Luka Jović
- Thread starter El Trencaxarxes
- Start date
This is what you got out of his performance?
DonAndres
Wild Man of Borneo
How many players have had rough starts at a new club, especially when they weren't starting games regularly, only to go on and succeed at an incredible level? Literally just off the top of my head, Modric and Bernardo Silva were like that. Even Suarez wasn't good for us or scoring when he first got here.
People who tend to make these hasty conclusions about the failure of XYZ player tend to hush up about it later on down the line. Remember not only 1 month ago BBZ was out here saying FDJ and Arthur could never possibly succeed together as partners because of miscommunication in a 10 minute sub appearance against Napoli in a friendly.
Jovic missing 2 sitters in one of his first ever starts doesn't make him bad, and if or when RM begins to click (maybe not even this season) I think he'll show that he's a really talented player. He was made out to be a physical tap in merchant but he's showing some great technique too, and his shooting versatility (both feet, head) might've been the best in football last year.
Who else scored at that volume of goals and was as perfectly ambidextrous as Jovic?? Can't think of a single player.
People who tend to make these hasty conclusions about the failure of XYZ player tend to hush up about it later on down the line. Remember not only 1 month ago BBZ was out here saying FDJ and Arthur could never possibly succeed together as partners because of miscommunication in a 10 minute sub appearance against Napoli in a friendly.
Jovic missing 2 sitters in one of his first ever starts doesn't make him bad, and if or when RM begins to click (maybe not even this season) I think he'll show that he's a really talented player. He was made out to be a physical tap in merchant but he's showing some great technique too, and his shooting versatility (both feet, head) might've been the best in football last year.
Who else scored at that volume of goals and was as perfectly ambidextrous as Jovic?? Can't think of a single player.
El Gato
Villarato!
He started one game total as our striker. Go figure he is underwhelming when a manager chooses not to trust him to replace Benzema 1 to 1.
While I agree with you that he's been shit so far, we can't write him off as a bad player just yet.
Madrid have an even worse coach than us who has developed/improved exactly 0 players in his managerial career. Plus Zidane is getting a lot of stick from Madrid fans as well.
BBZ8800
Senior Member
Imo:
1. fans are blaming EV for everything, even when he is not guilty
2. fans of both Barca and RM are spoiled. I have a feeling that all coaches are shit currently, except Pep and Klopp and random flavors of the Month, unproven on the highest level.
For Barca, every coach who won't bring:
1) eye pleasing play
2) trophies
3) and developing youngsters
= will be labelled as bad
At RM, probably the same.
3. for the end, what if majority of current youngsters from Barca and RM are very bad and insanely overhyped and there is no one to develop (more or less, don't take it literally).
You know that our fans have a yearly need to hype 1-2 La Masia kids.
It was Samper, then Alena, then Puig. Now Fati.
Regardless of their real quality.
People will always have 1-2 young players to dream and they will always whine.
Again, regardless of the fact that Jovic will probably play at Milan in 2-3 years, Puig will sit on a bench at Granada and Vinicius Junior will play somewhere in Russia or Ukraine.
EV and Zidane are not perfect, but there is the other side of a coin.
Remember, today everyone have internet, forum account, youtube profile and twitter profile.
Fans were never in history as biased, as hyped and going into extremes as in a current era.
Take that in mind when we discuss Puig, Vinicius and similar.
(The most hyped era ever due to internet's access mixed with a human's need for something to look forward in the future. In this case that means=good young players in your team. Again, regardless of their actual quality and potential).
serghei
Senior Member
How are Alena, Fati, and Puig 'insanely overhyped'? That's just completely made up. Most people refer to them as talented players with potential. Literally no one asks them to be starters. Just to get game time to prove themselves. It's pretty obvious they are talented and can play at the first team.
You and your fake ghosts again.
You call asking from the manager to give game time to the best La Masia prospects a proof of 'hyping' these players up? It's the fucking point of La Masia, to have the best talents make the step to the first team and get a chance to prove themselves.
It's how players like Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Busquets, Pedro etc. became Barca legends. By getting a shot at the first team.
As a Barcelona manager one of Ernesto Valverde's roles is to find game time for these talents and allow them to make the step to the first team if ready.
Barcelona has all the tools to play eye pleasing football, win titles with it, and promote young players. So managers who fail to achieve that at this club with these players, of course, aren't great managers.
Fati, a 16 year old player from La Masia, was tearing to shreds Valencia's back four a few weeks ago. With experienced defenders like Garay in there. That's the kind of assets this club has.
That's a fact of football everyone understands. And no, Ernesto Valverde doesn't get blamed for every player that doesn't make it at Barcelona. And also, most players that don't make it at Barcelona are still top players.
You and your fake ghosts again.
You call asking from the manager to give game time to the best La Masia prospects a proof of 'hyping' these players up? It's the fucking point of La Masia, to have the best talents make the step to the first team and get a chance to prove themselves.
It's how players like Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Busquets, Pedro etc. became Barca legends. By getting a shot at the first team.
As a Barcelona manager one of Ernesto Valverde's roles is to find game time for these talents and allow them to make the step to the first team if ready.
Barcelona has all the tools to play eye pleasing football, win titles with it, and promote young players. So managers who fail to achieve that at this club with these players, of course, aren't great managers.
Fati, a 16 year old player from La Masia, was tearing to shreds Valencia's back four a few weeks ago. With experienced defenders like Garay in there. That's the kind of assets this club has.
That's a fact of football everyone understands. And no, Ernesto Valverde doesn't get blamed for every player that doesn't make it at Barcelona. And also, most players that don't make it at Barcelona are still top players.
Last edited:
serghei
Senior Member
He doesn't believe in promoting players. He believes in buying 27-28 years old ready made stars who are physical, can tackle and are basically workhorses with good shooting and good in the air.
2005-2009 Chelsea must be his favorite club team ever in terms of style, with Makelele, Essien, Lampard, Drogba, Malouda. These players are ideal profile for him, while Xavis and Iniestas are schoolboys and midgets.
Last edited:
KingLeo10
Senior Member
I think the reason BBZ is the way he is because of the trauma inflicted by Milan. They kinda destroyed both Real and Barca in the CL in the late 80s/early 90s with a style that was a combination of Barca and prime Chelsea (lesser degree to both in both categories).
serghei
Senior Member
Probably true. The style he likes the most is the one that dominated Europe in that time frame. In the meantime, times have changed.
BBZ8800
Senior Member
[MENTION=15262]serghei[/MENTION]
You asked in Suarez's topic about La Masia kids and whether we should trust them more since majority of transfers are flops.
Well, La Masia kids have some basics since they "know" our football.
But there are some problems, imo.
The level of quality of football teams has gone up since 90s or 00s.
Let's say that the level of top clubs was at a level 80 out of 100 (on some imaginary scale) back then.
Today, that level has gone up to 100 out of 100, since today players need to be both technical, and then physical robots, plus they need to have a mental strength made of steel.
But, a level of kids from La Masia or from any academy is the same.
A kid is a kid, and let's say that his level aged 18 or 19 is at 20 out of 100.
So, in my eyes, in 2020', it will be even harder for a kid to make a jump into Barca's team than in 1992, 2002 or 2012.
Because: in 1992, he needed to improve from a level 20 to a level 80 (he needed let's say 60 points).
While today, he needs to make a jump from a level 20 to a level 100, so chances for kids are even weaker today.
Further, imo, the best development for majority of players are when they go step by step, from a smaller club to a bigger club.
Only rare players like Messi, Xavi and Iniesta managed to improve as youths at Barca.
When those kids play at smaller clubs: the pressure is lower. They have more playing time. They have more time to develop as players and persons.
Regarding our players, only Xavi, Puyol, Valdes, Iniesta, Messi, Busquets and Pedro have made it in the last 30-ish years. (And Guardiola, but I don't rate him as that good player).
That means 7 or 8 players over 30 years, which is 1 player in 3-4 years on average.
But even then, you have to add into maths:
1. it was easier to make it in the past, as explained above: since the level of football was weaker than today and the difference between B-team and A-team was not as big as today
2. but also, majority of players mentioned above had some luck in their development and they were given chances in different times.
Puyol played around 2000 when we had only Xavi and Puyol as domestic players and media and fans wanted Catalan players (the same reason why today Roberto has to play in every match).
So, if we had more Catalan players, maybe Xavi and Puyol would never get those chances. Or they wouldn't get as MANY chances, since Puyol sucked in his first years.
The 2nd lucky part in Puyol's story was that we sucked in years when he was a kid from 2000-2004.
And usually around December, we would be already out of race for a league title. So, there was less pressure, and there was more logic to try domestic kids since we were losing matches either way.
So, in Puyol's case, you have 3 things:
1. teams were weaker than today, so it was easier to reach A-team level as a kid
2. we lacked Catalan players
3. we sucked and we could have afford to risk with young players
Xavi: he was pushed because he was Catalan.
So: 1. he was Catalan 2. our midfield was horrible after 2000 3. and teams were weaker back then
Valdes:
1. we were shit in years when he started (Gaspart's era)
2. plus we had the biggest crisis with goalkeepers since we had crappy Gks for 7-8 years in a row: Ruud Hesp, Bonano, Dutruel, Rustu Recber, Enke (Rip), Reina.
So, we had such a shitty goalkeepers, that it made sense to try with a domestic kid.
On the other hand, imagine if Valdes emerged today, when we had Bravo and/or Mats.
He probably wouldn't get chances at all.
Iniesta:
During Rijkaard in 2004/05 when he had his breakthrough year, Rijkaard started a season with a smaller squad.
But then: LB Sylvinho was injured for 3 Months.
Pivot Edmilson was out for a season (knee ligaments).
His sub Thiago Motta was also out for a season (knee ligaments).
Their sub Gabri was also out for a season (knee ligaments).
CF Larsson was also out for a season (knee ligaments).
All injuries happened in autumn of 2004/05 season.
So, in the attack we were left with only 3 players: Ronaldinho, Etoo, Guily and no attacking subs.
In midfield we were left with only 3 players: Xavi, Deco and a failure Gerard Lopez.
CB Marquez was moved to a pivot role. So, our only subs were Gerard Lopez and young Iniesta.
And then Iniesta was a first choice sub for all midfield positions and for all attacking positions.
Iniesta already won youth World cups with Spain and was their best player, and so he grabbed his chance in the first team in that season.
In the next season 2005/06, we had: Xavi, Deco, Van Bommel, Iniesta for 2 CM positions.
But Xavi was also out for a season in December (another knee injury), so, we were left with only 2 CMs: Deco and Van Bommel.
So, basically young Iniesta AGAIN played almost every match either as a CM starter or as a 2nd half sub for Van Bommel.
So, you see, in Iniesta's early years, he was very lucky that in 2 years in a row, we had lots of injuries in midfield. Plus, he grabbed his chance from a day 1.
Messi was Messi. No comment there.
Busi and Pedro were improved due to Pep.
But you see, my point is: even 15 or 25 years ago, when football teams were weaker than today: only 7 of our kids made it into starter's role.
And even among those 7 players, 4 out of them (Xavi, Puyol, Valdes, Iniesta) were very lucky because they played: because they were Catalan (Xavi and Puyol), or because a team was a total mess (Valdes), or because we were plagued by injuries for years (Iniesta).
Now, when you sum it all:
1. today teams are stronger and a jump from a Bteam is even harder
2. a pressure and expectations are bigger than ever due to Rijkaard's and Pep's era and too many trophies won
3. plus, our current youngsters are way weaker than those guys (remember that Xavi and Iniesta were key players of youth NT teams and winning World cups for fun, while Alena isn't a starter in youth NT teams, while Puig was never called for any youth NT team...)
= then, an objective answer is=that their chances are very, very, very slim
You are both right.
I have told you a few times that imo our football brains are wired based on our early and teen years when we watch football.
You guys are in your 20s, and majority of you were around 10-13 when you started to follow Messi and Pep.
And since they were the best during your years when you were kids, your brain will forever be shaped that way that you will rate Pep and that era as the best thing ever and as something to which we should aim for forever.
On the other hand, I had the same process in late 80s and in early 90s.
The first CL match which I have ever watched was AC Milan:Real Madrid from CL semis in 1989.
The first match ended 1:1 in Madrid.
And in the 2nd leg, Milan destroyed them with 5:0.
I watched some videos from that time a few days ago, and I figured out that Rijkaard's Barca was actually heavily influenced by AC Milan from 1988-1995.
In those 7 years, Ac Milan won 3 CLs in 1989, 1990 and 1994 (vs Barca), and lost 2 finals in 1992 and 1995.
So, they played 5 CL finals in 7 years.
That is a domination on a level of RM from the last few years or Pep's Barca.
Rijkaard played for 5 years at Milan (1988-1993) and it seems that his ideas and a footballing brain were a mix of Dutch football paired with Milan's physique/tactics and more cautious approach.
On the other hand, Pep Guardiola as a player played under Crujjf in our Dream team and his footballing brain was wired in those years.
So, I would say:
1. Rijkaard's Barca was a mix of: Barca and AC Milan from 90s.
2. Pep's Barca: was an improved version of Crujjf's Dream team from 90s.
Now, when I watched some videos from AC Milan 1998-1995, I have seen a lot of similarities with Rijkaard's Barca, for example:
1. Milan had 2 tall and strong CFs Van Basten (188cm) and Gullit (191cm). And in those days an average European was 2-3-4 cms shorter than today. So those guys were actually taller than they would have been today.
2. Milan's pivot was 190cm Rijkaard himself, who was actually a CB transformed into a physical-tackler-workhorse pivot.
No wonder that Rijkaard at Barca didn't want to play with Xavi or Gerard Lopez as pivots, but with guys like Edmilson (187cm, CB turned into a pivot), Marquez (184, CB turned into a pivot), Motta (186) or Van Bommel (187)
3. Milan and Rijkaard's Barca both had versatile actions, like: possession, counters, crosses (and headers), longshots.
While Pep, the same as Crujff's Dream team, relied more on possession and counters, and shorter players.
Pep liked a false 9, a shorter CF who runs and moves a lot.
While Rijkaard liked a classical Cfs like Larsson or Etoo who can score with feet and head.
4. Also, Rijkaard's Barca, even though they played beautiful, was more static compared to Crujff's and Pep's Barca.
Now, since my brain as a kid was formed in late 80s and early 90s when Milan was dominating (and when they won 5:0 vs Real and 4:0 vs Barca), no wonder that my brain was wired in a way=Milan's style is a winning style. Barca's/Real's style from those years always loses heavily to Milan.
Also, since my favorite Barca is Rijkaard's Barca, since we had to wait 14 years for a CL trophy, no wonder that I have a lot of love for AC Milan from 90s and for Rijkaard's Barca, who both, as explained above, have a lot of similarities.
Now guys, please take a look at these highlights from 1989's semis: Milan:Real 5:0:
You will see some familar faces and legendary footballers and coaches: Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Carlo Ancelotti, Donadoni, Butrageno, Michel.
Also, btw, I would like to hear your opinion, DO YOU see some similarities between Ac Milan from 1988-1995 and Rijkaard's Barca is some areas, the same as I do? Thanks.
A final vs Steaua in 1989:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h7YDB-2LcE
You asked in Suarez's topic about La Masia kids and whether we should trust them more since majority of transfers are flops.
Well, La Masia kids have some basics since they "know" our football.
But there are some problems, imo.
The level of quality of football teams has gone up since 90s or 00s.
Let's say that the level of top clubs was at a level 80 out of 100 (on some imaginary scale) back then.
Today, that level has gone up to 100 out of 100, since today players need to be both technical, and then physical robots, plus they need to have a mental strength made of steel.
But, a level of kids from La Masia or from any academy is the same.
A kid is a kid, and let's say that his level aged 18 or 19 is at 20 out of 100.
So, in my eyes, in 2020', it will be even harder for a kid to make a jump into Barca's team than in 1992, 2002 or 2012.
Because: in 1992, he needed to improve from a level 20 to a level 80 (he needed let's say 60 points).
While today, he needs to make a jump from a level 20 to a level 100, so chances for kids are even weaker today.
Further, imo, the best development for majority of players are when they go step by step, from a smaller club to a bigger club.
Only rare players like Messi, Xavi and Iniesta managed to improve as youths at Barca.
When those kids play at smaller clubs: the pressure is lower. They have more playing time. They have more time to develop as players and persons.
Regarding our players, only Xavi, Puyol, Valdes, Iniesta, Messi, Busquets and Pedro have made it in the last 30-ish years. (And Guardiola, but I don't rate him as that good player).
That means 7 or 8 players over 30 years, which is 1 player in 3-4 years on average.
But even then, you have to add into maths:
1. it was easier to make it in the past, as explained above: since the level of football was weaker than today and the difference between B-team and A-team was not as big as today
2. but also, majority of players mentioned above had some luck in their development and they were given chances in different times.
Puyol played around 2000 when we had only Xavi and Puyol as domestic players and media and fans wanted Catalan players (the same reason why today Roberto has to play in every match).
So, if we had more Catalan players, maybe Xavi and Puyol would never get those chances. Or they wouldn't get as MANY chances, since Puyol sucked in his first years.
The 2nd lucky part in Puyol's story was that we sucked in years when he was a kid from 2000-2004.
And usually around December, we would be already out of race for a league title. So, there was less pressure, and there was more logic to try domestic kids since we were losing matches either way.
So, in Puyol's case, you have 3 things:
1. teams were weaker than today, so it was easier to reach A-team level as a kid
2. we lacked Catalan players
3. we sucked and we could have afford to risk with young players
Xavi: he was pushed because he was Catalan.
So: 1. he was Catalan 2. our midfield was horrible after 2000 3. and teams were weaker back then
Valdes:
1. we were shit in years when he started (Gaspart's era)
2. plus we had the biggest crisis with goalkeepers since we had crappy Gks for 7-8 years in a row: Ruud Hesp, Bonano, Dutruel, Rustu Recber, Enke (Rip), Reina.
So, we had such a shitty goalkeepers, that it made sense to try with a domestic kid.
On the other hand, imagine if Valdes emerged today, when we had Bravo and/or Mats.
He probably wouldn't get chances at all.
Iniesta:
During Rijkaard in 2004/05 when he had his breakthrough year, Rijkaard started a season with a smaller squad.
But then: LB Sylvinho was injured for 3 Months.
Pivot Edmilson was out for a season (knee ligaments).
His sub Thiago Motta was also out for a season (knee ligaments).
Their sub Gabri was also out for a season (knee ligaments).
CF Larsson was also out for a season (knee ligaments).
All injuries happened in autumn of 2004/05 season.
So, in the attack we were left with only 3 players: Ronaldinho, Etoo, Guily and no attacking subs.
In midfield we were left with only 3 players: Xavi, Deco and a failure Gerard Lopez.
CB Marquez was moved to a pivot role. So, our only subs were Gerard Lopez and young Iniesta.
And then Iniesta was a first choice sub for all midfield positions and for all attacking positions.
Iniesta already won youth World cups with Spain and was their best player, and so he grabbed his chance in the first team in that season.
In the next season 2005/06, we had: Xavi, Deco, Van Bommel, Iniesta for 2 CM positions.
But Xavi was also out for a season in December (another knee injury), so, we were left with only 2 CMs: Deco and Van Bommel.
So, basically young Iniesta AGAIN played almost every match either as a CM starter or as a 2nd half sub for Van Bommel.
So, you see, in Iniesta's early years, he was very lucky that in 2 years in a row, we had lots of injuries in midfield. Plus, he grabbed his chance from a day 1.
Messi was Messi. No comment there.
Busi and Pedro were improved due to Pep.
But you see, my point is: even 15 or 25 years ago, when football teams were weaker than today: only 7 of our kids made it into starter's role.
And even among those 7 players, 4 out of them (Xavi, Puyol, Valdes, Iniesta) were very lucky because they played: because they were Catalan (Xavi and Puyol), or because a team was a total mess (Valdes), or because we were plagued by injuries for years (Iniesta).
Now, when you sum it all:
1. today teams are stronger and a jump from a Bteam is even harder
2. a pressure and expectations are bigger than ever due to Rijkaard's and Pep's era and too many trophies won
3. plus, our current youngsters are way weaker than those guys (remember that Xavi and Iniesta were key players of youth NT teams and winning World cups for fun, while Alena isn't a starter in youth NT teams, while Puig was never called for any youth NT team...)
= then, an objective answer is=that their chances are very, very, very slim
You are both right.
I have told you a few times that imo our football brains are wired based on our early and teen years when we watch football.
You guys are in your 20s, and majority of you were around 10-13 when you started to follow Messi and Pep.
And since they were the best during your years when you were kids, your brain will forever be shaped that way that you will rate Pep and that era as the best thing ever and as something to which we should aim for forever.
On the other hand, I had the same process in late 80s and in early 90s.
The first CL match which I have ever watched was AC Milan:Real Madrid from CL semis in 1989.
The first match ended 1:1 in Madrid.
And in the 2nd leg, Milan destroyed them with 5:0.
I watched some videos from that time a few days ago, and I figured out that Rijkaard's Barca was actually heavily influenced by AC Milan from 1988-1995.
In those 7 years, Ac Milan won 3 CLs in 1989, 1990 and 1994 (vs Barca), and lost 2 finals in 1992 and 1995.
So, they played 5 CL finals in 7 years.
That is a domination on a level of RM from the last few years or Pep's Barca.
Rijkaard played for 5 years at Milan (1988-1993) and it seems that his ideas and a footballing brain were a mix of Dutch football paired with Milan's physique/tactics and more cautious approach.
On the other hand, Pep Guardiola as a player played under Crujjf in our Dream team and his footballing brain was wired in those years.
So, I would say:
1. Rijkaard's Barca was a mix of: Barca and AC Milan from 90s.
2. Pep's Barca: was an improved version of Crujjf's Dream team from 90s.
Now, when I watched some videos from AC Milan 1998-1995, I have seen a lot of similarities with Rijkaard's Barca, for example:
1. Milan had 2 tall and strong CFs Van Basten (188cm) and Gullit (191cm). And in those days an average European was 2-3-4 cms shorter than today. So those guys were actually taller than they would have been today.
2. Milan's pivot was 190cm Rijkaard himself, who was actually a CB transformed into a physical-tackler-workhorse pivot.
No wonder that Rijkaard at Barca didn't want to play with Xavi or Gerard Lopez as pivots, but with guys like Edmilson (187cm, CB turned into a pivot), Marquez (184, CB turned into a pivot), Motta (186) or Van Bommel (187)
3. Milan and Rijkaard's Barca both had versatile actions, like: possession, counters, crosses (and headers), longshots.
While Pep, the same as Crujff's Dream team, relied more on possession and counters, and shorter players.
Pep liked a false 9, a shorter CF who runs and moves a lot.
While Rijkaard liked a classical Cfs like Larsson or Etoo who can score with feet and head.
4. Also, Rijkaard's Barca, even though they played beautiful, was more static compared to Crujff's and Pep's Barca.
Now, since my brain as a kid was formed in late 80s and early 90s when Milan was dominating (and when they won 5:0 vs Real and 4:0 vs Barca), no wonder that my brain was wired in a way=Milan's style is a winning style. Barca's/Real's style from those years always loses heavily to Milan.
Also, since my favorite Barca is Rijkaard's Barca, since we had to wait 14 years for a CL trophy, no wonder that I have a lot of love for AC Milan from 90s and for Rijkaard's Barca, who both, as explained above, have a lot of similarities.
Now guys, please take a look at these highlights from 1989's semis: Milan:Real 5:0:
You will see some familar faces and legendary footballers and coaches: Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Carlo Ancelotti, Donadoni, Butrageno, Michel.
Also, btw, I would like to hear your opinion, DO YOU see some similarities between Ac Milan from 1988-1995 and Rijkaard's Barca is some areas, the same as I do? Thanks.
A final vs Steaua in 1989:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h7YDB-2LcE
Last edited:
Messigician
Senior Member
Good analysis from BBZ
Home of Barca Fans
