A long post and I have cut some of it and focused on some bits to comment on:
I am a fan of more physical players, but Xavi is one of the rare guys whom I would take to my team.
For example, Iniesta is good for me, but Xavi was a God.
I am the opposite, I don't care about physique so much, but can see its usefulness in Haaland, or in Dembele. You can't build a team around these players, though. For those lacking physique it's the opposite, they get better when you have more of them, but can be overlooked in a team that isn't built for them.
one of the biggest reasons why TikiTaka worked, is not the system, but:
1. cheating codes called young Messi
2. and Xavi, TikiTaka himself.
Messi was crucial for Barcelona, but was not in Spain who still played great. To me, the biggest reason was the totalitarian focus on tikitaka, where Xavi was the best and most central, but every player of that team needed to fit into that profile. Even a player as great as Fabregas was a bit too slow in the mind, and played too much on chance, too fit.
So, Xavi knew when to speed up, when to slow down, when to risk, when to wait.
His moves were calculated and he usually picked the best solution.
Exactly. This was one of his main strengths. Usually the best solution was not to try for the through ball. He had over 100 passes per game, most of them probably on the opposite half, and according to stats above he only made 1 through ball per game. Compare to Arthur who maybe also tries 1 per game but on less passes, and fails more often.
He wanted to know what is happening in the attack and before receiving the pass, he had an idea: where to make the first step with the ball after receiving it, whom to pass the ball after that and whether that 2nd guy will be able to pass to that 3rd guy in the attack.
This is another good point, which I made here before. It was always so easy to see what Xavi intended the reciever to do with the ball.
But he constantly changed what he was going to do, more than most players. You could see him look for two different passes in a second, and then choosing the third alternative after the opponents had responded. So it's not that he planned so much in advance, he just always had an idea, and was a perfectionist in his positioning and in having a vision of what to do.
And again: then you have Arthur, who receives the ball with his ass turned towards our attack and he never lifts his head to check what is happening.
He receives the pass, dwells on the ball, passes it back OR: once in a while tries some forced through ball because the coach and teammates are mad at him.
And this too, watching Xavi he always played easy with his back against the goal, as Arthur, but he was great at finding ways to recieve the ball with time and space. In these situations he took his time like crazy, just calmly advancing without pressure, with his head up, just watching and waiting for the perfect opportunity. He would get two or three runs, but most of the time he decided against the pass, and got into a similar or better position soon again after. This patience was key to Xavis success. But if Pedro started to disappointedly wave like a maniac after not getting the ball, or when he recieved it on the foot tried to dribble every time instead of passing it back to Xavi at the right moment, Xavi would either have to play harder passes or he would play no difficult passes at all.
The same about Riki: he has a horrible physique and he doesn't possess some special IQ to dominate the game with his IQ like Xavi or Busi.
This is why I give almost zero chances to Riki to make it on top level.
He has a similar positional sense to Xavi or Iniesta. He recieves the ball in very similar positions, in the half space, between the lines, ready to advance. He is, so far, more erratic on the ball, more eager to do something. I think this is an easy thing to change. Just like Xavi, Messi or Busquets, you can see in Puig the way in which he constantly changes intentions, he overweighs a lot of options in just one step. His physique is great, he is more agile and quicker than most players. He wins the ball a lot, and so far his influence on the games he participated in has been great.
Imo, that is a huge flaw of a lot of Barca fans who grew up during Pep's days.
Back then everything revolved about technique and fans today think that similar level of technique alone will be enough.
So, they neglect physique, IQ and some leadership, bravery, fighting spirit, cockiness.
Yes I think so. But it's not mostly about technique but football IQ though.
Physique is a minor thing, and things like leadership or bravery is a bit out of the discussion, necessary but not something to build a playing style around.
I think it is brave and cocky in it self to neglect the physical part and say you will win by dominating the ball through skill. It is tough to win a lot on "fighting spirit" in the long run.
The talk about the modern game being too physical for small players was on its height just about the time Xavi had that game in 2004 which I posted. I say it is as wrong today as it was then.
And then, what bothers me the most, we have some La Masia purists or Barca DNA purists who have too huge faith in guys like Riki and Arthur because they resemble on Pep's days in 2-3 skills.
These guys have similar flaws as Pep's players.
Yet, their skill quality is at 30-50% of what Xavi and those guys had.
Plus, they have way lower IQ and game reading.
When you sum it all: how can you build results in 2021 on guys like Arthur and Riki?
Those are Uefa Cup (Arthur) to midtable-bottomtable level of players (Riki).
To some extent, it's a blasphemy to putting them in the same sentence as prime Xavi.
I want similar type of players as those who played then. I have not claimed that Riqui or Arthur are as good as those before, and I am not saying just anyone who looks similar will do either. I have seen Verratti, Thiago, Modric, Arthur, De Jong, Puig as candidates for the Barcelona midfield the last 10 years after Xavi and Iniesta started getting older, not many more than that I can think of. A lot of canteranos have been good enough for the squad, better alternatives than Rakitic or Gomes.
---
In conclusion, about Arthur, I think if he was put in 2008 Barcelona instead of Xavi, the big difference would not be the lack of a final ball or him being too conservative, but if anything the opposite. Arthur is not a perfectionist the way Xavi was, and he is not as good of a player, but stylistically he would fit pretty well. A lot better than Pjanic or Vidal for example, who would destroy everything and make the greatest team of all time into a very struggling team, on their own, by their lack of positional sense or patience.
I agree that Barcelona 2008-2012 were very fragile, we could see them get caught against Bayern later. But mostly, they DOMINATED, and this was because they went all out on IQ and technique. I think it can be done again, and I think Barcelona should try to.
