There will always be a winner and a loser in a football match. Even if the full time score is a draw, sometimes.
And someone has to be blamed for the negative result.
A scapegoat.
In Barcelona’s case there’s only one man to take the blame when the team isn’t playing well, when they fail to score goals or when they lose.
It’s Lionel Messi.
The prodigy has always carried the weight and expectation of FC Barcelona in every match he plays. Heck, even when he is not playing it’ll somehow be his fault if the team lost or drew, because they would’ve stood a better chance with him on the pitch. It does make me wonder how much more he’s willing to take before his loyalty to the club runs out.
Take for example the latest result from El Clasico. Most of what you read reviewing the match, highlights an ‘absent’ Messi despite featuring for the entire 90 plus minutes. Some even mentioned the 3 words dreaded by footballers – ‘past his best’. It’s a little unfair to call the guy that just because he had one off day at the office, isn’t it? We’ve all experienced that. The last time I checked, he is only human.
And here I thought football is played by a team of 11 men. What about the responsibilities of the other 10 who are meant to work together with the Argentinean? If they were exceptional throughout the 90 plus minutes, surely the results would have reflected as much? But they did not step up to the plate when it mattered, and Real drew first blood at home in El Clasico.
The match statistics show Messi recording the highest number of key passes, dribbles, shots on target and even offsides in that match, out of the entire Barca starting lineup at the Bernabeu. If that indicates he was somewhat absent, I’d really like to see the figures when he is present in a game! Ronaldo only had the highest number of shots on target compared to his team mates. Luka Modric had better passing accuracy, Toni Kroos had the highest total of passes and James Rodriguez recorded more key passes. Head to head, Messi even had more possession of the ball, better passing accuracy and a more total passes compared to the Portuguese.
With numbers like that, I don’t see how the 27 year old can be blamed for letting his team down in this particular match. Perhaps his team mates and manager should also shoulder a little of the blame too.
It was Luis Enrique’s first El Clasico as manager. He might have been overawed or even daunted by the task. He shouldn’t have been. Frank Rijkaard lost his first El Clasico as Barca manager and still went on to win 2 La Liga titles, the 2005/06 Champions League title, and 2 Spanish Super Cups with the team at his disposal. The late Tito Vilanova was another manager who lost El Clasico at the Bernabeu in his solitary season in charge. Regardless, he led the Catalans to the league title that same season.
Perhaps starting Xavi ahead of Ivan Rakitic should be questioned? What about the decision to play Luis Suarez from the get go? Yes, he provided the assist that led to Neymar scoring the opening goal. In hindsight, could he have contributed even more if he was thrown in at the hour mark instead, to inject some life into the team and outrun the opposition’s tired feet?
Luis Enrique made his 7th change to the back four against Real. What if Jordi Alba had started on the left instead of Jeremy Mathieu? The Spaniard was successful there in 6 previous league matches this season. Why wasn’t Jeremy Mathieu deployed as a centre back? The Frenchman excelled there in 6 out of 8 La Liga games prior to El Clasico. It seems as if the manager either hasn’t discovered his best back four or decided to go with the tried and tested in Javier Mascherano and Gerard Pique at the heart of defense. A familiar duo in seasons past, but it was the first time both men played together in the league this season.
There was another familiar combo in midfield – Xavi, Sergio Busquets and Andreas Iniesta. It was probably Enrique’s best bet to avoid a colossal backlash. Plus, it has proven to work rather effectively in the past so how could they not come away with a result, right?
Wrong.
It backfired and resulted in losing Iniesta to injury. Barca was doing fine with Rakitic in the side. He played in every league match, barring the first two. And Barca was enjoying the Swiss-Croat’s enterprise. Why the manager thought his midfield needed fixing at El Clasico is bewildering but that is exactly what he did and Rakitic started from the bench for his first El Clasico. And Barca missed him dearly in the first half.
The changes probably allowed Real to have a good go at Barca. Initially surprised by the early Neymar strike, the home team regained their composure quickly enough to stage a comeback and eventually a victory, their second in 5 home El Clasicos. What about crediting Real for this win instead of blaming Messi for the loss?
Luckily, winning El Clasico does not automatically mean the victor will go on to lift the league title at the end of the season. In the last decade, Barcelona have only lost El Clasico twice at the Bernabeu and failed to win La Liga. Two is also the magic number when it comes to the amount of times the Catalan giants have lost at the Bernabeu but went on to win La Liga. This occurred as recent as the 2012/13 season under the charge of the late Tito Vilanova.
On the contrary, Barca have gone on to beat their fiercest rivals and won La Liga 3 times previously. And as proven last season, Barca have beaten Real away from home but failed to become Spanish champs. This has now happened twice previously in the last decade.
So Real fans shouldn’t start dreaming of league title number 33 just yet. There is no real significance over who draws first blood at El Clasico to who will eventually win La Liga come May 2015.
Other posts by Mary Ellen
