Xavi Hernández

[BarcaOG]

I'm not an idiot, I'm working on my PhD in Theoretical Physics.

Logic seems not your strong point however. Otherwise you would be aware that there are many coaches who



So going from one of those to most likely another one is completely pointless.

I remember the Lucho days. Yes, I have a very well functioning memory. The hate posts were the same. "Completely clueless manager, only MSN, we have no midfield" and so on. Even the same childish name changes, someone called him "Licho" which is supposed to be "trash" in Portuguese. Flavia was behind it afaik.

Then Barca went with Valverde. Why are you not enjoying that managerial change?

Being a physicist does not make you an insightful football analyst--you begin your 'reply' by claiming my logic is weak (which it could be, though I am prepared to defend it) yet your first claim is that there is somehow a correlation or correspondence between theoretical physics and footballing insight. Bravo, Einstein, you should write FIFA and all national FAs recommending that they scrap whatever their professional coaching courses teach and replace it with instruction in physics. Because, as you so ironically put it, logic.

I think you are right that Lucho was unfairly criticized--I always liked him and thought the abuse he received here was exaggerated. But let us take up logic once again. Your bringing up of Lucho assumes that I wanted Lucho sacked, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Where did you come up with that? Surely not my posts history; if you'd looked there, you'd have found that I supported Lucho. Logic tells us unfounded assumptions result in weak and faulty arguments. That is certainly true here.

Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

So tell me this, you dazzling mathematician: are you really suggesting that the shitfest that we saw at Roma two years ago, at Anfield last season, and at Athletic just a few days ago is really the best we can do?

If so, well then I am glad, for your sake, monsieur Newton, that there is in fact no correlation whatsoever between expertise in theoretical physics and footballing insight. Otherwise, you'd be shit at both.

 

[messi2140]

Being a physicist does not make you an insightful football analyst--you begin your 'reply' by claiming my logic is weak (which it could be, though I am prepared to defend it) yet your first claim is that there is somehow a correlation or correspondence between theoretical physics and footballing insight. Bravo, Einstein, you should write FIFA and all national FAs recommending that they scrap whatever their professional coaching courses teach and replace it with instruction in physics. Because, as you so ironically put it, logic.

I think you are right that Lucho was unfairly criticized--I always liked him and thought the abuse he received here was exaggerated. But let us take up logic once again. Your bringing up of Lucho assumes that I wanted Lucho sacked, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Where did you come up with that? Surely not my posts history; if you'd looked there, you'd have found that I supported Lucho. Logic tells us unfounded assumptions result in weak and faulty arguments. That is certainly true here.

Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

So tell me this, you dazzling mathematician: are you really suggesting that the shitfest that we saw at Roma two years ago, at Anfield last season, and at Athletic just a few days ago is really the best we can do?

If so, well then I am glad, for your sake, monsieur Newton, that there is in fact no correlation whatsoever between expertise in theoretical physics and footballing insight. Otherwise, you'd be shit at both.

In his defense he is still working on that thesis , so who knows what kind of bullshit he is writing up.

 

[The Observer]

Being a physicist does not make you an insightful football analyst--you begin your 'reply' by claiming my logic is weak (which it could be, though I am prepared to defend it) yet your first claim is that there is somehow a correlation or correspondence between theoretical physics and footballing insight. Bravo, Einstein, you should write FIFA and all national FAs recommending that they scrap whatever their professional coaching courses teach and replace it with instruction in physics. Because, as you so ironically put it, logic.

I think you are right that Lucho was unfairly criticized--I always liked him and thought the abuse he received here was exaggerated. But let us take up logic once again. Your bringing up of Lucho assumes that I wanted Lucho sacked, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Where did you come up with that? Surely not my posts history; if you'd looked there, you'd have found that I supported Lucho. Logic tells us unfounded assumptions result in weak and faulty arguments. That is certainly true here.

Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

So tell me this, you dazzling mathematician: are you really suggesting that the shitfest that we saw at Roma two years ago, at Anfield last season, and at Athletic just a few days ago is really the best we can do?

If so, well then I am glad, for your sake, monsieur Newton, that there is in fact no correlation whatsoever between expertise in theoretical physics and footballing insight. Otherwise, you'd be shit at both.

Oh, you sarcastically called a physicist Einstein and Newton, unbelievable imagination you got there. *claps slowly*

Your logical deduction remains weak and you certainly aren't a Newton given you make assumptions about statements that were never made and on top of it debunk your own previous statements. You want to defend yourself? Sure, let's see if your defense holds up or if you are honest enough to concede defeat.

How did our conversation begin? I asked to name managers other than the obvious top 2 in the world right now in Pep and Klopp, as they are not available. Your insightful reply to that was "moron" and "idiot" (twice). Awesome. Let's see what the Cambridge Dictionary says about "idiot":

showing poor judgment or little intelligence

To which I replied that you are off the mark as I'm doing my PhD in Theoretical Physics. Unless you know many physicists who have little intelligence. Philosophically we could actually debate about it but frankly and while being politically incorrect: The statistical probability is highly in your favour when trying to find out who between the 2 of us is an idiot, not in mine.

Now where is the connection to my football knowledge? Where is my statement that my football opinion is superior because I'm a physicist? Nowhere. The connection is only there with your random insult about my intelligence due to my differing opinion to your opinion. You concede defeat at this point: yes or no? Are you honest: yes or no?



Another illogical assumption you made: I would have claimed that you wanted Lucho sacked. How exactly did you conclude this from:

I remember the Lucho days. Yes, I have a very well functioning memory. The hate posts were the same. "Completely clueless manager, only MSN, we have no midfield" and so on. Even the same childish name changes, someone called him "Licho" which is supposed to be "trash" in Portuguese. Flavia was behind it afaik.

Then Barca went with Valverde. Why are you not enjoying that managerial change?

I think even someone with weak logical deduction like you can understand that I'm talking in general here and not specifically about you. I even mention another member by name, Flavia, and talk about thread name changes (you are and never have been a mod so how could you change names of threads?). Nothing to do with you specifically wanting Lucho gone, I'm describing the general negative mood of the fanbase towards the ex coach who got replaced and it hasn't automatically gotten better. It got actually worse.

Let's get back to your major statement:

You have to be a first-rate idiot or a delusional moron to even seriously countenance the idea that, simply because there are no 'elite' managers available, we are better off sticking with a coach, in Valverde

A hypothesis is debunked if you can find only 1 counterexample and funnily enough you said it yourself:

(...) could be bad. (...) Could be even worse, true

That chance is there. So why am I an idiot again if you just debunked your own statement? Guess you don't have to be an idiot after all to suggest the idea that, simply because there are no 'elite' managers available, we might be better off sticking with Valverde.

You gonna be honest now or what?

Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

My estimation is that the chances for same level coach or even worse are higher than landing someone better. Why? Because an available coach witch a proven CV who also suits Barca's style does not exist and I exclude Mourinho from the list of potential coaches for obvious reasons. I could be wrong and someone like Setien could be the SHIT. Next Pep. However I don't believe so, my opinion is that the probability is higher that he turns out same level as Valverde or worse than better. What's your problem again to call me an idiot for?

 

[Catta]

I would rather the club took a gamble on Arteta as our next coach than on Xavi. Arteta played in Spain, France and England, was learning from Wenger and Pep, has Barca DNA, he would be the perfect candidate.

 

[BarcaOG]

Oh, you sarcastically called a physicist Einstein and Newton, unbelievable imagination you got there. *claps slowly*

Your logical deduction remains weak and you certainly aren't a Newton given you make assumptions about statements that were never made and on top of it debunk your own previous statements. You want to defend yourself? Sure, let's see if your defense holds up or if you are honest enough to concede defeat.

This 'reply' shows not only that your logic sub-par, but also that you aren't a very careful reader. I never claimed I was Newton; I was simply mocking your ridiculous attempt to credit your footballing insight by appealing to you training in physics.

How did our conversation begin? I asked to name managers other than the obvious top 2 in the world right now in Pep and Klopp, as they are not available. Your insightful reply to that was "moron" and "idiot" (twice). Awesome. Let's see what the Cambridge Dictionary says about "idiot".

No: this discussion began when I attacked your absurd position that we should stick with Valverde even though he is a proven failure. My point is simply that we are no worse, and maybe even better off, with just about anyone else. Some here have suggested Arteta, others Xavi, etc. etc. Thinking about the Roma and Anfield debacles plus Valverde's total failure to integrate Dembele and Coutinho pushes me to agree with those people. You, on the other hand, seem to be perfectly happy to stick by a failure of a coach.

To which I replied that you are off the mark as I'm doing my PhD in Theoretical Physics. Unless you know many physicists who have little intelligence. Philosophically we could actually debate about it but frankly and while being politically incorrect: The statistical probability is highly in your favour when trying to find out who between the 2 of us is an idiot, not in mine.

The whole physics thing is simply my mocking you for being obtuse and narcissistic enough to bring that up when what we're talking about is football. Look: good for you for studying physics. My point is that has nothing whatever with what we're discussing, so that there is absolutely no reason why you had to bring that up, other than to boost your fragile ego.

Now where is the connection to my football knowledge? Where is my statement that my football opinion is superior because I'm a physicist? Nowhere. The connection is only there with your random insult about my intelligence due to my differing opinion to your opinion. You concede defeat at this point: yes or no? Are you honest: yes or no?

Again, this 'retort' is simply a result of poor reading skills. I called you an idiot based on your comments about keeping Valverde on, i.e., based on your footballing insight. We are on a football forum, so how you are not able to make that inference is beyond me. You replied by citing your training in physics. Again: that is not relevant to what we are discussing.

Another illogical assumption you made: I would have claimed that you wanted Lucho sacked. How exactly did you conclude this from

I am in favour of sacking Valverde; you brought Lucho up as an example of a coach who many--unfairly, and we agree on that--wanted sacked. Presumably you think that I am making a similar mistake. So you equate my wanting Valverde sacked to wanting Lucho sacked. How do I know that? Because unless you are assuming some sort of equivalence between both cases, you would not have brought Lucho up. Otherwise why bother?

Let's get back to your major statement: A hypothesis is debunked if you can find only 1 counterexample and funnily enough you said it yourself

No, not necessarily. That might be the case in the natural sciences, but certainly not in the social sciences. One reason Karl Popper is so heavily criticized is for having proposed that very standard of casual analysis and hypothesis testing as a social science model. But human affairs, i.e. sports in our case, is too messy for that sort of exactitude.

My estimation is that the chances for same level coach or even worse are higher than landing someone better. Why? Because an available coach witch a proven CV who also suits Barca's style does not exist and I exclude Mourinho from the list of potential coaches for obvious reasons. I could be wrong and someone like Setien could be the SHIT. Next Pep. However I don't believe so, my opinion is that the probability is higher that he turns out same level as Valverde or worse than better. What's your problem again to call me an idiot for?

I think you are an idiot--logic and argumentation aside--because I find it strictly incomprehensible that, after everything Valverde has done (or rather failed to do) and the number of brutal humiliations he has masterminded, you actually think he is worth sticking to. We don't play attractive football; we don't have a sound or coherent tactical set up; our players look lost and disconnected; Messi's best years were wasted. And on and on and on. Why on earth do you think that is acceptable?

Consdier Solskjaer at United. Nobody expected much from him after Mourinho left, and yet he managed to have a decent influence on the team. He was not a high-profile manager or anything. The same could happen here, at least for the remainder of the season.

 

[Messigician]

Shut up u eggs ^ won't tell u again

 

[The Observer]

Your perception about simple facts is as faulty as your logical deduction.

Valverde with 5 league losses in 2 seasons of which 2 were after league was won: "record of failure".

Ole at United with 5 losses and 2 draws in his last 10 games alone last season, after the honeymoon period was over: "decent influence on the team".

Couldn't make it up.

No point discussing at this level when the truth is bended in such a fashion.

Key difference between Mourinho and Valverde: One fought with his own players, including the squad's star player, created a toxic environment as usual after 2 years so the squad stopped playing for him and enjoyed it when he was gone. Even no coach at all would have been an improvement at that point. The other is well liked by all his players.

You even went as far as judging another person's "personality" who lives thousands of miles away whose language you don't share and who you have only ever seen on TV or read some loosely translated Barcastuff Twitter quote snippets.

Shithousery all around.

Stick to throwing insults around in Internet forums because you can't comprehend other perspectives. You are in good company here anyway.

 

[BarcaOG]

Your perception about simple facts is as faulty as your logical deduction.

Valverde with 5 league losses in 2 seasons of which 2 were after league was won: "record of failure".

Ole at United with 5 losses and 2 draws in his last 10 games alone last season, after the honeymoon period was over: "decent influence on the team".

Couldn't make it up.

No point discussing at this level when the truth is bended in such a fashion.

Key difference between Mourinho and Valverde: One fought with his own players, including the squad's star player, created a toxic environment as usual after 2 years so the squad stopped playing for him and enjoyed it when he was gone. Even no coach at all would have been an improvement at that point. The other is well liked by all his players.

You even went as far as judging another person's "personality" who lives thousands of miles away whose language you don't share and who you have only ever seen on TV or read some loosely translated Barcastuff Twitter quote snippets.

Shithousery all around.

Stick to throwing insults around in Internet forums because you can't comprehend other perspectives. You are in good company here anyway.

Again, you are assuming that the team's record under Valverde is due to him and not, say, to Messi, which is not at all the case. Valverde brings nothing to this team it wouldn't have without him; in many ways he makes it worse. What we saw at Bilbao last week is precisely what Valverde brings to the team when he does not have Messi to rescue him. So I say it again: you must be a first-rate, world-class idiot to think he is acceptable.

But please, keep on supporting the shittiest, most boring and least inspiring football we have seen at Barcelona for over a decade. No doubt you're rooting for Valverde to bottle another CL through an embarrassing away-defeat humiliation. And even then, you'd probably recommend he sign an extension.

 

[The Observer]

You keep making assumptions about things that were never said or implied. I wonder if, by now, you even realize it.

When someone says that there is no great alternative right now so we might as well wait for better opportunities to arise and it could get even worse with unknown quantities like Setien, it does not imply: "You are a VALVERDE FANBOY AND PROBABLY PRAY FOR HIS EXTENSION HURP DA DERP".

You are beyond help if you do not see the IDIOCY behind your thinking. For someone who likes to throw around that word so often, the lack of self reflection is hilarious.

It's not my fault at all that you cannot imagine all the possible outcomes where keeping Valverde for now might be better for the long-term.

Let's assume ten Hag is a promising manager who we should get. Now it would be near on impossible to get ten Hag in the same window where Ajax lost De Ligt and De Jong and possibly van de Beek. At the end of this season however it will be more likely. We might have even contacted him already. Now what happens if we get random unproven Setien RIGHT NOW on the spot? You think we could sack him again 8 months later? What if he wins La Liga "because of Messi" but actually doesn't improve us coaching-wise? So basically a Valverde side step. Sacking a new league winning manager 8 months later? What if ten Hag meanwhile signs a 5 year contract with, say, Chelsea after Lampard fails? WHAT THEN?

And that's just ONE of many possible outcomes that I'm considering when I'm not blindly joining the "SACK HIM NOW" circle jerk.

 

[Raketa10]

It would be suicidal for him to return before his old teammates stop playing and before this board leaves. I hope he comes but now is not the right time. In 2-3y time he will be ready. I only hope he won't stay in Qatar for that long because the level of football there is a joke.

 

[abbbs97]

It would be suicidal for him to return before his old teammates stop playing and before this board leaves. I hope he comes but now is not the right time. In 2-3y time he will be ready. I only hope he won't stay in Qatar for that long because the level of football there is a joke.

Xavi said that there is no problem with him managing his old teammates and that he'd love to manage Messi. I dont see the problem with him coaching them. Pep played with Xavi and managed him later on.

 

[Raketa10]

Xavi said that there is no problem with him managing his old teammates and that he'd love to manage Messi. I dont see the problem with him coaching them. Pep played with Xavi and managed him later on.

He is not ready. Would you rather spend him in this moment and on this team with some clearly unmotivated players or would you prefer to give him a clear star with players who would unconditionally listen to him?

There is no way in hell he can improve current versions of Pique, Alba, Busi, Raki, Suarez etc. We would spend him easily in that way and we wouldn't get best version out of him. Try to remember that Pep coached a fairly young team with less stars and much bigger IQ than this team has. Not to mention those players were true professionals and they were hungry for trophies. From the start he got rid of Ronaldinho, Deco and Eto'o later on. There is no way our current board would allow him to do that with Suarez or Busi or Pique. He should take over after the elections and start from the scratch.

 

[BarcaOG]

You keep making assumptions about things that were never said or implied. I wonder if, by now, you even realize it.

When someone says that there is no great alternative right now so we might as well wait for better opportunities to arise and it could get even worse with unknown quantities like Setien, it does not imply: "You are a VALVERDE FANBOY AND PROBABLY PRAY FOR HIS EXTENSION HURP DA DERP".

You are beyond help if you do not see the IDIOCY behind your thinking. For someone who likes to throw around that word so often, the lack of self reflection is hilarious.

It's not my fault at all that you cannot imagine all the possible outcomes where keeping Valverde for now might be better for the long-term.

Let's assume ten Hag is a promising manager who we should get. Now it would be near on impossible to get ten Hag in the same window where Ajax lost De Ligt and De Jong and possibly van de Beek. At the end of this season however it will be more likely. We might have even contacted him already. Now what happens if we get random unproven Setien RIGHT NOW on the spot? You think we could sack him again 8 months later? What if he wins La Liga "because of Messi" but actually doesn't improve us coaching-wise? So basically a Valverde side step. Sacking a new league winning manager 8 months later? What if ten Hag meanwhile signs a 5 year contract with, say, Chelsea after Lampard fails? WHAT THEN?

And that's just ONE of many possible outcomes that I'm considering when I'm not blindly joining the "SACK HIM NOW" circle jerk.

I am abandoning this dispute because you evidently cannot read carefully or even remotely comprehend the issues at hand. By any stretch of the imagination, your invocation of Valverde's record of two leagues is grounded in an assumption that those successes are due to him. That's an absurd assumption. We know that you are assuming that because you did not qualify that claim by citing Messi's god-level league form or anything else.

Anyways, please, continue to support the most uninspiring manager we've had in decades, the very person who has masterminded some of the most insipid, pathetic, and humiliating defeats we have suffered as a club. The more Valverde continues to fuck up the more ridiculous your 'defence' of his tenure looks.

 

[Marshall D Teach]

Your perception about simple facts is as faulty as your logical deduction.

Valverde with 5 league losses in 2 seasons of which 2 were after league was won: "record of failure".

Ole at United with 5 losses and 2 draws in his last 10 games alone last season, after the honeymoon period was over: "decent influence on the team".

Couldn't make it up.

No point discussing at this level when the truth is bended in such a fashion.

Key difference between Mourinho and Valverde: One fought with his own players, including the squad's star player, created a toxic environment as usual after 2 years so the squad stopped playing for him and enjoyed it when he was gone. Even no coach at all would have been an improvement at that point. The other is well liked by all his players.

You even went as far as judging another person's "personality" who lives thousands of miles away whose language you don't share and who you have only ever seen on TV or read some loosely translated Barcastuff Twitter quote snippets.

Shithousery all around.

Stick to throwing insults around in Internet forums because you can't comprehend other perspectives. You are in good company here anyway.

>Comparing United's squad to Barca's

If Valverde managed United last year, they'd be in the championship right now. And I don't particularly rate Ole.

 

[Don Andrésº8]

Best cm ever, no one comes close to him!