Better Player? Modric or Xavi

Better Player?


  • Total voters
    38

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
First of, I'm biased.

Second, Modric for me.
Why? He's more complete. He can blast past people, he has the acceleration and speed to go with vision, positioning and passing.
It doesn't mean he's a better player than Xavi, maybe Xavi's passing was so superior that Modric's superior acceleration doesn't matter, if you get what I'm saying.

Anyway, if someone thinks Xavi or Iniesta were better than Modric, I'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch.
The three are the best midfielders of the last 20 years, it's a toss up IMO, and Modric's legacy keeps growing with each CL Real win.
They are fantastic footballers and people even comparing them means Modric's having a brilliant career.
And it is comparison worthy, since Modric is (largely accepted) as the world's best midfielder for the last 4 years.

Third.
The biggest advantage Xavi (and Iniesta) have over someone like Modric is their international career. Modric (or anyone else not Spanish for that matter) didn't have the luxury of playing with one another (Xavi and Iniesta), Busquets, Ramos, Villa, etc... To win all those international titles.
The one time Modric had a legit chance to win a title, Matt Taylor went out and broke Eduardo da Silva, effectively killing Croatia's chances in the 2008 EURO.

Fourth.
Xavi grew up with Barca and was always part of a superstar team (it doesn't take anything from the fact that he helped make them great, he earned it, just saying he had conditions for success from the get-go).
Modric spent a lot of his career at Dinamo and then Tottenham (no offense to Spurs, but they're not exactly Real/Barca level, and certainly weren't then, even with Modric and Bale).

TLDR;
I'm biased. Modric for me. If anyone thinks Xavi, I got no problem with that. Dude was fantastic.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
To me, being complete is only part of the puzzle. Which isn't to say Modric isn't great, he's the best midfielder going.

Xavi on the other hand you can argue is the best passer of the football ever. Top three certainly. To entirely control a facet of the game to that extent is not something that should be able to be achieved in an era where players run like they now do. On top of that very rarely is a tactic invented because a team and country has players like Xavi and Iniesta. I do not think some people will realize this for decades.

That players like the three mentioned here rarely win personal honors is extremely absurd.

Xavi, Iniesta, and to a lesser extent I have to credit David Silva here for 2012, are the only reasons Spain ever won anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf and Stray Wasp

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
To me, being complete is only part of the puzzle. Which isn't to say Modric isn't great, he's the best midfielder going.

Oh I don't disagree, whether someone thinks Modric being more of an all-arounder makes up for Xavi being the superior passer, etc... Up for debate, I have no issues with people picking Xavi over Modric.

All I'm saying is that it's hard to keep the comparison in context, as Xavi's international accomplishment and the fact he spent his entire career at Barca will always murk the waters.
They came up in different conditions. By the time Xavi was 27, he was a household name on a Barca team that had an emerging Messi.
Modric at 27 just came to Real, and being honest, a player - no matter how good he was - wasn't going to become a global superstar or win 3 CLs in 4 years on Dinamo or Tottenham.
Don't get me wrong, Xavi wasn't a passenger on the great Barca teams, he was one of the reasons they were great.
But Modric didn't even have that option until he was 27 - and after he got it, after a difficult first year, he's been widely regarded as the world's best midfielder.

Like I said, I think Modric's career is as good as it could be considering he's not from a nation that has realistic chances of winning a Euro or WC, and had to grind out years in inferior leagues to even get to compete with Xavi or Iniesta.
Him being the best midfielder in the world in the last 4 years (or so widely regarded) is as about as huge as accomplishment as a player from a smaller nation could ever dream of. And being on a team that won 3 CLs in 4 years is a feat that might not be repeated for a long, long time.
(coincidentally, the only time Real faltered in the last 4 years was when Modric was injured vs Juve)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf

les Habs

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,236
3,964
Wisconsin
For a lad as smart as you are, you're quite oblivious here. Of course Modric had help, this is common knowledge and something I don't really have to say to begin with. The problem though is that Xavi was outstanding in creating goals, but you can definitely argue that Modric was more of a central factor in helping his teammates win games by the work he did at all areas of the pitch.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I might want to change my vote to Xavi. He was wonderful to watch similarly as Ronaldinho was better to watch over Lima.

Yet you have to say that Xavi had help? As for the work put in, not sure exactly what you're trying to say apart from defensive work. Modric was better at it, but Xavi still did it. You don't play for Guardiola for example and get away without putting in the work.
 

Stray Wasp

Registered User
May 5, 2009
4,561
1,503
South east London
First of, I'm biased.

Second, Modric for me.
Why? He's more complete. He can blast past people, he has the acceleration and speed to go with vision, positioning and passing.
It doesn't mean he's a better player than Xavi, maybe Xavi's passing was so superior that Modric's superior acceleration doesn't matter, if you get what I'm saying.

Anyway, if someone thinks Xavi or Iniesta were better than Modric, I'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch.
The three are the best midfielders of the last 20 years, it's a toss up IMO, and Modric's legacy keeps growing with each CL Real win.
They are fantastic footballers and people even comparing them means Modric's having a brilliant career.
And it is comparison worthy, since Modric is (largely accepted) as the world's best midfielder for the last 4 years.

Third.
The biggest advantage Xavi (and Iniesta) have over someone like Modric is their international career. Modric (or anyone else not Spanish for that matter) didn't have the luxury of playing with one another (Xavi and Iniesta), Busquets, Ramos, Villa, etc... To win all those international titles.
The one time Modric had a legit chance to win a title, Matt Taylor went out and broke Eduardo da Silva, effectively killing Croatia's chances in the 2008 EURO.

Fourth.
Xavi grew up with Barca and was always part of a superstar team (it doesn't take anything from the fact that he helped make them great, he earned it, just saying he had conditions for success from the get-go).
Modric spent a lot of his career at Dinamo and then Tottenham (no offense to Spurs, but they're not exactly Real/Barca level, and certainly weren't then, even with Modric and Bale).

TLDR;
I'm biased. Modric for me. If anyone thinks Xavi, I got no problem with that. Dude was fantastic.

This is a hearteningly good-natured post.

I hope you won't mind a correction on one point- the tackle that crippled Eduardo was disgraceful, and as such I think it important that we don't confuse our Taylors- the culprit was Martin, not Matt.
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
This is a hearteningly good-natured post.

I hope you won't mind a correction on one point- the tackle that crippled Eduardo was disgraceful, and as such I think it important that we don't confuse our Taylors- the culprit was Martin, not Matt.

Thank you for the correction. I spent a large part of 2008 trying to erase the name out of my head lol, but I think it's one of those things that will always stick with me.
Eduardo was potentially a world class striker, just coming into his own, and was never came even close to coming back to form after he recovered.
A wonderful footballer had his career ruined by a guy who probably couldn't balance the ball in the air for more than 10 seconds. (it's almost amusing that thinking about it still makes me salty, 10 years later)
 

Cassano

Registered User
Aug 31, 2013
25,610
3,818
GTA
This is a hearteningly good-natured post.

I hope you won't mind a correction on one point- the tackle that crippled Eduardo was disgraceful, and as such I think it important that we don't confuse our Taylors- the culprit was Martin, not Matt.
Arsenal probably win that title over the famous 07-08 Utd team if that doesn't happen. What a shame.
 

Miro55

Registered User
Apr 30, 2018
1
0
Modric is better. Real won 3 UCL titles (maybe will be even more) when Modric came in the club while Barca won it when Ronaldinho came and after him Messi.
Barca was nowhere near to the title before.
Beside that, Modric was as good with 20 as he is good today, Xavi wasn't.
 

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560
It's also Modric for me though I echo most of Corto's sentiments about it being subjective, and any of those three could be discussed on that level.

Still, Modric is the midfielder I prefer watching most and try to emulate. He's absolutely fantastic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miro55

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
Well. Now probably Modric :D

If I had a favorite player it would be Modric. And I’m happy he is finally getting the recognition he deserves. But Xavi was the best CM since? Best CM I have ever seen. Not saying he is the best ever, but players like Maradona I have only watched in clips.

I do recognize that Xavi played for an exceptional team well suited to his style. He would have been successful anywhere, but I could see him being slightly less effective in for example the PL (not because the league is better, but I think Xavi thrived playing with tactically better players).
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
I do recognize that Xavi played for an exceptional team well suited to his style. He would have been successful anywhere, but I could see him being slightly less effective in for example the PL (not because the league is better, but I think Xavi thrived playing with tactically better players).

Its not the club football that's the difference tbh, it's the international trophies - and it just isn't a fair comparison.
No non-Spaniard had the luxury of playing for the 2008-2012 Spain. Again, I'm not taking anything away from Xavi, he was part of the reason why they were great, not a passenger, but guys like Modric didn't have the same opportunity.

That said, one of my favorite Modric games was at EURO 2012, where he almost carried Croatia to a win over Spain (which would've knocked Spain out btw), basically on his own. It was fantastic to watch, and ultimately sad as they failed despite his efforts.
(we - Croatia - had a pretty strong penalty claim waived off... and by "strong", I mean it should've been a penalty. Spain scored on a counter in the 88th min as a 0-0 draw wasn't enough for Croatia to go through, they threw people forward, Spain scored... but a fantastic Modric performance against peak Spain; and against peak Xavi-Iniesta-Busquets)

 
Last edited:

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
I would say Xavi did more for Barcelona than Modric has for RM. Even if RM have done exceptionally well in the CL the last seasons.

It is an amazing compliment, and well deserved in my opinion, to even be compared to Xavi. As an example most ManUtd fans seem to rate Xavi higher than Scholes (based on discussions on Redcafe).

Not going to criticize Modric for anything really. To be that good you have done most things right. But he should have scored more goals. Always felt like he had a 10 goals season in him at Spurs if he had just been slightly more aggressive in and around the box. He is naturally unselfish, but that doesn't mean you can't at the same time have that edge. Then maybe I would have agreed that he was/is better than Xavi.
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
I would say Xavi did more for Barcelona than Modric has for RM. Even if RM have done exceptionally well in the CL the last seasons.

It is an amazing compliment, and well deserved in my opinion, to even be compared to Xavi. As an example most ManUtd fans seem to rate Xavi higher than Scholes (based on discussions on Redcafe).

Not going to criticize Modric for anything really. To be that good you have done most things right. But he should have scored more goals. Always felt like he had a 10 goals season in him at Spurs if he had just been slightly more aggressive in and around the box. He is naturally unselfish, but that doesn't mean you can't at the same time have that edge. Then maybe I would have agreed that he was/is better than Xavi.

Modric doesn't play that of an offensive role as he did in London. His main role is to make the transition from defense to offense and he does that better than anyone I've seen in the last 30 years - mostly because he's complete. While Xavi was the better passer, Modric has the ability to - if cornered - simply make a turn and lose people.
While I would like to see more goals, he uses a lot more energy bringing the ball up field compared to someone like Iniesta (or Kroos, in his own team) and as a results makes less runs into empty pockets of space.
So, I'm not saying you're wrong, he could have more goals - but his role in Madrid is different to what it was at Spurs or Dinamo, his game simply isn't about goals, its about enabling the transition and Ronaldo.

Also, Xavi did accomplish more with Barca - but Xavi spent his entire career at Barca.
Modric didn't have the luxury of starting out at Real, though he was already world class both at Dinamo and at Spurs.
He only came to Real at 27, missed the summer's training because of the transfer saga, struggled the first season, hit the ground running in the second part of it, and has been playing like the world's best midfielder ever since.

Ronaldo is key to their success, and the best player. But the most important player might just be Modric.
They won 0 CLs with their current team before Modric came. Since he came they lost exactly ONE TIE with him in the team (BVB 2012).
They lost vs Juve in 2015, but Modric was out injured for that.

(please don't take this like me dissing Xavi, he was a phenomenal player and I loved him - just trying to put context in and why I prefer Modric... while admitting I may be biased)
 

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
I don't agree that his role limits him that much at RM. Not saying he should be scoring goals like Lampard, but he should be scoring more than he does if he is to compare himself to Xavi in terms of "best player". As an example Casemiro scores far more goals than Modric. Kroos as well (even some of those might be from set-pieces - I don't know - not like RM are short of guys wanting to take those). Modric scores the least goals of the three because he just isn't good enough at scoring.
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
I don't agree that his role limits him that much at RM. Not saying he should be scoring goals like Lampard, but he should be scoring more than he does if he is to compare himself to Xavi in terms of "best player". As an example Casemiro scores far more goals than Modric. Kroos as well (even some of those might be from set-pieces - I don't know - not like RM are short of guys wanting to take those). Modric scores the least goals of the three because he just isn't good enough at scoring.

Yes and no.

Real's formation on attack is basically 5 attackers that force the opposing team to play deep (3 forwards who play narrow, and both fullbacks who are stand in a line with the forwards), and they open the midfield for Modric and Kroos - Kroos controls the play with passing on the left, while Modric creates passing lanes with movement and passing, mostly from the right.
Both cover for their own fullback (who plays high up the pitch, regardless if its Marcelo or Carvajal).

Whether he could score more, we can talk about that. I agree with you that he COULD have more goals.
But its not his game, and he doesn't need to score goals to fully contribute to his team, his role is to close down passing lanes on defence, create passing lanes on offense and transition the team from defence to offence.
 

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
He is the best CM in the world without scoring goals (last 2-3-4 years). He would have been among the best CMs ever if he did score them. That is my point.
 

Wee Baby Seamus

Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Mar 15, 2011
14,704
5,715
Halifax/Toronto
Its not the club football that's the difference tbh, it's the international trophies - and it just isn't a fair comparison.
No non-Spaniard had the luxury of playing for the 2008-2012 Spain. Again, I'm not taking anything away from Xavi, he was part of the reason why they were great, not a passenger, but guys like Modric didn't have the same opportunity.

That said, one of my favorite Modric games was at EURO 2012, where he almost carried Croatia to a win over Spain (which would've knocked Spain out btw), basically on his own. It was fantastic to watch, and ultimately sad as they failed despite his efforts.
(we - Croatia - had a pretty strong penalty claim waived off... and by "strong", I mean it should've been a penalty. Spain scored on a counter in the 88th min as a 0-0 draw wasn't enough for Croatia to go through, they threw people forward, Spain scored... but a fantastic Modric performance against peak Spain; and against peak Xavi-Iniesta-Busquets)

2008-12 Spain was that dominant because of Xavi though. I think it underplays his impact to just call him part of the reason - he was the lynchpin of those teams. 2012 was more Iniesta, for sure, but Xavi was the MVP on their '08 and '10 teams. That Spanish team was potentially the most dominant NT ever, and Xavi was absolutely central to that.
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
2008-12 Spain was that dominant because of Xavi though. I think it underplays his impact to just call him part of the reason - he was the lynchpin of those teams. 2012 was more Iniesta, for sure, but Xavi was the MVP on their '08 and '10 teams. That Spanish team was potentially the most dominant NT ever, and Xavi was absolutely central to that.

That's fair and I agree he was very likely their MVP.
But that doesn't change the fact that he was surrounded by world class players.
You put him on the Croatian teams of that era instead of Modric and Xavi ends up with zero trophies (only realistic shot was 2008, but Da Silva's injury put a stop to that).

I'm not in any way saying Xavi wasn't deserving of his trophies, or anything of the sort - just that using that as a comparison vs Modric in this case should be of any merit in what kind of footballer they are/were.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->