Teams of the Decade #2: Barcelona, 2008/09
What more can you say about this Barcelona side? European champions, La Liga champions and Copa Del Rey winners, all in the first season under the charge of Pep Guardiola. And they didn’t do it by merely winning games, they did it by winning in style, making them perhaps the most universally respected side of the decade.
The most astonishing thing about their La Liga performance was how utterly convincing they were in defeating the sides around them at the top of the table. Real Madrid (2nd) were beaten 6-2, Sevilla (3rd) were beaten 4-0, Atletico (4th) were beaten 6-1, Valencia (6th) were beaten 4-0, Deportivo (7th) were beaten 5-0, Malaga (8th) were beaten 6-0. That is dominance on an unprecedented fashion – only 5th-placed Villarreal were spared a thrashing. These high-scoring victories resulted in the front three of Lionel Messi, Thierry Henry and Samuel Eto’o netting 100 goals between them throughout the season.
Their run to the Champions League final was slightly less assured – in truth, Guardiola was outwitted by Guus Hiddink in the semi-final, and Chelsea really should have won the tie. But their performance against Manchester United in the final was superb – after withstanding ten minutes of pressure when United characteristically came out of the blocks quickly, they went ahead through Eto’o and then dominated the rest of the game.
Tactically, Barca generally stuck to a 4-3-3 shape throughout the season, playing high up the pitch and pressing from the front. Henry stayed wide on the left, with Messi having more license to come in off the right wing, knowing that the energetic Dani Alves would be providing width. In midfield, Iniesta played furthest forward, Xavi was the calm, methodical ‘link’, whilst Yaya Toure sat deep infront of the centre-backs.
Of course, there were further subtleties to the system, both in defence and attack. Upfront, it was not unusual for Guardiola to switch the positions of Eto’o and Messi, especially late in the season. But with Messi a tricky playmaker and Eto’o a natural striker, the formation altered significantly. Messi played in a false nine position, whilst Eto’o played high up the pitch on the flank, with he and Henry significantly more advanced than Messi, but troubling the full-backs rather than the centre-backs. What formation did this create? A version of Roma’s strikerless shape? A 4-3-1-2? Either way it caused problems for the opposition in a similar way to that Roma 4-6-0, although it focussed upon pressuring high up the pitch, rather than breaking from deep.
The alternative shape was tried against Chelsea in the semi-final to little effect, but caused Manchester United real problems – Eto’o opened the scoring from a wide right position, Messi sealed the victory from a centre-forward position, and Barcelona dominated possession.
At the back, the most notable feature was how willing the two centre-backs were to spread to the flank when Barcelona were in possession (particularly when Victor Valdes had the ball), making sure the pitch was as wide as possible. The gap in the centre of the defence was covered by Yaya Toure dropping into a centre-back role to create a temporary three-man defence, giving the full-backs license to go forward, in a similar fashion to the current Brazil side.
This meant that Barcelona were flexible both in defence and attack, whilst possessing perhaps the two best ball-playing midfielders around in Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta. They won every competition they entered – and all this after an opening day defeat to Numancia.
The 2-6 win at the Bernabeu in early May was the season-defining victory – two for Henry, two for Messi, but Xavi was the star of the show, running the midfield and having a hand in almost every Barcelona goal:
Their Champions League final victory was also wonderful. Note the goals coming from Eto’o and Messi being in each other’s positions, which caused the United backline a lot of problems. How ironic that before the game, the “Best Player in the World” debate was Cristiano Ronaldo v Lionel Messi – with many pundits giving Ronaldo the edge because of his superior heading ability. And then, up pops Messi to settle that argument, and settle the game.
For the moment that will be remembered forever though, it was this Andres Iniesta goal in the semi-final.
Teams of the Decade #2: Barcelona, 2008/09
Iniesta’s goal still makes me grin like an idiot every time I see it.
Even better is Andy Gray’s reaction. He’s sickened by it. Is it “oh no” he says? Likewise in the footage of the final, he finds it so hard to praise Barca.
Absolutely spot on about how Barcelona represent what is good about football. Compare the petulance of Christiano Ronaldo with the quieter, more humble Lionel Messi. Look at how many of their players come through the academy (not to mention the one that got away, Cesc Fabregas), and compare that with the millions that the likes of Chelsea have spent (John Terry aside). Sure, Barca have spent money on players like Zlatan, but the core of the club is very much home-grown.
This Barcelona team play terrific football. That they do so in the right spirit and the way the game should be played is credit to them.
Oh, give it a rest with the whole “Barcelona/Messi are everything right with football.” It’s such sanctimonious blather. The “quieter, more humble” Messi is also the player who deliberately punched the ball into the net to secure the title a few years back. When you can find an example of Ronaldo cheating so blatantly, then you can peddle the popular line about Messi and all that.
And someone else made the point later, but to not acknowledge the advantage Barca has over any English club in terms of where they can recruit youth players from is to ignore that the Spanish and English clubs compete on vastly different terms when it comes to developing youth players.
Why do so many people get sucked into media-driven simplicities?
The anti-Barca backlash is even more tiresome than the “media-driven simplicities” you complain of.
I think you’re missing the point about the youth players. The point is that Barcelona have a team largely made up of players they’ve trained themselves from a relatively young age – Chelsea’s entire first XI were expensive Abramovich-funded signings, with the exception of their ghastly captain and Lampard (who cost £10m+ anyway). Regardless of how the differing situations about recruiting players, it’s bizarre to deny that Barcelona are an inherently more likeable side than Chelsea on that basis.
Quite how it’s a “media-driven simplicity” I’m not sure – though I suppose some will always want to seem alternative by complaining about any opinion that is widely-held, and blame the media for it.
Fair enough, but I’m not anti-Barca in any way – I think they play wonderful football, Andres Inesta is one of my favorite players in the game today, and they fully deserve to be held up as one of the greatest club sides of the last decade. But what did I say that was false? I don’t see how it’s anti-Barca to simply point out a few facts that are often glossed over.
My problem is with the static storyline that has been driven by the media over the last few years without looking at all the circumstances. Stereotypes are based in reality, and I won’t deny all that is great about Barcelona, but it ignores a lot of facts that get in the way of the idea that Barcelona are this plucky little club that’s gone about becoming this juggernaut by developing local players exclusively. Alves and Ibra alone cost somewhere around 80m pounds.
Maybe, being an Manchester United supporter, I’m biased as well, but I’m also tired of the whole Messi/Ronaldo debate as some clash between the forces of good/evil. They’re both fantastic players, neither of them are saints, and an intelligent case can be made for either of them being the best in the world. We get it, the Brits don’t like Ronaldo – he’s foreign and played for United and since we all see most of the games he plays, it’s easy to point at this dive or that complaint to the referee and go from there. But the majority of the people commentating on this don’t watch Messi except on packaged highlights, so they miss all the same things.
I ask you as an Arsenal fan, are you fine with Arsenal being “light-weight” and not “mentally tough?”
There are many more instances of “Ronaldo cheating so blatantly” than there are of Messi. We have all seen Ronaldo diving countless times (I have seen him doing so at first hand, with the nearest defender a couple of yards away…how he got away with it I’ll never know), and rolling about like he’s been shot. Look on youtube. Or google “Ronaldo cheat”. There are countless results.
My initial point about petulance stands though. Consider the amount of times Ronaldo screams at referees, brandishing imaginary cards. Cast your minds back to Ballack, Drogba and Terry hounding referees when things don’t go your way, or Ashley Cole turning his back when receiving a yellow card against Spurs (for a tackle which by itself could easily have been a red).
Messi is no saint – I’ve never said that he is – but his general behaviour on and off the pitch is exemplary when compared to that of the likes of Ronaldo and many Chelsea players. I think this is a large part of Barcelona’s appeal, especially in the UK. It is rare that UK teams a) play a large proportion of players from their academy; b) play delightful football; and c) don’t resort to cheating at every available opportunity.
Finally, I wouldn’t say that praise for Barca is derived from “media-driven simplicities”. Surely you cannot deny that Barcelona play a brand of football that is pleasing on the eye to almost all football fans? Perhaps it is this that makes people much more willing to overlook their faults.
I don’t really care about diving, every single top player in the world does it – Ronaldo, Messi, Kaka, Fabregas, etc. So I don’t see the point in using YouTube clips to make a point about the prevelence of diving. And simply the fact that the majority of compilations of Ronaldo diving are from Arsenal, Liverpool, and Chelsea fans doesn’t make them worth much in my book. So again, where’s the clip of Ronaldo deliberately punching the ball into the net? Surely that’s the more egregious sin.
I don’t see the relationship between Ronaldo and Chelsea players, but again, what’s the difference between that and when Barcalona hound the referee trying to get a free kick or another player booked?
And your third point is exactly my point about media-driven simplicities. The point has been made about academy recruiting so I won’t go into it again, but points B and C are extremely simplistic, and I think you know that.
Lastly, I never denied that Barca play beautiful football. But why should I not find it annoying when their faults are glossed over because of it. If you want to say the positive outweighs the negative then I will wholeheartedly agree with you. But I don’t see why we should ignore certain things simply because they don’t comport with the established story.
Oh and I love this site by the way. Found it about a month ago and already got two or three friends hooked as well. Keep up the great work!
>hounding referees when things don’t go your way
Care to edit your post now that we saw and heard Barca being sore losers during and after the Inter semis?
Or does Sergio Peekaboo Busquets not play for saintly Barca?
Feel free to rewatch the foul and then his shameful face covering/peekaboo.
They are no better or worse than other pros except they play nice football than most.
No matter Mourinhos tactics, I will remember Barca in this series as a team of cheats (busquets), whiners and sore losers (the whole team) who arent accustomed to losing obviously but showed a distinct lack of class.
Anyone can be a gracious winner but it takes a man to lose with dignity.
And Im saying that as someone who hates the thought of Inter anti-football winning out on la joga bonita.
Btw, Messi got red carded how many seconds after his first international appearance? (never mind that the foul was as innocuous as the Busquets cheating one)
>makes people much more willing to overlook their faults
???
Whose point are you trying to make excatly here?
So you can have faults but if you play a beautiful game, it can be overlooked?
Can you spell hypocrisy?
I have to agree with this assessment.
But I will do something even worse and ask:
Can Messi ever be successful outside of Barca?
Crissy ROnaldo is a self loving egomaniac but so far he has proven himself in Portugal, in England and now Spain. Could Messi flourish under a system that isnt Barca?
Think about it, he has been playing Barca style football since he was a child (people always claim that you can tell a player from their cantera), his teammates and those who followed him like Pedro and Bojan also have been brought up to play the Barca way.
This isnt to say at all taht he is a creation of the system, its not.
He is an exceptional player that sees his talent being utilised to the maximum by the teams philosophy.
And until he leaves to play in another team or even better another league, I have to give the oiled one props for playing in three leagues and dominating especially the physical EPL.
Hey. This may seem irrelevant, but your claim that Lionel Messi handballed to ‘’secure” the title is false. In fact, I was at that match, luckily enough, to witness the event unfold. It happened during the 2006/07 campaign when Real Madrid won the league based on head to head, the same season in which Messi scored a glorious hat-trick against the champions by the way.
I felt great when Iniesta’s goal put Chelsea out, but I felt sick after the final
Iniesta’s goal !!! I keep going back to watch it and relive that moment.
What Guardiola has not been enough credit for in the English media was how he bound together defense and attack. Possession was more than an offensive tool. It was a defensive one as well by starving the opposition.
Ball recovery high on the pitch was made a priority so that the defense rarely had to deal with any attack beyond the occassional fast-breaks.
The defenders like Pique and Marquez also played a vital role in building the attacks from the back.
Henry scored vital goals moving into the space vacated by Eto’o in the centre.
Guardiola brought the lines defensive and offensive much closer; the defense playing as high up the pitch as possible. I think the greatest tactical innovation from this team was the integration of the attack and defense into something inseparable.
Now I am really curious as to which team takes the top spot.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Allyn, Zonal Marking. Zonal Marking said: NEW ON ZM: Teams of the Decade #2: Barcelona, 2008/09: http://bit.ly/bebWMr [...]
“[I]n truth, Guardiola was outwitted by Guus Hiddink in the semi-final, and Chelsea really should have won the tie.”
It takes serious courage to point that out, even if it’s stashed in the third paragraph.
Hopefully, the Blaugrana death squad won’t hunt you down and beat you lifeless with their engorged sanctimony.
/Not a Chelsea supporter, but truth is truth
Im a Barca fan but I agree in what ZM said but again a miracle happened and we were champions.
Pep’s plan didn’t work because all players were contained and were unable to find space.
The officiating meltdown wasn’t a miracle in the strictest sense of the term. But I’m not going to get bogged down in that.
Instead, I still wonder why this team is so tactically advanced, as opposed to, say, Roma. Other teams can approximate what Roma has done; other teams cannot “approximate” a Leo Messi, Xavi, or Andres Iniesta – especially if you take the Barca hype machine at face value.
Now, if you want to argue that this approach made the most of these interlocking talents, then fine. That still doesn’t make it any sort of tactical breakthrough. Unless Messis start dropping out of trees, nobody in 30 years’ time will look back at Barca 2009 and say, “Yes, that’s when we saw the future; that’s when the game made a collective leap forward.”
And can we honestly count “running around and hoping for a miracle against a strong team” as a tactic?
If you honestly think that “running around and hoping for a miracle” was Barcelona’s primary tactic in the season where they won every competition they entered, I’m not really sure how to respond…
Their side was interesting because it was flexible both defence and attack. As outlined in the piece, in defence they shifted to a three-man defence in games, in attack they often featured a strikerless shape with Messi dropping deep in the centre.
It’s above Roma simply because it was successful. Roma’s 4-6-0 was great but they never won the league with it – this side was the most successful club team of the decade in one season.
And the list has never claimed to be a list of tactical breakthroughs – the 4-6-0 of Roma is probably the only major tactical breakthrough.
“It’s above Roma simply because it was successful.”
So you’re basically prioritizing teams based on outcome, rather than process? What if Iniesta had shot wide and Chelsea held their lead? Does that make Guardiola wrong?
I love this website…great work!!!
Enough about this “victory for football”. There is no one way to play football. I really cant stand the sanctimony especially from Arsenal fans (who think they play a similar brand of football to barcelona ha ha ha) – barcelona should not have won the CL semifinal last year (they were lucky to go through, notwithstanding the fact that they absolutely trashed united in the final – how is that a victory for football ?) So please stop with this tippy-tappy football being the only way to play football and appreciate each playing style for what it is rather than idealizing one particular brand and deriding any team that does not conform to this ideal.
Playing 10 men behind the ball, just hoping for a lucky break is not the way to play football. Chelsea played like a Pub team, Kicking the ball out, Fouling players after players and that too gainst a 10 man Barca
I am not a chelsea fan – so i am not defending them for the wrong reasons. But dont you think, clogging up space is the way to defeat barca – you give them space and they’ll pass the ball around all day long and eventually score – in football, the team with more goals wins obviously. You have to play against each team in such a way as to minimise that team’s chances to score and thats what chelsea did. Of course, they have a bunch of cynical players like Drogba and Ballack who I cannot absolutely stand – but I dont see anything wrong with what chelsea as a team tried to stop barca winning those cpla nights.
It was perfectly sensible for Hiddink to get Chelsea to play the fiercely negative game they did; of course it is still football [and well executed too]; of course Chelsea fans are entitled to feel upset that they were beaten.
But…..it is also perfectly reasonable for me to have been thrilled and overjoyed when Iniesta scored because aesthetically I far prefer the football Barcelona play. They kept faith with their capacity to create the decisive chance by continuing to pass and move and it paid off.
I agree Jupiter – its a matter of personal perspective and choice. and for the record , I am not a chelsea fan – not by a long shot
. I just think that some of the accolades and trophies the barca team have won is slightly undeserved considered performance on the night and questionable refereeing decisions rather than just style. I love watching barca play – god knows they play a brand of attractive football that I wish my team would, atleast occasionally – but football to me is about winning/losing not just style and aesthetics.
Of course it was a victory for football. Not necessarily just because of the style of football (although that helps) but for what the clubs represent. Chelsea are a nothing club that think the way to buy success is to sack managers every season and spend millions on the best players of that given moment. Barcelona are a club that spend millions – of course – but regularly field six or seven players that have come through their academy. That’s admirable, that’s what football should be.
Assessing ‘great’ teams is always a style v success argument, but it would be hard to argue that Barcelona’s victory was not a good thing for football, hence why thousands of neutrals around the world were cheering them on.
Barcelona are so overrated, they only have one way of playing.
@the editor at zonalMarking – what do you have to say to the above comment ?
Yeah… their way of playing is… WINNNING!
All jokes aside, but making history gets you a label of “overrated”…
Yes, they proved last year they only have one way of playing, that single way involves winning absolutely everything.
Well, the trouble is, you cant do crap against. And overly simplified. Then you might as well say, Manchester United play only in one way: bang in as many crosses as possible and hope for a lucky foot in the path to score.
Not denying that Barcelona’s academy is far greater than Chelsea’s, but Chelsea have many restrictions on who they can recruit into their youth system that do not apply to Spanish clubs, and while Catalonia has a population similar to London Chelsea have a lot, lot more than Espanyol for local competition.
The academy to first team jump is a result of youth development naturally, but is also a result of cherry picking from what you have. Top talents like Messi are found more than taught. Playing devil’s advocate you could say that Abramovich’s cash evens the odds considering that Chelsea will never enjoy a Barca-proportioned talent pool/local paying fanbase because of circumstances beyond their control – their location.
Don’t agree – plucking Kakuta is a prime example that even Chelsea can get talent from around the World to ply their trade in London from an early age. The rules are certainly stricter in the UK, but there is some flexibility for EU Nationals, and there are ways around it (such as housing the player and his parents locally, and so on).
Remember, Fabregas left Barcelona as a youth player to join Arsenal, a team that is a prime example of plucking obscure talent from around the World and developing them locally. Barcelona’s youth system is better because it has been in place and invested in for decades, like Manchester United’s and more recently Arsenal’s.
To quote Sam Wallace in the Independent: “The Premier League academy rules dictate that no player under the age of 11 can sign for a club academy unless he lives within a one-hour radius of the club. For players over the age of 11 that widens to a 90-minute radius but that second stage is immaterial. By then every decent young player has been signed and leaving one club’s academy to join another is about as simple as getting out the Cosa Nostra.”
Kakuta and Fabregas could be signed at age sixteen because that was when they were first eligible to sign professional contracts, ie specifically because they were no longer academy players. According to Arsene Wenger technical skills need to start being installed as early as seven, and Arsenal only recently having promising local talent to develop despite Wenger’s abilities and many years at the club seems to back this up.
Many English clubs can attract youth from elsewhere because they can offer a high standard of schooling, but development is not the same as production. Exactly where one ends and the other begins is up for debate – Messi is considered a Barcelona ‘product’ but already had six years under his belt across two different clubs before he stepped foot in Europe.
they have a greater turnover of managers than most clubs – but thats roman’s problem and not for anyone to judge. And apart from the one major outlay as soon as he bought chelsea, he has not really spent all that much in rejuvenating the team and that is showing in their performances this season.
“Apart from the one major outlay as soon as he bought chelsea, he has not really spent all that much in rejuvenating the team?”
Are you joking? He took over in 2003 and spent big then, which I assume was his “one major outlay”. You’re therefore disregarding the signings of Petr Cech, Michael Essien, Didier Drogba, Paolo Ferreira, Arjen Robben, Ricardo Carvalho, Nicolas Anelka, Alex, Jose Boswingwa, Ashley Cole, Andriy Shevchenko, Florent Malouda…I could go on…
Barcelona is the second-richest club in the world. That allows them to harvest their share of the world’s best players. To wit: the victorious team at the 2006 CL final featured exactly two graduates of their youth system (three if you count substitute Iniesta) and the rest were bought. And Barca’s massive cash reserves lets them pay the considerable salaries of their homegrown talent; how much better would West Ham be if they were allowed to keep all their international-quality players, and could buy them top-notch teammates?
As for hiring/firing managers, Barca has their own checkered history. From 1996-2003, they made seven managerial hires; if anything, they mastered the hot/cold approach to managerial tenure that Chelsea before Roman Abramovich so much as went to Old Trafford.
That’s not to tear down Barca’s recent accomplishments, or even decry what Barca does. But this is not Porto in 2003; this is not Celtic in 1967. They can be a sentimental favorite, but please, throttle back on the morality play.
I’m not quite sure why you’re saying “It’s not Porto in 2003 or Celtic 1967″ or are banging on about ‘morality play’; the point is merely that Barcelona are more likeable than Chelsea. This is proven by the fact that Barcelona are more liked than Chelsea are.
Your words:
“Chelsea are a nothing club that think the way to buy success is to sack managers every season and spend millions on the best players of that given moment.”
Barcelona, until recently, have their own history of knee-jerk sackings. Barcelona, until recently, have fielded teams almost entirely made up of bought contracts.
From an objective standpoint, the only significant difference between Barcelona and Chelsea is aesthetics. And it’s your website, you so have the right to feel that way.
But to say “here is little doubt that Barcelona represent a lot of what is great about football, whilst Chelsea summarise much of what is wrong with it” when Barca has committed a lot of those same sins…I don’t know. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from.
“…for what the clubs represent”
We have to disagree about that. Barcelona really have one of the best football academies and field many homegrown players. At this moment. However, during its history Barcelona also had moments, and not that long ago, when they were relaying primarily on bought players.
Chelsea, undeniably, was a team that consist mostly of expensively bought players. But if you compare their shopping habits with those of Manchester City or Real Madrid in second half of their first galacticos phase (it is to early to judge this one)one tends to notice that they actually know what they are doing. Their buyings were not necessarily the biggest names on the market rather those which could contribute to team (with a few exceptions) in a way manager (meaning Mourinho) sought to.
They are not the first one to invest a hell lot of money to buy team virtually from scratch, not even the most successful one (that would be Milan in the second half of 80s) so I would say it is a more or less fair game. Especially since Premiership really needed a change at the time Abramovic came. And there are some sings that Chelsea is trying to develop better scouting service which could signal a transformation towards more long term stable club.
And they were a decent club even before that. Two Cup Winners’ Cup and a European Super Cup are not exactly nothing. And every club that is considered great now had to start somehow sometime.
That being said, I jumped through the roof when Iniesta scored. But not because I believe Chelsea and Barcelona represented different things but rather because I prefer the style Barcelona play(ed) much more (although both are legitimate and both teams were great at what they were doing).
I’m not sure what you mean there, because your final paragraph indicates that you do think that Barcelona and Chelsea represent different things – just a style of play rather than a transfer policy.
I don’t think you can separate the two, anyway. Barcelona’s style of play is partly because the players have been brought up in a specific way and the key players know each other’s game inside out because of it.
Either way it’s not merely about transfer dealings, it is the whole attitude of the club. Barcelona are not perfect, certainly, but they are far more likeable than Chelsea.
I won’t go into too much as I want to remain neutral. But even if you look at the players – considering Chelsea field the two most unpopular players in England in Ashley Cole and John Terry – you’ll find Barcelona far more amiable.
I meant to say that Chelsea should not necessarily be perceived negatively as they are especially since perception of the club’s attitude, popularity of players… are highly subjective and therefore not a best topic for neutral discussion.
What all of us probably can agree is that Chelsea was a huge refreshment for the Premiership when they started to be serious contenders which was probably a good thing and that it seems they are doing a decent job to stay there (unlike some other clubs with much money) and deserve some credit for that.
I second that.
Chelsea were, plain and simple, robbed by the referee, quite possibly under the influence of the same mindset as the one displayed by the author of this (otherwise fantastic) website.
*The* great thing about football is that for 90 minutes there are 11 men a side and they kick the ball. It is up to them to choose how and where they kick it, and no one way is morally superior to any other.
Sure. And the refree gave the Absurd Red Card to Abidal to Help Barca Right?
Also, conveniently ignore the penalty ignored in the Nou camp game. How would the game have turned out if that penalty was awarded and Barca had the lead?
No No. It was a conspiracy with the refree involved. UEFA didnt want an all EPL final right?
Everyone hates Chelsea right?
How many matches were won with the dives of Drogba?
Abidal should not have been on the pitch at the time of the red card anyway! He should have been sent off in the first half, being the last man when he brought down Drogba!
Face it. Chelsea were undone by their own stupidity of sitting on a 1 goal lead when they were playing a 10 Man Barca.
And if you talk about fairness, half the Chelsea players would be off the field due to cynical fouls which had no intention of getting the ball.
Barca the second best team only? I’m intrigued to see number 1 now.
Nin…
Barca shouldn’t have won, but they didn’t take a bunch of the most expensive players in the world to Stamford bridge and play like Stoke ala Chelsea in the nou Camp. You are right though..there is no one right way to play football. Barca’s win was a victory for aesthetically pleasing football. That’s a better way to put it.
Fair enough John – Barca’s win could be claimed as a victory for aesthetically pleasing football. When you think about it – Barca spend a lot of money too – they have 4 or 5 catalans – the rest have been brought in for exorbitant prices. So, its not just chelsea that buys a championship or whatever. I have said the same in reply to an earlier poster – the way to stop barca (even by the big boys because they are so much better at ball retention) is to clog the spaces, not let them pass the ball around and hit them on the break just like Stoke might do against one of the premiership’s big ones. No shame in that. You give Xavi and Iniesta space to move the ball around and they’ll absolutely murder you as SAF found out in the final.
there is shame in that imo if you spent that much money on the team. Also there is an inherent danger in going away and playing for to nullify. all you need to do at home is let in one goal..even if it is well against the run of play. Chelsea have noone to blame but themselves.
That’s certainly fair, but here’s what I so dislike about Chelsea, in comparison to other rich sides like Man U, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Barcelona–they all aspire to play aesthetically pleasing football.
I’ve no truck against Chelsea (or Man City) for spending a lot of money quickly to catch up, when the other sides have spent a lot over many years. But to spend so much and play such appalling football leaves a bad taste in my mouth. When you lose
I was even glad to see Chelsea rise to challenge Man U and Arsenal. Even though I’m an Arsenal fan, a two-team race was getting boring. And in Mourinho’s first season, once Duff and Robben got healthy they even turned on the style at times. That, clearly, didn’t last long.
Yeah, you don’t need the most expensive side in the world to put 10 men behind the ball and mug as much as possible. I don’t buy the excuse, “if we try to actually play football, Xavi and Iniesta will murder us!” Getting beat by the away goal rule was fitting.
The thing that makes football so exciting is the deep historical rivalries between clubs. By allowing teams to be comprised mainly of mercenaries, it just becomes blues v. reds. Hopefully, the problem won’t become as bad in Europe as it is in the US. Barca aren’t perfect but they’re 10x better Chelsea. Too bad there aren’t more successful clubs like Atletic Bilbao.
Who is left that could be #1? I can think of maybe France or Italy in the last World Cup, and maybe the original Galacticos side. But better than Barca 08/09?! Never!
I don’t think the Top 20 is supposed to reflect necessarily the best sides – just the most interesting ones from a tactical standpoint.
Its a long shot, but I think you could make an argument for Greece taking the number 1 spot – they won an international competition with a set of mediocre players by setting up in a manner that people could not deal with. Is there a better example of a system enabling the sum of the parts to be so much greater than the individual components?
a wild guess.team of the decade would be france 98.
or south korea 2002
Well it’s not going to be France ‘98 because correct me if I’m wrong but that was over a decade ago!
that’s why is wild! huh!
Ridiculous
As a Celtic fan I’m always a neutral when it comes to the later stages of the Champions League, but I remember jumping out my seat and celebrtaing that Iniesta goal as if Celtic or Scotland had just scored the winning goal in a Cup Final!
Exactly! Same here! I don’t think I’ve ever celebrated a goal so much from a team I don’t support.
‘a wild guess.team of the decade would be france 98.’
classic. Wild indeed.
I think it will be Greece for the reasons already given above.
Good call on Greece. Been racking my brains trying to think of tactically brilliant teams not mentioned yet, and I can only think of Euro 2004 Greece. They have to be top because of the fact they won with a team of *ahem* ‘players of limited technical ability’, whereas the majority of teams on this list have had talented enough players to put innovative tactics into use. I mean off the top of my head,the only Greek players I can remember are Dellas and Charisteas. And George Clooney in goal. Not a team of great individuals, but a great team.
This Barca team is definitely the best team I’ve seen this decade – and probably my life. That performance against United in the final was stunning.
First time I comment here. After the so-called “victory for football” it would only be poetic justice if Greece 2004 took the top spot (not to mention it being an excellent example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, if only for a short while). One of the things I love most about the game is the variety of potentally winning styles, and I instantly reject such ideologization.
Great comment.
Defensive football is still a legitimate tactic. Unfortunately there is so much gamesmanship and outright cheating in the game that defensive sides readily get sucked into the dark side of the game and give a very negative impression. The cheating, not the defensiveness is the problem in the game if you ask me.
I imagine nearly everybody prefers to watch the Arsenals and the Barcas pinging it around the field, but if a manager hasn’t got the manpower to keep up, why should he leave the game open?
I was at Euro 2004 for three weeks and saw more of Greece than I wanted to, but you have to tip your hat to them for getting the job done.
Which is the point of the game, after all.
“It’s hard to watch these pictures – Iniesta, Messi and Eto’o running over to the Barca fans, Guardiola and co sprinting to join them – and then Ashley Cole looking thoroughly pissed off – without feeling that this goal really was a victory for football.”
Strongly disagree. Like Man United the year before Chelsea completely nullified the Catalans. Chelsea were the better teams and deserved to go through. And calling it a victory for football when they only made the final because of that ‘referee’ is just shocking. Sorry.
Thrashing a Real Madrid side that is oblivious to defending is one thing. Coping with the tough, physical English team anohter. I’d really love to see Barca in the EPL and getting kicked for 90 minutes by the likes of Stoke. I honestly doubt they would win the Premier League.
The refereeing in that match was just sickening. We all love to moan when our teams don’t get stonewall penalties or players get wrongly sent off. But one should have the decency to also condemn these decisions when they go against the other team. That’s why I couldn’t have celebrated as a Barca fan. In fact I hate Chelsea more than I hate Barcelona and really wanted them to go out but that night I just felt sick. A f*ckin’ disgrace, indeed.
You want to see Barca get kicked around by other teams? That is a wierd point of view. the premiership would be better if stoke like tactics were curtailed by referees more.
barcelona DO get kicked around. watch their games vs maulaga or any other team in the bottom 2/3 of the table. barcelona IS in 1st place this year, atleast they should be if it weren’t for goal differentials & based on head to head.
Is it just me or is defending in Spain actually more cynical than in England? Granted, the game is rougher and more physical in the EPL, especially in the midfield. There is more emphasis on contested aerial battles and even more clumsy, late challenges. But, from what I’ve seen there is a stronger culture of tactical foul play and “professional” fouling in La Liga, Portugal and Italy. Case in point being CL Final 2006, where the Barca defenders took it in turns to foul Henry regularly before he could accelerate. Call it professionalism, call it chicanery, call it anything you want. Henry actually looked shocked, I don’t think he’d been exposed to this week in, week out in the league. I think if an attacker like Messi can thrive in Spain, he would in the slightly looser style of play in England. You would fear for Iniesta in a midfield tustle with Papa Bouba Diop though!
This is the the most tired and absolutely ignorant argument I have ever heard. Barcelona couldn’t handle stoke? What, lower table Spanish sides don’t know how to play defensively?
My god the typical jingoistic English fans who honestly believe shit like this are not worthy of watching the game.
There is a reason Chelsea constantly blow their chances at the late stages of the Champions League; and it isn’t bad luck and it isn’t officiating, they lack the inventiveness required, and when they can’t bully a team out of a game, they lose, just like they lost to Inter.
As for last year, Barcelona certainly outplayed them in the first leg, and on the whole deserved to go through. There is nothing inherently evil about the way Chelsea played, but when you set out to do nothing but defend, you run the risk of losing it late, they did. It shows the brilliance and determination of Barcelona that despite having to go against a wall of defenders and cynical fouls, that they had to do it with 10 men for no reason at all, they were able to stay composed to the end, epitomized by the brilliance of Messi holding the ball until the perfect moment and Iniesta smashing the ball into the corner.
The English disease of thinking that skilled players can be nullified by “getting stuck in” and that foreigners just aren’t tough enough (who actually plays for the top 4 again?) are the reason the national team hasn’t won anything in 44 years and counting.
A team that won all 6 trophies it possibly could not being able to handle the Stoke City’s of the world? Good lord, the English disease is at an all time high.
Messi has scored 1 goal against English opposition in 12 games…
5 in 13…
Let’s get this straight once and for all. I take offence in you saying that Barca would not win the “tough and physical” Premiership if they get kicked around. It’s an irritating myth that is sold to the world by the British media.
Here in Asia, we have a more neutral view. Yes the Premiership is more physical but teams like Chelsea, United and Arsenal play beautiful and effective football and beat teams like Wigan, Bolton and your Stokes on a regular basis.
Then they go to the champions league and meet Barca and THEY themselves become the Stokes and Boltons (putting ten men behind the ball and depend on counter attacking) and you come out here and say something as ridiculous as they not winning the BPL?
Barca will absolutely murder your Stokes and Wigans if they murdered Arsenal with minimum fuss. So stop your vitriol and myths in here!
I don’t buy all that talk about aesthetical football and football how it should be played either. Everyone is entitled to their own style. Whatever works. And I can certainly appreciate a good tactical battle. Give me Inter’s performance at Stamford Bridge over any game that Barca have played anyday. Infact the CL final 2003 would be my game of the decade.
Btw: The fact that neither Guardiola nor his players were able to admit how incredibly lucky they were in the Chelsea game is a disgrace in itself. I really hope they play Inter in the semis and lose so that the whole world can moan about how the beautiful football they play could lose to an ugly Mourinho side.
Barcelona didn’t complain after the first leg about the penalty they could/should have received or ask why Ballack wasn’t sent off, either. Mourinho instilled a childish petulance and paranoia within Chelsea that’s never really left them. Real confidence is something else altogether.
At a certain point, when you have chance after chance after chance to kill a match off, and you don’t take it, you have no one but yourself to blame. As any clear minded Arsenal fan of the last few years knows all too well.
Lucky? You make your own luck, and Barcelona made theirs by constantly attacking, even after being reduced to 10 men wrongly. Chelsea made theirs by not attacking; if Barcelona are so weak, surely Drogba, Anelka, Lampard, and Ballack could have scored against them, right? Why not get an away goal, then you wouldn’t risk the position they were in.
Your post also implies that playing attacking, possession based football is somehow not “tactical”, which is a silly notion. Take the final for example, Barca moved Messi deep and central while pushing Eto to the right, playing a very unique formation that absolutely bewildered United.
I agree that the Inter-Chelsea tie was a tactical masterstroke by Mourinho, but just as playing well doesn’t always mean playing like Barcelona, playing tactically sound doesn’t always mean playing cynical defensive football. Part of what made Mourinho’s tactics so great at the Bridge was that he didn’t just go out and defend, he put out a lineup that looked like it would be attacking, with a narrow trident of strikers, but switched between that system and into a deeper 4-2-3-1, thanks to the willingness of Eto’o and Pandev to track back when asked; essentially keeping Chelsea guessing as to which look Inter would play at any given time.
So just as it must be accepted that great football doesn’t always have to look like free flowing attacks, great tactical moves don’t always have to be defensive and negative.
As a Barca supporter, I gotta say the Iniesta goal was a day to remember. It is also great to hear all the Chelsea fans still complaining about ref’s etc. The truth is that Barca also had bad calls against them (at the Camp Nou) and ref’s are part of the game. As for those who say that Inter will beat Barca (if they both go through in CL), I remind you that Barca obliterated Inter at home in the CL group stages (CL 09/10)- with something resembling 80-85% possession and a 2-0 scoreline- so I am not too worried (although we should take it one game at a time).
As for tactics/formations, it must be said that Pep is a relative newcomer to coaching and coming up against tried and true coaches, Hiddink and SAF, and beating them says a lot about him. He may have lots of great players, but one must remember that this team won nothing the year before 08/09 (under Rijkaard) and the team was pretty much the same core group of players. He has instilled order and discipline, and has guided the team out of the complacency that tends to creep in after winning the Treble in Europe to go on and win the remaining 3 tournaments for the historic 6 titles.
I also remember a staggering stat I read during that year, where T Henry had committed the most fouls on the team, after that was Messi! The fact the the forwards commit so much to defending is also a key to their stunning form.
Enjoyed this feature mate, I am taking a guess that Greece’s 2004 side is number one?!?!
What i like the most about this team is that they played beautiful football but still had the conviction to win the most important games – like the one at Stamford Bridge. There were certainly bad refereeing calls against both teams in that tie, but one side managed to keep their compusure and score the winning goal and the other didn’t.
Those who use the referee as an excuse for Chelsea overlook Drogba’s lack of composure in front of goal on more than one occasion and his emotional reaction at the end of the game was surely brought on as much by frustration at himself as at the referee.
Personally, I think Guardiola’s biggest achievement was in creating such a hard working, disciplined and united team after inheriting one of the most fractured and clique-ridden squads in europe. Moving Ronaldinho on and allowing Messi to move out of his shadow also has to be one of the management descisions of the decade.
Loving this website by the way.
you defend chelsea playing like an english championship side after going down to a 10-man barcelona?
abidal’s dubious red card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJLw8uA27o0
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zonal_Marking: NEW ON ZM: Teams of the Decade #2: Barcelona, 2008/09: http://bit.ly/bebWMr...
I personally think that too much praise is given both to Hiddink and Chelsea for their “tactical” masterpiece against Barca. For what it’s worth, both Espanyol and Rubin Kazan came out winners from Camp Nou with much less resources. Besides, as Real Madrid can also tell you, it’s a good idea to get an away goal in a European tie 1st leg, which they didn’t even intend to. So to me personally, I never really got and understood the praise Chelsea got.
Team of the decade, hm….you have already picked Milan 2002-2007, I guess you are not going for Barcelona 2004-2006 although that would be fun, and I hope that it’s not Real Madrid 2001-2003, so France 2000-2002?
“Comments: are they the saints of football or overrated and sanctimonious?”
There is no way that a team that wins everything in it’s path and dishes out those prime-grade ass whippings can be called overrated.
I’d rather watch a mediocre Barca team than a really good Liverpool team. ANd I’m a liverpool fan with the club crest tattooed on me.
Agree, it’s hard to argue that this Barca team is overrated. As far as I know they are the only club side to win every trophy on offer in a single season.
Media hype (especially Sky TV in the UK) is not the same thing as being overrated in my opinion.
They and Ajax in 72 (5/5).
And a honorable mention should be given to Barcelona’s side from season 1951-1952(Cup and Championship double, Spanish Super Cup by default, Latin Cup- which could be considered a major European competition at that time, and one more trophy that wouldn’t be really counted by today’s standard). Next season they also won everything they played in but, for some reason, were replaced by Atletico Madrid as a Spanish representative in Latin Cup.
They were replaced by Valencia, not Atletico.
[...] Teams of the Decade #2: Barcelona, 2008/09 “What more can you say about this Barcelona side? European champions, La Liga champions and Copa Del Rey winners, all in the first season under the charge of Pep Guardiola. And they didn’t do it by merely winning games, they did it by winning in style, making them perhaps the most universally respected side of the decade. The most astonishing thing about their La Liga performance was how utterly convincing they were in defeating the sides around them at the top of the table.” (Zonal Marking) [...]
Do you Chelsea supporters and English Football-Centric forget the terrible refereeing against Barca in the first and second legs especially the ridiculous sending off of Abidal? Think twice before saying Barca didn’t deserve to life the Champions League trophy.
Sam, I´’ll say again what I put above. Abidal should already have been sitting in the dressing room in the first half. The referee, who completely bottled the big game, righted one of the many wrongs inflicted on Chelsea that night. The point of the matter is Barcelona, for all this talk of decent football had 1 shot on target in the second leg. Chelsea could have easily won 3-0.
They could have easily lost 1-0 or more; how many times out of 100 could Essien hit a 25 yard volley with his left foot into the top corner? How many more chances would Barcelona have had with Abidal, who absolutely shot NOT have been sent off in the instance you cling to; Drogba made a complete meal of it, as usual.
Even more easily Chelsea could have never been in the second leg to begin with, Ballack just flat out elbowed a player in the box in the first leg, which would have been a sending off, Bojan missed an open goal header from 6ish yards out, Henry had a better shout for a penalty than anything in the second leg, etc etc etc.
What matters is that Barcelona did score, that they did go through, that they won 6 trophies last year, and they are one of the best teams in modern history.
For a team you’ve dubbed “one of the best teams in modern history” Barcelona absolutely bottled their season defining game. You are correct to suggest that at the Nou Camp Chelsea were cynical at times in attempting to deny Barcelona a goal, however they themselves created a handful of chances- several more than Barcelona created in the second leg…
I know Drogba is a massive diver and does not help himself with the way he flings himself about, but please, look at that penalty incident on youtube and honestly try and tell me that Abidal has taken the ball. He hasn’t. He is the last man. He should have gone.
Great sides mentioned so far for teams of the decade, but don’t you think it’s a little Euro-centric? The only teams other than those of Europe are international sides.
For example, what about the Boca Juniors side from 03-04? They won the Copa Libertadores, Intercontinental Cup (against the Milan side already mentioned in this top 20) and went on to win their championship.
Another team that deserves a mention is Internacional, as in 06-07 they won Copa Libertadores as well, the FIFA Club World Cup final against Barcelona and the South American Cup Winners’ Cup.
I love this site for its insight – which is sadly lacking from the majority of the mainstream press – but there are good footballers and teams plying their trade all over the World. I think Tim Vickery would concur.
Oh of course. Completely Eurocentric. But it’s so difficult to see South American football on television here – you can get web coverage these days, but even that’s not perfect for properly analysing matches.
I could well have put that Boca side in (they certainly deserve it) but I wouldn’t have been able to comment authoritatively on the way they played, as I probably never saw a whole game of them play in that time.
And that would probably undermine the point of the site – to be in-depth and (reasonably) intelligent.
So I’ll leave the World stuff to the likes of Vickery!
Fair enough. Appreciate the honesty!
Keep up the good work!
Is #1 Arsenal 2004 ?
By the way ….. I’m so glad I found this site.
Stimulating tactical analysis, and a high standard of responses with an unusual willingness to respect differing points of view.
i’d like to see who you suggest is better than a team that won everything on offer.
It isn’t a list of best overall sides; this is a tactical analysis website and lists the top tactical teams of the decade.
First of all, I think it is not fair to say that this Barcelona side did not ‘deserve’ to go to the final of the Champion’s League. Football is a game of two halves, and whichever team scores more goals (or away goals in this case) at the end of those halves is the ‘deserving’ side. For every bad referring call in favor of Barcelona there was a handful against them as well – it is not their fault that the standards of officiating at the highest level of the sport are still not up to the quality they should be.
However despite that one contentious game it is impossible to discredit this side. Beginning with wobbly legs Pep proved himself a masterful tactician by reigning in the egos of the huge names that made up the side and early on making some decisions that could have easily proved unpopular. Before 0809 could you imagine a Barcelona squad without Ronaldinho? I couldn’t. Time will tell this season whether the Eto’o/Ibrahimovic move will be worth it – both seem to be struggling a bit this season, perhaps with the Swede playing a bit better.
But for all the praise we laud onto Barcelona it really is only fair that we then examine what made it possible. Truth be told it would be impossible for even a genius such as Guardiola to fashion a side of this caliber and excitement without the players involved. As well for the past two years he has been helped immensely by two players primarily – Haxi acting as a ‘translator’ to the rest of the squad and Messi as the magician.
Let me explain my point of view. I’ll start with the latter because it is a fair bit more simple. Point being, Leo Messi proved himself the best player in the world at precisely the right time. It is a fallacy really to pinpoint his success to Guardiola or his tactics – Messi would be able to do 99% of what he does without any coaching whatsoever, and he is a talent that is unlikely to be rivaled for some time. Even Ronaldo is not of a similar genius. The Portuguese plies his trade just as much on brilliance as he does on sheer athleticism – and while the two may be equals on the field I believe that Messi is the ’smarter’ of the two.
More importantly though I believe is the role of Xavi. Oftentimes fantastic players do not necessarily make fantastic managers. Simply put, it is to difficult for them to translate their brilliance on the field into simple orders to their squad. The difference between Guardiola and an average midfielder is the same gulf in quality between myself and Iniesta, I simply don’t possess the quickness, tactical awareness, vision or brilliance that my superior does.
Xavi on the field can impose these directions to his team, set the tempo of the game and dictate it with his metronomic style of play all at once. A similar player that would do a fantastic job in this mold would be Andrea Pirlo, or Cesc Fabregas. Both are naturally brilliant enough to understand the conceptual playing that their managers want to impose, and still close enough to the action and dominant enough on the field to translate this. Xavi is the best in the world at this role and can dictate and entire game – when the Spaniard is on the field the match is played how he wants it to be.
That isn’t to say though that 0809 was solely down to those two. Guardiola did very well in utilizing what strengths he had. Look at his center-back pairing. Puyol and Pique compliment each other so significantly it can hardly be called anything less than divine intervention on part of the Footballing Gods – the technical Pique with his sweeper-like vision and the rough-tackling Puyol.. and luckily enough they have such a magnificent understanding between each other that it makes defending simple. Toure’s natural responsibility makes up for the recklessness of the fullbacks, particularly Alves, which grants more or less an ‘extra player’ in the midfield, Alves maintaining attacking width while Messi drifts inward.
On a whole the team is a combination of luck and tactical genius. To have this crop of players brought together is a stroke of sublime luck, and it is likely to not be repeated for a long time. Already in 0910 we can see that the shift is a bit off.. Henry has lost his share of ability in the attack, Ibrahimovic for the most part is far to deliberate to really be considered the same player as Eto’o, Busquets is preferred over Toure and is far more attacking than the latter. On top of that Bojan seems to be getting phased out and Pedro, a more classical Winger phased in (perhaps to utilize Ibrahimovic’s height?). Either way, the simple, attractive, brilliant football of this all-conquering Barcelona side was more or less a strike of lightning that I consider myself lucky to have witnessed in its prime.
I can count one instance that could be ruled as a penalty against Barcelona that day. The handball by pique. Most of the fouls that were not given happened either outside the box or could not be judged as fouls without doubt. The red card shown to Abidal was an undeserved one which practically changed the complexion of the match. Had Barca played with 11 men throughout, which they deserved to, chances were they would have ended up winning it instead of getting a draw. I could go on about the first leg. The Iniesta goal was an example of poetic justice of course. Check out the link below for a close look at all the decisions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRerS28NKk0
And you at the last moment be paid to a consensus, where you proceed a judgement of what in effect ought to be done, and then they give ground it to me and then I unholster it. I without fail frame it in the sentiment, the thoughtful sense.
But now I suffer with come to assume trust to that the total world is an mystery, a benign enigma that is made disagreeable by our own fervent effort to interpret it as yet it had an underlying truth.
But at this very moment I arrange draw nigh to conjecture that the total area is an mystery, a inoffensive enigma that is made grave by way of our own fervent bid to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
But at this very moment I procure draw nigh to credence in that the in the main people is an mystery, a harmless enigma that is made disagreeable by way of our own fervent attempt to elucidate it as however it had an underlying truth.
But now I have come to believe that the total area is an poser, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own fervent try to interpret it as yet it had an underlying truth.
But in the present climate I procure draw nigh to believe that the whole world is an riddle, a mild mystery that is made grave past our own irate try to take to mean it as yet it had an underlying truth.
[...] favoured innovative strikerless systems, such as Manchester United’s 4-2-4-0 in 2007-2008 or Barcelona’s fluid 4-3-3 from the season after. The 4-4-2, it was said, had become [...]
that semi final was such a disappointment. Barcelona did NOT deserve to go through at all.
A man who dares to decay bromide hour of every now has not discovered the value of life.
[url=http://www.laborlawtalk.com/member.php?u=194250]Marry[/url]
Ana
A man who dares to decay everyone hour of age has not discovered the value of life.
[url=http://thewives.webs.com/apps/profile/profilePage?id=54280822]Mark[/url]
Linsey
freecell solitaire
http://freecell-solitaire.socialgo.com
java freecell solitaire
http://www.thisisdelaghetto.com/profile/freecellsolitaire
free freecell solitaire download
http://freecell-solitaire.socialgo.com
I surface reference an olive branch in people power, and the privilege fighter’s gun in the other. Do not detonate the olive branch be destroyed from my hand.
Hotel Albena
[url=http://hotelalbena.webs.com/]Hotel Albeana[/url]
majong
http://majong.socialgo.com
http://needman.ru брак с иностранцем
знакомства с иностранцами
midwest insurance company
http://insurances.socialgo.com
We should be careful and discriminating in all the advice we give. We should be especially prudent in giving guidance that we would not about of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to escape giving recommendation which we don’t follow when it damages those who take us at our word.
mk diamond
[url=http://mk-diamond-86.webs.com/apps/blog/]mk diamond[/url]
Of course there are certain players that cost tens of millions , but nevertheless Barca surely have more players who came through their academy than any other major European club. Against Valencia last week they fielded 8 of 11 players from their own youth system – Valdes, Pique (although he left and returned), Busquets, Iniesta, Xavi, Pedro, Bojan, Messi. That’s without Puyol too. Granted, it’s not their first-choice line-up, but it is mighty impressive for any top club to be like that, any for them to be European Champions with that attitude is quite remarkable.
Actually until recently the predominant view in the British media was that Ronaldo was a better player than Messi – certainly in the run-up to the Champions League that was the case. I think the ‘highlights’ argument is unfair (for Sky viewers, there are more Barcelona games on than United games), as is the anti-United allegations.
Not sure what you mean with the last paragraph – are those two examples of media-driven simplicities? I think they’re partially true, the side is relatively ’small’ and has been consistently bullied off the ball by Chelsea in recent years (http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/02/07/chelseas-height-advantage-over-arsenal-proves-to-be-crucial/?trashed=1&ids=94).
The “mentally tough” thing I think is a bit of hyperbole (similar to anything about any player or team ‘bottling it’) but I do think Arsenal have lacked leaders in recent years – characters who represent the club and set an example. Chelsea have Lampard and Terry, Liverpool have Gerrard and Carragher, United have Neville and Giggs. I do think that is important for a club. What extent it is important, it’s hard to say – it’s more of a case in the dressing room and day-to-day at the club rather than on the pitch where we get to see it directly.
That sort of thing would probably be spun by a tabloid columnist into a lack of bottle or a lack of an “English attitude” or something like that, which is nonsense, but I think the underlying point is partially true.
It doesn’t mean that Arsenal won’t win the league, but it’s probably a weakness – just a case of whether it’s a bigger weakness than Chelsea’s or United’s weaknesses…
the last part is true – this is a brilliant web site. I too found it only a month back
@zonal marking –
no reply button on your post so…
Didn’t know that about Sky and the amount of games shown. Living in the States we’re overwhelmed with the amount of games from every league we can watch. But my larger point still stands about the media. Honestly, if Ronaldo, heck or any other foreign player had delibertly handled the ball into the net to secure the title as Messi did, don’t you think we would have seen much more time and column inches devoted to it?
My point with the media is that they consistently take an initial view on a subject and run with it, regardless if the facts change over time. All stereotypes start from truth (ie. Ronaldo dived a fair amount when he came to England), but they become simplistic when the facts change and the story doesn’t. It’s the hyperbole in the sporting press that bothers me.
Anyway, I’ve wandered off topic enough. Love the site. The Barcelona team is really interesting tactically, especially this year as Messi’s played mostly as a forward through the middle rather than as a winger from a couple years ago. You could see the start of it last year. He’s really become a center forward in the mold of the great advanced #10s in history. After you finish the great teams of the decade, I think a series of looking at individual players would be fascinating to look at. Messi’s change inward, Ronaldo driving though the middle, Fabregas’s move forward this year, etc,
Keep up the great work.
Yeah, Sky can only show a set number of games overall, and have to show each club 4/5 times. So there’s only probably about 20 of 38 games each season for Arsenal and United. Whereas there’s no such restrictions for their La Liga coverage, and Barca and Real are shown literally every weekend, as well as all their Cup games and European games.
Thanks for the compliments – yeah, may well do something more player-centric for the next series.
Ronaldo was sent off for deliberately trying to handball the ball into the net in one of the Manchester derbies last season.
Back on topic, the Barcelona side of last year played some of the most breathtaking football I’ve ever seen. I will count myself lucky to see another team who plays the game so beautifully.
Great site, I’ve only just discovered it today!
I’m not really sure what your problem is or what your point is.
It’s a mixture of both, clearly. Roma’s side was very exciting but was dumped out of the Champions League in embarrassing fashion, 7-1, and never won the league.
Barcelona’s side wasn’t as revolutionary but as previously stated was interesting both in defence and attack, as well as being incredibly successful, so deserves it’s place up here.
Then again you think Barcelona were successful by “running around and hoping for a miracle” so I’m not surprised you question its place on the list…
That’s fair
I’m not sure why you keep going on about previous events when we’re talking about 2009 Barcelona v 2009 Chelsea.
Like most people, I prefer Barcelona over Chelsea because they’re more attractive on the pitch, and more likeable off it.
Let’s leave it there.
There is no question that it’s going to be Stoke City 2008-2009 (and beyond).
Rory Delap long throw WIN.
Dude, whats your name ? you always post under the moniker ‘zonal marking’.
I think this point seems pretty obvious. I’m also not sure what Jed’s point is here but one thing that bothers me, and it was touched on by someone who posted earlier, is that an utterly ridiculous performance by a referee is hardly a victory for all that is right in football, regardless of whether you think the right team won. I’m a United supporter so frankly, I hate both teams. I can say honestly that I was thrilled when Iniesta’s goal (which was a magnificent strike) went in. But, my deep-seeded hatred for Chelsea shouldn’t (and doesn’t) make it impossible to see that playing a pretty brand of football doesn’t mean you deserve to win. Not to say that it would jeopardise Barca’s place on this list, but we should have seen a repeat of the previous Champions League final.
How boring that would have been – following the awful, awful 2007 FA Cup Final and the equally atrocious 2008 Champions League Final, the last thing most people wanted was another Chelsea v United borefest to end another season
When? Not in the second leg! 1 foul against Messi aside, the cynical infringements came from Barca! The Nou Camp was a completely different story, I accept, but your point was that Abidal was wrongly sent off- he wasnt. Having said that you are correct that Chelsea were stupid in the final 15 minutes to sit back and try and contain the 10 men of Barca. Having said that when Chelsea did go forward at the end, and Piquet stuck out his hand to stop Anleka going through, no penalty was given!
He wasn’t deliberately trying to handball the ball into the net. He was trying to protect his face that makes him millions and millions of pounds.