Someone once said that in football average to good players are normally strong against the weak but sometimes weak against the strong. What defines great players is that they are, almost without exception, strong against both the weak and the strong.
That in a nutshell is Andres Iniesta. The little genius for the enormous occasions. Fernando Torres sums it up perfectly. "I've been playing with him since I was 15," he says, "And I have never seen him play badly."
Think of the last-gasp dagger to the heart of Chelsea that earned Barcelona a place in the 2009 Champions League final; or the stunning pass that put Samuel Eto'o through to score in the final against Manchester United; or perhaps the winning strike that earned Spain their first World Cup against the Dutch in 2010. Big-time games call for big-time players, and there's no-one bigger than Iniesta.
Tito Vilanova asked Iniesta what lessons he learnt the previous season. Clearly Andrés had felt that by staying on the wing, where Pep Guardiola often placed him, he was not helping the team as much as he thought he could. Tito told him not to worry.
The arrival of Jordi Alba was going to give the wing to the full back and Tito told Iniesta to pretty much do whatever he wanted - and now he is playing in freer role in midfield from where his silvery, seemingly effortless skills can terrorize defences, much like he does in the red of Spain. He is becoming even greater.
But why is he not given the credit he deserves? Well probably for a very similar reason to why Zidane has been feted as the greatest midfielder ever - primarily because he stood head and shoulders above the vast majority of players he played with. His absence from the 2002 World Cup from the French side stood out like a sore thumb.
Iniesta is a genius who just happens to have played all his life for what is arguably the greatest club side in the history of the game, who also have in Lionel Messi , probably the greatest player ever and also for a country that stands, at the moment, above any other footballing nation.
Iniesta controls games with an economy of effort, a skill and a guile that combines the passing genius of Xavi and the dribbling wizadry of Messi. While Messi is at Barcelona, Iniesta will never receive the credit he deserves, yet ironically it can be argued that without mercurial input of Iniesta, Messi would not be quite the force he is now.
But perhaps another of the reasons that he doesn't get the credit he deserves is because he doesn't have the ego of so many of the pretenders to his throne. His arrogance is reserved to his performances on the field and not his antics off it. He has never been sent off in the 10+ years he has been playing in the Barcelona first team, or while playing for his country.
Zidane's volatile nature earned him 12 red cards, the last one coming in the 2006 final for a flying butt on Materazzi that meant the Frenchman could not take a penalty in the shoot-out that followed and that France subsequently lost. On that note Zidane quit professional football. When Iniesta finally decides that enough is enough, it will almost certainly be a more appropriate departure. I know that doesn't qualify one as better than the other, but I think the rest (stats and impressions) does.
I remember saying that Gareth Bale was at his age as good as Ronaldo at his and many people dismissed the idea, which is now being mentioned by many. Or that an 18-year-old Messi was going to become one of the top three players in the world. But I also said that Reyes was better than Cristiano Ronaldo at the time (which he was) but Ronaldo since then has become a force of nature.
Saying that Iniesta is better than Zidane is as bold a statement as any of those (and perhaps impossible to demonstrate, even though I think there is enough evidence in this piece). We might not agree but I would love to hear those that disagree (and give me your reasons) and those that feel brave enough to agree.
What would football be without a good argument!