Chelsea’s Premiership win: a lesson in bringing the best out of star players
Chelsea – Premiership champions 2009/10. A great side? Probably not, but it’s hard to argue that, over the course of the season, they do not deserve to lift the trophy.
In terms of the players who have started the greatest number of matches, Chelsea’s XI this season reads: Petr Cech (34); Branislav Ivanovic (21), John Terry (37), Ricardo Carvalho (22), Ashley Cole (25); Jon Obi Mikel (21), Michael Ballack (26), Frank Lampard (36), Florent Malouda (25), Nicolas Anelka (31) and Didier Drogba (31).
And yet, on only one one occasion this season has that XI actually started a match together, in the 2-0 home victory over Arsenal in February, when Ancelotti fielded a Christmas Tree formation with Anelka and Malouda playing Didier Drogba.
That system has not been the regular system for Chelsea throughout the season, however. Indeed, Chelsea have won the league despite it being difficult to identify Carlo Ancelotti’s first-choice XI, or even his first-choice formation.
He began the season with a diamond midfield – something rarely seen throughout Premiership history – as Chelsea threatened to run away with the title. They won twelve of their first fourteen games with a cumulative score of 37-8.
Chelsea diamond v Manchester United, November
The main problem with the diamond shape though, as always, was its lack of width. Neither Anelka or Drogba is particularly comfortable drifting wide, whilst Florent Malouda playing ‘from in to out’ doesn’t have the effect fielding a natural winger does.
The natural solution, therefore, was for the full-backs to get forward to provide width, and Ashley Cole and Jose Bosingwa’s pace and energy meant Chelsea could afford to play a narrow midfield. Boswingwa’s season-ending injury in mid-October was a big blow to the diamond, however (until then he had started every game) as Ancelotti was forced to turn to Branislav Ivanovic at right-back.
Ivanovic is an excellent defender and has had a very good season, but doesn’t offer the attacking threat of Bosingwa. Having spent much of the season at right-back, he has improved on the ball, but initially he didn’t work with the diamond. This weakness in Chelsea’s system was exposed when Manchester United visited Stamford Bridge, as Sir Alex Ferguson deployed Antonio Valencia high up the pitch to nullify Ashley Cole, with Ryan Giggs tucked in on the other side. This meant that United could match Chelsea’s diamond AND prevent the threat from left-back with a right-winger, leaving one striker up the pitch. Ivanovic was free and had time to advance, but he was not as much of an attacking threat as Bosingwa would have been, and Ferguson was happy for him to have the ball. United dominated the game, and were unfortunate to lose.
ZM said at the time that Chelsea won that match despite – rather than because of - the diamond, and that Ferguson had effectively found it out. Soon after, Chelsea hit problems – a draw at home to Everton, a loss at Manchester City, a draw away at West Ham, a draw at Birmingham – and late 2-1 wins over Fulham and Portsmouth. Jack Collison and Shaun Wright-Phillips played Valencia-esque roles against Ashley Cole, and Chelsea continued to struggle for width. Two narrow wins from six games was not title-winning form, even if they still started the new decade on top of the league.
Chelsea 4-3-3 v Manchester United, March 2010
The Africa Cup of Nations was held up as something that might derail Chelsea’s season, but it turned out to be crucial in keeping them on top. The absence of Drogba (and Saloman Kalou) meant Chelsea didn’t have the resources to continue with a two-striker system, and so Ancelotti reverted to a ‘christmas tree’ shape, with Joe Cole and Florent Malouda floating behind Nicolas Anelka. They barely missed Drogba in wins over Sunderland, Birmingham and Burnley, and the Cole-Malouda-Anelka trident would later guide Chelsea to important wins, including the ultimately crucial 1-2 victory at Old Trafford, and the crushing 7-1 win over Aston Villa.
The final third of the season saw Ancelotti playing various shapes – the diamond, the christmas tree, and a 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 – and it often appeared he wasn’t quite sure of his best system. This was a problem against a well-drilled, efficient Inter side, and Chelsea were deservedly beaten home and away.
In the Premiership, however, Ancelotti could get away with the constant switches because the defensive base of the side remained the same. It always featured a back four, and always featured (at least) three midfielders who started from the centre of the pitch. Whether the three forwards were arranged in a wide system or in a more narrow setting didn’t make too much difference to how Chelsea’s defence operated. We never saw a three-man defence, or a traditional four-man midfield, and Ancelotti was rigid in the fact he always played a back four supplemented with three central midfielders – in this sense similar to how Mourinho’s Chelsea operated.
Further forward, Ancelotti was able to adapt the shape to suit the game – and suit his on-form players. Malouda, Drogba and Lampard all peaked at different points in the season, and all preferred slightly different formations. Whichever system Chelsea played, it always brought the absolute best out of one of those three – Malouda and Drogba played their best football in a Chelsea shirt, whilst Frank Lampard ended the season with 14 goals in 11 games.
Chelsea 4-2-3-1 v Liverpool, May
Admittedly, the flipside of this was that Chelsea didn’t really find a system that completely suited their two creative players (Lampard and Malouda) as well as their two strikers (Drogba and Anelka) at the same time. In the diamond, Lampard’s midfield runs were restricted and Malouda was playing too centrally, but Drogba and Anelka were on fire. In the 4-3-2-1, Anelka struggled behind the frontman and Drogba’s link play wasn’t great, but Lampard and Malouda were in their element. The system worked better with Anelka upfront, and Drogba benched, as against Manchester United.
Ancelotti never found a system that suited all four, so Chelsea relied on individual brilliance in the final third rather than a genuinely cohesive shape. Often this worked brilliantly – recording 7-2, 7-1, 7-0 and 8-0 victories in the final four months of the season. When one player didn’t provide inspiration, however, they suddenly looked completely out of ideas, as the two defeats to Inter, the 2-4 loss against Manchester City and the limp 2-1 defeats away to Everton and away to Tottenham showed. But maybe, when your two strikers are Anelka and Drogba – hardly the definition of ‘team players’ – you have to bring the best out of the individuals rather than worry too much about the combination play.
They ended the system with something more like a 4-2-3-1 (as against Liverpool) which was ruthless and looked unstoppable, but this wouldn’t have been an option throughout the season – a central midfield partnership of Lampard and Ballack would surely have struggled against the genuinely top sides in the Premiership and Champions League.
In all, Chelsea deserve the title, even if crucial, incorrect refereeing decisions in both victories over Manchester United can be pinpointed as fortunate moments. Ancelotti becomes just the fifth manager in Premiership history to win the title, and records only the second league victory of his career.
A common criticism of struggling managers is that they ‘don’t know their best eleven’, but with this victory, Ancelotti has proven that you don’t always need to.
Chelsea’s Premiership win: a lesson in bringing the best out of star players
I think the final two diagrams could use arrows to show the movement of some of the individual players. Because in terms of base positioning, the “4-3-3 against United” and the “4-2-3-1 vs Liverpool” are the EXACT same. So when I look at the second one I just assume that meant that Malouda moved to the center behind Drogba in the Liverpool game? I don’t follow Chelsea closely so I don’t actually know, but that 4-2-3-1 Against Liverpool looks awfully like a 4-3-3 to me, and Im not sure how the players moved to create the 4-2-3-1 you referenced. Did Lampard play as a DM that game? If Lampard was the one who played in the center of the “3″ then based on Maloudas described position I don’t see how that is a 4-2-3-1, more like a 4-1-4-1…Is that clear?
You’re absolutely right about the ANC. How often were we told that that was going to destroy them?
Bizarrely, given the amount of goals he scored, I felt they always looked better without Drogba. This was for two reasons. Firstly, becuase it meant the ball could be played into the feet of Anelka who had the ability to play in Cole and Malouda, and secondly, because it meant that Chelsea weren’t reduced to ten men every time the great big tart pretended to be injured.
“In all, Chelsea probably deserve the title, even if crucial, incorrect refereeing decisions in both victories over Manchester United can be pinpointed as fortunate moments.”
Chelsea won the league over 38 games, not just the two versus Man Utd. They also beat Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal along the way. The second of the Chelsea-Man Utd games featured another incorrect refereeing decision when Macheda did an “Henry” which evened things out. I fail to see why there is such a grudging acceptance of Chelsea’s win.
If Man Utd had won, would there be a blow-by-blow analysis of the number of own goals that went their way?
own goals and bad refereeing decisions are not equivalent.
manutd got so many own goals because the opponents surrendered to their wing play and in- depth crossing of the ball..
right – no chance or luck has ever been involved with the success of SAF. And let me guess: when he talks about refs it’s all fair criticism, only other managers “whine” or “complain” about refereeing.
When will fans finally realise that when one bad decision is given for one team (e.g. Drogba offside goal) does not somehow “scratch out” the other bad decision for the other team (e.g. Macheda handball).
They both should not have been given, but who knows how that game may have played out if the scores were different and the ref actually had a good day.
So the article starts by saying Chelsea deserved the title, ends by saying Chelsea deserved the title, and yet still you whine about “I fail to see why there is such a grudging acceptance of Chelsea’s win”?
Either way, it’s hardly unreasonable to articulate that, when the league title is won by the grand total of one point, the games between the two top sides were decisive when the victorious side won both games. Even the ‘evening out’ you note doesn’t account for the unfavourable refereeing decisions United suffered from at both ends at Stamford Bridge, so it’s a salient point.
Oh, and you need to read up on the definition of a handball.
Saying Chelsea won BUT there were refereeing errors involved to help them win the league is not grudging acceptance? Right on.
Manchester Utd had enough chances (36 other games) to win the title irrespective of their games with Chelsea. They did not because they dropped points where they should have won; quite a few times when Rooney didn’t play. Blackburn as an example. If I’m not mistaken, Man Utd were leading the EPL inspite of their losses to Chelsea at a point of time from wherin they squandered their lead. So your argument about those two games being the decisive season defining moments doesn’t hold water.
If you hold on to refereeing errors defining season winners, then we will possibly need to go through every football match and revise the result till they meet your liking.
Oh, and maybe you didn’t see the Barca-Inter match where a handball was given against Yaya Toure. No matter how much theory you spout, its still open to subjectivity, isn’t it?
God, Shut up.
No one cares how much of a fan-boy you are and your ignorant hate speech on reflects poorly on you, not the writer. It would absolutely incorrect NOT to mention the fact that Chelsea relied on a fair amount of luck to win the title. When you only win by 1 point you of course need some luck. If Man U won, it would be lucky for them too. Really the writer is being completely fair and giving Chelsea plenty of credit.
I’ll take it a step further though. Chelsea didn’t win the title this year because they got better, they won because Liverpool and Manchester United got worse. Liverpool fell apart, Man U sold Ronaldo while Giggs, Scholes and Neville all got more ancient. Chelsea’s lame point total is truly a testament to this fact.
I do think that Chelsea deserved to win, and they did a relatively good job doing it, but really Man U and Liverpool’s transfer activity did far more to win the title than any of Chelsea’s numerous prima donnas. The fact that they got unceremoniously dumped from the Champions League by a team with really quality, along with early exits for the other English teams points to a rather underwhelming Chelsea side.
I think you are overestimating “the luck” factor – it was not that only Man Utd and LFC got worse, whole league, including Chelsea, was a lower level than in a previous seasons. And “lucky” Chelsea gave a lot of presents to the rivals, yet they failed to capitalize on them (Chelsea lost 6 games!).
And I agree with Naveen that there’s no point in naming referees’ mistakes in games against ManUtd as a decisive thing. It’s not a cup, ManUtd, as I wrote above, had plenty occasions to overcome this. Plus, in the second game Chelsea was actually better for the most part of the game and ManUtd’s goal was against the rules too.
luck is always a deciding factor….every year….so plz shut up
1999/00: ManU, 3 losses, 91 points, 97 goals.
2000/01: ManU, 6 losses, 80 points, 79 goals.
2001/02: Arsenal, 3 losses, 87 points, 79 goals.
2003/03: ManU, 5 losses, 83 points, 74 goals.
2003/04: Arsenal, 0 losses, 90 points, 73 goals.
2004/05: Chelsea: 1 loss, 95 points, 72 goals.
2005/06: Chelsea: 5 losses, 91 points, 72 goals.
2006/07: ManU: 5 losses, 89 points, 83 goals.
2007/08: ManU: 5 losses, 87 points, 80 goals.
2008/09: ManU: 4 losses, 90 points, 68 goals.
2009/10: Chelsea, 6 losses, 86 points, 103 goals.
The only strange, or extraordinary, thing about this season is that the team that won it scored some 25 goals more than what is the norm. Oh, and a Double winning team has only ever managed 87 points as the highest points tally and that was Arsenal in 2002. We hot one point less.
I think ten brief words about the fact that the two head-to-head games between the top two were crucial is perfectly reasonable, you’re just complaining for the sake of complaining.
If you don’t think those two games were “the decisive season defining moments”, you are deluded. Those two games held a twelve-point swing, for God’s sake, when the title was won by one point. It is not a case of “If you hold on to refereeing errors defining season winners”, the whole article is not about that, is it? It was a side point and was a statement of fact that, but for one refereeing decision, the title would have gone the other way. That’s not a “begrudging acceptance”, it’s a realistic assessment of what happened – sorry if that doesn’t suit you personal point of view.
You’ve created quite a boring discussion here, so let’s leave it there.
If you remove points from the top 4 teams against each other matches.
hahaha. I hope this is diversion enough.
you’ll find that Arsenal wins the league
this shows why it would be a good idea to stick to tactics on this website and leave your own opinions on refereeing decisions to one side.
i appreciate that the referee is an easy target for man utd fans, but i think it detracts from your articles when you try and score points about refereeing decisions..especially when we’re not talking about huge decisions such as penalties or red-cards. as far as i can see you’re grumbling about a free-kick 35 yards from goal that may or may not have been wrongly given, in november!
stick to the tactical analysis and save the ref whinges for football 365!
I have to say, over the course of the season that Man United have more often been beneficiaries to incorrect referee judgements than any other team. So I guess over the course of the season if anything Chelsea may have deserved more. In fact scratch “over the course of the season”, how about “ever”.
A great article though, really enjoyed reading – you don’t get anything like this even from the best sports writers so thanks for a great season of articles.
Truth.
name the refereeing deficiencies utd profited from please. awful refereeing decision in both utd v chelsea games saw both results go chelsea’s way.
Anelka being taken out by a Gary Neville body check for starters. Or doesn’t that count as it doesn’t suit your view of things?
Dude, ZM is a keen interpreter of the game who provides us fans with the kind of cogent analysis we crave and are unable to find elsewhere. You are a Chelsea fan who’s feeling defensive. Go elsewhere if you want to whine that his article’s tone was insufficiently awed by your one-point victory.
Thanks Josef.
As someone who loved basketball (a stat-rich sport) growing up and began to follow pro soccer only in the past decade I’ve been craving more detailed, fact-based discussion of soccer from an analytical/tactical/statistical perspective. It is basically nonexistent in the english-speaking press from what I’ve been able to observe, with most British sources leaning towards the “he’s got/doesn’t have bottle/heart/drive/character/ [insert whatever intangible or unverifiable quality you want here] and that’s why they won/lost”. I am super-delighted to have found your site. If you have any suggestions on where you go to read about futbol besides J.Wilson (whom I already read), I’d be delighted to hear, and I’ll still come here, you won’t lose traffic…
>with most British sources leaning towards the “he’s got/doesn’t have >bottle/heart/drive/character/ [insert whatever intangible or unverifiable >quality you want here] and that’s why they won/lost”.
I know how you feel. Here in canada, we have a small regional sport called ice hockey which is similar to english football in that sense.
Players with talent are derided as being useless and weak and players with heart and guts and yes…. character are hailed as heroes.
Canadian boys are tough and all others are weak.
Its a conan the barbarian mentality which is simplistic and tedious to listen to.
Anon,
Please mind your language. Theres nothing hateful in my words. I’m putting forth valid points which contradict the writer’s subjective opinion and it would be worthwhile if you refute the points instead of getting down to personal attacks.
Chelsea scored a 103 goals for the season and while Rooney got all the accolades for playing his best season in the absence of CR7, Drogba was equal to him in the goal scoring stakes. Agreed that the points total is lesser than previous winning years, but Chelsea showed an improvement in other areas.
Chelsea came up against a tactically astute Inter in the Champions League which outplayed them like they outplayed Barcelona. I don’t see any shame in that. If they had come up against this year’s poor Milan side, they would probably have gone through akin to Man Utd.
ZM,
I can point to numerous instances when Chelsea lost points owing to incorrect referee decisions; the wrong handball penalty call against Terry vs Tottenham as an example where Chelsea lost 3 points instead of drawing the game. But I firmly believe that over the course of a season, decisions go either way. Its a side point in your season analysis, yes, but a prominent one because you are playing up the impact the refereeing decisions had on the Man Utd – Chelsea games which you say were the title deciders.
You say that Man Utd-Chelsea was a 12 point swing. Yet, Chelsea played Liverpool (agreed they have been poor this year and were beaten in the Europa League a few days prior, yet are always dangerous) in the penultimate game and got the result. If Chelsea had choked in that game, it was Man Utd’s title. Do you agree to that?
I enjoy reading your articles, but that doesn’t mean your articles aren’t subjective and open to critique. Also, a different view to yours isn’t necessarily incorrect or boring. Well, thats all I have to say to you.
Josef,
I support AC Milan. There goes your theory.
I’m done presenting my opinion. You guys are free to move on.
“You say that Man Utd-Chelsea was a 12 point swing. Yet, Chelsea played Liverpool (agreed they have been poor this year and were beaten in the Europa League a few days prior, yet are always dangerous) in the penultimate game and got the result. If Chelsea had choked in that game, it was Man Utd’s title. Do you agree to that?”
That has literally nothing to do with Chelsea v United holding a twelve-point swing.
No-one is analysing refereeing decisions throughout the season and no-one really wants to. Utterly bizarre you bringing up that Terry handball considering in that game Spurs were denied a clear penalty a moment earlier.
“Where Chelsea lost 3 points instead of drawing the game.”
Do you understand how the points system works?
Honestly, it’s amazing that you’ve created this tedious discussion over a sentence as innocent as “In all, Chelsea deserve the title, even if crucial, incorrect refereeing decisions in both victories over Manchester United can be pinpointed as fortunate moments.”
“Also, a different view to yours isn’t necessarily incorrect or boring. Well, that’s all I have to say to you.”
That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. ZM is extremely open to other’s opinions. However, when ZM is attacked (not critiqued) by people such as yourself he has a right to defend himself, which he more than did so.
Honestly it’s a shame that as sites become more popular they attract more posts from angry individuals that can only post flames. It pains me to even add comments to a thread that only degrades intellectual discussion.
ZM can you just delete these posts? They clearly don’t add anything useful.
On a side note about Josef’s post, it’s not so much he’s a Chelsea fan, he’s just anti Man-U… they did massacre AC Milan after all.
Oh and ZM, please don’t be affected by the worlds of a small minority of readers. Whenever someone creates something great there will always be those that only seek to damage it. It’s unfortunate, but all to common on the internet.
and Man U stomped them (I like Milan too, actually – Seedorf is sublime, and the Carletto-Milan ZM highlighted as one of the best sides of the decade is the best I ever watched [which tells you how recently I came to this sport]) so maybe that’s why you’re so adamant that luck had nothing to do with Chelski’s PL win?
naveen please stop commenting on this forum dude. with every sentence you only reveal that you have very little knowledge of football. No one takes sides in this forum its for enlightening the users of football tactics and sharing thoughts on it
“Ancelotti becomes just the fourth manager in Premiership history to win the title”
are you sure?? i would say there are already four others – maybe you forgot Dalglish (Blackburn ‘95)!? (others being: SAF, Wenger, Mourinho)
Not sure what happened there! Thanks for correction. Also worth nothing that Chelsea are the first club to have Premiership with two different managers.
Fair play to Chelsea for winning the league, even if at times it looked like nobody wanted it. One thing, you’ve highlighted the large victories they have had over the season, and again quite a lot is being made of their record goal tally this season. A question I have about it is, in actual playing terms, is there any difference between a 4-0 thumping and an 8-0? Beside the lack of professional courtesy of not trying to completely embarrass a team (if such a thing should or does exist) once a team knows it has lost, how much do they really try and defend. Also, even though you haven’t made this point, are people making far too much of Chelsea being exciting because of the goals from what is quite a misleading statistic?
This isn’t me being bitter, I just wondered what people thought, as I’ve found Chelsea a fairly boring side overall this season, in spite of the goals, even if they have shown moments of brilliance.
I still find this Chelsea boring most of the time, there are exceptions where they do produce some sublime football though.
I think most teams “give up” when it’s clear they’ve lost however so do the other team. I think quite a few of the high scoring games that Chelsea were involved with saw the opponents totally give up and not really bother.
But then as you saw when Arsenal went to Wigan, both teams gave up, and Wigan got one back and then had all the momentum, so good on Chelsea for giving their all every game even when they’ve blitz’d a team already.
god what a load of tosh sourer grapes my frenind
chelsea won home and away at mautd aresnal liverpool only let in one in all thoses games .
scored 103 goals in the premership alone sound pretty conving to me mate .
Actually, I don’t mind a ton of goals. Being a gooner, I openly dispise Chelsea and everything they stand for. The past six years, I think, their scoreline was always something along the line of 2:0, whether it was home against Arsenal or away at Sheffield. But, in reality, soccer is a sport where you play to score goals and entertain the crowd. If the other team is attacking, what are you supposed to do? Score goals, of course. What, you think that Rodallega whispered to Terry and Lampard at one point yesterday, “hey guys, let’s just pass the skin around for another hour or so, then hit the clubs together.”? No, don’t think so. Besides, didn’t Melchiot say last week that they’d try their best to prevent Chelsea from winning the title? Soccer is as mental game as it is physical – just wish Arsenal had been as ruthless as often this year as Chelsea was.
good article ZM as a Chelsea fan its nice to see some people who aren’t as biased as certain sports writers/presenters,for example Mark Lawrenson was on 5lve yesterday and he thought the first penalty was a bit iffy??? A blatant grasp of the jersey pulling lampard to the ground!Ok the red as a bit harsh as i think it should be just a penalty and a yellow, but im not going to argue with the rules, and as far as refereeing decisions go i think we deserve a few to go our way after the useless demonstration of Ovrebo in last seasons Champions League. Also sad to see Barcelona(more than a club) FC being bad losers!!
The red was correct simply because it was the only call he could make, as the foul was a Denial Of Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO). At youth level, a lot of ref’s won’t make that red card call, but it is the correct call to make. Not necessarily fair on Wigan, but technically correct.
My Celtic mate was backing Gary Caldwell to score the winner against Chelsea. Um…
On a more serious note, Chelsea were always underrated by the pundits. Losing over two legs to a world-class Inter side led to talk of the need for a clearout. Chelsea still have world-class players, and incredible strength in depth at centre-half (btw, what do you call it on this site? I don’t mean the player just in front of the defence…) Rather than have a clearout, Chelsea should retain most of the squad and sign a couple of key players (a right-winger to provide natural width in a 4-3-3 or another attacking right back to allow Chelsea to play the diamond formation; if Chelsea play the diamond they can also sign another top striker. Torres? They would be near-invincible).
Hello ZM,
First of all congratulations and thanks for your excellent articles. I for one was looking for a site like this for a long time. And finally found one (as much as we care dear Mr. Wilson is not what we call a prolific writer…
).
Coming to this article, once again an excellent analysis. Me being a Blues fan, do not grudge your comment about the refereeing decisions (I understand my fellow supporters’ ire, but fact is fact). Yes, we have been fortunate, just the amount you need to win a competitive league by a margin of 1 point. Seriously, having seen enough of unfortunate events in the past few years I happily welcome this good dash of… err.. champions’ luck shall we say.
You see, we people are bit too happy to see the tile after a long wait and at times sad seeing the mainstream media’s general tendency regarding our team and over-reactions do crop up at unexpected moments…
Having said that I would’ve liked to see a more detailed analysis about the team and formation(s), this being the season covering one. What do you think have been the best of the formations and why (considering all the players available in good form)? How much do you think Essien’s absence affected the team? What about Kalou playing the wide right and at time wide left role (and Ancelotti preferring him over J Cole)? Ballack’s lack of pace and general decline at the heart of midfield (defensive role or not)…. etc. Or maybe I am asking too much.
Once again thanks for the write up. Keep up the good, nay excellent work…
Cheers.
Great stuff ZM! Any chance you could do similar retrospectives for the winners of all the top European leagues?
As for this article, Ancelotti has defied that much-irritating cliche that: “you just pick your best 11 and tell them to get on with it”. Please! Managers are payed a considerable salary to manage, to intervene, to meddle,,,to tinker! Otherwise, any Joe Soap who bays instructions from the stands would be allowed to take over the running of the team and impart this exaggerated ‘back to basics, common sense’ nonsense for free.
Ancelotti has demonstrated that he keenly observes and understands his players’ characteristics and, like an alchemist, knows that certain blends are required for different situations in order to generate an altered result.
“Any chance you could do similar retrospectives for the winners of all the top European leagues?” That would be bomb…
Roberticus, you need to get your blog up and running again! I’m sure the people who visit ZM would love to read your tactical articles. This is the link, for the uninitiated: http://santapelota.blogspot.com/
I second that.
Hopefully soon!
I’m working against the clock to get the blog ready before June, by which time the mainstream media will be shaping people’s conceptions (for better or worse) of how such and such a team will play.
I might do an ad-hoc write up this week on Dunga’s squad call-up and how it has been received in Brazil. Few surprises but endless controversey.
Please do! I’ll happily link to it etc
Great – santapelota was the first soccer blog I found that really challenged how I thought about the game (I’ve since found others, this one included). It has made me a smarter spectator, and a smarter player. And at my age, it takes a lot of smarts when the wheels start to get rusty.
Roberticus,
I think you encapsulate perfectly how Ancelotti was able to deliver the title – he recognised that different situations called for different blends. In fact the managers of the top sides in Europe – Inter, Barcelona, Man United, Roma, Real Madrid all seem to recognise the importance of trying to get the right blend according to the circumstances. Whether or not the boss gets this right goes a huge way towards the success or failure of the team.
Interestingly though, two counter-examples spring to mind – Bayern, because they’ve done well, and Arsenal, because I support them. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Louis van Gaal has once deviated from his 4-4-2. Wenger changed from a 4-3-3 early in the season to a sort of 4-2-3-1, but that was enforced by Van Persie’s injury, and he hasn’t changed his approach once from one game to the next.
I think Arsenal’s predictability has really hurt them, and is a key reason why they have been relatively unsuccessful this year, but Bayern have been relatively successful dspite never adapting to circumstance. ( I say relatively because, in terms of the CL, they were fortuitous to get past Man U and Fiorentina and even luckier to draw Lyon in the semi-final). Do we have to say then that even though Chelsea’s adaptability has been so key to their success, and Arsenal’s predictability cost them, Bayern’s achievements show that the ability to ‘tinker’ isn’t actually necessary?
I’m really looking forward to this year’s CL final for this very reason. Will Van Gaal stick with his beloved 4-4-2 (surely he will?) and will that cost his team against top class opposition? (I think it might)
Bayern is an odd case this season. LvG originally wanted to implement a 4-3-3 at Bayern and experimented with it early in the season, going as far as using Tymoshchuk as a RM in the midfield band of the formation. Ultimately he realized that he didn’t have the personnel, that and Ribery’s persistent injuries. He also experimented with Ribery as a #10 in pre-season but again it didn’t get the best out of the players and the scores and performances in the first half of the season reflected that. The 4-4-2 that became so prominent was almost unintentional in that sense but it was a formation that also got the best out of his players, which is why this season is such a remarkable achievement for Bayern.
i think having 2 or 3 or even more different formations which a team can adapt to over a season is going to be very important going forward. ofcourse for this the players need to be flexible tactically and should be able to play in different positions
Will hopefully do some more similar things, yeah
I’ve been reading your blog over lunches recently, it’s ace!
When it comes to Spain, please, let it be about Real; Barca was covered here quite a lot of times already (maybe “a lot” is exaggeration, but still…) so, for a change, I would like to read more about the Madrid side.
Being on the topic of the Spanish league, one interesting thing: Barca is leading La Liga by one point only, but I doubt there is anyone who would say they were lucky (although on the other side, they were in home game against Real; so were Gran Derbis a decisive moments? or maybe decisive moments were Real’s losses to sides like Athletic Bilbao – all a matter for a separate discussion)..
ZM,
Great article, have to laud your effort in making note of formation/personnel changes in chelsea throughout the team and running an excellent, insightful website on football.
however there were a few points which i found debatable.of course , your knowledge of these matters far exceeds mine,and this is really only nitpicking from an otherwise apt analysis but here goes anyway, hope you find it worth replying:
1.Chelsea’s goals a result of individual brilliance- i thought most of their goals were due to fluent passing moves and intelligent team movement, with players making timely runs into the box. Goals from long range efforts ,free kicks or solo runs were few and far between.
Mostly the scorer took no more than 2-3 touches, and the goals were scored from inside the box.While one cant deny that the individual skills of chelsea players like malouda, drogba played a big part in finishing and assists, thats natural considering the calibre of players
at chelsea.
2.Drogba & Anelka team players- They can be the sulkiest human beings on the planet at times , but overall this season i think they stuck to the team plan and were discplined, looking to bring others into play and passing it around (esp anelka) instead of going for personal glory. Both of them provided plenty of assists.If you are talking about tracking
back then yes anelka isnt known for that but drogba does his share of that duty.
3. Lampard and Ballack in midfield- As for this point i am more interested in knowing your reasons for it than disputing it. Many feel he is overrated, and he is technique isnt up their with the best, but i would personally back lampard to hold his own against any team’s midfield if he has an able partner alongside him (that is assuming the other team are playing only 2 midfielders as well rather than 3 . if that is the case then one can put a 3rd one like essien mikel, malouda as they usually do ).
Is ballack that able partner? He is nowhere near his best and lacks pace, and has stopped contributing to his teams attacks totally , but i feel he does a more than OK job of holding the midfield area and does the simple but effective job of recovering and passing well . There are much better CMs than him right now, But he still offers passing ability ,strength and the valuable experience of a top player, & if it was someone else performing the same (while showing more urgency,i do concede) he would be appreciated for it. But as we have known him as a once-great CM he is, quite reasonably, viewed as average now, as we have also witnessed his decline.
But in the league ,if lampard & ballack are playing well, i dont think they would have it easy against man u, liverpool,arsenal,spurs, but nor would they struggle.
Good points Shaurya. Especially about Drogba & Anelka being team players.
I think, in spite of his various on-filed antics, Drogba is very good team player (yes, I do believe that), with an enviable work rate. He almost always tracks back and one of the reliable defenders in set pieces.
Regarding Anelka, I think this was his defining season where he showed he is happy to leave the mantle of target man to other and continue in a wide and supporting role when needed. And he has superior ball holding abilities which helps to keep the ball with him in the wide/corner areas and wait for others to flood the attacking third. He is not a crosser though, and to be fair Chelsea relied on passing the ball into box rather than the aerial route.
Hi Shaurya, thanks for the compliments, and fair points. In response:
1. Yes, they certainly scored a lot of team goals, but perhaps the point I was making was that their side wasn’t a cohesive unit that broke down teams almost ‘naturally’ – see the Arsenal side of 2004, yes they had great players, but it was more the understanding between them that was the key. This Chelsea side I thought sometimes lacked that understanding, even if they went onto get cricket scores against a couple of sides. The defeat at home to Inter was telling – the individuals didn’t play well on the day and Chelsea simply never looked likely to score.
2. Drogba is an inherently selfish player – that was shown by his antics on Sunday regarding the penalty. He is excellent defensively, that is true – but he’s never been part of a good strike partnership at Chelsea, he clearly prefers playing in his own, he is an individualist. Anelka links well but has no desire in doing any defensive work. I’m not sure the two really work well together at all against really top sides.
3. Lampard and Ballack are both excellent, but I’d think you need more of a defensive-minded player considering you’d be playing four attacking players ahead of them. Lampard and Ballack are both underrated in their defensive abilities, but see the first half at Anfield last week – Liverpool were able to work the ball about Lampard and Ballack reasonably easily, and time and time again had so much time on the edge of the box. Aquilani hit the bar, other sides would be more ruthless. Essien is a must if Chelsea want to play that system, and I think even Lampard and Ballack would acknowledge that.
Hey thanks for taking the time to respond….
1)yeah i guess you are right about that . Also i feel that chelsea esp in those away defeats, were too slow, ponderous while attacking and the players preferred grinding out a win as opposed to making full use of their attacking options which would have been a more viable choice.
But they (with the exception of malouda, ivanovic) tended to play within themselves ,a legacy from mourinho’s 3rd season at chelsea which has repeatedly hindered their chances in the PLleague. Thats the disadvantage of jose’s siege mentality doctrine- it can only motivate you for your first few trophies after that you find it difficult to get fired up for routine affairs like wigan, birmigham, villa, etc.
although i think they have improved in that regard since the inter defeat.
3)yeah a fit essien in the team (with ballack or instead ballack) anyday
2. I completely disagree with both parts of this. Firstly Drogba being an ‘individualist selfish’ player – surely his game under Hiddink disproves this criticism? A 4-3-3 was used, with Malouda – Drogba – Anelka in the three. The key to this relationship working was Drogba’s willingness to rotate with Anelka with the AMR and ST positions – and we’ve even seen in parts at the end of this season.
Him and Anelka upfront in the diamond wasn’t a good strike partnership? Oh please, if that wasn’t good then I have no idea what is. Their connection was perfect, and as shown under Hiddink they can both play together to a fantastic ability. With the diamond Drogba proved to be a great slightly more static force, with Anelka more involved in the build up, and the partnership worked wonders.
The criticism of Anelka here is harsh too. He has put in some pretty good defensive displays for Chelsea. He’s often back in the box defending set pieces, and often is the one clearing crosses and has a willingess to go deep into more defensive areas of the field in order to retrieve the ball.
Hi ZM,
I’ve really been enjoying your website. It’s great to have a site dedicated to tactics and I think you’re getting people interesting in this side of the game, getting them thinking more.
Well done on a great season and keep up the good work. Looking forward to next season and hoping you do cover some World Cup games.
Thanks sir.
I think the main problems the diamond encountered was Ancelotti’s early reluctance to start Malouda (this went on way too long) instead opting for Lampard in the LCM role where he did perform admirably but definitely not at his best, but worst was whenever Mikel played anchoring the defensive midfield where it was clearly his role to be an important part in a short passing game but which he just couldn’t do when under pressure.
No quick first touch passes to fullbacks coming forward or any part of nice one-twos/ triangles with the other midfielders.
It’s not even that he is a bad passer, he was just way too slow and when trying to quicken things, to make Ancelotti’s dream of Milan-like fluidity come true, he’d make errors. The biggest error was of course Ancelotti’s expecting Mikel had anything in common at all with say Andrea Pirlo and I remember on more than one occasion where he had to take Mikel off early cause he was getting exposed.
Looking back I think this was the one area where Chelsea saw their greatest drop in quality compared to when it was Essien (while healthy often the rcm) or Ballack in that role.
Sometimes not even surrounding Mikel as an emergency with skilled passers like Deco and Cole would be enough if the opponents executed their ball pressure well enough. See the loss to Everton.
About the lack of width and it really started last season under Hiddink but I thought Anelka played his best season ever and has gone from “just” being a very good striker to excellent mature all-round player adding quality whereever he has the ball in the final third, including out wide.
His strength, balance and control makes it so hard to take the ball away from him and in the meantime players like Drogba, Lampard, Malouda can make their deadly runs without the ball.
Ivanovic while no Bosingwa going forward I still feel isn’t just one of the best fullbacks period but going forward has become so good that only the elite at that are better. He is just very effective.
Relying overly on fullbacks was Scolari’s grave mistake though. Chelsea are still at their best when they get the ball directly to one of their great final third destinations and take it from there. Few if any teams have that many threats and better combination of physical strength and skill.
With the players they have I don’t think there is a better team in the final third so it would make sense to spent as much time there as possible. Mourinho understood this, in many ways this is still his team, Hiddink also had that down to perfection, with Ancelotti it’s often been somewhere in between, meaning too many defeats but also amazing play in the final third so in that sense I agree that it was the individual quality of the superior Chelsea squad that came through.
What a disappointing article… I thought this page were different.
Chelsea won deservedly, and without the help of referees or other teams. I mean, they scored 103 goals and defeated Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool twice. You can’t say that the two games against Man. Utd. were THE decisive games. All games are important. You shouldn’t have mentioned anything about refeering if you were only gonna write about mistakes in favor of Chelsea. Of course, they were favoured in some calls but also the other way. On the game you mention, the one at Old Trafford, what I remember is the clear offside goal of Drogba but I also remember the goal Macheda scored with the help of his hand and a penalty denied to Chelsea in the first half (and no, I don’t think there was a penalty on Park). And you can’t say Chelsea got lucky and Man. Utd. were unfortunate to lose, c’mon! You make your own luck, and if Man. Utd. were better in the game at Stamford Bridge they would have won the game! But no, Chelsea won, the better team always win unless there’s a very very poor refeering, it doesn´t matter if a team shot on goal twenty times but don’t score and the other team shot once and score, the team who score is better, because the one who shot twenty times weren’t good enough to score, reasons being the chances weren’t good enough or the defense and the goalkeeper of the other team was really good, and the scorer was good enough to score with one chance.
Amazing that you think the whole article is disappointing based upon 10 out of 1100 words you disagree with. When something is published that doesn’t mention ‘crucial’ refereeing decisions the piece gets criticized – add a small caveat in a sentence about how Chelsea deserve it, and you get people saying that Chelsea, erm, deserved it.
No, this page isn’t different to anything.
Again, the concept that the games against Manchester United were not decisive is laughable considering those games held a 12-point swing and Chelsea won both, winning the title by 1 point.
What’s wrong with Chelsea fans this week? You’d think they’d be happy.
Its called ‘Apple disease’ where any criticism of their precious toy/team is considered a direct affront to their manhood and reason for living.
Of course, theyre not Liverpool fans so theyre not all bad.
Hi ZM,
Here I am again praising your analysis (delightful reading as always), and also bringing a South American perspective. Much was talked about Chelsea scoring 100 goals in the league season. But are you aware a top-flight Brazilian side has already scored 100 goals… in 2010 only? That’s right, Santos this year has hit that mark with a high-flying young team spearheaded by the excellent Neymar and Ganso, where the prodigal son Robinho has become almost like an actor in a supporting role. They’re playing breathtaking football, most of the time in a 4-1-2-3 formation akin to Benfica’s earlier in the season.
On Chelsea, some things I recall from the games which I watched this season:
- Malouda had a fantastic season, for me he was “the” standout player.
- Chelsea generally played without a “designated playmaker” – something Ancelotti clearly tried to do with Deco in the beginning, and which you’d expect from someone who brought the best out of Pirlo and Seedorf – but late on the season, as you point out, they played almost all the time depending on incisive runs and with very few long passes from deep
- Zhirkov had an excellent cameo during A.Cole’s injury (including the Inter games, he was superb). I feel he should probably have been tried in left midfield as a Plan B more often (e.g. on a 4-2-3-1 with Malouda central).
what’s the difference between a christmas tree and 4-3-3?
A Christmas tree is for Christmas. A 4-3-3 is for life
Almost mcgie76!
4-3-3 (correct me if I’m wrong anyone) usually play with a defensive midfielder and 2 centre mids, 2 wider attacking players (could argue that they are wingers) and a lone striker. This can be summarised to 4-3-3.
Christmas tree is more narrow. They play with 3 slightly more defensive midfielders (sitting in from of the back 4) and 2 more attacking midfielders who support a lone striker. So the further up the pitch you get, the less players there are, making a pointy Christmas tree.
Of course in a game they all have different roles and move around a lot, but generally 4-3-3 offers more in width for attack.
a christmas tree has 2 central midfielders, a classic 433 is meant to have 2 wide forwards. in all intents and purposes its the same now as most wingers are played on their wrong side and cut in effectively play as inside strikers. for instance barcelona play a a very narrow 433 where the two wide forwards are deployed wide to utilise the counter and space.
very few teams play with a christmas tree but the main thing was you had two pacy creative forwards behind a natural striker. generally narrow with alot of the width from the fullbacks.
433 is naturally more counter attacking, 4321 is more naturally possession based.
Will be interesting if Ancelotti settles on something or continues like this. They were pretty close to blowing an easy title opportunity, losing so many times. Plus of course this squad is only going downhill.
This season felt like a last hurrah/hanging on to the old boys from United/Chelsea. Next season the changes will surely come, should be interesting.
This article makes me angry, because in those formations I see what Milan could have become if it had found an alternative to the Pirlo-Gattuso combination in midfield. Diamond – check, Xmas tree – check, 4-3-3 – fragile because Pirlo has to play deep in midfield, leaving it too light to play with three forwards (and just look at what Utd did to Leonardo’s naive, albeit undermanned, attempt to play that formation at OT.)
Anyway… having Essien, Ballack and Lampard available in midfield is key as you have players whose workrate and ballplaying allow Ancelotti to dispense with his deep-lying playmaker. You can play narrow, wide, 1,2, or 3 up top safe in the knowledge there are a couple of monsters in midfield to cover and spread the ball.
It will be interesting to see how Carletto reinforces over the summer. I get the feeling his first love is the diamond, and he would look to get some more bombing fullbacks. Maicon would be the ultimate coup, weakening Inter at the same time as strengthing his right side.
For the formation against Man U, wasn’t Deco playing behind Mikel, similar to how Pirlo and Gattuso played at Milan (with Lampard analogous to Kaka)?
Hey ZM, great article as always. One thing I’d like to say is that CA’s altering of the side has been helpful to him mid-match as well as in induvidual games. I was at Wembley for the Chelsea – Villa match and for the first 45 mins MO’N had Chelsea pretty much worked out. Chelsea came out after half time playing much further up the pitch and with a tweaked formation and battered Villa. I’m not sure this sort of mid-match change would have been as effective against a well drilled Villa side if Chelsea hadn’t been used to starting that way on a regular basis. Just observing another way that CA “not knowing his best team” really benefitted Chelsea this season (as a Liverpool fan it was genuine agony to write that).
While all the angry response from Chelsea supporters on the refereeing decisions being highlighted against MU in both the games is justified, it is true that those two games were the decisive games in deciding the league. As far as the decisions are concerned, once the game is over, it doesnt matter whether the decision was fair or not. Only thing that matters is the result.
Hi ZM. A really good site that makes nice reading.
Now that we have finished the premier league and before the commencement of the world cup, can we have a man versus man technical analysis. For eg: Christiano Ronaldo versus Lionel Messi or Frank Lampard versus Steven Gerard. I am sure, when you analyse them techinally, it will make an interesting reading.
I think everyone misses the point that the title only came down to the last day becuase Chelsea effectively kept letting teams back into it. Chelsea should of had it won 3 or 4 weeks ago.
ZM
Slightly off topic, but I have always felt that the Inter win has been over played. Inter played well in the second leg, especially in defence, but their tactics were a very high risk strategy. For most of the game Eto drifted so wide and was so uninvoled they were almost playing with 10 men. If Chelsea had got a goal in the first half, which could easily have happened, then I wonder if Inter would have been content to stick with the same system. As it happened Eto got the goal and the gamble payed off, but I think it was a much closer call than most writers give Chelsea credit for.
My real point is that the Inter defeat seems to have tainted everyone’s appreciation of Chelsea’s season, which I think is being a tad unfair. As a Stamford Bridge regular, I feel strongly that Carlo A has brought about an improvement and a diversity that no other manager has, including Guus H. I think this is much more judgement that luck, and I think he deserves more credit – not from ZM but the world at large.
Hi ZM,
Really nice column. IMO, Chelsea were more than deserved winners of the PL.
Points to ponder:
- What if Michael Essien and Robin Van Persie played the whole season? I guess that would have put United’s season in perspective, but kudos to Sir Alex and his squad for a great season defensively.
- Do you people honestly think Lionel Messi is the best in the business, let alone all time. I seriously don’t get the point.. Jus coz the guy’s got great ball control makes him the world’s best. I mean, what’s he got other than his competitors to put him on a higher planet.
Remember: He plays with Xavi, Iniesta, Alves, Pedro(looks a great prospect!!)
Just imagine if Torres played as the front man for Arsenal with Essien holding up the midfield. How ‘d that make Cesc look like?? I’d like to see Messi in Man Utd doing the Rooney role.. to carry a team of average players that is..(No offense to United, jus puttin my oint across..)
And why are goal scorers alone are eligible for the crown?? I think Xavi, Cesc, Lampard, Essien, A Cole, Casillas, Kaka, Ronaldo, Rooney, Torres deserve equal mention with Lionel, of course. And regards to the all time great status, that’s just mocking the collective intelligence of a lot of people.
P.S.
- Dude, please have a simpler, slicker design. ‘d make it interesting.
- And some articles, I find them a tad small. I believe more extensive writing would suit yours.
- What should we infer with Jose’s pic in the masthead.. Greatest Tactician, eh?? That’s stretchin it, if that’s the case.. An insult to Sir Alex, Arsene, Fabio and Pep. And I am a Jose fan.
- But I do find a lot of similarity between your articles and Tom’s in Football Further..(Not to be construed as a criticism, rather a comment..)
- Congrats for a refreshing site, again..
It wasn’t about not knowing the best eleven. It was about the key player of that eleven being not available since December. Let’s face: Chelsea had no player to replace Essien and had to adapt to life without him.
I don’t think that is relevant at all. The defensive and midfield base stayed the same, Essien simply would have replaced a central midfielder. Ancelotti’s dilemma was upfront.
On paper it maybe did, but in real life it certainly didn’t. Essien not only would have replaced Ballack or Mikel, but he also would have added far more energy and dynamism in midfield. Without midfield powerhouse like he is diamond shape midfield was too slow in attack and not thight enough in defence, lost it’s advantages and had to be sacrificed for a more attacking type of formation.
So do you think that with Essien, Chelsea’s first XI would have been the diamond?
i think riminitas is correct to some degree. a diamond midfield of mikel, essien, lampard with deco or cole at the tip is much more balanced.
essien complements lampard perfectly, he is there to break up play, cover the entire pitch and drive forward with pace, this allows lampard to time his runs into the box and also to stay deep at times and look for longer passes out to the full-backs.
another reason that the diamond didn’t work is that neither deco or cole played well enough this season. ancelotti played lampard there but he was wasted in that position.
i think it’s possible that ancelotti will look to get rid of cole and deco, bring in another playmaker and try to play the diamond again next year.
as a chelsea fan i hope he doesn’t. it is a formation well suited to keeping possession in tight european games, but not to the premiership. for the diamond to work effectively, the midfield has to be able to keep the ball long enough for the full-backs to get into advanced positions – the pace of the game of the premiership makes this much more difficult than it would be in italy or spain
Yes, I think so. Not saying that I see it as a perfect formation (I think for the league games against weaker opposition 4-4-2 is much better), but Ancelotti really likes it and I think he changed it because he needed to rather than because he wanted to.
probably not during the ACoN but with essien’s injury it became a moot point. Simply put when essien plays he can break up play, help with the counter, run down speeding players and his attacking play is top notch. If a team had 10 essiens and cech they would win most games, that amount of power and speed is just unseen in most athletes.
Here is the thing the ideal player behind the 2 strikers should be a striker not a midfielder, the striker however needs to have good vision, the ability to drift wide and cause havoc but the biggest thing they need is speed. Simply put the two strikers take up wider positions opening up the centre, allowing quick break aways from a speedy forward(a la kaka) who can out run his man in the midfield and the 2 strikers are worrying the defenders.
Chelseas swap to a more covential system mainly occured because they closest player they had to that was malouda who isnt the most comfortable down the centre and prefers the left naturally, to compensate they played a second striker slightly deeper and to the right of a more pointed striker. basically take a player from the striking role in their 442 diamond to make it a christmas tree.
Hm, it is quite clear that the writer is seething at Chelsea winning the league. Very pro-United analysis and what on earth does the two ManU games have to do with how Chelsea played throughout the season?
At Old Trafford we were by far the better team – which most experts seemed to accept. Plus, we were denied a stone-wall penalty (when Neville brings down Anelka) and why not mentioning Macheda’s handball? Regarding our win at Stamford Bridge United hardly had one single dangerous chance apart from the swerving Rooney shot second half. Our goal that game was not against the rules. Drogba is clearly not offside and the defender (was it Brown?) falls way to easily in the box. If we would have conceeded such a goal I would have had no complaints, apart from the fact that I’d been furious with Brown and Fletcher. Likewise, the free-kick leading to the goal was a no brainer. Fletcher just nudges the ball but 98% of his challenge were on Ashely and it was a dangerous tackle and he definately used exessive force which was not needed.
Also, what about the crystal clear red card on Evans for putting his studs in the chest of Drogba as he was running towards goal? Amazingly that situationed resulted in a yellow for Drogba… Sour grapes – we were deserving winners in the end. No discussion. It would have been a travesty had we not won it cause we were by far the best team over the season but admittely made it difficult for ourselves over the season. I think the fact that we had a lot of injuries in key positions (midfield) and very few options in the front 3 made us vulnerable to fatigue. Essiens injury also meant Ballack had to play way too many games and it really showed some games. The ACN aqlso meant a lot of key players were tired on february which really showed result-wise.
Regarding our XI, well it only played once since we had injuries to Carvalho and Alex. If you disregard the one CB position that formation and XI would have played for atleast 20-25 games during the season.
Regarding your tactical analysis I think it’s so-so. Chelsea didn’t play the diamond after end October and after that it was always a variation of a 4-3-3 or a 4-3-2-1 (x-mas tree) with a defensive midfielder in the mid trio. When Malouda was played in the mid trio it was still the same system and not a 4-2-3-1 as you are indicating. Malouda was quite withdrawn apart from Stoke and Wigan at home. Also, Mikel and Deco were both out injured during the last month which meant Carlo had to play Malouda in midfield. Otherwise he would have continued with a midfield consisting of Ballack, Mikel, Lampard and Deco in rotation.
Regarding a midfield consisting of Malouda. I see no reason to why that would not have worked should we have had Essien. A midfield of Lampard-Essien-Malouda has every chance of being a success – also enabling more attacking bodies up front. I hope Carlo will give it a try next season.
Good God, yet another Chelsea fan accusing a writer who doesn’t support Manchester United of being pro-Manchester United.
Some Chelsea fans need to come to terms with the fact that they deservedly won the league, but they weren’t a particularly brilliant side. Accusing someone else (incorrectly) of bias and then writing something like “It would have been a travesty had we not won it cause we were by far the best team over the season” when Chelsea won the league by a single point…well, it really does beggar belief.
Agree about Cole and Deco. And certainly wouldn’t be surprised to see the diamond back, Ancelotti loved narrow formations at Milan. But I think you need two full-backs who are VERY good defensively, it doesn’t work with just one.
ZM, please add me to the list of Chelsea supporters who aren’t afraid of an honest look in the mirror. I’m very thankful for the time you put in and the good-natured and reality-based discussion here. The same goes for the regular commenters.
Since this is an end-of-season review, permit me to pull the lens back a bit.
I think Chelsea won because they had the depth to play at the same level with more different lineups than their nearest opponents. Man Utd as everyone has conceded, were not anywhere near the same without Rooney to finish. Arsenal only had the hammer of Bendtner and badly missed the scalpel of Van Persie. And Liverpool couldn’t score enough without Torres. Chelsea’s depth at the front saw them through injuries and the African Cup of Nations. Taking the season as a whole, the other teams were too brittle to win with less than their best eleven, no matter who was managing them.
Chelsea still managed to find their own way to cripple themselves where it really hurt: in confidence and chemistry. For all of the broken records in both phases of the game, this was a very near thing as the final standings show. Many have remarked on Chelsea’s inability to put any decisive distance between themselves and their pursuers from February onwards, even though Ancelotti had found a working philosophy by then. I think you left out one factor in the season which I am in no hurry to bring up especially on this site, which is uniquely free of soap opera nonsense. But I think it’s germane.
I think The Terry Affair shook them up and came within inches of costing them enough momentum to let others through. Terry’s troubles came to light in a court decision on 29 January. The first newspaper articles came out on 30 January. Terry lost the England captaincy on 5 February. At that point Chelsea were 4 points ahead of Man Utd in the league. Here are the results for the next few weeks:
(Sadly, formatting is not preserved through posting)
PL 30.01.2010 Burnley away W2-1
PL 02.02.2010 Hull City away D1-1
PL 07.02.2010 Arsenal home W2-0
FA 13.02.2010 Cardiff City home W4-1
PL 10.02.2010 Everton away L1-2
PL 20.02.2010 Wolverhampton Wndrs away W2-0
CL 24.02.2010 Inter Milan away L1-2
PL 27.02.2010 Manchester City home L2-4
FA 07.03.2010 Stoke City home W2-0
PL 13.03.2010 West Ham United home W4-1
CL 16.03.2010 Inter Milan home L0-1
PL 21.03.2010 Blackburn Rovers away D1-1
Chelsea ran the gamut from “visibly shaky” to “indifferent” to “huffing and puffing to little effect” during this period, with the exception of the Arsenal match. They dropped 10 points out of 24. This stretch also includes Chelsea’s lone league home loss, the “Bridgey High Hand” 2 – 4 loss to Man City. At conclusion of this period they were out of the Champions League and a point behind Man Utd.
Chelsea then regained their equilibrium with a 5 – 0 home whipping of Portsmouth which started their late pattern of cricket scores. They went WWWWLWWW to close out the season.
I think any analysis of Chelsea’s performance this season has to include a mention of this event. The matches are settled on the field, yes, but at this level a team that doesn’t have its emotional house in order is beaten before kickoff.
Thanks again for the excellent work.