@BBZ8800
Comparing Bartra to Puyol in this way is fallacy, because Puyol much like Xavi were regulars since the age 20 not because they were that great, but because squad was much weaker then. There was hardly any competition in CB role for Puyol in early 2000s. F.De Boer being the best one. We don't know what level Bartra would be now if he played regularly. Also, Puyol made a lot of blunders when he was young. He compensated that with tenacity and a lot of great saving tackles. Bartra seems quite similar to him in this respect.
I understand your points.
But again, imo, people are biased towards our current young(er) player, and are using some sort of alibis for everything.
In other topics, when someone mentions that Deulofeu or Halilovic are dummies and that they have a low footballing IQ, you will see some answers that young Messi or young Cristiano Ronaldo were also dummies.
True, they weren't as smart in decisions as today, but young Messi and young Deulo and Halil in terms of decisions are two different universes.
Further, now we can see an excuse that Xavi played because Barca needed homegrown players because we were full of foreigners.
But again, other top prospects also had the chance in those days, like Ivan De la Pena, Oscar and Roger Garcia, etc.
So, it is not like Xavi was the only player back then who was given a chance, and since he was the only one, he was pushed by coaches, media and everyone, and later became the best Barca's midfielder in a history.
There must be something in Xavi also, if you get my point.
Puyol?
-- we had Abelardo, Frank De Boer, Dehu and Puyol in 1999'
-- we had Frank De Boer, Abelardo and Puyol as CBs in 2000'
-- we had Frank De Boer, Abelardo, Patrik Andersson, Christanval and Puyol in 2001'
-- we had Frank De Boer, Abelardo, Patrik Andersson, Christanval, Puyol and Oleguer in 2002'
-- we had Puyol, Marquez and Oleguer in 2003'
Those are only Cbs, I didn't write full backs here.
So, the competition was poor only in 2000 with 3 players, Puyol, Abelardo and De Boer (Where De Boer and Abelardo were world class older players back then)
Anyway, I remember young Puyol, he played as a Rb often, and he was sometimes poor when he was really young.
But that was when he was aged 20.
By the age 23-24, Puyol became the good, old Puyol, whom we all know.
Also, you are saying that a competition was weak back then (I am not blaming you, people are often using all kinds of arguments to show how the current youngsters, no matter how good or bad they actually are=are as good or even better than our former youngsters).
While in the last few Seasons, Bartra had to compete only against:
1. Shakira Pique
2. Masch who is not a Cb at all
3. and always injured Puyol
So, honestly, I don't see the logic how it was easier for Puyol than for Bartra.
Puyol was just much, much better player and that's it.
Also, people will say that I am trashing our young players.
I could reply: I am not trashing young players, I am defending our legends from posts how they had it easy, and how every new young player is the next Xavi or the next Puyol.
I am not saying that Bartra is bad, but there are a lot of levels in between of: being a good player, being a starter and being a Puyol.
Also, imo, saying how Xavi and Puyol made it in Barca is partially based on a fact that the competition was weak back then, is rude towards Puyol and Xavi.
Also, Puyol made a lot of blunders when he was young. He compensated that with tenacity and a lot of great saving tackles. Bartra seems quite similar to him in this respect.
I would say that a young Puyol had skills 80/100 and passion 100/100.
Later he improved tactically, and had skills 99/100 and passion still 100/100.
With Bartra, his skills were never as good as young Puyol's.
I would give him 60-70/100 in skills and 100/100 passion.
Now, to reach Puyol's level, he will need to improve a lot in skills.
He is improving, but he still has a lot of things to improve to be a starter (positioning, as a number one)
He has the passion, but Puyol was maybe the best defender in the world.
