Funny how Barcelona 2014/15 wasn't the best Barcelona ever, but had the best UCL run
- Thread starter matbezlima
- Start date
bismp
Well-known member
This is an interesting question.
I think the consensus is that 2010/11 (while on paper weaker) was an upgraded version of 2008/09. Of course both of them had iconic games (2-6 and 5-0 come to mind), but I feel that 2008/09 team:
1)struggled more at times (of course the infamous CL semifinal clash vs. a very tough Chelsea team)
2)had it "easier", as the opponents had not yet adapted to our playstyle like in 2010/11 and especially 2011/12 and 2012/13. For example, if you watch the highlights of the 2-6 game, Messi/Xavi/Iniesta ran wild in the midfield with acres of space. This would be unthinkable in big games, even in 2009/10 onwards.
In the end, the 2010/11 felt more dominant or inevitable compared to 2008/09. Pep's tactics were more refined. Messi of course had matured into the false 9 role and while his 2008/09 version was Ballon D'Or worthy, the 2010/11 version is probably the best player of all time. Iniesta was also better etc.
Of course, you have to put each season into context: 2008/09 won the treble, but domestically they faced a rather underwhelming opposition. Real Madrid were mediocre for their standards and the rest were no match for them. In 2010/11 Real under Mourinho were far better and would be probably considered one of the best teams of all time if they had not had to face us. Therefore, the loss of CdR in the final can not be considered a big failure in comparison. However, an important more nuanced point is, that 2010/11 peaked during the first half of the season, which includes the 5-0 game and obviously many other thrashings. In spring, it felt like the team was one step less sharp, while still being well above the opposition.
In the UCL however, it is a different story. Obviously here, the luck on the draw plays a huge role. And while 2010/11 did feel inevitable, there is no doubt that they had a rather easy road to the title. Addressing the discussion of the first pages of the thread, Arsenal in 2010/11 was a decent team and probably a fairly tough opposition for the R16, but that's about it. On the other hand, Shakhtar in the QF is undoubtedly a historically easy opponent. Then Real Madrid in the SF was the only real challenge. And while IMO they can definitely be compared to many other great teams that we had to face in the semis, they are still obviously not the greatest Real team of the last decades, they are not even the best version of that era (2011/12). Finally, United in the final was some decent opposition, but they tend to get overrated at times. Sure, they won the PL that year and were in the middle of a very decent post-CR domestic run, but compared to other finalists? They are rather average.
On the other hand, 2008/09 also had a relatively easy path to the semis, then they faced (and barely got through) Chelsea in the SF and then had to face prime United in the final. And while we did not dominate in the final like in 2010/11, it has to be said, that the 2008/09 United team is probably on of the BEST teams to lose the UCL final. And mind you, if they had won, they would be the first team to win back-to-back (until Zidane's Real eventually did it...). IMO the only UCL finalists that can be compared to them in recent memory are 2004/05 AC Milan. Why do I say all that? Because, while I do think that the 2010/11 was the peak of Pep's Barca, we do not know how things would be if they had to face a parked bus like 2009/10 Inter...
Where does 2014/15 comes into the mix? The only "sin" of the team is arguably that they played more like a "conventional" team and did not play "total football" like Cruyff or Pep. Other than that? Arguably the best attacking trio in history. Messi was more mature and complete than 2010/11, albeit maybe less "one man show". A much harder opposition domestically: Real Madrid in the middle of an insane 5 year run, prime Atletico. And finally, on paper, one of the hardest UCL runs in recent history.
If you put 2014/15 in the 2010/11 timeline they probably win the treble, or at least the double. Same in 2008/09. On the other hand, if you put 2010/11 in 2014/15, I am not entirely sure that they win the treble. Not necessarily because they were worse, rather than because of the much harder opposition. If you think about it, the level of opposition in the whole Europe war rather mediocre in 2010/11 comparatively:
Chelsea? Good, but on the way down, definitely worse than the previous seasons
City? Barely starting their oil-journey
Arsenal? Decent but far worse than the mid 2000s
Liverpool? Historically low, much worse than the mid-to-late 2000s
United? Decent but aging, worse than the 2000s
PSG? Not even bought by the Saudis yet
Bayern? Won the domestic double the season before and reached the UCL final but went on to lose back-to-back Bundesligas
BVB? Had not reached their final form yet
AC Milan? Decent but mostly a mix of aging stars, nowhere near to their 2000s level
Inter Milan? Collapsed after Mou left
Juventus? Not dominant yet, still trying to recover from Calciopoli
Atletico? Nowhere near their mid-2010s level, noticeably worse even compared to the Falcao team a couple of seasons after that
Real? As I said, great team, but not even the best version under Mourinho
I think the consensus is that 2010/11 (while on paper weaker) was an upgraded version of 2008/09. Of course both of them had iconic games (2-6 and 5-0 come to mind), but I feel that 2008/09 team:
1)struggled more at times (of course the infamous CL semifinal clash vs. a very tough Chelsea team)
2)had it "easier", as the opponents had not yet adapted to our playstyle like in 2010/11 and especially 2011/12 and 2012/13. For example, if you watch the highlights of the 2-6 game, Messi/Xavi/Iniesta ran wild in the midfield with acres of space. This would be unthinkable in big games, even in 2009/10 onwards.
In the end, the 2010/11 felt more dominant or inevitable compared to 2008/09. Pep's tactics were more refined. Messi of course had matured into the false 9 role and while his 2008/09 version was Ballon D'Or worthy, the 2010/11 version is probably the best player of all time. Iniesta was also better etc.
Of course, you have to put each season into context: 2008/09 won the treble, but domestically they faced a rather underwhelming opposition. Real Madrid were mediocre for their standards and the rest were no match for them. In 2010/11 Real under Mourinho were far better and would be probably considered one of the best teams of all time if they had not had to face us. Therefore, the loss of CdR in the final can not be considered a big failure in comparison. However, an important more nuanced point is, that 2010/11 peaked during the first half of the season, which includes the 5-0 game and obviously many other thrashings. In spring, it felt like the team was one step less sharp, while still being well above the opposition.
In the UCL however, it is a different story. Obviously here, the luck on the draw plays a huge role. And while 2010/11 did feel inevitable, there is no doubt that they had a rather easy road to the title. Addressing the discussion of the first pages of the thread, Arsenal in 2010/11 was a decent team and probably a fairly tough opposition for the R16, but that's about it. On the other hand, Shakhtar in the QF is undoubtedly a historically easy opponent. Then Real Madrid in the SF was the only real challenge. And while IMO they can definitely be compared to many other great teams that we had to face in the semis, they are still obviously not the greatest Real team of the last decades, they are not even the best version of that era (2011/12). Finally, United in the final was some decent opposition, but they tend to get overrated at times. Sure, they won the PL that year and were in the middle of a very decent post-CR domestic run, but compared to other finalists? They are rather average.
On the other hand, 2008/09 also had a relatively easy path to the semis, then they faced (and barely got through) Chelsea in the SF and then had to face prime United in the final. And while we did not dominate in the final like in 2010/11, it has to be said, that the 2008/09 United team is probably on of the BEST teams to lose the UCL final. And mind you, if they had won, they would be the first team to win back-to-back (until Zidane's Real eventually did it...). IMO the only UCL finalists that can be compared to them in recent memory are 2004/05 AC Milan. Why do I say all that? Because, while I do think that the 2010/11 was the peak of Pep's Barca, we do not know how things would be if they had to face a parked bus like 2009/10 Inter...
Where does 2014/15 comes into the mix? The only "sin" of the team is arguably that they played more like a "conventional" team and did not play "total football" like Cruyff or Pep. Other than that? Arguably the best attacking trio in history. Messi was more mature and complete than 2010/11, albeit maybe less "one man show". A much harder opposition domestically: Real Madrid in the middle of an insane 5 year run, prime Atletico. And finally, on paper, one of the hardest UCL runs in recent history.
If you put 2014/15 in the 2010/11 timeline they probably win the treble, or at least the double. Same in 2008/09. On the other hand, if you put 2010/11 in 2014/15, I am not entirely sure that they win the treble. Not necessarily because they were worse, rather than because of the much harder opposition. If you think about it, the level of opposition in the whole Europe war rather mediocre in 2010/11 comparatively:
Chelsea? Good, but on the way down, definitely worse than the previous seasons
City? Barely starting their oil-journey
Arsenal? Decent but far worse than the mid 2000s
Liverpool? Historically low, much worse than the mid-to-late 2000s
United? Decent but aging, worse than the 2000s
PSG? Not even bought by the Saudis yet
Bayern? Won the domestic double the season before and reached the UCL final but went on to lose back-to-back Bundesligas
BVB? Had not reached their final form yet
AC Milan? Decent but mostly a mix of aging stars, nowhere near to their 2000s level
Inter Milan? Collapsed after Mou left
Juventus? Not dominant yet, still trying to recover from Calciopoli
Atletico? Nowhere near their mid-2010s level, noticeably worse even compared to the Falcao team a couple of seasons after that
Real? As I said, great team, but not even the best version under Mourinho
Last edited:
Home of Barca Fans
