401 replies to this topic

[Rane]

baxus, on 19 April 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

i'm sorry, but drogba saw enough of barca's half to score one on them

And dive and roll on the ground many, many, many times.

[polishgenius]

If Barca were the footballing dieties they're sometimes made out to be, they'd have long ago found some solution to their weakness to massed defences and quick counters. Instead as the passing grows ever more obsessive that vulnerability only grows and their propensity to claim the moral victory when a team refuses to play into their hands is one of the reasons I dislike them so much.

I don't remember anyone claiming a victory for anti-football when Newcastle did exactly the same thing to Swansea a few weeks ago.

[kuroishi]

polishgenius, on 19 April 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

If Barca were the footballing dieties they're sometimes made out to be, they'd have long ago found some solution to their weakness to massed defences and quick counters. Instead as the passing grows ever more obsessive that vulnerability only grows and their propensity to claim the moral victory when a team refuses to play into their hands is one of the reasons I dislike them so much.

I don't remember anyone claiming a victory for anti-football when Newcastle did exactly the same thing to Swansea a few weeks ago.

To be fair, I'm not sure any team in history has ever found the solution to playing against a 10-men defense, except do the exact same thing. (and I'd rather watch Barça try and fail to find solutions through their usual game than watch two teams doing exactly nothing for 90 min+. I still have horrible memories of a France-Romania during Euro 2008...)

[Calibandar]

Quote

I don't know that it was that bad a display from Chelsea

Well they got a result, and that's what they wanted. They had to play like cowards and ride their luck from start to finish to get that result, but they got it.

It would be easy to say Chelsea got the result in a way that any team should be able to get that result. But that clearly isn't the case, it takes a particular sort of team to adjust to such a defensive tactic, a physically strong and disciplined team like this Chelsea side, and I can see why people can appreciate what they accomplished. If you ask United , Arsenal or even Man City to play like this against Barca, they aren't going to make it. But Chelsea is already a fairly boorish side that plays a lot of uninspiring football anyway, so playing like this didn't require much adjustment from them.

I agree though that Barca itself was unimpressive. Yes they create some chances, but they weren't in great form were they? In difficult matches there is a lot of reliance on Messi, with David Villa out and Zlatan and Samuel Eto'o gone, the team doesn't have any great strikers left. In the Primera, they're often playing Fabregas upfront, and Sanchez isn't a real striker either, more of a winger. I just feel the only flaw in the Barca team is that they lack a proper goalscorer next to Messi. They need Iniesta to put one in the back of the net. Pedro or Cuenca will score the occasional goal as well. It's always dangerous to criticize the best team in the world, especially if they play the best football as well, but I do think the missing striker is their only flaw, someone with a bit of size as well perhaps, so that they change tactics when things aren't working out. I always thought Eto'o was just a tremendous fit in the Barca team, since he left Messi has had to rise to astounding and really quite insane goalscoring numbers.

On another Barca note, the youngster Tello is a phenomenal talent btw, he is going to be very big.

Edited by Calibandar, 19 April 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[ljkeane]

polishgenius, on 19 April 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

If Barca were the footballing dieties they're sometimes made out to be, they'd have long ago found some solution to their weakness to massed defences and quick counters. Instead as the passing grows ever more obsessive that vulnerability only grows and their propensity to claim the moral victory when a team refuses to play into their hands is one of the reasons I dislike them so much.

They've lost three games all season in the league and Champions League combined and they're the reigning European champions, I'm not sure they're that vulnerable. They had one subpar performance and still probably should have won away in a European semifinal.

[polishgenius]

kuroishi, on 19 April 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

To be fair, I'm not sure any team in history has ever found the solution to playing against a 10-men defense, except do the exact same thing. (and I'd rather watch Barça try and fail to find solutions through their usual game than watch two teams doing exactly nothing for 90 min+. I still have horrible memories of a France-Romania during Euro 2008...)

I'm pretty certain if Chelsea played that way against us, we probably wouldn't lose. And I'm not suggesting we're a better team than Barca by that. We just have players who will force their way down the side and bang a cross into the box, or wriggle into space and shoot from distance, and, perhaps most importantly (and I'm fairly sure central to the reason we score so many late ones) we're not afraid to gamble our possession on the edge of the area, because we know how to position players to follow up any resultant loose ball and win it back. Whereas Barca are afraid of that. Which is odd, considering how good they are at winning the ball back in general.

Arsenal used to have the exact same issue and now they don't. Granted now they have other ones but those are largely defensive or squad issues caused by losing two key midfielders in summer, they no longer look baffled when teams shut up shop.

[Darth Arya]

Rane, on 19 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

And dive and roll on the ground many, many, many times.

Makes a change from it being Sergio Busquets at least.

[ljkeane]

polishgenius, on 19 April 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

I'm pretty certain if Chelsea played that way against us, we probably wouldn't lose. And I'm not suggesting we're a better team than Barca by that. We just have players who will force their way down the side and bang a cross into the box, or wriggle into space and shoot from distance, and, perhaps most importantly (and I'm fairly sure central to the reason we score so many late ones) we're not afraid to gamble our possession on the edge of the area, because we know how to position players to follow up any resultant loose ball and win it back. Whereas Barca are afraid of that. Which is odd, considering how good they are at winning the ball back in general.

Barcelona have won against teams adopting these tactics plenty of times, it's been the go to tactic for teams in Europe against them for a while. They find it more difficult than playing open games, unsurprisingly, but they still win far more often than not. I think you're inflating a problem that I really think only exists as a relative issue to how amazing they are when teams don't park the bus to make a positive comparison between United and Barcelona that I'm not sure is even true. Teams may defend a bit more against United than they usually do but they rarely go as defensive as Chelsea were in this game because, honestly, their attacking game isn't remotely as good as Barcelona's.

Edited by ljkeane, 19 April 2012 - 03:35 PM.

[polishgenius]

Calibandar, on 19 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

I just feel the only flaw in the Barca team is that they lack a proper goalscorer next to Messi.

Can you imagine il fenomeno in his '96-97 shape and form in the Barcelona team now? Can't even imagine how many goals he'd score.

[polishgenius]

ljkeane, on 19 April 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

They find it more difficult than playing open games, unsurprisingly, but they still win far more often than not.

Well, yes. I'm not suggesting that they're anything other than the best team in the world (though not by as big a margin as they were).

What I am taking issues with is when people say things like this:

Quote

I just feel the only flaw in the Barca team

They definitely have more than one flaw. Even if we don't count being a bunch of smug diving tossers as a flaw.

[baxus]

Rane, on 19 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

And dive and roll on the ground many, many, many times.

i guess it can get annoying when it is in such a contrast to barca's "stay on your feet no matter what happens" approach to football...
seriously, barca's players roll on the ground at least as much as any other team's, if not more, so this "drogba is a diving prick and therefore chelsea ruined the game" does not hold water.

polishgenius, on 19 April 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

If Barca were the footballing dieties they're sometimes made out to be, they'd have long ago found some solution to their weakness to massed defences and quick counters. Instead as the passing grows ever more obsessive that vulnerability only grows and their propensity to claim the moral victory when a team refuses to play into their hands is one of the reasons I dislike them so much.

i don't know what barcelona matches you've been watching, but they very rarely allow opponent to get on a counter attack.
it does happen from time to time, but it takes a pretty good team to catch them that much off guard since the moment they lose the ball they start pressing the opponent to try to force a mistake and get the ball back. that working is one of the reasons they can get up to 70% possession (and more).

Calibandar, on 19 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Well they got a result, and that's what they wanted. They had to play like cowards and ride their luck from start to finish to get that result, but they got it.

I agree though that Barca itself was unimpressive. Yes they create some chances, but they weren't in great form were they? In difficult matches there is a lot of reliance on Messi, with David Villa out and Zlatan and Samuel Eto'o gone, the team doesn't have any great strikers left. In the Primera, they're often playing Fabregas upfront, and Sanchez isn't a real striker either, more of a winger. I just feel the only flaw in the Barca team is that they lack a proper goalscorer next to Messi. They need Iniesta to put one in the back of the net. Pedro or Cuenca will score the occasional goal as well. It's always dangerous to criticize the best team in the world, especially if they play the best football as well, but I do think the missing striker is their only flaw, someone with a bit of size as well perhaps, so that they change tactics when things aren't working out. I always thought Eto'o was just a tremendous fit in the Barca team, since he left Messi has had to rise to astounding and really quite insane goalscoring numbers.

i wouldn't say that team who willingly give the control of the match to barca are playing cowardly. i would call that style unattractive, but not cowardly. think about it - you know what these guys are capable if given the chance and you CHOOSE to give them the opportunity to create chances and are confident you will manage to cancel their chances. i'd call that pretty brave play actually.

and i completely agree that barca needs another striker, and that their big mistake was letting eto'o go (especially when you consider they gave eto'o AND an insane amount of money in return for ibrahimovic)

[Eloisa]

baxus, on 19 April 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

chelsea sat back and tried to catch barca on breakaways - a legitimate football tactics, though not very interesting to watch.

I actually thought the contributions of both teams, put together, made it a fascinating match.  Just the contrast between both sides' play was stunning.  Sure, Chelsea weren't playing pretty football - but the particular kind of ugly football they were playing, when combined with Barca's lovely fluid game, had a really nice aesthetic feel - I spent quite a portion of the game staring at the patterns.

(This disregards the first five to ten minutes, which was crap.)

baxus, on 19 April 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

barca is the more likely team to go through, mostly because the chances of them missing as many shots as they did last night are slim to none.

Agreed.

[mormont]

Eh, I'm not sure retaining Eto'o would really have meant a great improvement to this Barca side. Thing is, the first thing Barca demand from any player, in any position - goalkeeper, defender, striker - is that they can contribute to the team play: ie they are very comfortable with passing and moving and (in the case of the outfield players) high pressing. That's Guardiola's philosophy, and it dictates his transfer activity: it's why he's turned Mascherano into a centre-back rather than go out and buy, say, Subotic or Hummels or Vidic. Eto'o wasn't particularly successful at that, so off he went. (Of course, Ibrahimovich was supposed to be the answer, but we know how that turned out.)

Barca do need another striker, but it has to be the right striker.

[polishgenius]

They need to buy Wayne Rooney is what you're trying to say there. >_>

but it takes a pretty good team to catch them that much off guard since the moment they lose the ball they start pressing the opponent to try to force a mistake and get the ball back. that working is one of the reasons they can get up to 70% possession (and more).

Well indeed. But if they don't they really do have trouble. That's why Arsenal came within a dodgy Bendtner finish of beating them despite being comprehensively outplayed in the second leg last year-- because they had enough composure to make quick attacks through the pressure and into the spaces behind. It's also why Barca shit their pants whenever they see Theo Walcott, even though their worst player has more skill in one of his toes than Walcott in his whole body.

Edited by polishgenius, 20 April 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[baxus]

@ mormont:
it's not as if eto'o hasn't worked out for barca. he was a major player on the team that won CL twice (2006 and 2009). he fit in great at the time.

@ polishgenius:
i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it happens very rarely.

[mormont]

baxus, on 20 April 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

@ mormont:
it's not as if eto'o hasn't worked out for barca. he was a major player on the team that won CL twice (2006 and 2009). he fit in great at the time.

In 2006 Guardiola was not managing Barca, so that's irrelevant to my point. As for 2009, Eto'o was only at the club because they had failed to sell him: Guardiola having made it clear when he took over in 2008 that he didn't see Eto'o fitting into the way he wanted to play. He was then sold at the next transfer window. So, the point stands.

[ericxihn]

mormont, on 20 April 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

That's Guardiola's philosophy, and it dictates his transfer activity: it's why he's turned Mascherano into a centre-back rather than go out and buy, say, Subotic or Hummels or Vidic.

Subotic and Hummels are the top passers in Dortmund. I'm sure Guardiola would buy either of them or Thiago Silva in a heartbeat if he could.

[polishgenius]

Speaking of passing center-backs; I must say it's glorious, after years of hearing a load of balls about how Rio is this amazing ball-playing CB, to have three, in Smalling, Evans and Jones (if that ends up his position) who actually are.

[mormont]

Eric, I stand corrected on those two, then - my knowledge of the German leagues isn't great. But the point I'm making is that Guardiola would rather play a converted midfielder who is an adequate defender but is very comfortable passing the ball, than an outstanding defender who isn't.

[Inigima]

Has anyone got a decent reputable US-based shop that sells Euro team merch? A West Ham shirt would be nice, but everywhere I can find would be like $40+ shipped and take weeks to arrive.

Amazon lists a nice official team crest tee in the team colors, but it's $30 before shipping from England, making it about $40 and taking forever. eBay works out about the same.