Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Status
Not open for further replies.
facts?

anyway this is all a bit silly. Eto'o may well have but if you use any reasoning you find that he didnt actually have a very good season. Inter Milan had a terrific season but Eto'o went with the reputation of one of i the best center forwards in europe yet his job was out on the right (or left) working hard offering little to be honest apart from his endless endevour.

Ibrahimovic had an up and down season, he started well and had a superb middle of the season with important goals and big performances in big matches. But the injury and loss of form in the build up to the big matches with Inter did him no favours. I would also argue that Guardiola was wrong to take him off in the 2nd leg. He was clearly not quite right fitness wise but you dont take off a striker when you are chasing a game.

In short i dont think it would have made any difference.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
In short i dont think it would have made any difference.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It would have been very difficult for anyone to make a difference, if you ask me. It was a masterclass in bus-parking.

I think Etoo was better for Barca than Zlatan has been though. I just can't shake the feeling he is a square peg in a round-hole there. Villa will be better than either... unfortunately.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
facts?

anyway this is all a bit silly. Eto'o may well have but if you use any reasoning you find that he didnt actually have a very good season. Inter Milan had a terrific season but Eto'o went with the reputation of one of i the best center forwards in europe yet his job was out on the right (or left) working hard offering little to be honest apart from his endless endevour.

Ibrahimovic had an up and down season, he started well and had a superb middle of the season with important goals and big performances in big matches. But the injury and loss of form in the build up to the big matches with Inter did him no favours. I would also argue that Guardiola was wrong to take him off in the 2nd leg. He was clearly not quite right fitness wise but you dont take off a striker when you are chasing a game.

In short i dont think it would have made any difference.
Click to expand...

Eto'o has just won the treble in successive seasons with 2 different clubs, he must have had a pretty good season :lol:
 
antohan said:
Fair enough. It would have been very difficult for anyone to make a difference, if you ask me. It was a masterclass in bus-parking.

I think Etoo was better for Barca than Zlatan has been though. I just can't shake the feeling he is a square peg in a round-hole there. Villa will be better than either... unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Works both ways, Ibrahimovic was better for Inter than Eto'o has been. How about everyone just takes a step back. Two players moving to new countries, new clubs, new systems etc etc

I personally think Ibrahimovic did better in his debut season than Eto'o did.

The real proof is 2nd season, they have had the time to adjust and you would hope to see the best of Ibra at Barca and the best of Eto'o at Inter in the coming season.


Sharky7 said:
Eto'o has just won the treble in successive seasons with 2 different clubs, he must have had a pretty good season :lol:
Click to expand...

Why must he? If you list the top performers for inter milan you'll not find him on the list. I'm not downplaying the role he played in the side but the fact that Milito took the central position (due to out performing Eto'o) tells you a little about his effectiveness thus far in Italian football.

12 league goals and 2 in europe is not exactly what we have come to expect from him. Further more he's playing in Italy now for a team who have been more dominant than Barca have in the last 3-4-5 years. People say Italian football is or has been on the slide yet a player who scored for fun in spain had a rather difficult introduction.

IBrahimovic managed 16 goals int he league and 4 in europe. Not exactly setting the world alight but in fewer matches he was more of a threat and also he had some big games, no preseason and niggling injuries throughout.

I think given the circumstances and just looking at the stats and performances that Zlatan settled better into spanish football than eto'o did italian.
 
First season, different league and all that.

Barcelona's total goal tally is much better than Inter obviously, and it's not a big success for Ibramahovich's goal tally to be higher than Eto'o. Ibramahovich plays in a league where two teams scored a 100 goals, and Inter scored much less.

Proportional contribution would be a far better judge. Why don't you try that?
 
fishfingers15 said:
First season, different league and all that.

Barcelona's total goal tally is much better than Inter obviously, and it's not a big success for Ibramahovich's goal tally to be higher than Eto'o. Ibramahovich plays in a league where two teams scored a 100 goals, and Inter scored much less.

Proportional contribution would be a far better judge. Why don't you try that?
Click to expand...

quite right and that is without taking into consideration the respective manager's tactics
 
antohan said:
You say Etoo wouldn't have scored (in the semis, not in the future) based on his performance against other opponents at similar stages in the past. I'm making a parallel using Rooney's past performance against a team and what it would predict if the same game were played again (since unfortunately we haven't played Barca again, unless you didn't notice).
Click to expand...
I noticed. That is why I was a bit miffed since it was not a valid comparison to make.

antohan said:
I'm saying past performance is not a good basis for saying something is impossible, only an indicator. The Rooney example is purely to illustrate how fragile the argument is.
Click to expand...
The Rooney example is very poor at best and irrelevant at worst. Firstly Rooney is a player who can make an impact regardless of how good his team plays, provided he himself is in good form. Eto'o isn't. His team has to be good for him to shine. & if he is heavily marked like he would have been vs Inter, he simply disappears. More so in a weaker side.

antohan said:
..... Aren't you Kemo after all?
Click to expand...
Nein
 
Zlatan is a great player, there's no doubt about that,but I don't think he's all that suited to Barca's style, in can sometimes get in the way of the fluid play, they look fantastic when Bojan was benching him.

With Villa there, I don't know what will happen, we'll see
 
FranklyVulgar said:
Works both ways, Ibrahimovic was better for Inter than Eto'o has been. How about everyone just takes a step back. Two players moving to new countries, new clubs, new systems etc etc
Click to expand...

Spot on. I guess it goes back to the fact I never saw the logic in the swap from a footballing perspective. Etoo was never going to be Mourinho's Drogba-type player so would be turned into a wing misfit and Ibrahimovic was not the sort of striker that best fits Barca's style.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Rooney is a player who can make an impact regardless of how good his team plays, provided he himself is in good form. Eto'o isn't. His team has to be good for him to shine.
Click to expand...

I take it you never saw him play for Mallorca then. We clearly have different views on whether Etoo is world class or not. He is in decline obviously, but he sure was one of the best strikers of the last decade so I wouldn't write him off. Form is temporary, class is permanent and all that.

Nein
Click to expand...

Nothing to be embarassed about, it's been at least 6 years and you sure don't post the muppetry Kemo was known for. You've done a good job of gaining some credibility given that track record.
 
antohan said:
I take it you never saw him play for Mallorca then.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I did. He was in a good Mallorca side. He left for Barca about the time they started to become shit.

antohan said:
We clearly have different views on whether Etoo is world class or not.
Click to expand...
No. He is world class. No question. But he is the type of striker who is stoppable even when on form because of his style. He operates best when he can run into chances and isn't usually a one chance one goal type. Against a packed defence like Inter's that is a serious disadvantage. It' for thsoe same reason United in 2008 and Chelsea the following year dealt with him so easily in the semi's.

antohan said:
He is in decline obviously, but he sure was one of the best strikers of the last decade so I wouldn't write him off. Form is temporary, class is permanent and all that.
Click to expand...
No one has written him off tbf. Some of us just don't think he'd have made the difference vs Inter. For my money only an inform Villa, and possibly Rooney of this year could have.

antohan said:
Nothing to be embarassed about, it's been at least 6 years and you sure don't post the muppetry Kemo was known for. You've done a good job of gaining some credibility given that track record.
Click to expand...
Embarassment has zero to do with it. I'm not Kemo. If you don't believe that's your own business. :)
 
Ibrahimovic agent: Barcelona crazy if they sell

The agent of Zlatan Ibrahimovic can't believe Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola is keen to sell the Swede.

It is now reported that Guardiola could be pushing for a sale, because he doesn’t fit into the tactics.

“It would be very strange if after getting the club to pay €75m, Guardiola then didn’t let him play,” said agent Mino Raiola.

“In fact, if he did that then he should be in psychiatric care. It would be the decision of a madman.”
 
I'd have thought Ibrahimovic might be keen to move too. It wasn't a great personal season for him despite the magnificent start, and now that Villa has arrived, surely that condemns him to the bench barring a fundamental change of tactics from Guardiola. And why would you do that given the success they've had and the fact no-one particularly seems to have worked them out?
 
B Cantona said:
I'd have thought Ibrahimovic might be keen to move too. It wasn't a great personal season for him despite the magnificent start, and now that Villa has arrived, surely that condemns him to the bench barring a fundamental change of tactics from Guardiola. And why would you do that given the success they've had and the fact no-one particularly seems to have worked them out?
Click to expand...

Not much to work out is there? It's just incredibly hard to defend against, at least if you also have a hope of scoring yourself.

Zlatan is in a tough spot right now. There's very very few teams that could afford to pay anything close to what I expect Barcelona would want for him. Those that can afford it are either not interested in him or not interesting for him. I'd give it another season if I were him.
 
B Cantona said:
I'd have thought Ibrahimovic might be keen to move too. It wasn't a great personal season for him despite the magnificent start, and now that Villa has arrived, surely that condemns him to the bench barring a fundamental change of tactics from Guardiola. And why would you do that given the success they've had and the fact no-one particularly seems to have worked them out?
Click to expand...

Chelsea and Inter have both worked them out, and if a half-decent referee had been in charge of the semi in 08/09 then Barca wouldn't have even landed a CL despite this awe-inspiring best club side that has ever existed nonsense. And remember away from home in the Champions League Barcelona are quite poor, many teams had success against them.

It's just the standard of La Liga is incredibly poor at the moment, so they're being made to look better than they actually are.
 
esmufc10 said:
Chelsea and Inter have both worked them out, and if a half-decent referee had been in charge of the semi in 08/09 then Barca wouldn't have even landed a CL despite this awe-inspiring best club side that has ever existed nonsense. And remember away from home in the Champions League Barcelona are quite poor, many teams had success against them.

It's just the standard of La Liga is incredibly poor at the moment, so they're being made to look better than they actually are.
Click to expand...

They've hardly 'worked them out', they've found the best approach to playing against Barca, but even then it only gets you so far, because on their day Barca are still more than capable of breaking it down. Barca played Inter four times this season, won two, drew one and lost one. In the end they went out when it mattered, but there wasn't a lot in it. They'd argue they had poor officiating themselves with the ruled out goal towards the end

Simply blaming the refs they've had and the lack of quality in La Liga for distorting their success is absolute horsecrap though Elvis. Your post is absolutely laced in bitterness there for some reason

As for being 'quite poor' away from home in the Champions League, that final Inter away game was their only loss away from home this season
 
B Cantona said:
They've hardly 'worked them out', they've found the best approach to playing against Barca, but even then it only gets you so far, because on their day Barca are still more than capable of breaking it down. Barca played Inter four times this season, won two, drew one and lost one. In the end they went out when it mattered, but there wasn't a lot in it. They'd argue they had poor officiating themselves with the ruled out goal towards the end
Click to expand...

Against Inter over the two legs in the semi they were found out and stifled. I suppose the two group stage games gave Mourinho an idea of how best to set yourself up against them, it's a formula which has worked for them. Don't go running all over the pitch chasing it down, stay tight, stay compact, stay disciplined and close them down when they approach your box, and they struggle. Take the second leg at the Camp Nou for example, loads and loads of possession, but actually very few chances. Same story at the San Siro, despite much less possession Inter had the better of the chances. Chelsea did pretty much the same thing against them the previous year, and the year previous to that we did the same thing to.

Simply blaming the refs they've had and the lack of quality in La Liga for distorting their success is absolute horsecrap though Elvis. Your post is absolutely laced in bitterness there for some reason
Click to expand...

I'm not bitter, but if a decent ref had taken charge in the Champions League, I very much doubt they'd have advanced to the final, instead it would have been a repeat of the 2008 Final. Chelsea were much the better team over the two legs. And simply stating La Liga is an extremely poor league at the moment isn't being bitter, it's simply saying what's true. 99 and 96 points for 1st and 2nd place? It'd ridiculous.

As for being 'quite poor' away from home in the Champions League, that final Inter away game was their only loss away from home this season
Click to expand...

Nice twist of the stats there. Their last win away from home in the knockout stages of the CL came in 2008 against Celtic I think. And this season away from home they've won once against Dynamo Kiev, Lost to Inter, and drew with Inter, Kazan, Stuttgart and Arsenal. Their away form in the Champions League is far from convincing, and you're kidding yourself and subscribing to the hyperbole if you think otherwise.
 
It's not a twist on stats, they've lost one Champions League proper game since we beat them at Old Trafford in April 2008. If you think that's 'quite poor' you're fecking bonkers mate

Who else out there, bar perhaps us actually, is getting better away results that Barca in the Champions League over that period? Funnily enough, going away to some of the best teams in Europe isn't particularly easy. And for the most part, when they've got a result away from home, they've put their opposition to the sword at the Nou Camp
 
esmufc10 said:
Against Inter over the two legs in the semi they were found out and stifled. I suppose the two group stage games gave Mourinho an idea of how best to set yourself up against them, it's a formula which has worked for them. Don't go running all over the pitch chasing it down, stay tight, stay compact, stay disciplined and close them down when they approach your box, and they struggle. Take the second leg at the Camp Nou for example, loads and loads of possession, but actually very few chances.
Click to expand...

It's the only way to play against them. But it's a method which requires immense defensive performances to work as in 2008, 2009 and 2010, Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter respectively boasted the best club defences in the world. Nobody else has came anywhere near to stopping them - despite playing in the same way.

esmufc10 said:
I'm not bitter, but if a decent ref had taken charge in the Champions League, I very much doubt they'd have advanced to the final, instead it would have been a repeat of the 2008 Final. Chelsea were much the better team over the two legs.
Click to expand...

They weren't though. Aside from the refereeing, which over the course of both legs wasn't particularly one-sided, Chelsea didn't create a shedload of chances and scored a solitary goal through a wonderstrike from Essien. The truth is that it was an even match-up and a 1-1 aggregate scoreline was a fair reflection of the nature of the tie.
 
B Cantona said:
It's not a twist on stats, they've lost one Champions League proper game since we beat them at Old Trafford in April 2008. If you think that's 'quite poor' you're fecking bonkers mate

Who else out there, bar perhaps us actually, is getting better away results that Barca in the Champions League over that period? Funnily enough, going away to some of the best teams in Europe isn't particularly easy. And for the most part, when they've got a result away from home, they've put their opposition to the sword at the Nou Camp
Click to expand...

You're the one who was saying nobody has found a way to stop them playing, but that is quite clearly nonsense because plenty of teams have in the Champions League, particularly when Barcelona are playing away from home. Only beaten once is good, but they have drawn plenty aswell.

And they've hardly been going away to the best teams in Europe, the only real quality side they came up against in this years Champions League was Inter Milan. Arsenal falter against any big team, and the other teams they faced were Stuttgart, Kiev, Rubin Kazan (Whom they actually lost to and drew with), hardly the cream of Europe. When they came up against a side who I think they are not much better than (I think Inter have the better defence and I think Milito is much more effective in the 451/433 than Ibrahimovic), they struggled.
 
Gio said:
It's the only way to play against them. But it's a method which requires immense defensive performances to work as in 2008, 2009 and 2010, Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter respectively boasted the best club defences in the world. Nobody else has came anywhere near to stopping them - despite playing in the same way.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does require a very good defence, and a wee bit of luck. And when Barcelona do come up against these extremely good defences they do tend to struggle. I mean over the two legs v Inter they had the vast majority of possession, but they really did create very little with it. The better teams in Europe, the ones Barcelona will face in the latter stages of the CL, do tend to contain and deal with them well. Chelsea, Inter, ourselves have all done it in recent years. It'll be interesting to see who else Barcelona sign, what happens to Ibrahmivoc, and whether they alter their style of play for next season.

They weren't though. Aside from the refereeing, which over the course of both legs wasn't particularly one-sided, Chelsea didn't create a shedload of chances and scored a solitary goal through a wonderstrike from Essien. The truth is that it was an even match-up and a 1-1 aggregate scoreline was a fair reflection of the nature of the tie.
Click to expand...

Away and feck. Barcelona created pretty much sod all in the first leg, again they had a lot of possession but they struggled to create much. Chelsea were brilliant defensively just as we were 12 months earlier. It was Chelsea's gameplan to let them have the ball, defend, and hit them on the break.

The second leg, again Barcelona had a lot of the ball but they were doing nothing with it, and all the best chances fell to Chelsea. They should have had four penalties. The Kalou one was perhaps debatable, but there were 3 other stone wall ones.

Chelsea did exactly what they intended for 179 minutes over those two legs, nick a goal and defend the rest of the way, hitting Barca with the pace of Kalou and Anelka, and they did that brilliantly. Then a mis-hit clearance by Essien led to that goal. But there's no doubting to anybody with an inch of common sense that Chelsea did not deserve to lose that tie.
 
Gio said:
It's the only way to play against them. But it's a method which requires immense defensive performances to work as in 2008, 2009 and 2010, Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter respectively boasted the best club defences in the world.
Click to expand...
United's defence anno 2009 was better than Chelsea's.
 
It is very misleading to label the side we beat in 2008 as the same as the current Barcelona.
 
esmufc10 said:
You're the one who was saying nobody has found a way to stop them playing, but that is quite clearly nonsense because plenty of teams have in the Champions League, particularly when Barcelona are playing away from home. Only beaten once is good, but they have drawn plenty aswell.

And they've hardly been going away to the best teams in Europe, the only real quality side they came up against in this years Champions League was Inter Milan. Arsenal falter against any big team, and the other teams they faced were Stuttgart, Kiev, Rubin Kazan (Whom they actually lost to and drew with), hardly the cream of Europe. When they came up against a side who I think they are not much better than (I think Inter have the better defence and I think Milito is much more effective in the 451/433 than Ibrahimovic), they struggled.
Click to expand...

You're still trying to convince yourself Barca have done crap away from home over the last two years when they've lost once? Give it up Elvis, you're digging a hole

I've not said that no-one have found a way to stop them play, I've said it doesn't seem like anyone has particularly worked them out. And I think the proof of that will be Guardiola sticking to the same system of play next season, rather than trying anything dramatically different
 
B Cantona said:
You're still trying to convince yourself Barca have done crap away from home over the last two years when they've lost once? Give it up Elvis, you're digging a hole
Click to expand...

Not saying they've done crap, just saying they haven't done particularly great for supposedly the greatest club side there has ever been. I don't expect them to win all of them, that would be silly, but you would expect more wins considering some of the teams they have faced. They struggled against Inter, Kazan, Stuttgart, they let a 2 goal lead against Arsenal slip, they then went away to Inter again and were comfortably beaten 3-1.

I've not said that no-one have found a way to stop them play, I've said it doesn't seem like anyone has particularly worked them out. And I think the proof of that will be Guardiola sticking to the same system of play next season, rather than trying anything dramatically different
Click to expand...

Well in the last 3 seasons in the Champions League when they've come up against quality opposition (Ourselves 2008, Chelsea 2009, Inter this), they have struggled and have been second best in all of those games, and in the only tie they progressed they required one of the worst refereeing performances in recent memory, a referee who denied Chelsea 4 very strong penalty appeals.

They'll no doubt come out next season, blitz the group stage and do well in La Liga, but it'll be interesting to see what they do when they do come up against another quality side, and whether Guardiola tries to change things up a bit. If they do stick with the same system they could well come unstuck again.
 
esmufc10 said:
Well in the last 3 seasons in the Champions League when they've come up against quality opposition (Ourselves 2008, Chelsea 2009, Inter this),
Click to expand...

That is of course ignoring the many more than three quality sides they've beaten comfortably, including ourselves.
 
Myxomatosis said:
That is of course ignoring the many more than three quality sides they've beaten comfortably, including ourselves.
Click to expand...

Namely who? I seem to remember them beating us when we were without 2 key players (Fletcher and Hargreaves).

07/08 They faced Lyon, Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke
08/09 They faced Sporting, Basel, Shaktar, Lyon, Bayern, Chelsea and Ourselves.
09/10 They faced Rubin Kanaz, Dynamo Kiev, Inter Milan, Stuttgart and Arsenal.

So of all those sides I would only really put Chelsea, us and Inter as 'quality' teams. They beat an Arsenal side quite comprehensively at the Camp Nou, but that was an injury ravaged side. So who are these 'many more' quality sides? Lyon aren't anywhere near the team of 4/5 years ago. You could make a case for Bayern, but I wouldn't put them alongside the likes of ourselves, Chelsea and Inter.
 
esmufc10 said:
Namely who? I seem to remember them beating us when we were without 2 key players (Fletcher and Hargreaves).

07/08 They faced Lyon, Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke
08/09 They faced Sporting, Basel, Shaktar, Lyon, Bayern, Chelsea and Ourselves.
09/10 They faced Rubin Kanaz, Dynamo Kiev, Inter Milan, Stuttgart and Arsenal.

So of all those sides I would only really put Chelsea, us and Inter as 'quality' teams. They beat an Arsenal side quite comprehensively at the Camp Nou, but that was an injury ravaged side. So who are these 'many more' quality sides? Lyon aren't anywhere near the team of 4/5 years ago. You could make a case for Bayern, but I wouldn't put them alongside the likes of ourselves, Chelsea and Inter.
Click to expand...

Lyon of 07/08 were a quality side and given they got to a Champions league semi they're hardly fecking useless now. Bayern, Chelsea, us, Inter and Arsenal are all quality. Don't give me bullshit about injuries, it's late on in the season, all sides have injuries. Barcelona hardly went into that second leg with a full strength side.
 
Myxomatosis said:
Lyon of 07/08 were a quality side and given they got to a Champions league semi they're hardly fecking useless now. Bayern, Chelsea, us, Inter and Arsenal are all quality. Don't give me bullshit about injuries, it's late on in the season, all sides have injuries. Barcelona hardly went into that second leg with a full strength side.
Click to expand...

I remember you now, you're the eejit who came on after the first leg of the Inter game and spouted a hell of a lot of nonsense.

07/08 Lyon were a good team but not 'quality' and nowhere near the side they were circa 2006. They're a pretty average team at best now.

Bayern and Arsenal aren't quality sides and both lack the qualities of United, Chelsea, and Inter and are someway behind all 3.

Anyway I've sidetracked this thread enough so you can all get back to talking about Ibra.
 
esmufc10 said:
Namely who? I seem to remember them beating us when we were without 2 key players (Fletcher and Hargreaves).

07/08 They faced Lyon, Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke
08/09 They faced Sporting, Basel, Shaktar, Lyon, Bayern, Chelsea and Ourselves.
09/10 They faced Rubin Kanaz, Dynamo Kiev, Inter Milan, Stuttgart and Arsenal.

So of all those sides I would only really put Chelsea, us and Inter as 'quality' teams. They beat an Arsenal side quite comprehensively at the Camp Nou, but that was an injury ravaged side. So who are these 'many more' quality sides? Lyon aren't anywhere near the team of 4/5 years ago. You could make a case for Bayern, but I wouldn't put them alongside the likes of ourselves, Chelsea and Inter.
Click to expand...

You've just mentioned the who's who of european football. I mean which "quality" teams could you add for them to face that they didnt already?

Ourselves, Chelsea and Inter. Alright nothing wrong with considering those the "quality sides" in europe but you cant expect them to have beaten more if pretty much no other "quality sides" exist.

And calling Hargreaves a key player when we won so much without him. Yeah right. We were without Fletcher, they were without almost their entire defence.
 
Ekeke said:
You've just mentioned the who's who of european football. I mean which "quality" teams could you add for them to face that they didnt already?

Ourselves, Chelsea and Inter. Alright nothing wrong with considering those the "quality sides" in europe but you cant expect them to have beaten more if pretty much no other "quality sides" exist.
Click to expand...

You are all seemingly missing the point. All I'm saying is that whenever they have come up against a side who they aren't much better than and a side who knows how to defend, in all 3 of those games (Semi finals 2008, 09, and 10) they have been the second best team and in all 3 of those games, they deserved to go out, as they did in 2. The one in which they went through they owe a huge amount to the referee for denying Chelsea 4 penalties.

No, I don't expect them to face 3 quality sides in the Group Stage and in each knockout round, it doesn't happen. But when they have come up against those quality sides, they have struggled and looked out of ideas a lot of the time. Against us they had most of the ball but did sod all with it and created very little. Same in 2009 v Chelsea, and same in 2010 v Inter. That's why I said it will be interesting to see if Guardiola sticks with the same system, or whether he tries and changes things a bit.

And calling Hargreaves a key player when we won so much without him. Yeah right. We were without Fletcher, they were without almost their entire defence.
Click to expand...

I was more alluding to the fact that we didn't really have a ball winner in midfield, in the Fletcher/Hargreaves mould. Somebody who will break up the play and win you the ball black. All you have to do is look at both Barcelona's goals to see how much we missed somebody like that.

And feck off, they were without Abidal, Alves and Marquez. Marquez is pretty shite and wouldn't have started anyway, it'd have been Pique and Puyol.
 
Ekeke said:
You've just mentioned the who's who of european football. I mean which "quality" teams could you add for them to face that they didnt already?
Click to expand...

:lol: It's funny because it's true

And having played all of those sides away from home... they've lost once

And the conclusion is that this is 'very poor' apparently...

The logic of Elvis :wenger:
 
If you wanted to make some other point, why did you surround it in all that bollocks about Barca being 'very poor' away from home in Europe then?

It wasn't a cheap shot. Easy, yes. But not cheap. You've dug in on this silly claim that you're blatantly wrong about, so you can't complain when folk pull you up on it
 
B Cantona said:
If you wanted to make some other point, why did you surround it in all that bollocks about Barca being 'very poor' away from home in Europe then?
Click to expand...

Find me the post where I said 'very poor'? I said quite poor, which is probably a bit harsh. But their away record isn't fantastic, particularly in the knockout stages, and you can keep harping on about 1 defeat all you like. When was the last time they won away from home in the knockout stages? Lost to United in 2008, drew with all the teams in 08/09, and drew with Stuttgart and Arsenal this, before losing to Inter. If that's a brilliant away record then they must have a new word for how good ours is.

Anyway, you've become focused on this point and I'm not sure why. Why not answer to the other one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.