Why was Tata so bad?

[Rory]

We were really bad, because we could have walked that league against Atleti and a meh Madrid.
Narrow loses says little, since there should have been big wins or big gaps in the table in our favor

As for Tata, on a serious note, he wanted to play something different, that the entitled Amigos of the time, with Xavi as a leader, did not let him. So, we ended up with a watered down version of declined tiki taka

We were pretty meh ourselves though weren't we? We might have had a pretty decent starting XI but had very little quality in depth. Neymar's first season too, so that linkup needed more time to gel. Real Madrid were far from meh, winning a UCL copa double and ending on 87 points (same as us). We lost a league to a team that got 90 points, it's just objectively not that bad.

 

[soul24rage]

Don't sweeten the pill

- Messi was still prime, and even semi-injured could determine games
- Atletico only won the league because Barca and Madrid failed round after round after round to establish a lead, and not drop points against minnows
- Robbed by refs, yes. But we shouldn't have let it drag into the final matchday
- CpR final says little given the low competition, and that we lost it in disgraceful manner

RM had usual voodoo in CL, not in the league. They don't have it there

- Messi was in his 'prime' years, but it's clear something wasn't right with him in terms of physicality. You have to watch the game to see it.
- 87 points (or more like 89 points if the legit goal was given) was more than good enough if you look at the La Liga points over the years. The problem was that the other teams very even as well.
- CDR final against a RM in a one off match. We don't want to lose against RM, but they are still a very good side. We even lost the CDR final vs RM in 2011 with a better starting XI.

There are definitely worse seasons, which are fact.

 

[Birdy]

- Messi was in his 'prime' years, but it's clear something wasn't right with him in terms of physicality. You have to watch the game to see it.
- 87 points (or more like 89 points if the legit goal was given) was more than good enough if you look at the La Liga points over the years. The problem was that the other teams very even as well.
- CDR final against a RM in a one off match. We don't want to lose against RM, but they are still a very good side. We even lost the CDR final vs RM in 2011 with a better starting XI.

There are definitely worse seasons, which are fact.

There have been worse seasons says little, because the seasons I assume you mean we had much worse squads, not even comparable

This was still prime Barca, given the prime core of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Alves, Pique, Alba, etc.
Losing a league for this side from 2008 to 2019 is unacceptable UNLESS you have a wonder-team in a wonder-season.

From all these seasons, only RM 2011-12 under Mourinho and RM 16-17 under Zidane were better than Barca in a single season.
Therefore, that loss in 13/14 is the only one in that decade that shouldn't have happened

 

[Birdy]

We were pretty meh ourselves though weren't we? We might have had a pretty decent starting XI but had very little quality in depth. Neymar's first season too, so that linkup needed more time to gel. Real Madrid were far from meh, winning a UCL copa double and ending on 87 points (same as us). We lost a league to a team that got 90 points, it's just objectively not that bad.

The quality of all other LL teams those seasons were so that Barca and RM could hit 100 pts or close every season

The real reason we were meh was because some did not let Tata play the football he wanted.
Not that he was some great coach that should have led an era.
But, that league was there for the taking...

 

[Rory]

The quality of all other LL teams those seasons were so that Barca and RM could hit 100 pts or close every season

The real reason we were meh was because some did not let Tata play the football he wanted.
Not that he was some great coach that should have led an era.
But, that league was there for the taking...

idk man, I think that's having unrealistic expectations. If the two UCL finalists are also in your league and they can only match your points total and beat it by 3 then that's a good sign you've achieved a good points total.

Also saw you mentioned the core we had and just have to point out Real Madrid had their core of Casillas, Ramos, Marcelo, Modric, Ronaldo. Could also throw in Bale, Benzema, Varane, Di Maria but that might be over the top. Point being Real Madrid had an excellent squad and core of players.

 

[Birdy]

idk man, I think that's having unrealistic expectations. If the two UCL finalists are also in your league and they can only match your points total and beat it by 3 then that's a good sign you've achieved a good points total.

Also saw you mentioned the core we had and just have to point out Real Madrid had their core of Casillas, Ramos, Marcelo, Modric, Ronaldo. Could also throw in Bale, Benzema, Varane, Di Maria but that might be over the top. Point being Real Madrid had an excellent squad and core of players.

UCL is a competition of different nature.
That Atleti side was TAILOR-MADE for knockouts and super-hard to crack
Madrid, as usual, have the Voodoo edge on CL knockouts
Says little about their league quality that they played in CL final. Both were unable to win consistently every week, and that showed in the fact they could not sustain any lead in the table

Madrid had great squad in prime years, yes. But they were not coordinated into a team that can sweep a league

 

[soul24rage]

There have been worse seasons says little, because the seasons I assume you mean we had much worse squads, not even comparable

This was still prime Barca, given the prime core of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Alves, Pique, Alba, etc.
Losing a league for this side from 2008 to 2019 is unacceptable UNLESS you have a wonder-team in a wonder-season.

From all these seasons, only RM 2011-12 under Mourinho and RM 16-17 under Zidane were better than Barca in a single season.
Therefore, that loss in 13/14 is the only one in that decade that shouldn't have happened

That is a very unrealistic standard.

This is not Bundesliga, where it is guaranteed to win the league every season. Are we favorites to win the league? yes, but it's not expected for us to win every single season. We're talking a league that has Prime Atletico, a stacked RM squad and a Sevilla who won their Europa League that season.

Both Messi and Valdes was injured for a part of the season. Maybe if they were fully fit, we would have gone further in both the league and the CL. Xavi losing some of his influence did not help at all.

 

[Rory]

UCL is a competition of different nature.
That Atleti side was TAILOR-MADE for knockouts and super-hard to crack
Madrid, as usual, have the Voodoo edge on CL knockouts
Says little about their league quality that they played in CL final. Both were unable to win consistently every week, and that showed in the fact they could not sustain any lead in the table

Madrid had great squad in prime years, yes. But they were not coordinated into a team that can sweep a league

Yes it's a different nature, but generally speaking UCL finalists are up the very top of their league table, I mean by nature that has to be true due to the qualification requirements.

I just think saying that both were unable to win consistently every week simply isn't true. you can't win 87 & 90/114 points without consistently winning football matches. Same thing you've said about Real Madrid rings true for us.

The team wanted tiki-taka. Neymar/Sanchez were more hold on to the ball to try and make something happen forwards. Messi had an off-season by his standards. We had Pique/Mascherano as centre back partnership with a young Bartra and an old Puyol as backups. We were always going to lose games throughout the season due to squad depth and dynamics of our forward players.

 

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Good question. There any many factors:

- Messi was crap, a lot slower, way worse finishing/dribblings and overall he looked like he hates to run, ofc he also some great matches but ppl who watched that season know what i mean

- Sanchez/Pedro/Tello were too bad in offense, Sanchez was the best out of these 3 and our second best offense player which says a lot

- Tito's illness

- Tata who was clueless in second half of the season

- the 0-7 humilation against Bayern which still hurt

And many other things

 

[Porque]

I give him 10/10 for the asados.

That was the criteria for Messi's selection process right.

 

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Uf yeah forgot Ney, he needed that 13/14 season to adapt to europe football

 

[Maradona37]

Good discussion going on. My point of view is sympathetic to both Birdy's view and soul24rage/Rory's view. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Soul24rage is right that winning 11 or whatever leagues in a row would be an unrealistic standard in La Liga, even when you are the best team as Barca were for most of that decade. But Birdy is right that the gap between the big three and the rest meant that Atletico, Barca and Real could all accumulate big points totals and it came down more to who made fewer mistakes. Barca and RM gave Atletico leeway and Atletico took advantage. Even on the last day Barca should have won the title and it should never have happened.

I was kinda happy for Atletico, as it's very rare anyone outside Barca or RM wins the title, but the truth is Barca really should have sealed it that season. I guess it's harsh to call it a bad season when you go close in two competitions, but the standards of Barca at that time were so high that a close second in the league and QF elimination in the CL to the same team was a disappointment.

For a lesser team it would have been an immense season. But this was Barca near their prime. They weren't quite at Guardiola levels but were still the best team on Earth.

 

[soul24rage]

Good discussion going on. My point of view is sympathetic to both Birdy's view and soul24rage/Rory's view. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Soul24rage is right that winning 11 or whatever leagues in a row would be an unrealistic standard in La Liga, even when you are the best team as Barca were for most of that decade. But Birdy is right that the gap between the big three and the rest meant that Atletico, Barca and Real could all accumulate big points totals and it came down more to who made fewer mistakes. Barca and RM gave Atletico leeway and Atletico took advantage. Even on the last day Barca should have won the title and it should never have happened.

I was kinda happy for Atletico, as it's very rare anyone outside Barca or RM wins the title, but the truth is Barca really should have sealed it that season. I guess it's harsh to call it a bad season when you go close in two competitions, but the standards of Barca at that time were so high that a close second in the league and QF elimination in the CL to the same team was a disappointment.

For a lesser team it would have been an immense season. But this was Barca near their prime. They weren't quite at Guardiola levels but were still the best team on Earth.

The thing is that there's no real consideration to the context of why Barca gave "leeway" which mostly point to the injuries of Messi and Valdes.

Even with those injuries, Barca should have won the league with that robbed goal in the last game. If we had won La Liga, the narrative would have been totally different.

Edit: I totally forgot that Pique was also injured for part of the season too. Puyol was crocked in that season so it was mostly Mascherano and Bartra as our CB pairing with Pinto as our GK. Prime Barca defense indeed.

 

[Messigician]

If we had won La Liga, the narrative would have been totally different.

Not really, we should have done way better

 

[soul24rage]

Not really, we should have done way better

True, but if that robbed goal was given to us and we won the league, then this thread wouldn't even exist.