Malcom

[jairzinho]

@ BBZ you're being speculative and making many assumptions and also disengenious.
I like the way you introduce Semedo and Malcolm in a subtle way to assume they wouldn't be good options for Rijkaard.

So they must not be good at all period. Not for Rijkaard, not for Klopp not for Pep. They can't help a team etc. Clever stuff.
There are lots of factors involved in a winning team. firstly is a good coach, a solid team, a crack or two up front, good 4th attackers etc.

But sometimes not all those factors are present. A coach might have a Larson or a young player like a Malcom or Origi.
It is true that a Larsson can help any team but in many instances this team won a treble with guys like Bojan, gudjohnsen and Pedro as 4th attackers.

How do you explain that? Let's not even talk about Munir and Sandro during Lucho's time.
How do you explain a team with Origi and Shakiri as backup attackers, beating us 4-0 with our Gala IX.

How do you explain a team with Aguero, Sterling, Sane, Jesus, Mahrez. Good starting choices and 4th and 5th choices
But they still get knocked out of Europe.

For example, Before the Liverpool game, many people scoffed at Henderson and Milner in midfield. Looked what happened.
Runners up in the premiere league, missing out by a whisker and also in the final of a CL.

Giving a team like City full of artists like the two Silvas, Sterling, De bruyne etc a run for their money.
Knocking a team like Barca out in the most humiliating way in the history of this club

IMO a good coach like Klopp would be able to see value in a Origi or a Malcolm and use them acordingly and when appropriate.
Would Valgreen be able to make it happen with those guys? Probably not at all. It's Messi or nothing for him.

It's good to have good 4th attackers but they can only do so much when the starting lineup consist of Messi and a bunch of grannies.
They can only do so much when you have a guy like a clueless Valgreen as a coach.

 

[Potroh]

We would won 4:0 or 5:0 with his cool head and cool finishing.
But we had Dumbele.

That's a bit too cheap... Don't you think so?
(Just look at Iniesta's huge chance against Roma in the 2nd leg. Was he personally accused for the fiasco? Or Suarez's two big chances at 3:1 at the 1st leg?)
It's simply cheap...

Or, in the 2nd leg, when we were losing 4:0, in the last 10-15 minutes:
Would you rather have Malcom who won't be able to do absolutely anything on a field, or again: let's say Larsson who can score with feet, head and score 10s of random lucky goals from inside of a box?
Moments like those are moments when there is a thin line between champions and losers.

You simply need to understand the most important aspect of this game, that seemingly escapes your mind.
Namely STRATEGY.
Not 2nd, 3rd, 4th substitutes, who may score time to time, but strategy.

This Barca team (largely due to the mediocre coach) did NOT have any strategy at Anfield, and that's why the actual result has become a turning-point in the present Barca history.
The strategy was: "let's not concede too many goals and either Messi or Suarez will score 'somehow', so we are in business". That was the strategy.

Barca is historically playing bad against even the worst LaLiga opponents, if they start pressing high.
Dull passes don't work, takatiki chukimuki don't work if there's nobody to pass to. Sooner or later the ball goes back to the keeper, who bangs it forward. But Barca is very bad handling those goal-kicks and the like, so the ball is almost always lost - immediately.
To avoid that, a specific, STRATEGY is needed to avoid having the ball mostly in your half and that was the missing element at Anfield (apart from many other things).

Individual players, including potential substitutes, would rarely turn over a situation like that, unless there is a well defined STRATEGY to play for.

Strategy means: it will happen on the pitch WHAT WE WANT, we won't allow you to play your OWN GAME. The flow of play will occur according to our needs.
That's the key to each and every game.
Until you understand that and are capable to see a game from the manager's point of view, the rest is simply small-talk...

 

[serghei]

Malcom can change a game. He is a very good squad player and option on the bench. If entering in a CL game away to Inter and scoring is not changing a game I don't know what is. Same with Atletico on Camp Nou. Same with Madrid when he stepped in for Messi and scored.

I don't know what some of you guys expect. Malcom is a 40m. player who can most definitely impact any game almost. Just because he is not a Barca-starter quality doesn't mean he is crap or anything.

Solid squad player and very good sub if used correctly.

 

[Tackle]

Malcom can change a came. He is a very good squad player and option on the bench. If entering in a CL game away to Inter and scoring is not changing a game I don't know what is. Same with Atletico on Camp Nou. Same with Madrid when he stepped in for Messi and scored.

His match against Madrid is vastly overrated.

He was nothing special or out of this world, he just looked lively compared to Coutinho and Suarez who were both having terrible matches. He looked like he was trying and offered some movement, but never influenced the game much in the final third.

Then he scores a rebound off the post while Madrid were scrambling back to defend an empty net and like clockwork the revisionism and confirmation bias kicks in and he supposedly had a "great game."

The other pitiful myth about Malcom is that he always performs when he gets the chance. This couldn't be further from the truth and it's rather scandalous how often this lie gets peddled about.

He only had a rating above 7.00 on WhoScored 4 times this season.

He was shite against Eibar, Getafe, Celta, Huesca, Sevilla, Levante and Betis. All matches he started mind you.

He had his chance against Betis after scoring v. Inter when Dembele was on his worst form ever and missing trainings and Coutinho was injured. You don't get many chances at a club like Barcelona and what did he do? Squandered it with a dreadful display and has failed to convince most other times when EV called upon him.

Spare me with the "Valverde hates Malcom and wants him to fail" rhetoric. Malcom simply isn't good enough.

 

[serghei]

Most matches he started were in experimental sides. How many of these matches did he start with Messi and Suarez which is our normal formula? You don't put a player who is low on confidence with a bunch of bench players or very young dudes and ask him to do miracles.

 

[Tackle]

Most matches he started were in experimental sides. How many of these matches did he start with Messi and Suarez which is our normal formula? You don't put a player who is low on confidence with a bunch of bench players or very young dudes and ask him to do miracles.

Unproven forwards joining the club need to earn the privilege to start meaningful matches with likes of Messi and Suarez. Winning comes before all else and no player deserves an opportunity with the Gala XI just because he's young and has potential.

Perform when you're called upon whether that be with a reserve side in cup matches and dead rubbers or with heavily rotated squads in the middle of the league campaign, put in a string of good performances that the manager can't ignore and prove that you're worthy of forcing yourself into the his plans. Fans have this sense of entitlement when it comes to young players getting game time and believe if their favourite youngster just could just get a bit more game time they would explode and blossom into world class players.

Malcom isn't good enough, Alena hasn't shown anything to signal he is some extraordinary player, Puig is almost 20 and still playing in the Spanish third division while nobody outside of Barcelona thinks he's anything special as reflected by the lack of youth NT call-ups.

Most young players with potential will never be good enough and the ones that are will always rise to the top. I'm no massive fan of either Dembele or Arthur, but when they were on form they forced themselves into Valverde's plans and were in the starting XI based on merit, not handouts and a prayer hoping the they perform.

 

[serghei]

Wow, you're new here, but you're making up ground very fast. Such a bad post.

 

[MTL_Barca]

If other teams don't have a plan B...
And if you also don't have a plan B, then you will play a 50:50 match against them.

If they don't have a plan B, and you DO, then you have a 60:40 advantage.

If the other team have a crappy sub attacker and you do the same, you are again 50:50, or even worse if your starter gets injured or if you are losing.
If the other team have a crappy sub attacker and you have a better sub, you again have an advantage in tight matches, like 60:40 since you do have a plan B, a fresh player for the last 20 minutes, a good player in a case of injuries and a player who can actually turn a match around.

Pep didn't win Cls with us because we were as average as other teams.
We won because we were better and had better options than them.

We didn't win 2:1 against Arsenal in 2006' because we had an okish 4th CF on a bench (who will be decent against Rayo and Girona).
We won because a sub 4th pick CF Larsson made two assists to Etto and Belletti.
We won because a sub CM Iniesta managed to turn the match around.
And we won because a more attacking RB Belletti managed to get into a box and score a lucky winning goal.

Imagine if Rijkaard had Malcom and Semedo as bench options instead of Larsson and Belletti.
An answer: we surely wouldn't win a CL back then.

Some will say: we didn't have good attacking subs during Pep.
Well, we won INSPITE of that flaw, not because of it, lol.

People will get mad, but imagine if we had Larsson in the last 10 minutes in the first home leg vs Liverpool.
We would won 4:0 or 5:0 with his cool head and cool finishing.
But we had Dumbele.

Or, in the 2nd leg, when we were losing 4:0, in the last 10-15 minutes:
Would you rather have Malcom who won't be able to do absolutely anything on a field, or again: let's say Larsson who can score with feet, head and score 10s of random lucky goals from inside of a box?

Moments like those are moments when there is a thin line between champions and losers.

Yeah i understand, Malcom sucks. Registered. I'm just saying thats more or less the quality you can expect from a 4th option on the wing. Should they have signed someone else? Probably, but when there are multiple STARTERS that are far from their best form and the whole Coutinho dilemma i don't think Malcom is high on the list of problems.

You can talk about Larsson as much as you want but the situation was Barca needed a player for the wings that was ok with warming the bench for Messi/Dembele and even Coutinho. You can never really predict how a player works out but i'd say not many world class level players/talents would join for that role and the price of Malcom. If you know Larsson type players just name them, but if it's between old Willian for double the fee or young Malcom i have a hard time blaming the board for that decision.

Also it's not always about plan B or not (and i'd say not every sub has to be a plan B option, your Larsson should've been there instead of Munir/Boateng if anything) but usually teams just don't have world class players on the bench that's just how it is. They can replace Malcom sure, probably upgrade yes. But again, as long as the Suarez-Busi-Rakitic gang plays the slow Ernie ball no 4th winger in the world will make a big difference. Instead of still talking about dumb Dembele not scoring the 4:0 or sub Malcom not turning it around better think about the coach and starters that managed to get trashed so badly at Anfield and bottling a 3-0 lead.

A good sub gives an advantage? Yes for sure. But you know what gives an even bigger advantage? Having the better coach and starters.

 

[serghei]

Yeah i understand, Malcom sucks. Registered. I'm just saying thats more or less the quality you can expect from a 4th option on the wing. Should they have signed someone else? Probably, but when there are multiple STARTERS that are far from their best form and the whole Coutinho dilemma i don't think Malcom is high on the list of problems.

You can talk about Larsson as much as you want but the situation was Barca needed a player for the wings that was ok with warming the bench for Messi/Dembele and even Coutinho. You can never really predict how a player works out but i'd say not many world class level players/talents would join for that role and the price of Malcom. If you know Larsson type players just name them, but if it's between old Willian for double the fee or young Malcom i have a hard time blaming the board for that decision.

Also it's not always about plan B or not (and i'd say not every sub has to be a plan B option, your Larsson should've be there instead of Munir/Boateng if anything) but usually teams just don't have world class players on the bench that's just how it is. They can replace Malcom sure, probably upgrade yes. But again, as longs as the Suarez-Busi-Rakitic gang plays the slow Ernie ball no 4th winger in the world will make a big difference. Instead of still talking about dumb Dembele not scoring the 4:0 or sub Malcom not turning it around better think about the coach and starters that managed to get trashed so badly at Anfield and bottling a 3-0 lead.

A good sub gives an advantage? Yes for sure. But you know what gives an even bigger advantage? Having the better coach and starters.

It's very easy to spot the logic and pattern here. Every young player who we paid top money for and is not playing well under the management of Valverde sucks. Even the La Masia players, they all suck.

Coutinho sucks, Dembele sucks, Arthur is a backpasser and not much else, Malcom sucks even as a squad player, Semedo has no offensive game, Alena is overrated, Puig is a skinny dude from the 3rd division of Spanish Football.

 

[BBZ8800]

It's very easy to spot the logic and pattern here. Every young player who we paid top money for and is not playing well under the management of Valverde sucks. Even the La Masia players, they all suck.

Coutinho sucks, Dembele sucks, Arthur is a backpasser and not much else, Malcom sucks even as a squad player, Semedo has no offensive game, Alena is overrated, Puig is a skinny dude from the 3rd division of Spanish Football.

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...

@ BBZ you're being speculative and making many assumptions and also disengenious.
I like the way you introduce Semedo and Malcolm in a subtle way to assume they wouldn't be good options for Rijkaard.

So they must not be good at all period. Not for Rijkaard, not for Klopp not for Pep. They can't help a team etc. Clever stuff.
There are lots of factors involved in a winning team. firstly is a good coach, a solid team, a crack or two up front, good 4th attackers etc.

But sometimes not all those factors are present. A coach might have a Larson or a young player like a Malcom or Origi.
It is true that a Larsson can help any team but in many instances this team won a treble with guys like Bojan, gudjohnsen and Pedro as 4th attackers.

How do you explain that? Let's not even talk about Munir and Sandro during Lucho's time.
How do you explain a team with Origi and Shakiri as backup attackers, beating us 4-0 with our Gala IX.

Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

 

[snowy]

..
So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.
..

Loquatious elder, that's exactly what we've been asking though... whoever said we need only improve 1 area?

For operation clean-up, we need a no-nonsense poncho with balls of steel; like Phil Jackson (but for football) or wolfman:

Start at the top and get rid of Barto et co.

One of the biggest budget of all clubs, Messi, prestige, infrastructure, and what's the end-product? scared confused football. Turning Barca into the butt of the joke.

When it comes to da Bouzeman, you're totally missing it. Playa has one of the highest ceilings out there. With all its resources, if Barca fails to develop him properly, it would be an epic waste!

Remember that poll last year about Winning titles playing ugly vs Playing beautiful football but losing?

some quipped of a 3rd eventuality: Play ugly football and Lose

and that's exactly what happened First with Roma and all over again with Liv, got gang boum boum banged on the big carpet

We lost all street cred and there's zero fear factor left. Even Eibar with their tiny budget owned us in attack and style.

Gotta get up, feel the groove again and stomp the yard G

Shortest-est version hehe

 

[Maxim4]

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...



Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

man, are you serious?
why do you write this long page, it's to do what. we are not science po here.
just do a simple and effective summary.
I can not even read, too many repetitions.

 

[gasgas]

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...



Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

Mother of all BBZ walls of text

 

[Maxim4]

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...



Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

My friend .
what I should tell you "football is simple but difficult for Valverde to play simple"

 

[jairzinho]

It's very easy to spot the logic and pattern here. Every young player who we paid top money for and is not playing well under the management of Valverde sucks. Even the La Masia players, they all suck.

Coutinho sucks, Dembele sucks, Arthur is a backpasser and not much else, Malcom sucks even as a squad player, Semedo has no offensive game, Alena is overrated, Puig is a skinny dude from the 3rd division of Spanish Football.

Valgreen views the game in a very limited way. Would Valgreen play a young Busquets over a Yaya Toure back in the day?
Probably not. He's too skinny and frail. Yeah he plays him now because he is an established player. But no not back then.

Does he play a Mascherano at cb?. Probably not. He's too short to play at the back. Won't work. Too risky.
What does Pep do with a Masch?. Wins a treble with him at the back. Lucho wins a treble with him at the back.

I'm not trying to make Pep out to be some God. But to describe the way Valgreen would see the game.
He is in a small box and rarely comes out that box. So he rarely takes a risk, or does something innovative with a formation or a young player.

So it's not a surprise that a young player, whoever that is would probably not flourish under him compared to another coach.
Whether it is back then or now. He would never take a risk with a young Busquets back then or any similiar player.