Reasons why Barcelona lost to AC Milan
From the day the fixture for Champions League Round of 16 round was drawn to the last minute till kick off, football pundits all over the world predicted a win for Barcelona. On one side it was FC Barcelona who, under their new manager Tito Vilanova, had their best start to the season and on other side it was Milan, who, after losing some of their key players, were struggling for form from the start of the season.
AC Milan 2- 0 FC Barcelona
After 90 minutes of football game last Wednesday, most were left surprised with the final result of the 1st leg; AC Milan 2- 0 FC Barcelona. The side led by Allegri displayed how even the best team in the world could be defeated convincingly by a team which was depicted as inferior. It won’t be wrong to say that the Spanish leaders never looked to be in the game, but what has happened to this team which has been in top form throughout the season? Let’s see some of the key points which may have made the difference.
Absence of Vilanova have made an impact on performance
I have used the word “Manager” instead of name of the manager because this game displayed the importance of managers to a team. Tito Vilanova had a dream start at Barcelona and no, it wasn’t just good luck or brilliance of the team that they won so many games under him; the tactics were the main reason. Right tactics for the right team, understanding each player, how well a player can play in which position and understanding the limitations of the player at the same time – this is what a manager does.
In absence of Vilanova, who is in New York to receive medical treatment, Jordi Roura, the assistant manager, has taken his place on the sidelines during the match. Jordi Roura, who has been with Barca for the past 3 years and is involved in analyzing rival teams, is currently the care taker manager for the team.
Initially, it was all good under Roura, but since the last few games it is evident that something is missing. Even though Barca have won games, they don’t look as good as they were couple of months back. This “something” was well used by Milan in the 1st leg tie when Barca had no answers to Milan’s game play. Even after a goal down, Barca played the same way as before. So does it refer to a lack of tactics? Yes, Barca lacked the tactics to play against a team which could defend very well and at the same time their midfield could take the ball away and counter with well placed forwards. In short, you could say Milan did to Barca what they do to other teams. A manager is thus important to bring on that plan B, those in-game strategies which change the game. Not taking anything away from Roura as managing Barca is not an easy job and he has done well, but everyone has limitations.
Barcelona have been known for keeping possession with their tiki taka style of football. Those infinite short passes before scoring the goal which look boring to some but appear as tactical brilliance to others. But can Barca score some other way than that? This question was asked by Milan throughout the game to which Barca had no answers. Milan’s strategy was right on spot when they didn’t allow Barca that build up which is an important part of their goals. We must appreciate the Milan midfield here, for the way they marked Barca players, specially the midfield. They cut the supply from Xavi and Iniesta and never allowed the build up to happen. Even though Barca would eventually take the ball, they were never allowed to move ahead as the Milan defense stood like a giant wall in between.
It was only in the last 5 minutes when Barca looked desperate to get a goal back that they decided to take the long shots at the goal, but it was too late. Still the question remains, isn’t Barca too dependent on the build up to score a goal? Shouldn’t there be a plan to play a different way against a team like Milan who can defend very well?
After the loss, many said it was a rather poor game for Messi. Moreover he never looked as if he was there in the game. But I don’t feel that Messi really had a poor game in the first place. Milan played well here too. Messi, while playing up front, depends a lot on the midfield and players on the wing while he moves inside into a goal scoring position. They did well to defend Messi but what they did better was they kept Pedro and Fabregas well checked. Whenever Messi got the ball, there was absolutely no one to pass the ball to so that he could move inside the Milan defense.
Pedro had a bad game, along with Fabregas. The winger looked out of place most of the times and the same can be said for Fabregas who was never in the game. He looked sloppy and missed the ball, his inability to coordinate well with Xavi and Messi upfront was one of the reasons why Barca was not able to start a build up to score a goal.
Substitutions in football are one of the most critical moves in a game, so understanding the importance of where and whom to replace is crucial. Barcelona’s main sub was when Alexis came on for Fabregas, which allowed Iniesta to go back in midfield and Alexis took his place on the left. But was it the correct move, bringing on a player who is out of form and lacking confidence big time in front of goal?As expected, he couldn’t do much, though to be fair one can say he didn’t get much chances as well. Barca, who were missing David Villa for the game, didn’t have many options as well, but maybe Tello could have been a better option at that moment.
There can be many more reasons as well for Barca’s defeat, but the fact is Milan had a well planned and brilliant strategy to tackle a team like Barcelona. They had the right moves in almost every area of the field, it was just that the world’s best team had no answers.