Did Barcelona play anti-football?

[calscot 0]

It has been amusing to find some Barcelona players and fans are criticising Rangers’ tactics, in the game on between the two clubs on Tuesday. Some say Rangers played, “anti-football,” seemingly due to how well they defended.

 

Now it seems very strange to me, to criticise a team for performing an important aspect of the game to the highest of standards; however, after analysing the tactics of both teams, apart from sour grapes, I can’t see what the complaints are about.

 

Put it this way, if Barca fans can complain about Rangers’ resolute defending, then can't Rangers fans conversely complain about the accomplished Barcelona defence?

 

After all, Barca players were closing down Rangers players rapidly as soon as they got the ball, and didn't allow Rangers to play the open, expansive, attacking game that they would prefer.

 

So, would it have been a more entertaining game if Barca had stood off the attacking Rangers players, giving them loads of space and allowing them a wave of attacks on their goal? I say this with an obvious hint of sarcasm.

 

There is also the point, that Barca very skilfully passed the ball sideways and backwards for long periods in their own half and midfield, denying Rangers players much of the possession, without creating more than a few chances for themselves. Isn’t attractive football about going forward and attacking? Keeping the ball in the middle of the pitch denies both teams attacking opportunities.

 

Basically, the way Barca played meant there were very few chances for either side.

 

So the question is, "Is it Barcelona who are playing the anti-football?"

 

Or is it just some of their players and fans are strangely upset, when a team doesn't just lie down for them and instead, actually make it difficult for them?

 

I can’t see how you can complain about a lack of goals when your own team defends very aggressively, and also play keep ball for two thirds of the game - over 30 yards from the opponent’s goal.

 

I'd like to expand on this and put it to you, that Rangers were the team who played tactics more conducive to attacking football.

 

Let’s compare and contrast the both teams tactics on attack and defence.

 

Rangers sat well off the Barcelona attacking players in midfield, giving them time and room to control and play the ball easily – very good for flowing and attacking football. In contrast Barca defenders closed down Rangers players quickly and allowed them no time or space to get the ball under control and either run with it or pass it well, basically strangling Rangers in possession.

 

So who would you say allowed more attractive, flowing, passing and attacking football? I would conclude that Rangers did.

 

Further, in attack Rangers moved the ball forward quickly at every opportunity going straight for goal as much as possible. In contrast Barca spent most of the time passing slightly forwards, sideways and backwards, and although they had twice as much possession they had less than half the scoring chances.

 

I would therefore conclude from this, that Rangers played a much more attacking game going forward while Barca were cagey and defensive on the ball.

 

The ultimate conclusion must be, that Rangers play the far more positive football while Barcelona play the much more negative football. QED.

 

That might not make sense to some, but the real point is that there are many aspects in football which contribute to the result, and each aspect requires skill, energy, dedication, motivation, determination and sometimes a bit of luck. There are two teams trying to win, and both have do so by simultaneously having their attack overcome the opposition defence, and their defence gaining the better of the opposition attack.

 

For both teams on Tuesday, the defences were better than the attacks, resulting in a 0-0 draw; both teams were responsible for the scoreline. Whatever tactics were used to this end is ultimately irrelevant, and the fact they were totally different adds to the diversity of the sport.

 

However, maliciously disparaging your opposition for defending just as well as your own team, and for not letting your team score or win, is to me, senseless, and possibly the real, “anti-football”.

[gisabeer 409]

the fact that these guys are compaining tells me that the tactics are working perfectly. Part of the game is to frustrate the opposition and silence the home fans. Now weve already done it to lyon and judging by messis comments weve got to him as well. suits me fine. in fact i hope he and a few of his team mates get a even more frustrated over the next 10 days!

 

its a phsycological game as well as a physical one and Walter has combined both very well. Just read the papers for the evidence!

[buba3d 0]

100 million worth of starts couldn't beat a bunch of 13 million players, its just sour grapes on there part. Its no wonder the media call them the new spanish globetrotters with there fancy showboating.

[andrew_2010 0]

if anyone should be accused of "anti-football" its players like juninho and that boy from hearts.

 

I dare say messi has also taken a dive in his time... not to mention his "hand-of-god" which could have resulted in madrid getting cheated out of la liga last year...

 

off topic, i bought some grapes the other day - lovely and sweet! messi obviously took all the sour ones back to barcelona!!

 

I'll get my coat...

[craig 5,199]

I'll get my coat...

 

Aye, please do Andrew :fish:

[pete 2,499]

Great post Cal and another way of looking at things. The whole question is where do you defend. Barcelona close down players in the opposing teams half therefore it is crazy to say that the teams who defend in that area are playing anti-football. It is in fact Barcelona who force teams to play in that area. The point is then that it means they have to be sharp to take any chances that come their way and the 100mil strikers are not in form.

If you force teams back like that then you have to use the flanks to open up teams. Henry and Messi cutting inside at every opportunity played into Rangers hands who are defensively strong through the middle with Thomson Weir and Cuellar. I agree Messi's comments were sour grapes but i still think as i said in other threads we were a bit too negative in the middle part of the game and didn't try to move forward when we had the ball.I honestly believe as was shown in the last 20 minutes that we could have played like that throughout the game with a bit more confidence in moving forward, This is not just from this game i feel it is something that is our downfall on more occasions. Moving off the ball is probably more important than moving with the ball and i feel that,that is our Achilles heel, we give the ball at times and think well i have done my bit, i can watch what happens.

I honestly believe we we let a chance go to beat that mob. I just hope we don't live to regret it.

[craig 5,199]

You may be right that we missed a chance Pete - but, to play devils advocate, had we opened up more there is every chance we would have been sitting with 6 instead of 7 points which could be the difference between being in the CL knock out stages and the UEFA ones.

 

We looked better going forward in the last 20 minutes but had we have been more open for 90 we simply could have taken a mauling. At the same time you are also right in that we could have won - we just won't ever know.

 

But if that one point means qualification then I am happy enough for the tactics that brought about the point.

 

And, besides, we can wait till we get them in the final before we open up and beat them 3-2...... :fish:

[Gribz 743]

Calscot raises some fine points and Barca arent being realistic.

 

Defending is 50% of the game. So if we defended well can we have a go at Barca for trying to attack well!!

 

We had a good few efforts and if there was another 10 mins on the clock i wouldnt have bet against us nicking a goal.

 

Now on to the Nou Camp with a 10-0-0 formation :fish:

[calscot 0]

My main point is, how can you accuse Rangers of not playing open, expansive, attacking football when it seems to me that it was Barcelona's pressing defensive tactics and huge periods of keeping the ball without doing anything with it that stopped us from playing that type of game?

 

If Barcelona had played like Celtic, we would have seen Rangers playing far more attacking football.

 

So who is to blame? Ultimately Rangers played the way they did because a team with far more resources forced them to. So I say it was the Catalonian team that played the football that made the game less attractive. If they had played similar to Rangers then the game would have been far more open and exciting.

 

If Rangers had played the same way as Barca with the same skill level, we would have been watching a very boring game like many of the Milan derbies where the ball is mostly passed around the defenders for long periods with most forward balls coming straight back when the midfield get closed down and goals only coming from a combination of a mistake and bit of genius from a world class player.

 

Like anything, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I'm sure the likes of Hansen would have enjoyed Rangers defensive masterclass.

 

The only thing Barca really did that was "beautiful" was pass the ball around the midfield - Rangers could do that all day against the likes of Gretna but would we come away with a win? Probably not.

 

Barcelona flattered to deceive and on the night lacked flair and flamboyance needed to break down a less technically skilled side.

 

Not many Rangers fans complain about the likes of Dunfermline's tactics when they grind out a draw with 10 men behind the ball. Most Rangers fans are annoyed at the Rangers players for being unable to break down a team with a fraction of their talent and wages.

 

Barca don't really add much to the beauty of the game unless they play a team who can't defend well, to suggest that teams should do just that or they are playing anti-football, just puts Barca into the same catagory as the Harlem Globe Trotters.

[calscot 0]

Can I also point out that when England won the World cup they did so by employing the 4-4-2 formation while everyone else was still using 4-3-3. Was that anti-football?

 

It's the Italians who started using similar formations and tactics to Rangers, are they the parents of anti-football?

 

I would actually say that Rangers are playing a very Italian game of defending deep and then quick counter attacking. It seems we are also getting very Italianesque results.

 

We've wisened up, so why are we being pilloried for it?