I can not explain a level of ignorance while reading your post.
Do you know that feeling when you think that I don't understand tactics the way you do?
Well, now turn the tables.
You have all the brains you need to understand tactics. But you refuse to understand how quintessential they are to football. You simply don't give them the weight they demand as a football fan. You focus too much on stats, and names, and coincidences, without looking at what makes football a methodical, planned, and rather routine activity.
This is how I feel about you when you talk about psychology and physique.
I say: wtf 20 times while reading every post.
Pep's Barca had only two weapons.
Possession and counters.
See, it shows you don't know. Looking as how confusing you use the terms. Possession and counterattacking are like Animals and Mammals. Counterattacking is a specific and very big area in the huge possession chapter. So when you say Pep's Barca had only two weapons and name possession and counters, it's as if you say they had two weapons: firearms and riffles. That's the motherload of weapons to have
.
Possession is roughly divided by positional play, and counterattacks. Plus transition phase when you get the ball back. In transition, you either go for a quick counter, or you recycle possession and opt for a longer, positional build-up. Pep's Barca were experts at both by ability and skill, known to be greatest at one, purely by choice. Meaning they acquired the quality to exercise both at the highest degree but chose to play more positional play because they felt like it and wanted to. It felt more rewarding probably to pass teams around and humiliate them. You have to respect a team that has reached a position where they can indulge themselves to such a degree.
We lacked the third weapon: height, crosses, and headers.
We lacked mental strength.
We won only because we were 200% better than the rest in technique.
But even then we struggled against bullies Chelsea 2009, Inter 2010, Chelsea 2012.
These are, indeed, weapons that can be used to gain advantages in various aspects of the game. But they are of lower importance. That's like comparing and making a logical connection between concepts such as Animal, Mammals, Height. Height is merely an attribute an animal can have without being decisive to its effectiveness, or ferociousness. It's simply an indicator of some sort.
Height, crosses, and headers. Let's look at this.
Height.
First, in the key positions where lack of height would bring problems, Barcelona under Pep, were not a short team. Positions in need of height are CB area, maybe DM area. 3-4 players at most need to be over 1.80 and close to 1.90. Let's see who did we have back then. Pique, Busi, Yaya, Keita, even Abidal. All had height.
Pique - 1.94. Busi - 1.89, Yaya - 1.88, Abidal - 1.86, Keita - 1.83. So, that's wrong.
Crosses & headers.
Crosses are generally one of the most uncontrolled ways to create chances, especially when abusing them. To have the ability to generate clear chances using other weapons, and, despite this, to bring the ball wide and pour crosses is dumb. Except for some rare cases, it's usually a fallback plan when something is stopping you from playing your normal game. Barca didn't need crossing. The same way a guy owning a Ferrari doesn't need a Lotus.
You can't go around and say the guy is an idiot because he doesn't have a Lotus. No. He has something of greater quality than a Lotus.
Also, you use crosses in the most ordinary way possible. If you are to look at the Barca games, we did use the crossing.
Let's take some key games. Chelsea 2009 goal of Iniesta comes after an Alves cross that Chelsea fail to clear well. In the final with United, again, Messi goal after a cross. In 2011, Messi scores vs Madrid on Bernabeu after a cross by Affelay. Versus Shakhtar in the previous round we scored quite a few goals through crosses. Vs Chelsea in 2012 at the infamous 2-2, Busi scores after a cross by Cuenca. Vs International (I think) in 2009 Messi scores the winner with his chest after a cross. Vs Madrid in 2009 Eto'o scores after a cross in the Clasico. In the 2-6, Puyol scores after a cross.
So, we have multiple goals after crosses in some of our best games. You only disregard those because they don't fit your "version" of what a cross is. When you say about crosses, you mean high balls in the box to a big pole "9" winning headers. So, basically, Barca had a big flaw because they didn't use crosses like David Moyes United. And, instead, had a much much much superior way of doing things with the ball.
Barca historically struggle against these bullies.
And we win only on rare occasions.
Not to mention that we have the highest paid team since always.
All attacking teams struggle more with good defensive sides than inferior attacking sides. It's a logical thing. If you are a rating a 10 as an offensive team, you'd much rather face a team that is rating 8 attacking at their best, and a 6 at defending, than a team that rates 8 at defending and 6 at attacking.
Match-ups are a thing in all sports on the planet. Only you try to make it a typical Pep Barca weakness.
When you sum up everything, Pep's style is far from perfect.
And it can win only in absolutely perfect cindiotions.
If conditions aren't perfect, there is almost no way to win in Europe with Barca DNA style.
It's not perfect, but it's a great vision, that builds on previous great visions from the past. And the base of Pep's style, taking out his highly perfectionistic and insane obsession, can be put to use by good, not great teams as well. As I've just shown you with Leipzig. Leipzig play a variant of Pep's game. So is Bayern.
So, Pep's style in terms of its ideology can be implemented in a lot of places. As it is happening.
Did you guys ever wonder why Barca wins in a CL only when we are absolutely the best in everything?
And why teams like RM and Germans often win during average seasons?
It's simple.
Our style can win only when absolutely everything is perfect.
Othet, more versatile styles can win in not so perfect conditions.
But you guys will figure that out in 5-10 years, don't worry.
Because Barcelona for a consistent portion of the modern era has developed a philosophy and an identity that is not part of the mainstream culture. Arguably, the failure of this club in recent history has been going around and trying to mimic Madrid's Galactico era.
Bayern don't win CL in average seasons. It's a complete myth. If anything, I've seen Bayern losing while being the better team than winning by being average and getting lucky. Not much different than us.
Only Madrid win CLs while playing poorly, in an average season. But they have a unique history in this competition, so they are a distinct case.
