Marc Bartra

[DinhoR10]

Bartra is too similar to Pique. Both together is the least effective partnership on this team.

IMO:

1- Pique-Masche
2- Bartra-Masche
3- Pique-Mathieu

Pique and Bartra have played great together before though, when Bartra plays Pique knows to stay back and be the anchor.

 

[JamDav1982]

Pique and Bartra have played great together before though, when Bartra plays Pique knows to stay back and be the anchor.

Well some of the worst defensive performances I have seen over the past few seasons have been with a Pique/Bartra partership.

It barely ever looks balanced or organised against any decent offence.

There hasnt been a manager out of the last four that appeared to fancy that partnership for any length of time.

 

[DinhoR10]

Well some of the worst defensive performances I have seen over the past few seasons have been with a Pique/Bartra partership.

It barely ever looks balanced or organised against any decent offence.

There hasnt been a manager out of the last four that appeared to fancy that partnership for any length of time.

And some of the worst performances have come from Masch-Pique, I've seen them play together in a balanced and organized way before, not saying they are the best partnership right now but its not an issue of them simply not working together. The partnership wasn't fancied before because Bartra only got playing time when someone got injured, not because it was given a fair shot and was horrible.

 

[Gnidrologist]

But again, imo, people are biased towards our current young(er) player, and are using some sort of alibis for everything.

While you are clearly biased towards our veterans, overrating their ability at young age.

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)

Huh? All of them sans De Boear were mediocre players. I can't say much about Abelardo's whole career, because he was old already, when i started watching football in mid to late 90s, but both Barca's and Spain's defense at that time was a fishing net. They were falling for quick counters way too often and much of that was because Abelardo was damn slow.
You also omit the fact that Marquez was naturally a DM and was played as CB much for the same reason why Mascherano is. Not really any great alternatives.

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.

Which is why i say that we can't judge Bartra and Puyol on equal terms. Bartra has barely played, while Puyol was almost a veteran by that age.

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

This isn't helping your point. Vice versa. So despite our CBs being poor or unavailable Bartra was still given abysmal playing time. How is that his fault? Coaches being stubborn/conservative is the case here. Also probably the fact that expectation for Barca since Pep has been so sky high that playing youngsters was neglected out of fear of bad press, if they make blunders. Early 00's team had no such expectation and couldbe experimented with.

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.

Bartra is much better distributor and more comfortable on the ball, so again, no.

 

[Zinedinho]

Why compare Bartra with Puyol? Puyol is a legend. Probably, Barça's best defender ever.

 

[KingMessi]

Why compare Bartra with Puyol? Puyol is a legend. Probably, Barça's best defender ever.

Exactly. A comparison between Bartra and Puyol will only end with one winner.

 

[BBZ8800]

Huh? All of them sans De Boear were mediocre players. I can't say much about Abelardo's whole career, because he was old already, when i started watching football in mid to late 90s, but both Barca's and Spain's defense at that time was a fishing net. They were falling for quick counters way too often and much of that was because Abelardo was damn slow.

Abelardo played 54 matches for Spain.
I don't want to go into a new level of comparing history, because it will go in circles like:
"Spain was weaker back then, 54 matches for Spain back then don't mean too much"

You also omit the fact that Marquez was naturally a DM and was played as CB much for the same reason why Mascherano is. Not really any great alternatives.

Rijkaard bought Edmilson as his 1st Dmc choice in 433 with Dmc-mc-mc midfield.
But he injured knee ligaments, so we didn't have our first choice defensive midfielder in that Season.
Rijkaard's 2nd choice was Dmc Motta. But he was also injured in the same Season (same as Gabri and Larsson, and Xavi in the next Season. We had 5 broken knee ligaments in 2 Seasons...)
-- so, our Dmc was Edmilson, then Motta, and then when those 2 were out, Marquez was the 3rd choice.
-- with Marquez at Dmc, Oleguer played as a defender with Puyol

In 2006, when Edmilson was back, he was our first choice Dmc again, and then Marquez and Puyol were Cbs and Oleguer was a first choice Rb (with Belletti on the bench)

So, I won't agree with that part.
Masch is a Dmc who plays a Dc, because we don't have better options.
Marquez was Dc-Dmc, but we bought him as a Dc.
If he wasn't a Dc, then we would play with only 2 central defenders in that Season, Puyol and Oleguer.

Which is why i say that we can't judge Bartra and Puyol on equal terms. Bartra has barely played, while Puyol was almost a veteran by that age.

My point is that THERE IS a reason why Bartra is not the first choice for any of our 4 coaches in the last 4 Seasons.
Imo, he is not a squad player because we have an awesome defenders but basically=because he is a squad level in skills, and that's it.

Also, imo, Puyol wasn't a key player because our other players were a crap, but because he was A KEY PLAYER, no matter if we played with 3 blind defenders or with Maldini, Puyol and Baresi.

In shorter, you think that Bartra isn't there yet because he didn't get chances.
My opinion is that he isn't there yet because he will never get there (Puyol's level).

The same analogy would be that Deulo didn't get the chance in Barca.
Well, Deulo didn't get the chance because he is not good enough.

Young Messi did get a chance. He didn't need 1000s loans and similar, if you get my point.
Some fans are here putting too much emphasis on:
= Bartra isn't a world class because he didn't play
= Deulo isn't a world class because we didn't give him chances and he didn't have the chance to play and shine alongside Messi and Ney etc

This isn't helping your point. Vice versa. So despite our CBs being poor or unavailable Bartra was still given abysmal playing time. How is that his fault? Coaches being stubborn/conservative is the case here.

That is your explanation/opinion.
My opinion is that if Bartra didn't get too many matches neither with Pep, Tito, Tata and Lucho says that he just isn't good enough or that coaches don't trust him.
I am not sure whether users still remember that, but when we lost against Bayern with Tito, Bartra had some serious mental problems.
We didn't have fit defenders and he had to play, but he replied a few times to a coach: Please, don't play me, I am not ready for this level, I am scared (something like that).
Also, he asked to be substituted a few times during half time in those days, after committing a few mistakes in the first half. And then again, the coach had to tell him: "You have to play. No matter how well/bad you play, we don't have other options."

Now, he loves Barca and everything, but seriously, coaches probably think that his skill's level (awful positioning too often)+those mental issues make him only a squad player, and not a starter.

Again, my post will now sound like a huge trashing of Bartra.
But I am just saying that it is insane to compare him with Puyol and give alibis for everything.

So, you are saying that he hasn't played too much because of coaches and that the coaches are guilty.
I am saying that he hasn't played too much because he is not good enough. Or wasn't good enough till now.

You will now probably reply:
But if he doesn't play, we won't know whether he is good enough or not.
My reply is: You can't give unlimited amount of chances to anyone.
He had some chances, and coaches probably decided that he isn't worthy of giving too many more chances.

Also probably the fact that expectation for Barca since Pep has been so sky high that playing youngsters was neglected out of fear of bad press, if they make blunders. Early 00's team had no such expectation and couldbe experimented with.

Sorry, but lol.
Barca in 2000-2003 was like Real Madrid a few Seasons ago.
We weren't good, but expectations were always the highest.
We expected La liga title in every Season, and wanted to reach the CL finals in every Season.
(We played CL semifinals in 2000 and 2002, if I remember correctly, losing to Valencia and Real)

We are Barca, and we were always Barca. This reply is just insane, sorry.
You make it sound like we were Liverpool or Arsenal and that we could have experimented with youngsters, without pressure.

Also, we were CL winners in 2006, and expectations were high.
How on earth then Pedro, Busi and other guys managed to stay here?
By your logic, expectations back then were even higher than today.

If Deulo doesn't get chances here, there is a strong reason for that.
If Bartra is a squad player for 4 coaches in a row, there must be strong reason for that.

Young Puyol, on the other hand, played for 4-5 different coaches (Van Gaal, Ferrer, Rexach, Antic, Rijkaard).
We can go in circles forever with answers how Barca was weaker back then.

Look, Bartra is a good squad player.
But calling him still the next Puyol even after 4 coaches don't believe in him, even though he is already 24...

 

[BBZ8800]

Exactly. A comparison between Bartra and Puyol will only end with one winner.

That is my point.
Puyol is the biggest legend ever.

Bartra is a good player.
But comparing him with Puyol, that's just silly.
Especially if we look at more aspects in both stories.

 

[Ini8]

His age shouldn't play a factor, considering how little he's played for us in the past. The important thing is that he keeps improving with the chances he gets.

 

[JamDav1982]

His age shouldn't play a factor, considering how little he's played for us in the past. The important thing is that he keeps improving with the chances he gets.

The only reason he has played as few game is that four consecutive managers have had him at best 3/4th choice.

By this age he should have more appearances if he was rated higher.

 

[CuleLife4Life]

He and Pique are similar but I think he is still young enough to start as left CB and get a feel of that position for a change. He can't and won't unseat someone like Pique.

 

[Ini8]

The only reason he has played as few game is that four consecutive managers have had him at best 3/4th choice.

By this age he should have more appearances if he was rated higher.

As in Tito, Roura, Tata and Lucho? Because he was promoted to the first team in the 12/13 season. Had Pep stayed with us longer, I think Bartra would've been given more of a chance in his early years since Bartra is a pretty good ball playing CB.

 

[JamDav1982]

As in Tito, Roura, Tata and Lucho? Because he was promoted to the first team in the 12/13 season. Had Pep stayed with us longer, I think Bartra would've been given more of a chance in his early years since Bartra is a pretty good ball playing CB.

As in Pep, Tito, Tata and now Lucho.

Doesnt matter when he was promoted. Pep used plenty of B team players for multiple performances when they started season registered with B team.

 

[Ini8]

As in Pep, Tito, Tata and now Lucho.

Doesnt matter when he was promoted. Pep used plenty of B team players for multiple performances when they started season registered with B team.

He did the same with Bartra. Starting from the 09/10, he got more and more games per season, but IIRC, he got injured in the 11/12 season and it took some time for him to find his rhythm again. He was still an upcoming youngster under Pep, so I don't think his evaluation of him should count.

 

[JamDav1982]

He did the same with Bartra. Starting from the 09/10, he got more and more games per season, but IIRC, he got injured in the 11/12 season and it took some time for him to find his rhythm again. He was still an upcoming youngster under Pep, so I don't think his evaluation of him should count.

He never really had any injuries in Peps last season. Pep just never wanted to use him.

Barta was 19/20 in that last season. Young but not too young if he thought him good enough but Pep preferred to play the likes of Adriano and Busquets at CB before Barta who had already out grown the B team.