Ivan Rakitić

[Arizona Scott]

Puyol, Pique, Toure--don't tell me their physicality and athleticism ALONG WITH superior skill wasn't key parts to the best teams (Barca 09 and 11) the world has ever seen. (also to a lesser but not insignicant degree for Masch and Kieta).

On the best national team ever (unprecedented 2 Euros sandwiched around the WC) you also throw in Ramos and Alonso as key players.

Besides, we can't wait a 100 years for another engine like Xavi and Iniesta. The club is unlikely to ever have a pair like that at the same time. So you can do what you can to sign players with some of those traits (which no one on any club in the world is as good as either in their prime), but you are not going to be as good in that style so you better cover what weaknesses you do have. You want a philosophy, but you also have to adapt to what you have--or is even available among all of the world's footballing talent.

Potroh I don't see how you can say height, physicality and athleticism isn't very important in the modern game. Of the last 5 CL winners only Barca didn't have a lot of it, and even then Pique was critical (and getting back to topic, Rakitic was a very good role player too). Maybe it is underestimated how much Van Dyke has meant to Liverpool as Pique was to Barca (and Ramos and Casemiro to Real). In my opinion you have a far better chance for European glory with a heavy dose of athleticism and physicality, not in place of technique, but with it. Barca has better technique in individuals than Liverpool (and Juv, and to Atletico) but that sure was not enough.

 

[Potroh]

Potroh I don't see how you can say height, physicality and athleticism isn't very important in the modern game. Of the last 5 CL winners only Barca didn't have a lot of it, and even then Pique was critical (and getting back to topic, Rakitic was a very good role player too). Maybe it is underestimated how much Van Dyke has meant to Liverpool as Pique was to Barca (and Ramos and Casemiro to Real). In my opinion you have a far better chance for European glory with a heavy dose of athleticism and physicality, not in place of technique, but with it. Barca has better technique in individuals than Liverpool (and Juv, and to Atletico) but that sure was not enough.

Height, physicality and athleticism can be important in the modern game, but trophies are not won because of these factors.
Piquet or Van Dyke are tall but before anything else they're great footballers. Jeri Mina is tall, even scored two headers at the WC, but didn't seem to be a good fit for Barca, just because a tall and strong defender has to be an exceptional footballer too.

D.Alves is relatively short, Mascherano is the same but along with prime Piquet they were obviously better than Semedo or Lenglet, although they are much taller.
The averagely tall Umtiti with his exceptional flexibility and capability to jump high (when being fit) is a much better aid compared to a "simply tall" defender.

When you are looking for players of the future, stronger build-up can be an advantage, but definitely not ahead of footballing skills.
Athletism in itself is not enough.

 

[BBZ8800]

Potroh I don't see how you can say height, physicality and athleticism isn't very important in the modern game. Of the last 5 CL winners only Barca didn't have a lot of it, and even then Pique was critical (and getting back to topic, Rakitic was a very good role player too). Maybe it is underestimated how much Van Dyke has meant to Liverpool as Pique was to Barca (and Ramos and Casemiro to Real). In my opinion you have a far better chance for European glory with a heavy dose of athleticism and physicality, not in place of technique, but with it. Barca has better technique in individuals than Liverpool (and Juv, and to Atletico) but that sure was not enough.

Thanks.
I am repeating: Crujff's Dutch football should be our core, since it is in our blood and DNA.
But we should add some modern skills also to raise our chances to compete in 2020.

I have mentioned that I have watched a documentary about Crujff a few days ago.
And he said after 2-3 League titles (he won 4 titles in a row): it became harder in the 3rd and 4th season. The opponents figured out how we are playing. What worked in the first 2 seasons, wasn't working in the 3rd and 4th season. I needed to add some new things in order to keep winning, our original tactics were not good enough.

Then, you also have Pep, who needed to make changes after 3 La Ligas in a row, because opponents were starting to figure out how to neutralize us.

This is why I say: take Pep's football from 2008-2011 and add some new things ON TOP of it.

Regarding Yoda's post from yesterday, I think that this is a revisionism myth lately, how we are the best team in the world in the last 30 years DUE to our system and Crujff.
Some numbers to think about:
1. Crujff came in a 1988/89 season.
2. Messi started to have a significant role in a 2005/06 season

1. So, let's call Barca from 1988-2019=Crujff's Barca
2. Let's call Barca from 1988-2005=Crujff's Barca WITHOUT Messi
3. Let's call Barca from 2005-2019=Messi's Barca

Now, let' check some numbers:
Number of La Liga titles:
1. Crujff's Barca 1988-2005: 7 out of 17=41% of possible La Liga titles won
2. Barca since Messi 2005-2019: 9 out of 14=64% of possible La Liga titles won

Champions league:
1. Crujff's Barca 1988-2005 (we played in a CL for 11 times in those years)=1 title out of 11 attempts=9% of possible CL titles won
2. Barca since Messi 2005-2019=4 CLs out of 14 attempts=29% of possible CL titles won

Or, the funniest stat:
1. Number of Pep's CLs WITH MESSI=50% (2 out of 4)
2. Number of Pep's CLs without Messi=0% (0 out of 6)

Spain, number of wins on World Cups and Euros:
1. WITHOUT Xavi and Iniesta combo=5% of wins (1 title in 21 attempt)
2. WITH Xavi-Iniesta combo=75% (3 out of 4 wins, Euro 2008, WC 2010, Euro 2012, WC 2014)

So:
1. Barca pre-Crujff was good, and Crujff and his ideas turned Barca into a beautiful playing side, but we were naive in Europe and not too successful
2. Barca since Pep and MESSI, turned into an unstoppable force. Due to Pep who improved our game even more. But also, due to a cheating codes Messi and 2 best midfielders ever: Xavi and Iniesta.

** Similar example could be: is Real' system from the last few years=THAT good, or is it just good, but CR7 improved it to an insane levels, and now when he is gone, their system is just meh and they will win 1 CL in the next 7-8 years?
Or: is Real's system SO GOOD that they will continue to bang CL titles in a row with Hazard and Jovic (lol)?

I personally have a feeling that a huge majority of fans here want a carbon copy of Pep's football from 2011 and they think that it will lead us to a glory again.
1. Even Pep in 2011/12 had to make changes to his system
2. Pep alone can't win in that system after Barca
3. Spain can't win anything after 2012 with that system
4. football evolved a lot since then towards a mix of technique and athleticism

So, once again, we need a baby of: Pep's football having sex with Klopp's modern Liverpool from 2018 and 2019, if we'll want to win several CLs in the future.
EV's football is not the answer, obviously.

So, maybe it is a time to debunk 2 urban myths:
1. La Masia is golden, and we are not a buying club, but a club who builds from a Youth academy. Lol, that happened only when we were struck with a golden generation.
2. Barca was magical and insanely successful even from 1988-2005, before Messi (and Xaviniesta).

I have posted yesterday:
In 90s and 00s, playing Crujff's football, we managed to get knocked out in a group stage of a CL 3 times, lol.
People are mentioning Liverpool's 4:0 defeat as the worst thing in our history.
Yet, Crujff managed to lose to a mighty CSKA Moscow in a round of 16 in 1993, and to lose to Milan 4:0 in a final in the next year.
Other Barcas managed to get knocked out in a group stage in 1998, 1999 and 2001, lol.
In 90s, we were knocked by eastern European Dinamo Kiev, CSKA Moscow and Besiktas.

For a majority of people here who hadn't watch Barca in 90s, here are some nice memories how mighty and successful we were in Europe back then with Crujff's football:
2000/01 Besiktas:Barcelona 3:0, we were knocked out in a group stage:
** Btw, this match looks like a copy of matches vs Psg, Juve, Roma or Atletico in recent years, isn't it? Barca eaten alive on an away match by any team who is hungrier and who can run faster and more than us:

1997/98: Dinamo Kiev:Barcelona 3:0 and 4:0 in a group stage. 7:0 against a mighty Ukranian team. Knocked out in a group stage again.
Btw, we were always killed and on counters and on crosses/headers. What a surprise. I am shocked.

So, if this was a pure Barca's DNA football based on Crujff's ideas, then it surely needs some tweaking and evolving (like more athleticism and more fighting spirit), isn't it?

 

[Gnidrologist]

Since i remember watching Barca since mid 90s, there were always some tall, athletic players, both when it succeeded and failed. Your retarded propaganda has run it's course. It's dead, Jim.

 

[Judoman]

So, if this was a pure Barca's DNA football based on Crujff's ideas, then it surely needs some tweaking and evolving (like more athleticism and more fighting spirit), isn't it?

Maybe it s just me, but it makes absolutely 0 sense to try to prove a point about club s playing stile with showing individual (bad) games.
For example, that final vs. Milan, i remember it very well and it was one of the best final performances i ve seen ever. That Milan team was legendary and they had legendary coach. What
was that loss suppose to prove about our playing stile?

Count trophies. That s all you need to see if the philosophy works. Add to that count the fact that we are cursed with incompetent board(s), but we still win trophies.

 

[Potroh]

then it surely needs some tweaking and evolving (like more athleticism and more fighting spirit), isn't it?

Tweaking: yes, but definitely not athleticism in itself, it's not the key and definitely not something of a miracle.

But as apart from repeating yourself with different and irrelevant stats, you don't at all seem to listen to anyone but yourself, let me give you a small history lesson of WHEN athleticism was in fashion in football. I just mention some of the WCs:

- in 1954 there was a highly technical Hungarian team, without doubt the best at that time, which lost the WC final against Germany's "physical" team. But it wasn't athleticism that won, Hungary has already beaten the German team earlier in the same WC, the final was a horribly unlucky two hours for the Hungarians, with some elements of goalkeeper mistakes and the like. Even after the WC no sane expert would have denied the superiority of the then Hungary team. Nobody hailed athleticism, even if it triumphed.

- in 1958 in Sweden and 1962 in Chile, the Brazilians played a spectacularly technical game, with the young Pele and the Garincha-Zizi-Vava-Pele-Zagallo attacking line became legendary.

- in 1966 the the Brazilians screwed up early against Bulgaria, Portugal and Hungary and final was played with two highly athletic teams, England and Germany. That was the first point when athleticism became fashionable, which lasted till 1970, when Brazil came back with their spectacularly skilled game.

- Later, a much superior Dutch team with Cruyff was very unlucky against the Germans in the final, so once again athleticism was fashionable. It lasted till 1982, when the Argentinians won a greatly corrupted WC in their homeland with the great Mario Kempes and the like, athletic game once again.
We - the Hungarians - lost 2:1 to Argentina at the very first game, where the referee sent off two of the best Hungarians - (for which I myself had been "satirized" for years to come) and although it was a good Argentinian team, we could have easily won, even playing against them at their home.

- The forthcoming years were the peak of athleticism on the pitch, I strangely started seeing more and more "muscle-towers" who didn't know how to handle a ball and it went on for quite some years.

- Later the needed balance have been prominent between athleticism and skill, and when you are craving for athleticism, actually you express nostalgia for the 80's and 90's football.
After the turn of the century, this healthy balance has become the standard.

France did not win the WC in Russia because they were athletic, actually their two most athletic players - Giroud and Pogba - played quite badly and even if Mbappe is really athletic (but not tall), his speed was a better asset than the athleticism of the tall ones.
And you can go on and on, and will never see pure athleticism winning over skill and ball-related talent.

Messi is GOAT and anything but athletic, which shows the present balance in it's most natural form, with the rare exception of CR7, but he is a different story altogether.

The present key is SPEED.
Not the mere running pace of headless chickens, but the speed of executing and accomplishing even the most complex and difficult moves with the ball.
The faster a player can do whatever he does, he is the greater footballer of the contemporary scene.
Messi does anything faster than anyone else and THAT makes him the GOAT. He plays as if he would see everything in slow motion, anticipating any move earlier than the opponents.

You are living in a glorious past, with a single and over-simplified agenda...

 

[BBZ8800]

The present key is SPEED.
Not the mere running pace of headless chickens, but the speed of executing and accomplishing even the most complex and difficult moves with the ball.
The faster a player can do whatever he does, he is the greater footballer of the contemporary scene.
Messi does anything faster than anyone else and THAT makes him the GOAT. He plays as if he would see everything in slow motion, anticipating any move earlier than the opponents.

You are living in a glorious past, with a single and over-simplified agenda...

Or not.
You need a speed in execution and an actual speed.
Liverpool: Mane, Salah, Firmino in attack.
Fast execution.
Actual pace in counters.
Tons of stamina.

Or VVD in defense.
Tall, strong, fast, stamina.
Plus good in tactical area and in mental skills.

Or Mbappe and World cup: actual pace.

So, no.
If you have 3 turtles in midfield who are good in execution, you will still die in counters.

What can Busi do against counters?
Nothing.

 

[EdmondDantes]

Since the rumours of Rakitic leaving have resurfaced after awhile, I see that BBZ is back - in full force - with his repetitive, inane babble.

He'll leave eventually, mate. Deal with it.

-

Why are you talking about "3 turtles"?


"3 turtles" is what we had at Anfield against Liverpool in Vidal, Rakitic and Busi.


With De Jong, who's plenty fast, Arthur, who when he's lean and not dealing with hamstring and groin injuries like at the end of last season has decent agility/acceleration on him as well. I think it was [MENTION=19222]xXKonan[/MENTION] who posted here during the Copa Arthur registered the 3rd highest top speed in that Brazil side as well.

[youtube]P7-TbcVRR4A[/youtube]



So rest assured we'll definitely move on from the 3 turtles alright. And Busquets is fine when he's got quality on the ball next to him, that's how you maximize his talent; unlike that Anfield horrow show.

 

[Potroh]

Liverpool: Mane, Salah, Firmino in attack.

And which one of the 3 is TALL and good with his head, please?

Fast execution.
Actual pace in counters.
Tons of stamina.

Now you're changing your own agenda, where NO fast execution, NO pace was mentioned earlier...
But I don't mind that if you start understanding the BALANCE...

 

[FCBfan22]

Actually played progressively today, but still needs 3 years to make a decision.

 

[Rory]

We probably do need this tall, strong and athletic player in midfield that also has the sufficient technique to succeed at barca...but who is this person? Not to bring more hate to rakitic but even his biggest fans can see this isn't him, he's probably as close we have to that sort of player so I can understand why some may want him to be starting but imo there's no point in having someone who is only 60%-70% of this mould.

He's been shown to be ineffective as this style of midfielder for the last 2 years. So then it's the question of do we have rakitic in the squad who is somewhat this player to maybe have a bit more balance to the midfield BUT at a cost of much slower build up play, not really being physical enough for high pressing teams, not really being skilful enough to unlock defences against parked bus teams OR do we go with having a totally different sort of player; aleña, coutinho as cm or invest in a new player? I just think we've reached a point with rakitic and busi where the costs of them outweigh the gains. No idea who we should be after in the transfer market to fix this issue, would love suggestions.

 

[YodaMaster]

This is stat-twisting.

For example:
1. when EV wins La Liga=EV is shit and our win is due to Messi
2. then why the same doesn't apply to Barca's DNA and Cruyff?
My point: you can't know whether our CLs are due to our system or due to Messi.

Again, Cruyff came here in 1988/89.
I mean, if you said that we followed Cruyff's principles sine 1988, then look at our CL results before Messi:
1992, Cruyff: winners
1993, Cruyff: lost in a round of 16 to Cska Moscow 3:4
1994, Cruyff: lost in a final to Milan 0:4
1995, Cruyff: lost in 1/4 to Psg 2:3
1996: -
1997: -
1998: ended 4th in a group stage, behind: Dynamo Kiev, Psv and Newcastle. We lost 0:7 on aggregate to Dinamo Kiev, for example.
1999: ended 3rd in a group stage, behind Man Utd and Bayern.
Our results that year vs big teams: Man Utd 3:3, 3:3, Bayern 1:2, 0:1.
2000: semifinals, lost 1:4 and 2:1 to Valencia
2001: another group stage exit, 3rd place behind Ac Milan and Leeds.
2002: semis, lost 0:2, 1:1 to Real.
2003: 1/4, lost 2:3 to Juventus.
2004: -
2005: round of 16: lost 4:5 to Chelsea.

Then you have Spain:
World cups:
semis in 1950.
And then zero semis until 2010 when they won.

Spain on Euros:
Winners in 1964.
Finalists in 1984.
Winners in 2008 and 2012.

So, Spain:
15 World cups. Won ONLY when they had Xavi and Iniesta.
10 Euros. Won in 1964 and in 2008 and 2012 with Xavi and Iniesta.

So, Spain played 25 World cups and Euros in their history.
Won 4 titles. 3 of those with Xavi-Iniesta.
So, IS Spain a football force since always or mostly lately due to Xavi and Iniesta?

The same is with Barca since Cruyff, BEFORE Messi: 11 attempts, 1 CL win.

So, some "weird" coincidences:
1. Netherlands plays a total football and yet they won only 1 big title, Euros in 1988.
Since Cruyff and 70s, they had 17 attempts: won 1 big tournament.
2. Spain was meh before Xavi and Iniesta.
3. Barca had 1/11 CL wins before Messi in 2006'
4. Pep has 0/6 CL wins without Messi-Xavi-Iniesta
5. Barca has 1/8 since 2012 when Messi-Xavi-Iniesta weren't in their prime anymore.

So, my point is: is there a chance that Barca's DNA and Dutch football is good and beautiful but usually NOT GOOD enough in semis and finals where they usually lose to more pragmatic teams?
Also, the only time when Barca and Spain had their golden era was during Messi-Xavi-Iniesta.

So:
Imo, Barca's DNA football can win ONLY when everything is perfect.
In 90% of other seasons, we will play beautiful but eventually lose to counterattacking English, German or Italian teams, which we are doing since always.
Barca's DNA football worked perfectly with Messi-Xavi-Iniesta. Before them and after them, it was meh, a way weaker version of that football.

Now, since we don't have Xavi-Iniesta anymore and Messi is 32, do you guys think that a pure Barca's DNA football can win WITHOUT those 3 guys?
And especially when Messi will be gone?

So, yes, Dutch football is our core, but my point is, our Barca's DNA football needs to be upgraded with some new additional factors, like:
1. a 3-way attacking with possession, counters and headers
2. midfield with some physique
3. a few players with some aggression, a fighting spirit and a few true leaders
4. some height in defense not to concede corners in a CL as easily as today

For the end, youa re talking about Cruyff, and even though he has elevated our club to a world class level, I think that there is a lot of a revisionism in people's minds today.
Have you actually watched Barca and our CL exits during Cruyff?
1994: final: Milan 0:4

1995: 1/4: Psg, 1:1 and 1:2. We conceded from a corner (AGAIN, as always) and Psg has hit the post 5 times before they have scored a goal, lol.
So, we almost conceded 7 under Cruyff.
** Btw, these highlights look like a classical Barca from 2016 against AM or in 2017 against Psg and Juve, isn't it? A good old shit since 1993'.

1993: round of 16: 3:4 defeat to CSKA Moscow. 1:1 in Moscow, leading 2:0 at home and losing 2:3 in the end.
We conceded from a corner again (I am shocked, what a surprise with all these short players)

So, when you remove Messi, Xavi and Iniesta, Barca-Cruyff football is beautiful, but in 90% of cases: we always lose in extremely insane and wtf ways for 30 years in a row.
This is why I have said that we need Cruyff's principles as a core, mixed with some modern additions, which we usually didn't have in these 30 years.

What is exactly the point of comparing Barca with and without Messi Xavi Iniesta, when we’re talking about Cruyff’s philosophy ??? Come on man.

Messi Xavi and Iniesta happened to our club BECAUSE OF CRUYFF ! Because the club adopted Cruyff’s formula. Messi Xavi and Iniesta are the ultimate result of Cruyff’s formula ! So don’t you ever try to oppose these guys to Cruyff.

If we had you and your ideas at the head of the club in the 90’s and early 2000’s, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi would have been thrown to the trash can.

Imagine BBZ as the club’s leader, what would be his reaction when he’d have met little Messi doing Barca tests in 2000 ?
BBZ would have said to the scouts "what the fuck is that you morons ? A 50cm short schoolboy midget with 0 muscles ?? Get him the fuck outta here asap and go get me Emile Heskey !"

The same with Xavi and Iniesta, and probably even "only 1,78m tall" CB Puyol.

Sure as fuck with your vision of physicality instead of Cruyff’s philosophy, the club would have so much more legendary players and CL wins... Lol.

By the way, how many goals did Pep’s schoolboys Barca concede from corners in 08/09 and 10/11 CL knockouts ?
08/09: 0 or 1, can’t say for sure now.
10/11: 1 against Arsenal, which was an brain fart own goal from Busquets where there was absolutely no danger.

The Real Madrid side which won 3 CLs conceded as much or more goals from corners. And this team had great physicality according to you.

How did that happen ? Pep’s defensive gameplan included the idea of avoiding giving corners and freekicks to opponent. Pep also worked a lot on defensive organisation during those corners and freekicks. That’s why his full of midgets teams were strong on defensive corners.
But you just think that to defend the corners you need 5 Drogbas in your team. This shows again your lack of football knowledge, or you limited and simplified vision of football.

You can even have 3 Drogbas, 3 Ramos, 3 CR7 and 3 Kocsis, you’ll still concede from corners if the coach doesn’t work on defensive organisation and strategy on corners.

Nobody here is against alternatives. Pep Guardiola wanted Zlatan and got him, then rumors said he wanted Llorente as an alternative. He wanted those guys to have a plan b with aerial threat in attack. Pep loved Keita, Yaya was undisputed in his 11 before Busquets broke through. When Yaya left, Pep bought Mascherano as a DM first, Masche was a typical PL DM at that time, high volume and aggression.

Being a Cruyffista doesn’t mean wanting only 1,60m players, nobody never said that except you ! But for a Cruyffista, physique is useless if the guy can’t produce shit with his feet. When are you going to finally understand this ?

 

[EdmondDantes]

We probably do need this tall, strong and athletic player in midfield that also has the sufficient technique to succeed at barca...but who is this person? Not to bring more hate to rakitic but even his biggest fans can see this isn't him, he's probably as close we have to that sort of player so I can understand why some may want him to be starting but imo there's no point in having someone who is only 60%-70% of this mould.

He's been shown to be ineffective as this style of midfielder for the last 2 years. So then it's the question of do we have rakitic in the squad who is somewhat this player to maybe have a bit more balance to the midfield BUT at a cost of much slower build up play, not really being physical enough for high pressing teams, not really being skilful enough to unlock defences against parked bus teams OR do we go with having a totally different sort of player; aleña, coutinho as cm or invest in a new player? I just think we've reached a point with rakitic and busi where the costs of them outweigh the gains. No idea who we should be after in the transfer market to fix this issue, would love suggestions.

Fabinho.

He's a monster defensively for Liverpool, his long, skinny legs are like tentacles, making him a tackling, intercepting machine. And that lanky fucker is excellent on the ball as well. He can twist and turn, dribble, play out from the back, spread diagonals about for fun, cross, the lot.


Now that's a workhorse worth having.


For us, Rodri would have been absolutely perfect but it's obvious the board weren't ready to lessen Busquets' minutes by bringing in a player like him just yet. Which is a shame since with Arthur, De Jong and Rodri, along with an emerging Puig, we'd be set for an entire decade.

 

[BBZ8800]

Being a Cruyffista doesn’t mean wanting only 1,60m players, nobody never said that except you ! But for a Cruyffista, physique is useless if the guy can’t produce shit with his feet. When are you going to finally understand this ?

When you will get that I don't want physique over technique but physique on top of technique?

So, if we have Puig (short, technical) vs Paulinho (physical but not technical)=then go with technique and Puig.

But then, if you want to level up, instead of Puig (technique) why not take De Bruyne (technique and physique) or Eriksen (technique and physique).

For example, Busi-Arthur-Puig.
That trio is all about technique, not too much physique either in pace, stamina or height.

On the other hand: Frenkie-Eriksen-De Bruyne.
Doesn't that midfield have an equal amount or more technique plus way more physique?

Or if you can't bring 3 guys with technique and physique, then bring only 1 or 2.
Everything is better than 0.
Today we at least have Frenkie.

I did though, over time asked for Rakitics who have less technique, but more physique, workrate and defending (when he was younger) to bring some balance.
But obviously, 3 Rakitics is not the answer.
But neither is 3 Puigs.

Look at Atletico:Real today.
Real had a perfect midfield on paper: technical Modric, Kroos and Isco.
But without at least one bonebraker Casemiro, look what happens against bigger teams.

On the other hand, that technical trio can survive in La liga.
But not in a CL.

1. So, we need to divide La liga and a CL
2. And I don't want 3 Paulinhos over 3 Arthurs, but something like Eriksen or De Bruyne over Puig-Arthur
3. Plus, imo, always, out of 3 midfielders, one needs to add at least some physique and defending, even if he has a slightly weaker technique.

And even if I had over time called for 3 Vidals or Rakitics in midfield, I gave up from it.
But one guy of that mould is needed, especially in Europe.

That's about midfield.
About attack, I am not happy if Griezmann will be a No9.
No pace, no headers, all about feet and 1-2s.
Which is nice, but imo not good for Europe when the opponents park the bus.

So, you see, my main wishes compared to Crujff and Pep are:
1. Eriksens instead of Puigs
2. Attack which can score in 3 ways: possession, counters, headers
3. Mental skills: IQ, more fighting spirit, 2-3 true leaders.
4. Some height in defense for defending corners in Europe

Again, I am not actually asking for 11 Fellainis.
But for Crujff's Barca UPGRADED with slightly more height, more pace, more stamina, a fighting spirit and true lions-leaders.

 

[Rory]

Fabinho.

He's a monster defensively for Liverpool, his long, skinny legs are like tentacles, making him a tackling, intercepting machine. And that lanky fucker is excellent on the ball as well. He can twist and turn, dribble, play out from the back, spread diagonals about for fun, cross, the lot.


Now that's a workhorse worth having.


For us, Rodri would have been absolutely perfect but it's obvious the board weren't ready to lessen Busquets' minutes by bringing in a player like him just yet. Which is a shame since with Arthur, De Jong and Rodri, along with an emerging Puig, we'd be set for an entire decade.

Thought we missed a trick with Fabinho, brilliant choice for the reasons you've mentioned and I also like how he was the captain and penalty taker for monaco showing he has mental strength and composure. The fact he could fill in at right back as well, I can't understand why we didn't go for him. Obviously he's totally out of the question now he's at liverpool.

I haven't watched much of Rodri but from what people say I'm surprised we didn't try for him too. Pep gets what he wants though so I don't think we had a chance of getting him really.

Only other player I can think of that fits the mould and is a big enough upgrade on rakitic/busi is pogba, but raiola can stay well away.