Arthur

[underoath]

BBZ spitting Gospels
/threads 😂

 

[BBZ8800]

As far as I can tell Barcelona has always been a mix of Cruyffistas & Masia supporters and fans who wanted a more physical end to end game.

But it is a fact that the most success this club has had was by following Cruyff's vision and building on that. That is a fact. This doesn't mean you don't also have to have good defenders and strong players, but the focus was more on technique and passing ability.

Ok, but people are evolving.

1. there was a crappy football for us before Crujff
2. then we started to play Crujff's football and improved
But guess what? After some time it stopped working.
And Crujff was evolving and adding new things all the time.
1) at first he played 343 with Koeman as a sweeper
2) then he moved to 433 with a false 9
3) then he moved to 433 with a true 9 Romario
So, even in 5-6 years here, Crujff changed at least 3 different tactics.
If he were alive, and he were our coach today, do you think that he would play with THE EXACT TACTICS which he used in 1992 and 1994, or would he played that type of football as a core mixed with 10 new elements in terms of formations, some movements, new defensive patterns, new attacking ideas, new set pieces ideas etc?

That is exactly my point and idea.
Contrary to beliefs here, I don't want us to actually play like Stoke.
But like Barca's DNA with more physique, more running, more pace, 3 way attacking options (possession, counters, crosses&headers).
For example, Puig looks like a textbook example of Pep's type of a player from 2009'.
Technical, light and somewhat short.
But then, you have for example Frenkie or De Bruyne.
Equally as technical as Puig.
Faster. Stronger. Taller. Better defensively.

So, this is an example of evolving.
Now someone will reply: no, you wanted Rakitic and Paulinho.
Well, still.
For me: Puig, Puig and Rakitic midfield is evolving over Puig, Puig, Puig midfield.
On the other hand, as we have learned in the last 2 CLs, Raki, Raki, Raki midfield is either not good.
So, if you could clone these 2 players, this is probably a pecking order of the most balanced lineups with these 2 players cloned:
1. Puig, Puig, Raki as the most balanced
2. Puig, Puig, Puig as very technical, but horrible defensively
3. Puig, Raki, Raki. Better defending, but it may lack creativity and press resistance.
4. Raki, Raki, Raki. Lacks creativity and press resistance.

So, you see, I don't actually want 3 Rakis in a team.
But I do want one guy like Raki/Roberto/Paulinho over 3 Puigs.
3 Puigs is better than 3 Rakis, true.
But 2 Puigs and 1 Raki= is better than 3 Puigs.

In that sense, when people talk about Pep from 2008-2012, my first thought is: oh, no, 3 Puigs.
But again, we had Xavi-Iniesta, the only moment ever in football's history when 3 Puigs worked, since Xavi and Iniesta were one of a kind.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that majority of people (unlike some rare guys like you, Hamzah, DonAk and guys who are EV's defenders like me, Arizona, Tackle, Vlad, Joan, Khaled, Tricky, Messi983) would actually want 3 Puigs AGAIN in 2020 because=it worked in 2009.
And then we can go in circles till death. But but but it worked during Pep.
Well, it worked due to Messi, Xavi and Iniesta.
Why isn't it working for Pep anymore in a CL if it is such a good idea?

But lately, even Pep evolved.
Look at De Bruyne.
181 cm. Tall, strong, fast, technical, smart, ok in defending. Good in the air. Good in defending, good in playmaking, good in the attacking 3rd.
Rodri: 191 cm.
Tall, strong, technical, smart.

So, my problem with Pep is that 90% of people here want VERBATIM exactly the same formation and type of players.
While my idea is:
1. keep Pep. But don't play 100% Pep's style, but tune it down to 80%. And add some new things, like from Klopp.
2. don't play with 3 Puigs (Arthurs, whatever), but with 2 Puigs and 1 Raki.
Or, don't play with 3 Puigs. Rather play with Frenkie+De Bruyne+Puig.
Which lineup is better for you:
Puig-Puig-Puig or Frenkie-De Bruyne-Puig?
In the first one you have: technique, technique, technique.
In the 2nd one you have: tech&physique, tech&physique, technique.
3. 3rd, as I have said numerous times, before Pep we played a 3way attack: from possession, from counters and from crosses/headers.
Pep killed headers and lowered the amount of counters because he moved to 80% possession.
I would like us to move away from too much possession and return to pre-Pep era with: possession, counters and headers.
But then, that style requires attackers like Ronaldinho, Etoo and similar. Who are technical, fast and good in the air.
Not Pep's type of attackers like Bojan, Jesus, Aguero and similar.
4. for the end, more fighting spirit.

So, you see, I am not actually calling for a team with 11 Rakitics who will play like Stoke.
But for Pep's/Crujff's Barca mixed with some new ideas.

And again, my main problem is, I have an impression that majority of people think:
1. that Pep's style from 2009 is still the best
2. that nothing can beat it
3. that we should copy it VERBATIM and don't need to change anything

And then those ideas and posts are forcing me to force too much with my posts because I have a feeling that I am talking with a brainwashed cult.
Who is only repeating:
No, you are an idiot.
No. That style is the best.
No. It don't need any changes.
No. It is who we are.
No. It worked during Pep. You are an idiot. Kill Raki, Paulinho and anyone who don't look like Pep's players.

** If someone like Yoda will post: Bbz, you wanted a team from the last season.
Well, yes.
I wanted it and then I have realized that 3 workhorses in not the answer.
And I moved back to: 2 technical guys&1 workhorse.

 

[serghei]

Haven't read the whole comment, sorry, but from what I understand you want a bit of everything, and not a clear style. Sort of going after the Madrid model, without a clear style and just mixing it up with whatever players are available at some point.

I disagree that Pep's style has been 'found out'. How can a style based on passing be found out? Is passing still not at the center of football and team sports in general? No. We just slowed down, which is normal, after 3 years in which we had no rival in Spain or Europe and only lost 1 tie because of some bad luck, poor finishing and crap officiating in the Inter games.

In short, key players started to get old, lost the motivation and the edge after 3 insane seasons, and we lost Pep. Cycle over. Does not equal in any way with being 'found out'.

Losing Eto'o and signing the flop Ibrahimovic affected our 2010 season too, which is Pep's biggest error. Antagonized one of our best forwards in history. And for what? For a trouble causing obnoxious Ibrahimovic.

 

[Gnidrologist]

So.. is Arthur okay or not then?

 

[serghei]

Pep is only mixing it up right now because he knows he doesn't have the likes of Iniesta and Xavi anymore. He hasn't 'evolved' as you imply. He simply recognizes that he doesn't have the right players to go full on Barca style from 2011.

We have to move from Pep's 2011 style. It's obvious and we all agree. But not because it has been 'found out', and it can't work today, because teams 'evolved'. It's simply because the tools to play that way aren't there.

If we had the 2011 team we'd piss on every other team out there including Liverpool. Lol. I'd like to see Milner and Henderson vs peak Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets. Carnage. These guys would catch nothing but thin air.

 

[jamrock]

I am relatively certain back in the day, bbz would prefer a raki raki raki midfield if given a chance.

At least he has evolved in that respect, a essien lampard makelele midfield was be his wet dreams over xavi deco Busquets are whatever

But I can think it no one here who wants a all midgets in midfield just for the sake of it.

It's very simple posters like you, seems to think, no definitely think, physique over technique.

If they were given a choice between the two, they have will go with the former first.

While others believe that the physical aspect of the game while important shouldn't be the deciding factor when signing a player.

And constantly cherry picking stats that suit your point of view doesn't help to further your case.

All of Barca most successful era's have come when we stuck to a certain philosophy, why should we abandon that to pursue something else, when each time we do that we just end up signing a bunch of overly expensive players that fit nor do they bring any results at the highest level.

Pretty much exactly like as been happening these past few seasons.

Everyone with sense would sign KDB so pointing him out as some sort of example doesn't offer any insight.

But someone like B.Silva was available for who did we with that summer? And where are those players now?.

 

[Poor_Sunyol]

It is not about Rakitic.
Each of us is a different person.

You have on this page a user JCar who says:


I could be wrong, but during 90s, I have never heard this moto regarding our club.
Yes, we did play beautiful, but imo, during Pep's era, fans, media and the board started to create some motos and myths and now people think that this is how we worked since always.

Iirc, it was 2009, when our twitter page made that joke about Rm, something along the lines: we create our players, they are buying their players.
Now, it was just a media battle, banter and trolling.
Since anyone who has followed Barca pre Pep, like in 90s and 00s, knows that Real and Barca were always among top3 crazy spenders in the world.
I mean, in 2000-2001, we sold Figo for around 100-120M in a current era.
And we bought Saviola for 100-150M (translated in today's worth of Euros), Gerard Lopez for 100-ish M and Geovanni Deiberson for 120M.
Even old winger Overmars was something like 70-80M today.
So, basically, that is like buying Coutinho, Dembele, Sane and old Willian today.

Ronaldinho, Etoo, those were all 100M transfers.
Ibrahimovic today would have been a 150-200M transfer.

My point:
Everyone who followed Barca longer knows that we were always filthy rich and that we were crazy spenders, just like RM
Our 2 clubs were always drunk millionaires.

And then, in 2006, we managed to have Messi, Xavi and Iniesta in the same time and we stopped spending like crazy because we have hit a lottery prize from our La Masia.
And then some idiot on Barca's twitter writes a trolling post how we are actually creating and not buying players, and then a new generation of younger fans start to buy those ideas as serious and then you have millions of kids who actually believe:
= Barca are good guys, Real are bad guys
= we are creating players, they are the opposite=they are crazy spenders

So, that is a lie.
And people who believe in this are either kids or deluded and living in a dreamland.
Some guys will get mad now, but the funny thing is: during 2000s, when Real won 3 CLs in 1998, 2000 and 2002, we had ZERO domestic players in our team.
Fans were pissed because we were losing touch with Catalonia.
Van Gaal was a coach and we had 10+ Dutch players in our team.
Then fans and media started to ask for more local players and this is why Xavi and Puyol were given chances back then, only so that fans would be happier.

So, around 1998-2002, we had only Xavi and Puyol in our team from domestic players.
While Real Madrid, who are supposed to be bad guys and "opposite to our way of creating players" actually had: Raul from their youth academy, Iker Casillas, Guti, Raul Bravo and Francisco Pavon.
They actually had an idea called "Zidanes and Pavons" back then where they wanted to have:
5 galactico signings like R9, Zidane, Figo, Beckham, Roberto Carlos, paired with 5 domestic players like Raul, Guti, Casillas, Pavon etc.

So, Real had a team consisted of almost 50:50 superstars and local players.
While Barca had 23 expensive Dutch and Brasilian players and 2 kids.

Now, when you remove Barca's glasses, does this sound as if Barca are "good guys" here and Real are "bad guys"?
I am not RM's fan.
I am just trying to explain how bullshit and childish are some ideas thrown on this forum.
And majority of those ideas and motos surfaced during Pep's era.

So, a few crazy lies:
1. Barca is creating players, and Real is buying players, while we are actually the same.
2. La Masia is golden and totally different from all youth academies in the world. Seriously, does that make any sense?
Ok, there are some nice ideas at La Masia, but do you guys think that coaches and scouts at RM, Man Utd (who had a the best generation from their academy in late 90s, similar to Barca during Pep), Bayern, Juve, Liverpool are idiots and that they never had an idea=oh, let's do the same what coaches are doing in a magical La Masia?
So, the more realistci answer is: La Masia is awesome, but it is similar to youth academies from all big clubs.
The only difference is that we cheated on transfers in early 00s, and we bought the highest amount of highly rated kids from all around the world (Messi, Kubo, Simmons etc), which was not allowed.
We escaped with Messi and some kids.
But then the other clubs made an appeal that we are cheating and buying more foreign kids than it is allowed, and we got punished.
We are not allowed to cheat and buy as many foreign kids anymore. And what is happening? = as expected, we aren't producing 10s of superkids anymore.

Our fans don't want to hear that we cheated, or that we were just lucky with Xavi and Iniesta.
It is more fancy to live in a dreamland how=La Masia is different than all other academies in the world.
Well, La Masia was shit in 90s, in early 00s, and in the last 10 years.
It was awesome only for 5-6 years around Pep'e era (and with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta).

When you sum it all, which is more likely:
1) La Masia is really magical?
2) or this is an urban myth created by media and younger fans who started to follow Barca during Pep's era and who believed in those fairytales?

3. a lie no3, I have personally NEVER heard in 90s and early 00s that it is about HOW we are winning.
Well, of course, it is always nicer to BOTH play nice and win.
But if you win even with playing ugly or if you are lucky, who cares?
But then, during Pep, suddenly this idea emerged in media: we are Barca, we are different. It is not about titles, it is about our style. Wins without style are not real wins.
Ok, again, to some extent we always wanted to play nice. But during Pep and after Pep, this moto went into extremes.
And suddenly fans don't want to watch matches if we are not playing in an orgasmic way.
Then you guys wonder why I am not shitting on EV and his ugly play.
Well, again, I was a fan in 90s and 00s.
I had watched a similar football for 15 years.
Remember that Barca was knocked out 3 times in a group stage of a CL in 90s.
Or that we haven't won a single title for 5 years in early 00s.
So, if I have survived 5 years with zero titles, a horrible football and horrible transfers, then for me: watching EV winning La Ligas with an ugly football is really not the end of the world.
Being 5 years without titles and BOTH playing horrible is way worse than banging La Ligas for fun.

Also, I see that Crujff's name is thrown a lot here.
As if Crujff's teams played the best and the most efficient football ever.
I don't know whether younger fans actually know, but this is how we won titles with Crujff's "super efficient" football:
1992:
Real Madrid was a leader with +1 point advantage (victory was worth 2 points back then, not 3 points) before the last round, and they played against Tenerife away.
Real was actually leading 0:2 in the first half and take a look how Crujff and Barca won a title in the end:

Then, the next season. A similar story.
Before the last round, Real AGAIN had +1 point advantage and AGAIN had to play at Tenerife in the last round.
Barca played at home vs Sociedad.
Look again what happened and who ended as a champion:

Then, in the next season in 1994.
Again the SAME STORY.
Deportivo had 55 points before the last round.
Barca had 54 points.
Deportivo played vs Valencia in the last round.
Barca played at home vs Sevilla.
Look at who ended as a champion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXEsqOa-Lk

So, here is a brief history of Barcelona since 1899:

La Liga titles:
1929'
--
1945, 48, 49
1952, 53, 58, 59
1960
1974
1985

Crujff 1991, 92, 93, 94
Van Gaal 1998, 99
Rijkaard 2005, 06
Pep 2009, 10, 11
Tito 2013
Lucho 2015, 16
EV 2018, 19

So, a short resume:
From 1961 to 1991, we won only 2 titles in 30 years.
So, we surely weren't giants or played better than EV in that era.
Then in 90s, Crujff came.
And as seen on videos from above, he won 3 out of 4 titles in the last round, when each time his opponents chocked in the last round.
Then Van Gaal won 2 La ligas, but was getting KO'd in a group stage of a CL every time.
Then we were absolute shit in early 2000s for 5 years.
Then we were good for 2-3 years under Rijkaard.
And 3 years under Pep.

Now, I would like to ask you:
If our ONLY dominant years in our 120 years long history were:
2006 under Rijkaard
And 2008-2011 under Pep
And maybe 2015 under Lucho

Then how on Earth cam people throw these childish phrases like: it is about HOW we win, not about titles?
Lol, we won 2 titles in 30 years from 1960 to 1991.
Do you think that fans were saying in those days: we don't want titles unless if we are playing beautiful?
We were an absolute shit back then.

Then under Crujff, we played nice, but as you see, we weren't that efficient in terms of points.
We won 3 titles with an insane luck.
Imagine if EV would win a title in the last round, after Deportivo would miss a pen in the 94th minute.
People would ask for sacking right away.

So, no offense to anyone, but when I see people throwing around phrases like:
1. we don't buy players, we create players
2. La Masia is golden
3. and it is not about wins, but about HOW we win
= I can't help to roll my eyes and ask: mate, let me guess. You are either a teen or in early 20s and you started to watch Barca during Pep and you believe in these new gen phrases?

Not to mention that priorities of fans who started to watch Barca during Pep are different than guys who watched Barca from 1960-1990 when we won 2 La ligas and 0 Cls, lol.

And for the end, since I am coming from an older era and I have watched Barca in 90s and 00s when we were a crap, I am not that much into this: it is about HOW we win "mode".

Even though, this would be my pick also:
1. winning and playing nice
If not possible, then:
2. winning with an ugly play
3. playing beautiful and not win is not an option for me.

Now when you know this back story, you will understand that my views on Barca and my history with Barca are different.
I am personally all about titles and efficiency.

Then you will understand why I hate guys like Neymar who is more show than actual end product.
I am all about end product, and not about tricks for fans and youtube.
For the same reason, you will understand why I dislike Dembele: too many tricks, low end product.
Also, you will understand why I like ugly players like Rakitic or Paulinho.
they may play ugly, but as long as they are scoring goals, making tackles and as long as a team is winning, I am fine with them.

Also, I hate when other fans come and preach: why are you Barca's fan? Since Barca is all about playing beautiful.
Again, go back and read this post about a short history of Barca.
In 120 years, we had like 100 years of misery, 15 years of ok results like Lucho, Van Gaal and EV.
And 5 glorious years: Pep, Lucho, Rijkaard and Crujff (even though he won a CL from a lucky extra time free kick and won every title in a lucky way, but ok).

You're wrong. Since Michels there was a Barca way of playing and it is how we play, arguably more important than if we win, which is most important to the fans. This is why Valverde gets so much grief.

 

[BBZ8800]

Pep is only mixing it up right now because he knows he doesn't have the likes of Iniesta and Xavi anymore. He hasn't 'evolved' as you imply. He simply recognizes that he doesn't have the right players to go full on Barca style from 2011.

We have to move from Pep's 2011 style. It's obvious and we all agree. But not because it has been 'found out', and it can't work today, because teams 'evolved'. It's simply because the tools to play that way aren't there.

If we had the 2011 team we'd piss on every other team out there including Liverpool. Lol. I'd like to see Milner and Henderson vs peak Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets. Carnage. These guys would catch nothing but thin air.

You see, your 2 last posts are the ONLY posts on this forum when I am really losing nerves and when I want to say: these guys (cult) are hopeless.

My counterquestions:
1. if a system is perfect, wouldn't it be possible to replicate it with similar players?
2. so:
1) Barca lost Xavi and Iniesta and we had to abandon Pep's style? So, you want to say that we didn't have similar players so we weren't able to replicate it?
Fine
2) more interesting: Spain. An NT side that was meh for a majority of history, suddenly winning in 2008, 2010 and 2012 with Xavi and Iniesta, playing a copy of Pep's style.
Those two declined, and so did the results from Spain.
So, you are telling me again that EVEN Spanish NT team wasn't able to find similar players in David Silva, Fabregas, Koke, Thiago etc?
So, they had to abandon it also?
Or, they tried to play that way, but it sucked without (Messi) Xavi and Iniesta?
3) even more interesting, Pep.
A guy who mastered that style. He has all the money in the world.
Still can't replicate results from 2008-2012.

Don't you see a flashing red sign while you read this and a huge question:
= is it even possible to play (and win) with that EXACT style without (Messi) Xavi and Iniesta?

How I see it=No.
You can only play watered down, weaker and less efficient copies.

Plus, you are again ignoring evolving.
I have wrote before: Crujff said in interview in the 3rd or 4th season: it is getting tougher. All the opponents got used to our style and we have way more problems than in the first two seasons.
This is why I needed to add some new things, because the old tricks were not enough anymore.

How do you explain that?
Crujff had a perfect system.
And after 2-3 seasons, teams found ways to neutralize it.

That is the part where I want to bang my head into a wall while reading our fans.
It is quite simple: no matter how perfect you are, if you stay EXACTLY the same, the opponents will close the gap with you.

I'll pull numbers from my ass, how people here love to say:
Imagine that this is how it was in Pep's seasons:
2009: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 20% advantage
Then teams learned 2-3 tricks how to stop us.
2010: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 40% advantage. We still had a huge advantage.
Then teams learned additional 2-3 tricks how to stop and kill us on counters.
2011: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 60% advantage. we still had some advantage.
2012: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 80% and Pep left.

So, you see, even if Pep stayed here, teams would get closer and closer over time (unless if we would spend 500M per season and they 50M, like in Bundesliga). So, if we will spend equal amounts of money, our tactical advantage will be smaller and smaller each season due to a human nature: people are not idiots, and they will learn and learn and try to beat you.
I have wrote before:
Go out tonight on your local playground.
And go play basketball with your fat friend who is bad at it.
And you are allowed to use ONLY 2 tricks in your game. And you have to repeat them over and over.
Now, if you are a way better player, you will win even with only 2 tricks, like:
21:0 on the first night.

Now, go on and play again tomorrow, but you are again allowed to use only 2 same tricks EVERY DAY.
And repeat a match against that friend for 365 days in a row.

Now, my question:
1. do you think that you will win 21:0 for 365 times in a row?
2. or: your friend will slowly improve and he will learn patterns of your 2 tricks? And over time, scores will be 21:1, 21:2, 21:3 or even 21:10?
It will be harder and harder over time to use the same trick over and over, unless if your friend is retarded.

Do you get my point?
No matter HOW PERFECT you are, if you are standing on the same place, the opponents will improve and close the gap.
And that is my problem with a cult and logic of our forum.

even your posts now sound again as:
NO! You are wrong. If executed perfectly with the right players, NOTHING can beat or close the gap with Pep's style from 2009'.
That makes absolutely no sense.

I am not even saying that other styles are better.
I am just saying that the teams have closed the gap (figured out our patterns).
Maybe they came from 100:10 to 100:50. Maybe we are still way better.
The point is: it will NEVER BE AS EASY as in 1991 or in 2009'.

Crujff told you that.
And I am quite sure that even Pep would have honestly tell you the same.
That the EXACT system from 2009' wouldn't be as efficient today, no matter what players you have.

No offense, but if you'll reply: no, that system is perfect and opponents can't figure it our or close the gap, please allow me to agree to disagree.
Because seriously, my head is on verge of exploding after reading that part (how the opponents can't close the gap with Pep's system from 2009/or any winning system in general).

All of Barca most successful era's have come when we stuck to a certain philosophy, why should we abandon that to pursue something else, when each time we do that we just end up signing a bunch of overly expensive players that fit nor do they bring any results at the highest level.

But we had Messi in all those wins.
It is very hard to tell whether we have won due to our phylosophy or due to Messi.

After Messi, we'll test that.
If we'll play our style without Messi, and have bad results, you know the answer:
1. we won DUE to Messi
2. or the system is figured out and is not as efficient anymore

Btw, if system is figured out, I am not saying: go play like Stoke.
But add something new to the original ideas and try to improve yourself and not play the same things which aren't working.

You said that our new ideas aren't working.
I could ask the same:
1. why our OLD ideas are not working with Spain anymore
2. why our OLD ideas are not working for Pep anymore

Should they try to repeat the same thing for the next 50 years, if it won't bring results?
Because, you know=it worked in 2009'

 

[EdmondDantes]

blah

BBZ, spare me from reading one of your 20k word dissertations; if you can be bothered answer me this:

The premise here is 'what is best for Barca'.

Using your 'football knowledge';

1 - When should Rakitic leave (or have left)?


2 - When should Busquets leave (or have left)?


----

And since I've seen you alluding to the fact both Xavi and Iniesta left the club too late - when defending Rakitic yet again;


3 - When should Xavi have left (at what age)


4 - Iniesta, likewise

 

[DonAndres]

Lol I see people are saying some warm and fuzzy things about BBZ now for appeasement. Sorry, but copying and pasting long walls of text 50 times a day does not make a valuable contribution or some type of unique/brilliant insight that the forum suffers without. Even in these last 2 posts you can see blatant strawman nonsense (that "Cruyffistas" want a Puig-Puig-Puig type midfield lmfao) and pretty much shifting the paradigm of the argument to something else entirely.

People point out to you how Rakitic is a bum (both as an orchestrator and as a workhorse) and that Arthur is way more creative and way better defensively than you would ever admit. People point out about our RECENT failures in CL, you know? Like the actually relevant games? Like Liverpool and Roma? Your response, every time:

"HURR DURR BUT PEP'S TIKI TAKA IS DEAD TEAMS HAVE FIGURED IT OUT" then *insert 2000 word passage about how teams back from fucking 2014 outplayed our old, dead midfield that had Flopregas and 35 year old Xavi*.

Like a fucking record player. It's uncanny, someone brings up Liverpool/Roma and you type out some absolutely incoherent, fumbling response that has nothing to do with Liverpool or Roma, doesn't even mention those words. Liverpool/Roma doesn't exist, but you'll be sure to bring up in these donkey posts about how Chelsea and Atletico parked the bus against us half a decade ago, as if that has ANYTHING to do with the problems that lead us to failure currently.

And after that rant, you'll move on to talk about how Arthur is soft and shit and "only good in wild games with wild pressing/defense".... like the best teams in the world Liverpool/Tottenham/Lyon/RM/etc. And then some horseshit comment like "Believe me guys. Our problem has nothing to do with the fact that Rakitic can't even comfortably carry the ball in his own half in the most important games year after year... Our problem is that Arthur got subbed off after 60 minutes against Espanyol in March because he started breathing heavy and didn't score/assist."

Such brilliant, layered insights

 

[serghei]

You see, your 2 last posts are the ONLY posts on this forum when I am really losing nerves and when I want to say: these guys (cult) are hopeless.

My counterquestions:
1. if a system is perfect, wouldn't it be possible to replicate it with similar players?

First, no system is perfect. Secondly, no, a system doesn't create qualities in players that aren't there to begin with. Complex systems require better players than simple system. There is no similar player to Xavi - Iniesta in terms of overall package.

Playing 2011 Barca football without similar quality in those key positions is not possible. That's like doing a Mission Impossible movie without Tom Cruise. Can't be done while keeping the success. You can replicate the style, but you won't be able to replicate the success, and at Barcelona style without glory doesn't cut it. The pressure of the results is real and is felt every season.

2. so:
1) Barca lost Xavi and Iniesta and we had to abandon Pep's style? So, you want to say that we didn't have similar players so we weren't able to replicate it?
Fine

First we lost Pep. That's like an insurmountable loss. Only a master manager can play total football and dominate the world. Yes, we didn't have similar players to keep getting these kind of results once the key players declined and/or lost motivation.

2) more interesting: Spain. An NT side that was meh for a majority of history, suddenly winning in 2008, 201's0 and 2012 with Xavi and Iniesta, playing a copy of Pep's style.
Those two declined, and so did the results from Spain.
So, you are telling me again that EVEN Spanish NT team wasn't able to find similar players in David Silva, Fabregas, Koke, Thiago etc?

Spain from 2008, 2010 and 2012 was heavily reliant on the core of Barcelona players. The 2010 team was basically Pep's Barcelona well rehearsed structure (albeit with a more defensive style), plus some great players from Madrid, like Casillas, Xabi Alonso, Ramos.

So, yes, when Barca backbone fell, so did Spain's. Madrid didn't have Spanish midfielders of the caliber of Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta, or Spanish strikers of the level of David Villa, or even Pedro back in 2010-2012 when he was a beast.

So, they had to abandon it also?
Or, they tried to play that way, but it sucked without (Messi) Xavi and Iniesta?

They didn't play very much like Barcelona. Some things were different. And yes, when Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, David Villa declined, Spain lost a lot of quality. Likes of Isco, even David Silva aren't anywhere near them.

3) even more interesting, Pep.
A guy who mastered that style. He has all the money in the world.
Still can't replicate results from 2008-2012.

Don't you see a flashing red sign while you read this and a huge question:
= is it even possible to play (and win) with that EXACT style without (Messi) Xavi and Iniesta?

How I see it=No.
You can only play watered down, weaker and less efficient copies.

That's what I said. We shouldn't look to replicate Pep's style to a T because we don't have the required players in midfield and in attack.

Plus, you are again ignoring evolving.
I have wrote before: Crujff said in interview in the 3rd or 4th season: it is getting tougher. All the opponents got used to our style and we have way more problems than in the first two seasons.
This is why I needed to add some new things, because the old tricks were not enough anymore.

How do you explain that?
Crujff had a perfect system.
And after 2-3 seasons, teams found ways to neutralize it.

There wasn't any evolving. Just decline in our level. We reached our peak in the 3rd year with Pep. Teams had plenty of time to adapt to Pep and stop us in 2011 if they were capable to do it. Chelsea in 2009 had played an unbelievable game. They knew how to stop us, but fell short. Teams knew what they had to do all along. But 95% of the time they were just outplayed. Simple as that.

That is the part where I want to bang my head into a wall while reading our fans.
It is quite simple: no matter how perfect you are, if you stay EXACTLY the same, the opponents will close the gap with you.

This is where I disagree every time. You act as if football is a gimmick of some sort.
Sorry man, football is not a smartphone, where you need to develop a new 45mp camera and a new octacore processor or else you'll fall behind and turn into a Nokia nobody wants to buy.

Again, improving the 2011 team is near impossible. You bring muscles and fitness into conversation. Yea, a taller striker would've made us better at crosses, but then we would've lost on the quick combinations we were known for. A stronger midfielder than Busquets would've again, improved our defense, but we'd have been worse in build-up. Way worse.

I'll pull numbers from my ass, how people here love to say:
Imagine that this is how it was in Pep's seasons:
2009: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 20% advantage
Then teams learned 2-3 tricks how to stop us.
2010: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 40% advantage. We still had a huge advantage.
Then teams learned additional 2-3 tricks how to stop and kill us on counters.
2011: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 60% advantage. we still had some advantage.
2012: Barca vs rest: 100% vs 80% and Pep left.

Lol, our 2011 is actually the most dominating level, ask anyone, the biggest gap between us and the rest was in 2011. Teams in 2009 played us better than teams from 2011. Again, best performance vs Pep's Barcelona is Chelsea under Hiddink. 2011 is actually the year of the 5-0 vs Madrid, and the Wembley demolition of United. So your theory is wrong.

2012 we started losing points easy in the league vs teams we ripped apart in the past. We had injury problems, motivation problems.

So, you see, even if Pep stayed here, teams would get closer and closer over time (unless if we would spend 500M per season and they 50M, like in Bundesliga). So, if we will spend equal amounts of money, our tactical advantage will be smaller and smaller each season due to a human nature: people are not idiots, and they will learn and learn and try to beat you.

Again, you are simply wrong. The success of Pep's Barcelona is not a secret recipe that people didn't have initially and little by little they started to find out. Back in 2010 we played Rubin Kazan and lost at home 1-2. Rubin Kazan in 2010, Chelsea a year before, teams always knew how to beat us. It was simply a case of us being too good to be stopped.

You have to understand that the football we played back then had no secret formula. Teams parked the bus vs us with good results since the start (2009). They did the same 4 years after. Actually, Chelsea played a better defense in 2009, but they were eliminated, and played a much worse defense, but luckily went through in 2012.

I have wrote before:
Go out tonight on your local playground.
And go play basketball with your fat friend who is bad at it.
And you are allowed to use ONLY 2 tricks in your game. And you have to repeat them over and over.
Now, if you are a way better player, you will win even with only 2 tricks, like:
21:0 on the first night.

Now, go on and play again tomorrow, but you are again allowed to use only 2 same tricks EVERY DAY.
And repeat a match against that friend for 365 days in a row.

Since you gave a basketball example, Jordan was better in his era in 1 vs 1 than any player on the planet. This wouldn't have changed no matter how many times they would've trained together. You cannot compensate superiority by simply figuring what the secret is. You can't sing better than Pavarotti no matter how hard you try if you aren't a better singer than him.

Now, my question:
1. do you think that you will 21:0 for 365 times in a row?
2. or: your friend will slowly improve and he will learn patterns of your 2 tricks? And over time, scores will be 21:1, 21:2, 21:3 or even 21:10?
It will be harder and harder over time to use the same trick over and over, unless if your friend is retarded.

Your example is just wrong. There weren't any tricks in Pep's style. Not unless you see moving and passing in football as a trick. When you say trick, you normally refer to a surprise element that, when found out and exposed, loses it's surprise value and is rendered useless. With Pep's style it was the opposite. Everybody knew what we were doing, so the surprise element was non existent. So, it was the actual opposite of a trick. The trick was there weren't any tricks.

This is why teams played us in 2012, the same way they played us in 2009. No difference.

Do you get my point?
No matter HOW PERFECT you are, if you are standing on the same place, the opponents will improve and close the gap.
And that is my problem with a cult and logic of our forum.

even your posts now sound again as:
NO! You are wrong. If executed perfectly with the right players, NOTHING can beat or close the gap with Pep's style from 2009'.
That makes absolutely no sense.

I get your point. It is wrong imo.

I told you why. There's no such thing as bettering something or someone by repetition, because there is no secret.

Rafael Nadal on clay hasn't improved at all compared with 2008. Still untouchable. Why? Because the level he was at all along is unreachable for anyone.

According to your false theory Nadal should now have 5-6 RGs, instead of 12, because he didn't 'improve' his style since 2006. His style on clay is pretty much unbeatable, barring incredible rare exceptions. You know why? Because the standard he has imposed can't be got at.

Same with Barcelona under Pep. Other teams couldn't cope with the standard of football we imposed. All they did was to park the bus and hope for a lucky break. They did the same things in 2009, and in 2010, and in 2011, and in 2012. In 2012, we weren't able to impose the same standard.

Bottom line, and what I'm trying to say is your theory that you need to change your style in order to keep being successful because it is inevitable your rivals will catch up and 'figure you out' is not automatically true. And in the case of Pep Barcelona, same with Nadal on clay, is downright false, precisely because both Barcelona and Nadal didn't have any trick up their sleeve. They just imposed standards that others couldn't get to.

 

[EdmondDantes]

Lol I see people are saying some warm and fuzzy things about BBZ now for appeasement. Sorry, but copying and pasting long walls of text 50 times a day does not make a valuable contribution or some type of unique/brilliant insight that the forum suffers without. Even in these last 2 posts you can see blatant strawman nonsense (that "Cruyffistas" want a Puig-Puig-Puig type midfield lmfao) and pretty much shifting the paradigm of the argument to something else entirely.

People point out to you how Rakitic is a bum (both as an orchestrator and as a workhorse) and that Arthur is way more creative and way better defensively than you would ever admit. People point out about our RECENT failures in CL, you know? Like the actually relevant games? Like Liverpool and Roma? Your response, every time:

"HURR DURR BUT PEP'S TIKI TAKA IS DEAD TEAMS HAVE FIGURED IT OUT" then *insert 2000 word passage about how teams back from fucking 2014 outplayed our old, dead midfield that had Flopregas and 35 year old Xavi*.

Like a fucking record player. It's uncanny, someone brings up Liverpool/Roma and you type out some absolutely incoherent, fumbling response that has nothing to do with Liverpool or Roma, doesn't even mention those words. Liverpool/Roma doesn't exist, but you'll be sure to bring up in these donkey posts about how Chelsea and Atletico parked the bus against us half a decade ago, as if that has ANYTHING to do with the problems that lead us to failure currently.

And after that rant, you'll move on to talk about how Arthur is soft and shit and "only good in wild games with wild pressing/defense".... like the best teams in the world Liverpool/Tottenham/Lyon/RM/etc. And then some horseshit comment like "Believe me guys. Our problem has nothing to do with the fact that Rakitic can't even comfortably carry the ball in his own half in the most important games year after year... Our problem is that Arthur got subbed off after 60 minutes against Espanyol in March because he started breathing heavy and didn't score/assist."

Such brilliant, layered insights

And let us not forget the fact Rakitic's hips are finished as well. He's got a statuesque level of mobility these days. But hush, hush, let me cover that up by chastising Arthur...

 

[serghei]

I'm actually pretty proud of the Nadal on clay comparison. Explain why Nadal on clay is still king at Roland Garros while he's older, slower, and playing the same style of tennis as in 2006.

Why did the others not 'figure him out' by now, 14 years since his first win?

According to you back in 2010 the others should've caught up with him and already beaten Nadal. Maybe... you know... he's too good?

 

[Vilarrubi]

The fact is we are as far away from Pep's style as possible based on the last few CL exits. The midfield was the key.

No one is saying we can or should replicate that midfield, but our midfield in those tough games hasn't functioned properly for years, I honestly believed had we had a better functioning midfield who can play under pressure/pressing (Not particularly a Pep midfield) in the last few years we'd have 1 or 2 more CLs to our name.

 

[xXKonan]

Our best years came when we had a team that focused everything with the ball at our feet and our best defense was always having the ball and keeping possession.

No one will be able to replicate the Trio, but we can still succeed with players that are share similarities to them such as De Jong, Arthur, Puig, etc. This will never be a team that will be comfortable with the idea of defending deep without the ball because that's not what we are.

The times we tired doing that shit we ended up suffering some bad humiliations.