Barcelona 4-0 Stuttgart: Guardiola’s alternative shape proves successful for the second time in four days
Fascinating that Pep Guardiola continued to use Barcelona’s ‘alternative’ system – the 4-2-4ish formation they played in the second half against Valencia at the weekend – to great effect. Zlatan Ibramimovic (banned for the weekend game) was available again, but Guardiola opted for Thierry Henry instead.
And behind Henry it was an identical line-up to the one which destroyed Valencia, with the exception of the fact that Carles Puyol returned from injury to replace Gabriel Milito in the centre of defence. Andres Iniesta held a high, wide-left position, with Messi starting in a deep-lying right-ish forward role, interchanging with Pedro Rodriguez who started at outside-right. With Xavi out, Sergio Busquets and Yaya Toure were the two central midfielders – Busquets in the ‘classic’ Barcelona holding role, looking to drop into the centre of the defence, with Toure playing a more offensive role, where he set-up the second goal for Pedro.
Stuttgart kept their familiar shape, a classic 4-4-2 that featured a solid, disciplined square of two central defenders and two deep central midfielders, and largely relied on the wide players to make forward runs. As in the first leg, Stuttgart’s main threat came from their full-backs and wingers playing quick passes with the central midfielders to get into crossing positions, but whereas the approach worked in the first game (where Stuttgart went ahead through a great cross from the right), tonight something was lacking. The crossing wasn’t bad, but the runs from the front two never seemed to match the idea of the cross.
Perhaps it’s easy to criticize Stuttgart for being too positive and playing two upfront. That is their usual shape, and they came to the Nou Camp knowing that if they didn’t score, they would go out. They did seem slightly overrun in midfield though, and it’s difficult to see how Christian Gross can justify having two forward players who effectively did little defensively. The front two’s only defensive job was to close down Puyol and Pique when Valdes had a goal kick, but surely one of them should have been assigned the role of dropping into midfield to pick up Busquets? Cacau sometimes did this, but it seemed an afterthought, rather than something Gross had instructed him to do at every opportunity.
So instead the focus has to be on the home side. At both ends of the pitch, Barcelona’s shape adapts and evolves when in possession to expand the pitch and to create space for their flair players. In defence, Busquets drops in as a centre-half to allow Pique and Puyol to spread the width of the pitch, allowing Maxwell and Alves to venture forward. The main effect of this is that is suddenly transfers a huge defensive responsibility onto the two opposition wide midfielders, in this case Trasch and Hleb. The former is capable of playing at full-back, but it pushed Hleb into an area he wasn’t comfortable in. And when Stuttgart’s only attacking threat was coming from the wings, as mentioned earlier, it meant it was very difficult for the wide players to track the Barcelona full-backs and then have the energy to attack them at pace. Hleb looked exhausted by the end of the game.
Upfront, the main movement was the combination of Pedro and Messi on the right-hand side. Pedro started wide, meaning Stuttgart’s Molinaro assumed he was the player he should be picking up. But then Pedro drifted inside, Molinaro tracked him into the centre, and this opened up spare for Messi on the right-hand flank, a key feature of the game against Valencia. Give Messi any kind of time on the ball and he will punish you, and he showed this tonight with his sublime first goal. We are surely getting to the point where Messi is going to have to be given the old-fashioned, traditional man-marking treatment. Yes, he will possibly get the better of his marker and yes, Barcelona have many other talents who can punish the opposition. But tonight Messi occasionally entered the Suttgart box unmarked after the opposition had been dragged out of position, which is unforgiveable, and asking for a Messi-inspired thrashing.
But this wasn’t a game won primarily by tactics. Gross’ tactics probably played into Barcelona’s hands, but it’s hard to imagine what he could have done tonight to come away from the Nou Camp still in the competition.
Barcelona 4-0 Stuttgart: Guardiola’s alternative shape proves successful for the second time in four days
Interesting to hear that Cacau and Pogrebnyak didn’t do much defensively, because their pressing was one of the key features of Stuttgart’s superb first-half performance in the first leg.
Yeah, they looked to close down the centre-backs when one of those two (or Valdes) had the ball, but then did little apart from that.
Perhaps Barca’s shift to a 3-3-4ish shape (when Busquets dropped in and the full-backs went forward) meant they simply weren’t really sure who they were supposed to be picking up…
Barça actually seemed to have some trouble holding onto the ball in the first half.
Without Xavi they weren’t quite as efficient as usual – but they still had 66% possession in the first half!
Yeah, the shape keeps evolving throughout the match. At one point it was the 3-3-1-3 and Maxwell and Alves push really high up. I have seen this variation many times. In the club WC finals they played this I think.
Marcelo Beilsa’s Chile play the same formation(3-3-1-3) in the WC, will be interesting to watch them play.
Yeah, that’s correct KV
Bielsa’s Chile do indeed play a 3-3-1-3 (or 3- diamond midfield – 3 if you prefer) in most games; sometimes switching to a 4-2-1-3 (depending on whether the excellent Gary Medel starts as right-back or as holding midfielder)in more difficult games.
Bielsa himself has called this the “sistema Van Gaal” in overture to the mid-90s Ajax side. For obvious reasons (Van Gaal’s tenure at Barca as well as the Cruyff legacy already there at the club), most Barcelona players- especially the youth academy graduates- are accustomed to switching between these formations, all with a decidedly Dutch player.
If there was a difference between Cruyff and Van Gaal’s systems it was understandably a concession to the increasing athletic demands from the latter. Both played three forwards, both played variations of with and without an ‘enganche’, both sometimes switched to three at the back but whereas Cruyff required his holding midfielder (Milla, then Guardiola, then later Xavi, Fabregas and other youths were No.4 in Cruyff’s terminology) to be a playmaker, Van Gaal preferred a more defensive player to hold, thus moving the Xavi/Fabregas figure slightly fourther ahead of the defensive mid to become a ‘6′. So by the time Rijkaard came along, it was more common to have a combative holding player (Cocu or Davids)behind two ball-players (Xavi and Deco/Iniesta) and yet without playing a No.10.in the hole.
It seems that Guardiola, like Van Gaal at Bayern or even Van Basten during his spell with the Dutch national team, can now afford the luxury of playing Messi as No.10 since he places two more defensive players behind him in the absence of Xavi. Van Basten did this with Engelaar and De Jong (or De Zeeuw)screening behind Sneijder or Van der Vaart, and so to does Van Gaal with a central pivot of Van Bommel – Schweinsteiger behind Muller.
It makes for a more aggressive and incisive variant on the 4-3-3. And of course, its 3-3-1-3 variant simply requires one of the full-backs (usually the more attacking one) to advance to a starting position alongside the two central midfielders (one of whom will shift slightly wider to the opposite side to form the diamond)
Excellent analysis Roberticus!
Re Barca/Ajax – interesting that Guardiola – the classic “4″ – favours the more “muscular” Kolo Toure in the role.
As I recall, at Ajax it was Rijkaard (then Fran deBoer) who played the defensive role in front of a back 3, and that they played so deep that it was debatable whether it was a back 4 with one stepping up into midfield or a back 3 with one dropping back.
There is a lot to be learned from the way Van Gaal set up his mid 90s Ajax side. I remember being intruiged at times how deep R deBoer dropped when starting at 9, creating acres of space for Overmars and Litmannen. An early “false 9″?
Have not seen this Cile side yet but I’m intrigued by the comments.
A+ post there Roberticus! Thanks for the reply.
When Abidal is playing, he would slot in as part of the back three. But now Maxwell advances as he is more attacking and the holding mid slots as the 3rd CB. When Xavi is playing, would you play him in the 2nd band of three or as ‘1′ in the hole? Messi seems to be the best suited for this role and if Xavi plays there the system becomes more of a 3-4-3.
I heard that wing backs don’t play for Chile and midfielders take their role instead in the second band of three. Don’t you think this formation makes Chile extremely vulnerable defensively? Especially down the channels and the wings, huge gaps of spaces are left. So you also need to compress space effectively.
Cheers!
Incredibly quick post.
Barça seemed to be a counterattacking team almost, untill Ibrahimovic came on and Iniesta moved into central midfield. They seemed to be missing Xavi while holding onto possession in the first half, perhaps a psychological factor since Xavi is the one they are always looking to hand the ball too.
Perhaps you can shed some light on why Barça often struggle against teams which hold a high defensive line when Ibra plays but the same absolutely changes when Henry starts in the centre. Henry, is at the moment not appreciably faster than Ibra but I am guessing it comes down to a difference in the approach of the 2 players.
Great play by Messi, Iniesta, Busquets and Pedro too. Credit to the effort put in by Henry which was crucial in opening up space for Messi and kept the Stuttgart defense constantly backpedalling. And Toure Yaya finally showed the drive which made him such a force to be reckoned with last season.
I think qwhile Henry has lost a yard or two of pace at the top end he is still lightning off the mark, while taller men like Ibra will always struggle to accelerate at anywhere near the pace of smaller players. Look at Usain Bolt, he never starts a race well but his top end is ridiculous.
On a football pitch acceleration is probably more important than top end as it will get you into space and ahead of your opposite. Whereas top end can help you to win a foot race, it’s much harder to do so when you need to run around someone who is ahead of you. Especially when they are actively trying to stop you from doing so.
Is Henry much smaller than Ibra? 1.88m to 1.92 isn’t that much of a height difference.
True, but Henry is a bit fragile to play in a target-man like role, where as Ibra is beefier..
Not fragile but less suited because of the way he plays and thinks.
To quote Cruyff on speed, “People always said I was so quick. But they missed the point. I wasn’t that quick, I just started my run a fraction of second earlier than my opponent. So I looked quick. It’s all in the eyes.”
Anticipation and decision making play a factor in “perceived” speed as much as acceleration.
Yup, Romario scores goals at 45.
[...] Barcelona 4-0 Stuttgart: Barcelona’s alternative shape proves successful for the second time i… Found this bit particularly interesting. Quote: [...]
It was interesting to see how Barcelona’s shape altered with their substitutions. It seemed that when Busquets was forced to come off Ibra was getting ready to replace someone else. I couldn’t quite tell if Toure was simply dropping into the space of Busquets, and Iniesta simply taking his. But it didn’t seem to phase Barca and didn’t cause them too many problems, as they weren’t in a rush to make another substitution. The next substitution was interesting too (Milito for Henry) as it seemed like it pushed Puyol up the pitch, perhaps to cover the area left by Busquets, and in essence making him a midfielder. Unusual but it worked. Wonder if you have any thoughts on this.
It seemed to me that Pique pushed up into defensive midfield role when milito came on. He also played in that position in the Catalunya Argentina friendly several months ago.
Yeah it was rather confusing wasn’t it?! The way I read it when Ibra came on was the same as you – but I thought when Milito came on, it was Pique who stepped up into the midfield role. Either way I’m not sure too much long-term effect will come from it, I think the game was won and Guardiola was just putting on players who he wanted to give a run-out, with the shape a second thought.
If I remember correct, Pique has played the defensive midfielder role well when he was on loan to Real Zaragoza
Cheers for that Mat, I didn’t know that. I can certainly imagine it, he’s excellent on the ball. Perhaps an option for Spain in the summer?
in extremis maybe, but surely Senna and Xabi Alonso are prime contenders for the defensive midfield slot?
I agree.. very little chance for Pique as a defensive mid.. Alonso and Senna rule that spot
BTW, interesting Henry started ahead of Ibra! What do you think is the reason behind that?
Guardiola: “Henry was selected because of his second-half in the Valencia game. To not play him would have been like punishing him.
Perhaps more suited to this fluid system? Or perhaps it was simply as Ibra was banned at the weekend for his petulant sending-off in the previous game. Maybe Pep didn’t want to put him straight back in the team after a 3-0 win – it would be saying to Ibra, ‘yeah, you do something stupid and walk back into the first team’. But Henry was very good at the weekend, so that’s probably the simplest explanation I suppose.
Edit: Sorry, just seen Ping’s comment – thanks for clearing that up. Good man management as usual from Pep.
Great article, thanks. I saw the game live, I forgot how much easier it is to see the tactics from the stands as opposed to TV. A striking thing to observe was the fluidity of the Barca system. They seemed to be constantly switching formations and it seemed that the rather rigid 4-4-2 of Stuttgart couldnt deal with this. Undoubtedly Xavi is a master midfielder, but sometimes I think his abscence has a positive. Without him they dont play through the centre of midfield as much but play quicker to either their forwards or their wide players. This results in a very dynamic attack which can quickly overpower a defense. They played without Xavi earlier in the season (either against Mallorca or Zaragoza)with a similar resultant thrashing. I am not saying Xavi should not be in the team but that a quicker distribution to their forwards or wide players is lethal.
Not much to add here from another brilliant article.
I thought in defence Stuttgart were brave playing such a high defensive line, but similarly they played very narrow. Almost willing the Messi/Pedro and Iniesta into the wide areas – I guess the further away from goal the further from danger. The article may have shed some light on this in that one full back was getting dragged in by Pedro leaving space for Messi to go wide – but in my opinion the centre-half and full-back would have vocally swapped players. The reason there was so much space was Stuttgart “willed” them out there!
Unfortunately seeing as Stuttgart were playing a counter-attacking game, when wide players were committed, Barca’s wingers were given that bit EXTRA space. Throw in the high defensive line and Messi or Pedro could run riot. They were given the space to control the ball down before running at the narrowly positioned full-back.
Perhaps Gross was willing them to get to the by-line and cross, but being Messi and to a lesser extent Pedro, they had the class to work clever inside passes – in fact a particular killer ball that continually worked was a 45 degree angled chip through ball into the space between full-back/centre-half. Case in point being the Pedro goal where Yaya’s burst into the space of the high-line allowed for a clever through ball.
So in essence, Gross’s defence was setup the keep the danger men as wide and as far away from the box as possible. While this narrows the chance of Messi et al doing damage, the problem is this is Messi we’re talking about!!
Take away that first moment of brilliance and I wonder if the game may have turned frustrating for Barca. Getting to half time at 0-0 would have been ideal for Stuttgart.
A high backline seems the defence of choice against Barça of late. Coaches seem to be figuring out that by pushing the defence up the field they restrict space for the Barça midfield and hence potentially stifle them.
Guardiola’s new formation seems a reaction to the same where he uses Henry so that there is always a realistic threat of breaking the offside trap while Iniesta and Pedro stretch them for width. This essentially makes the defence backpedal and keeping possession in midfield becomes easier. It also frees Messi who operates within the same zone of close attention before he recieves the ball.
Good observation KK. I think the presence of Etoo also used to force teams to defend deeper (the threat of breaking the offside trap as you say). It has taken Guardiola a little while to address this issue, but shows good thinking on his part.
I was wondering where this 4-2-4 flu is coming from:)
Very good article, even though you fall in the common mistake describing the tactical structure as 4-2-4.
If we want to use the “ish” term we can say it was closer to 4-2-3-1ish than 4-2-4ish. With Henry playing as a false 9 and Messi dictating the positioning fluidity of the offense based on his off the ball movements. You can even call it 4-1-4-1ish if we take in consideration that Yaya was closer to a box-to-box midfielder than a holding midfielder.
The difference is simple. When the team moves from defense stage to build up, it will be a 4-2-4 if two players open on the flanks and two players in the center bombing forward demanding the ball in the offense zone in front of the buildup operation zone. Which was not happening. Messi was not in front of the ball while setting offense, he was on the ball making the play. So as Iniesta, and Pedro. The player who was pushing the lines forward by demanding the ball in front was Henry. He forced Stuttgart defense to back before he drop deep again creating spaces for Messi and Co to penetrate.
In general it was a kind of fluid tactic that you can barely contain in numerical expression. But at least, lets not use a wrong expression.
Keep the good work!
In fairness I think the writer has always aluded to the fact that these days you can call many formations a number of things. 4-2-4 is no more valid than 4-2-3-1 or even 4-4-2 in last nights game. As you say in your last line, it’s impossible to class.. There is no right or wrong expression!
Agreed that it is impossible to class the tactical structure when it is as fluid, but I made my comment because I’ve read this 4-2-4 notation on many blogs recently, which exceeds being only a terminology, as it creates some confusion about the difference between Buildup stage and set offense. Tweaking the terminology a bit will not make it an exact science, but it tick more boxes that match the actual roles of the players on the field and who do what and when. That’s why I suggested more realistic options as there is no possibility for any team to play a 4-2-4 structure anymore in football. Unless if the intention is to get defeated. Which makes it an invalid term not only to describe a match, but to be used in modern football.
Saying so, I am aware that the writer is not taking the 4-2-4 as it means traditionally. But that’s where the confusion begins, Which I am trying to avoid.
I agree with your points Ramzi, although I still disagree with the notation – I’ll put up a piece about why later, as it would be a long-ish comment!
Notation can be tricky, can’t it! With some teams, some shapes more than others.
I mentioned it before, but the Brazil side of 1970, was it 4-2-4 or 4-3-3? Both or neither, due it to its assymetry unless Brazil were defending,in which case Mario Zagallo demanded that only Tostao stay up front..so was it 4-5-1 as Zagallo himself has described it? Some might argue that it took on a 4-2-3-1 shape whenever they lost possession.
The truth is, all teams now have two formations; one for when they are in possession – based on ‘average position’ and of course accounting for fluctuations within this, micro-movements, mechanisms like the full-backs pushing forward etc, and the other for transition to defending. In the latter case, all European sides and most top international teams adopt some variation of nine men behind the ball; it becomes a matter of configuring this based on the starting position and the individual characteristics of your players.
For instance, 4-3-1-2 can become 4-3-2-1; 4-3-3 can become 4-1-4-1 or 4-2-3-1. 4-2-3-1 itself can remain static as long as the bands stay close together. 4-4-2 can become 4-4-1-1, and so forth…
Messi is ready to take on his new role. With Eto no longer in the team, Ibra and Henry are playing too deep for messi to be effective on the wing. Thus hes playing as a free roaming second striker, which is doing him wonders. Let me Explain:
On the right wing…more often he gets the ball too wide and when he cuts in, he just ends up going leterlal and lateral with no angle to shoot. the past 2 games hes getting the ball on the right but not too wide so hes getting the angles he wants. When hes on the right wing also, defenders can easily double up and when they do that he cant even go lateral…he ends up dribbling sideways and a bit backwards until he is fouled.
With Alves and Pedro on right…left-backs stick with them…and the doubling on Messi then has to come from elsewhere, most likely a holding midfielder and a center back so the angle at which they come to him is easy for him to get loose from cuz no longer does he have the sideline as a third defender.
I like this plan B shape, only tihng I don’t like is how isolated Iniesta becomes playing so far from Messi.
When Busquets got injured they kept that same shape and Iniesta came back to midfield. He looked more himself in that role, but he is definitely not in the same form as he was last season.
Also when Milito came on, Pique pushed into the DM spot and they looked to be playing 4-3-3 again with Toure and Iniesta either side of him, but by that point the shape didn’t mean much the match was over.
Steve,
but do you not think that Iniesta has freedom to link up with Messi now? Messi is playing more centrally anyway with the obvious result that his starting position is now closer to Iniesta’s flank. Ok, he is not playing as centrally as he does when just left-of-centre mid ahead of Toure, but then again on those occassions when he was asked to play as a left-forward he was even more isolated. From what I could observe in the Valencia and Stuttgart games, Iniesta has greater licence to cut in diagonally onto his right-foot (with Maxwell overlapping him)than does Pedro, who has to hug the touchline and stay further up the pitch for the most part. At times, it seemd that Pedro would press right up against the opposing left-back and allow Alves to cut into the inside-right channel. Then Pedro would often move into the centre (alongside Henry); so at times it would become an assymetric 4-2-2-2 (although the back four would be dislocated at this stage); Busquets and Toure; Iniesta (left-of-centre) and Messi (in the centre); Henry and Pedro (furthest ahead).
Roberticus,
Judging by the last two matches Iniesta received many balls wide left with no one in sight to support him. In theory I think he has more license to roam infield with this new shape, but in neither of these matches has he been able to link up play from that left side effectively. Maybe he is just slightly off form. I hope he turns it around.
Great post and discussion. Gotta say that Messi is absolutely brilliant. I think Henry has been a lot more efficient up front, in comparison to Ibra, but Henry does also have more years at Barca under his belt. I think that as Ibra gets more accustomed to the Barca system (he was in a similar style playig for Ajax)he will become more dangerous.
Ibra’s movement off the ball is not quite there yet. I think that is the biggest problem with him, he only wants to come short into his feet or stand around in the CF spot, he doesn’t make enough angled runs.
@ KV
<>
Yeah KV, the thing is that some people say 3-3-1-3 cos basically the midfield adopts a diamond shape. Of course, those wider midfielders can indeed be wing-backs but I have noticed Bielsa mixing it by putting, say, a wing-back on one side whilst putting a box-to-box central midfielder like Mauricio Isla (of Udinese) on the other. But the point is that those wide-players, even if both of them are wing-backs, do not have to behave as typical wing-backs would in a flat midfield; not limiting themselves to raiding and defending up and down the flanks. They have more freedom to attack diagonally through the centre or move closer in support of the central players…and of course they also act as defensive cover behind the wingers (rather than leave the wide defender exposed).
I get what you mean. There are many variations!
At Barca, sometimes Alves plays as a wingback in the 3-3-1-3 and on the opposite side, someone like Keita or may be a Toure plays.
Australia at the 2006 WC played a 3-3-3-1 formation with two wingbacks. It was more of a conservative formation. The link:
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/19/teams-of-the-decade-18-australia-2006/
And then, I read in a Jonathan Wilson article that North Korea, which was largely isolated from the rest of world football, have developed a 3-3-3-1 formation. I hear they are more of a counter attacking team than a possession based one.
One important thing to be noted is that these two systems have slightly less attacking wingers and the one at Barca/Ajax involves playing forwards in the wings.
Do you know anything more about N.Korea or about any other teams who played with a similar shape?
[...] season, however, their shape has morphed into an assymetrical 4-3-3 that more closely resembles a 4-2-4. Messi has abandoned the right flank in order to occupy a roaming central role, from which [...]
Wow yeah thanks Roberticus, that’s terrific analysis. I’m looking forward to seeing the South American sides in action at the World Cup, I think they’re being underrated by the European media.
I don’t remember that Ajax side using attacking fullbacks though. I think Finidi George and Overmars would play deeper than any of Barca’s “wingers”
Thanks for the kind comments, Naka, ZM and KV.
I remember reading on Marcos Lopez’s site (he’s a qualified coach and passed through the youth academy of Valencia, if I’m not mistaken) an analysis of how he expected Guardiola to vary Barcelona’s build-up play entering this 2009-10 season. This was apparently necessitated by the way a few brave teams like Atletico the previous season adopted kamikaze pressing tactics to mirror Barca’s 2-3-2-3 breakdown when playing out from the back (the strikers pressing Pique and Puyol, the wide midfielders getting tight on Alves and Abidal and a midfielder hassling Toure/Busquets); the principle being that you should have at least one man over when playing the ball out from the back.
So Pep’s variant this season is, as KV points out, for the DM to drop between the centre backs (who pull out wide) and for the full-backs to advance, with one of the creative midfielders (typically Xavi) approaching this improvised back 3.
@ Roberticus, what you describe here sounds very similar to how ZM described Brazil’s tactic of dropping Gilberto to RB to form a 3-4-3.
I’ve thought for some time now that Arsenal could benefit from playing with some combination of 3 CB’s in a 3-4-3 with one (or even two) of them empowered to step up into midfield. Seems that they would have the right personnel for this with Vermaelen and/or Gallas moving up, and either Campbell or Silvestre staying put.
@ Space Ghost
“Roberticus, what you describe here sounds very similar to how ZM described Brazil’s tactic of dropping Gilberto to RB to form a 3-4-3.”
Yes, it~’s basically the same; and remember that Ireland were pressing with two strikers in that friendly, hence Gilberto dropping back to form a three-man line (which in practice arches out across the pitch) in order to provide numerical superiority and exhaust the Irish strikers in their exertions. I’ve seen Brazil do this in other games albeit with a variant, whereby Gilberto will slot into the central defensive position and Lucio will stretch out rightwards. Read Toure/Busquets for Gilberto and Pique for Lucio and you see the plan unfold: the full-backs can push back the opponents marking midfielders even into midfield (who won’t try press the FBs so early, lest they leave their own central midfield momentarilty outnumbered), and Lucio/Pique can now break out from the back-three line and carry the ball into midifeld, thereby surpassing the first line of pressing.
Bear in mind, that this more than any other phase of play, or average starting position, is only an isolated stage of build-up (the initial stage) so that we could hardly say that Brazil or Barça in doing so are effectively playing a 3-4-3/3-5-2 or whatever. It is still a back four, albeit one with a variation when it comes to carrying the ball out from the back, by which I mean that instead of the full-backs or even the DM doing this, one of the centre-backs comes out with the ball.
In terms of the 3-3-1-3, well this is different, since the holding player returns to the base of midfield and the back three largely remains an intact unit, with one of the FBs (Abidal) forming a line of 3 with the two CBs. In Barça´s case, I saw vs Estudiantes that Guardiola set it up like this:
Puyol, Pique, Abidal;
Alves, Busquets, Xavi (to answer your question KV, Xavi pushed out slightly left-of centre in a diamond, with Toure at the base, and Alves right of centre albeit with a greater tedency to surge wide as well as centrally); Messi; Pedro, Ibra, Henry.
As for this Barcelona formation, I’m suggesting that even in terms of average position, I don’t think it is quite 4-2-4 since Iniesta is playing deeper than Pedro is on the opposite wing; similar to how Rivelino for Brazil in 1970 played more withdrawn than Jairzinho. I think of effect of this is ensuring that the Toure – Busquets pairing (as with Gerson and Clodoaldo in 1970) would not be outmanned in the centre.
This comments section is becoming hard to read what with all the replies!
It’s a really interesting debate though, the kind of thing this site was set up to discuss, so I’ve done a new article about it here (linking to some of these comments, so they’re not wasted): http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/19/barcelona-4-2-4-formation-guardiola-messi/