Another thing is that if we don’t move them up now, they might, like Cesc and company, go somewhere else in order to get playing time immediately. I don’t like that system because I’d rather kids remain kids for longer at the expense of the wider footballing world, but that’s not the world we live in, unfortunately.

Assulin is a creative/attacking midfielder who stands at the lofty heights of 5′8″ (173cm) and is 17-years old. That sounds like a Deco replacement to me, especially if we’re going to bring in a left sided midfielder (and that necessity can’t fail to have occurred to the club). I’d rather Assulin take Guddie’s spot, personally, because I want the Icelander gone — though he strikes me as a hard-working team player, which is something that we don’t have many of…

I’ll admit that I want a ratio of 2:1 in terms of youth players being brought up to players being purchased and brought in. I don’t want those players brought to be mega signings, though, by which I mean 30 or 40 million euros for a Dani Alves when 10 million for a Garay would do. I’m probably in the minority there, though.

I liked all of our defensive signings from last year, but felt that we were shaking things up a bit much. This year seems like it’ll be an even larger shakeup and I don’t like that. We were 3/4 in our buys last summer, if you ask me and they’ll only further integrate themselves into the squad from here on out. It’s just that the 1/4 that failed (Henry) is the most visible of the four (except on this blog where we all seemed to be infatuated with Yaya Toure) and he seems to be the one immune to the “get out of town” nonsense going on at Sport and El Mundo Deportivo. A much larger post is coming your way after the Valencia preview I’ll be writing up today while watching whatever is on FSC and GolTV (and maybe even WorldSportHD). I’m excited to see other teams besides Barcelona play for the first time in several weeks.

Gai Assulin will get his shot with the first team next season, he’ll be in the mix at that troublesome left wing spot.

Barca are looking at Van der Vaart, which would address the set piece issue and provide scoring from the midfield. The question would be who sits between VdV, Xavi, and Iniesta?

I agree with john that it is a little early to declare the victory of defensive, or English style, football. If anything, I think the English sides are more successful this season because they have imported more attacking talent and are spreading it out. ManU’s most recent performance excepted, of course. But the Liverpool – Arsenal and L’pool – Chelsea matches were pretty open. If anything, the downfall of Italian sides might point that all defense can’t get it done quite the way it use to.

Thanks for bringing that up, john, and great post too. Negative football (packing the box then just clearing it away with no intention of actually wanting to do something with the ball) may be more effective, but as you said, john, it is a threat to the game. If you look at the history of the formations used by past teams, it has gotten more and more defensive. The first long-term successful formation was a 2-3-5. Now it is more likely to see it the other way round. As football evolves, so do teams desire to win over playing the game. It’s very disappointing to see, but Barca, and things like Capello’s dismissal for winning ugly, give me an ounce of hope.

Now.

The Rijkaard stuff was going to be a separate post from me, but here is as good as any other place. I think your comments are spot on, but I think that Ferguson is also right. I’ve watched quite a bit of EPL this season, and the top English teams do have more than one arrow in the quiver. I’ve watched Man U play Barca-style, open and flowing football. I’ve watched them play long-ball, feeding Rooney, playing just on the right side of being offside. I’ve also watched them play “none shall pass” defense, usually against teams they’re scared of.

Avram Grant opened up Chelsea, rather than having them play on lockdown as Mourinho used to. They still revert to lockdown, because old habits are hard to break. But they played football against Liverpool.

We were one-trick ponies this season. If we couldn’t pass the ball into the net, we didn’t (and won’t) score. I know that some Barca fans believe they’d rather the side lose playing pretty than win playing an uglier style, but I disagree. Just win, baby, as Oakland Raiders boss Al Davis said.

We played the same style during the year of the double, but we had more attacking versatility, because Ronaldinho was on form, and we could score off free kicks, as well. So same formation and tactics, different results.

We need tactical AND attacking versatility. Capello was fired after winning La Liga. The football was ugly. Kind of goofy, but it’s certainly hard to argue with Schuster’s results even if this season as the last, both teams spent too much time backing away from the championship.

Now, the real question is: Are the fans better served by silver, or by attractive football? That is, if a team wins silver (let’s say you lads won the treble during the Capello era) but plays ugly, or doesn’t win anything but plays the beautiful game. Good question.

Champions League football is pretty negative, anyhow. The Barca/Chelsea matches of recent vintage were notable exceptions, but usually, somebody is playing not to concede. I’m still not sure if fans are better served by the spectacle or the victories. I know I’d rather we were in Moscow, but I’d probably be scoffing if we effectively played for a shootout, the way that Rangers did.

Good points all, John.

“It’s funny, as a fan of Spanish football, and of the beautiful game, I was impressed with the second half of this piece – the analysis of Barcelona’s current campaign woes. Good for you, Andrew Hush, for giving the club a thoughtful look and identifying the missing pieces in their attack. However, the first part of the piece, where you put a jab to Rijkaard’s ribs by stating he ‘failed to grasp’ the ‘adaptability’ that the English teams displayed in the Champions league, struck me as not only biased but obtuse, as well.

I find it a bit startling, in fact, that you woud assume that Rijkaard didn’t know exactly what Manchester were about, and that there were other ways to play them. What I wonder if you (Andrew Hush) have failed to grasp is the nature of Spanish football, and more importantly, its fans. Rijkaard was indeed on thin ice going in to Old Trafford after a dissappointing year, mired in injury and in-fighting. But for the coach of a Spanish club like Barcelona to come out in a Champions League fixture and play boring, conservative tactical football for 90 minutes, as Man U did, would be as good as simultaneously handing in a resignation (to La Liga) and an application (to the Premier League). It just wouldn’t pass. Hence Capello getting the axe from Real Madrid despite earning them the title. Winning, in itself is not enough.

Say what you will about this mentality, but it seems necessary when confronted with England’s win at any cost tactics. And it’s hard to boo boo such attitude when it produces silverware, but it’s to the spectators’ detriment when such tactics are employed. Watching Rangers close down the goal for 210 minutes against Fiorentina in the UEFA Cup was perhaps a more poignent example of what happens when this mentality prevails. While watching that match, I couldn’t help but wonder how Rangers fans felt about such a display, and how much incentive they’d have to travel to yet another game where their team refused to come out and play the other (attacking) part of the game.

I’m not sure what good this e-mail will do, or whether it will even be read. But it’d be nice if someone in the Soccernet opinion camp were to hold up this end of the argument, and maybe take a poke at Sir Alex for failing to make a better fight out of what had the potential to be some of the most exciting football the world has ever seen.”

Again, sorry to clog your space with all this, but I’d be eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.