Sorry for a harsh post and not that it means too much, but I have never seen you commenting on any players/matches before Pep.
So, I do have some fears that you didn't follow Barca pre Pep.
From the past (Xavi debates), I guess that we also figured out that you didn't watch Barca that much pre-Pep.
Let's go back on-topic.
For start, I will say that I have changed my mind about some things regarding physique in the past few Months.
I was always Champions league-based fan, where a CL is the most important thing for me in every season.
Since CL is that important too me, some of my views regarding physique were influenced heavily by Champions league knockout matches football.
This is why:
I used to say all the time how we need more physique in EVERY MATCH.
Lately I have changed my mind about that and I am leaning towards a theory that we need to start to talk about 2 tactical approaches for Barca:
1. for La Liga
2. and for Champions league Knockout matches
So, I am not against Barca's DNA players (Frenkie, Arthur for example) for La Liga anymore.
Patterns have proven over the last 10-20 years, that Pep's style is the best style to win LA LIGA.
So: have technical players, keep the ball, create chances, create 10-20 shots per match and you'll win majority of matches.
Especially in La liga where majority of opponents are also very technical.
Also, due to a nature of Spanish/Brasilian players, majority of them are (let's simplify this): shorter, lighter and technical and less physically oriented (height, muscles, insane stamina).
So, in short, I have changed my "workhorses" ideas lately REGARDING La Liga.
So, even I, workhorses lover, would currently play 2 Barca Dna players and 1 physical guy.
Let's say: Casemiro/Ndombele + Frenkie&Arthur.
So, no need for Raki-Paulinho-Vidal in La Liga, that is true.
But I still wouldn't go into extreme "light lineups", like Frenkie-Arthur-Alena/Puig.
So, there is no need for 2-3 workhorses in La Liga matches, but still, we can't play with 3 Puigs or Coutinhos either.
Now, about a CL and our lineup, physique, that is a different story.
One of the reasons why I am not Pep's biggest lover is because he is stubborn and doesn't have any Plan B.
He plays EXACTLY the same in every single game:
1. if we play against Rayo Vallecano at home: play attacking with light midfielders
2. if we play against Chelsea in a CL away: he plays the same
3. if we are leading 3:0: he is playing the same
4. if we are losing 0:3: he is playing the same
5. if we are creating 20 chances in a specific match: he is playing the same
6. if we can't create anything: he is not making tactical changes, we will just play the same till the end of time and repeat the same action over and over
So, my current idea is:
1. play Pep's style/type of a lineup=in La Liga matches
2. play Rijkaard's style of a lineup/tactics/approach=in CL knockout matches
I have checked this morning all matches from 2006 to refresh my memory and guys, look at some interesting things:
1. in 2005, Rijkaard was naive and learning.
We had a lot of injuries, but still, against Chelsea away in 2005, we played with: Gerard Lopez, Xavi, Deco, Iniesta midfield. 4 light, technical midfielders.
On paper, we should have dominated the match, right?
But we were eaten alive by a physical and fast Chelsea.
Plus, as always, with so many short players, we were eaten alive after every corner, just like against Roma last season.
2. in the next season, we had more players.
Xavi was injured in December of 2015' (knee ligaments).
But we will had: tall and strong pivot Edmilson, tall and strong pivot-Cm Motta, tall and strong pivot-Cm Van Bommel, Barca's DNA CM Deco, Barca's DNA young CM Iniesta (22 in May of 2006, so not a kid anymore.
So, by the end of a 2006' season, Iniesta was only a few Months younger than a current Arthur.
Let's remember that fact. Iniesta was 22 and ready to play.
2003 season: Iniesta 9 matches
2004 season: Iniesta 17 matches, under Rijkaard
2005 season: Iniesta 46 matches, under Rijkaard
So, before a start of 2005/06 season, Iniesta already had 72 matches for Barca.
And in 2005/06 season he played additional 49 matches.
So, by the end of 2006 season, Iniesta was 22 years old and had 141 matches for Barca.
That is quite a lot.
So, my point is that Iniesta in 2006 was not some kid like a current Alena or Puig.
Iniesta was a full time 12th or 13th player who played in midfield and on wings positions, whenever needed.
But now, my point is: when we read current posts on our forum, then back then in 2006, guys from this forum would probably play:
pivot Edmilson or Motta, and 2 Cms in Xavi + Deco with starters. And Iniesta as a sub Cm infront of a physical bully Van Bommel, right?
So, as Serghei mentioned, Xavi was injured, but look at this:
1/8 of Champions league in 2006, vs Chelsea at Stamford Bridge:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/4731518.stm
2 huge changes compared to a 2005 season:
1. we played with a RB Oleguer who was a Cb, and a horrible RB.
For younger guys, he was worse than Mathieu as a LB. So, a classical big, tall, strong CB who is very slow and a with a HORRIBLE technique and attacking skills.
Oleguer was barely crossing a half line.
He was just standing in our half and acted as a 3rd CB with Puyol and Marquez.
Why?
= because Mou and Chelsea murdered us on counters in 2005 at Stamford Bridge, so Rijkaard has learned a lesson and played more cautious with Oleguer instead of natural RB like Belletti or eve Silvinho.
= also, with a 187cm RB Oleguer, we gained more height on defensive corners.
We didn't lose too much in attack, since we had Ronaldinho-Etoo-Messi in attack
2. a change no2 is: Rijkaard moved away from 1 physical guy and 2 light players to=2 physical guys and 1 lighter guy.
So, yeah, Xavi was injured. But Rijkaard still had healthy Deco and 22 years old Iniesta.
But, Rijkaard didn't want to play 2 lighter CMs in away matches anymore and turned to 2 physical guys and 1 lighter guy combinations.
So, our midfield against Chelsea 1/8 2006' away:
Pivot Edmilson
A double pivot Motta
CM Deco
So, a pecking order of midfielders for this away match was:
1. Deco
2. Edmilson
3. Motta
4. Van Bommel
5. Iniesta
After 36 minutes, Del Horno from Chelsea was red carded due to a tackle on Messi.
And the funny thing is: we played 11 vs 10 vs Chelsea, and Rijkaard still played with a RB Oleguer who can't do shit in attack.
And we still kept playing with a double pivot defensive minded midfield: Edmilson-Motta + Deco.
We were losing 1:0 after 59 minutes after a set piece (again), and then Rijkaard subbed in Larsson for Motta.
Iniesta was on the bench.
2nd sub was Silvinho for LB Van Bronckhorst.
We scored for 1:1 and 2:1 in 71th and 80th minute.
And THEN, Iniesta entered in the 84th minute with 2:1 score and 11 vs 10 players, to KEEP the ball and bring some fresh legs.
Iniesta entered as an attacking midfielder instead of Deco.
So, this was quite a cautious approach guys, don't you agree?
2 pivots and a RB Oleguer. And playing this was even with 11 vs 10.
Then, in the 2nd leg at home, we needed to defend 2:1 score.
Now, some coaches and fans would say: we need to play attacking at home, or with Barca's DNA players and not sit back.
Well, Rijkaard opted for the same defensive approach at home:
Double pivot: Edmilson, Motta, CM Deco - Ronnie, Etoo, Messi.
With a RB Oleguer again, while Cms Iniesta and Van Bommel were on the bench and attacking fullbacks Belletti and Silvinho also.
Ronnie scored for 1:0 in the 78th minute and Chelsea equalized in the 90th minute.
Our only sub was in the 25th minute: Larsson for injured Messi.
Iniesta didn't get a single minute since we needed to defend.
So, Rijkaard needed defense and it was not a time:
1. for light Iniesta
2. for young Iniesta
3. for developing youngsters
4. for playing too risky football
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/4778194.stm
In 1/4, we had a lot of injured/booked players:
Puyol was out, Marquez was out, Edmilson was out.
So, Oleguer and a pivot Motta needed to play as Cbs.
With Edmilson, Motta, Xavi out, our only available midfielders were Van Bommel, Deco and Iniesta.
Our bech was: CF MAxi Lopez, young CB Rodri from a B team (since no else was fit), CF Ezquerro and a fullback Silvinho.
Now, since everyone were injured, Rijkaard played young Iniesta.
And we played with 2 lighter CMs (Deco and Iniesta) since we didn't have other options.
Match ended 0:0 in Portugal.
In the 2nd leg, we needed a win at home.
And NOW, UNLIKE against Chelsea, when we needed to chase the score, Rijkaard adopted a more ATTACKING approach.
He left pivot Edmilson on the bench.
Motta was injured/suspended.
And he play pivot Van Bommel who was way more creative than Edmilson, paired with two creative CMs Deco and Iniesta.
So, guys, my point is:
Against Chelsea at home in 1/8, when we needed to defend 2:1 score, Rijkaard played: double pivot Edmilson-Motta (two physical guys for Barca's standards) and Deco.
Now, against Benfica when we needed to chase the score, he went all in with pivot Van Bommel, and the most technical and risky midfield duo Deco-Iniesta.
We won 2:0
In semis we played against AC Milan, a finalist from 2005, and a winner in 2007.
The first leg was at San Siro.
Now, when we play away and we are NOT chasing the score, what do you think that Rijkaard picked?
An attacking approach or a more cautious approach?
This time Deco was out, and Rijkaard AGAIN turned to a RB Oleguer to strengthen the defense.
In midfield, he played a double pivot Edmilson-Van Bommel again, with Iniesta as a Cam, since he was the only attacking option left.
We won 1:0 away.
In the 2nd leg, it was the 1st time that Rijkaard decided to play with 2 Cms (he probably had his tactical reasons):
We played: Edmilson, Iniesta-Deco, with BOTH Van Bommel and Motta on the bench.
I guess that Rijkaard thought that Milan's midfield was quite technical with Gattuso, Pirlo, Seedors, Kaka and that it is safer to play on technique than on physique in that match.
The match ended 0:0 and we went through.
In a final against Arsenal, Rijkaard was again back to the same formula which he used against another English team, Chelsea, and that means:
Oleguer as a RB to strengthen a defense.
And 2 phsycal guys: pivot Edmilson, Cm Van Bommel and Barca Dna midfielder Deco.
When we were losing 0:1, Rijkaard turn to all out attack with: Iniesta for a pivot Edmilson and Van Bommel moving to a pivot.
So, again we had an extremely technical midfield, the same against Benfica, when we needed a win, with: Van Bommel pivot (Edmilson and Motta not on a field).
Oleguer was subbed for a more attacking RB Belletti.
Later Larsson also stepped in for Van Bommel and our midfield was left only to Deco-Iniesta with 4 attackers: Ronnie, Etoo, Guily, Larsson and 2 attacking fullback in Van Bronckhorst and Belletti.
Anyway, my point is:
I liked Rijkaard's approach in a CL way more than Pep's.
Pep is a better manager, but he is stubborn and he plays every single match in a same way.
Regardless if we play against Rayo or Chelsea.
Rijkaard played more attacking in La Liga, and more cautious in a CL. Especially in away matches.
And our away matches in that season were:
Chelsea 1:2
Benfica 0:0
Milan 0:1
2 wins, 1 draw. We concede only 1 goal in 3 away matches.
In fact, in we count a final vs Arsenal as an away match, we played 1:2 there and conceded 1 goal.
But our only 2 goals conceded were BOTH after set pieces vs Chelsea and Arsenal.
So, basically, with Rijkaard's approach, we didn't concede a SINGLE goal from an open play in 4 away matches (Chelsea, Benfica, Milan, Arsenal).
Or, our ALL results from that season:
Chelsea 2:1 (set piece goal)
Chelsea 1:1 (penalty kick, Lampard)
Benfica 0:0
Benfica 2:0
Milan 1:0
Milan 0:0
Arsenal 2:1
So, over 630 minutes of KNOCKOUT MATCHES in 2006, we conceded 3 goals and ALL 3 goals were from set pieces:
1. Chelsea set piece, own goal Motta
2. Chelsea penalty, Lampard
3. Arsenal a final, set piece header, Campbell
So, after a long post, my point is:
1. we didn't ALWAYS play like in Pep's era
2. we didn't ALWAYS play all out attack NO MATTER what, like under Pep
3. sometimes we played ugly and cautious to win matches, like in 2006' but not too many are remembering that anymore, all we remember is Ronaldinho, young Messi and Joga Bonita
4. Rijkaard had several different tactical approaches:
1) attacking in La Liga
2) defensive in Champions league away matches, or when we need to defend a score
4) all out attack when we need a goal in a CL (Benfica, Arsenal)
So, guys who are mentioning mes que un club, what about this?
This was a smart play and smart tactics, and not playing attacking in every single match, no matter what.
Also, regarding guys who say that we can survive with: Frenkie, Arthur, Alena, Puig, Oriol, Coutinho, again wtf?
That looks like Pep's lineup, true.
Does that looks like Rijkaard's team where he had physical guys like Edmilson, Motta and Van Bommel and lighter-technical guys like Xavi, Deco, Iniesta?
Frenkie, Arthur, Alena, Puig is not a well balanced midfield.
That is a type of midfield for only one tactical setup: all out attack all the time.
How will you defend a score (like Rijkaard) with those players?
= you can't
And once again, Rijkaard's mix of BOTH attacking-technical football and very cautious and defensive approach in other matches has brought us a first CL after 14 years of waiting.
And as said above, we didn't concede a SINGLE GOAL from an open play in 7 matches (630 minutes) of knockout matches.
Now, compare that approach with our current away matches: Psg 0:4, Juve 0:3, Roma 0:3, Atletico 0:2, Atletico 0:1, Bayern 0:4 and similar.
As I have said, I moved away from playing PHYSICAL players all the time. Especially for La Liga.
We don't need too much physique for La Liga.
La Liga is all about Pep's football, I agree with that (but we need at least some basic physique, like 1 semi-physical guy).
In a CL, that is another story.
Would you guys rather face Atletico in a CL with Rijkaard's approach or with Frenkie-Alena-Arthur for example?
Here is a video from a 2nd leg: Barca:Chelsea in 2006, when we were defending at home (2:1 first leg) with Edmilson, Motta, Deco midfield.
This was far from a beautiful, free flowing football.
But it was smart and effective:
