I agree, but imo he did such a bad job Lucho, that you can't say putting in a physically strong midfield behind MSN, with good defenders capable of winning the ball back, would not have its merits under different circumstances (different manager, different signings). Whether we would want that at Barca or not is a totally different discussion, but an important one nonetheless.
Lucho wanted a team that could do both phases of play in a rigid system. That means there are players who do mostly the offensive phase, and players who do mostly the defensive phase. This is rigid football tactics. Imagine a ball being lost by the striker, or by the right winger. In some tactical setups, the more fluid ones, these players would now vacate their normal position in order to participate in the defensive phase, or in an attempt to get the ball back. In a fluid system you have more players doing both phases, and the main reason why they can do that, is because they do not have a very strict position they need to occupy. I don't see that at Barca. I see players sticking to their positions almost all the time, even if the ball is played 80m. away from where they are standing. Those players in that moment, are completely out of the game. Irrelevant. You have 3-4 players like that, and suddenly you're an easy team to create chances against, because you defend with less players and, on top of that, the ones that you have are not great even at defending.
I explain Rakitic's signing like that. Tactical. Lucho wanted a player who could do both phases. Could contribute in offense by appearing with a long range shot, or even by surprisingly moving up to speculate gaps created by the movement of MSN (see his goal vs City, or his goal vs Juventus). But more importanty, he wanted the same player to do his job in defense in a way that is not assisted by Messi, and occasionally, not assisted by Alves either (when he was caught up). Rakitic is not a specialist. But he was and still is a player who can do quite some things. Can score, can even provide a surprising assist, is even quite good at heading the ball, can put a tackle, works hard. So, he has qualities that can make him reasonably useful in both aspects of play: defense and attack.
Kroos was different. He was a skilled specialist player with great qualities on the ball, but a player who was problematic for his team when off the ball. See how players from the other team speculate this when Casemiro is not playing. In a fluid, semi-fluid system, Kroos is clearly the better player, because it means there is more density in the area where the ball is, and more density means less reliance on one's personal defensive skills. But when there is no density being created, and your teammates are withing a 20-25m. radius from your position, then you need to rely on your own defensive ability. Rakitic can do this better than Kroos. He does better defensively when isolated from his teammates.
The biggest failing of Lucho is that, by being focused on versatility, he has created a team that lacks a cutting edge in both aspects. He lacks a specialist creative midfielder to make the difference in attack, and he lacks ball winners in midfield. If we had those ball winners and great defensive players we would have never lost 0-4 to PSG and 0-3 with Juventus, because when the ball was lost, they would have been much better at controlling those situations. Who is supposed to win the ball back? Iniesta?
Roberto, the midfielder played as RB? Gomes?
Turan?
What I saw this season is a team playing in a way without having the right players for that tactic.
