Malcom

BBZ8800 said:

We would won 4:0 or 5:0 with his cool head and cool finishing.
But we had Dumbele.

Click to expand...

Or, in the 2nd leg, when we were losing 4:0, in the last 10-15 minutes:
Would you rather have Malcom who won't be able to do absolutely anything on a field, or again: let's say Larsson who can score with feet, head and score 10s of random lucky goals from inside of a box?
Moments like those are moments when there is a thin line between champions and losers.

Click to expand...

serghei said:

Malcom can change a came. He is a very good squad player and option on the bench. If entering in a CL game away to Inter and scoring is not changing a game I don't know what is. Same with Atletico on Camp Nou. Same with Madrid when he stepped in for Messi and scored.

Click to expand...

serghei said:

Most matches he started were in experimental sides. How many of these matches did he start with Messi and Suarez which is our normal formula? You don't put a player who is low on confidence with a bunch of bench players or very young dudes and ask him to do miracles.

Click to expand...

BBZ8800 said:

If other teams don't have a plan B...
And if you also don't have a plan B, then you will play a 50:50 match against them.

If they don't have a plan B, and you DO, then you have a 60:40 advantage.

If the other team have a crappy sub attacker and you do the same, you are again 50:50, or even worse if your starter gets injured or if you are losing.
If the other team have a crappy sub attacker and you have a better sub, you again have an advantage in tight matches, like 60:40 since you do have a plan B, a fresh player for the last 20 minutes, a good player in a case of injuries and a player who can actually turn a match around.

Pep didn't win Cls with us because we were as average as other teams.
We won because we were better and had better options than them.

We didn't win 2:1 against Arsenal in 2006' because we had an okish 4th CF on a bench (who will be decent against Rayo and Girona).
We won because a sub 4th pick CF Larsson made two assists to Etto and Belletti.
We won because a sub CM Iniesta managed to turn the match around.
And we won because a more attacking RB Belletti managed to get into a box and score a lucky winning goal.

Imagine if Rijkaard had Malcom and Semedo as bench options instead of Larsson and Belletti.
An answer: we surely wouldn't win a CL back then.

Some will say: we didn't have good attacking subs during Pep.
Well, we won INSPITE of that flaw, not because of it, lol.

People will get mad, but imagine if we had Larsson in the last 10 minutes in the first home leg vs Liverpool.
We would won 4:0 or 5:0 with his cool head and cool finishing.
But we had Dumbele.

Or, in the 2nd leg, when we were losing 4:0, in the last 10-15 minutes:
Would you rather have Malcom who won't be able to do absolutely anything on a field, or again: let's say Larsson who can score with feet, head and score 10s of random lucky goals from inside of a box?

Moments like those are moments when there is a thin line between champions and losers.

Click to expand...

MTL_Barca said:

Yeah i understand, Malcom sucks. Registered. I'm just saying thats more or less the quality you can expect from a 4th option on the wing. Should they have signed someone else? Probably, but when there are multiple STARTERS that are far from their best form and the whole Coutinho dilemma i don't think Malcom is high on the list of problems.

You can talk about Larsson as much as you want but the situation was Barca needed a player for the wings that was ok with warming the bench for Messi/Dembele and even Coutinho. You can never really predict how a player works out but i'd say not many world class level players/talents would join for that role and the price of Malcom. If you know Larsson type players just name them, but if it's between old Willian for double the fee or young Malcom i have a hard time blaming the board for that decision.

Also it's not always about plan B or not (and i'd say not every sub has to be a plan B option, your Larsson should've be there instead of Munir/Boateng if anything) but usually teams just don't have world class players on the bench that's just how it is. They can replace Malcom sure, probably upgrade yes. But again, as longs as the Suarez-Busi-Rakitic gang plays the slow Ernie ball no 4th winger in the world will make a big difference. Instead of still talking about dumb Dembele not scoring the 4:0 or sub Malcom not turning it around better think about the coach and starters that managed to get trashed so badly at Anfield and bottling a 3-0 lead.

A good sub gives an advantage? Yes for sure. But you know what gives an even bigger advantage? Having the better coach and starters.

Click to expand...

serghei said:

It's very easy to spot the logic and pattern here. Every young player who we paid top money for and is not playing well under the management of Valverde sucks. Even the La Masia players, they all suck.

Coutinho sucks, Dembele sucks, Arthur is a backpasser and not much else, Malcom sucks even as a squad player, Semedo has no offensive game, Alena is overrated, Puig is a skinny dude from the 3rd division of Spanish Football.

Click to expand...

jairzinho said:

@ BBZ you're being speculative and making many assumptions and also disengenious.
I like the way you introduce Semedo and Malcolm in a subtle way to assume they wouldn't be good options for Rijkaard.

So they must not be good at all period. Not for Rijkaard, not for Klopp not for Pep. They can't help a team etc. Clever stuff.
There are lots of factors involved in a winning team. firstly is a good coach, a solid team, a crack or two up front, good 4th attackers etc.

But sometimes not all those factors are present. A coach might have a Larson or a young player like a Malcom or Origi.
It is true that a Larsson can help any team but in many instances this team won a treble with guys like Bojan, gudjohnsen and Pedro as 4th attackers.

How do you explain that? Let's not even talk about Munir and Sandro during Lucho's time.
How do you explain a team with Origi and Shakiri as backup attackers, beating us 4-0 with our Gala IX.

Click to expand...

BBZ8800 said:

..
So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.
..

Click to expand...

BBZ8800 said:

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...



Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

Click to expand...

BBZ8800 said:

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...



Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

Click to expand...

BBZ8800 said:

Or maybe we are right.
As I have said, too many people are blinded by emotions and don't want to see things in a rational way due to their need for a better future/new young players to look forward to and to build your dreams on them.

I will ask you 2 questions:
1. if La Masia is the same since always.
And if a success rate of top rated prospects from La Masia is around 10% (for a player to become a starter, or the 12th player of a team) is around 10% in the last 20-30 years?
Then, how can you expect that a success ratio will magically grow in 2020 or 2025?
I mean, with a 95% certainty, you can predict that out of 10 new Alenas, 0, 1 or 2 will turn into "something".
People reply: each player is the unique. It is.
But larger samples and stats=are larger and stats. They are not making too many mistakes long term.
I can't understand how can you guys make the same mistake over and over?
I will give you a benefit of a doubt, and won't say that you are dumb. You are probably just victims of your emotions and a human's need for a better future.
But when you remove those emotions: Alena, Puig, Oriol, Wague, each of them has only 10% chance to make it here.
And there is absolutely no way that 3 of them will make it here.
If 1 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.
If 2 of them will make it, it will be like winning a lottery.
But people don't want to learn anything from the past.

2. or, another question: if Barca was always one of the biggest teams in the world.
And if Barca always had a lot of money and good scouts...
How come that on average, only 30% of new signings turn into starters (or 12th/13th player) and 70% of signings turn into Arda, Denis and Gomes?
So, if a success ratio of signings was 30% during 90s, Van Gaal, Gaspart, Rijkaard, Pep and post-Pep, how can you guys expect suddenly that ALL Semedo, Dembele, Malcom, Arthur (plus Alena, Puig) will turn into long term starters?
A fluke, crazy luck is possible here and there.
But we had that luck with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta.
It probably won't happen in the next 100 years.
So, instead of thinking that EV is stupid, how none player is improving under EV and how all fans who don't have blind hope in Dembele/Malcom/Arthur are just haters... isn't it more likely that these players are THE SAME as 100s of different Barca's signings ever, and that on average 1 out of 3 will make it here. Or since we have 4 players mentioned, even if 2 of them will make it, it will be against the odds.

I have done this a lot of times in the past, let's try one more time.
Our signings since 2011/12, when we started to make changes to our golden La Masia (lucky) generation:
Turned into starters:
2012 Alba 14M
2013 Neymar 100+M
2014 Bravo
2015 Mats
2015 Rakitic
2015 Suarez
2017 Umtiti
Turned into a valuable 12th players:
2017 Cillessen

Mostly dissapointed:
2011 Fabregas 34M
2011 Alexis 30M
2012 Alex Song 20M
2015 Vermaelen
2015 Mathieu
2015 Douglas
2016 Turan
2016 Aleix Vidal
2017 Denis
2017 Halilovic
2017 Digne
2017 Andre Gomes
2017 Paco
2018 Paulinho
2018 Coutinho
2018 Mina
2018 Marlon

If we don't count goalkeepers but only field players, we have:
5 good transfers (not counting this summer because we can't estimate new signings yet).
And we have 17 failed transfers.
Our success ratio since 2011 is only 23%.

1-2 years ago I made a similar post with all transfers since 90s and iirc, a % was always around 35%.
So, 1 out of 3 signings for Barca EVER will turn into starters or 12th/13th player (good signings).
And 2 out 3 will turn into Arda, Denis, Malcom and similar.

And again, that is the safest bet.
I don't know WHOM will we sign in the next 10 years.
But I DO know that after 10 years, a success ratio of our signings will again be around 1 out of 3, unless if our level will drop to Arsenal's level, then we will have more crappy players whom we will keep.

So, regarding Malcom's case:
1. when you have a number of 35% success rate of signings at Barca
2. and then you have a winger who isn't fast, isn't a crazy dribbler, is meh finishing and has no obvious strengths
3. and if that guy isn't getting chances from a coach, and when he DOES get chances, he plays meh
What is more likely?
1. crazy conspiracy theories that EV is not playing Malcom because he wanted Willian?
Theories that EV doesn't like black players?
Theories how Malcom slept with his wife?
= or, the simplest, the most logical and the most obvious=a guy is a good player, but not Barca's level and Barca is not a club who has time to develop average players.
A chance for him to make it are too low and a club/coach just moved to next targets/options.

Btw, I am not hating on all young players.
Feel free to check Lenglet's thread, I have never wrote a bad post about him, before his signing or after his signing.
In fact, I have said several times during the last summer, that I personally have the highest hopes for Lenglet to turn into a player who will stay here for 5 years between Dembele, Malcom and Arthur.
If you ask me today, I would again put my money only on Lenglet or maybe Arthur to be here in 2024.
Malcom won't be here in 2024.
And I still believe that even Dembele won't stay here for too long. Imo, Messi will stay long here than Dembele...



Sorry, but wtf?
Have you ever tried to run a job, or be the best in some sport or anything?

If your job has 20 factors which decide whether you will earn money or end as broke, would you rather concentrate on improving only 1 area out of 20, or will you try to improve in as many areas as possible?
Of course, the areas which are the most important will be on top of your list.

Let's see how that works in football.
For Barca to win a CL, you need:
1. good technical players
2. good coach
3. a mix of young players and senior players
4. motivated players
5. players with a mental strength
6. some leaders
7. several different attacking options (like scoring with feet, from counters, with headers, from corners, from outside of a box)
8. good bench options
9. a plan B in attack (Larsson)
10. some physique
11. maybe 1-2 aggressive players like Vidal, Van Bommel

Now, again, the more of these options you will have in your team, the higher will be your chances to win a trophy.
But of course, options on top of a pecking order are more important.

So, if you have technical players (option no1), but you don't have leaders and motivation, let's say that you team strength will be 50%.
If you have BOTH technique, and leaders and motivation, you are now at 70%.
If you have all of this plus several attacking options, you are at 80%.
Add good bench options and you are at 90%.

On the other hand, if you don't have a key skills (technique), then of course that physique alone, or leaders won't get you far. Your total strength is let's say 20-30% then.

Now go back to your question: how come that Pep or Lucho won without a 4th attacker?
Lol.
They won INSPITE of it, not because of it.
The same as how when people say: Pep's team won with short players.
Lol, they won inspite of it, not because of it.
Or when people say: Pep's team won without scoring headers.
Again, they won isnpite of ti, not because of it.
Or, the same: Pep's team won without aggressive players.
Again, they won inspite of it.

If you have only 3-4-5 out of these components from above, you are playing a 50:50 roullette game against any opponent.
On the other hand, the more components you have, you are turning the odds in your favor, like 60:40, 70:30 etc.

And then you have teams like Greece winning Euros.
People ask: how is that possible? Well, shit, good luck and random happens sometimes.
Can Greece repeat their success? No.
Can someone like France, Brasil or Germany repeat their success? Yes.
Why?
Because a team strength of France or Brasil have 8-9-10 different components, while Greece has 4-5 components.

Or similar: Levante can win against Barca in a single game.
Over 38 matches, is there a chance for Levante to be infront of Barca?
No.
Why?
Because Barca has more different components: better players, better bench, more attacking options, individual talent etc.

You can't have everything, but basically, you are killing your chances with NOT having some of these components:
1. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to not having fast or physical players?
2. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to mentally drained players?
3. how many times Barca lost in a CL due to old players, who didn't have energy anymore due to playing CDR and too many matches? More quality midfielders and more rotations (and a better coach, of course) could help.
4. how many times was Barca toothless in a CL knockout games when the opponents parked the bus, because our only options is: playing through the ground and we don't have a plan B to play some crosses (since nobody in our team can actually win an aerial duel)? People will say: but Pep did the same! Well, even for Pep: when his style works=it works. When he was neutralized, Pep at Barca didn't have a plan B. His play B was: repeat a plan A till death and hope for the best :/

So, yeah, you can't have everything.
And if you can pick between: 1) having awesome technique and 7) having several attacking options, you should always pick a No1 because it is higher on a pecking order.
But on the other hand, if you have money, players and time to have both=then you are making an awesome allround team, who will be ready for every possible obstacle.

This is why I am personally laughing at guys who say: without EV, everything will be different.
It won't. It might be slightly better.
But we will still have:
1. older players
2. young players are of a questionable quality
3. we don't have leaders
4. we don't have motivation
5. we have only 1 fighter (Vidal)
6. we don't have several different attacking options (no one can head the ball and score, unlike Larsson, for example)
7. we don't have mental strength

So, again, if we want to improve: WHY improving only 1 area (sacking EV)?
My point is: we need to improve in 10 different areas.
Younger players, better players, motivated players, mental strength, leaders, some aggression, some physique, attacking and defensive headers, a plan B, several different attacking options.

Anyway, let' go back to Malcom vs Larsson.
I watched again some Larsson's videos in the last few days and I can't help but think: wow, how a level of quality and expectations has dropped in our club lately.
Or when guys say that Dembele is not dumb (IQ), and everyone else in a team is guilty for Dembele being disconnected from teammates.
Then I am watching a videos of a 35 years old granny Larsson, who was like Einstein for majority of current attackers.
For guys who wanted Dembele-Messi-Malcom trio in attack, questions:
1. you don't want a man in the box to score easy tap ins?
2. who will jump and score some headers as a plan B? No one.
3. who will offers some physical presence and wrestle with defenders? Messi as a false 9?

Anyway, one more time, you guys take a look at a 35 years old granny Larsson while he was here.
He injured knee ligaments in 2004/05 season and was out for a season.
So, in a season 2005/06, he was just returning from a knee injury and he was an old granny (35), so he was quite slow.
But still, even aged 35, look at his smart movement and IQ. He never needed to dribble past 5 players to get into a good position for shooting.
He always managed to end alone in a box, 1 vs 1 against a Gk, or against an empty net (even though he was old and slow).
His every action and shot is extremely simple and logical.
Not to mention an option as a Plan B to offer some headers and easy tap-ins and headers after crosses, which we don't have in the last 10 years:

Click to expand...

serghei said:

It's very easy to spot the logic and pattern here. Every young player who we paid top money for and is not playing well under the management of Valverde sucks. Even the La Masia players, they all suck.

Coutinho sucks, Dembele sucks, Arthur is a backpasser and not much else, Malcom sucks even as a squad player, Semedo has no offensive game, Alena is overrated, Puig is a skinny dude from the 3rd division of Spanish Football.

Click to expand...