Luis Enrique

alexjanosik wrote:Regarding the football,to each his own man.You may find the dilly dallying in midfield with 90 passes outdated and boring. I find it mesmerizing.
There are 3 ways to play the game and as long as we play any of those 3 ways I am fine.
First,there is the Johan Cruyff way to play the game.
Second,there is the Johan Cruyff way to play the game.
And last but not the least,there is the Johan Cruyff way to play the game.
Cruyffist through and through.

Meh. Playing long balls doesn't mean that he is ant Cruyff. In fact by the end of Guardiolas tenure, he was playing anti Cruyff stuff. Cruyffs teams always played the vertical pass, long or short when it was on and he hated horizontal passing. The only problem I have with Enrique is that the cms dont get involved at all and Messi is shouldering all the creative burden of the team.

Iniesta needs to be moved back into a media punta role. 0 triangles formed and there is no structure to the teams build up. If he wins it all I don't think anyone would care tbh. Who would you have had replace Tata out of curiousity?

Playing long balls in itself doesnt mean it is anti Cruyff.But just punting the ball forward and voluntarily ceding the initiative to the opposition is.
Horizontal passing is essential when the vertical pass isnt on.
When I say the Cruyff way to play the game,I dont necessarily mean that we play like Ajax of the 70's.I have watched them and know full well that there is difference in the way we play and they played.Differences due to the rule changes and just era differences.
I mean the fundamental principles should always be the same.
Namely,control space and the opponent,stretch the play with the ball and constrict space without it,triangle passing to move the ball forward,always look to control the ball and take the initiative no matter what etc
Football evolves.The Johan Cruyff way of the 70's evolved to the Johan Cruyff way of the 90's( when he was a manager).It then evolved to Van Gaal's interpretation of the Cruyff way.
And finally Pep came along and brought about the next evolution in the Johan Cruyff way of playing football.But the fundamental principles remain the same.
So you cant compare Ajax of the 70's,say they played long balls and conclude that Enrique playing hoofball equates to the Johan Cruyff way of playing the game.

Iniesta is not old. 30 is not old. Do you know when Xavi was 30? In 09/10, his best ever season. Xavi dominated a European Cup final even with 32. Iniesta's decline hasn't even started now with 30, it already started last season with 29, actually to be more precise in the 2nd half of 12/13. That should be the best age for a footballer, not time to decline due to age. See Xavi, Ronaldo, Robben etc. Here is a poll on Barcaforum discussing the issue:

http://www.barcaforum.com/showthread.php/11502-What-is-the-reason-for-Iniesta-s-recent-drop-in-form

- November 2013

I remember same excuses back then here. "Martino plays long balls."

alexjanosik wrote:Iniesta is a GOAT with or without Xavi.I know it and you know it so quit the trolling.Lets discuss the issue.
Are you denying that Enrique has Iniesta playing a role which is not at all suited to him?

Enrique's job is to win games, not play a system that makes Iniesta comfortable when Iniesta isn't even top 3 decisive player in the squad anymore, not even on potential. When you have Messi, Suarez, Neymar you play to their strengts and their strength is attacking quickly and directly. Not letting the opponent regroup until Iniesta has circulated the ball around, formed neat triangles and killed all transitions and then wondering why there is no way through 10 men behind the ball. Leave that to Pep and del Bosque to get humiliated in that fashion against any half decent counterattacking side, arrogantly positioning their backline around the center circle as if no quality opponent exists that can make you pay for that.

The system itself has showed it cracks already around 2010. Individual brilliance has carried the team from then on. Once opponents didn't want to compete for possession against Barca and just stayed in their zones with 2 close banks of 4, circulating the ball in midfield and trying to form triangles was pointless. See Barca vs. Chelsea 2009, Barca vs. Inter 2010, Barca vs. Mehdrid with Pepe in midfield 2011. Back then only those teams got their tactics spot on, in 2015 even Almeria is following that blueprint now. Even Pep tried to evolve from that. Getting direct Fabregas, playing with Cuenca (vs. Chelsea, Milan) and Tello (title deciding Clasico) to get more width, 3 man backline. And when he failed and won no trophies he quit because he said he had no ideas anymore. Which was the right thing to do. Inexcusable to waste a 2-0 lead at home against 10 men Di Matteo Chelsea because he had to keep his backline high up the pitch and concede a counterattacking goal with that scoreline instead of being pragmatic for once.

Also to make something clear. We have only played "hoofball" in 1 specific circumstance. A totally ridiculous pitch away from home where it's pointless to try and build methodically from the back against maniacs pressing high up the pitch. We have played completely differently in the home fixture. We adapted to the circumstances rather than playing like this all the time. In fact the avg. possession number from Tata football has gone up from 63 % last season to 70 % this season. Let's not pretend we're playing Mourinhoball now.

futbol
The spinmaster
Trying to convince me that Messi's strength lies in playing quickly and directly.
I suppose I must have imagined him excelling when we played the slow intricate patient passing football all these years.

On a more serious note,the issue isnt that we play intricate passing football against PTB teams.
I can cite games when we played our way against PTB teams and still won.Like against Milan.
Hell,even that Chelsea game you mentioned,we should have won.And we would have won it playing our way.
The problem was that we had stopped pressing and the false nine system doesnt work against PTB teams.We needed a good number 9 and we needed relentless pressing.None of which is possible with Messi playing central.
Against PTB teams,we can win playing our way.But we need a real 9 upfront who will provide a reference upfront(allowing us to play in between the lines).The 9 needs to offer constant movement and also press like a maniac.We now have that 9 in Suarez.We also need to win the ball back as soon as we lose it.And we need to move the ball quickly yet patiently stretching the defense as much as possible.
If we do all those things,no reason why we cant beat PTB teams playing our way.

I have to give it to Fusball, he's almost as logical poster as I am. Time's like these really bring the worst "fans" out of the woodwork. Mad critiquing of winning, not losing, there's your top fan.

Enrique playing counter attacking, barca killing it, MNS killing it, pretty much have the cdr in the bag, in the CL, and a point adrift of the best madrid in 15 yrs, on a 7 game winning streak, the defence killing it, goal-keepers killing it all at an expense, That iniesta is sacrificed for barca to play to their strenghts? Well, even cruyff would take that any day.
So with all these on offer at a little token of a passed it iniesta, the question should be,...
What more do u want?

alexjanosik wrote:futbol
The spinmaster
Trying to convince me that Messi's strength lies in playing quickly and directly.
I suppose I must have imagined him excelling when we played the slow intricate patient passing football all these years.

Messi is the exception, he can do everything. Neymar and Suarez however have their strengths elsewhere. Suarez' touch is very erratic in congested spaces, he has already complained after about 5 games that he had more space in England.

Needless to say Rakitic also has his strengths elsewhere and not methodical passing. So at best it's Iniesta and Busquets vs. the rest.

Bankz wrote:Enrique playing counter attacking, barca killing it, MNS killing it, pretty much have the cdr in the bag, in the CL, and a point adrift of the best madrid in 15 yrs, on a 7 game winning streak, the defence killing it, goal-keepers killing it all at an expense, That iniesta is sacrificed for barca to play to their strenghts? Well, even cruyff would take that any day.
So with all these on offer at a little token of a passed it iniesta, the question should be,...
What more do u want?

It's not even that Barca is playing pure counterattack now. 70 % possession on average. Top in Europe, absolutely equal with Pep's Bayern yet nowhere near as susceptible to counterattacks. There is just certain situations where we can also utilize direct attacks now. Just check this goal ...



... and imagine what would have happened with "Cruyff football". Pedro would have been on the wing. He would have passed it backwards or sideways. Midfield would have circulated the ball until Atletico reorganized and gotten 10 men behind the ball. At some point Messi would have dropped to midfield to get on the ball and advance play with 3 defenders on his ass.

alexjanosik praises Brendan Rodgers to heavens yet Rodgers didn't play methodical football with Liverpool to get the best out of Suarez. They played very direct. Swansea and Southampton held more possession than Liverpool last season. Liverpool 5 - Arsenal 1 = Liverpool 44 % possession. But a slight bit of directness in Barca's play and Lucho is clueless because Iniesta is past it. Get outta here with DAT double standard extemism.

alexjanosik wrote:Playing long balls in itself doesnt mean it is anti Cruyff.But just punting the ball forward and voluntarily ceding the initiative to the opposition is.
Horizontal passing is essential when the vertical pass isnt on.
When I say the Cruyff way to play the game,I dont necessarily mean that we play like Ajax of the 70's.I have watched them and know full well that there is difference in the way we play and they played.Differences due to the rule changes and just era differences.
I mean the fundamental principles should always be the same.
Namely,control space and the opponent,stretch the play with the ball and constrict space without it,triangle passing to move the ball forward,always look to control the ball and take the initiative no matter what etc
Football evolves.The Johan Cruyff way of the 70's evolved to the Johan Cruyff way of the 90's( when he was a manager).It then evolved to Van Gaal's interpretation of the Cruyff way.
And finally Pep came along and brought about the next evolution in the Johan Cruyff way of playing football.But the fundamental principles remain the same.
So you cant compare Ajax of the 70's,say they played long balls and conclude that Enrique playing hoofball equates to the Johan Cruyff way of playing the game.

I wasn't refering to the 70s. That was Michels blueprint. I was referring to Cruijffs Ajax that he coached and Barcelona's dream team. If anything Guardiola became more and more like van Gaal and less and less like Cruijff.  I agree with the triangles but you are forgetting Barcelona had one Pep Guardiola who always played/attempted to play long balls bypassing the mf all of the time. I don't think it is anyones intention to ever lose the ball when playing long balls. From watching his Ajax team and his Barcelona team his ideals for me are play vertical pass everytime it is on, make the pitch smaller when without the ball, expand the pitch when without it, numerical superiority in mf and never using the side backs in the build up play, using width and always having a triangle, moving the ball quick enough to create one on ones.

The triangles I can agree with because I feel that the team doesn't have enough in the mf, but Enrique has given the team to the forwards, which is fair enough. Messi, Neymar and Suarez operate best when they are one on one so it makes sense to always try and get them one on one with the defence whenever possible. The fact is that even in Barcelonas prime, teams just put blocks to frustrate them and sometimes shifting the ball quickly to the forwards is the best way. In fact, Peps Barcelona played more in line with Cruyffs ideals in 08/09 and that team was direct as hell, when Xavi didn't have through ballitis. So in your opinion did Rijkaard play Cruyff football? The way Barcelona are playing now, you can't have it both ways, the mf is not athletic enough to prevent counters, which is what Enrique seems to be working towards. So would you rather they play the 'cruyffian way' and win nothing or carry on playing this way and be in a shout for trophies?

Who would you want as Barcelona's coach?

Fußball wrote:Iniesta is not old. 30 is not old. Do you know when Xavi was 30? In 09/10, his best ever season. Xavi dominated a European Cup final even with 32. Iniesta's decline hasn't even started now with 30, it already started last season with 29, actually to be more precise in the 2nd half of 12/13. That should be the best age for a footballer, not time to decline due to age. See Xavi, Ronaldo, Robben etc. Here is a poll on Barcaforum discussing the issue:

http://www.barcaforum.com/showthread.php/11502-What-is-the-reason-for-Iniesta-s-recent-drop-in-form

- November 2013

I remember same excuses back then here. "Martino plays long balls."

alexjanosik wrote:Iniesta is a GOAT with or without Xavi.I know it and you know it so quit the trolling.Lets discuss the issue.
Are you denying that Enrique has Iniesta playing a role which is not at all suited to him?

Enrique's job is to win games, not play a system that makes Iniesta comfortable when Iniesta isn't even top 3 decisive player in the squad anymore, not even on potential. When you have Messi, Suarez, Neymar you play to their strengts and their strength is attacking quickly and directly. Not letting the opponent regroup until Iniesta has circulated the ball around, formed neat triangles and killed all transitions and then wondering why there is no way through 10 men behind the ball. Leave that to Pep and del Bosque to get humiliated in that fashion against any half decent counterattacking side, arrogantly positioning their backline around the center circle as if no quality opponent exists that can make you pay for that.

The system itself has showed it cracks already around 2010. Individual brilliance has carried the team from then on. Once opponents didn't want to compete for possession against Barca and just stayed in their zones with 2 close banks of 4, circulating the ball in midfield and trying to form triangles was pointless. See Barca vs. Chelsea 2009, Barca vs. Inter 2010, Barca vs. Mehdrid with Pepe in midfield 2011. Back then only those teams got their tactics spot on, in 2015 even Almeria is following that blueprint now. Even Pep tried to evolve from that. Getting direct Fabregas, playing with Cuenca (vs. Chelsea, Milan) and Tello (title deciding Clasico) to get more width, 3 man backline. And when he failed and won no trophies he quit because he said he had no ideas anymore. Which was the right thing to do. Inexcusable to waste a 2-0 lead at home against 10 men Di Matteo Chelsea because he had to keep his backline high up the pitch and concede a counterattacking goal with that scoreline instead of being pragmatic for once.

best post

Harmonica wrote:Mad critiquing of winning, not losing, there's your top analysts.

corrected

jibers wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:Playing long balls in itself doesnt mean it is anti Cruyff.But just punting the ball forward and voluntarily ceding the initiative to the opposition is.
Horizontal passing is essential when the vertical pass isnt on.
When I say the Cruyff way to play the game,I dont necessarily mean that we play like Ajax of the 70's.I have watched them and know full well that there is difference in the way we play and they played.Differences due to the rule changes and just era differences.
I mean the fundamental principles should always be the same.
Namely,control space and the opponent,stretch the play with the ball and constrict space without it,triangle passing to move the ball forward,always look to control the ball and take the initiative no matter what etc
Football evolves.The Johan Cruyff way of the 70's evolved to the Johan Cruyff way of the 90's( when he was a manager).It then evolved to Van Gaal's interpretation of the Cruyff way.
And finally Pep came along and brought about the next evolution in the Johan Cruyff way of playing football.But the fundamental principles remain the same.
So you cant compare Ajax of the 70's,say they played long balls and conclude that Enrique playing hoofball equates to the Johan Cruyff way of playing the game.

I wasn't refering to the 70s. That was Michels blueprint. I was referring to Cruijffs Ajax that he coached and Barcelona's dream team. If anything Guardiola became more and more like van Gaal and less and less like Cruijff.  I agree with the triangles but you are forgetting Barcelona had one Pep Guardiola who always played/attempted to play long balls bypassing the mf all of the time. I don't think it is anyones intention to ever lose the ball when playing long balls. From watching his Ajax team and his Barcelona team his ideals for me are play vertical pass everytime it is on, make the pitch smaller when without the ball, expand the pitch when without it, numerical superiority in mf and never using the side backs in the build up play, using width and always having a triangle, moving the ball quick enough to create one on ones.

The triangles I can agree with because I feel that the team doesn't have enough in the mf, but Enrique has given the team to the forwards, which is fair enough. Messi, Neymar and Suarez operate best when they are one on one so it makes sense to always try and get them one on one with the defence whenever possible. The fact is that even in Barcelonas prime, teams just put blocks to frustrate them and sometimes shifting the ball quickly to the forwards is the best way. In fact, Peps Barcelona played more in line with Cruyffs ideals in 08/09 and that team was direct as hell, when Xavi didn't have through ballitis. So in your opinion did Rijkaard play Cruyff football? The way Barcelona are playing now, you can't have it both ways, the mf is not athletic enough to prevent counters, which is what Enrique seems to be working towards. So would you rather they play the 'cruyffian way' and win nothing or carry on playing this way and be in a shout for trophies?

Who would you want as Barcelona's coach?

You are basically saying what I am saying man.You mention the same basic tenets of Cruyffian football that I mentioned and Enrique does none of it.
Regarding my choice of coach,possibly Rodgers or De Boer.

So let me ask you guys this, regarding our current form of goodness

How much are you pinning that on Enrique getting "it right" regarding who he is picking to start and his tactics that he is installing into the team, and how much of it are you putting on our best players (our front 3 and a resurgence of Pique lately) playing up to there world class level?

The way our players look motivated and hungry (mind you this new Messi resurgence, his change ironically came after/around the ballon d'or ceremony and him getting a new trainer), do you think it's Lucho's tactics or Messi playing out of his mind because he finally realized what it takes to play to his top level = everyone around him is getting better because of it.

form comes and goes it's only a matter of time till messi has a bad game or neymar does

but it's also a matter of time till suarez / rakitic / iniesta start playing better.

pique/mascherano/buscuit and our keepers have been in what i call normal form, yes they can dip but they can play better as-well.

we do not depend only on messi or xavi though which is a big plus compared to last year.

I was very dissapointed with Luis Enrique for a while. However, I'm seeing a quality in him I didn't expect from someone known to be so stubborn: He seems to learn from his mistakes.

After the Madrid and Celta debacles, he seems to have finally realized that Xavi is completely past it and that in important games he needs to line up the better players. He has also finally managed to decide which are the 11 best players in the team, and thats good although I disagree with Mascherano being played as CB instead of Bartra and with Busquets being played as DM instead of Mascherano (busquets is lion food right now). He also has realized that Mathieu is rubbish.

He is also a manager with surprisingly good tactical alternatives and outstading in set piece strategy, which I didn't expect either.

The team is running a lot, even Messi, and we were able to almost match Atletico in intensity, which was the key to winning them as we are a better team. If we match their intensity, we should win.
All that seems to be missing is a bit more consistency and to finally drop Mascherano as CB and Bravo for Ter Stegen and we could be ahead of a good season.

At this point, our season is almost guaranted to be better than last season, with a title in hand. Let's hope we can also clinch the league or the Champions, feats that don't seem impossible now that we can win the great rivals (Psg once and Atletico thrice!).

Fss. Making Pique score goals, fss.

Scrubrique handing the league on a platter to Mehdrid
It is inexcusable to lose against scrubs at home with this team.
Still maintain that Tata was better than this fraud.
If by some miracle,we still end up winning the league,it will be because Mehdrid messed up.
If we win something this season,it will be inspite of Fraudrique and not because of him.

I don't see how you can put the blame on Enrique on this one. If you insist on scapegoating someone, bump Alves' thread.

Yes,Alves made a mistake but we still should be putting 2 past Malaga at home.
Forget this game.What about the other games we have dropped points against scrubs?
Guy looks clueless tactically.
Thats what happens when your stock strategy is:Let the midfielders cover the fullbacks and leave the attacking to the 3 GOATS and the fullbacks.When it doesnt work,the team looks clueless.Scrubrique doesnt have a clue how to change things up.

Will only keep his job if we win the treble. Every new presidential candidate will promise a shiny new toy, and since we can't sign players the manager will be it.

I don't have a clue what Iniesta does on the pitch. Get Pedro on the wing and Messi in central attacking mid and we're going to be a much better team. Replace Alves with Bartra as well while we're at it.

alexjanosik wrote:Yes,Alves made a mistake but we still should be putting 2 past Malaga at home.
Forget this game.What about the other games we have dropped points against scrubs?
Guy looks clueless tactically.
Thats what happens when your stock strategy is:Let the midfielders cover the fullbacks and leave the attacking to the 3 GOATS and the fullbacks.When it doesnt work,the team looks clueless.Scrubrique doesnt have a clue how to change things up.

What would you have changed tactically in that game?

I don't think I would have done tactically anything different but I felt that the team was playing this match but already thinking about the City match. LE needs to properly motivate the players (and himself) against the "scrubs".

if LE is going for this more direct system he could try a 4-2-3-1 Busquets/Mascherano-Rakitic in the pivot.