Football XXV

[Mathis]

Call me crazy if you want.

You're crazy. The WC is what,7 games?

Xavi and Iniesta are incredible. But they aren't as good as Messi. They just aren't.

You're point about Cannavaro winning is fair enough I suppose; since he won on the back of the WC then so should one of Spain's players. But then I don't think Cannavaro deserved it either.

The award is for the best player of the year, not the player who won the most/biggest trophies.

IMO, based on their performances in 2010, Ronaldo and Wesley Sneijder and maybe even Arjen Robben deserve to be on the shortlist ahead of Iniesta.

Edited 'cause I can't spell.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Messi may be more physically talented, but Xavi is more important to the overall success of Barcelona. Without Xavi, there's no tiki taka. Without him, Barcelona doesn't get its 70% possesion. Without him, Barcelona becomes Arsenal. Without Messi, Barcelona becomes Spain.

[MercenaryChef]

Messi may be more physically talented, but Xavi is more important to the overall success of Barcelona. Without Xavi, there's no tiki taka. Without him, Barcelona doesn't get its 70% possesion. Without him, Barcelona becomes Arsenal. Without Messi, Barcelona becomes Spain.

xavi does distribute the ball well. i love him for that. but, mighty christ, messi is just a dream to watch play. he just keeps running and running. his ability to move through defenders, around defenders, all the while keeping the ball and taking phenomenal shots on goal truly takes me breath. i giggle when i see him play like that. and all the while he has the goofy smile of a child with a soccer ball. brilliant.

and even without messi and xavi barca still has a very staunch and stingy defense. arsenal hasn't got anything like that. well, not since that amazing run in 03-04.

[Slick Mongoose]

Messi's talents aren't worlds away from Xavi's, just different and more flashy. And I think failing when it counts is a major problem.

And I can't believe people dismiss the World Cup just like that. It's by some distance the biggest and most important tournament is the world.

[mormont]

This notion that Iniesta didn't have a good WC until the final is bizarre, to me. His passing and movement were superb. He was clearly one of the outstanding players of the tournament even before the final. It's a little unfair to compare him to Messi, who unlike Iniesta was normally double-marked and had a coach whose limited tactical nous made his job more difficult. And it's true also that the Spain team was a collective endeavour - Villa was important, but so was Busquets, for example (without him and Alonso, Xavi and Iniesta could not have played so far forward. Nor could the team have essentially carried Torres for so long, or used such attack-minded but defensively limited full-backs as Capdevila and Ramos).

Anyway, without digressing into a breakdown of the whole Spain WC campaign, the point is that Iniesta played extremely well. He was a worthy nominee.

[BigFatCoward]

Messi's talents aren't worlds away from Xavi's, just different and more flashy. And I think failing when it counts is a major problem.

And I can't believe people dismiss the World Cup just like that. It's by some distance the biggest and most important tournament is the world.

yes, but if you use the world cup as the main reason for the award then only players from 4 or 5 nations have any chance of winning the award in a world cup year. the award is for the whole year, not 4 weeks in july. messi scored or assisted in 80 goals this year. a phenomenal achievement which as pointed out above could only really be challenged by ronaldo (who while we probably all agree is a total douchebag is also a phenomenal player). i love the other 2 barca players, i really do. but messi is a once in a generation footballer, they are clearly not.

[mormont]

Xavi 'clearly' isn't a 'once in a generation footballer'? On what grounds? His passing is absolutely phenomenal. The most successful club and international teams on the planet are built around that alone as their central ingredient. Take a look at his stats for the WC alone: no other player even attempted, let alone completed, anything like as many passes and no other player delivered so many balls into the box. He doesn't score an awful lot of goals, but that's not his game. How many players in this generation are of comparable influence? Messi, arguably CRonaldo... anyone else?

[Renasko]

Paul Scholes, Frank Lampard?

ETA: Andrea Pirlo.

[mormont]

Paul Scholes, Frank Lampard?

Are you joking?

[Renasko]

If you're talking about successful passers of the ball, who're highly influential in their use of possession, then, no.

[The Inquisitor]

Xavi 'clearly' isn't a 'once in a generation footballer'? On what grounds? His passing is absolutely phenomenal. The most successful club and international teams on the planet are built around that alone as their central ingredient. Take a look at his stats for the WC alone: no other player even attempted, let alone completed, anything like as many passes and no other player delivered so many balls into the box. He doesn't score an awful lot of goals, but that's not his game. How many players in this generation are of comparable influence? Messi, arguably CRonaldo... anyone else?

I just want to add the following.

As most of you know, I am a Real Madrid "socio". So where my sympathies lie are self-evident.

I have seldom seen a player such as Xavi. In my opinion he has been the most valuable player on the wolrd in the last 4 years.

The only player I have seen with a similar ability to read a game in the recent past, to know when to hold the ball and when to release it, when to increase the rythm of the game and when to slow it down, when to press positionally and when to use the ball as a last recourse under press, when to alternate between long and short passes, when to be vertical or not, etc. has been Zidane. Zizou might have been ridiculously more tecnichally gifted -as a matter of fact, has there been someone as technically gifted as him?- but I feel that tactically and in terms of understanding a game, Xavi is his superior.

Most importantly, he makes those decisions and completes most of his passes where it is the most difficult: in the three quarters line.

If I was a tycoon a la Abramovich and wanted to create a dream team from scratch, the first player I'd build my team around would be Xavi. Not Messi, not CR. Phenomenal as they are.

Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard, Pirlo, Sneijder etc are excellent players. But they havent yet been able to drive their club and national side to every single bloody tournament there is in the last 4 years. Not only that. Just consider the style in which he has been able to do so.

It is a bloody bliss -to my chagrin- to see Barça play and a bloody bliss - to my delight- to see Spain play under Xavi's direction.

He won't ever score 30+ goals in a season a la Messi & CR, but he plays football like I've seldom seen in a pitch. As a Madrid socio, if I had to pick only one fellow from Barça's roster to add to my team, Xavi it is.

It is a dream for me to see Xavi play.

[Slick Mongoose]

Incidentally, has a full-back ever won the award?

[mormont]

If you're talking about successful passers of the ball, who're highly influential in their use of possession, then, no.

Well, I might have been a bit harsh, but while both Scholes and Lampard are good players, they are simply not in the same class as Xavi in these aspects of their game. (Particularly Lampard, whose passing accuracy is not really his main strength.)

Compare and contrast their international careers to those of Xavi and Messi. The defining feature of Lampard's career has been an argument over whether he should be dropped to get the best out of another player (Gerrard). That's not exactly the hallmark of a 'once in a generation player'. Scholes, to a lesser extent, had the same problem - he was often played on the left, or in other positions he didn't favour, in order to accommodate other players or the coach's preferred tactics. Neither ever reached the stage that Messi and Xavi are at, of being the defining player of the team, not only the first name on the team sheet but the 'marquee player' the team was built around. Scholes and Lampard are amongst the best English players of their generation, but that does not by any means make them 'once in a generation players'.

[Renasko]

As a Madrid socio, if I had to pick only one fellow from Barça's roster to add to my team, Xavi it is.

Might Real then beat Barca if they had Xavi in their team? :D

It's not been long since the last one, but I'm already hugely anticipating the next encounter between the two. Madrid's form makes them hard to write off with full confidence.

[The Inquisitor]

Might Real then beat Barca if they had Xavi in their team? :D

It's not been long since the last one, but I'm already hugely anticipating the next encounter between the two. Madrid's form makes them hard to write off with full confidence.

I have no doubt.

I'm also anticipating the next go at the Bernabeu. We were outgunned, outclassed and outplayed last time. They simply played us out of the pitch, incidentally under Xavi's lead. ;)

After that rout, I'm praying they play even better than last time and that we maul them this time around.

[Calibandar]

Kiko

How can you be the best in the world in this year if you are a complete failure in the WC that year?

Football is a team sport. That Argentina as a team did not do as well as Spain on the WC does not mean Messi is not the best player in the world.

The award handed out to Messi is the one for best football player in a year. Not best football player during the 4 World Cup weeks in the summer.

I don't even think Argentina's " failure" should be held against Messi. Plenty of great players won this award even though they did not become world champion.

Loras

Messi, as good as he is, was an utter failure at the WC. That rules him out as a candidate in my book. Call me crazy if you want.

You're not crazy, just extremely biased. :)

Seriously, you are really overrating the WC for this award. I love the tournament as well, but what you are doing is too much. I agree with you that Cannavaro should not have won. That was a mistake. It's good that they did not make * another* mistake by electing Iniesta or Xavi, who throughout the year, stand in the shadow of the world's greatest player. It would have been absurd if Messi had not won. To my mind, the fact that they still chose Messi to win in this year, despite the fact that there is pressue on them to chose WC star players, shows how exeptional he is.

Merecenarychef:

anyone who has followed football for any amount of time can clearly see messi's talents are worlds away from xavi or iniesta as good as these lads may be.

Exactly. Well, worlds away is a bit overstated, but certainly there is a major difference there.

Also, any statements as to which one of the Barca players is most essential to it's success is far too speculative. No one can say what player Barca could least afford to lose. I would guess it's Messi though. In a similar way that Man U's lost much of their magic since Ronaldo left.

[polishgenius]

Well, I might have been a bit harsh, but while both Scholes and Lampard are good players, they are simply not in the same class as Xavi in these aspects of their game. (Particularly Lampard, whose passing accuracy is not really his main strength.)

I'd disagree with Scholes, although I am a fanboy. He ran our midfield similarly to Xavi for Barca for years, and we're still better now when he's playing and on form than when he's not. One of the reasons I'm such a fan of Xavi is because he reminds me of Scholes.

As for being farmed out to the left, that's because England managers are stupid (or rather playing to a media and public who by and large haven't historically appreciated subtlety, though they're coming round). Alex Ferguson, who knows a thing or two, did in fact build his team around Scholes, to the point where at one point Scholes told him to pick between him or Veron- which saw Veron promptly shuttled out of the side.

I don't think Xavi's a once in a generation player in terms of sheer usefulness but the way he plays in terms of being able to run the rhythm of a game with both long and short-passing is very rare. For me there's Scholes and Xavi and atm, no-one else. Pirlo and Alonso come close but they're much more deep-lying, longer-pass players, I don't think they can mix it up quite as much. Modric, Sneijder and Schweinsteiger are also near that level but don't quite have the level of intricacy, though they may still get there.

And I think Jack Wilshere might, of the younger lot. Dunno about players from abroad. But certainly not all of them will.

Lampard shouldn't be in the conversation, he's probably the best player of the last 10 years who isn't Xavi on consistency, but although his passing's very good he's not one of the great ones- capable of great ones but won't run a game with it.

[mormont]

I'd disagree with Scholes, although I am a fanboy. He ran our midfield similarly to Xavi for Barca for years, and we're still better now when he's playing and on form than when he's not. One of the reasons I'm such a fan of Xavi is because he reminds me of Scholes.

Scholes has a lot to offer that Xavi doesn't, primarily goals, of course. But at the same time, I don't rate his passing as highly as Xavi's, for all of the reasons Loras mentions above. And I'd quibble about whether the Man U side was ever 'built around' him. It seems to me that SAF tends to build his sides around getting the most out of his forward players: CRonaldo, van Nistelrooy, the Cole/Yorke partnership, even Cantona. Scholes has been asked to play in the way that best supports these guys, rather than the other way around. That he has been able to do so consistently shows how crucial he has been to Man U over the years (and of course, all of those guys have moved on while Scholes has been retained): but it also shows that he is not the 'marquee player' that Xavi or Messi have become.

ETA - in fact the better comparison is probably between Scholes and Iniesta, in many ways.

As for being farmed out to the left, that's because England managers are stupid (or rather playing to a media and public who by and large haven't historically appreciated subtlety, though they're coming round).

Not buying this, I'm afraid. The mark of a once-in-a-generation player is surely that their talents are so obvious they cannot be denied by a manager or ignored by the public. Xavi, after all, is no CRonaldo or Beckham, not a pretty footballer or one who scores spectacular goals - not, in short, the type one would expect the Spanish fans to take to their hearts. But his talents speak for themselves.

Pirlo is an excellent contrast that highlights what I'm talking about, actually. I'm a big fan. I love to watch him play. His passing is wonderful. Italian managers and club managers have in fact built sides around him, or tried to. But he's not a once-in-a-generation player. For all his ability, he's never really made any of those sides tick in the way that Xavi does with Barcelona and Spain. He's an outstanding player, but not on that level.

[polishgenius]

But at the same time, I don't rate his passing as highly as Xavi's, for all of the reasons Loras mentions above.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, coz that reasoning is exactly why I rate Scholes as highly. For me one of, if not the, best seasons he had for us was 06/07, where he played much deeper and scored a whole two goals (and didn't even get many assists) - but absolutely ran the midfield; I rated him higher than Ronaldo that year at the time. The ability to pick when to play it safe, when to pass it long and when to thread a tricky one, and the ability to relieve pressure on a team-mate by popping up in the right position to recieve a pass then turn it straight back round into another attack by finding the player in the best space is exactly the thing I think marks the both of them out.

The thing that Xavi does have over him is the ability to run and tussle physically, which is why Scholes tends to play either deep-lying or directly attacking and therefore shifts around according to needs while Xavi is more box-to-box. I'm not saying Scholes is as good a player as Xavi- for all my hero-worship I rated Keane higher than him and Xavi is the best midfielder since Keane- I just think you're wrong on the passing.

Seriously, you can't directly compare Spain and England. Xavi just about epitomises the Spanish football culture- they're receptive to him. The English has traditionally been about dynamism and getting about the pitch, which is not one of Scholes' strengths.

[kuroishi]

Pirlo is an excellent contrast that highlights what I'm talking about, actually. I'm a big fan. I love to watch him play. His passing is wonderful. Italian managers and club managers have in fact built sides around him, or tried to. But he's not a once-in-a-generation player. For all his ability, he's never really made any of those sides tick in the way that Xavi does with Barcelona and Spain. He's an outstanding player, but not on that level.

I'm not so sure about that... I'd rate Pirlo (at his best) as an equal to Xavi. Xavi's asset is that he's playing in teams that are a perfect fit to his way of playing football, and are directly built around him and the philosophy he's learnt from his very first football class. Not so much for Pirlo who's sometimes had to drag teams along (but still led his national team to a WC victory and his club to incredible CL campaigns.)