I have to say, watching those old Xavi comps, a lot of shit that flew 10 years back wouldn't fly today. Teams were so open compared to today's physical and defensive, everyone pressing shit. And i think the culture of relentless pressing that many many top and not so top teams employ to today is actually a token of influence from that Pep's team. No one pressed that hard then and now everybody does that. Interesting how these trends go.
Thanks to some extent, you will see why:
My point is:
1. a lot of things have changed since 2009'
2. opponents play a better defense
3. opponents press harder
4. opponents are leaving less space
5. opponents have midfield and defensive lines closer
6. opponents are both more technical and more physical than then
7. opponents have way better stamina
This is my estimation in numbers:
Barca in 2009 had technique 10/10 and physique 5/10
And our average La liga midtable team opponent had: technique 7/10 and physique 6/10
Today, our average La Liga opponent have: technique 8/10 and physique 8/10
In 2009', an average Top team in a CL had: technique 8/10, and physique 7/10.
While today an average top team in a CL has: technique 9/10 and physique 9/10.
1. so, both small La Liga teams and big European clubs closed the gap in terms of technique
2. BUT, more important, both small La liga teams and big European teams improved and evolved a lot in physical aspects
On the other hand, what happened with Barca's evolving?
We went from technique 10/10 and physique 5/10:
To probably technique 9/10 and physique 5/10.
Our team is technically weaker than back then.
And we made zero improvements in pace, stamina and similar.
Our current set of players is imo the slowest set of players I have ever seen in modern football (except at Milan in early 00s, they were also old and slow), plus we aren't anything special in stamina or strength.
So, what Barca is usually doing:
= we try to REPLICATE our play and players from 2010'
And we are buying someone who looks like, let's say=Xavi. But who is a way weaker version of Xavi.
My point is: we should try to look for a player who is similar to Xavi, but who is improved in some skills, let's say physique. Aka: Xavi for 2020', not Xavi from 2009'. (Of course, there is NO new Xavi, but you get the point).
So, in 2018, you don't need THE SAME Xavi. The goal should be to buy and to create=an improved Xavi for 2018.
But no. We are buying a weaker version of 2009's Xavi.
(Don't jump now on: Xavi is the best blah blah. This is about principles. We are not moving forward due to a burden of Pep's era. We will try to replicate it probably for the next 20 years.)
We are stuck in time because Pep's era was so good.
If we try something new, fans whine: no, we should go back to Pep's era.
And then, a problem with Pep's era is that you can't buy players as good as back then.
Plus, all opponents evolved since then.
And things which worked then for prime Xavi, Iniesta wouldn't work as good today in 2018 or 2020.
But we can see replies over and over: NO! We run less, we move less, we press less.
If we improve in that parts, we could be probably as good (or close) as back then.
And imo: no way.
Yes, we move less today. We run less. We are slow.
But I have said a lot of times, if we could clone Xavi-Iniesta-Busi from 2009 into today, I think that they would be way less efficient than back then.
Let's say 70-80% of their efficiency from back then.
Because opponents are better, faster, stronger. Opponents run more, leave less free space, play tighter, press harder, defend better.
My point:
Xavi from 2009' would play weaker in 2018, due to evolved opponents.
He would be let's say at 80% of his level.
And then, when you buy a player who is a weaker version of a real Xavi, that means that a new guy will be 70-80% of a real Xavi.
And since a real Xavi would be way weaker today, that means that a new guy will be even way weaker than Xavi in 2018'.
In short: why trying to replicate new Xavis and Iniestas?
Why not turn the page and buy a player who is a good fit for 2018 and 2020 and let's forget what worked in 1992' or in 2009'.
For example, imo, there is no way that Romario from 1994 would have been one of the best Fcs in the world in 2018.
He was physically too weak, and there is no way that he would be THAT good against current physical teams.
Here is some basic, level of logic, You need to make for any comparison:
1- Any variables apart from the subjects being compared, Should remain fixed, You don’t just take arthur’s Performance against a team playing the most defensive formation (5-4-1) And with very compact lines, (Which naturally lead to slow play and lack of spaces for forward passes), Then you come and pull some random video of xavi on YouTube playing against opponents with completely different formations and clearly with more open play, (Which gives much more opportunities for forward passes) , Then you come here and say look how xavi is better at Arthur as a creator, I mean that’s just non-objective none sense, And you know it, How about you show us xavi playing against a very compact 5-4-1 at the age of 22.
What’s funny is you first accuse Arthur of playing 95% safepasses instead of the risky passes xavi used to make, Yet At the end, You admit that the current team moves much less and slower than those old videos, Which logically leads to more safepasses needed to be played, As their are no spaces or movement, So make up your mind on who’s fault is it for those the side way passes, Arthur or the team.
2- The sample size for comparison should be as large as possible, Tens and tens of matches, Again, This is statistics 101, Your sample size of Arthur official performances is.........One..............One match............., I really don’t know what to say to you.
I know you try to be objective BBZ, But sometimes, You have huge fundmental flaws in your arguments.
Anyway, Those who watched how Arthur played at Gremiro, Knows that forward creativity isn’t his strong suit, Although, He can muster some things up from time to time when needed, As for Xavi’s comparisons, if Arthur managed to reach just 1/3 of what prime xavi used to do, I’ll be jumping up and down from happiness.
I know that you need to have fixed variables, and only 1 variable changing so that you could see a true impact of only one variable, Arthur/Xavi in this case.
But that is impossible since they played in different times.
I could though, compare Arthur's passing with passing from his teammates since they played against the same opponent.
Roberto had better forward passes in a preseason.
Messi had more vertical passes yesterday.
Rafinha had more vertical passes in a preseason.
Coutinho always have more vertical passes.
Further, this is not about Sevilla and about one game.
I have wrote this thing about Arthur after 1st or the 2nd preseason match.
Further, if you look at his matches from Gremio, you will see that he played more or less the same, regardless of an opponent.
That just seems to be "his style": calm down. Slow down. Take the ball, play it safe to the left. Get the ball 10 seconds later, play it safe to the right. Get the ball 10 seconds later, play it safe, to the left. And repeat 100 times per match.
Now, there is one reply which can be seen all the time when someone mentions a flaw of some of our younger players.
People reply: ok. But he is young. He can learn and improve in that thing.
And that is true. But only to SOME extent.
Here is why:
Let's use numbers again.
Let's say that a player's maximum amount of skills can be 100.
Now, each skill, like passing, dribbling, tactical understanding, defending, positioning=is consisted of:
1. natural talent
2. skill learned/improved through trainings
And now, with some skills, natural talent is the more important.
While for some other skills, learning is more important.
For example, in terms of dribbling:
Here we have probably something like:
80% of a skill is a natural talent, and 20% of a skill can be improved and learned with training.
So, someone like Messi or Dembele is a natural talent.
Their natural skill in dribbling is like 75/80 or 80/80.
And then, a good coach can improve their natural talent and dribbling efficiency to an even higher level.
On the other hand, someone like Puyol or Mascherano is not a natural dribbler.
Their natural skill is like 10/80.
And now, no matter now hard will Puyol train in dribbling, he will never improve it too much.
And he will never come close to Dembele...
So, let's say that Puyol has 10/80 in a natural skill and he can get 20/20 from trainings, which is=30/100 in total.
Dembele has 75/80 natural talent.
And now, with zero training, he will have 75/100 skills in the end.
With some training, he can get +10 or +20 in training over years, and get to 85/100 or 95/100 in dribbles.
My point: no matter how hard Puyol will train, he will never get even close to a natural talent in that skill (dribbles) Dembele.
Dembele without trainings will always be a better dribbler than Puyol even if he trained dribbles for 30 years.
So, in some skills, like dribbles, natural skill is way more important (80% to 20%, let's say).
But then you have some other skills, where you need more of brains, understanding, IQ and learning, like:
Off the ball movement, positioning all over the field, positioning in defense, marking etc.
Ok, even in that area, some players will move better off the ball in a natural way.
But imo, here a natural talent is less needed, and the more important thing is learning, hard work and applying of learned things.
For example, Roberto.
I don't believe that he has some crazy natural talent in off the ball movement, or in workrate.
He is just a guy who decided to work hard, give 120% and move a lot (unlike Messi, for example).
The only natural talent which Roberto uses here is: pace and stamina.
His workrate is a mental-learned skill. And his movement and covering is a learned thing.
So, what I am trying to say:
1. if a player is lazy or not working hard=it can be cured over time with good coaches and if a player wants to learn and change
2. if a young player has poor off the ball movement or positioning=it can be improved A LOT over time with learning
So, I would say, something like:
Dribbles consists of 80% natural talent and 20% learning.
Positioning consists of 20% natural skill and 80% learning and training.
So,if you suck in an area where you need a skill which can be learned=you can improve a lot.
If you suck in an area where a natural talent is everything=you won't improve too much no matter how much you train.
Some examples, imo: dribbles, passes, first touch, killer instinct in finishing, vision, natural creativity, natural pace and acceleration.
So, now let's go back to Arthur: yes, every skill can be improved.
But some skills can be improved more and some can be improved less.
Imo, creativity, vision, and being an exorcist like Xavi can't be learned. You are either a natural exorcist who sees everything or you aren't.
So, imo, about Arthur, a question is now:
1. whether he plays safe because of Barca?
If he is naturally a player with vision and creativity, and he is scared now, then no problems. If he has that natural talent, he will play way more direct over time.
On the other hand, if safepasses are "his thing" and his style of play and his natural "talent", then there is no too much room to actually "learn" creativity.
The same as with Roberto: he can learn to work harder. He can learn off the ball movement. He can learn positioning, what to do in a certain moment.
But Roberto just isn't a top level natural talent in terms of creativity. He can make a crazy solo run, run his ass off, work hard, but he will never have crazy creative passes like world class midfielders or CAMs.
And he will never be able to learn that part. Because again, in those skills, you either have or don't have a natural talent.
A similar example, Rakitic.
He was creative at Sevilla and Croatia.
And he possesses some natural talent in those skills.
When he came to Barca, he was transformed from a CAM into a workhorse.
So, he learned and improved in defending, workrate, positioning, covering and similar.
These are all skills which mostly relies on learning, tactical understanding and WILLINGNESS to change/adapt/improve your game.
So, you can turn a semicreative player into a good workhorse. Because you don't need a natural skill for that, but learning, hard work and willingness to improve and change.
On the other hand, you can't turn a player without natural talent (Andre Gomes) into a good creative player.
Ok, he is an extreme example, but still: he doesn't possess natural creativity, vision, x-factor, dribbles etc.
Gomes can improve his game in defending, off the ball movement, work rate, covering and similar.
But he can't improve his creativity (except for 10-20% points, roughly) or dribbles.
So, for the future:
1. if a player has low IQ. NO, he can't improve too much except 10-20%, which probably won't be enough (Halil, Adama, Alexis)
2. if a player is slow as a turtle. He can't improve too much.
3. if a player has a low stamina. He can improve a little, but he will never be the next Sergi Roberto.
4. if a player is average in dribbles (Munir), he will never be the next Dembele.
5. if a player is average in dribbles, passes, creative parts of a game (Gomes), he will never be a world class creative player.
So, people should be more cautious with that reply: he is young, he will improve in that skill.
This is why I said that Halil or Adama can't make it, even after seeing them for a few matches.
Their IQ was so flawed and poor that even all trainings in the world wouldn't help them.
People replied: you can't write off a player after 2 matches.
Well, regarding some skills and flaws: you can, more or less.
