Kaizero

Had a slight lapse into full on geek mode.

Clean break, it should be absolutely no doubt he will be the same player bar any psychological blocks. Given his ego I doubt we'll see that, though.

What kind of creature is that in the bottom left? No matter, Carroll will ride it. Those yellow eyes caught on camera clearly means it's a shapeshifter.

Interesting tidbit re: Europa League "money", Rosenborg ended up with minus £200k for playing in the league stage last year.

I'd take Shaqiri tbh.

Dave.

Who needs domestic trophies when we have: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kLYfH-okVHM/TFiO1rFSToI/AAAAAAAAB-s/KoWUJPtTp5E/s1600/Trofeo+Teresa+Herrera.jpg Ain't many trophies out there to win larger than that one.

39 matches so far this season, 23 goals conceded. Ca. 0.5 a match. Where's the supposed blatant defensive weakness? For good measure, let's just compare to Real Madrid (supposedly better defensively than Barcelona) who have played 38 matches. They have conceded 24 goals, 19 if you take out the 5-0 loss, but still.

My bad, I was going for that but for some reason wrote complacency. I'll blame that on English not being my first language and confusing the two, even if that's a lie. They did appear happy with an away goal and a win, though. But aye, not really complacency. :-[

I think Barcelona won't suffer from complacency like they appeared to do towards the end of the first leg and shit all over Arsenal, tbh.

Also, Barcelona have conceded 13 goals in the league this season compared to scoring 73. Where are the defensive weaknesses? They've had a couple of minor accidents over 24 matches proving that the players are still human, they don't have a glaring weakness in defense.

We can agree that Guardiola's Barcelona have a main game plan that doesn't need more than subtle changes here and there due to Barcelona executing it as well as they do, and that they usually stick with it even in sluggish matches where they usually also come out victorious, aye.

Not really, as most teams will treat a Barcelona fixture as a "cup final" and thus be on their A game and pumped up for it, whereas Barcelona might have an off day and be complacent about their opponents which causes a match to be closer than it should be on paper. On paper, even Man Utds and Arsenals reserves should easily dispose of the likes of Crawley and Leyton Orient (not saying La Liga teams aren't better than those teams, just making an example of how no match is certain.) yet they didn't, because that's football, it's not pre-arranged, it's 90 minutes of a game where both teams start at the same score. It's the beautiful game for a reason, and that reason is that every game starts 0-0 even if it's a massive team on one side of the pitch and a bunch of amateurs on the other.

I enjoy discussing differing views with people.

As I said, I'm not really fond of Guardiola, especially after his spat with Solbakken. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8w-85KkJI (Not really a "footy" video since it's just two managers walking off arguing, surely? Just remove if it's doubtful. ) But come on, one dimensional and tactically inept? Every team have a preffered style of play, even Newcastle do. It's the subtle changes to that preffered style of play that makes and breaks a manager, and Guardiola's not broken.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/971/bigasstrophy.jpg

I've got popcorn. http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9730/fsdfk.jpg

mourinho got his tactics wrong with that real side imo in hindsight, i think they should have gone more toe to toe with barcelona as they didn't have the personnel capable of executing mourinho's approach. really looking forward to the next clash now. That was my point, the tactics were wrong because they were the same as he used for Inter, but Barcelona had changed tactics from the last meeting between a Mourinho team and Guardiola.

Every manager have their favoured strategy and vision of how "football is to be played". Guariola and Mourinho are comparable in the sense that they are on different ends on the attacking / defensive scale, hence why a comparison between two Mourinho managed teams is viable in this situation as his general vision have not changed just because the clubs and personell have changed. Looking at the match between Barcelona and Real, to my eye it appears as if Mourinho employed a similar tactic to what he did with Inter, only that Barcelona had a completely different outlook on either of the games and thus crushing Mourinho's gameplan. Naturally, the different personell and situations aren't all that comparable, but what is comparable are the tactics employed by either team in either match managed by the same two managers.

The point about Barcelona only having one approach is not valid, though, rooted in evidence by their performances if you go in depth to analyze them. I would reccomend you having a peek around Zonal Marking and read a few match reports involving them. Barcelona in general employ a 4-3-3 system with a plan B of 4-2-4. There are also variations in their main system, as last season facing Real Madrid they had a more defensively oriented side emplying a wing back as winger to allow for a more defensive transition whilst playing Messi in the center furthest forward on the pitch. The failure of Barcelona against Inter was not sticking to their normal plans, and rather employing a more defensive approach towards the game wheras their ususal pass and move would potentially have suited better against Mourinho's tactics. (This can potentially be evident in the comparison between Barcelona - Inter last year and Barcelona - Real Madrid this year where they played their ususal style against a Mourinho organised team compared to altering defensively.) Saying Guardiola is tactically inept because he preferes an attacking style of play is like saying Mourinho is tactically inept because he prefers a more defensive one.

Implying a dislike based on a post such as is more than warranted, and does not assume an ignorant perspective towards your opinion. I say you "appear" to be rooting your argument in dislike of something, not giving a definite statetment regarding what opinion drives your argument, which is what you are doing by constantly bringing up me being "Ignorant" as an escape hatch from your failing argumentations.

Dunno, I'm pretty clear on this. Maybe you should just have another glance back? Main Entry: gibberish Part of Speech: noun Definition: nonsense talk What a s*** post - totally ignorant. I'm defining for you what gibberish means, as I was saying you speak nonsense, which you are doing. That post was vital as your post clearly showed you did not understand the meaning and context of the word gibberish in the aforementioned sentence. Should have been obvious given that I asked you to read back just to make sure that you had comprehended my argument. Ignorant. Assuming I've not read your argument is ignorant, as I have read it. My response to your argument was that it was pure gibberish, which it is. Every part of your accusations towards Barcelona appear to be more driven by "I don't like them, lol." rather than it being rooted in reality and the evidence at hand. This examplified by you saying Dani Alves' delivery always being shit, a definite statement regarding someones ability, whilst the evidence at hand (assists, completed passes) proves your statement false.

you haven't understood. their range/variety of approaches/tactics/formations is one-dimensional. as in, they can only play one way with one formation. it's not perfect. They only play football the way they believe it should be played, and rightly so. What absolute horse s***. Reckon the whole reason to play competitive football is to win. Yeah and they are winning playing this way. How clueless are you like.. Have won 1 in 3. Sorry. Yes, I get the point that in the whole season context their approach has been successful. However, my argument is that limiting a team to one approach is not wise. Reckon with the players at Barcelona they shouldn't lose a single game, let alone scrape a 2-1 win against a team considerably inferior to them in Bilbao. You clearly do not understand how football works.

Dunno, I'm pretty clear on this. Maybe you should just have another glance back? Main Entry: gibberish Part of Speech: noun Definition: nonsense talk What a shit post - totally ignorant. I'm defining for you what gibberish means, as I was saying you speak nonsense, which you are doing. That post was vital as your post clearly showed you did not understand the meaning and context of the word gibberish in the aforementioned sentence.