Funny how Barcelona 2014/15 wasn't the best Barcelona ever, but had the best UCL run

[serghei]

2010-11 is the best by a good margin imo. We created more chances in any of the games we played, even if we had it tough away. No matter the style you play, if you don't score your chances you can lose a CL tie if the other team is clinical or gets lucky. That's not an argument for me.

 

[The Observer]

If the 10/11 season did not have that 5-0 Clasico (the most dominant game I've ever seen) it wouldn't be such a memorable season for me. Especially the 2nd half of the season was a let down with declining performances. I think Villa had a 16 game in a row goal drought or something like that, would have to look it up.

Lost to Arsenal away and made Wilshere look like the next Xavi. Then beat them at home only after van Persie got sent off, with the help of agent Fabregas and a penalty.

Lost the CdR final to Mourinho's Madrid.

Won the most awful Clasico of all time with diving gallore after Pepe got sent off and Messi dribbled the whole Madrid team individually.

Won against Man United who were playing 4-4-2 with Carrick and 40 year old Giggs in midfield. lol

The passing was surely the crispest with Xavi and Iniesta in peak post WC form + Messi false 9 but Pedro and Villa on the wings were simply not good enough to make that team better than 14/15 when it comes to winning matches. Messi and Neymar stretching teams on the flanks was a whole different level. There were games where it wasn't about winning but whether all 3 would get on the scoresheet. Absurd situations where Neymar was trying to set up Messi just so he could also get on the scoresheet instead of just going for goal himself - multiple times in a row.

Teams like Madrid were also much much better. Modric, Kroos, Casemiro compared to ?zil, Khedira, Xabi?

That Bayern team even with injuries was far better than Arsenal ever was.

Juventus with Pirlo, Pogba, Vidal, Marchisio > Man United 10/11.

Just no comparison. Did not last long because Messi went back to the middle again in the following season but 14/15 was superior in terms of winning games in every way possible. In terms of "dominance", style, optics or whatever - that's up to taste. Villa and Pedro upfront made it too 1-dimensional.

 

[El Gato]

The passing was surely the crispest with Xavi and Iniesta in peak post WC form + Messi false 9 but Pedro and Villa on the wings were simply not good enough to make that team better than 14/15 when it comes to winning matches. Messi and Neymar stretching teams on the flanks was a whole different level. There were games where it wasn't about winning but whether all 3 would get on the scoresheet. Absurd situations where Neymar was trying to set up Messi just so he could also get on the scoresheet instead of just going for goal himself - multiple times in a row.

Teams like Madrid were also much much better. Modric, Kroos, Casemiro compared to ?zil, Khedira, Xabi?

Funnily enough, 14/15 was the last league Bernabeu Clasico Real has won until March this year. So while that MSN team was better upfront, it was also a sign of Barcelona becoming top heavy, old and employing the Galactico model to haul in the silverware. 10/11 was far more balanced by some margin. Absolutely everyone in their primes to the point that your weakest link was Valdes and even he was underrated in that 2010-13 period + often unfairly scapegoated for whatever defeat that came. And Mourinho's Real is not getting enough credit for trying to keep up through sheer determination. Most other teams just bent over and took it, Real did not, even though they could have gone and gotten scared AF like the 2004-06 iterations often times did.

 

[matbezlima]

If the 10/11 season did not have that 5-0 Clasico (the most dominant game I've ever seen) it wouldn't be such a memorable season for me. Especially the 2nd half of the season was a let down with declining performances. I think Villa had a 16 game in a row goal drought or something like that, would have to look it up.

Lost to Arsenal away and made Wilshere look like the next Xavi. Then beat them at home only after van Persie got sent off, with the help of agent Fabregas and a penalty.

Lost the CdR final to Mourinho's Madrid.

Won the most awful Clasico of all time with diving gallore after Pepe got sent off and Messi dribbled the whole Madrid team individually.

Won against Man United who were playing 4-4-2 with Carrick and 40 year old Giggs in midfield. lol

The passing was surely the crispest with Xavi and Iniesta in peak post WC form + Messi false 9 but Pedro and Villa on the wings were simply not good enough to make that team better than 14/15 when it comes to winning matches. Messi and Neymar stretching teams on the flanks was a whole different level. There were games where it wasn't about winning but whether all 3 would get on the scoresheet. Absurd situations where Neymar was trying to set up Messi just so he could also get on the scoresheet instead of just going for goal himself - multiple times in a row.

Teams like Madrid were also much much better. Modric, Kroos, Casemiro compared to ?zil, Khedira, Xabi?

That Bayern team even with injuries was far better than Arsenal ever was.

Juventus with Pirlo, Pogba, Vidal, Marchisio > Man United 10/11.

Just no comparison. Did not last long because Messi went back to the middle again in the following season but 14/15 was superior in terms of winning games in every way possible. In terms of "dominance", style, optics or whatever - that's up to taste. Villa and Pedro upfront made it too 1-dimensional.

Barcelona was brilliant in that first leg against Arsenal despite the loss and Barcelona was far, far, far superior to Arsenal in the second leg if you watch the full game.

 

[serghei]

Barcelona was brilliant in that first leg against Arsenal despite the loss and Barcelona was far, far, far superior to Arsenal in the second leg if you watch the full game.

Too many people pay attention to the result only. The whole Arsenal tie was close in terms of scoreline, but as far as the football that was played in the 180 mins., it was a very dominating display by Barca.

The 2011 side didn't have the best stats. But if you look at the games back then, almost all teams we played against were too scared to attack us. That's the most satisfying thing for a fan to experience. For me at least. This has the effect of reducing all stats, for both teams.

For the 2014-15, yea MSN were scary, but overall the team was a normal great team, which as Wolfe said, was top heavy, with a not so great midfield, and aging defense. The midfield was very good, make no mistake, but absolutely pales in comparison with 2009, and it's not even comparable with 2011, when all of Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Messi were playing at their peak.

2014-15 Barca is similar to 2016-17 Madrid, except with a slightly weaker midfield, but with clearly better attack. I think out of 10 games between these teams we'd win 6 and lose probably 4.

The 2011 team is a different beast, because they will force themselves on every other team there is. So, automatically, you can beat them, but you need a lot of luck, and hope that the finishing of the Barca players would be off on the night. Over 10 games, there's a lot of hoping from the opponent.

So, we need to define what we're judging and estimating here. Over 1 game, all great CL winners, like Bayern 12-13, Liverpool of last season, Madrid of 2016-17 and 2013-14, maybe even Inter 2009-10. All of these could have a more than fair shot to beat 2010-11 Barcelona. But over a decent sample size, let's say best of 7 games, something like a NBA playoffs model, 2011 Barca beats all of them convincingly. Not one of them would make it to game 7.

 

[KingLeo10]

Henry - Eto'o - Messi

Iniesta - Toure - Xavi

Abidal - Puyol - Pique - Alves

VV

In a single elimination format, I would take this team over all teams in history.

Complete attack: Possibly the most cold blooded striker of the last 2 decades, flanked by a young, hungry, destructive Ballon D'Or winner Messi and Henry (who while not at his peak was easily more talented than Suarez and probably more talented than Neydive). Importantly can score in all ways, including headers.

Complete midfield: Midfield steel in Toure. Xavi and Iniesta speak for themselves.

Complete defense: Puyol was an aerial threat and was not shy in tackling. Pique would be the ball playing CB. Prime Alves. Abidal was a good defensive force on the left (almost a third CB at times).

VV, for all people say about him, was usually clutch when it mattered.

We beat United 08-09 comfortably in the final while missing 2-3 key players and having to play Toure as a CB. United 08-09 was at least on par with Chelsea 08-09 if not a shade better. I honestly think the Chelsea tie was marred by bad referee decisions on either side. If we played them, say 10 games, I have absolutely no doubt we would come out on top. And we did come out on top, just not as convincingly as we would like (but the hallmark of champions is winning no matter what. Sacchi's Milan didn't always destroy opponents like they did Real 5-0 in the semis. Their finals performances were meh).

I think that this team would be able to play in any era of the CL and beat out anybody in a KO game.

Our 14-15 team was also amazing but there are a couple of weak points that could be exploited (like old Masche being the 2nd CB or Alba not being the greatest defensively). Also weaker midfield.

 

[El Gato]

Henry at LW is, and always was, a waste.

 

[KingLeo10]

Henry at LW is, and always was, a waste.

At his pomp? Surely.

But I think he played his part perfectly in 08/09 (09/10 was a waste because Ibra). At Barca, always saw him in a sort of CR7 like role, minus ending up in the box everytime coming in from the left.

 

[El Gato]

Well, he's as much a waste as Eto'o was doing this strange RW/RM thing in big games for Mou's Inter when asked to. But Henry did it every game.

 

[serghei]

Henry - Eto'o - Messi

Iniesta - Toure - Xavi

Abidal - Puyol - Pique - Alves

VV

In a single elimination format, I would take this team over all teams in history.

Complete attack: Possibly the most cold blooded striker of the last 2 decades, flanked by a young, hungry, destructive Ballon D'Or winner Messi and Henry (who while not at his peak was easily more talented than Suarez and probably more talented than Neydive). Importantly can score in all ways, including headers.

Complete midfield: Midfield steel in Toure. Xavi and Iniesta speak for themselves.

Complete defense: Puyol was an aerial threat and was not shy in tackling. Pique would be the ball playing CB. Prime Alves. Abidal was a good defensive force on the left (almost a third CB at times).

VV, for all people say about him, was usually clutch when it mattered.

We beat United 08-09 comfortably in the final while missing 2-3 key players and having to play Toure as a CB. United 08-09 was at least on par with Chelsea 08-09 if not a shade better. I honestly think the Chelsea tie was marred by bad referee decisions on either side. If we played them, say 10 games, I have absolutely no doubt we would come out on top. And we did come out on top, just not as convincingly as we would like (but the hallmark of champions is winning no matter what. Sacchi's Milan didn't always destroy opponents like they did Real 5-0 in the semis. Their finals performances were meh).

I think that this team would be able to play in any era of the CL and beat out anybody in a KO game.

Our 14-15 team was also amazing but there are a couple of weak points that could be exploited (like old Masche being the 2nd CB or Alba not being the greatest defensively). Also weaker midfield.

This is on paper, until the 2011 side takes the ball, and makes this team spend more time off the ball, chasing it, than with the ball. Barcelona 2011 always create more through possession than any team created on the counter-attack.

So, we are judging players, or teams? Because 'team' involves also tactical maturity. And the 2011 team is possession football at its finest, most effective phase. It is a more calibrated version of the 2009 team, less dependent on star forwards and more fluid.

We do these estimations, but all these teams that enter a fantasy match-up with the best version of Pep's Barcelona would lose, simply because they would be offensive teams that would be put on a defense-first mode.

Peak Chelsea has more chances vs Pep's Barcelona than any offensive great side. You need the greatest defensive team vs Pep's 2011 Barcelona or else it would be pretty straightforward.

 

[KingLeo10]

This is on paper, until the 2011 side takes the ball, and makes this team spend more time off the ball, chasing it, than with the ball. Barcelona 2011 always create more through possession than any team created on the counter-attack.

So, we are judging players, or teams? Because 'team' involves also tactical maturity. And the 2011 team is possession football at its finest, most effective phase. It is a more calibrated version of the 2009 team, less dependent on star forwards and more fluid.

We do these estimations, but all these teams that enter a fantasy match-up with the best version of Pep's Barcelona would lose, simply because they would be offensive teams that would be put on a defense-first mode.

Peak Chelsea has more chances vs Pep's Barcelona than any offensive great side. You need the greatest defensive team vs Pep's 2011 Barcelona or else it would be pretty straightforward.

I think there's a difference between the possession stats put forth by the 08/09 team and what they were capable of if they encountered a team which insisted on having the ball.

Xavi in 08/09 was younger, hungrier, had a better engine and I would say that was his absolute peak season. He beats Xavi 2011 IMO.

Iniesta in 08/09 was weaker than Iniesta 10/11, or at least less mature in a midfield role.

Toure 08/09 is underrated. I think the last few years have shown that Busquets individually is not among the all time greats in his position (like say a Frank Rijkaard). I think prime Toure would give him issues just like Inter and Chelsea's physical midfield gave him issues. And here, Toure is supported by Xavi and Iniesta when he wins the ball...not other workhorses.

I think the possession split would be 55-45 between 11 Barca and 09 Barca. The attacks aren't comparable IMO. Henry - Eto'o - Messi is definitively better than Villa - Messi - Pedro, especially in ways to score. And in CL elimination games, more ways to score generally results in a favorable outcome.

Defense 2009 is better because Puyol > Masche.

 

[serghei]

I think there's a difference between the possession stats put forth by the 08/09 team and what they were capable of if they encountered a team which insisted on having the ball.

Xavi in 08/09 was younger, hungrier, had a better engine and I would say that was his absolute peak season. He beats Xavi 2011 IMO.

Iniesta in 08/09 was weaker than Iniesta 10/11, or at least less mature in a midfield role.

Toure 08/09 is underrated. I think the last few years have shown that Busquets individually is not among the all time greats in his position (like say a Frank Rijkaard). I think prime Toure would give him issues just like Inter and Chelsea's physical midfield gave him issues. And here, Toure is supported by Xavi and Iniesta when he wins the ball...not other workhorses.

I think the possession split would be 55-45 between 11 Barca and 09 Barca. The attacks aren't comparable IMO. Henry - Eto'o - Messi is definitively better than Villa - Messi - Pedro, especially in ways to score. And in CL elimination games, more ways to score generally results in a favorable outcome.

Defense 2009 is better because Puyol > Masche.

I disagree here. The 2011 team had forwards who were better at pressing and had simply more work-rate and willingness to keep the ball. This is also down to Pep's change of tactics, bringing up the system to an even more fluid state. This ensured that the possession levels of the 2011 team were higher because the overall number of passing options for each players was increased. It was far more likely as a midfielder to have Pedro or Villa showing up centrally for a pass than it was for Henry or Eto'o, who remain largely uninvolved in build-up. At that time, if you see Henry demonstration video, the play was much more classically structured, similar to a Rijkaard team, and they were asked to stay up, and keep their wide positions. Also, false 9 Messi is much more involved in build-up. This drove the possession stats even higher.

There is no doubt imo that the 2011 side is more likely to take control of the game through possession game. So, the 55 - 45 ratio is unrealistic imo. We're looking at 6x% - 3x% even against other Barca versions. Press was key for this, and the 2011 team is just a better pressing team and a more cohesive, gelled formation than the 2009 one.

I also think the attack is close. 2009 is better when you look individually. But within the system, the 2011 trio brought everything we needed except for one thing: more clinical-ness. Messi as a false 9 is at its best state. Villa was better than Henry imo for that season, close, but he was. Pedro wasn't as good as Eto'o, obviously, but his stamina and press were unbelievable. Man ran non-stop and was a great team player.

I think other than having 1 more star player in Eto'o and a bit more muscle (not strenght, or intensity, just muscle), who could impact games individually, every aspect of the 2011 team is better. I also don't think Xavi was better in 2009 than in 2011. Or Iniesta. Very much the same players, they were just focused more on controlling the game through possession. Remember, the 5-0 clasico happened in this season, which is some of the finest 90 mins in the history of the club, if not THE finest.

About the CL, it's a very volatile competition, overall you have to look at the whole body of work.

 

[matbezlima]

https://theathletic.co.uk/1228011/2...re-state-of-the-art-and-then-they-got-better/

Michael Cox wrote this wonderful article in why Barcelona 2011 collectively was far superior than in 2009.

 

[matbezlima]

Sacchi's Milan didn't always destroy opponents like they did Real 5-0 in the semis. Their finals performances were meh.

Milan's 1-0 victory over Benfica in the 1990 final was meh, but not their 4-0 victory over Steaua in the 1989 final. It was a masterclass. The score is actually very underwhelming. I don't think that there has ever been a UCL final with such a big gulf in quality between both teams. It was Milan attacking a totally impotent Steaua during the 90 minutes. Steaua did not have a single good goal chance due to Milan's great pressing and defense. Milan was irresistible, playing awesome, fast, thunderous, suffocating and relentless attacking football from the first minute, pure delight! Milan's performance was out of this world, they were hailed right after the game as a team of extra-terrestrials! This game alongside the 5-0 against Real cemented Sacchi's Milan as the best team in the world and one of the best ever! Gullit was man of the match, truly awesome, certainly one of the greatest performances in a UCL final ever at least! And it needs to be said that Steaua Bucareste was a good team. Milan was the big favorite, but Steaua was expected by many to put a decent fight. Instead, Steaua was made to look worse than amateurs. Even saying that it was men vs. boys feels underwhelming.