8 - Pedri

[serghei]

Pep's 4-3-3 is different not because football evolved like some think. You wouldn't press Xavi, Iniesta, Busi to death because there's a little man above them who needed 2-3 players to stop. You are short of personnel. To do it and block that team, it often meant abandoning your offensive plans. Football changed, but you can still put in only 10 field players.

The Pep Barca teams had too much quality everywhere. Unpressable.

 

[GloryHunter 007]

There are 2 types of DMs commonly seen in modern Football:

The Destroyer/Ball winner: Caicedo, Makelele.

The Deep Lying Playmaker/Regista: Xabi Alonso, Old Pirlo.

Busquets is a unique profile who's more about press resistance and possession recycling. Busquets has major defensive weaknesses in his game although he's very good at interceptions, positioning and reading the game. Busquets doesn't have the passing range of Pirlo and Alonso but is an excellent short distance passer.

Rodri is a unique profile too that's tough to categorise.

Both Rodri and Busquets play DM or number 6 in a 433 formation. You can call them anchor midfielders if you like. They're still DMs technically. Just have unique qualities and profiles.

Kante isn't a DM as some casuals believe. Kante is a midfield general who pops up everywhere and usually plays alongside an anchor midfielder like Jorginho or in a double pivot. Kante is closer to a box to box midfielder (he isn't exactly that either) even though Kante is better at winning the ball and tackling than all these players. He wins these duels everywhere around the pitch which makes him one of the most unique players in the history of the sport.

Thats a great post.

 

[JamDav1982]

It has evolved. Neither of the two in a double pivot sit the whole time. Coaches want fluidity.

Caicedo for example is getting forward a lot more now when can.

Arsenal have both Rice and Zubimendi getting forward and dovetailing etc.

Real also both deep mids can get forward at times.

 

[Maradona37]

Pep's 4-3-3 is different not because football evolved like some think. You wouldn't press Xavi, Iniesta, Busi to death because there's a little man above them who needs 2-3 players to stop. You are short of personnel. To do it it often meant abandoning your offensive plans. Football changed, but you can still field only 10 field players.

I had never before seen - and haven't since - a team that even other excellent teams just surrendered trying to play football before the game kicked off.

It was unbelievable - world-class players were just reduced to helpless hoping for a counter players against Pep's Barca. Even current PSG, Pep's City and Lucho's Barca didn't have that sort of effect to that extent

It was an amazing level of dominating the opposition. Xavi was especially the reason for it (though as you cite Messi up front was a unique factor too). But for about four years, Xavi just controlled almost every single game he played. I have never seen anything like it in football, that four year spell. Even games where Barca lost they were generally utterly dominant. Probably the best team I seen take the game to them was Inter at San Siro, and even there Inter needed some favourable decisions to win that night.

 

[JamDav1982]

There are 2 types of DMs commonly seen in modern Football:

The Destroyer/Ball winner: Caicedo, Makelele.

The Deep Lying Playmaker/Regista: Xabi Alonso, Old Pirlo.

Busquets is a unique profile who's more about press resistance and possession recycling. Busquets has major defensive weaknesses in his game although he's very good at interceptions, positioning and reading the game. Busquets doesn't have the passing range of Pirlo and Alonso but is an excellent short distance passer.

Rodri is a unique profile too that's tough to categorise.

Both Rodri and Busquets play DM or number 6 in a 433 formation. You can call them anchor midfielders if you like. They're still DMs technically. Just have unique qualities and profiles.

Kante isn't a DM as some casuals believe. Kante is a midfield general who pops up everywhere and usually plays alongside an anchor midfielder like Jorginho or in a double pivot. Kante is closer to a box to box midfielder (he isn't exactly that either) even though Kante is better at winning the ball and tackling than all these players. He wins these duels everywhere around the pitch which makes him one of the most unique players in the history of the sport.

Rodri has played the best football of his life for club and country in a midfield two and with more freedom.

When Pep played single pivot Rodri was benched in CL final and nowhere near as effective.

He can play there but his best football and balondor level is with more freedom than that.

 

[Temptation]

The midfield three will stuggle v PSG no matter how set up unless Barca find a way to get a better handle on those full backs/wide players.

That is the task for teams facing PSG.. trying limit their wide pace without giving up too much room in midfield.

Barca failed at is as every team has for a while.

The best strategy against this PSG team is unironically a compact, low block with precise fast counter attacks.

A team like 09/10 Inter can do the trick.

PSG's backline is weak at aerial duels so hitting a big targetman on the break and surrounding him with fast players to play off him and win second balls can be very effective.

Villa dominated PSG for large parts of the game at Villa Park. Chelsea and Palmer got the better of them in America. They're good but not unbeatable.

There's no point trying to beat PSG at their own game with fluidity, intensity and pace. You have to give them something different and ask them the right questions. Something they don't want to play against.

 

[serghei]

The difference was Messi. You certainly can't commit men to block our midfield because Messi would tear you apart if you leave him without special supervision. Then you also have Alves, Villa, nightmare to track all those threats man to man. You end up dead and finished. Parking the bus with insane target men like peak Drogba is the surest bet by a mile. Even today nothing would be different.

 

[JamDav1982]

That Barca team had it all.

They were best team in world on the break also so teams couldnt even really try to push up and suffocate them.

Football has evolved though without a doubt.

That Pep team changed football and players opposition sought to sign and how set up.

Real Madrid for example became much more competitve very quickly when realised what they needed to do to have a chance.

 

[Maradona37]

The difference was Messi. You certainly can't commit men to block our midfield because Messi would tear you apart if you leave him without special supervision. Then you also have Alves, Villa, nightmare to track all those threats man to man. You end up dead and finished. Parking the bus with insane target men like peak Drogba is the surest bet by a mile. Even today nothing would be different.

Yeah that's why Chelsea with Drogba and Inter with Milito had most success - very good teams defensively with a target man up front.

I know what you are saying about Messi, but the midfield three of Barca did win everything with Spain, too. Though there were more games they were less dominant in, so that supports the theory Messi was the main difference (as he always is).

But Xavi and Matthaus are the two best midfielders ever, in my view.

 

[serghei]

Hardest match since Pep Barca days for that team would have been 2014-2016 peak Atletico under Simeone. Muscle, physicality, defend in a deep block and hit on the break with great precision without commiting too many bodies forward.

 

[serghei]

Yeah that's why Chelsea with Drogba and Inter with Milito had most success - very good teams defensively with a target man up front.

I know what you are saying about Messi, but the midfield three of Barca did win everything with Spain, too. Though there were more games they were less dominant in, so that supports the theory Messi was the main difference (as he always is).

But Xavi and Matthaus are the two best midfielders ever, in my view.

No doubt. Thinking you can challenge them in midfield of the park was Ferguson's flaw in both CL finals. Even his great 2009 side had no chance. Was closest thing to trying to dominate peak Nadal on clay at RG. Just ain't happening. Passage of time doesn't change it.

 

[Maradona37]

No doubt. Thinking you can challenge them in midfield of the park was Ferguson's flaw in both CL finals. Even his great 2009 side had no chance. Was closest thing to trying to dominate Nadal on clay at RG. Just ain't happening. Passage of time doesn't change it.

Yeah he fell for the media hype that the 2009 final was close (United came out flying, however Barca dominated it after the first goal), and that he could outplay Barca at their own game at Wembley in the second final.

I know he was a great manager, but I remember laughing out loud at his lineup that night. Playing a 442 with Carrick and old man Giggs in midfield, to accommodate a very one-dimensional player in Hernandez up front (who was predictably ineffective). He should have packed the midfield, but truthfully I don't think Man United had it in them to be as defensively resolute as Inter or Chelsea were.

It was a complete rookie mistake by Ferguson, that lineup and those tactics. Barca would have won anyway but he made it even easier.

 

[jamrock]

Can't even talking about pep and barca, because that's a whole different level.

But Enrique's PSG while I like them more than most teams I've seen recently because they remind me so much of Barcelona, are very much beatable if the right tactical setup is found.

You can't man mark because they are too fluid, they will have your players being dragged all over the field, and players won't be smart enough to hand off to the right man in a certain area of the field.

So your man marking mendes all of a sudden he's playing as a striker which I've seen him do with is runs, even if we win the ball back, our winger is in the box defending him, so we have no options to counter attack.

They are just too fluid to man mark.

 

[Temptation]

I'd have loved to see Klopp's Prime Liverpool play against Pep's Prime Barca.

We were excellent defensively, pressed like animals and had a lot of pace.

And before people talk about the difference in quality in the midfields, remember that Klopp is the only manager who has consistently gone toe to toe with Pep playing attacking Football and has a better H2H record despite having weaker squads than Pep. Pep has always said Klopp is his toughest opponent ever.

Klopp's counterpressing system makes up for the lack of world class talent in his midfielders except Prime Fabinho, Coutinho, Thiago, Gundogan (all of which were easily world class talents at their best).

We rarely lost games in that period. @Birdy what do you think?

 

[JamDav1982]

PSG play nothing like Peps Barca.

They have two attacking full backs. No set DM pivot and attacking three that run away from ball and wide players that try to make pitch as big as possible and hit space.