Barcelona 3-1 Milan: Guardiola goes with a 3-3-4
The starting line-ups
Barcelona weren’t at their best, but were fairly comfortable after scoring their third.
Pep Guardiola brought in Isaac Cuenca to stretch the play on the flank and used Cesc Fabregas in a free role, with Seydou Keita and Alexis Sanchez dropping out.
Max Allegri recalled Ignazio Abate at right-back, but otherwise kept the same team from last week.
This was an odd game – Barcelona predictably dominated possession but struggled to create chances in open play…yet still scored goals and weren’t particularly troubled after the third goal, in the 53rd minute.
Formation
The real interest here was Barcelona’s shape. Dani Alves was pushed up even higher than in the first leg, with (at first) no responsibility to get back into the right-back zone. He and Cuenca played on roughly the same horizontal line, with Fabregas in a free role and Lionel Messi as a false nine. It could be interpreted as a 3-4-3 with a diamond midfield, with Fabregas at the front tip, but he and Messi were often together, playing as a partnership and dovetailing – therefore, the unusual 3-3-4 notation makes sense here.
Barcelona have played that way briefly in league games at the Nou Camp against weak opposition, but this was probably the first time they’ve looked 3-3-4 in a truly big game. In many ways, it makes perfect sense against this Milan side. It allows a spare man at the back, and if Fabregas dropped back slightly, equal numbers in midfield against Milan’s diamond. The obvious problem with a 3-3-4, on paper, is the lack of cover on the flanks – but few sides are as narrow as Milan, so in theory it shouldn’t be an issue.
Channels
There were problems with the approach, however. In the defensive phase of play, because Alves and Cuenca were playing higher up than they would as wing-backs, Milan’s two shuttlers could move outside into the channels and find space. There was an example in the first half when Alves deliberately didn’t retreat to a position alongside Javier Mascherano, and instead took up a position level with the midfielders. But then, briefly, Clarence Seedorf slipped unmarked into a position to the left of Mascherano, and had Zlatan Ibrahimovic played the right pass, he would have had a one-on-one against Victor Valdes. Only when he realised Seedorf was free in a dangerous position did Alves suddenly dash back – it would have been too late.
And almost exactly the same thing happened for the goal on the opposite side – the right-sided shuttler, Antonio Nocerino, moved forward into space outside of Carles Puyol to score. Cuenca had been watching the left-back, and this was Barcelona’s problem – who was meant to be tracking the shuttlers? If it was Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta, they would have been dragged into something approaching full-back positions. If it was Alves and Cuenca…well, it wasn’t, since they were staying much higher up. It might have been a deliberate tactic from Allegri to exploit Barca there, and it worked quite well.
Barca higher up
The shape did help Barcelona press high up the pitch, four against four, and Milan’s troubles in playing out from the back were evident throughout the game – Philippe Mexes’ error that led to the first goal being one example. They arguably pressed less well in midfield, again because of the confused duties of Xavi and Iniesta.
How Milan's shuttlers moved forward unchecked
There was another problem though, with chance creation. Barcelona didn’t produce a lot in the final third – Messi had an early chance, as did Adriano and Thiago Alcantara late on, but they depended upon two penalties and a fortunate deflection for their goals, and weren’t as slick as usual. It was interesting that Fabregas often came deeper than Massimo Ambrosini to get the ball, which then gave Milan a spare man at the back.
When Fabregas dropped deeper, Messi wasn’t at his best: isolated and often struggling to beat both Alessandro Nesta and Mexes. Fabregas and Messi might have been better off staying high up, keeping 4 v 4 against the Milan defence, and leaving the initial through-ball to Xavi and Iniesta. Guardiola wanted to dominate possession and not be 3 v 4 against in midfield, clearly, but 61% possession isn’t great for Barca, even considering the standard of the opposition.
Positioning of attackers
The other main issues were the positioning of two attackers. Cuenca’s role was interesting – he was told just to stay wide, try to beat the full-back on the outside, and then cross the ball. On the ball he did relatively little, but with he and Alves either side, Milan’s back four was noticeably more stretched – the full-backs were (at a guess) ten metres further away from the centre-backs compared to the first leg, on average.
Cuenca’s role was unspectacular and largely unproductive but entirely functional, and Guardiola will have been happy with his job. He brings something new to Barca, he’s more of a winger – tricky and willing to cross – rather than a wide forward like Pedro Rodriguez or Cristian Tello, who like space and to get the ball in behind the Barcelona defence. He meant the pattern of Barca’s passes in the final third stretched across the width of the pitch, rather than staying central where Milan were comfortable, as in the first game.
The positioning of Robinho was also interesting. In the first leg he was poor because he wasn’t doing enough to stretch the Barcelona defence with his movement and starting positioning. Here he was much better – he dropped deep to form a 4-3-2-1 without the ball, and this brought Mascherano high up into zones he didn’t do well in. The Milan goal came when the Argentine got drawn out, then turned, then followed Robinho and dropped too deep, playing Nocerino onside. Robinho wasn’t doing that kind of thing in the first leg – he was staying too high up. This was a big improvement.
At half-time Guardiola sensed the problems and moved to more of a 4-4-1-1ish shape. Alves went back to right-back, Cuenca switched to the right, and Iniesta went to the left with Fabregas behind Messi. Milan could no longer find the gaps, and Barca weren’t troubled so much.
Conclusion
Barcelona are a far better football team than Milan on paper – but over the two legs, they only looked marginally better. Milan didn’t do anything special to frustrate Guardiola’s side, but a combination of an over-cautious approach in the first leg, and a slightly confused formation in this second game meant that Barca struggled to demonstrate their natural superiority in the final third. In the tie, the goal that was most Barcelona-like was Nocerino’s equaliser.
Maybe it is worth other sides copying Milan and playing a diamond against Barcelona – the last side to win at the Nou Camp was Hercules, who parked the bus with a flattened diamond (in the defensive phase) and then broke quickly into the channels.
Still, Barcelona progressed, and though it wasn’t 100% successful, the shape showed Guardiola’s ability to tinker with his system without disturbing the rhythm of the side too much. Don’t expect 3-3-4 in the next round, though.
Guardiola actually changed away from a 3-3-4 straight after their second goal if you get the chance to watch it again.
I saw that too.
Referee ensured everything went smoothly as usual. Mourinho’s Inter looks ever-more outstanding with every passing season. Barcelona yet to win anything without outrageous fortune.
The same Inter who progressed to the final thanks to an offside Milito goal?
This ‘Barcelona only win because of the ref’ line is getting really tired. In spite of the fact they weren’t at their best they offered far more than Milan did over the course of the tie, as they have in all of their European ties under Guardiola except against Chelsea (the one time they were particularly lucky) and Inter.
It’d be interesting to see what would happen if Barcelona’s players actually got booked for cynical fouling higher up the pitch.
Right now, they’re just a subtler version of the Netherlands team.
“In spite of the fact they weren’t at their best they offered far more than Milan did over the course of the tie”
tbh, neither Milan were at their best, and lacked important players like Thiago Silva, Van Bommel, Aquilani (and Cassano of course)
In the first leg, there were two penalties not called against Milan (Abiatti on Alexis and Nesta on Puyol). Milan’s inferiority to Barcelona meant they had to commit fouls in order to break up the flow and pace of the game, and it meant they would have to try to get away with fouls in the penalty area…which they did. The result favored Milan (0-0) NOT Barcelona. Even one away goal would have spelled a completely different approach (mentally and tactically) to the second game.
Law 12 of the FIFA Laws of the Game states that “A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offenses: holds an opponent…” and that “”A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offenses is committed by a player inside his own penalty area…”
Regarding the offense of “holds an opponent,” Nesta’s holding of Puyol in the penalty area as he attempted to reach a cross for a header is so blatant as to not warrant debate. Then again on Tuesday, Nesta holds Busquets.
These are violations of the laws of the game in the penalty area…period. The result is a penalty kick. Kuipers (the referee in Barcelona) got the calls right. Eriksson failed to make these calls in the first leg.
Sorry dude but the 2nd penalty on Tuesday was a remarkably feeble one.
Just watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEyYxYrVdD0
Referee can always be excused on the basis that you can’t know what he was able to see in real time from his position (which I couldn’t get a sense of on live broadcast or from tube clips), but if you watch that clip you can clearly see that:
- before the ball is on play, Nesta grabs Busquets’ shirt and Busquets put his hand on Nesta’s chest.
- when Xavi starts to run to kick the ball, Nesta is still holding Busquets’ shirt, and Busquets starts his cut, with his right hand still on Nesta’s chest (holding his shirt aswell?), and Puyol suddenly turns around to perform a block putting his right arm in the way of Nesta’s chest.
- when Xavi kicks the ball, Nesta is still holding Busquets shirt, Busquest still has his right arm extended back, and Puyol still has his right arm on Nesta, and has started pushing on his back with his left arm.
- roughly a second after the ball started moving, Nesta has released Busquets, which is falling, and Puyol is losing contact with Nesta.
.
So if you want to dwell in technicalities citing the Laws of the Game, what you have is that for roughly a second of play-time Nesta is fouling Busquets while Puyol is fouling Nesta.
Moreover, regarding Law 12, FIFA recommends (page 112):
“Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with
holding offences especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks and free
kicks.
To deal with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in
play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play
• award a direct free kick or penalty kick and caution the player if it happens
once the ball is in play”
.
So what you have to conclude is that the referee wasn’t able to correctly apply the rules and then cherry-picked one of the two concurrent fouls.
This for technicalities.
Then, for common sense… situations like these tend to happen on every corner on every match, you can say that this is not a justification for glossing over, but then you have a problem with uniformity of judgement.
Moreover the ball was directed on the second post and was clearly out of reach for our trio, which is usually a condition that makes referees everywhere agree to gloss over.
.
Said that, not a big deal, Barcelona were the better team and more deserving, other decision were dubious, and as an Inter fans I’m also quite satisfied in seeing Milan going out.
And excuse my pedantry, but I see red when someone goes on with pompously putting the “FIFA Laws of the Game” in his arguments without fully comprehending them.
Cheers
1. Lamenting the officiating is boring to talk about.
2. If every incident of rule violation was blown for a free kick or penalty, the game would consist mostly of free kicks and penalties.
3. As an example, virtually every corner kick I’ve ever seen involved some pushing and pulling and shirt-grabbing.
4. In light of these facts, you comment is woeful.
Reposting this from a fellow wise commentor :
Is Barcelona the only team that getdecisions in their favor? Doesn’t Barcelona
have decisions that go against them?Doesn’t their opponents get decisions in
their favor? But why do people forget them?
Why do people forget Militos goal at San Siro was offside, Sneijder’s tackle on Alves
was 100% penalty and Bojans goal was wrongly disallowed but only remember Motta was wrongly given a Second Yellow?
Why do People conveniently forget Arshavin’s hand ball in the area and Messi disallowed goal in the first leg but brings
only up Van Persie wrongly given Second Yellow?
Why do people forget Abidal was given a Straight Red after Anelka tangled on his own
feet and Barcelona had to chase the last 30 minutes with Ten Men, Why do they forget
the Ballack hand ball, he escaping a Second yellow, Puyol wrongly suspended for Second Leg with a Yellow, a legitimate penalty
denied after Bosingwa brought down Henry in the box being the last man in the first leg, and only remember 4 (?) penalties which could have gone either way?
Why do people only remember Pepe was
wrongly sent off but both Carvalho and Alonso survived the entire Second Leg without getting Sent off when they did 5-6 Cardable offences?
Why does people doesn’t even care to know Giggs was offside in the built up of Rooney Goal in Champions League Final 2011, which
would have been a costly decision had Barca not been that dominant in that match?
Why do people cry out loud about the dubious penalty given for a Shirt pull (A foul
according to rules of the game) by Nesta, but conveniently forget There was Two Stone Wall penalties denied in the first leg when the Goal line referee saw it just 5 yards away?
The fact is, When a Team becomes so dominant, sweeps away all the trophies
coming in their way, defeats the favorite teams of majority of people around the world, there will be people who try to undermine their achievements at a given
chance no matter what! There were people back in 1960s who believed it was the fascist
regime of Franco and his influence behind the unparalleled success of one of the greatest teams ever – Di Stefano’s Real Madrid who won 5 consecutive European
Cups!
Referees make mistakes both in favor and against Barcelona. But to undermine the
achievements of one of the Greatest Teams to Ever Play the Game by formulating a
UEFA Conspiracy and Referee Favoritism alone is absolute Rubbish! Many who says it
knows it is lame, but you have no other way to respond to the fans of this Wonderful
team other than this Crap!
Please refrain from re-posting anything, ever, especially if gratuitous capitalization is involved.
@Josef
If you have something relevant to say regarding the points he has made then say it if not please shut up- you obviously do not have anything to use to refute what he has said and so have gone down this childish route- answer football talk with football talk
Excelent, I want to see this in some public media, true and direct, CONGRATULATIONS !
Hi Michael,
Excellent analysis once again. I personally thought (using my limited tactical obsrvation skills) Iniesta’s improved performance (compared to the first leg), and Fabregas’ intelligent running, taking up of positions and passing (who came in for Keita) were the main differences from the first leg.
I had a point to raise with you. I read your column for ESPN regarding fouls rewarding the team committing the foul rather than the team against which it is committed, and how the reward for a foul (far) exceeds the punishment.
I was reminded of the article when Ambrosini pulled/wrestled Fabregas away from the ball for 2-3 seconds 25-30 yards from the Milan goal in the 28th (or maybe 29th minute), the referee only awarded a foul to Barca, but didn’t book Ambrosini. I often wonder why referees don’t book players in early in the first half. The Ambrosini foul was clearly cynical as he made no attempt to get the ball, and the referee would probably have booked a player for the same sort of foul (even one who’d just come on and this’d been his first foul) in the second half. So Ambrosini should have been booked for the foul on its own merits, but when you take into account that he’d already made at least a couple of other fouls, I thought the referee let him get away lightly.
My point being that if referees were to book players early, it’d deter players from fouling constantly as a way to stop the other team from attacking. Sure, it wouldn’t eliminate tactical fouling completely, but players (especially those already on a yellow) would at least have to think twice about committing fouls. Of course, the referee would also have to make sure that he hands out a second yellow when deserved (as some referees give more leeway to a player who has already been booked). While this would probably result in more yellow and red cards in the short-term (than we’re used to seeing), one hopes it would lead to corrections/adjustments in both tactics and (defensive) players’ actions/decisions.
You want an example of a side daring the referee to bring out the cards early look no furhter than last year’s world cup final.
The Dutch knew Howard Webb did not want to be known as the man who spoiled a showpiece by sending off three players and took no end of liberties as a result.
I feel sorry for Webb. If he’d cracked down on the Dutch he’d have been crucified for ruining the final. As it is he didn’t and was still crucified for ruining the final
Yes, the Dutch ought to be ashamed of themselves by the way they played. Still, Mr Webb should have sent Van Bommel. Usually the first one sent sets the tone for the rest of the players. He probably wouldn’t have had to send the others.
Fully agree, first card sets the tone, referees are often afraid to show it. A shame, because the focus would be more on football, less on fouls when they did. Ambrosini clearly escpared red yesterday, could have got 3-4 yellow cards.
Yeah, although the referee is in the unenviable position of damned if he doesn’t, and damned if he does. For example, in the first leg between these two teams, the ref was pulled up (by fans, the media, etc., and not by UEFA) for not giving a penalty for the shirt pull on Puyol, and then in the second leg, the ref was/is getting pelters for giving a foul for a shirt pull by Nesta.
Having said that, I can also see merit in the argument that says that since the corner hadn’t even been taken yet, the referee should just have pulled the jostling players over and asked them to cut out the pulling (and so this may not be the best example to illustrate my point). But since he’s in charge, he is of course entitled to call the game as he sees fit. As long as he then gives a foul (and a penalty) for similar infringements/situations in the future.
I also think that in this particular instance, maybe the referee had the shirt pull from the first leg in mind, maybe him, his assistants, the fourth (sixth?) official all talked about it before the match, meaning he was more inclined to give a penalty for a shirt pull in this game than he would otherwise be.
I found Cuenca to be a curious selection. I understand the theory behind his introduction (widening the fullbacks), but can’t help but think that Alexis would have stretched the backline and allowed for more space in between the lines for messi an fabregas to exploit. To me, peps strategy was only partly successful…he got the width he wanted out of the fullbacks but did it at the cost of limiting the best player in the world. I sometimes wonder if he feels a need to silence his critics by demonstrating that he can change tactics and win in more ways than one
Agree that it was a curious decision to start Cuenca ahead of Sanchez, but credit to Cuenca, he had lots of success against Both Abate and Antonini. Something Cuenca offers that Pedro, Tello, and even Sanchez don’t really is fearlessness. Sanchez, with all his injuries and extreme desire to adapt, has become too much of a “I just want to keep possession, I don’t want to take any risks” type of player. Pedro has always been like this since he isn’t much of a dribbler. We haven’t seen enough of Tello to judge. But Cuenca will always demand the ball from Xavi and Messi, and do what he feels is the best option. He might not always succeed, but I don’t blame an attacker for losing the ball in an attempted dribble. Besides, the only way to improve is to take these risks. Cuenca has the mentality that Henry and Eto’o had: yeah Xavi and Iniesta and Messi, I know you’re legends and all, but I’m going to do what I want with the ball, not just give it back to you.”
It’s funny, but what you attribute to Cuenca is what I see out of Tello, and much less successfully. Cuenca has felt like much more the team player, while Tello seems more likely to drift off into his own little bubble with a focus on goal rather than a focus on someone else being in better position to put it in the goal. There was a play on the weekend against Bilbao where went off into “I’m going to do what I want with the ball, not just give it back to you”, zoned in on goal with very little window, and blew off Messi making a cutting run inside. The look from Messi to Tello afterwards isn’t one that I’ve seen much of from Messi in the last two seasons.
I like Cuenca a good deal. He’s fit into the squad quite well.
I was just about to point that out. Anyone watching Barca will realise that Tello has a striker’s mentality about him. Not that he is selfish, but that when he is in a position to shoot or take on defenders he usually does that regardless of who’s open. Cuenca on the other hand, is more of a pass first shoot second player.
Alexis is an aggressive forward… he takes runs trying to break the offside, it’s something like Messi but without that pause and dribble. Pedro it’s not at his best, but still a respected wing… I guess Pep chose Cuenca because minded games can be based on which players you’re playing against. If you say, I hava Messi, Fabregas, Alves always attacking, and you add a young, 5 games old player in the first team… You would not mind in telling your defense to watch him out. Cuencua is “slower” compared to Alexis, or even Pedro, BUT maybe he’s able to play with more spaces because you take him for granted… As I say, you have terrible great players to mark before him.. But i’m just guessing.
The reason is because Cuenca is more two-footed than Sanchez.
Barca struggled in the first leg because their lack of a laft-back meant they were unable to stretch Milan. They had Alves on the right no equivalent on the other side. Tonight they wanted that width on the left flank.
If they’d used Sanchez in that position he’d have looked to cut inside onto his stronger foot, narrowing the play.
Cuenca, though, is happy to go outside on his left foot, making him more suited to that role.
“Maybe it is worth other sides copying Milan and playing a diamond against Barcelona – the last side to win at the Nou Camp was Hercules, who parked the bus with a flattened diamond (in the defensive phase) and then broke quickly into the channels.”
Unless a side can play 4-2-4-ish like Madrid in the last half hour of the latest Clásico, I’d go so far as to say Milan’s 4-3-1 defensive alignment should be the strategy most replicated against Barça for a team not looking to park the bus. Two banks of four (http://i.imgur.com/1reiT.png) leaves more space for Iniesta and Messi to attack through the centre, where the narrowness and compactness of the 4-3-1 (http://i.imgur.com/rjSFz.png) forces Barça to go down the touchlines, making them play less to their strengths.
Unusual problems for barca this season against ac milan in all games..
guardiola should have been able to settle this. Conglatulations to allegri though..
Still Barca wasn’t functional enough, and we were constantly struggling at the back. Cuenca should have been covering Nocerino, but stayed high in the pitch and he didn’t track him down. Anyways, let’s hope for a better tactical preparation against Chelsea (most likely).
False 9 and False 10 ?
In Barca’s Total football philosophy, everything is false
even valdes is a false keeper he is actually a sweeper
Well, stats of the game show that Milan were limited to two shots on goal, one on target. While that’s true italian realism, I would argue that Pep’s strategy worked wonders. Despite the look of the three-three-four, it was actually pretty solid defensively and it took a great Robinho move to eliminate two players, a beautiful pass from Ibra and a huge error from Mascherano for Milan to carve a chance out. All along Barça were still creating chances, maybe not as much as we’re used with this Barça side, but Guardiola has already shown that despite his public chatting, he is far from averse to play it safety first, be it in a very different way than most other coaches. Over the two legs, Milan didn’t really create much and Barcelona plenty enough to get through. I would bet that it was Pep’s plan all along, and also that he had something in store in case things had turned badly…
Now I am aware that this is completely off topic, but I was hoping that someone here could answer it correctly…
Was that first penalty actually correct?
Antonini intercepts the pass, aimed for Dani Alves, and deflects it straight to Messi who was standing in an offside position. Should the game not be stopped for offside then, instead of giving Barcelona a penalty for the following tackle on Messi?
For the highlights: http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/barcelona-3-ac-milan-1/
It wasnt a barca player who kicked it back to Messi, it was Antonini himself so there was no way it was offside. In any case do you really think an Italian defender would have sprinted so fast to make a tackle if he thought there was half a chance of winning an offside? Haha
Gaining an Advantage: “Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent”
It looks like a rebound/interception, not a dribble or controlling first touch. I think it definitely is offside.
I wonder if ZM could weigh in on this?
I think that counts as a lose ball. Xavi passed the ball backwards and Antonini literally passed the ball in Messi’s direction.
If it had been a forward pass that was deflected to Messi, everyone would have been calling it as offside, so why not this time? It just seems completely arbitrary. The important thing should be who the ball ends up with, not who it was aimed at.
Now of course you could argue that Antonini had control of the ball and just made a very bad decision where to pass it, but that also seems questionable…
Actually, a backwards pass is not offside that is what the rules said last time i checked. It doesn’t matter if Antonini had control or not.
The rules actually don’t say anything about backward passes per se, only that you have to be ahead of the ball to be in an offside position.
If a backwards pass ends up at a player in an offside position, it is offside.
So it really is a question of whether Antonini had control of the ball or not. If he didn’t, and it was simply an attempt to intercept the pass (intended for Dani Alves), I don’t see why Messi should not be considered offside.
Do you think the referee would have called it if the goalkeeper had been the first one into the situation, and he picked up the ball with his hands? If not, there is no reason that it should cancel the offside either.
You are right i checked this: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf (Slide 25).
This is the problem with the offside rule it is so ambiguous sometimes. In this case it is very difficult to know whether it was offside or not, because it does not specifically clear this case up. Obviously the ball did not rebound on Antonini but he also does not have 100% control of the ball.
If a defender plays the pass then offside doesn’t exist.
Remember Rooney’s goal against Porto in 2009? He just lingered behind the defense in an offside position hoping the defender was stupid enough to pass back to the keeper.
Of course, and that’s really what I’m asking here; can Antonini really be said to “play a pass” there? Because to me it seems as if he just tries to intercept the pass towards Dani Alves, and deflects it towards Messi.
So when does a deflection (which does NOT cancel an offside) turn into a pass (which cancels an offside)? And how does the referee determine this?
This highlight video shows the whole situation (it was apparently cut out from the one I linked before): http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/barcelona-3-ac-milan-1-2/
It should count as a deflection, not a pass, and therefore it´s offside. So even though the foul was correct, the offside should void the penalty. I don´t blame the refs for that one though, it´s kinda hard to spot. But the second one is never a penalty, never in a lifetime, especially considering that the ball wasn´t in play.
The ball was in play at second penalty, watch again. Ridiculous action from Nesta, Busquets probably never scored a header from a corner in his life (so no need to over-defend him) and the referee was 5 metres away, with a perfect view. Afterwards Nesta said: “I took the risk because I didn’t think the ref would have the guts to give a second one”. How innocent (cynical?) can you be? Mesbah’s foul on Puyol at San Siro was even worse though. They should always give those things, rules are rules, even Rio Ferdinand agreed with decision on Twitter.
It seems harsh because it is usually not given. The fact is, Milan did not do their research because this ref gives penalties easily. If it was not from a corner there would not be any complaints.
Busquets scored that Own-Goal from a corner against Arsenal last year in the Camp Nou 2nd leg.
it was onside. If messi tried to pass then iniesta should be offside but messi intended to shoot. Shirt-pulling = foul. On my point of view, the foul happened when the ball on the air it was the time when busquet fell down. Although Nesta initiated before the kick. It was like Alves foul on granada player that cost barca penalty. Alves initiated to foul outside the box, but ref gave penalty based on the latest accident where it happen inside the box.
OMG! It’s a conspiracy once again, Mourinho already has an excuse if RM doesn’t make it this year.
http://www.marca.com/2012/04/03/futbol/equipos/real_madrid/1333482762.html
Ummm yeah Mourinho has always acknowledged Barcelona is the best team in the world and that they´ve won fairly when they have…
“Barca were struggling to create chances”? Really? Did we watch the same game? There were about 20 or more shots and thats struggling to create? Milan should have been downed 5-1 by the end. Better if you said poor finishing hampered Barca.
They created tons of chances – when they were already ahead. Barcelona really didn’t create that many chances up to the 3-1 goal.
After that, Milan tried to push the team up, but did a pretty poor job at it, hence the chances for Barcelona.
Yeah, well is a little difficult to create chances when 9 players are defending and all of them are way bigger than Messi & Co.
Adriano and Thiago misses are just not good. even Puyol whould had shot better!
um, so the 1st penalty was in the, what, 11th minute? and by that time messi had already missed a sitter (for him) after a pass from iniesta, just missing at far post. and then, just prior to the first PK, messi gangstered the ball and had another 1-on-1 with abbiati but chose to cut the ball back. so, two stone-cold, clear-cut chances in 10 minutes. that’s double what milan created in the entire game. if barca hadnt have got the goals from the PKs, they would have got them elsewhere. they were on cruise control for the last 30 minutes of the game, just chillin, and even so were opening up milan. if need be they would have pressed harder. they didnt need to.
credit where credit is due, this from a neutral.
Exactly… IF Messi had scored at least one of those 2 chances… we’d save all this talk about penalty crap… But even the best misses and wakes up on the wrong side of bed sometimes.
I agree, don’t understand where that’s coming from either. They created many chances, and from the start, not only after 3-1. Messi had a couple of very good ones before first goal.
oops, didnt see your comment. this is what i wanted to say, but i wasnt so nicely brief.
Exactly.
The shot count over 2 legs was,
39 Shots to 11 in favor of Barca, (11 to 4 on target).
Over 4 matches between these 2 teams it was 67-20.
I think APOEL might have a better stat against Madrid than this shame.
Milan had no intention of playing and were counting on getting lucky and progressing.
No law prevents them from doing so but its pathetic.
And yet Barcelona needed two penalties to get two of their goals. And ’should have’? No one even knows what this means.
yes they struggling to create chances, if you actually saw the match not only reading the stats, in the game barca attempt most of the shot from outside the box which not their usual game.. this is because milan defense is tight, even iniesta goal was from messi’s deflected shot from the edge of the box
Yes… Barca were struggling….. 20 or more shots but they were easy to handle shots.
One thing is for Sure. Barca Misses way too many chances. They need to improve their finishing. Because with the 3 in the back they create many chances they just need to nick them in. In football is consider good 50% finishing, but Barca right now is below 30% in finishing created chances…
If they fix, there’s not stopping them
I’ve noticed that after Milan got 1-1. They’ve started to take long shots, Xavi being the first as i recall. That’s it. You don’t expect Xavi to do that, not even never hehe… Sometimes i yell SHOOT, but they keep on passing like if they wanted to get a goal with the ball on their feet… That’s something they should change, OR NOT.
when there are 8 bodies in the box, sometimes hard to take a long shot. deflection or block is very likely.
at that point barca was at panic mode unable to break the defense… the 2nd penalty really blew the game off it gave barca another lead and nesta gets a yellow that makes him more cautious on challenges
Yeah. I can see that. I love Barca but I was not happy that they were given that penalty. they had a total of 50 min to score and they would have scored more for sure.
ON the other hand… why would Nesta do such a stupid thing? Especially after the first leg that it was all over the news that Puyol shirt was pulled right in front of refs and didnt call. Just don’t get in that position.
Barca wastes alot of chances, and when they get into a bind they start shooting from off positions.
I think it’s quite a clever play by Barca which ends up making Nesta look foolish. When Busquets starts his run it is no surprise that Nesta grabs a hold of his shirt, every defender in the world does it on every corner kick in every game. But then Puyol slides at the perfect time directly between them, preventing Nesta from keeping close enough to Busquets to avoid making the shirt pull obvious.
For me it’s the kind of play that makes you wish there was another option besides penalty or giving nothing for fouls in the box. Is it a foul? Yes, clearly. Is a virtually automatic goal too harsh a penalty for that type of foul? Also yes in my opinion. Not sure what the solution is but it puts the ref in a tight spot.
It was not the first time Guardiola chooses 3-3-4 in a big game. They played the same way against Santos (almost the same formation, except for Abidal instead of Mascherano and Thiago instead of Cuenca)
Barcelona –
Defensively they struggled more in this game, struggling to deal with Robinho, Ibra and midfield runs (something Milan are particularly good at). Mascherano was really troubled by Robinho who found a lot more space and could run at Mascherano with good effect. This meant Mascerano couldn’t help deal with Ibra and he was allowed to hold up the ball much better than the first leg. Puyol also had to deal with Boateng getting forward more and showing great movement, he was able to drag Puyol away and open up space for midfield runners (like Nocerino’s winner). High pressure from Ibra and Robinho also meant Barca werent as good at playing out from the back and maybe lacked a good outball at times.
In midfield, Barca weren’t as good at normal. Busquets did a solid job of keeping possession and making sure Barca were not too open in midfield, though he arguably should have tracked midfield runs better and was guilty of following Boateng too much sometimes. Xavi seemed off today, he did a good job of keeping possession but didn’t dominate as he did in the first leg, and there seemed a clear plan to block off his passing routes by Milan. He was also guilty of not tracking runs by Seedorf at times during the match, one of his few weaknesses. Iniesta was restored to a more central position, and had a mixed game. He struggled with Nocerino’s attention during the match and was guilty of switching off when tracking back (similar to Xavi) but did a good job at creating opportunities, gave the midfield a link to the attack and got the crucial goal. A good response by him after the first leg passed him by.
On the wings, Alves had another great game on the right and stretched the play, but missed having Sanchez on that side to combine with and overload the flank, so wasn’t given the amount of space he got in the first leg. On the other wing, Cuenca wasn’t as influential, but did a good job of pushing Abate back and isolating him, therefore stretching the defense.
Up front, Messi and Fabregas were key to Barca winning the game. Their movement was excellent and completely opened up the Milan CB partnership. One of the weaknesses of Barca in the first leg was that Xavi didn’t make enough runs into the penalty area, Fabregas solved this solution easily. Both have a great partnership and as Messi drops deep, Fabregas would run into the remaining space and vice versa. This worked well as the Milan fullbacks were too concerned with the wingers, and Iniesta was also joining in with the attack to good effect.
Overall, Barcelona were less solid in this game as the found it tough to deal with Ibra and Robinho. But they outweighed this by completely opening up the Milan backline and if xavi hadn’t been as subdued, then this could have been a riot. The goals were lucky, but the movement was excellent high up the pitch, and if anything they needed to see more of the ball in those positions. Milan did a good job of separating xavi from the rest of the team.
http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/ give the blog a read if you like
A few points on Milan:
- Might just be, but Mexes seemed targeted by Barca in the defense to pressure into mistakes.
- They suffered from not being able to get their fullbacks forward to stretch the vulnerable Barca defense. Both were pinned back by the Barca wingers.
- Ambrosini did a solid job in front of the defense and kept Barca from overloading that zone.
-Nocerino was pretty poor apart from his goal; he failed to stop Iniesta and was poor on the ball. He made some good runs forward from midfield (something he is very good at, Lampard esque)but was a weak link today.
- Seedorf did much better in this leg trying to get the ball forward to the attack. He played some great passes forward and sneaked past Xavi a couple of times off the ball.
- The front three worked much better in this leg (it helped they saw more of the ball): Boateng showed great movement to drag Puyol and Busquets out of position at times, Robinho was much more of a direct threat against Mascherano and Ibra found it much easier to get into the game and lead the line. Ibra was allowed to hold the ball up and bring others into play (aka the goal), which was rarely seen in the first leg.
Credit should go to Milan, as they were a threat throughout and had clearly worked on there plan: get the ball to Ibra to hold the ball up for midfield runners (Boateng, Nocerino) or get the ball to Robinho and let him run at Mascherano. Defensively they just couldn’t deal with Messi and Fabregas and the result seemed fair. Though they did well to stifle Xavi and therefore let themselves see more of the ball.
Inverting the pyramid…
Very interesting, lets see if Guardiola uses this again.
Am I the only one who thinks Barca are now running the risk of collapsing into tactical confusion?
Most coaches like to make sure key spaces are covered in the defensive phase and accept that means all the key spaces cannot be covered when you attack. Two fullbacks, three in midfield and only one striker is the norm now
At Barca its the other was around. Alves was winger, Messi had Fabregas in close support and the full back positions were wide open. Oh and have you noticed? Nearly everyones a midfielder now! What did Capello say? “Everyone plays 9-1 now” well at Barca its more “10″ than “3-4-3″
I know Barca prefer to defend by retaining possession but surely someone out there is going to see enough of the ball and use it to pick open the holes in that defense. I predict a Denmark v Spain (circa 1986) style thrashing one day.
i doubt it’ll be a thrashing, since anyone who captures a lead against barca will likely pull an inter and drop ten behind the ball.
but it’s a fair point. even when they play with two fullbacks, alves at least spends so much time bombing forward and keeping play in the opposing half that you’ve got to think there’s plenty of space to exploit behind them.
but it’s just that the constant threat of being torn open straight through the middle prevents teams from pressing wide and actually exploiting it.
in theory i realize you must be right, but i just don’t know who has the personnel to keep the center tight and press on the wings. i’m certainly glad i don’t have to choose tactics to match up with them, anyway.
I see your point; but, I do think it would be good for the game if Barca were punnished for this kind of tactic.
It’s getting a bit disrespectful now! A short of “you cannot score against us so we will not defend” outlook that is beginning to irritate me.
With respect you sound like a hater. Barca were infact criticised for being too cautious in the first leg with the back 4 and 2 defensive mids they played so its clear in this match they were simply going for the win. In any case you could argue Milan offered absolutely nothing from the flanks so why bother defending them
Not anti-Barca,I just think every side that has carried its philosophy to an extreme has become a paradoy of itself and I think Barca is doing that right now.
What did you think is going to happen? Will Barca actually dominate the game for 20 years until everyone learns to play the game the way they do? I do not imagine for a minute that will happen. Never has, never will!
For what its worth, I think Barca are one of best sides I’ve ever seen, I’d put them ahead of AC Milan under Sacchi any day!
And do not get me started on the Danish Dynamite side. My blood boils when I think Bilardo was allowed to boast he invented 3-5-2 after the 86 world cup! What did the world think the Danes were playing?
Matt I think you hit the nail on the head. Teams have an idea how to get at Barcelona, but no one can do it without risking being torn to shreds. If Milan are willing to play as Barcelona played with two players staying high and wide up the pitch and not worrying about covering back, they will be able to create many chances. But then you’re talking about trying to defend against Barca with only 6 or 7 men. You may score a few, but they’re going to get 7 or 8.
The reality is that they have more attacking talent than anyone. If you try to play an open game you’re going to be the one taking the thrashing 99 times out of 100.
I guess I’m not really seeing this as 3-3-4. To me it looked like standard 3-4-3, and the author kind of acknowledges this.
I’ve been intrigued by the 3-4-3 all season. Early in the season, I wondered about the spacing of Messi and Cesc. When Messi dropped into the hole, Cesc would make a forward run. Lately, they’re both sitting in the hole, so it’s natural that it looks like four forwards.
I’d love to see barcelona vs barcelona. What would Pep do against this team? Every team that is skilled enough to get even a little bit of possesion against barca, like real madrid, athletic, etc seems to be so focused on trying to attack as quickly as possible, and somehow they forget 15 years of training and pass more inaccurately than fat mexican guys in upstate south carolina pickup games. I think the only way to beat them is to play even more boring soccer, and don’t even consider scoring goals. just pass back to your keeper for 80 minutes and see how they like it.
blimey ! was thinking the same too. is there any team that can pass the ball, just pass the bloody ball, and make barca tired themselves !?
I think it’s more a question of passing well under pressure.
There are elements of fearlessness, technical and tactical preparation, and stamina that are necessary to not wilt under the kind of pressure Barça puts on teams. While it seems unlikely a team will beat them on technique, the mental and physical elements of the game could be exploited.
Athletic de Bilbao gave them a good run on Saturday. Although Athletic lost by two goals, several Barcelona players said it was the toughest game, physically, they’ve played all season.
Or, alternatively, perhaps there needs to be something like the equivalent of the shot clock in basketball so no team can play that often tiring (to watch) possession game.
You know, that’s almost what it’s getting to- Barca keep possession with their feet as basketball players are able to do with their hands. As effective a tactic as it is, it doesn’t often make for a competitively entertaining match. Still, a shot-clock is never going to happen, for obvious reasons. We’ll just have to wait for the triad of Messi-Xavi-Iniesta to move along.
Barcelona Presses high and tight, dominates the ball and plays short passes… RM does not play like that, I could say ManU, but when they faced Barcelona they lost like if they were a weak team. Out of 200 games under Pep’s hands, they’ve lost let’s say 20 matches maximum. They are the best team because they are too technical, very skilled, they know each others moves, they have 2 brains that pause the game and think, they have Messi… ¿How can you mark a team like that without being too “italian” right?. Anyway, it does not bother me watching Hercules play a 8-1-1… But gets me crazy watching Real Madrid, Manchester U, or Milan playing like that… The question is, ¿Do they play that way because they want or because they are forced to?
I would like to point one thing in Barca’s tactics and that is a large number of “tactical” fouls when they lose the ball.There is a lot of handling tripping etc. with clear intent do disrupt any atepmt of a counteratack.It is legitiment but how many yelow cards and red cards would they get with unbiased referee?
Excellent site. A lot of helpful info here. I’m sending it to a few buddies ans also sharing in delicious. And certainly, thanks in your effort!
Barcelona didn’t win by tactics, it won via referee’s decision, and this is really bringing the game to disrepute.
Yes, the referees were crucial in this tie by not awarding the two penalties at San Siro last week. Starting the return game with 0-2 would have been slightly different. And not talking about some Milan players ascaping yellow (and red) cards throughout the 180 minutes.
4 clear penalties for Barcelona in the tie, only 2 given, and besides that dominating as far as football is concerned (both play as chances), but some loons still say the ref was decisive. If any team can complain about the referees in this quarter-final, it’s Barcelona.
Couldn’t have agreed more with you. Also if we discount the (so called) disputed penalty, we still won by 2-1. Being fair to Barca haters though Barca were not given 2 penalties at the San Siro
Some would say that both penalties were suspect. Plus, that’s not to mention the non-awarded penalty on Ibrahimovic that many are talking about. Either way, those calls might’ve seen Milan through at 1-1 or 2-1. What one thinks about those calls is generally going to mirror which side they’re more partial to.
Barca stats: 35 shots in the two games; numerous, numerous wasted opportunities. I’d say Barcelona is bringing the game to disrepute
The final aggregate should have been 7-1.
actually, once AC milan scored, barca suddenly became jittery and the ref had to restore a form of confidence to the Barca team by awarding a dubious penalty . same thing happened lastyear, once Arsenal got back into the game with a goal, the Barca team suddenly look weak and the ref came once again to its rescue by taking off the threat – RVP.
this is actually a pointer on the weakness of the Barcelona team- it has no character, against a cohesive team play- once it is loosing or not in control of the game , all tactics break down.
Arsenal didn’t get back into the game with a goal, Busquets scored an own goal. Arsenal didn’t muster a single shot on goal the entire match so quit pretending they stood a chance.
Barca were their usual selves dominant in possession and needing assistance.
Pep likes to play as many midfielders as possible. Last year, many people recognized Barça’s vulnerability at the back, with both Puyol and Pique not able to play every game. Abidal the same. So he bought… Cesc. And Alexis Sanchez.
Last night’s game showed what playing with midfielders all over the pitch can do: nobody really wants to shoot at goal, and a non-natural defender doesn’t have a natural offside-awareness. It’s really a loss that Villa is injured, he isn’t that good at tiki-taka so just goes for the goal. And Mascherano is great at running, but sometimes it’s good to first take a good look around you.
Besides, Milan were helping a lot, by playing Abate, who made some decent tackles but that’s about it. When in posession, he was the start for Barça’s posession.
Did anyone else notice Milan’s front three playing as a wide spread front three during periods in the first halve? With Busquets staying behind and no full midfield, so less passign options?
Actually Barca wer enot even near their best. First they clearly missed Abidal and Villa. Second Xavi was not 100%, probably still injured and it looks like he played with pain. Third, there were many misplaced passes, even from Iniesta. Furthermore, they missed too many chances. Tiago, Adriano, Messi, Xavi, etc… A fully fit squad with Abidal and Villa, and an in form Pedro and injuryfree Xavi/Iniesta would beat Mila 8-1, I am sure.
You are sure. Very convincing. Stick to playstation.
And if Pato had played, if Nesta was 5 years younger, if Gattuso had 2 working eyes, and if Maldini had come out of retirement, Milan would’ve beat Barca on a 1-0 aggregate. I am sure.
Can someone please explain me how Milan made Barca suffer even though Milan had 3 shots in the match ? And please give me a neutral point of view.
3 shots in this match (1 actual shot on net) and 3? in the first game … absolutely incredible how Ibra though he was hard done by. contrast that by the 18 shots (3 on goal) in the first game, and 21 shots (8 on goal) for barca in the two games.
what they mean by making Barca suffer, is that they held them scoreless in the first game, and only allowed 3 goals in the second. instead of getting blown away like other teams.
So does creating more chances mean that you are dominating the match? We all know possession always does not mean domination as a defending team can dominate you by giving you very less space.
Considering that 2 of the 3 Barca goals came from rather fortuitous penalties, Milan did quite well to keep the (goals from open play) aggregate at 1-1. In fact, it would’ve seen them through.
So creating many chances does not count as domination. Domination would happen if a team creates clear-cut chances and their goal/chance ratio would be maximum?
only 1 penalty was “fortuitous”. the first one was clearly a penalty. Milan have nothing but excuses.
In these kinds of matches it is difficult to see which team deserves to go through. Is it Barca(or similar dominating teams)that deprive the other team of possession and create many chances although do not convert most of them or is it Milan(defending teams) that try their best to soak up the constant pressure and convert even half chances as they get very less chances. That is,
attacking/defensive possession vs. mental strength to soak up pressure(defending).
“Fortuitous” as in they benefited from events outside of their control. Barca were fortuitous to benefit from the ball off Antonini that led to the 1st penalty.
Btw. there’s a decent argument about that 1st penalty being offside(see top of page). I’m not going to get into some stupid debate about it but it’s there. Also, I could care less about Milan. Just because someone is critical of Barca doesn’t mean they support the opposite side…
I am a Milan fan thats why I was asking.
thought Barcelona looked much more dominant before they switched back to 433 (which, as the first comment says, was directly after the 2nd goal not at half time). Iniesta is better with a wide player occupying the full back, as he likes to hover in an inside-left position. Alves,on the other hand, likes to burst past the full back on the outside, and so Cuenca in front of him made him less effective. If Guardiola wanted to go 433 I would have liked to see Iniesta wide right and Cuence left, or else Fabrigas rights and Iniesta in midfield.
That said, bit baffled at how negative some of the comments are here – Barca comfortably beat one of the top 4/5 teams in the world
It was very very cautious Barca game, after storm in the first minute (3 chances for Messi and a penalty) they attacked only by 3 players. When they tried to move by more forwards Iniesta has scored third goal. But still it was 6 or 7 golden chances for goal, and Milan has only one. After Pique return Barca is now a rock in the defense, but Xavi and Cesc are far from their best. They need rest, Thiago played spectacular against Bilbao. Pep should use him more.
I think the logic is simple. He field 5 midfielders, 2 wingers (including alves) and 1 forward… the chances created are numerous, but you only have one player able to finish those chances (messi). Alexis, Villa, Pedro are forwards that have better finishing, but they werent playing so the result for those chances weren’t that successful.
Barca is very dependent on Messi’s form; however, chances of him having an off-day or getting injured are pretty low so lucky Barca. The biggest blow for Barca has been Villas injury, he is an excellent goalscorer and proved vital for last season.
This is a great tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
Brief but very accurate info Thank you for sharing this
one. A must read post!
Why do you believe you’re being clever? It wasn’t clever the first time so it’s certainly not clever the 879th time…
Does anyone else think that Barca attack better when they play “4-4-3″ than when they play “3-4-3″ or even “3-3-4″ as they did yesterday?
The difference between the three line-ups is generally just how high up Dani Alves moves, and how deep he moves in defensive duties.
Generally I find that when they play with a back four:
1. Barcelona control the ball better in the build up, particularly from distributions from Valdes.
2. Find it easier to move forward with the ball, either via Alves, or the centre-backs or left back.
3. In a back four, with a spare man to provide cover, the ball is often brought out with forward momentum by the defenders whereas in a back three if there is any pressure then the central midfielders have to move backwards to help play the ball out, meaning the central midfielders get sucked deeper, and are forced to receive passes with their backs to the opposition – losing forward momentum, pitch vision and positioning.
4. More often gain a “surprise” factor from forward runs by Alves, in a later stage of play, or less frequently forward runs by the left-back or central defenders.
From seeing the first game in Milan, it was clear that Barca needed extra width, so playing Cuenca made sense, but I was also hoping that they would copy the great play in the Athletic game and play Adriano as a left back in a back four, with Alves and Adriano both having license to go forward from deep.
Anyways – can it be that the team whose defence starts with its forwards, also needs the dynamism four defenders gives to better attack?
Interested in hearing your thoughts.
Enjoyed the piece. Good points about Barcelona’s problems. In reply to the comment about answering the question of Barcelona by parking the bus and countering via Hercules: the thing is most teams have tried this and still do. Often what makes that response a success or not is the degree to which the referee will allow physicality in the match.
I think what Pep was trying to do was respond to the tactic of the opposition trying to aggressively press their way into a match–which in itself is a response to Barcelona’s continuous pressing. Normal procedures for FCB is for the front line to press immediately upon loss of possession. By playing more players in forward positions, the result was a more intense and pervasive press from the Catalan side in Milan’s half. The risk was as you stated, but I think Pep was willing to take that risk in order to get a goal ahead. It ended up working though not quite in the manner intended.
The second half was basically mission accomplished, allowing Pep to return to something more balanced to retain the lead.
Injuries have been the primary reason for Guardiola’s tinkering this year. He’s had problems at left back all year, and that was the reason he went to the three-man backline to begin with. Abidal and Adriano have traded injury time.
Barcelona are very closely linked with Jordi Alba (Valencia), and some have even suggested the transfer is all but signed. It’s no secret they are looking to strengthen the left side.
Pedro has struggled for form and fitness this year, and he would have been the choice over Cuenca under normal circumstances. He’s still working back. Barcelona have played over 50% of this season without 2 of its 3 first choice attackers from last year.
Xavi needs to retire from international football ASAP. He is struggling with strains in career threatening areas (Achilles’ most notably), and he’d do well to look players like Paul Scholes and Clarence Seedorf for longevity. It’s taken a big toll on him this year. Puyol went through it last year, but has come up Aces this year. Xavi has no business playing this summer’s Euros.
Disagree, Xavi needs to play for spain this summer for the chance at a dominance not seen before in international football. Maybe this can be his last hurrah but spain still needs him to orchestrate the possession game as only he can. As I see it xavi/inieista/messi is the basis of barcelona’s play, but Xavi/Iniesta is the base for spain, they need his skills.
This is coming from a barca fan who would love to see him rest more, hopefully over next season thiago/cesc can continue to develop and let xavi rest more in small games.
I am impressed with diamond Milan defensive shape, It worked very well against Arsenal at Sansiro. Defensively speaking, Milan show how can you cope Barselona side but offensively, Milan cannot get the ball more efficiently. Milan defender intercepted most pass around own box.
@ ZM, considering the average position of each Barça player as shown in the “player influence” diagram, I find it quite exaggerated to state that Barça’s shape was 3-3-4.
I would rather say it was a 3-1-4-2 (with the front two being Messi-Fabregas), or maybe a lopsided 3-4-3, the front three being Messi-Fabregas-Cuenca.
But in any case, Dani Alves is on the same line as Iniesta and Xavi.
However, I agree to say it’s still a very original shape.
That is wrong… It was exactly a 3-4-3 with a diamond in midfield. Cesc played behind the front three (Messi in the centre with Alves and Cuenca as wingers)
The “average position” tool from espn homepage showed it perfectly.
This changed obviously in the second half when Alves went back and Cuenca switched to the right side.
I thought Barcelona created quite a few chances but they just weren’t as clinical, especially Messi. Perhaps you meant that they were not creating clear cut opportunities. I think they had 21 shots that were not hopeful but most of them were straight at Abiati or just off target.
everyone here talks about barca and barca…. why can’t anybody mention that it’s impossible for Barca to win matches after matches without referee’s help???? otherwise there are no controversies
This line is patently ridiculous. Ibrahimovic (bitter) and Mourinho (bitter-er) agreeing on something with the peanut gallery of halfwit internet haters doesnt make it true.
If reffing was ACTUALLY consistent, and a yellow was always a yellow and a red always a red (see indiantoon and Locosts post) most teams wouldnt even have a chance at playing with Barca. And that, you salty dog, is FACT.
Likewise, if the officiating was consistent, Barca would collect 7 or 8 yellows every match for simulation and/or crowding the ref…
Nagamato, when I see Barca/Spain lose it is because the referee helped their opponents, not so much by making calls against Barca as by not calling fouls on the opponents. For Barca/Spain to lose they need to have an off night (always possible) or the referee lets their opponents run wild on the field. To triumph over Barca/Spain you need to beat them up or drag them to the ground. Mostly, because fans would rather see a game decided in open play than by penalties, referees tolerate a degree of violence against Barca/Spain that isn’t present in other matches. The classic example of this was the 2010 world cup final between Spain and Netherlands. The only way to stop Xavi-Inietsa-Busquets-Villa-Fabregas was to physically assault them. There you saw Howard Webb (the referee) not call utterly egregious yellow and red card worthy fouls. All this is to say, we the fans tend to talk about the help teams get from referees making calls. Just as important is the calls they don’t make.
Well said NCC, although that’s coming from an NYCC…so, ya know, we’re just drinking that Catalan kool aid
Apparently.
That pretty awesome! lol
Milan with Silva would have been much better to take on Barcelona.
The main Milan problem was that they tried to play the ball ou from the back, they should have been driving the ball down field.
It also hurt Milan that they had no one with speed capable of hurting Barcelona on the break. If only Pato could stay healthly.
The only way Chelsea can beat Barcelona is if they physically beat the up, and somehow hope a Barcelona player see a red card.
A flat diamond might be perfect for Chelsea actually. Torres/Drogba up front (depending on if Chelsea wants speed or the ability to hold up the ball), with Mata as the diamond tip, Ramires out left to help Cole cover Alves, and Sturridge out right to take advantage of the lack of speed in Barca’s back 3/4. Essien and Mikel play the back two spots with Essien in a more advanced role to help press Xavi or Iniesta, Mikel staying deep to pick up Messi when he comes deep.
If I was Di Mateo I’d try this exact tactic. Staying deep and counter-attacking is something Chelsea is still very good at.
I guess Chelsea will play a 4-2-1-3 with Mata and Ramires at flanks and Lampard, Essien, Mikel at the middle. Ramires will obviously play deeper and narrower to strengthen the midfield.
The only problem is Chelsea’s sluggish midfield. Barca couldn’t have had a better opponent to play against. I see a 5-1 aggregate score for Barca, hands down.
What stood out to me was how much Barcelona were content at 3-1. After Iniesta scored the third goal on 53 minutes, Barcelona only had 5 more shots, none on target. They normally will slow the game down for periods in the second half, but they usually go for more goals towards the end.
The respect that Barcelona showed to Milan was telling, and they must have been worried about getting caught on the break even at 3-1 up. If they get ahead against Chelsea, they may just concentrate on possession more than usual in order to demoralise the opposition. It also shows however, that Barcelona can step up their intensity when needed, or when they want to as shown in the Leverkusen 7-1.
Interesting Semi-Finals, I can’t wait!
I have found it very interesting that Barca have taken to a 3-man defence a lot of the time recently, and it seems to be a trend spreading throughout Europe. The fact that they played it in such a big match will likely see many managers follow suit and begin to see the merits of such a set-up. Does anyone think it’s likely to become ‘a la mode’ in Britain though? I can only see Di Matteo considering it realistically – the rest seem a bit too set in their ways, despite the obvious benefits against current tactics.
One of the strategies an attacking team plays out is high pressing in order to draw fouls–its dangerous in the sense that you need a bench with depth, and Barca really doesn’t have a replacement “A” team, and that red card tackle you benefit from could result in a bad injury to a key player on your team, so it’s win-lose.
I watched both games, and people are not giving Milan enough credit for putting the fear of Jesus into Barca at various points in both games. Tall, fast strikers are something Barca can’t defend against. If Bayern play Barca in the final, and Bayern are at their best, I think it will be a very tight match. Madrid are reeling these days, with the nil-nil draw just yesterday, their minds are not on the games they’re playing.
this tie was not a walkover for barcelona. Of the teams they could have drawn – OM would have been easier, Bayern Munich would have been easier, Madrid would have been difficult but they would have scored at the Bernabeu (they always do under Guardiola), APOEL would have been easier, as would a tie against Benfica or Chelsea (Benfica not what youd call elite opposition, and Chelsea out of sorts this season).
In the group stage Milan got a 2-2 in Barcelonas stadium, and lost 2-3 in Milan, a game that also could have been 2-2 or any other narrow scoreline, despite Barca dominating both games. I think people on this thread only congratulate the winner, and dont consider what work went in by the team that lost.
AC Milan had big chances to put this tie to bed, because they knew they could rely on their narrow defensive shape. There is nothing wrong with that! The only mistake in that gameplan is if you miss your big chances!
K. Boateng shot off target (not like him) in first 15 mins at Meazza stadium;
Robinho volley in first 15 mins in same game;
Ibrahimovic chance when put through by Seedorf in 2nd half of first leg;
Nocerino goal;
Ibrahimovic penalty shout in 2nd leg?;
Robinho clean through chance in 2nd leg (Misses chance anyway, but the ref blew for a handball).
That’s 6 big chances, and there was more. What other team could have pulled off this performance? Real Madrid is a team that could do it but they dont really have the mentality to play Barca; they get too angry. Bayern Munich could do it on a good day, and Barcelona, on a bad day, but that combination is not exactly likely.
Barcelona had to rely on 2 penalties to get through here. What does that tell you? It tells me they werent playing well enough. When you have to rely on penalties, (for example Chelsea – Man Utd 3-3; two (soft) penalties). Barcelona had at least as many big chances as Milan yes, but give credit to Milan here! They did nearly go through (against the best team around – arguably the best TEAM OF ALL TIME, people) and did themselves proud. They took their foot off the gas for the second half, but they felt they were down to two soft penalties, when they fought exceptionally hard to get back into the game.
Im thankful nobody at the big clubs listens to people like the people here, who seem to only think the winner is the team that played well. Some guys here would probably sack Allegri after that tie, despite playing the best (that I’ve seen) any team play against Guardiola’s Barca in Europe. Save Inter, who defended for their lives; allegri even said before the game: We can’;t play like INter.