George_Costanza
Active member
They forgot that Messi didn't play for two and a half months (longest of his career) in Tata's 2012/13. Messi missed ZERO games due to injury last season under EV.
They forgot that Messi didn't play for two and a half months (longest of his career) in Tata's 2012/13. Messi missed ZERO games due to injury last season under EV.
Sultan
Nosce te ipsum
The Espanyol match still confuses me. Did we really played that good or was Espanyol that bad?
I really liked Vidal-Semedo on the right side, I think Semedo needs someone like Vidal who is always communicating and directing him.
I am wondering would Countinho instead of Busquets/Rakitic in that midfield three work?
I really liked Vidal-Semedo on the right side, I think Semedo needs someone like Vidal who is always communicating and directing him.
I am wondering would Countinho instead of Busquets/Rakitic in that midfield three work?
soul24rage
Senior Member
Just to add to your point of Vidal on the right side, this also suits Rakitic more as he defends so much better in the middle than defending on the right side covering for Messi.
Sultan
Nosce te ipsum
True, so you will not be loosing anything defensively on the right side. Semedo is already more conservative, at the moment he likes some decisiveness, so Vidal seems to be better suited to play along side him.
We could have Rakitic or Busquets in the middle and Coutinho on the left side of midfield. I still remember one of his last match for Liverpool, i believe it was against West Ham, in which he played in that position and looked so good. When we bought him I thought that would be the position he'll play for us.
Would Alba+Dembele+Coutinho on the left side create more space for Messi on the right or would it create a lack of width on the right side?
Edit: it was against Swansea
[youtube]QzlhVH-MQfA[/youtube]
Last edited:
Blaugrana Bull
HiiiPoWeR
The problem is not where single players are played, it is about the whole approach. If we had a different approach, our attacking players would show what they are capable off.
Dembele and Coutinho are basically amazing. Two world class players (they have their certain flaws, I know) who are desperate to be played in a system that suits them.
In a few games they show what they could do but it depends on how the opponent approaches the game. It should be the other way around though. Everyone else should be desperate to find a solution how to stop these guys (no question that Messi and regular Suarez are unstoppable by default) and that should be our biggest strength.
That would relate to our midfield and defense too. They should be the ones supported by the attackers, they need to be the ones fueled by our world class strikers and offense midfielders.
But the roles taken by our important players besides Messi and Suarez are just wrong and that disrupts the whole team. E.g. Busi has never looked that lost and it is because of the way the team plays.
Solution = Get a guy that knows what he is doing. Could have some flaws here or there but we need change. Valverde does not know what do with this team. He makes it worse than it is.
Dembele and Coutinho are basically amazing. Two world class players (they have their certain flaws, I know) who are desperate to be played in a system that suits them.
In a few games they show what they could do but it depends on how the opponent approaches the game. It should be the other way around though. Everyone else should be desperate to find a solution how to stop these guys (no question that Messi and regular Suarez are unstoppable by default) and that should be our biggest strength.
That would relate to our midfield and defense too. They should be the ones supported by the attackers, they need to be the ones fueled by our world class strikers and offense midfielders.
But the roles taken by our important players besides Messi and Suarez are just wrong and that disrupts the whole team. E.g. Busi has never looked that lost and it is because of the way the team plays.
Solution = Get a guy that knows what he is doing. Could have some flaws here or there but we need change. Valverde does not know what do with this team. He makes it worse than it is.
serghei
Senior Member
They were in the semi-finals, basically a top 4 team.You can have personal preferences at that point.
That aside, Khaled certainly doesn't belong there.
So? APOEL Nicosia was a top 8 team in Europe just because they played in the CL quarterfinals in that year? Please...
The 3rd best team in the 3rd or 4th best league can never be a top 4 team in Europe. Not to mention they barely qualified against Shaktar on away goals before facing us.
Roma was a good, not great, team that should've been handled without much trouble by an elite side like Barca was supposed to be.
Most elite sides would kill to get a team like Roma in a quarter final draw, with all due respect to AS Roma fans out there. Valverde himself would probably sign up to draw a side like last year's Roma in the QF. If only we'd be so lucky again.
Last edited:
Hum, Liverpool shit all over against Roma in the return leg. Almost eliminated. Hold your hate.
serghei
Senior Member
Did you miss the first leg? Roma were lucky to not lose 6-0 the first game, and Liverpool relaxed a bit too early in the return leg thinking the 2 away goals they scored were more than enough. And they were in the end, rather comfortably, considering Roma scored their last goal in the last second of the match. And they still needed 1 more.
Liverpool relaxed after they made 5-0 inside 70 mins on Anfield. That's the main reason why the tie was even remotely close.
Last edited:
Joan
Well-known member
Read again. Top 4 team in the CL, not Europe. Not that it diminishes Valverde's guilt - but I don't see the problem with saying Roma were the 3rd/4th best team in the CL last season. We should've been better, we weren't, Atletico should've been better - they weren't either. So? What's the problem?
serghei
Senior Member
They weren't a top 4 team in CL. If they would've drawn a team like Juventus instead of Barcelona they would've been out of it. Just because they exploited Barcelona's lax attitude and Valverde's poor tactical calls in the return leg, that doesn't nearly make them a top 4 team. Again, unless you'd call APOEL the 7th best team in CL that season, based purely on circumstantial things.
It is very possible to overachieve and beat a stronger team if that team is poorly prepared. Upsets happened and will happen. That doesn't mean you get to judge a team's value and strenght in a competition based on 1 isolated result, and use that instance as a proof that the disaster wasn't as big.
It was a monumental disaster in terms of management and player motivation what happened on Olimpico and that should be the end of it. It doesn't speak that highly about Roma's great strenght and quality. They ended up 3rd in Italy because they were the third best team after Juventus and Napoli. They should not be named a top 4 team in CL just because they eliminated a Barcelona that disgraced themselves showing up and playing like a Segunda Division team.
That tie spoke a lot more about Barca's uprofessional attitude and their clueless manager than it did about Roma's great strenght.
Last edited:
henias
New member
Wow, so because Atletico is bad we should be like them. Lol. Why we shouldn't be like Madrid, by that logic?
Joan
Well-known member
What if logic doesn't work with cup competitions. Was Croatia the 2nd best team the last WC? They had much easier draw. What if they played against.. say Belgium? They came 2nd, and that's the only thing that matters.
Besides, Roma bettered some of the favorites to the throne in Barca and Atletico. Do I think they were the third strongest team? No. But they did better than the rest.
Joan
Well-known member
Who's saying we should be like Atletico? I said we weren't better than Roma in the CL last season, otherwise we would've gone through. Same as Atletico.
Never did I say it was OK to lose to Roma, either.
serghei
Senior Member
Croatia wasn't the 2nd best team in the World Cup. Just because a team manages to use the circumstances of a Cup competition and get to a stage, doesn't mean they are better than some of the teams that didn't make it that far.
Actually, that's the nature of Cup Competition. You can use the small margins to knock out better teams that show glaring weaknesses on one specific night.
Roma caught us in a very low point and knocked us out. Using that result to somehow paint a picture of Roma being such a great team that that result was somewhat normal and expected is silly. Not saying you formulated that way, but it just is.
If we are ever to reach a minimum common ground on Valverde everyone should admit that going out to that Roma team was unacceptable. And it is acceptable to go out vs a top 3-4 team in CL.
If Roma was a great team, people wouldn't be that shocked of going out vs them. Which makes that claim wrong on all levels. Actually, everybody on the forum wanted to draw Roma or Sevilla in the quarters. Why would everybody want to draw such a great team like Roma? Maybe because... you know... every other side was stronger than Roma or Sevilla? Especially considering that we had in the mix Madrid - CL holders, Juventus - Serie A champions, Bayern - German champions, City - England soon to be champions, Liverpool - most in form team at the time. Roma and Sevilla were the weakest teams in CL we could've drawn.
Last edited:
Messigician
Senior Member
I mean Roma battered Chelsea and Atletico in the group sending Atletico to Europa but no one talks about that. Also nearly knocked out Liverpool too.
Home of Barca Fans
