Villa gone to Barca

gimmick

^ Haha. Indeed

Some of the posts in this thread as so mis informed, John Giles or eamonn Dunphy may as well be posting them.

Ush1

Jigga wrote: »

Question for the Ibra defenders - why was he taken off after 60 minutes in both legs versus Inter? The fact that Guardiola thought putting a central defender in Pique up front was a better option instead spoke volumes. Fair play to Barca for acknowledging that it was a poor transfer in buying Villa.

What do you mean Ibra defenders? Calling him a flop is nothing short of blind. He hasn't yet become this other dimension that Pep may have wanted, however he has still been a constructive player who has scored alot of goals, important ones also, and given assists. It's only his first season in a totally different league and he has still managed a great return.

Barca haven't acknowledged him being a bad signing, in fact they have said he's not for sale.

parker kent

gimmick wrote: »

^ Haha. Indeed

Some of the posts in this thread as so mis informed, John Giles or eamonn Dunphy may as well be posting them.

Haha...always a great rebuttal. Why do so many freak out to any suggestions that Barcelona are not incredible in every facet of football? Nobody is saying that they are awful, just that they could do with some improvements in their defence.

Buying new attackers may improve them a couple of percent, but at this stage there will be diminishing returns for every new attack minded player that they get. Villa is a great player and a great signing that improves the team. But they still have a weakness at the back. As an example, for all their superiority against Arsenal in the Emirates, they still conceded two goals and if Arsenal had been even luckier, they could have lost. Arsenal had chances early in the Nou Camp too. They are vulnerable to swift counter attacks.

For the record, I agree with Giles. Giles points out that they leave themselves open at the back. He also agrees that they play great football.

Ush1

parker kent wrote: »

Haha...always a great rebuttal. Why do so many freak out to any suggestions that Barcelona are not incredible in every facet of football? Nobody is saying that they are awful, just that they could do with some improvements in their defence.

Buying new attackers may improve them a couple of percent, but at this stage there will be diminishing returns for every new attack minded player that they get. Villa is a great player and a great signing that improves the team. But they still have a weakness at the back. As an example, for all their superiority against Arsenal in the Emirates, they still conceded two goals and if Arsenal had been even luckier, they could have lost. Arsenal had chances early in the Nou Camp too. They are vulnerable to swift counter attacks.

For the record, I agree with Giles. Giles points out that they leave themselves open at the back. He also agrees that they play great football.

Tired 'ol horse this.

So in the last CL final, United conceded 2 goals. Damn, United really are dodgy at the back, need to buy some defenders. Then Chelsea, they conceded a few against Inter, new defenders for Chelsea pronto.

Arsenal are considered one of the best attacking teams in the world, quite alot of teams concede against them so it's hardly shocking.

Raskolnikov

Can we start talking about how good David Villa is, please?

gimmick

parker kent wrote: »

Haha...always a great rebuttal. Why do so many freak out to any suggestions that Barcelona are not incredible in every facet of football? Nobody is saying that they are awful, just that they could do with some improvements in their defence.

I am not freaking out. I just think that people are very quick to dismiss the Barca defense.

I dunno, maybe if they had more practise they would be a better unit.