Champions League Semi-Finals

[Indestructible]

[The Dean]

[tjm8]

[darrensprengers]

Arsenal have played some of the best looking football ever. However its about effectiveness. Nobody can argue that arsenal even at the clubs best were not wasteful and guilty of over complication. If their football was that great or sustainable over a distribution then they would of won more leagues. Its not like united were tactical spoilers, we used to lose to them home and away pretty regular. United had many ways to play, arsenal had one. A pretty one but when its just one you can counter act it. If there is no plan B you end up not winning leagues, cups and as barcelona found out the CL semi-final.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

[tjm8]

I know what you are saying and it is definitely a debateable point, but if an effective style of play is good enough to win 65% of the time (which would be enough to win your league) on the condition that you stick to those principles of play for the full 90 minutes, then I think all clubs would accept that and stick to it.

Not all games are won in the first 60-70 mins, there are times that Barca / Arsenal etc. have won games in the latter stages by sticking to their principles, the problem is that on the occasions they don’t, they are criticised for not having a plan B – some people in the English game sadly suggest Plan B is sticking your CB up front and launch hopeful long balls. I would argue that they may lose more points / games by switching to a system that they don’t suit.

Taking Chelsea vs Barca as an example, a couple of years ago, Barca stuck to their footballing principles and scored a last minute winner thru Innestia, if Barca had reverted to a plan B, then they may well of not scored that goal and gone out (and won one less CL).

I think it is impossible for a team to have even 3-4 styles of play which they can adapt to and still win every game, the opposition is always going to try and negate your attacks and launch their own. For a number of years it has been obvious that Barca are vulnerable defensively, but because they have a high % of possession, they are able to restrict most opposition to only a handful of chances each game. Let’s not forget Chelsea only had 4 attempts on target in 180 mins and scored 3 of them and Chelsea are no mugs, they have one of the most expensive squads in world football. The two attempts Man Utd had in the CL finals vs Barca were evidence that when they get it right (which is more often than not), they are almost untouchable. I honestly think there was little Utd could do more on those two occasions.

I personally don't think Barca are one dimensional as some are now suggesting, they play a style of football which means any player can pop up in any position and it is difficult to second guess what they will do next.

I would suggest that Chelsea would of been happy for Barca to revert to long ball football on Tuesday, as they would have been able to obtain more breaks (kill time when the ball was out of Barca’s possession etc.).

I think 9 times out of 10 Barca win over the 2 legs because of how good they are and the system they stick to, if they reverted to other plans, then maybe they would only win 8 times out of 10, so it would be +EV for them to stick to their principles.

[Rigsby]

[tjm8]

Rigsby, I only talking about putting a ratio on a comparison of the current teams not past teams and history, where the abilities of the teams were different and the supposed difference between the 2 sides were lesser.

I think 9 times out of 10 Barca win that tie in the past week, but that wasn't really the point I was making, it was the principle that Barca would enjoy more success sticking to their game plan vs Chelsea (and any other team), then to change.

Only my opinion of course.

[The Dean]

I undertand both sides of the argument and I am all for having a plan B when a plan A is obviously not working. But it may be a bit of an over reaction to suggest that Barcelona need a plan B on the back of 2-3 results. If the Barcelona shot that hit the bar at the Bridge drops in and the shot that hit the woodwork went in then Barcelona could have won 3-1 at the Bridge easily.

Messi would usually score from the spot and Villa scores the type of goals that Messi can't. Also don't forget that Barce had a huge game against Real at the weekend. We all knew that Chelsea needed to ride their luck in this encounter and they did. So you can't then criticise the Barce philosophy just because they lost a high profile game......it is simply far too early to start doing that.

No matter what the team and no matter what the players there are going to be occassion when you simply do not win and things just do not work out. If this was a repeating pattern stretching another season then it may need to be reassessed in my opinion but just not yet.
_________________
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk

[Checkov]

Barca's problem was they didn't stick to plan A, they don't usually just try and force the ball through the middle or have Messi playing centre midfield (false 10?).

[The Dean]

[Checkov]

I'll pass, don't speak Catalan anyway. Judging by the substitutions he made Guardiola clearly recognised that his team wouldn't playing too their usual strengths.

[Nem]

[The Dean]

[Indestructible]

It's Catalan not Catland.

[Seb]

I would rather live in Barcelona than anywhere in Britain. London is good if you love going out and being near people, but surely you get over that.