FC Barcelona Tactics

[Hamzah]

The sweeper doesn't have as hard a job of reaching the winger in the first place as he was already in between him and the goal, plus it would be a 1v1 but then the other defenders have time to run back behind the sweeper and cover in case he gets beaten. In a flat back line the advantage is with offside, but with the sweeper it'd take a wicked solo goal to actually score from there while being covered.

The difference is with a flat back line that it's all or nothing, there is little time left and if the fullback or CB gets beaten it's just a 1v1 with the goalkeeper and almost a sure goal. With the sweeper, if a fullback gets beaten then the sweeper is there to take the player on and buy time, if he gets beaten after that then by that time the other CB and opposite fullback have already ran back to cover him as well. It's not as black or white and you have several chances to make up for one or two players not being able to do the job correctly.

It wouldn't work like that in reality. The sweeper wouldn't reach him and even if he did you're other players wouldn't have got back in time to cover the striker your sweeper left free to close down the winger.

The speed and placement if the pass means the sweeper has to run very quickly to reach the free winger. The winger is much quicker than your sweeper and will get a clear shot on goal.

You're system is as all or nothing as a flat back four but even worse as you give their winger a head start on you're fullback and they are still onside, they are guaranteed to get the ball and outpace your sweeper and score.

Ith a flat back four most through passes can be controlled by offside trap or if not you're players have a head start on their winger/striker, the all or nothing situation you talk about onlyhappens because of bad pressure on the ball and is not the fault of the flat back four.

 

[JamDav1982]

Fullbacks don't have to both tuck in but if the ball is on the left flank then the RB tucks in and remains defensive and vice versa. The defense is flexible and wraps around the play, doesn't just stay rigid and flat.

No chance it would not work at all and would greatly reduce the pressing and passing options that the team is trying to get back to.

The day Barca begin to play a sweeper in a back four would be a sad one indeed.

It doesnt work at any level and just gives away a man in midfield, which teams would love Barca to do.

 

[DonAndres]

Seriously need to give that up.

It will never happen at Barca and is just about the total opposite of what the team stand for.

No team plays that way for a reason.

You say it would be better to stop teams from through balls etc well the exact reason teams dont play a sweeper is that it increases the time the and space the oppostion have in dangerous areas and dangerous situations more likely not less!

I've already described how the system would work to cover all areas in previous posts. Frankly you'd probably be right about this, but to dismiss it entirely without it even being tested is just being close minded. Back then people like you would also say things like "Total football is stupid, False 9 is stupid, inverted wingers are stupid, attacking fullbacks are stupid" and dismiss any idea that would evolve the tactical side of the game. Football is not always going to remain the exact same and new things being tried and tested is what makes teams notable throughout history. Besides, there's little basis on saying "this is horrible and destroys everything that Barca style of play stands for". People always associate sweepers with defensive catenaccio style football which is indeed the opposite of what Barcelona plays. However that's only one type of use for it as even Cruyff's Ajax side used a 1-3-3-3 formation with a flexible defense and sweeper, which is what Barcelona is modeled after, no?

 

[JamDav1982]

I've already described how the system would work to cover all areas in previous posts. Frankly you'd probably be right about this, but to dismiss it entirely without it even being tested is just being close minded. Back then people like you would also say things like "Total football is stupid, False 9 is stupid, inverted wingers are stupid, attacking fullbacks are stupid" and dismiss any idea that would evolve the tactical side of the game. Football is not always going to remain the exact same and new things being tried and tested is what makes teams notable throughout history. Besides, there's little basis on saying "this is horrible and destroys everything that Barca style of play stands for". People always associate sweepers with defensive catenaccio style football which is indeed the opposite of what Barcelona plays. However that's only one type of use for it as even Cruyff's Ajax side used a 1-3-3-3 formation with a flexible defense and sweeper, which is what Barcelona is modeled after, no?

Barcelona already play with a spare man at the back anyway, but his job is to step forward and try and cut short an attack. Take the initiative and force the other team to make a mistake.

Change to a sweeper and you are asking that spare man to take a step back and react to what the opposition can do.

What your description of how the system would work fails to take into account is the extra time on the ball in the final third, the extra posession etc that teams would have because of a sweeper being there to be reactive and not proactive.

Teams would absolutely love if Barca started to do that.

The problems of the pressing and getting caught on the counter last season were down to other issues last season and wouldnt be solved by a sweeper.

 

[DonAndres]

Barcelona already play with a spare man at the back anyway, but his job is to step forward and try and cut short an attack. Take the initiative and force the other team to make a mistake.

Change to a sweeper and you are asking that spare man to take a step back and react to what the opposition can do.

What your description of how the system would work fails to take into account is the extra time on the ball in the final third, the extra posession etc that teams would have because of a sweeper being there to be reactive and not proactive.

Teams would absolutely love if Barca started to do that.

The problems of the pressing and getting caught on the counter last season were down to other issues last season and wouldnt be solved by a sweeper.

Yeah our problems were due to other issues that aren't entirely solved simply by the sweeper, but that's not what I'm getting at here. I'm not saying that this is any solid necessity or the magic wand to fix everything, but an interesting tactical inclusion that could possibly prove beneficial.

Having the sweeper there is proactive, making sure they can't try a through ball before they even think of it unlike the last minute decision of going up to stop an attack or dropping back to cover space. It discourages their options and gives them the only two choices of making a useless/error pass or playing an inch perfect one that just so happens to beat everyone (very very unlikely). Whatever extra time they get in the final third doesn't matter if they can't find a solid way through and are just holding it uselessly. Whatever slightly extra possession they gain is useless as it's much more difficult to make anything of it. It's like with us vs Bayern, we had plenty of possession but which team was the one that got outplayed? Besides we wouldn't sacrifice all our time on the ball, it'd probably just end up being 60-40 instead of 70-30 in our favor which I find acceptable given the fact that they'd be threatening us less.

Besides the sweeper helps stretch out our play and keeps us balanced all over the pitch. We'd play a slightly less high line but that's much better than shoving both fullbacks far up the pitch, having all our CB's be too high to stop counters, and simply being overcrowded. We'll still have every player aid in attack but in a more spread out manner that gives us more options and mobility, not to mention defensive security. We had this spread out kind of play back in 08/09 (without the sweeper I know), but nowadays it looks like all 10 of our outfield players forming and overcrowded semicircle around the opponents half of the pitch. Spreading out our play spreads out their defense, gives more holes for us to play the ball into and ultimately makes us more fluid into attack.

 

[JamDav1982]

Yeah our problems were due to other issues that aren't entirely solved simply by the sweeper, but that's not what I'm getting at here. I'm not saying that this is any solid necessity or the magic wand to fix everything, but an interesting tactical inclusion that could possibly prove beneficial.

Having the sweeper there is proactive, making sure they can't try a through ball before they even think of it unlike the last minute decision of going up to stop an attack or dropping back to cover space. It discourages their options and gives them the only two choices of making a useless/error pass or playing an inch perfect one that just so happens to beat everyone (very very unlikely). Whatever extra time they get in the final third doesn't matter if they can't find a solid way through and are just holding it uselessly. Whatever slightly extra possession they gain is useless as it's much more difficult to make anything of it. It's like with us vs Bayern, we had plenty of possession but which team was the one that got outplayed? Besides we wouldn't sacrifice all our time on the ball, it'd probably just end up being 60-40 instead of 70-30 in our favor which I find acceptable given the fact that they'd be threatening us less.

Besides the sweeper helps stretch out our play and keeps us balanced all over the pitch. We'd play a slightly less high line but that's much better than shoving both fullbacks far up the pitch, having all our CB's be too high to stop counters, and simply being overcrowded. We'll still have every player aid in attack but in a more spread out manner that gives us more options and mobility, not to mention defensive security. We had this spread out kind of play back in 08/09 (without the sweeper I know), but nowadays it looks like all 10 of our outfield players forming and overcrowded semicircle around the opponents half of the pitch. Spreading out our play spreads out their defense, gives more holes for us to play the ball into and ultimately makes us more fluid into attack.

No top managers play with a sweeper in back four for a reason and that reason it makes no sense and gives away too much initiative in the middle of the park. Which in todays game is where games are contested more than ever.

The benefits are dwarfed by the downfalls of playing that way.

I wouldnt use Cruyff to back up your argument, playing a sweeper that drops back is the polar opposite of what his ideas are all about.

Luckily it wont be tried by Barca or any top team any time soon.

 

[Hamzah]

You ignored my points don. Understand that football is very fast nowadays and your sweeper would create the problems I mentioned.

 

[DonAndres]

Cruyff was a player, not manager when Ajax's side used the sweeper. They played with the same attacking and mobile style we did and used a sweeper very effectively in a flexible and versatile way (suited for faster modern football as you said could pose a problem Hamzah). The entire formation is flexible enough to cover the right areas and switch around when necessary to fit the play.

Hamzah, the scenarios you mentioned make it seem as if the winger is Usain Bolt or something. The sweeper is already given a head start and in between the winger and the goal, he doesn't have to catch up with him to get him in a 1v1 scenario, just position himself to be in his way. And by the time the winger reaches him to get in that 1v1, he'd get slowed down a bit and that buys enough time for the fullback and other CB (who would automatically have run back the moment the winger got the ball) to cover the sweeper in case he gets beaten.

Once again the idea I'm trying to show is that with a sweeper the back line is very adjustable and gives us time and options in scenarios where we usually wouldn't. A flat back 4 must remain very rigid which can often be beaten, meaning we'd need an extremely pacy defender to catch up with the forward who already has a head start. With the sweeper the player is boxed in, unable to simply run to the gooalkeeper and score as he'll be covered from all sides and ultimately slowed down quite a bit. Players shift around and remain mobile so we have a wider array of options to deal with several different scenarios, arguing them all one by one would just be a time waster.

BTW I know I've repeated the idea of "flexible" way too many times but that's for a lack of a better word or different way of explaining it

 

[JamDav1982]

Cruyff was a player, not manager when Ajax's side used the sweeper. They played with the same attacking and mobile style we did and used a sweeper very effectively in a flexible and versatile way (suited for faster modern football as you said could pose a problem Hamzah). The entire formation is flexible enough to cover the right areas and switch around when necessary to fit the play.

Hamzah, the scenarios you mentioned make it seem as if the winger is Usain Bolt or something. The sweeper is already given a head start and in between the winger and the goal, he doesn't have to catch up with him to get him in a 1v1 scenario, just position himself to be in his way. And by the time the winger reaches him to get in that 1v1, he'd get slowed down a bit and that buys enough time for the fullback and other CB (who would automatically have run back the moment the winger got the ball) to cover the sweeper in case he gets beaten.

Once again the idea I'm trying to show is that with a sweeper the back line is very adjustable and gives us time and options in scenarios where we usually wouldn't. A flat back 4 must remain very rigid which can often be beaten, meaning we'd need an extremely pacy defender to catch up with the forward who already has a head start. With the sweeper the player is boxed in, unable to simply run to the gooalkeeper and score as he'll be covered from all sides and ultimately slowed down quite a bit. Players shift around and remain mobile so we have a wider array of options to deal with several different scenarios, arguing them all one by one would just be a time waster.

Yes Cruyff was a player and not a manager when he played with a sweeper all those years ago. But the style that Cruyff brought to the club was his own ideas which did not have a sweeper that dropped off in it.

You totally ignore all the downsides to playing a sweeper. Which are important enough that no top manager chooses to play that way and especially in a back four.

It wont happen any time soon and for good reason.

 

[DonAndres]

Yes Cruyff was a player and not a manager when he played with a sweeper all those years ago. But the style that Cruyff brought to the club was his own ideas which did not have a sweeper that dropped off in it.

You totally ignore all the downsides to playing a sweeper. Which are important enough that no top manager chooses to play that way and especially in a back four.

It wont happen any time soon and for good reason.

Downsides can be lessened by tweaking the system through trial and error, if they do prove to be too huge (which really through all the arguments is debatable and still not definite on either side) then the system could be dropped all together. What Cruyff brought to Barca didn't include a sweeper because the sweeper was quite easily described as dead in that era of football and in this one as well (which is why no one uses it). However as formations evolve and the cycle continues, the sweeper will be brought back. With 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 being the most popular formations in football by far (or variations), it's quite possible that the sweeper could be brought back successfully sometime soon or even now with a lot of development and change to the system.

 

[JamDav1982]

Downsides can be lessened by tweaking the system through trial and error, if they do prove to be too huge (which really through all the arguments is debatable and still not definite on either side) then the system could be dropped all together. What Cruyff brought to Barca didn't include a sweeper because the sweeper was quite easily described as dead in that era of football and in this one as well (which is why no one uses it). However as formations evolve and the cycle continues, the sweeper will be brought back. With 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 being the most popular formations in football by far (or variations), it's quite possible that the sweeper could be brought back successfully sometime soon or even now with a lot of development and change to the system.

Could just as easily say lets start playing with 6 up front and inside forwards as this will one day come back as football works in cycles.

Just watching todays games it is clear that playing a sweeper would be absolutely ridiculous idea.

It wont happen. Thankfully.

 

[DonAndres]

Whatever, you can stick to your mantra of antagonizing any change as if it's "ridiculous". Rarely has a team with that kind of attitude left a mark on football, and if they have it's mainly for having superstar players. Close minded coaches aren't the ones who have made sides like Ajax, Milan, Barca, etc. famous in football history, those coaches are the ones who dared to try new things and question what others call "ridiculous".

 

[JamDav1982]

Whatever, you can stick to your mantra of antagonizing any change as if it's "ridiculous". Rarely has a team with that kind of attitude left a mark on football, and if they have it's mainly for having superstar players. Close minded coaches aren't the ones who have made sides like Ajax, Milan, Barca, etc. famous in football history, those coaches are the ones who dared to try new things and question what others call "ridiculous".

Many abysmal managers were sacked for stupid ideas also.

 

[DonAndres]

This is an idea to try, not to permanently force on a team even if it doesn't work at all (the thing those abysmal managers do). The point is to have the ambition to think and try things like this to shuffle around the team and change the system to stay on top, not just permanently stick with the same thing with no attempt in evolving. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work and they can move on to try something else. However always dismissing things in the attempt to always keep things the way they were is never successful. Adding a sweeper is a massive change, a big gamble in modern football but who says we should try it out in a CL final or something like that? Friendlies and small games are meant for big teams to experiment with changes, to try and fail is better than to not try at all. Really there's little evidence to suggest that this isn't an interesting idea that's worth a try, and no saying crap like "this is ridiculous" is not evidence.

Also, you act like playing a sweeper is as wild as putting 11 forwards on the pitch and no goalkeeper. This is something that has been proven successful in football for decades and has been a key component to several legendary teams. Please learn the definition of "ridiculous" before going on and calling everything that is slightly unusual as "ridiculous".

 

[Hamzah]

Don... The opposition winger such as robben, reus or ronaldo is much much quicker than our sweeper (probably pique) they would reach the ball first, and score. The winger would have a head start on the sweeper as he has the ball and only needs two or three touches before his finish.

The pass is quick and the sweeper would have to cover 40m in less than 5 seconds which is all it takes from the moment ball is released to winger having his shot.

You're system is flawed. A flat back four is much better. It's not "close minded either" it's using what works and what solid defences have relied on for many years. There's no need for innovation in defending, onlyin attack to break down a defence, which though predictable is still hard to break down.