coached by Pep.

Also, regarding both Iniesta and Busi, their peak was kinda short.



The principle is the same.
Let's say it this way:

Let's say that Messi's natural level of skills is 100%.
Now: if you put him in Pep's team surrounded by perfect teammates, he will play at 120% of his abilities.
So, we will actually get even more from the "original/natural Messi".
On the other hand, if you put Messi in Argentina's NT, he will be nowhere near that 120% level.
In fact, he will be way lower than his natural level (100%).
His level at Argentina is something like 90%, let's say.

Now, imagine if Messi never played for Barca, but for some weird, shitty, disfunctional clubs.
We would never see that 120% then, isn't it?
Imagine that he played for Inter his whole career.
He would be a 90% or 100% player.

Now, go to Iniesta.
Let's say that his natural level is 90%.
Now, the same applies: if he plays in the best team ever, he will look like a 110% player.
And he played in such teams at Barca during Pep and in a Spanish NT.
Imagine that for some weird reason he played for Valencia his whole life. Do you think that we would see that 110% Iniesta? No way.

Now, go to Rakitic, the same applies.
Let's say that his skills are 80%.
If he played in a well oiled team, like 2015's Barca, he will look better, like 90% skilled player.
But if you put him into EV's team, he will look even worse than his actual self. He will be a 60% player.

So, my point was: every player, no matter how average or GOAT he is, he will look better in a well oiled team.
On the other hand, if a player will play his whole career in teams like Argentina's NT or in teams like EV's or Setien's Barca, a player will never reach his full potential.

When you take into the account that Iniesta played his whole club's career with Messi, Xavi and Busi.
And in an NT together with Xavi and Busi.
Can we say with 100% certainty that he is a better player than let's say Kaka, Totti or Zidane?

I can't.
If you ask Barca's fan=our players will usually be better.
But if you ask someone neutral, it is not that simple anymore.

I mean, Totti more or less played like as a starter and key player for Roma for 23 years.
In Totti's prime years, around 2000-2002, Real Madrid wanted to buy him (during a Galactico era) but he declined due to his love towards Roma.
If Totti went to RM, he would have 2-3 CLs under his belt, a few La Ligas and a World cup title from 2006.

But he stayed in Roma, surrounded by mostly average players so he couldn't drag them all by himself.
Roma was always mostly a team without too much money.
On the other hand, we have Barca, who were always one of the richest clubs in the world, the biggest spenders in the world and we always had world record breaking transfers since Gaspart's era (or Dembele 145, Coutinho 165, Griezmann 120m today).
So, there are a lot of circumstances which have to be considered in these debates.
It is hard to measure players when some of them played in extremely rich clubs, surrounded by the most expensive players of their generation.
While others played in average teams without money and had to drag a team alone on their shoulders for 20 years.

No offense to anyone, we all have different opinions.
For me, Xavi, Alves and Messi are GOATs of their positions.
Iniesta and Busi are awesome players, but their career's profited insanely from playing in the perfect era surrounded by perfect team and coaches.

Again that's valid in general but Iniesta? Really? Come on BBZ i know quarantine is driving everyone insane but let's not go that far. Just watch him play. Seriously i don't understand how someone who watches Barca could make this argument for Iniesta of all people.

Obviously everyone looks better next to Xavi and Messi but then again Xavi and Messi also looked better next to Iniesta

Comparing Rakitic to Iniesta is like comparing Semedo to Alves, just not the same level of play. At least compare him to other midfielders of his caliber like Zidane, Scholes etc and tbh i don't think many people will argue about any objective rankings here but don't mix him up with guys like Oleguer

 

[BBZ8800]

Another thing regarding: the best CM ever is:
Today when we say: a CM, we think of Xavi, Iniesta, Arthur, Modric and similar players.

The problem is: this position barely existed before Xavi and early 2000s.

In 90s, when Seria A was like a World cup, or NBA, with 7 strong teams (Milan, Juventus, Inter, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina and Parma), all teams played either:
442 in a diamond shape where midfielders were:
a left winger
defensive midfielder
a right winger
an attacking minded CAM, like Totti, Kaka, Del Piero, Roberto Baggio, Rui Costa, Boban and similar.
In attack, teams used to have 2 players who were true 9s. Or a combination of one pacey dribbler and one true no9 like (Henry-Trezeguet or Delvecchio-Batistuta) and similar.

Or, if not 442, then teams played 352 with 2 pivots and one attacking midfielder.
So, a CM from 2020 barely existed back then.

So, to some extent, it is stupid to compare Baggio and Totti with Iniesta since they had different duties on a field.
But then, if we want to compare TRUE CMs, then the only true CMs are players from 2000's till today, like Xavi, Deco, Iniesta and onwards.

A CL final from 1996:
Juve:Ajax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_UEFA_Champions_League_Final

Ajax's midfield:
Litmanen who was a CAM-CF.
Davids who was a pivot-workhorse.
Ronald De Boer, an attacking minded CAM-CF.
And Frank De boer, a CB turned into a pivot.

Juventus:
Workhorse Conte.
Workhorse Deschamps.
And Sousa.

CL final from 1999: Man Utd:Bayern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_UEFA_Champions_League_Final

Man Utd midfield:
winger Giggs
winger Blomquist
Workhorse Nicky Butt
And a winger turned to midfielder Beckham, lol.

Bayern's midfield:
Effenberg and Jeremies.

Literally, you could barely find 0-1 players in those finals who would fit under a criteria of a CM from a current era.
Those were all either pivots/workhorses, CAMs-attackers or some weird hybrids of wingers-midfielders.

So, when we are comparing Iniesta and current players with CMs from 80s or 90s, with WHOM are we actually comparing them?
Pivots back them were more like defenders who weren't technical at all.
And CAMs were like Totti, Del Piero and Baggio, totally different players than current CMs.
They played around the box, they barely defended or ran too much and their main duties were to dribble, assist, shoot from any position and score tons of goals.
Or they were English box-to-box midfielders like Vieira, Scholes, Gerard and Lampard.

 

[aragorn]

Yeah; if you say, Busquets profited & hence looked better coz of Xavi & Messi (of course Iniesta, also) it makes sense to an extent, but Iniesta is a top 5 mid fielder of all time! I mean an example cited is: Imagine Iniesta played for Valencia instead of Barcelona! Well, poor man's Iniesta, i.e., Silva played for them and now he's considered one of the best mid fielders to have played in England and an all time great!! Just imagine the hyperbole if it was Iniesta himself

 

[JohnN]

Iniesta was the only player in the world I would say was on par with Messi's dribbling ability, even more elegant and with more flair. That automatically putts him above world class. Pair that with second to none understanding of tiki taka passing and through balls. Xavi and iniesta were built for each other. I wouldn't say any was better or more dependent on the other.
What bbz said was true. Most fans will overrate players from their team. But xavi and iniesta were praised by everyone as the best duo.

 

[BBZ8800]

Yeah; if you say, Busquets profited & hence looked better coz of Xavi & Messi (of course Iniesta, also) it makes sense to an extent, but Iniesta is a top 5 mid fielder of all time! I mean an example cited is: Imagine Iniesta played for Valencia instead of Barcelona! Well, poor man's Iniesta, i.e., Silva played for them and now he's considered one of the best mid fielders to have played in England and an all time great!! Just imagine the hyperbole if it was Iniesta himself

1. you watched Iniesta week in, week out from 2008-2018.
Have you watched Baggio, Del Piero, Totti week in, week out during their peak so that you could compare them?
You probably haven't.
2. then, even if you watched all of them, which I doubt, there is again a bias towards players from a team which you love.
So, even if players were equal, fans will always lean towards the success, titles and players from their team.
Not only that, fans will often pick skills from their favorite as "more important".
Example: Iniesta was better in creation and possession that Totti.
A fan or Italy/Roma will say: Totti was better at scoring goals and creating chances.
And now, how can you debate which one is more important.
The only difference is: for Barca's fans, it is somewhat normal that a CM needs to keep possession, play TikiTaka and control a match. Scoring isn't that important for Barca's midfielder.
But then, is Barca's point of view a general point of view, and if WE love something, does it need to be the best for other teams/players also?
3. for the end, again, midfielders in 90s didn't play TikiTaka and their main goal was NOT to keep possession like today.
A game was more run and gun in the past, where midfielders were either defenders (pivots from 90s) or attacker (CAMs from 90s). Almost nobody was an actual CM like players from today.
Some will get offended, but to show how different football was in different eras, I would dare to say that Iniesta wouldn't have a clear position if he played in Italy in 90s (since Seria A was a GOAT back then).
Where would Iniesta play in a 442 diamond?
He is not an attacker.
He is too slow for a classic winger from 442.
He is not a pivot from 442.
And he is too sterile in attack (goalscoring wise) to be a true No10 (CAM) in 442 from 90s.

Or, take a look at 352 with 3 CBs, 2 fullbacks/wingers (Cafu/Dani Alves style), 2 pivots and one CAM.
Again, where would Iniesta play in a 352?
He is too soft for any midfield position in terms of defending, so he can't be a pivot.
And again, he is too sterile for a CAM in 352 who needs to score goals like crazy.

A similar analogy would be to say: a player XX is one of the best false 9s ever.
Lol.
Only a few teams ever played with a false 9 since 2009.
And a few teams here and there in the past like Dutch NT team and Cruijff's Barca in early 90s.

Also, some other positions from the past are dead today.
In the past, there used to be a sweeper in 352 formations.
A guy who played way behind other 2 CBs, and who was a last man in defense, almost playing close to a goalkeeper.
Imagine saying that some sweeper from 60s or 70s is a better defender (or a better sweeper, lol) than Puyol.
It is impossible to compare them since Puyol is not a sweeper at all.
So, sweepers from 70s can be compared ONLY with other sweepers from their era and not with modern CBs who play in a 4men defensive line and who have other duties on a field.

Or, another thing which died:
CAMs from 90s.
In the past, almost every single team had a CAM and he was the most important player on a field, a brain of every team (Del Piero, Totti, Baggio, Kaka).
Today, CAMs are a problem.
Majority of teams play with 433, and if you are a CAM like Coutinho, you suck in defense and your whole team is in problems.
In 442, even worse, how will you play with a CAM today against 433?
A team with 433 will eat you alive due to 442 (only 2 true CMs), and even then, one out of those 2 CMs is a CAM who doesn't defend.
So, a position which was the most important in 90s, is a total liability in 2020.

Another thing which died is a 2men attack with 2 No9s.
Look at a CL final from 1998, Real vs Juve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_UEFA_Champions_League_Final

Real's attack:
Raul, Mijatovic and Morientes. All 3 players CFs/CAMs.
Juve's attack:
Del Piero-Inzaghi, with Zidane as a CAM behind them.

So, both teams had 3 players who play in the middle, around the box.
ZERO wingers, like today where in 433 ALL teams have 1 guy in the middle and 2 wingers.
Look at teams from back then: they all had 2 classic CFs (either 2 no9s or 1 no9 and 1 creative attacker like Del Piero/Mijatovic).
And then, someone could say: a player XX is a best LW of all time.
Lol.
What does that even mean?
We have a LW position since Ronaldinho more or less, in the last 15-20 years.
Who was a LW in 80s or 90s? Nobody. That position didn't exist except in some rare clubs like Ajax or Barca (here and there, since even we played 442 in 90s and 00s).

So, let's go back to CMs and Iniesta: from today's point of views, it seems perfectly reasonably to expect from a CM to play like Iniesta, Xavi, Modric, Arthur and similar.
In 90s, those players wouldn't play or they would be shifted to some other positions (like Xavi who was a CDM back then).

So, as explained above, there are a lot of problems:
1. there is always a recency bias, where players from the last 10-15 years are always ranked higher than players from the past
2. there is a bias based on which club do you like, so it will always be: Pep's era vs 4 CLs for Real. Messi or CR7. Iniesta or Modric. Scholes or Xavi. Del Piero or Iniesta. Zidane or Iniesta etc.
3. and then there is this thing that football evolves over time and some positions which were crucial in the past, don't exist at all today (2 CFs or a CAM).
4. and also, football is different today, so players need different skills today: suddenly we have LWs who need to track back (Pedro). Or Goalkeepers (Mats) who have better passing skills than pivots from 90s.
Or CMs who don't need to score goals anymore, but just keep the ball, resist press and recycle possession (Barca DNA midfielders).

So, if we talk about press resistance and recycling possession, Iniesta is surely better than Totti, Del Piero and similar.
But if we talk about an impact around the box and shooting, scoring, assists, then it is a different story.

When I was a teen, Totti was my teen idol (I was a fan of both Barca and Roma), so I watched both our players and Totti for years.
And imo, it is extremely hard to compare Iniesta from the richest club in the world, surrounded by the best teammates ever, and playing in a 433 with different rules, to a guy who played for shitty Roma in 90s and 00s, with average teammates, in 352 or 442, as a CAM, with totally different duties on a field.
For Barca's footballing view, scoring goals as a midfielder is not THAT important.
** Also, should we add skills like: being a captain, mental strength, not sulking, fighting with everyone etc?
But again, imagine watching this week in, week out, from your captain, doing this shit and trolling everyone for 20 years in a row for a team who was mostly a 7th placed team before he started to play:

 

[mc_lovin]

You just try to bend the criteria one way or another. Iniesta was pure technical brilliance. Thats all that really matters, and which puts him up there with the (very) best. Theres no need to relativize. Totti and co have been brilliant players in their own right though.

 

[Arnaez]

Imo Xavi has an argument for best CM of all time, Iniesta was more a great of his generation.

 

[Daisymorr]

Iniesta had more skill and more strings to his bow but Xavi was the best player i can ever remember at running a game from start to finish.

Iniesta was an outrageously talented player but Xavi did the simple things so well that his consistency was unrivaled in my opinion.

For me, Xavi the best and Iniesta a half a step down just because sometimes he wasn't as reliable as Xavi.