Mavericky Puig
- Thread starter navidjaan
- Start date
Gnidrologist
Senior Member
Bobo's probably his alter ego so that he could be contrarian even against himself.
Bobo32
Senior Member
BBZ is putting forward some thoughtworthy arguments in his post. I must say that some parts of it rings true. Puig is not perfect, and he has put light on some of his weaknesses, and magnified them.
I think he at least seems to have a pretty coherent football view, even if I don't understand why he would follow Barcelona - out of all teams - with that view. Maybe he is from the city, and too young to have seen or too old to appreciate the changes in -03 and -08.
Some other users on this board I think lack any clue what so ever - they probably rated Deulofeu, Tello, Rafinha, Cuenca etc for a while, and they probably didn't rate Xavi in -05 but in -10 they said he was the GOAT and unplayable - just like most football fans. You would think that Barcelona supporters - especially after having seen what happened with Pep - would understand these things a bit more.
Puig is top 5 midfielders in the world is the most nonsense thing.
And please don't compare Xavi to Puig. Diferent era. Player like Xavi was not appreciated like nowaday. And even that, Xavi was best Spainish player in 2005.
Fati_Future_BallonDor
Well-known member
Bobo32
Senior Member
Given you were there I am suspecting you - deep down
- Rated Lampard above Xavi in 2005
- Rated Toure over Busquets in 2008
- Thought Fabregas should play more in NT in 2006 and 2008 (at least before the gold), and maybe even thought he would improve Barcelonas midfield when he arrived.
- Thought Rakitic was a great signing
I might be wrong, as I might be wrong with Puig. I have only seen him what - 20 complete games in total or something.
Before last week, I had only seen Puig have one bad night. These last two games are making me a bit suspicious. Was he tired on sunday?
fergus90
Senior Member
Puig is a very talented prospect but he's had a few appearances where he looks like he has many flaws. I get people harbour for the next Xavi with the La Masia DNA and Riqui does have his similarities but Xavi was highly regarded at a national level way before he got worldwide plaudits.
A lot of England fans remember him dictating the game against us at the Bernaleo back in 2003 and commentators that night were waxing lyrical about him.
In regards to Puig, I rate him and think he will be a decent squad player if he applies himself. I'd argue in those 20 or so games , there has been a handful of times where he's been quite ineffective. Granted even when he's off colour, he is busy and doesn't shy away from the ball.
In my opinion Toure was a better player than Busquets in 2008, but Busi was more ideal for that DM role in Pep's team. Toure had so much ability going forward that was truly unleashed when he went to City.
Rakitic for 20m was a great signing
KingLeo10
Senior Member
Come off the high horse. Xavi evolved into a GOAT tier midfielder over the course of the 08 Euros. Just about 100% of people would have picked Lampard over Xavi in 2005, considering Lampard in that season was running the show for one of the most dominant PL teams ever and killing it in the CL as well.
- Lampard had his best year in 2005, finished as runner up to Ronaldinho in Ballon D'or and FFPOTY ranking. So it is not crazy to say Lampard was better in 2005 than Xavi. Even then Xavi was already brillant in 2005. His role in the team was also different, not a CM to control the midfield but a DM behind Deco. It was until Aragones put him in the CM role as a playmaker of the team he immediately exceled as Euro 2008 best player and so on.
- Toure was better than Busquest in 2008 but Pep simply saw Busquest's ability fit his team more. Of course this was a risky choice but still.
- Fabregas was brillant, Puig or any Masia players recently can only dream of his talent. I think he was even better than Thiago.
- Rakitic was great signing. Don't know what you are talking about. A player contributed to team's tittles and played out of position (compare to his Sevilla's days). He declined later but he deseverd his praises.
Bobo32
Senior Member
I was even more right than I thought. Not only was my guess on what you thought 10-15 years ago right, you still think the same way!
First, we must decide what "better" means. It is indeed a question of "for what?"
I am not judging Puig, or any other player, on how well they can play in a system struggling to be 10 points behind Atletico.
I am judging them on how well they could fit in a system that could "destroy football"
You can say that this way of playing is now outdated and cannot work anymore, I don't care. They said the same in 2007.
Xavi showed without a doubt that if you play to his strengths you get extreme results. You think he magically evolved and suddenly became much better when he was 28yo, I think that is ridiculous.
Rakitic, Toure, Lampard, Fabregas, De Jong - great players, playing "well" for the most part. Their style is not perfectly suited to dominate centrally with understanding of space and time, however.
Barcelonas problem is not, and has not been, a quality problem. It is a lack of vision, and a lack of a coherent vision behind the transfers, and I guess it stems from the fan base, who were ok with Rosell in 2010 and with Bartomeu in 2015. The players bought are mostly great, they can play great in the right system.
I am not from Barcelona. I guess you have all the right to have your own dreams about your club if you are from there. But if I'm discussing with other people who are not from that city, I cannot understand why you don't support Chelsea or Bayern or Real Madrid, instead.
First, we must decide what "better" means. It is indeed a question of "for what?"
I am not judging Puig, or any other player, on how well they can play in a system struggling to be 10 points behind Atletico.
I am judging them on how well they could fit in a system that could "destroy football"
You can say that this way of playing is now outdated and cannot work anymore, I don't care. They said the same in 2007.
Xavi showed without a doubt that if you play to his strengths you get extreme results. You think he magically evolved and suddenly became much better when he was 28yo, I think that is ridiculous.
Rakitic, Toure, Lampard, Fabregas, De Jong - great players, playing "well" for the most part. Their style is not perfectly suited to dominate centrally with understanding of space and time, however.
Barcelonas problem is not, and has not been, a quality problem. It is a lack of vision, and a lack of a coherent vision behind the transfers, and I guess it stems from the fan base, who were ok with Rosell in 2010 and with Bartomeu in 2015. The players bought are mostly great, they can play great in the right system.
I am not from Barcelona. I guess you have all the right to have your own dreams about your club if you are from there. But if I'm discussing with other people who are not from that city, I cannot understand why you don't support Chelsea or Bayern or Real Madrid, instead.
Completely off topic. Don't know what you are talking about.
I just answer your questions above.
Bobo32
Senior Member
Pep and Aragones changed Xavis role (less in how he was positioned, and more in the trust he was given, the players put around him, and the teams style overall). If they didn't arrive, Thiago would probably be seen as the greatest midfielder to come out of La Masia (Iniesta too, magically improved as a 24yo when he got to play together with Xavi full out in that different style)
Xavi was not a DM under Rijkaard, Marquez or Edmilson was. Xavi played together with Deco, who was a totally brilliant player but who played with a slightly lower success%
The talking point was wether Rijkaard could be crazy enough to play Deco, Xavi, Iniesta together or not, sometimes he did (both Iniesta and Xavi played were tried as DM)
Deco was clearly the greatest of the three in terms of reputation, before 2008.
I was obviously an outlier then, in that I rated Xavi as obviously better than Lampard in 2005. Having been very impressed with Toure in 2007, I also immediately understood Busquets was better the first couple of games I saw. I was very suspicious about Rakitic arriving to bring more verticality to the midfield, and I was right to be, even if he played very well for the most part, better than you probably give him credit for. Fabregas was a genious in a way, but too bad to play DM/CM in Barcelona. He was good as a partner to Messi up front, but a bit too slow.
Xavi was not a DM under Rijkaard, Marquez or Edmilson was. Xavi played together with Deco, who was a totally brilliant player but who played with a slightly lower success%
The talking point was wether Rijkaard could be crazy enough to play Deco, Xavi, Iniesta together or not, sometimes he did (both Iniesta and Xavi played were tried as DM)
Deco was clearly the greatest of the three in terms of reputation, before 2008.
I was obviously an outlier then, in that I rated Xavi as obviously better than Lampard in 2005. Having been very impressed with Toure in 2007, I also immediately understood Busquets was better the first couple of games I saw. I was very suspicious about Rakitic arriving to bring more verticality to the midfield, and I was right to be, even if he played very well for the most part, better than you probably give him credit for. Fabregas was a genious in a way, but too bad to play DM/CM in Barcelona. He was good as a partner to Messi up front, but a bit too slow.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
Claiming past views on players is largely irrelevant as no one can back up if true or clean making it up anyway.
Doesnt add anything to opinion that Puig is 'top 5 midfielders in world'. He is doing well to be in top 5 midfielders at a club like Barca at moment let alone anything else.
Doesnt add anything to opinion that Puig is 'top 5 midfielders in world'. He is doing well to be in top 5 midfielders at a club like Barca at moment let alone anything else.
Home of Barca Fans
