Frenkie de Jong

[George_Costanza]

I have wrote a few times in the past few weeks this reply:
I am a CL-obsessed fan.
For me, winning a CL is more important than a World cup, that's just how I am wired.

Now, since I am watching all Barca's CL's exits since famous Milan:Barca 4:0 final in 1994, I was pissed 100s of times for losing in exactly the same way over years.

Now, since in those years, it was impossible to watch La Liga matches (there was no internet and sport Tv channels like today), I was watching Barca only in El Classicos and in CL exits.
And my knowledge about Barca was built mostly about CL and our flaws in that competition.

And in my eyes, too naive approach, playing too attacking all the time and a lack of physicality were our main flaws pre-Pep, when I wasn't able to watch La Liga matches.
This is why my opinion for years was: muscles is our main problem.

But lately, over the last few Months, I changed my mind and developed a new theory with 2 different competitions/approaches:
1. La liga tactics/lineup
2. Champions league tactics/lineup

Now, my idea about more muscles, defending, height remains the same. BUT ONLY for CL knockout rounds against teams like Bayern, Juve, Atletico, English teams etc.
For La liga, I have changed my mind. Father Pep was right and Pepistas are right.
For La liga, possession, technical and light players are the way to go and even I would play Frenkie-Arthur plus someone like Vidal/Raki as a pivot in the future.
For CL, my pick would be closer to 2 Rakitics and one Frenkie.

So, today, I have nothing against Arthur and Frenkie, even though I like Frenkie more. I don't know why, I am just not a too huge fan of Arthur, even though I would play him in a team.
So, I actually do like a balanced setup:
2 technical or 2 and a half technical Cms for La liga.
And 1 or 2 physical guys for tough CL matches. The same as what Rijkaard did. He played with lighter guys in La liga and with heavy guys in a CL.
It worked after 14 years of CL mysery.



Real is not winning in La Liga, because La Liga teams are physically light, technical, fast, with good off the ball movement.
Not too many teams except Atletico rely on physical players in La Liga.
Under these circumstances, Pep's and Barca's style IS the way to go against crappy La liga teams like Getafe, Levante, Girona, Las Palmas, Rayo and similar.
Passing is safe.
When you keep the ball, you will create 10 shots per match and on larger samples, you will win 2:0 or 3:0 in majority of La Liga matches.
If you cross in La liga, that is risky and the efficiency of crosses is way lower than the efficiency of a smart shortpassing possession based play.

But...
Once when you meet CL opponents like Juve, Bayern and similar who are equally or more technical than La Liga teams and yet way, way, way more physical, than Barca is not used to play against THAT TYPE of opponents.
Then we rely on a gameplan which works against light technical La liga teams with lighter (and shorter midfielders and defenders).
And then: in La liga we are able to create 10 shots per match without any problems.
Yet, in a CL, with the same shortpassing around the box approach, we are hitting the bus all the time.

In those circumstances, teams with more weapons like: shortpasses, direct actions, set pieces (corners), crosses and headers from an open play=have more weapons to break buses of Juve, Bayern and Atletico.

But here is a catch:
Atletico Madrid and it's style is designed for 1:0 and 0:0 matches.
That works perfectly in a CL knockout rounds.
In La Liga though, their 1:0 and 0:0 gamestyle sucks and on 38 rounds, they have way more 1:1 and 0:0 matches against weak teams than Barca.
And this is why Barca's possession style and 3:0 wins are better than Atletico's 1:0 approach.

On the other hand, Barca's too attacking approach will result in either 3:0 wins or 0:3 defeats in a CL.
While Atletico will mostly play 1:0 and 0:0.

So, what works in one competition perfectly, will kill you in the other competition.

The same is with Real.
Gameplan with crosses is more risky and with less efficiency than a smart possession play.
And this is why their style is not as good as our's in La Liga.

But again, our style works ONLY up to a certain level.
In the last few years, even though our style was better for La liga (against weak low table and midtable teams), Atletico and Real had more success in a CL, even though they are weaker than us in La liga.

Someone could simplify it and say: no. We are fine. We were just unlucky. It was just Lucho or Valverde, or refs or volcanoes or Pinto, or whatever excuse.

But the point stands, that after 2012 and Pep/Spain, TikiTaka stopped producing trophies in CL and on World cups/Euros.
TikiTaka and similar styles are still GOATs for LA Liga, Bundesliga and lately for City in EPL.

But every single winner of a CL since 2013 was:
1. a direct team
2. or a team with crosses, direct play and possession. And a mix of technique and physique.

Even Lucho's Barca was a counterattacking Barca, and not a classic possession based Barca.

Germany in 2014, and France in 2018 were again teams who were:
1. either counterattacking deadly teams with awesome technique and physique (France)
2. or a mix of technique and physique (Germany) paired with possession, direct football and crosses in 2014.

I am not saying that it is 100% impossible to win a CL or World cup anymore with Barca's/Spain's style from 2008-2012, but it is way more easier and efficient to win it with a more direct approach or with more different attacking weapons.
I could add: more physique, more aerial threat both in attack and defense.

Also, you asked about Barca's corners.
I won't comment on corners from group stage of a CL.
But regarding knockout stage, I can't remember have we scored any corners in the last few years in KO rounds.

I do remember though some conceded, for example:
2005: exit vs Chelsea 4:2. The last goal conceded after a corner (Terry)
2006: against Chelsea, we won, but conceded an own goal after a corner.
2006: a final against Arsenal, we won. A goal conceded after a corner (Campbell).
2017: Juve, 3:0, the 3rd goal, after a corner Chiellini.
2018: Roma 3:0, the final goal after a corner.
2019: against Lyon, we won, the only goal conceded after a corner again.

If there were more goals from us, my bad.

Also, in the last 10 years, we conceded numerous of goals with headers after crosses.
Which is again explained imo by: LA Liga teams are short and are not THAT dangerous in the air.
So, our defenders are usually short and we don't need to defend too much during corners and not too many teams play a crossing game in La Liga.
So, we are kinda shocked in defending against European teams with aerial weapons since our team is built for La Liga: lighter, shorter, possession based defenders and pivots.

Anyway, I have wrote above to Serghei, this is why I am leaning towards 2 approaches now:
1. La Liga approach (Pep)
2. CL approach (not Pep's classic style)

What you said is so confusing and dosn't make any sense!

So your formula examples.

La Liga teams generally physically light, technical, fast, with good off the ball movement
EXCEPT for ATM and Real who are physically superior and play short passes, direct actions, set pieces, crosses and headers from an open play. Similar to top UCL teams like Bayern and Juve..etc.

Now, what is confusing is ATM and Real struggle against teams physically light, technical, with good off-ball movement? Wouldn' you think any team that plays a similar style would struggle too? With what you said top English teams, Bayern and Juve would struggle in La Liga, isn't it? Then why would you say this is not the winning formula in UCL?

Also when Barca dominated Europe for a decade, our player's average size was officially the smallest team in Europe. How this suddenly became an issue? Didn't those superior size European teams play crosses or was set pieces banned for a decade?

 

[xXKonan]

[tw]1110282205618728960[/tw]

 

[Arizona Scott]

I have wrote a few times in the past few weeks this reply:
I am a CL-obsessed fan.
For me, winning a CL is more important than a World cup, that's just how I am wired.

Now, since I am watching all Barca's CL's exits since famous Milan:Barca 4:0 final in 1994, I was pissed 100s of times for losing in exactly the same way over years.

Now, since in those years, it was impossible to watch La Liga matches (there was no internet and sport Tv channels like today), I was watching Barca only in El Classicos and in CL exits.
And my knowledge about Barca was built mostly about CL and our flaws in that competition.

And in my eyes, too naive approach, playing too attacking all the time and a lack of physicality were our main flaws pre-Pep, when I wasn't able to watch La Liga matches.
This is why my opinion for years was: muscles is our main problem.

But lately, over the last few Months, I changed my mind and developed a new theory with 2 different competitions/approaches:
1. La liga tactics/lineup
2. Champions league tactics/lineup

Now, my idea about more muscles, defending, height remains the same. BUT ONLY for CL knockout rounds against teams like Bayern, Juve, Atletico, English teams etc.
For La liga, I have changed my mind. Father Pep was right and Pepistas are right.
For La liga, possession, technical and light players are the way to go and even I would play Frenkie-Arthur plus someone like Vidal/Raki as a pivot in the future.
For CL, my pick would be closer to 2 Rakitics and one Frenkie.

So, today, I have nothing against Arthur and Frenkie, even though I like Frenkie more. I don't know why, I am just not a too huge fan of Arthur, even though I would play him in a team.
So, I actually do like a balanced setup:
2 technical or 2 and a half technical Cms for La liga.
And 1 or 2 physical guys for tough CL matches. The same as what Rijkaard did. He played with lighter guys in La liga and with heavy guys in a CL.
It worked after 14 years of CL mysery.



Real is not winning in La Liga, because La Liga teams are physically light, technical, fast, with good off the ball movement.
Not too many teams except Atletico rely on physical players in La Liga.
Under these circumstances, Pep's and Barca's style IS the way to go against crappy La liga teams like Getafe, Levante, Girona, Las Palmas, Rayo and similar.
Passing is safe.
When you keep the ball, you will create 10 shots per match and on larger samples, you will win 2:0 or 3:0 in majority of La Liga matches.
If you cross in La liga, that is risky and the efficiency of crosses is way lower than the efficiency of a smart shortpassing possession based play.

But...
Once when you meet CL opponents like Juve, Bayern and similar who are equally or more technical than La Liga teams and yet way, way, way more physical, than Barca is not used to play against THAT TYPE of opponents.
Then we rely on a gameplan which works against light technical La liga teams with lighter (and shorter midfielders and defenders).
And then: in La liga we are able to create 10 shots per match without any problems.
Yet, in a CL, with the same shortpassing around the box approach, we are hitting the bus all the time.

In those circumstances, teams with more weapons like: shortpasses, direct actions, set pieces (corners), crosses and headers from an open play=have more weapons to break buses of Juve, Bayern and Atletico.

But here is a catch:
Atletico Madrid and it's style is designed for 1:0 and 0:0 matches.
That works perfectly in a CL knockout rounds.
In La Liga though, their 1:0 and 0:0 gamestyle sucks and on 38 rounds, they have way more 1:1 and 0:0 matches against weak teams than Barca.
And this is why Barca's possession style and 3:0 wins are better than Atletico's 1:0 approach.

On the other hand, Barca's too attacking approach will result in either 3:0 wins or 0:3 defeats in a CL.
While Atletico will mostly play 1:0 and 0:0.

So, what works in one competition perfectly, will kill you in the other competition.

The same is with Real.
Gameplan with crosses is more risky and with less efficiency than a smart possession play.
And this is why their style is not as good as our's in La Liga.

But again, our style works ONLY up to a certain level.
In the last few years, even though our style was better for La liga (against weak low table and midtable teams), Atletico and Real had more success in a CL, even though they are weaker than us in La liga.

Someone could simplify it and say: no. We are fine. We were just unlucky. It was just Lucho or Valverde, or refs or volcanoes or Pinto, or whatever excuse.

But the point stands, that after 2012 and Pep/Spain, TikiTaka stopped producing trophies in CL and on World cups/Euros.
TikiTaka and similar styles are still GOATs for LA Liga, Bundesliga and lately for City in EPL.

But every single winner of a CL since 2013 was:
1. a direct team
2. or a team with crosses, direct play and possession. And a mix of technique and physique.

Even Lucho's Barca was a counterattacking Barca, and not a classic possession based Barca.

Germany in 2014, and France in 2018 were again teams who were:
1. either counterattacking deadly teams with awesome technique and physique (France)
2. or a mix of technique and physique (Germany) paired with possession, direct football and crosses in 2014.

I am not saying that it is 100% impossible to win a CL or World cup anymore with Barca's/Spain's style from 2008-2012, but it is way more easier and efficient to win it with a more direct approach or with more different attacking weapons.
I could add: more physique, more aerial threat both in attack and defense.

Also, you asked about Barca's corners.
I won't comment on corners from group stage of a CL.
But regarding knockout stage, I can't remember have we scored any corners in the last few years in KO rounds.

I do remember though some conceded, for example:
2005: exit vs Chelsea 4:2. The last goal conceded after a corner (Terry)
2006: against Chelsea, we won, but conceded an own goal after a corner.
2006: a final against Arsenal, we won. A goal conceded after a corner (Campbell).
2017: Juve, 3:0, the 3rd goal, after a corner Chiellini.
2018: Roma 3:0, the final goal after a corner.
2019: against Lyon, we won, the only goal conceded after a corner again.

If there were more goals from us, my bad.

Also, in the last 10 years, we conceded numerous of goals with headers after crosses.
Which is again explained imo by: LA Liga teams are short and are not THAT dangerous in the air.
So, our defenders are usually short and we don't need to defend too much during corners and not too many teams play a crossing game in La Liga.
So, we are kinda shocked in defending against European teams with aerial weapons since our team is built for La Liga: lighter, shorter, possession based defenders and pivots.

Anyway, I have wrote above to Serghei, this is why I am leaning towards 2 approaches now:
1. La Liga approach (Pep)
2. CL approach (not Pep's classic style)

I have to disagree with a multiple points.

For one the Spain team from 08-12 was the best football ever played. Three strait of the big international tournaments. I think unheard of in Europe.

Also, sorry of the same football that dominated La Liga has been great in Europe. Barca, Real and Atletico have been some order of 1-2-3 in league and each has one the league in recent years, and are top 4 in club rankings in Europe.

I believe the Champions League, like almost every major world tournament, most often requires some luck--some good bounces of the ball that go in or out, blown or made penalities, marginal or bad calls going their way, or not. We talk about Real winning 3 in a row, they were good enough to be in position to win (along with 3-5 other teams those years), but lots of luck involved particularly the 1st and last. Good fortune in the finals, good fortune in semis, typically. The teams that needed the least luck or most control throughout tourneys I can remember--I would say the 2nd of Pep's treble and the 2nd of Spain's Euros. Just one different missed penalty 2 years ago, Real doesn't have a 3 peat and the narrative is "the dominance of Spain" in the CL--Barca, Real, Atletico, Real--not that somehow Real is better geared for the CL than Barca (or Atletico).

I will say the one way Real has been better prep for winning the CL is under Zidane he was much better at resting core players and getting the team to peak April/May health/form/fatigue wise where most all the Barca coaches since Pep have often had the teams peaking pre-Feb by putting the hammer down in league and copa.

Now my personal biases is winning the league and copa and unlucky quarter/semi final exit of the CL is a very good season. The only way it really tastes a little off when Real gets the CL. Had Atletico or Liverpool or Juve won the CL while we swept the other trophies--for me an unquestionably great and satisfying season. But I guess each to their taste on that--I don't know what it is like to be a fan of with CL success but where we couldn't take our own league--would see a little weird to me--I like going for trembles+.

 

[Arizona Scott]

However I do agree with a couple points.

I agree many times Barca has been light on muscle and overall athleticism/speed on the field vs competitors and that has hurt them. But that equally contributed to giving up a couple league titles--such as drawing to Atletico from a winning position to lose the league, and doing the same in one CL round to them. Other examples too.

Also sometimes I think we are too stubborn with the short corners and not using free kicks optimally--it isn't like Pique, Umtiti, Suarez and Rakitic are not good aerial players--and some times it is best to mix it up and be unpreditable--use your set piece like a set piece instead of solely the ball recylcing from those advanced positions. Better use of these would also better punish the defense for kicking it behind for a corner and cheap fouls just out of free kick range on goal--when now there is little disincentive for opponents to do those strategies.

 

[serghei]

[MENTION=16942]BBZ8800[/MENTION], fair enough, but Rijkaard's best midfield when all were available had both Deco, and Xavi in it. Neither was muscular, tall or anything you describe there.

 

[Porque]

BBZ is right in that we need a different strategy in CL knockout games compared to LaLiga which is marathon.

The biggest issue is that the team had been overrun by an average of 10km by the opponents. This isn't as simplistic as having "big strong players" but rather working harder off the ball to deny space.

Look back at the matchday lineups over the years and more often than not we didnt go out because of wrong physical profile of players.

Against Inter in 2010 we had Keita-Busi-Xavi in midfield which wasnt any less physical than Inters. Puyol was in CB and Zlatan was upfront.

2013 Chelsea of Di Matteo (yikes!) beat us with us having a midfield quartet setup (doh! Pep done an Ernie).

2013 Bayern destroyed us and overrun us. This is the best example of the squad needing changes. But we also had the issues with Tito (rip).

2014 Atletico beat us when we also setup a midfield quartet away (doh! Tata done an Ernie. Oh, and Pinto was in goal.

2016. Atletico knocked us out with a late penalty in an even match.

2017 Juventus destroyed us. This was Juventus midfield: Pjanic-Khedir with Mandzukic-Dybala-Cuadrado infront. This was our more physical midfield: Iniesta-Masch-Rakitic

2018. Midfield quartet again (doh! Ernie done a Pep Tito de la Tata)

So you can see, apart from Bayern 2013, it wasnt really being less physical. It is more about setup, style, NOT running, no counter attacking. Oh and on 4 occasions playing a midfield possession quartet on top of all the previous reasons.

 

[BBZ8800]

[MENTION=16942]BBZ8800[/MENTION], fair enough, but Rijkaard's best midfield when all were available had both Deco, and Xavi in it. Neither was muscular, tall or anything you describe there.

I know that.
Even though, a question remains whether Rijkaard would have played with Xavi-Deco in 2006 if Xavi would have been fit or would he tried something else?
Remember, in 2005 against Mou's Chelsea, we had a lot of injuries and we played:
RB Belletti (attacking RB)
pivot Gerard Lopez (Edmilson and Motta injured)
CMs Xavi and Deco
RW Iniesta (lol)
So, in that match we had 4 Barca's DNA midfielders together on a field in 433 formation (Gerard, Xavi, Deco, Iniesta). In theory, we should have dominated the match like crazy, right?
But as I have posted that match a lot of times (that night was mine personal the saddest moment as Barca's fan because I thought that we can finally win a CL after 13 years of mysery, yet we lost in the same way as always: too naive, too attacking, too light on muscles, horrible in defending corners), we were eaten alive in that match.
The match looked like classical Barca's matches: we have the ball around their box. We are passing it around and trying some things, but we can't break their bus.
Yet, every time when we lose the ball, they would have deadly 2:2 or 3:3 counters.
Whenever we had the ball, it looked as if there is NO WAY that we will ever score or break their bus, unless if Ronaldinho pulls some out of this world magic.
Yet, whenever Chelsea got the ball, I was on a verge of a heart attack, because their every single counter smelled like an extreme danger.
Not to mention corners. Whenever they had a corner, I thought: this is it. We are dead, a goal is incoming.

I don't want to give lessons to younger fans here, but I have said a lot of times, I am having a deja vu while watching Barca getting knocked out in CL 1/4s every season.
Matches against Roma 2018, Juve 2017, Psg 2017, Atletico 2014 and 2016, Bayern 2013 etc are imo like watching exactly the same matches from late 90s against Bayern or Milan, or matches against Valencia in 2000, Juve 2003, Chelsea 2005 etc

The same how we have been toothless against AM in 2014 and 2016, we played more or less the same for the last 25 years.
Or, the same how we have been outrun against Roma or Psg away, we have been outrun by majority of physical teams 20 years ago.
I won't even mention corners. I am watching us conceding the same goal over and over for 20 years.

So, anyway, we were eaten alive by Chelsea.
And the next season, Rijkaard dropped RB Belletti from CL matches and played with Oleguer (that is something like playing Mathieu, Vermaelen or Lenglet as a fullback today) to get: a better defense, to get less exposed at counters due to fullbacks venturing too much into attack and then we are dead when we lose the ball, plus to get some height while defending corners, since Oleguer was 187cm tall.
So, even this Belletti-Oleguer change is a prove that Rijkaard changed his ideas in 2006 and figured out that "classical, naive Barca's" style is not the way to win a CL against pragmatic teams.

Regarding Xavi vs Bommel, we will never know whether Rijkaard would have 442 or 433 with Xavi or with Bommel if everyone were fit.
Some will get offended, but look at this pattern:
2005: lost to Chelsea with: Gerard, Xavi, Deco, Iniesta, 4 Barca's DNA midfielders.
2006: won a CL with Edmilson, Motta (Van Bommel), Deco midfield. 3 thugs/physical guys and only 1 Barca's DNA player. Iniesta was usually used as a sub when we needed to turn the match around.
Even in a final, Rijkaard's pick were Edmilson, Van Bommel, Deco, with Iniesta on the bench. And Xavi returned from the injury.
But look at this (ok, there were more factors, but still): in a summer of 2006, we sold Van Bommel to Bayern because he wanted to play more and we had a young Iniesta.
So, we lost a starter-physical-thug Van Bommel who was a part of a physical midfield which won a CL after 14 years of losing with BArca's DNA type of midfielders.
Also, we lost Larsson, who was also offering BOTH scoring with feet and an option to score with headers, and we got young Messi.

Then, in 2007, we faced Liverpool in 1/8 of a CL, without CM Van Bommel and CF Larsson, and Rijkaard returned back to Barca's roots with playing way lighter and more technical team which lacked:
1. physique
2. which was unable to score headers
Our lineup was: Zambrotta, Marquez, Puyol, Belletti - Motta, Xavi, Deco - Ronaldinho, Saviola, Messi

Now, I know, there are 100s of factors, but look at some basics which I am repeating all the time:
Chelsea 2005:
4 light midfielders, 0 thug midfielders
Attacking RB Belletti, prone to counters
No Oleguer as a RB, prone to counters and weaker against crosses and corners.
We LOST.

2006:
Rijkaard played with 2 thugs in midfield and only 1 light guy.
He dropped too attacking RB Belletti for a CB Oleguer. We weren't prone to counters and we got more strength in the air while defending.
We had 2 players in attack who can score with feet and HEAD: Etoo and Larsson (and Ronaldinho somewhat).
What happened? We WON a CL after we moved away from our basics which are usually not working in a CL.

2007:
We sold CM Van Bommel and CF Rijkaard to play young light Messi and young light Iniesta.
We returned to Xavi-Deco dou.
We returned to attacking RB Belletti, we were prone to counters and weak against crosses, so a good old too attacking, light Barca, extremely weak against counters and crosses, and yet sterile in attack since we can score only through the ground with these type of players.
What happened? Defeat against Liverpool again.

2008: a classical Barca:
Midfield: Toure, Xavi, Deco and Iniesta as a winger. 4 Barca's DNA players plus Messi.
Result=a defeat again, without a scored goal.
Again not too many different weapons in attack and we were weak against counters and crosses.
We lost again.

I know, people will now reply: But, but, but, IT WORKED during Pep!
Well, I am looking at it in this way:
1993 to 2005: we played Barca's way in a CL=lost every single time
2006: Rijkaard move away to a more physical/cautious approach=we won a CL
2007-2008: Rijkaard returned to Barca's classical way=we lost again
2009-2012: Pep was winning. But, WHAT IF we were winning ONLY because of prime Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Busi. What if this style was still meh for a CL, but these aliens turned our not so good style into a winning one with their magic?
2013: Xavi got old, Barca's started to suffer. Messi was winning matches on his own less than before.
2013-2018: Barca losing every time, once when Messi, Xavi, Iniesta were not on their prime anymore. And every season, we were losing in EXACTLY the same fashion as in 1993-2008.
The only exception is 2015, when we, AGAIN moved AWAY from our classical style. We had a good defense and we played on counters.

So, there are 2 options:
1. Pep's style is awesome and we should follow it in a CL till forever
2. or Barca's classical style and Pep's style is usually not good enough and too naive for a CL. But it worked for a short time when we had the best team ever. Aka, without a best team ever, that style will extremely rarely produce trophies in a CL.
I am leaning towards the theory NO2.

Now, for the end, regarding my Deja Vu feeling while watching Barca against Atletico in 2014, 2016, Psg, Juve 2017, Roma 2018, now guys, take a look at these highlights and try to find some patters:
Chelsea 2005
Liverpool 2007
Man Utd 2008:
1. all 3 times we played with Barca's DNA midfield. We lost in every year
2. all 3 times we had an attack which can score only through the ground, so we had problems to break the opponenent's bus
3. we struggled on counters EVERY single time
4. we struggled against corners and crosses every single time (Chelsea and Liverpool, every cross/corner is like 50% of a goal in our net)

Now, fast forward to Juve, Atletico, Roma:
1. we are still as equally as shit at defending corners
2. we are always having possession, can't break their bus, and yet we are prone to deadly counters
3. we can score only through the ground with our short players. In these videos from above: we are shooting with feet all the time and struggle. Yet, our opponents are creating chances for fun against us with crosses.
So, we have: only shortpassing. They have BOTH shortpassing and crosses options.
4. we usually play only slow possession game against parked buses. They are playing faster and they are catching us on counters all the time.
So, imo, Barca's CL exits in 1999, 2002, 2005 or 2014 are more or less the same.
This is why I am whining that our classical style is NOT too good for a CL.
And people will always pull: but but but Pep!
As said, I think that Pep's team was more like an anomaly since we were Goats, and not some rule. The rule is that we are always not good enough for a CL with our default style.

Now sit back, and guys, be honest, don't you see WAAAAY too many similarities with matches from 2005, 2007 and 2008 with recent exits against Atletico, Juve and Roma?

Chelsea 2005:

Liverpool 2007:

Look at this shit show defending at the 2nd goal against a cross, the same show like against Lyon.
Both goals conceded after crosses.
Basically, we concede all goals for 20 years only from counters or crosses.

Man Utd 2008:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDWzxKseibM

BBZ is right in that we need a different strategy in CL knockout games compared to LaLiga which is marathon.

The biggest issue is that the team had been overrun by an average of 10km by the opponents. This isn't as simplistic as having "big strong players" but rather working harder off the ball to deny space.

Look back at the matchday lineups over the years and more often than not we didnt go out because of wrong physical profile of players.

Against Inter in 2010 we had Keita-Busi-Xavi in midfield which wasnt any less physical than Inters. Puyol was in CB and Zlatan was upfront.

2013 Chelsea of Di Matteo (yikes!) beat us with us having a midfield quartet setup (doh! Pep done an Ernie).

2013 Bayern destroyed us and overrun us. This is the best example of the squad needing changes. But we also had the issues with Tito (rip).

2014 Atletico beat us when we also setup a midfield quartet away (doh! Tata done an Ernie. Oh, and Pinto was in goal.

2016. Atletico knocked us out with a late penalty in an even match.

2017 Juventus destroyed us. This was Juventus midfield: Pjanic-Khedir with Mandzukic-Dybala-Cuadrado infront. This was our more physical midfield: Iniesta-Masch-Rakitic

2018. Midfield quartet again (doh! Ernie done a Pep Tito de la Tata)

So you can see, apart from Bayern 2013, it wasnt really being less physical. It is more about setup, style, NOT running, no counter attacking. Oh and on 4 occasions playing a midfield possession quartet on top of all the previous reasons.

I would add to your posts and our defeats: in all defeats we had ONLY ONE WAY of attacking.
In 2006, we had: possession, counters and crosses.
In 2015: we had possession and counters.
In majority of other years, we mostly had only possession (and some counters here and there. Lately we don't have nor crosses nor counters).
When we have only possession as an attacking weapon, we are usually not good enough. Unless if you have prime Messi, which will never repeat again.

 

[Gaudi]

I would add not only balance but speed is something we need to look for in CL games. Also, our style is, well, different, but in defence we usually have 3 players not defending at all...that's not something other teams do. I'm not sure any muscle can help here.

 

[George_Costanza]

[MENTION=16942]BBZ8800[/MENTION], fair enough, but Rijkaard's best midfield when all were available had both Deco, and Xavi in it. Neither was muscular, tall or anything you describe there.

We actually lacked brain, not muscle since Xavi left us.

Iniesta was fine but he was getting old, injury prone and can't do it on his own. We had Gomes, Raktic (we only see some flashes of his brain now and then), Turan, Rafinha, D. Suarez, Roberto, Aleix Vidal, Douglas, Paulinho, Mathieu. All of them are mixture of either muscle without brain or tecnical wthout brain.

I like this tweet:
In his debut with Catalunya Riqui Puig (19 years, 1,69m of height, 59kg of weight) shows that the most important muscle for football is the brain.

[tw]1110326600657235969[/tw]

 

[Kingkongkong]

Arthur-Frenkie
Todibo
I believe this midfield is very balanced and bringes aspects from every part of the game.
With riqui puig and alena as subs
This would be my midfield in about 2-3 years

 

[serghei]

Arthur-Frenkie
Todibo
I believe this midfield is very balanced and bringes aspects from every part of the game.
With riqui puig and alena as subs
This would be my midfield in about 2-3 years

Could be great. We have to see Todibo in action at DM. That will be an issue with Valverde around. He hasn't got a single decent minute.

 

[Arizona Scott]

...
But as I have posted that match a lot of times (that night was mine personal the saddest moment as Barca's fan because I thought that we can finally win a CL after 13 years of mysery, yet we lost in the same way as always: too naive, too attacking, too light on muscles, horrible in defending corners), we were eaten alive in that match.
The match looked like classical Barca's matches: we have the ball around their box. We are passing it around and trying some things, but we can't break their bus.
Yet, every time when we lose the ball, they would have deadly 2:2 or 3:3 counters.
Whenever we had the ball, it looked as if there is NO WAY that we will ever score or break their bus, unless if Ronaldinho pulls some out of this world magic.
Yet, whenever Chelsea got the ball, I was on a verge of a heart attack, because their every single counter smelled like an extreme danger.
Not to mention corners. Whenever they had a corner, I thought: this is it. We are dead, a goal is incoming.
....
Matches against Roma 2018, Juve 2017, Psg 2017, Atletico 2014 and 2016, Bayern 2013 etc are imo like watching exactly the same matches from late 90s against Bayern or Milan, or matches against Valencia in 2000, Juve 2003, Chelsea 2005 etc

The same how we have been toothless against AM in 2014 and 2016, we played more or less the same for the last 25 years.
Or, the same how we have been outrun against Roma or Psg away, we have been outrun by majority of physical teams 20 years ago.
I won't even mention corners. I am watching us conceding the same goal over and over for 20 years.
.

I am not young, but admittedly I didn't watch club footy until around 2008. That said I would agree with much of this pattern the last decade and makes sense it is a much longer pattern. I agree many times Barca was lacking in athleticism and physicality (say even bench options for in game adjustments) and it would cost them. I didn't like letting Toure go, said midway in Leicester's season this Kante fellow would really add another dimension (yes I know not super strong but so quick and relentless and tremendous in ball winning and fine at getting it to the more creative players once he got the ball one). I also didn't understand why we didn't bring in a 1st rate replacement earlier when Puyol and Masch were deteriorating--bigger than they are and faster at that stage in those guys careers. It would have made sense to have a decently skilled and athletic RB (Kyle Walker when at Spurs anyone) to be an option over late years Alves (he was getting exposed a lot defensively his last year or 2) and off course take over when Alves was off. So in lots of ways I agree barca left ways to be exposed, and didn't have a lot of roster flexibility to adjust and adapt. One thing Zidane was able to do is change within the game with the likes of Bale, Vasquez, Isco--on top of him deciding you know what Casmiro and Carvajal are going to play every big game (and ship out Danilo)--made them a much more physical team and tougher nut to crack.

BBZ is right in that we need a different strategy in CL knockout games compared to LaLiga which is marathon..

To me the single largest factor is the fact too often our players--particularly midfileders and some times Messi and Saurez, have been peaked early (pre feb), fatigue and health (and going to world class subs) has not been managed well. If the CL finals were played in the Fall I think we would have 3 more. Just look at the bulk of the fall Classicos or total the goal scored vs goals given for the 1st Classico of the year the last 10 years. Let's face they for more years than not over the last decade are the two most talented teams in the world, and they are played every bit with as much intensity as a CL match.

Having said all this we still have 4 CL is in 20 year period and 3 in a 10 year period. For reference Real has 6 and 4. Then you have Bayern: 2 & 1. United 2 & 0. Chelsea 1/1, Inter 1/1, Milan 2/0, Liverpool 1/0, Porto 1/0. BBZ you point out how these other clubs (Chelsea, Bayern, Juve, Atletico) have had our answer, yet their record combined in this comp over the last 20 and 10 year periods isn't as good as Barca's. Can you think how historic clubs like Bayern, Juv and United also diagnosis their relative incompetence and all the results like you did in this competition, relative to Barca? CL are super tough to win and even great teams need some luck any given year. Real's incredibly lucky dice rolls the last decade--when 3/4 times they were not the best team in their league and this was the last chance to salvage a season of shame --masks the larger reality of this competition and why except for this fluky streak nobody wins 2 in a row and many times the best teams a given year don't win it. The best footy team to be ever assembled for a good stretch of years, Pep's Barca, won 2 of 4. Same team with the backbone of the best national team ever + arguably the best player ever (Argentina), arguably the best right back ever (Brazil), arguably the best African player, and a sprinkle of other world class players from various countries. Best teams don't always win 1 offs or a 2 legged tie where a goal or not by inches or call made/not made akes the difference--nature of footy.

Saying all this I do agree with the point of having some more physicality and athleticism, and most important some flexibility within a game or tie.

 

[Kul_z]

What a bunch of nonsense bbc can come up with, when its all in his favour. Chelsea game we were eaten alive by the 30th minute if i recall correctly, ronaldinho did produce magic and then we were back in the game fully, deco had a crossbar, etoo had couple of shots that by pure unluck didnt finished in the net, and then happened wifeshagger terry with that 84 or whatever minute header that in 99% percent would be declared as foul. By the way, even as a barca fan that game was and still is one of the best games i've ever watched. In champions league you need to have luck on your side and thats about it. Barca 2011 would never happen again, we were the best football team by a margin and no luck could change that. Ffs, that team is considered to be the best club team of all time. But i do agree that we need more hunger in away games, more running, and not always going all out attack. Im just curious, in what category does arthur belong to?

 

[Aryagorn]

What a bunch of nonsense bbc can come up with, when its all in his favour. Chelsea game we were eaten alive by the 30th minute if i recall correctly, ronaldinho did produce magic and then we were back in the game fully, deco had a crossbar, etoo had couple of shots that by pure unluck didnt finished in the net, and then happened wifeshagger terry with that 84 or whatever minute header that in 99% percent would be declared as foul. By the way, even as a barca fan that game was and still is one of the best games i've ever watched. In champions league you need to have luck on your side and thats about it. [tB]Barca 2011 would never happen again, we were the best football team by a margin and no luck could change that. Ffs, that team is considered to be the best club team of all time.[/B] But i do agree that we need more hunger in away games, more running, and not always going all out attack. Im just curious, in what category does arthur belong to?

Not that I would want to talk down upon our achievements and all but we did have our fair share of luck in CL that season - RvP getting a red card, for taking a shot after the offside whistle, which more often than not is overlooked and Bendtner turning into the lord mode in the last minutes. Yes, we did have our share of luck

 

[serghei]

Not that I would want to talk down upon our achievements and all but we did have our fair share of luck in CL that season - RvP getting a red card, for taking a shot after the offside whistle, which more often than not is overlooked and Bendtner turning into the lord mode in the last minutes. Yes, we did have our share of luck

Before that red card we had a legit goal disallowed in England, and a clear pen denied on Camp Nou. With good refereeing tie would've probably been over since the first leg.