Barça's Transfers and Rumors

[Sumlit]

When Barcelona attack a parked bus, they simply are forced to commit too many bodies forward to attempt to break it. Fullbacks go far up and stay there, CBs keep a high line and Busquets goes up high with the rest of the midfield.

When the team is attempting to break a bus, they look like this.

As you can see, the two CBs are on an island. A counter of 2-3 players, will catch fullbacks high and Busquets most likely in a bad position to help, thus the CBs either have to cover the center and leave the wing exposed, or cover the wing and leave the center vulnerable. This is how bus parking teams hurt Barcelona.

Now, with the other formation:

You keep a better shape at the back. Now your CBs are not on an island because they have another CB/CDM to cover for them when a ball is lost. Both the middle and the wing are more covered and secured to allow the team to recuperate its defensive shape.

Both formations you keep 7 players in the attacking zone, but the second gives more security in the back, while also allowing the attacking players more freedom to attack without the added responsibility of having to also cover their side defensively.

Lastly, your last formation is right on paper, but as we have seen time and time and time again, that formations gets broken when the team continuously tries to break the bus. Inevitably, they'll inch forward more and more and end up like the first formation I posted because they'll commit more men forward to attempt to break the bus.

I'll also again remind you not to call other's ideas crap just because you disagree with them, it just makes you look foolish.

 

[Hamzah]

If anyone's ideas are crap it's Ursegor...

 

[ammarfcb]

why would we lead a bus with pk and masch?

 

[Sumlit]

why would we lead a bus with pk and masch?

That's the surprise factor!

 

[Ursegor]

Mate, you are basically posting 2 identical lineups in terms of defensive transition, except with some 10 yard different positioning of the same player material. In #1 you have Mascherano-Pique-Busquets triangle in the middle of the pitch as the deepest defensive unit and in #2 you have Martinez-Pique-Bartra. What's the difference now in defensive transition after a long diagonal ball is played behind Alves back? Busquets will inevitably push higher up when he has those 3 behind him in #2 just the way you claim in #1 everyone pushes inevitably higher up to break the bus. There won't be 4 spare defenders sitting very deep in the middle of the park to wait for counters and if that's the whole plan (to prevent counters) then #1 can achieve this even better by just instructing Alves to stay back. Because Martinez, Busquets, Pique and Bartra all centrally in a 4 vs. 2 situation against Atletico's 4-4-2 is a weird idea. And it doesn't even explain how this "breaks" a bus. We've now changed the topic to discuss defending counterattacks. But even defensively you are completely ignoring that in #1 you have 2 wingers to pin back the fullbacks, which is a defensive benefit as well in terms of preventing counters, and in #2 you don't.

 

[te amo barca]

When Barcelona attack a parked bus, they simply are forced to commit too many bodies forward to attempt to break it. Fullbacks go far up and stay there, CBs keep a high line and Busquets goes up high with the rest of the midfield.

When the team is attempting to break a bus, they look like this.

As you can see, the two CBs are on an island. A counter of 2-3 players, will catch fullbacks high and Busquets most likely in a bad position to help, thus the CBs either have to cover the center and leave the wing exposed, or cover the wing and leave the center vulnerable. This is how bus parking teams hurt Barcelona.

Now, with the other formation:

You keep a better shape at the back. Now your CBs are not on an island because they have another CB/CDM to cover for them when a ball is lost. Both the middle and the wing are more covered and secured to allow the team to recuperate its defensive shape.

Both formations you keep 7 players in the attacking zone, but the second gives more security in the back, while also allowing the attacking players more freedom to attack without the added responsibility of having to also cover their side defensively.

Lastly, your last formation is right on paper, but as we have seen time and time and time again, that formations gets broken when the team continuously tries to break the bus. Inevitably, they'll inch forward more and more and end up like the first formation I posted because they'll commit more men forward to attempt to break the bus.

I'll also again remind you not to call other's ideas crap just because you disagree with them, it just makes you look foolish.

We will concede a lot with this tactic, no GK

 

[Sumlit]

The funny thing is when this team was at its peak in the Guardiola era, they indeed kept a 3 man back when the team was in attack. The versatility and defensive prowess of Abidal and Puyol, allowed the team to keep a three man backline on attack consisting of Abidal-Pique-Puyol, which allowed Alves to go forward undisturbed and had Busquets dropping back slotting into the CB spot to allow Puyol to cover Alves' back.

The above formation is purely an idea and just an alternative formation to keep in your pocket, the ideal thing is for the team to keep the 4-3-3 formation and just reinforced the squad in a bunch of different positions to get back to the way it was.

 

[Alarcón]

I've heard Pjanic would fancy playing for us. If we are to buy a CM, there's no one who is 24 and is better than Pjanic at the moment. He should be signed, both for the present and for the future.

Busi, Masche -- DMs
Cesc, Iniesta, Xavi, Pjanic - CM/CAMs.

And we will be set in midfield.

I agree but I'm skeptical about the prospect of Mascherano in our midfield. As far as I can remember he never looked particularly good when playing as a midfielder for us; he is (was) one of the best "orthodox" DM's in the world but the position is very different at Barça.

 

[Sumlit]

Mate, you are basically posting 2 identical lineups in terms of defensive transition, except with some 10 yard different positioning of the same player material. In #1 you have Mascherano-Pique-Busquets triangle in the middle of the pitch as the deepest defensive unit and in #2 you have Martinez-Pique-Bartra. What's the difference now in defensive transition after a long diagonal ball is played behind Alves back? Busquets will inevitably push higher up when he has those 3 behind him in #2 just the way you claim in #1 everyone pushes inevitably higher up to break the bus. There won't be 4 spare defenders sitting very deep in the middle of the park to wait for counters and if that's the whole plan (to prevent counters) then #1 can achieve this even better by just instructing Alves to stay back. Because Martinez, Busquets, Pique and Bartra all centrally in a 4 vs. 2 situation against Atletico's 4-4-2 is a weird idea. And it doesn't even explain how this "breaks" a bus. We've now changed the topic to discuss defending counterattacks. But even defensively you are completely ignoring that in #1 you have 2 wingers to pin back the fullbacks, which is a defensive benefit as well in terms of preventing counters, and in #2 you don't.

They are not identical, Busquets pushes forward to serve as a link-up with the midfield a lot vs parked buses, this is also because of the deterioration of Xavi, Busquets has to do more on the buildup than he used to have to. That causes him to get caught in less than ideal positions to defend counters when they start. In both formations Busquets would have the same role, just the second he is covered by 3 instead of 2.

As to the rest, you won't have 4 defenders covering the back, the middle CB is the sweeper, the other two cover the sides. Keeping a solid cover in the back allows the offensive players freedom to attack and take risks. Plenty of Barcelona's offensive problems start with the shaky and untrustworthy defense as it doesn't allow the offensive players to take risks and lose balls for fear of getting hurt in the counter.

As for Alves, simply instructing him to stay back is not enough. Forgetting the fact that Alves is an offensive minded fullback and you cannot change a tiger's stripes, at this point in his career he is no longer the player he used to be, nor was he ever a great defender.

Again, I'll remind you that I am neither advocating this formation to be a staple of the team, nor did I suggest it in the first place. I merely commented on it and spoke of its merits as the alternative formation if was originally suggested by the original poster.
I fully think keeping the 4-3-3 formation and reinforcing the CBs, RB with a defensive minded option, CM and RW is the way to go forward.

 

[serghei]

I agree but I'm skeptical about the prospect of Mascherano in our midfield. As far as I can remember he never looked particularly good when playing as a midfielder for us; he is (was) one of the best "orthodox" DM's in the world but the position is very different at Barça.

Mascherano would be a back up for Busi. Or he is to get in when the score favour us as a tactical move, to preserve the lead. Sort of what Martino did when he introduced Song at 1-0 for Barca in the clasico, only better.

 

[fcbdna]

I agree Masch and Pique would make a great striking pair!

 

[Sumlit]

I agree Masch and Pique would make a great striking pair!

I forgot to put MatS ahead of them, he is actually the CF. Tall too. Mache is actually the false 9, Pique the false 10.

 

[hulinat]

Pique debuted for ManU as a striker

 

[DinhoR10]

Pique debuted for ManU as a striker

Really?

 

[DinhoR10]

Pique debuted for ManU as a striker

Really?