CL: FC Viktoria Plzen - FC Barcelona 0-4

[Bilal Khan]

What is Manuel trying to prove with that XXL post, its common sense that if you top the group you are "most likely" to get an easier draw, yes there av been some cases on the contrary but 80% of the time, topper is likely to get the easier draw, and then there is the huge advantage of playing second leg at home.. You said that the 3 runner ups who went on to win the trophy were the best teams. Barca were the best in '10 but were denied cuz of a volcanoe and wrongly judged yaya handball...

[dalitis8]

What is Manuel trying to prove with that XXL post, its common sense that if you top the group you are "most likely" to get an easier draw, yes there av been some cases on the contrary but 80% of the time, topper is likely to get the easier draw, and then there is the huge advantage of playing second leg at home.. You said that the 3 runner ups who went on to win the trophy were the best teams. Barca were the best in '10 but were denied cuz of a volcanoe and wrongly judged yaya handball...

And a Milito off-side goal...

[mitkoa7x]

And a Milito off-side goal...

I was trying to erase that from my memory, thanks...

[dalitis8]

Let me point at least one contradiction in Manuel's thinking.

On the one he claims that what is most important in CL KO football, is not the strength of the team per se, but the match-up. He actually examines the possibility of CSKA Moscow proving to be sterner test than United for us, and he also uses Rubin Kazan as an example of a team that is a horrible "match-up" for Barca.

On the other hand, he uses the example of Arsenal (a team that he claims is a positive "match-up" for us) as a second placed team that caused us more trouble than any of the other three first placed teams that we had to face. Well, if match-ups were so important (more important than potency in absolute terms) then we should have annihilated Arsenal, but we did not. Actually, last season, Arsenal were the only favorites to have failed to win their group, and we were unlucky enough to draw them. In the end, we found ourselves a Nicklas Bendtner toe-poke away from humiliating CL disqualification, plus we suffered our only defeat in last year's European competition at the hands of Arsenal.

My opinion, is that what is most important in football, above all other variables (of which there are numerous) is the quality of a team's players. But that on its own cannot sufficiently explain, the fluctuating results we tend to observe in football. This constant, must be combined with the wildly fluctuating variable of physical conditioning. To provide two very clear and contrasting examples, just compare two Barca games from last season. Our home defeat against Hercules, and our thumping of Real Madrid two months later. Same players, same tactics, same pitch, same manager (for us) In the second case, we have infinitely stronger opponents and presumably coached by a better manager. Yet the game against Hercules finished 0-2, while the game against Madrid finished 5-0!!!

What variable was it that changed? Was it a case of a match-up? Was it tactics? I claim not. It was a massive difference in the physical conditioning of FCB...

[mitkoa7x]

Let me point at least one contradiction in Manuel's thinking.

On the one he claims that what is most important in CL KO football, is not the strength of the team per se, but the match-up. He actually examines the possibility of CSKA Moscow proving to be sterner test than United for us, and he also uses Rubin Kazan as an example of a team that is a horrible "match-up" for Barca.

On the other hand, he uses the example of Arsenal (a team that he claims is a positive "match-up" for us) as a second placed team that caused us more trouble than any of the other three first placed teams that we had to face. Well, if match-ups were so important (more important than potency in absolute terms) then we should have annihilated Arsenal, but we did not. Actually, last season, Arsenal were the only favorites to have failed to win their group, and we were unlucky enough to draw them. In the end, we found ourselves a Nicklas Bendtner toe-poke away from humiliating CL disqualification, plus we suffered our only defeat in last year's European competition at the hands of Arsenal.

My opinion, is that what is most important in football, above all other variables (of which there are numerous) is the quality of a team's players. But that on its own cannot sufficiently explain, the fluctuating results we tend to observe in football. This constant, must be combined with the wildly fluctuating variable of physical conditioning. To provide two very clear and contrasting examples, just compare two Barca games from last season. Our home defeat against Hercules, and our thumping of Real Madrid two months later. Same players, same tactics, same pitch, same manager (for us) In the second case, we have infinitely stronger opponents and presumably coached by a better manager. Yet the game against Hercules finished 0-2, while the game against Madrid finished 5-0!!!

What variable was it that changed? Was it a case of a match-up? Was it tactics? I claim not. It was a massive difference in the physical conditioning of FCB...

Xavi, Puyol and Busquets were missing as far as i remember...

[Manuel Traquete]

What is Manuel trying to prove with that XXL post, its common sense that if you top the group you are "most likely" to get an easier draw, yes there av been some cases on the contrary but 80% of the time, topper is likely to get the easier draw, and then there is the huge advantage of playing second leg at home.. You said that the 3 runner ups who went on to win the trophy were the best teams. Barca were the best in '10 but were denied cuz of a volcanoe and wrongly judged yaya handball...

Common sense isn't always correct. Even a superficial analysis of every CL year in the current format shows that it isn't. 80%? Where did you get such stat? Maybe in a year where all the strongest sides win their groups (which rarely, if ever, happens), and even then it isn't 80%, not even close. I'm afraid you made up that stat. I'm not going to bore you with numbers (and any, if you're interested, they're in my previous posts), but just look at the draws we got in our last three CL-winning runs and you'll easily understand that the odds aren't anywhere near 80%. In fact we always ended up having a difficult draw despite winning the group, a more difficult draw than some of the teams finishing second (in 2006, even more difficult than the team finishing second in our group).

Also, the only tie we've lost under Pep was with the second leg at home. The second leg at home isn't an advantage per se, it really depends on the tie. As a matter of fact, we've generally won the ties more easily when we play the first leg at Camp Nou (eg. Bayern, Shakhtar).

Let me point at least one contradiction in Manuel's thinking.

On the one he claims that what is most important in CL KO football, is not the strength of the team per se, but the match-up. He actually examines the possibility of CSKA Moscow proving to be sterner test than United for us, and he also uses Rubin Kazan as an example of a team that is a horrible "match-up" for Barca.

On the other hand, he uses the example of Arsenal (a team that he claims is a positive "match-up" for us) as a second placed team that caused us more trouble than any of the other three first placed teams that we had to face. Well, if match-ups were so important (more important than potency in absolute terms) then we should have annihilated Arsenal, but we did not. Actually, last season, Arsenal were the only favorites to have failed to win their group, and we were unlucky enough to draw them. In the end, we found ourselves a Nicklas Bendtner toe-poke away from humiliating CL disqualification, plus we suffered our only defeat in last year's European competition at the hands of Arsenal.

My opinion, is that what is most important in football, above all other variables (of which there are numerous) is the quality of a team's players. But that on its own cannot sufficiently explain, the fluctuating results we tend to observe in football. This constant, must be combined with the wildly fluctuating variable of physical conditioning. To provide two very clear and contrasting examples, just compare two Barca games from last season. Our home defeat against Hercules, and our thumping of Real Madrid two months later. Same players, same tactics, same pitch, same manager (for us) In the second case, we have infinitely stronger opponents and presumably coached by a better manager. Yet the game against Hercules finished 0-2, while the game against Madrid finished 5-0!!!

What variable was it that changed? Was it a case of a match-up? Was it tactics? I claim not. It was a massive difference in the physical conditioning of FCB...

Where exactly is the contradiction? Of course I claim Arsenal are a favorable match-up. We've knocked them out two seasons in a row. We had a terrible tie last season, with an unbelievable number of missed chances, a rare Valdés blunder and a bizarre own goal from Busquets... and we still managed to win that tie. With all the missed chances and unusual blunders, we'd probably have been eliminated if we hadn't faced a team that we didn't basically own. I can't remember a sloppier tie under Pep, or two games where we missed so many clear cut chances. The fact that we still managed to win only reinforces what a favorable match-up it is.

You raise a good point about physical conditioning. I'd add factors like motivation, morale and, really, form on the day (every team has bad days, no matter how good they are, and they can prove costly in Cup football). That was probably the reason the Arsenal tie was so close, but they're out of our control. All Pep can do is try to have his team in the best shape possible, but factors like injuries and to a certain extent fatigue are very difficult to have full control over.

I agree that there are many variables influencing football results, that's what makes the sport so compelling too. But you can't ignore match-ups. In 2009, in a matter of three weeks we struggled a lot to beat Chelsea with a full strength team and three weeks later we handily beat Manchester United, a better side that year, with a depleted team (even Sylvinho started). With the best teams in Europe, it's mostly about match-ups: it's not team A beats team B and Team B beats Team C, therefore Team A beats Team C.

[dalitis8]

Where exactly is the contradiction? Of course I claim Arsenal are a favorable match-up. We've knocked them out two seasons in a row. We had a terrible tie last season, with an unbelievable number of missed chances, a rare Valdés blunder and a bizarre own goal from Busquets... and we still managed to win that tie. With all the missed chances and unusual blunders, we'd probably have been eliminated if we hadn't faced a team that we didn't basically own. I can't remember a sloppier tie under Pep, or two games where we missed so many clear cut chances. The fact that we still managed to win only reinforces what a favorable match-up it is.

You raise a good point about physical conditioning. I'd add factors like motivation, morale and, really, form on the day (every team has bad days, no matter how good they are, and they can prove costly in Cup football). That was probably the reason the Arsenal tie was so close, but they're out of our control. All Pep can do is try to have his team in the best shape possible, but factors like injuries and to a certain extent fatigue are very difficult to have full control over.

I agree that there are many variables influencing football results, that's what makes the sport so compelling too. But you can't ignore match-ups. In 2009, in a matter of three weeks we struggled a lot to beat Chelsea with a full strength team and three weeks later we handily beat Manchester United, a better side that year, with a depleted team (even Sylvinho started). With the best teams in Europe, it's mostly about match-ups: it's not team A beats team B and Team B beats Team C, therefore Team A beats Team C.

I do not seem to remember us wasting too many chances in the Emirates last season. We sure had 2-3 very good ones (and a wrongly disallowed Messi goal) but we did not dominate as much as we would have liked.

In the 2nd game, we dominated completely, but it was not until the extremely harsh van Persie sending off that we started creating chances by the shitload. Of course that stupid Biscuits howler was what made things difficult for us... As for our "match-up" against Arsenal, I really do not think that they are an easy team for us. Other than Madrid, United and an in-form Chelsea, I see no team that can give us a game under normal conditions (maybe Citeh?)

Furthermore, I do not readily accept the opinion of many that Chelsea were weaker than United in 08/09. Chelsea were less consistent, not inferior to United that year. In fact, since Hiddink took over, Chelsea probably won more league points than United. But that is not the main index of potency in my opinion. The main index of a side's true quality is its record against strong opposition, and on that count, Chelsea were superior to United that year.

[Guardian]

believe me guys, the Pilzen's beer was the best beer I've ever drunk. It's not the usual piss we drink here. It's Beer with capital B

[Manuel Traquete]

I do not seem to remember us wasting too many chances in the Emirates last season. We sure had 2-3 very good ones (and a wrongly disallowed Messi goal) but we did not dominate as much as we would have liked.

In the 2nd game, we dominated completely, but it was not until the extremely harsh van Persie sending off that we started creating chances by the shitload. Of course that stupid Biscuits howler was what made things difficult for us... As for our "match-up" against Arsenal, I really do not think that they are an easy team for us. Other than Madrid, United and an in-form Chelsea, I see no team that can give us a game under normal conditions (maybe Citeh?)

Furthermore, I do not readily accept the opinion of many that Chelsea were weaker than United in 08/09. Chelsea were less consistent, not inferior to United that year. In fact, since Hiddink took over, Chelsea probably won more league points than United. But that is not the main index of potency in my opinion. The main index of a side's true quality is its record against strong opposition, and on that count, Chelsea were superior to United that year.

We had plenty of chances. Messi was strangely misfiring at the Emirates, he missed a one-on-one with the Arsenal keeper in the first few minutes and more very good chances. In the second leg it was even worse, a festival of missed opportunities, especially after the red card. And then Arsenal's goals, one was a very rare blunder by Valdés and the other a bizarre own goal. It was a very sloppy tie from us.

This might sound stupid, but if we had played like that against Shakhtar we could have been eliminated. We were ridiculously clinical in front of goal in the Camp Nou match. 5-1 was a very misleading result. I felt a bit sorry for Shakhtar because they broke through our defense several times, a lot more than Arsenal or even Madrid, but had horrible finishing, while we were extremely clinical in that match. Had we been that effective against Arsenal, we'd have won with a larger margin since we created a lot more chances than we did against Shakhtar. The story of the Camp Nou match was basically Shakhtar creating chances and choking in front of goal and we scoring at almost every opportunity (even Keita scored a screamer in that game).

The same for the Madrid tie, we didn't create nearly as many chances as vs Arsenal but we were extremely clinical and didn't have any defensive blunders. I'd say Madrid and Shakhtar paid for our sloppiness in the Arsenal tie. It was not so much that Arsenal caused us troubles, but that we caused troubles to ourselves; I don't think Arsenal are responsible for Valdés having such a rare blunder or Busquets scoring an own goal without any player even pressuring him, not to mention for Messi and other missing so many clear chances.

If we analyse the tie, our superiority was never in question. The reasons why it was close in the end have already been explained, such things can happen against any team. Every team has bad days, days where things just don't work so well... I wouldn't attribute our woes to any strategy from Arsenal or anything they did, especially in the Camp Nou game where they basically did nothing but defend for their lives.

Yes, under normal conditions there are few teams that can give us a tough game. Not sure why you include United in that list, though, 2009 and 2011 proved that we have a huge advantage in that particular match-up. With the quality of our squad (not being arrogant here, we're widely acknowledged as one of the best ever squads at this point in time) we should overcome any possible match-up issues if we're at our best. But we must assume the possibility of not being at our best (injuries...) and in that case I'd say Arsenal and Man United are definitely two teams we shouldn't fear too much, we've already beaten with very depleted squads in the few years (Sylvinho ffs), in theory a tie against either of those teams would favor us greatly even if we're not in absolute peak form.

Hmm I'm afraid Chelsea's record against top teams wasn't great that season. They lost 3-0 at Old Trafford and tied 1-1 at the Bridge vs United, they lost both games against Liverpool, lost at home to Arsenal... only win against a top 4 side was at the Emirates. And they were beaten by Roma in the CL group stages. I don't see how the record vs top sides can be used to support Chelsea were better than United that season.

[PhilS]

Winning so convincingly in CL with this much squad rotation bodes well for the rest of this season. Cesc is about back to top form after his injury, Pique and Puyol are most of the way back, Alexis should get all the way back pretty quick. Pep has found Cuenca and Adriano as viable options at forward, and he has the entire bench in fine form except forgotten Pinto and Fontas.

[Catalonian Devil]

Don't know if this was already brought up in this thread but...

Was anyone else a little concerned about how exposed we looked at the back at the beginning with our first choice CBs?

The Mascherano - Abidal partnership looked much more solid than Pique-Puyol, but of course the latter haven't been playing alognside eachother consistently for a while now.

Hope they can get their rhythm back and quick..

[dalitis8]

Both Pique and Puyol are way off the pace.

They need to shape up...and fast.

[Quell]

Don't know if this was already brought up in this thread but...

Was anyone else a little concerned about how exposed we looked at the back at the beginning with our first choice CBs?

The Mascherano - Abidal partnership looked much more solid than Pique-Puyol, but of course the latter haven't been playing alognside eachother consistently for a while now.

Hope they can get their rhythm back and quick..

True, let's hope they'll work this out and return. I think Plzen were quite good and brave and even deserved to score.

[Corb]

[PhilS]

Originally Posted by Catalonian Devil
Don't know if this was already brought up in this thread but...

Was anyone else a little concerned about how exposed we looked at the back at the beginning with our first choice CBs?

The Mascherano - Abidal partnership looked much more solid than Pique-Puyol, but of course the latter haven't been playing alognside eachother consistently for a while now.

Hope they can get their rhythm back and quick..

Abidal sure looked fast last night. I think that is because he is fast, but also Pique & Puyol were a lot less fast than ususal. In the Barca defense, the first back line players gets beat fairly frequently, but then another defender or Valdes successfully comes to the rescue. The flip side of this is that the first defender very frequently ends the threat immediately by recovering the ball. This defensive style is very different from other top clubs, really quite revolutionary. All the defenders need huge skills and great speed. Yes, Puyol and Pique need to get fully back as soon as possible, not even Valdes can always be successful one on one.