Manchester United 1-2 Chelsea: Ancelotti gets it right with his strikers
A tight game that was won the better side. United looked tired after their midweek game in Munich – Chelsea were fresher, brighter and created more goalscoring opportunities. They are now in the driving seat.
Sir Alex Ferguson would have gone with a 4-5-1 regardless of Wayne Rooney’s absence, so it was essentially a straight change, with Dimitar Berbatov in to replace him. Michael Carrick was dropped after his poor display midweek, so Fletcher and Scholes played deep, with Park Ji-Sung in the central role he played so well against Milan.
There was certainly a surprise in the Chelsea line-up, in that Didier Drogba was left on the bench, with Nicolas Anelka preferred. Drogba apparently had a slight groin strain, but one feels he would have made the game had Ancelotti wanted to play two upfront. In recent weeks, however, Chelsea have played better with one striker. Indeed, there have been suspicions since Anelka arrived at the club that he and Drogba are not a great partnership – although they’ve played well on occasion together, their best displays seems to have come when the other is either out of the side, or out of form.
Today, playing Anelka worked brilliantly from the outset, as he dropped deep into positions in a role not dissimilar to a false nine, allowing Malouda and Cole to venture forward and become the highest players up the pitch. Those two played from out to in, with significant wide support from the two full-backs, who both ventured forward regularly.
Park played very close to Berbatov for the first half hour, and United’s shape was almost a 4-4-2 at times. In particular, when Edwin van der Sar had the ball, Berbatov would come deep for the flick-on, and Park would become the furthest forward player.
Chelsea dominated possession in the first half, partly because Park was playing so high that Chelsea often had an extra man in midfield. Cole and Malouda also played brilliantly fluid role – Ferguson seemed to instruct the full-backs to mark them tightly, but this often resulted in Evra and (in particular) Neville being drawn into the centre, opening up space on the flank.
United were toothless – they failed to create any genuine chances in the first half, and Ferguson switched things around on the half-hour mark, by moving Park to the left and pushing Giggs forward to support Berbatov.
Perhaps surprisingly, Sir Alex Ferguson made no substitutions at half-time, but United’s approach did change – they pressed higher up the pitch, their defensive line was higher up the pitch, and they looked quicker and more determined to win the ball back. They dominated possession in the second half and were unfortunate to go another goal behind.
Credit should go to Ancelotti for his team selection and substitution upfront, however. Anelka was the right man for the first hour – drifting around and causing United’s centre-backs problems, but when United started to dominate the game, Drogba’s more physical, powerful presence was more effective in holding the ball up and waiting for midfield runners. His goal was plainly offside, but Drogba’s impact was nevertheless a key feature of the game, as Anelka was tiring.
Ferguson’s substitutions were logical moves, introducing the in-form Nani for the relatively subdued Park, and bringing on the tall striker Federico Macheda since United were mainly a threat when they got into wide areas and got crosses in, but it was surprising he left it until 72 minutes to bring them both on. It was also strange that he left Michael Carrick on the bench when United’s passing was so poor throughout the game, especially considering he took Paul Scholes and then Darren Fletcher off. Fletcher (along with Park) failed to turn another of his excellent big-game displays. There have been suspicions that Fletcher’s energetic, hard-working style means he struggles to perform well in two consecutive games, and perhaps that school of thought was given added credit today.
A final key part of the game was the role played by Paulo Ferreira. In the game between these two at Stamford Bridge earlier in the season, Ryan Giggs played very narrow on the left-hand side, and United were happy to allow Branislav Ivanovic forward as he isn’t the best on the ball. Today, however, Ferreira played at right-back and constantly explioted the space left by (a) Giggs playing relatively centrally and (b) Cole drifting inside and bringing Evra with him. On the opposite flank, Zhirkov was tracked all game by Valencia, but Ferreira was constantly an out-ball for Chelsea and could have grabbed his first-ever Chelsea league goal had his finishing been slightly better.
Ancelotti defeated Ferguson today, and it will be interesting to see what he does for the rest of the season – Chelsea clearly play better with one striker rather than two, will he continue to leave either Drogba or Anelka out? They are unquestionably the favourites for the title now, and it’s theirs to lose. Only once in Ancelotti’s ten seasons in charge of Juventus and Milan did he win the title – that was in 2003/04 when Milan lost just once all season and won the title by 11 points. He has never emerged from a genuinely close title race on top, and the pressure is now on him to make brave decisions to ensure Chelsea triumph.
Manchester United 1-2 Chelsea: Ancelotti gets it right with his strikers




I did think it was odd that Park was pressing so far forward early on in the game. I don’t remember him playing that role for United before. I also thought Nani and Macheda came on far too late. At least, Nani should have come on at halftime.
Plus, Anelka had a tendency to give the ball away a bit more in the 2nd half. Drogba took off his warm-ups right after Anelka’s really sloppy last touch. Clearly not a coincidence.
[...] all seeing eye made the same point. Park was pushed up too far so Chelsea had 3 against Utd's 2. Manchester United 1-2 Chelsea: Ancelotti gets it right with his strikers | Zonal Marking [...]
“Ferguson’s substitutions were logical moves”
I’d argue that point. For me, we ceded the advantage with the subs, particularly the decision to go 4-4-2. We were dominating possession and pinning back Chelsea (and looking likely to equalise), yet we then took a man out of midfield and lost that superiority almost immediately.
It was similar to the error Ferguson made midweek except under a very different set of circumstances.
I agree that we lost the man in midfield when we went 4-4-2 but it wasn’t the old Beck and Giggs 4-4-2.
Fergie tried to make this extra man by going with a diamond (Nani constantly played a little more inside when he came on) with the width being provided by the full backs. Chelsea, to their credit, just kept 3 up which meant that Evra and Neville needed to be wary and couldn’t get forward as much as they wanted.
I think, just like Bayern did to us, Fergie would have liked Ferdinand to come out with the ball from the back more. I don’t know why he didn’t do this more. He’s good on the ball and we needed a goal. This would have allowed the midfield to try and flood the edge of the area.
Also, I think we lost the first half because we didn’t move as a unit. Berba had no support from the midfield and we left far too much room between the forward line and midfield. This was solved in the second half when the defence went high and squeezed up the pitch (just like Arsenal – Barca in midweek).
berbo is a shit!
Hello! I’ve really enjoyed the analysis presented…but unfortunately, I missed the game due to the fact that it was broadcasted at 7:45 AM in the United States. Is there anywhere that I may be able to find the full match? I’d love to watch the tactics unfold versus just watching highlights.
[...] Manchester United 1-2 Chelsea: Ancelotti gets it right with his strikers Carlo Ancelotti “A tight game that was won the better side. United looked tired after their midweek game in Munich – Chelsea were fresher, brighter and created more goalscoring opportunities. They are now in the driving seat. Sir Alex Ferguson would have gone with a 4-5-1 regardless of Wayne Rooney’s absence, so it was essentially a straight change, with Dimitar Berbatov in to replace him. Michael Carrick was dropped after his poor display midweek, so Fletcher and Scholes played deep, with Park Ji-Sung in the central role he played so well against Milan.” (Zonal Marking) [...]
ZM, you are spot on in your observation that “Today, playing Anelka worked brilliantly from the outset, as he dropped deep into positions in a role not dissimilar to a false nine, allowing Malouda and Cole to venture forward and become the highest players up the pitch. Those two played from out to in, with significant wide support from the two full-backs, who both ventured forward regularly.”
This, however, is precisely what United ought to have done, considering their formation. But, with Berbatov up front, Park just behind him and Giggs wide left, there is in effect far too little pace in attack. Yes, Valencia is fast, but what is the use of his getting to the byeline if no one makes a run into the box?
There was a moment in the first half which illustrated this: Berbatov, standing just outside the box, expected Valencia to play infield to his feet. Instead Valencia jinked past Zhirkov and put the cross in. But there was nobody there. Because he is so one-footed, Valencia will always look to go on the outside. Moreover, he continuously seems to misinterpret Berbatov’s intentions. When Berbatov expects him to make an early start, passing the ball on the inside of the fullback down the channel, Valencia is stood waiting for the ball. That is definitely not the first time that’s happened this season.
How on earth could SAF leave Nani out? He would have provided pace and trickery to put some pressure on Ferreira. I can understand the decision not to play Carrick considering his recent performances, but I agree with the comment above that Scholes and Fletcher together is not ideal. Scholes can be such a liability with his ridiculous tackling.
All in all, the formation was not the problem, it was the choice of personnel. SAF should have played Nani left, Giggs central behind berbatov, and Valencia on the right. And he should have picked Carrick ahead of Scholes.
Just discovered this site – just wanted to tell you I have been looking for something similar for a long time and I’m pretty much in love.
OK!!! IF NANI PLAYED ON A FRONT ATTACK(LIKE ROONEY) I THINK MAN UTD WIN CHELSEA!!! VERY SIMPLE!!!BERBATOV AND VALENCIA MUST PLAYING FRONT BACK…EVRYTING BE OK:)REMEMBER – CHELSEA HAVE BIG ,BIG PROBLEMS IN DEFENSE!!!!!
V DER SAAR
NEVILLE FERDINAND VIDIC EVRA
SHOLES PARK ——————-FLETCHER——————————————————————————
VALENCIA—————————————————————————
BERBATOV————————————————————–
NANY
—————–VAN DER SAAR—————————————————————-
—–NEVILLE—-FERDINAND–VIDIC—-EVRA——————————————————
———SHOLES—————PARK———————————————————— ——————-FLETCHER——————————————————————-
———VALENCIA——————————————————————————
———————BERBATOV——————————————————————
——————————-NANI———————————————————–
ANOTHER TYPE MAN UTD TEAME
————————–VAN DER SAAR——————————————————–
———-NEVILLE———-FERDINAND———-VIDIC——————————————-
—VALENCIA—————-CARRICK———————EVRA———————————–
————–SHOLES———————PARK————————————————-
————————— FLETCHER———————————————————-
————————————NANI——————————————————
please dont post here again. you dont know anthing about football. nani as a lone striker? come off it. ZM where is your response to venci?????
WHY????? NANI FASTER THEN ROONEY AND MORE TEHNIC ROONEY OK!!!!!!!!AND I THINK NANI LIKE INDIVIDUAL PLAYNING AND VERY DIFICALE TO STOP YOUR RUN ALL DEFENDERS CHELSEA FC!!!!!!!!!:))))))
Venci, are you crazy? Chelsea don’t have big problems in defence, and if nani played centrally he wouldn’t get in the game – he’s best on the wing .. that’s how united got their goal!
What does ‘front back’ mean and why should valencia play there??
We outperformed united on the day and fully deserved to win
I do not understand why Sir Alex chose to include both Park and Giggs.
I like Park, his performances against AC Milan were nothing short of world class but i do not understand why he was picked against Chelsea, at home.
Nani surely was the better option. Maybe putting Giggs inside central for that creativity, as he has a tendancy to drift in there anyway. Or even take Giggs out straight swap with Nani and keep Park in the middle for his hardwork. Either way, both in the same team at home, in the prem league, against chelsea i disagree with.
Nani on the left. Up against his fellow countryman. I think Nani is much more of an attacking threat than Park, one of the very few players who has the ability to beat a man. With the selection of Park and Giggs it seemed more like a European away game where containment, hardwork and solidity was the first thing in mind. Park looked out of place for the first 45 minutes, he got forward to try and support Berbatov who doesn’t have the paitence to play up top on his own so drops off. The very few times they linked up the “attacking threat” were both 30 yards away from goal with only one outlet in Valencia because Giggs was too central. Im also sure Park had one eye on Mikel to stop his distribution, similar to the job he did against Pirlo. Unfortunately Mikel is much more of a physical prescence and more dominant than the ageing Pirlo. Park seemed to have 3 different jobs at one time leaving Mikel the freedom of the park for the majority of the game, with Giggs coming inside PF got forward way too often and these were two main reasons why Chelseas dominated in possesion.
Suprised Sir Alex didn’t change at halftime but he gave them a chance and credit, United did start to get more of the ball mainly because like ZM stated the defence pushed up, the midfield condensed leaving Mikel and co little space and with Evra and Neville higher up the pitch Zhrikov and PF had to take more risks if they wanted to get forward. Still this didn’t adress the problem, the problem in scoring goals because the two chances on the edge of the area we had (before the subs) fell to park.. who, lets be honest, you wouldn’t put your house on him hitting the target.
I would also have started Carrick rather than Scholes. Like mentioned above, Scholes and Fletcher is probably not one of the better combinations. I think Carrick would have had a physical prescence aswell, something which i thought we lacked against Chelsea.
Will be very intresting how we line up against Bayern considering we need a goal. Make or break game i feel.
Could you argue that Man Utd should have played Park on the right, to help defend against Malouda? Particularly given his recent form and the fact that Neville was the right back. On top of that Zhirkov gets forward a lot too so they really could have done with extra protection down that side. Since Park is usually played as a more defensive option it seems strange that he was picked just off Berbatov. He wasn’t needed to stick to Mikel like he did to Pirlo against Milan because Mikel doesn’t run Chelsea’s play like Pirlo does. Seemed a waste of both him and that position. I think it should have been Giggs off Berbatov, with Park on the right and Nani on the left. They really should have looked to attack Paulo Ferreira, clearly the weak link in the Chelsea defence, and Nani seems a much better option than Giggs to do that.
Surely Park will play on the wing against Bayern, they really are going to need to restrict the threat of Robben and Ribery as much as possible.
I think that’s a decent point, although I think Ferguson is quite confident about Valencia’s defensive abilities. Also, given that Malouda had a license to roam inside (he certainly played a lot more centrally than United’s wide players did, or how you would expect a winger to play in a 4-3-3) it might be debatable how much Park would have been able to help defend against him, without ending up in a really central position.
Besides, as mentioned in the original piece, Ferreira was a genuine threat coming forward from left-back, so perhaps Park was the right man to defend against him there.
But I’m not sure this was a game for Park. Nani left and Valencia right would have seemed more appropriate. Park could have been given a rest, considering as you say, he’ll have a big job to do on Wednesday against Bayern’s wingers.
It’s games like this where United just seem to be lacking one more option in midfield/attack at the moment. Last summer was Ronaldo/Tevez out, Valencia/Owen in. In terms of numbers it’s the same, in terms of ability it’s certainly weaker (although has been compensated for by Owen/Nani stepping up) but I think where it’s really a problem is in terms of versatility – Owen and Valencia can play one role each effectively whereas Tevez and Ronaldo were able to perform many.
The reason United lost this game (and probably are going to lose the title) is very simple and I doubt have much to do with tactics. The players are knackered. You can only go to the well so many times before it runs dry. Every other game seems to require a big performance from the likes of Fletcher, Evra, Rooney etc. They have lost the edge and the freshness which comes from being rested appropriately. That’s why we are having so many injuries and so many players are losing form. Giggs and Scholes are great players, but their performances need to be managed. We are now seeing the consequences of over-reliance on these players.
I don’t believe we lack quality, but the squad lacks freshness because of the demands of the last few campaigns and it will only get worse next season. I don’t see us buying a lot of new players; the World Cup will shorten recovery times and ensure another poor start to the season. To be honest, I don’t really know what would help. The knee-jerk reaction is to demand trophy signings, but there are no established players to come in and replace Giggs and Scholes and provide proper backup in attack. A very strange and frustrating time to come, i think.
Yes, the players are knackered. But then one must adopt the tactics accordingly. There was no need to play Scholes and Neville for both games. Rafael could have played. And Evra should have been rested against Bolton or Fulham, he’s looked tired for a good few weeks now, and understandably so.
Rooney should have been taken off early against Bayern. That way key players would have been fresher.
SAF got his strategy wrong – surely it must be considered more important to secure an historically unprecedented 4th consecutive league trophy than making it to CL final. And anyway, a decent away result could have been achieved even if Rooney had been rested/taken off after 60 minutes.
On a tactical level, Giggs behind Berbatov would have been sensible. Park is essentially a defender. Nani and Valencia on the flanks. Now that Nani is finally performing consistenly well, why not play him?
As far as injuries are concerned, defensive injuries are the main reason for United’s slump this season – not the sale of Ronaldo/Tevez. Injuries to both Brown and O’Shea meant Neville had to be called upon and that EVra had to play every game. Owen as replacement was a gamble – it was hardly realistic that he would last the whole course without injuries.
BjutifOl FutbOl iS oN! i mean chelsea playing
I think that starting formation for United should have been how they responded to going ahead against Bayern last week, with Rooney playing in Berbatov’s position obviously. Still scratching my head over that one.
it,s very good but inter could winner abouy chelsea
i think if Nani played in full game in the match, it was veru good..
Ivanovic isn’t the best on the ball? Clearly don’t watch Chelsea much, do you?
He’s not really an attacking full-back, is he? If you watched the game at Stamford Bridge again, you would understand the point – United gave Ivanovic all the time on the ball he wanted but he failed to take advantage.
He’s an excellent player, though.
I think Scholes and Giggs should not both be in the starting line-up. Either one is fine. They are not the same players they used to be, legends as they are. Despite what Man U fans say or think, United are not as good as last year’s team. To lose 2 world class players have finally taken it’s toll.
I agree that United look knackered. Chelsea have just as much if not more injury problems and their bench still looks much better than United. The assessment above is spot on ZM. United depend on a group of core players and they are all tired. eg. (Fletcher, Evra, Vidic and obviously Rooney)
W/out Rooney Chelsea came to OT with so much confidence that they even saved Drogba for the 2nd half. It worked like a charm. Chelsea’s midfield dominated United’s and no creativity was shown by United. I agree Nani should have started. He was the MOTM for the Bayern game as well.
I’m not even a United fan and even I wouldn’t argue with United’s defensive injuries being the worst. They had something like nine defensive injuries at one point and played Carrick and Fletcher in the back four.
Chelsea’s major injuries have been Bosingwa, Essien and Ashley, and in the case of Ashley an international first choice left back like Zhirkov is a rather good backup option to have. There’s more of an argument for the other two, where Bosingwa’s most natural replacement would actually probably be Essien. Ivanovic is a very fine player but Essien offers more going forward, like Bosingwa, and with the narrow midfield Chelsea often play they need width from fullback.
Having said that, it’s hard to argue that Chelsea have particularly missed Essien in midfield. It may seem sacrilegious to say this but Chelsea keep possession better without him. Mikel’s had a very good season and is probably better suited to the holding role, and whilst the likes of Deco and Ballack lack the engine Essien possesses, they’re better passers.
Don’t get me wrong, Bosingwa, Ashley and Essien are all excellent footballers, but Chelsea haven’t really been affected by injuries. Part of that is down to having built an excellent squad with genuine depth, but part of that is just down to not suffering quite the level of injury problems suffered by other clubs (notably United and Arsenal) with many players out.
I’m sure those players could very easily have been the difference in the Champions League (I can see Essien helping against the Inter tactics at the Bridge), but in the league it’s safe to say Chelsea have been lucky with injuries.
[...] teams tinkered with their starting line up on a game-to-game basis to match their opposition, who can forget leaving Drogba on the bench in favour of Anelka against Manchester United? Despite Drogba being this years top goalscorer, a plan that proved fruitful in creating a better [...]