DM you didn't answer my earlier question, Nasri or Modric who's better?
I didn't see your earlier question, honestly I don't know, I've watched Modric a lot and think he's being massively over rated this season, as has Nasri. Frankly if you take 2-3 seasons into account Modric has been the better player, but both are people you really don't need in a team.
Modric's is nice but essentially for an attacking player he's not attacking enough, he's staying too deep, he looks like a great withdrawn midfielder because he can pass and has far better vision than your average midfield battler, but he's also not been anywhere near as effective as other central midfielders offensively.
He looks crap compared to Cesc in that role, and he looks world class compared to Palacios.
Over 3 seasons, Modric is better, neither are top class players.
With both players they fall into that bracket of, nice to have but why bother. When Nasri was scoring goals he was playing as a withdrawn/second striker(even though being played on the wing). His lack of wing play cost us in many games, and 10 goals for a second striker who played more than most in the team is actually poor. If he had been great all season, on the wing AND got 10 goals, great, but the only thing he offered was the 10 goals and lots of annonymous appearances.
Both Arsenal and Spurs can replace those players with players better for the role, and team, and improve, while making a profit. Think about where Nasri started, winger, but not quite fast enough, central midfield, but doesn't effect the team enough, played defensive midfield a bit, played more as a withdrawn central striker in several games and looked at his best a couple seasons ago for a run of games. Modric the same, started at wing, wasn't quite right, attacking central mid, not quite right, deeper withdrawn central midfield, not quite right.