2008/2009 they were a joy to watch. Mainly because of Eto'o, Henry, Messi and a brilliant Xavi. Afterwards I thought they were getting more and more boring.
This myth that Barcelona at their prime were 'boring'...
- Thread starter Rozay
- Start date
Nah i won't say they were boring - they were just miles ahead of most teams and could pass their way into winning any darn game. SAF himself mentioned how it was impossible to get the ball off the likes of Xavi, Iniesta and how tiring it was for the opposition.
Over time, i guess this (easy wins) became so routine they were considered boring to watch as a result would be no more than a foregone conclusion. Buggers also kinda overdid the passing a bit just for fun i'm guessing.
Over time, i guess this (easy wins) became so routine they were considered boring to watch as a result would be no more than a foregone conclusion. Buggers also kinda overdid the passing a bit just for fun i'm guessing.
Sometimes they looked fantastic and unplayable, others, I used to watch them to fall asleep if I couldn't.
Boring because they were too good. So good in fact, even top teams parked the bus against them let alone your Osasunas or Deportivos. Not their fault when the opponent is playing the game negatively
When you are too good, you are boring. When you get beat, oh.... look, they are on the decline. It is only after 13 when a few teams like Bayern, Atleti & Real could go head to head with them and not be considered overwhelming underdogs.
When you are too good, you are boring. When you get beat, oh.... look, they are on the decline. It is only after 13 when a few teams like Bayern, Atleti & Real could go head to head with them and not be considered overwhelming underdogs.
Alright, 'anger' at perceived unfair treatment.
Not really a criticism, just a statement of fact that many people don't find their football entertaining. But if you want to call criticism thats fine. Again, you need to discern the difference between criticising a teams ability to play football, and their ability to entertain.
It's kind of implied? What else, other than playing football in a professional match will people declare their boredom for? Teams don't tend to be judged on their administrative abilities.
It's hard to not categorize part of the reaction to Barcelona's football as "counter-snobbery"... I've read a UK pundit say the average working man doesn't want to see possession and "triangles", they want end to end football. Is the average working man not capable of appreciating and enjoying multiple styles of play?
Even as a neutral, I found Barcelona's football fascinating and interesting, especially as they became less direct towards the end of Guardiola's reign there. Messi's transition from the wing to the center of the attack muted the explosive combination he had with Alves, but it really fecked with a lot of defensive schemes that were constructed to counter the wide threat that Messi and Henry offered. They gradually lost potency on that front (could have helped if they had that against Inter) but more than made up for it through the middle. Most times.
At the end of the day if someone found them boring I can't do much but respect that viewpoint. I think it is possible to enjoy great attacking football, whether it is end to end counter attacking or patient probing in front of a resolute defense. Doesn't have to be an either or kind of thing, life is too short for that.
Even as a neutral, I found Barcelona's football fascinating and interesting, especially as they became less direct towards the end of Guardiola's reign there. Messi's transition from the wing to the center of the attack muted the explosive combination he had with Alves, but it really fecked with a lot of defensive schemes that were constructed to counter the wide threat that Messi and Henry offered. They gradually lost potency on that front (could have helped if they had that against Inter) but more than made up for it through the middle. Most times.
At the end of the day if someone found them boring I can't do much but respect that viewpoint. I think it is possible to enjoy great attacking football, whether it is end to end counter attacking or patient probing in front of a resolute defense. Doesn't have to be an either or kind of thing, life is too short for that.
Barca always converted possession into scoring chances during Pep. They used to have 15 shots a game against world class teams. They were not a defensive team ffs, that is not even debatable imo.
400 passes between the cb and dm. Sure. That is why Xavi, a playmaker, had the most touches in almost every game he played. Because the ball rarely got to him and instead was mostly passed around by the CBs. Did you even watch Barca around that time? The 2011 final would be a good game to watch. United barely came out of their own half after the 1-1 goal.
I get the difference in opinion thing. But it is getting silly imo at this point.
400 passes between the cb and dm. Sure. That is why Xavi, a playmaker, had the most touches in almost every game he played. Because the ball rarely got to him and instead was mostly passed around by the CBs. Did you even watch Barca around that time? The 2011 final would be a good game to watch. United barely came out of their own half after the 1-1 goal.I get the difference in opinion thing. But it is getting silly imo at this point.
It was total domination, so yes, it could get a bit boring since they nullified the opposition, but I was always marveled at how they kept the ball and had such passing consistency and patience up until a gap opened and maximized it with perfection.
We truly were lucky to witness this team even if it took all "excitement" out of most of their matches.
We truly were lucky to witness this team even if it took all "excitement" out of most of their matches.
@serghei a lot of posts here do demonstrate that many people did not watch Barcelona beyond the El Classicos and other heavyweight matches. Labeling a team boring based on a myopic viewpoint is inaccurate.
When a football match becomes a glorified training session then it's boring.
If the opposition has no hope of playing normally and just camps in front of the ball then it's boring.
If your team never gets out of second gear and the result is still inevitable then it's boring.
Constant, dominating possession never makes for a good game and there were barely any good games when Barça were at their peak so yeah, they were boring.
You can still appreciate just how technically wonderful they were without enjoying it.
If the opposition has no hope of playing normally and just camps in front of the ball then it's boring.
If your team never gets out of second gear and the result is still inevitable then it's boring.
Constant, dominating possession never makes for a good game and there were barely any good games when Barça were at their peak so yeah, they were boring.
You can still appreciate just how technically wonderful they were without enjoying it.
Its also not the others teams fault either that Barcelona utilized an extremely efficient yet also extremely defensive pressing/possession game. Their whole style revolved around depriving the other team of the ball as a defensive tactic, so really shouldn't that also be considered playing the game negatively?
Now fair enough Barcelona played like that because they thought it gave them their best chance to win and it quite often did. But other teams had every right to park the bus against them because it gave them their best chance to get a result also.
By this logic the more you attack the more defensive you are because the opponent does not have the ball. You might have a point if Barca didn't manage to create loads of chances to score through their juego de posicion. As they did (sometimes they created enough chances to score 10 goals, but missed a lot), this point of view doesn't hold water imo.
Football is essentially a game where you pass a ball around to then score goals, and they were the best there has ever been at this. Saying that Barcelona team was boring is like saying the essence of footbll is boring.
The level of myopia and bias is simply astonishing. EVERY team faced with the bus will pass the ball around for prolonged passages of play. Actually, Barca was different because, even regularly faced with that kind of opposition, they still managed to be the most productive attacking team imaginable, relying on guile and skill rather than pace and power.
They didn't force 99% of the teams to park the bus. If anything, it was the testament to cowardice and lack of imagination of so called 'proper direct teams'.
They didn't force 99% of the teams to park the bus. If anything, it was the testament to cowardice and lack of imagination of so called 'proper direct teams'.
Exactly.
Most teams want to have the ball. Why didn't Barcas opponents just take it off them? This is because they couldn't, no matter how hard they tried. This is where the beauty came, for me. The average PL side can keep possession amongst their defenders for long, but not amongst their midfielders and forwards. Opponents got wound up, lunged in, couldn't get close. That is an extreme and never before seen level of skill, which I would have thought, would draw admiration from football watchers.
What I do know, is when an English team does it, it draws huge praise from English watchers. Arsenal were lauded in Wenger's early days because they could pass and move. The 'experts' generally accepted they played the best football.
I've been told off for speaking in absolutes in this thread, and fair enough - but I will do it one more time and say that the assertion that Barcelona at their best simply kept possession deep in their half for the majority of the game is quite simply a lie. That would mean that when they lost it, their opponents would be through on goal, whereas in reality, they were miles away from Barca's goal whenever they got he ball, and usually got pressed out of possession before they left their own half. Barca probably won the ball back in their opponents half more than any team I've seen.
The praise and admiration they drew wasn't for keeping it at the back, anyone can do that. It was for how much they trusted each other to keep it under intense pressure in midfield and attack that drew the fascination.
Good post amol.
So do you disagree with the idea that keeping the ball to deprive the opposition and ultimately the chance to score with it, is not a defensive tactic?
Yes. What you define as tactic was not the main purpose, but more of an inevitable outcome. When you are so great at attacking and you are so ruthless in pressing you're bound to have a good defense, even if you're lacking great natural defenders. Have you heard about the old saying 'attack is the best defence'? It's true for Pep's Barca.
Pep's Barca had one major purpose. Progressive positional attacking play. The purpose was to win the ball as fast as possible and as far in the opponent's half as possible (famous 6 second rule), dominate the opponent, and create many chances to score. If you do those things as well as they did, few teams will manage to get near your goal.
It was exciting to watch Messi, and still is. It was joyful watching Xavi and Iniesta in their prime.
But possession football was boring to me back then, and it is boring to me now.
Pep's Barca were still a million times more exciting than LVG's United.
But possession football was boring to me back then, and it is boring to me now.
Pep's Barca were still a million times more exciting than LVG's United.
They actually could. Every team can be pressed, and with Barca it happened on a few occasions (I already mentioned great games vs Bilbao). Thing is, to do that against such a magnificent side, requires great self belief and tactical variation. And 99% of teams turned out to be completely unimaginative, reactive and opportunistic. Even multi million ones. It is easier and less risky. Such is the state of modern football. If anything, Barca were the genuine beacon of light.
Which I find kind of bizarre because for all of the possession football and passing, Barca's style involved a lot of high pressing, and had exciting and dynamic attacking players who would dribble past the opposition. Messi is, of course, the main one...and Iniesta was another who was always absurdly good at going forward with the ball at his feet. I'd struggle to see the 'average working man' becoming bored with either of them. Again, I feel it was that sort of attacking dynamism that really set Guardiola's Barca apart from other teams who were perhaps impressive in possession but lacked a clinical finishing touch.
Pressing didn't work that well against that version of Barca. The only approach that was effective a couple of times was park the buss, try to cut down the playing time as much as possible, and be clinical. Barca was notoriously bad at finishing in some games, and lacked a really world class keeper. Several times some teams managed to score as many goals as Barca with less than a third of their chances.
I think that is essentially what i said though mate. Barca played en extremely efficient possession game to starve the opponent of possession fair play to them.
But other teams countered this by giving up on trying to regain possession packing their defences and hoping to hit them on the break, fair play to them as well.
Barca and the other sides were only doing what they thought gave them their best chance of winning.
Not sure why you're so offended at this. No one's saying Barcelona weren't outstanding. They were but that's why their games were boring as feck as a neutral. Bias does not enter into the picture.
Also, there is no right way to play football so I'd keep the snobbery to yourself.
We are saying the same thing mate i think but with one key difference. You think Barca having a great defence came as a by product of all their pressing and possession.
I think the pressing and possession to starve their opponents of the ball was a defensive tactic. And a very, very effective one.
Have you heard this other old saying: ''Your opponent can't score if they don't have the ball''?
Yea that's fair I think.
Could you give an example of a team that was more entertaining? Meaning they scored as much goals, made as much chances and brilliant attacking moves, were as technically and tactically excellent... all that with consistency through a longer period of time? Surely if they were 'boring' there must have been quite a few teams that were at least as good in those terms?
All 'more entertaining' comes down to being less comfortable on the ball and relying more on power?
Last edited:
This just isn't true though and all you need to do is watch city this season to see that they are a ridiculously attacking team with high pressing and possession and are genuinely exciting. The difference is that the gulf in class of players was way higher with barca.
What does any of that have to do with what i was discussing though?
Where did i say they were boring?
Something about Barcelona 5 years ago isn't true because of Manchester City this year? Not sure i follow mate, no where did i say Barcelona weren't an attacking side. Only that i believe the extreme pressing/possession game they employed was essentially largely a defensive tactic to make sure their opponent had as little of the ball as possible.
Both managed by the same manager with basically the same tactics pretty obvious why I would make the comparison. Pep got them to play the exact same way. Would you say city are boring? Or is it just that they just don't have players as good as Barca? so they can't keep the ball as much.
Where in any of my posts that you replied to did i say Barca were boring?
I reckon they could have shed that "boring" tag with a bit more of this sort of thing.
Call it what you want but it sure ain't boring.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Call it what you want but it sure ain't boring.
Holy feck
Tbh, that is exactly the type of football considered exciting over here. Had the lad at the end poked it into the net, it would have been a great example of 'what makes the English game so special'. Now imagine that goal was scored by an English team against a 'fancy foreign' side. It would be a victory in how the Spaniards 'couldn't handle' the English rough and tumble etc.
It was one of a lot of purposes behind it i'd say.
They were resting with the ball a fair bit - the likes of messi, xavi etc wouldn't be able to keep up their pressing game for 90 mins I wouldn't think.
Or if they did they'd be tired and start getting sloppy
Then there was just trying to pull the opposition out to give their attackers more time and space.
There was loads of reasons behind it, a lot of them defensive i'd agree.
I dont find that entertaining at all tbf
and find when the likes of liverpool play another high press team that the quality of play is often pretty poor really.
Oh yeah there were definitely other aspects to it as well. As you say resting in possession and trying to tire the other team out in chasing the ball around being a big part of it.
Football gold on Sky now. Barca vs Osasuna from 2011. Absolute pleasure to watch.
Finally, I thought I was crazy, because the majority of fans who say Barça or Spain are boring are from the UK, I guess football with 1 or 2 passes and bombing crosses to the area is the best football in the world for them?
