Liverpool 2-0 Chelsea: Torres strikes and positional discipline see Liverpool through
LIVERPOOL: 25 Reina; 34 Kelly, 23 Carragher, 37 Skrtel, 3 Konchesky; 4 Meireles, 21 Lucas, 8 Gerrard, 17 Rodriguez, 18 Kuyt, 9 Torres. CHELSEA: 1 Cech, 2 Ivanovic, 33 Alex, 26 Terry, 3 Cole; 12 Mikel, 7 Ramires, 18 Zhirkov; 15 Malouda, 21 Kalou, 39 Anelka. Usual diagrams back soon, it's a technical problem, not choice.
Two excellent first-half goals from Fernando Torres secured Liverpool’s best result under Roy Hodgson.
Dirk Kuyt came back into the side after a long period out injured, with Martin Kelly the other surprise name on the team sheet. Maxi Rodriguez continued in midfield.
Didier Drogba was only considered fit enough for the bench, so Carlo Ancelotti used Saloman Kalou on the right and Nicolas Anelka as the main forward. Frank Lampard was injured, as was Michael Essien, so the midfield trio was the same as in the win over Spartak in midweek.
Anelka playing upfront alone gives a different feel to Chelsea, and their build-up play is very different from with Drogba in the side. There is a greater focus on possession, as Anelka drops deep to become involved in midfield play, something he did very well in the title decider at Old Trafford last season. In the opening minute of this game, Chelsea kept possession and Liverpool literally didn’t have a touch, an indication of the football the away side were going to play.
Kuyt central
Rather than playing Kuyt on his now customary right midfield position, with Steven Gerrard off Torres, Hodgson decided to play Kuyt as a support striker, moving Gerrard deeper into midfield and using Raul Meireles on the right. This is not Meireles’ best position and he’s looked slightly uncomfortable when used there so far this season, but today was a decent time to play him there – up against the world’s best left-back at the moment in Ashley Cole, his defensive duties came in handy.
That’s not to say that Kuyt would have been weak on that side – he’s helped popularise the ‘defensive winger’ idea and has frequently played very up against opposition left-backs. But he played a different role today, cutting off the passing angle to Jon Obi Mikel, and dropping goalside of him when Chelsea had possession in the midfield.
The benefit of playing Kuyt further forward, however, is that he is able to link up with Torres when Liverpool get the ball, with the shape becoming a 4-4-2 (something Hodgson generally prefers). The two combined excellently for Liverpool’s opener – Kuyt drifting a pass over the top and Torres finishing well.
Liverpool defend solidly
Liverpool defended very deep throughout the game, which snuffed out the threat of balls over the top to Anelka. Hodgson prefers his sides to sit back, and he also prefers them to play very narrow, something which suited the players he was using in wide areas today – Martin Kelly is comfortable at centre-back, Meireles is a central midfielder, Rodriguez is right-footed and likely to play narrow on the left (and played in the centre for Argentina at the World Cup) – only Paul Konchesky, of the four players used in wide areas is a true natural wide player. The chalkboard below of Liverpool’s interceptions shows how this narrowness worked when breaking down Chelsea moves.
Here, Chelsea seemed to lack natural width. The shape of their team is a cross between a 4-3-2-1 and a 4-3-3 – unlike in the Mourinho era when Arjen Robben, Damien Duff or Shaun Wright-Phillips would stay very wide, Chelsea’s wide forwards now like to move into the centre of the pitch, which was very congested once Liverpool took the lead and started to sit back, and Liverpool were quite comfortable at 1-0 – and Torres’ excellent second goal gave them a commanding lead.
Second half
Inevitably, Ancelotti turned to Drogba for the second half, with Kalou making way. This changed the way Chelsea played with regard to their main striker – in the first half Anelka attempted 14 passes as the central striker, in the second half Drogba attempted just 3, and this despite Chelsea being more dominant in the second period than in the first. Liverpool were playing very deep and Drogba was more of a targetman, but Martin Skrtel and Jamie Carragher both had very good games.
Chelsea didn’t stretch Liverpool enough down the flanks, and again they lacked an option at right-back as dangerous as the threat from left-back. They always looked to play down the left, only switching the play to Branislav Ivanovic with long crossfield balls that almost seemed a last resort. It was a surprise that Ancelotti waited until 70 minutes to introduce Jose Bosingwa, though he didn’t look particularly impressive when he came on.
Late chances
Chelsea’s best chances did come from wide areas, although strangely it was when Drogba moved out there that Chelsea looked dangerous. He may have only completed two passes in the game but they were both excellent balls – on 66 minutes his cross to Malouda should have resulted in a goal, but for a brilliant/fortunate save by Pepe Reina, then on 78 minutes his cut-back to Terry was met with a miscued shot. These two chances go against the idea that he wasn’t involved much in build-up play – but it must be stressed that these were the only two passes he completed. Perhaps the surprise element caught Liverpool out, perhaps Drogba should have ventured to the flanks more to drag Liverpool out of shape.
It wasn’t often they were dragged out of shape, though, and the second half display was an excellent defensive performance. Aside from a late switch of Meireles and Kuyt, Hodgson changed little – no substitutions until the 84th minute and no change in overall strategy either. What they do have when defending deep is pace upfront with Torres (and substitute David Ngog, who was through on goal but for a late Alex challenge and could have made it 3-0) and though Torres saw little of the ball, his constant threat made Chelsea nervous about moving their defensive line up the pitch and really squeezing play, and also turned clearances into decent out-balls to relieve the pressure.
Conclusion
Hodgson’s negative tactics have been met with a lot of criticism so far this season, but there is little doubt that his focus upon defending deep and maintaining a good shape is very handy when it comes to protecting leads against better sides. We would not be praising Liverpool’s shape but for two excellent Torres goals, though, and they were crucial in both the result and the overall pattern of play.
Chelsea have played three away games against ‘big’ sides so far this season – Manchester City, Aston Villa and Liverpool, and have failed to score in any. Considering they scored in 37 of 38 games last season, this might turn out to be significant. They missed driving runs from midfield, as well as a goal threat from that zone.
It seemed to me that Chelsea lack creativity today, they were good in bringing ball to the dangereus areas but no final pass were produced. Liverpool defended very well and compact. Fernadno Torres was on his very best today. I am glad because of Liverpool, not a fan of them but I respect them because of great history they have.
What’s with the new formation images? I preferred the old ones with the names under each player, rather than the number/list format.
me too
The number of people posting this despite the information on the captions is astounding.
My bad, didn’t read.
To be fair, it is a little easier to match names up when the names are right underneath the number.
:S
Could you take a look at how the Telegraph do their chart? Moving your cursor over the numbers, not only names come up, so do their stats for the game.
Oh boy, I feel stupid now! Keep up the good work!
yeah I recognised that the names were underneath the diagram in the caption but I still far prefer the older versions with the names underneath the dots. Sorry but it’s way easier than continually flicking my eye to look up a number.
I thought Kelly was excellent- I do hope he’s the future in the center of defense. His ability to stay in defensive position and his good judgment in going forward highlight many of Johnson’s deficiencies (though a good player, wouldn’t he be better if he had fewer defensive responsibilities)? One worrying thing- Liverpool has shown an inability to get “easy” goals developed from constant pressure or a systematic attack. Torres’ goals were very good, just not built through any particular attacking move or sustained, developed intent. Just sort of staccatos in attack.
Yes. I’m still not convinced Gerrard is best in central midfield. In fact I’m rather more convinced that he’s better off further forward. Of course, since Liverpool were ahead in this game early on, his tackling qualities further back towards his own goal were needed – but I agree with what you say. Liverpool can’t rely on Kuyt to provide delicate chips over the top in every game…
Is Kuyt one of the best players in the Primera Liga (bear with me here- what if he played for Atletico, or even Milan)? I feel like he’s somewhat underappreciated and misused currently. Should Johnson be moved into one of the wing positions? Lucas had a good game too, which is rare and interesting.
I think your Gerrard point is a good one. Would this team be better served by a 4-3-2-1 or 4-3-1-2 with Kuyt and Gerrard forming a central attacking-mid pair?
In what way do you think he’s being misused? As a striker, a right-sided player or both? How would you use him? I’m genuinely curious. It seems to me he plays essentially the same role for Holland, except the creative players are better. I do agree he’s often underappreciated.
As for 4-3-2-1, who are your 3 CMs? Meireles, Lucas and who? Surely not Poulsen or Spearing. Maxi would probably do well on the right of the CMs, and Agger might be decent as a Busquets-style center-half at the base, but you’d have very little depth in those positions. The other problem is that, with Aurelio perpetually injured, we don’t have a left back that could provide width on that side. I do think Gerrard would be very good in something like the role Hamsik plays for Napoli, however.
I think, first off, that Kuyt is a tremendously gifted player in all areas but speed- he is a striker to me, but not one that fits well in the pace of the English game (sort of a poor man’s Forlan- though that one might get another chance).
In the “3″ I would play Maxi, Lucas, and Johnson. Forget about Johnson as an RB and you have a player who can track back and forward with a more defensive leaning and provide width if necessary. the “2″ would be a staggered Kuyt and Gerrard, or Cole and Gerrard, or Kuyt and Cole even. The one would obviously be Torres.
First of all, Johnson is never going to be a CM. Secondly, 4-3-2-1 needs attacking fullbacks, and now you’ve moved our only one to the 3. That’s just not going to work.
Forget for now that Kelly is probably going to get shifted to Central defense in some capacity. If he played on the right, as he did today, he would be an overlapping attacking back… I don’t advocate Johnson in the middle of the pitch (3 CMs? really? the 3 triangle works in a 4-2-3-1, but doesn’t suit Liverpool), but on the wing- though if you go narrow and allow the RB and LB to overlap opposite footed wingers, it might go narrow like that. I think his liabilities in defense far outweigh any novel advantages he provides in attack as a right or left back. He would be an above average defensive minded winger, but is now a scandalously talented below average right back. Wouldn’t be the first time someone switched like that once they got to the highest level to suit their talents. Doesn’t Kelly fill the requirement of marauding back?
He’s only a below-average right back in the flat-ish back four Hodgson plays. He’s not perfect, but when he’s liberated to attack he’s one of the top couple RBs in the PL. He’s in a bad run of form and in a system that doesn’t suit him at all; I really wish people would get off his back/stop thinking he’d know what he was doing as a winger just because Bale did. Rafa loved moving wingbacks up to the midfield, but never did it with Johnson. Why? Because he needs space in front of him to thrive. And while he’s not great at getting back after he’s gone forward, he’s very good one-on-one defensively. Liverpool have far far bigger problems than Johnson at RB. And while Kelly very well may be a better RB in Hodgson’s system, a very much doubt he’ll ever be a ‘marauding’ right back.
nike jordan
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1507884819
The way Kuyt played yesterday was already the best way to use him – a hybrid of a wing-forward and an auxiliary striker. This is similar to Robinho’s role except for being on the right. Actually Liverpool’s tactics weren’t very different from those used by Dunga. Two shuttling midfielders, one deep-lying, one more advanced. (Both Meireles and Maxi almost always played this role when not playing for Liverpool.) With a return of Johnson, the tactics will be even more effective. Kelly, while solid at defence, is not very good at bombing forward. Aurelio will probably do a better job bombing forward than Konchesky as well.
It’s funny- I was thinking about how well Dunga’s slightly lopsided formation (4-3-1-2 or 4-3-2-1 – lots of movement between the front two lines) might suit Liverpool when I was writing above. It would allow them to use a rotation that suits the personnel they have better than the current 4-4-2 (doesn’t Hodgson have a reputation as keeping a notoriously short bench? -he seems to be willing to give the kids a runabout and play with the squad mix so far). Especially since the 1-2 trio of Torres, Gerrard, and Kuyt moving around the pitch and interchanging is a nightmare scenario for most back lines.
Konchesky, like Meireles and Maxi, plays well in the role given to him. He’s not a star but he does his job well.
You obviously haven’t watched many of our games this season if you think Lucas having a good game is rare.
“…Johnson’s deficiencies (though a good player, wouldn’t he be better if he had fewer defensive responsibilities)?”
I agree. Johnson’s defensive play scares the hell out of me. I wish a new, more effective role could be found for him.
Well done ZM. As always.
My opinion, Chelsea made the mistake from start! Ivanovic as rightback means that you start with three centrebacks and are afraid of the opponents left side attacks. Is Liverpool such a team to be afraid of? I doubt! They are not even a team with more than one striker! All you need is to care of Torres and control the midfield.
Beside this mistake, Essien and Lampard being off surely is a big miss even if your team name is “World Best 11″! Chelsea’s mistake was the Essien-Lampard role! Zhirkov? Why? If you have Cole and Malouda, you do not need Zhirkov in the midfield. Two of these three players in any starting lineup is more than enough for the left side.
To keep it short, my view is that Chelsea did not work on their Manchester City loss, but Liverpool looked like watching that “Manchester City vs Chelsea” many times! They did all the correct job that Manchester City did! Mancini, the boring manager who did well vs Chelsea was a good example for Roy Hodgson.
Chelsea needs to work harder.
Yes, good comparison of the City game, despite the different shapes of City / Liv there was a similarity between them.
Agree on Ivanovic. He is a very good player and I like him a lot, but I’m not sure why there isn’t more of a recognition that in these kind of games, he’s not good enough going forward for a right-back.
he’s much better defensively than bosingwa and although he’s not as good in possession, he’s a massive threat from set pieces so possibly carries more of a goal threat
“Zhirkov? Why? If you have Cole and Malouda, you do not need Zhirkov in the midfield. Two of these three players in any starting lineup is more than enough for the left side.”
Umm, how about because Zhirkov’s been in very good form and Essien and Lampard are both out with injuries? Who would you have played? 17-year-old Josh McEcharan?
Umm, how about because Zhirkov’s been in very good form and Essien and Lampard are both out with injuries? Who would you have played? 17-year-old Josh McEcharan?
I’m not against Zhirkov! In fact, i like him much but Cole, Zhirkov, Malouda together is playing one less in my eyes. Even in a 4-4-2, you can use two of these three and play much better than in a 4-3-3 with all these three in. Especially against a team with a 4-5-1 looking midfield, busy in the midfield!
For your question, surely not Josh! I would play Malouda in that Zhirkov role and as Drogba is not fit, i would start with Sturridge. That would suit better for a more creative midfield and also make more presure on Kelly!
But thats my opinion and i’m not the coach!
But you see, you can’t play a RB for this game and another RB for that game. I know it sounds good on paper, but football doesn’t work like that.
You play the man in-form, and you keep playing him, until you want to give him a rest or he gets injured and the other players make that position their own.
Likewise with Zhirkov, though I doubt Sturridge is really a more ‘creative’ player and do not understand what you mean by there is no need for Zhirkov, Malouda and Ashley Cole in the same team, since they all play in different positions and have different roles.
Just how crap is Ramires? I haven’t checked the statistics but he seems to lose A LOT of balls, a midfielders worst sin, his movement is crap, running into crowded areas and giving a bad option for a pass rather than a good one (explaining some of the lost balls).
I can’t believe Chelsea haven’t got anyone better even with Essien and Lampard out. Is their squad this wafer-thin?
He missed 5 passes out of 37 attempts. Had 6 TACKLES. Won 5 of those and missed only 1. A lot of people talk about Ramires being crap. What about our defenders that were crap today and Anelka and Malouda who kept on cutting into crowded areas as well.
What are “lost ball due to incompetence while not passing” stats listed as?
Indeed Anelka and Malouda were running into crowds, not impressive. Still it does feel like Ramires is a weak link in a vital spot, despite a stat backing him up. In essence, a working cog in the wrong machine.
Give Ramires more time, I’ve watched him at Benfica and the World Cup and have no doubt that he is a good player. The english game is notoriously hard to adapt to, and have confidence he’ll turn it around like Malouda did.
Or how about it was simply due to Lucas having a good game?
Teams playing Chelsea next should learn from City and Pool’s experience of limiting Mikel. Well done Liverpool for opening up the title race again.
Go Blackpool as always.
I think that’s particularly harsh assessment. Given Ramires has only been here a few months, and only started a handful of games… maybe you should give him a bit of time. He’ll replace Lampard – in a couple of years, until then he’s just filling in.
I think Chelsea planned for this game a few weeks ago and misjudged Liverpool who’ve had a sudden form bounce now Torres is hitting some goals.
And Gus below, yeah Lucas was the man of the match. Amazing. But this is the special thing Hodgson brings you – he’s unsurpassed at getting players to simply do a job. “Lucas – your job is to tackle, and link the play – that’s it”. He looks a little bulkier this season?
Like last week, Lucas was the best player on the pitch – I can’t believe I am typing this.
Positionally astute doesn’t describe it, he was absolutely brilliant.
He differs from Busquets, Obi Mikel etc as he doesn’t slot back with the central defenders much but he shows that the role he plays doesn’t require that much tackling if you position yourself well and simply pick things off.
Yeah, he was fantastic. I’m just as incredulous as you.
Dont know why readers of this site are perplexed as to the merits of Lucas, Carrick, Denilson et al when it comes to their defensive duties; read ZM excellent “what does a central midfielder really do in 2010:, that will tell you why these guys are the proof that the good old fashoined blood and thunder defensive mid is extinct.
Chelsea missing Drogba on the bench plus Lampard and Essien out injured really brings them back into the rest of the field. Although i guess you could say that two decorated managers gambled on rotation due to 3 games in 10; Ancellotti failed when he benched Drogba but SAF won when he rested Berbatov. Such is football i suppose, but i can understand the feelings OF Chelsea supporters who would have much preferred their manager rest Drogba for one of their upcoming two home games.
Surely Chelsea didnt underestimate Liverpool did they? Especially when you consider Torre’s record against them (is that now 8 goals he has scored against them in the league now?). Although i wouldnt be in the least suprised if Torres reverted back to mediocrity next game away!
We’ve read the article, but Lucas previously hasn’t been on the level of the players mentioned in it. He’s just in the form of his life right now.
agreed. i didn’t see him play last week but yesterday was one of the best midfield displays i’ve seen in a long time, he was magnificent – looked like a different player to the lucas i’ve been watching up till now
Is it possible that Lucas is being better managed?
“Is it possible that Lucas is being better managed?”
Actually, quite a few of my Liverpool supporting friends were telling me of some massive improvements by Lucas, and that he was one of their best players through the disaster of a season last year, where the more senior players like Gerrard and Torres were often off-form or injured. Apparently, on many times he did do better than Mascherano even, though the post-match analysis often did ignore his contributions.
I was rather incredulous then but it seems that Lucas has finally come to prove us all wrong. I believe his recent top form is down to the new Brazil manager, who was Lucas’s manager at Gremio; Lucas has been getting called up for the last few Brazil games and he has been putting in some truly dominant performances.
drogba has been playing this way for the last year or so – he rarely completes more than 8 passes in a game. partly tactical and partly because he’s getting older. he coasts through games, conserving energy, but when he gets involved it’s explosive.
a great example was the spartak game. he barely touched the ball until the second half when he skinned a defender and won a penalty – the fact he can still be so productive while playing like this is a testament to his intelligence and his ability and means he’s hopefully got a few more years left in him
That’s such a lovely post. And completely true. Drogba is so impressive. I like to imagine what he’d do with Rooney beside him..
Just thought I’d reinforce the point: Lucas was outstanding. Right balance of breaking up play and driving forward. Intelligent play all round – kudos to him.
Gerrard is better further up the pitch, not as a central midfielder.
Against technical teams like Arsenal, Villareal, Man Utd and even Chelsea (missing Lampard + Essien, so not today) players like Lucas who have good positioning and… not much else, will be exposed.
I think we’re seeing just how much they miss Lampard when it comes to breaking down positionally disciplined defenses
Its not about Ramires being crap, there’s already Mikel doing the exact thing he’s doing. Frankly, i do not understand Ramires’s role in the center of midfield. He’s not a holding, tough tackling midfielder- his ball retention and body strength is low. He’s not a deep-lying playmaker, neither is he an attacking midfielder. I’ve read a few articles on ZM about a destroyer-passer-creator trio in the center of midfield (Mascherano-Alonso-Gerrard) and where does Ramires fit in? Most of his successful passes are the ones he played sideways.
Chelsea played too many players who like to drift out wide on their left- Ashley Cole, Zhirkov, Malouda and they ended up crowding themselves out with even Anelka moving out left further up. It is interesting to note that they’re all very reluctant to play the ball with their right foot, so when they cut in from wide positions, they tend to cross the ball into the center or back to the defense because that’s the only angle they have when Liverpool defenders close them down. (This is my impression- do you have chalkboard analysis of their passing patterns? please.)
Lampard was a very big miss and will continue to be in big games like this because there is no attacking threat for Chelsea through the center without him. Ball possession and passing in the attacking third in the center is lower without him simply because there are no players who are comfortable playing there right now.
Why are you always so negative about LFC? SAF, Ancelotti and Mancini did mistakes as well, but were never that negative discussed. What should you think as a Scouse about thinks like “We would not be praising Liverpool’s shape but for two excellent Torres goals, though, and they were crucial in both the result and the overall pattern of play.” We beat Chelsea, which was so far our only good result! To read things like that makes me doubting about your quality and neutrality. Why don’t you start a brilliant SAF blog?
Because it’s true. Liverpool weren’t great and Chelsea dominated possession/passing. It was two magic goals and a whole lot of deep defending.
Torres second goal was magic. For Chelsea, they really miss healthy Lampard and Drogba.
There were a couple o things that i saw in the chalkboards. Ramires didn’t misplace too many of his passes but many passes of his were sideways and where he did cock-up is more vital. he gave balls away in the defensive third , which highlights his mistake. And i found that terry made similar errors of giving the balls in his own half. in comparison liverpool’s CBs didn’t make that many passes in the first place plus their misplaced passes were very low. Anelka seems to play very differently . sometimes he doesn’t even exist like yesterday’s game or against spartak he was brilliant. Can someone figure out why he suddenly goes invisible in the middle of the game??
With Liverpool playing as deep as they did, Anelka’s false nine role probably wasn’t as effective as it could be. That, and the Liverpool generally defended very well too.
I get the feeling that Ramires still needs a bit of time to settle. He has only experienced less than a third of season of premiership football and, with time, will adjust to the physicality and pace of the game. The clichéd nature of this statement is pulsating, I realise, but I would hold up Malouda as an example to the trend: pacey player who likes the ball at his feet (or played in front of him) who was derided in the beginning but is now a shining light. Revamping a squad is part and parcel of generating a consistently victorious side, and I get the feeling that the Essien and Lampard injuries have forced Ancelotti to throw Ramires into the fire, where he hasn’t quite got singed, but he can feel the heat of the English game quite prominently at his backside.
With this in mind, do you think it would have been beneficial for Ancelotti to adopt a formation with two central strikers up front? Against such a narrow, organised defence then having those two central options offers a presence worry the defence and relies less on runs from midfield for scoring options. Which personnel fit into such a formation is a whole other question, but i’m not paid to make such decisions, so i’ll speculate away!
I’ve merely seen the MOTD round-up, but it struck me how deep Anelka was playing at time, getting the ball from the back four and what not. And that was before Drogba came in.
great stat in your conclusion about Chelsea’s fail to scores ( FTS’s) . even blackburn wolves & bolton have failed in only 2 . it shows again , reliance on drogba as he was missing for the villa away game which was another of their “fails”.
more amazing over the wk/end, was arsenal’s failure to score at home to Newc. when i saw the strength of their bench you expect a typical 3 or 4 goals from them esp vs a reserve keeper in Krul. Chamakh was rubbish. no shots on target or off target. & no extra dimension to the arsenal attack that he was supposed to offer.
Chelsea’s issues.
1. Oposition teams work hard to press the midfield and are happy when the ball is predominantly with Terry, Alex and Mikel. Mikel does not have the necessary passing range to deal creatively with this.
2.Ancelotti was right to release Deco and Ballack but needed to spend money on a top creative player to ask questions of the opposition in a congested midfield.
3. The right side of the team has been much weaker then the left for a few seasons now. So far Benayoun has not had the chance to show if he is a good signing and Sturridge is not the answer. Neymar may be too young to be the answer even if he was serious about a transfer. Instead Wolverhampton’s Matt Jarvis would be an interesting option.
As for yesterday,the merit of Zhirkov is that he provides cover when Cole storms forward. However, Konchevsky is a weak link for Liverpool and I would have played Boswinga in front of Ivanovic to provide the attacking width we lacked on the right there yesterday. As has been mentioned Liverpool were happy to condense the game into the middle, particularly once they were ahead.
Even when Boswinga came on,Ancelotti did not change the shape of the team and yet,as you point out, our second half chances arose from Drogba moving out wide and crossing the ball in.
(low price($18-$35),paypal accept,online free shipping)(http://www.go2like.com) wholesale and retail Ugg_boot,Nike Air Max,Shox,Jordan,rift,adidas,ATO_shoe,Supra_shoe,bape,Sandal,jean,t-shirt,hoody,short,cap and many others product
Basically Liverpool deserved it. Decent defensively and kept their shape. Two lovely goals (esp the second) by Torres meant they had something to build on.
Chelsea are not invincible…and I have believed that for a while. They can be got at and beaten especially if they go behind against a decent side. Not having Drogba, Essien and Lampard made a huge difference as Liverpool suffer without Torres, Gerrard and of course never replacing the third wheel in the triumvirate in Alonso.
What does this mean? Well the title is resolutely still up for grabs. Chelsea still do not have anywhere near the same danger against the top sides without players of the 2004 editions of Robben and Duff but will probably win the league by being better able to bully lesser sides into submission. They will almost certainly not have the quality to win the Champions League though.
Does that last sentence counts if Lampard and Essien are playing…most of the team (I think every one of them) was in 2008 CL final if you still remember..
Yes. I just don’t think they will win it this year. As much as it pains me to say it I just think I am being realistic.
So who will win it then?
Difficult to say but I would put my money on either Barcelona or Madrid.
I am a bit intrigued about Chelsea’s reluctance to cross the ball into the box from wide areas. Drogba and Anelka have good physical presence in the box and are good headers of the ball. Malouda and Zhirkov can provide good crosses too. Malouda, despite being the wide man, always likes to come inside and likes to be in goalscoring areas. Ashley did cross a few from wide areas, but his crossing has never been that good.
I would also like to see us playing a 4-4-2 whenever the familiar route does not work. With Lampard absent, there is a lack of creativity and attacking intent from our midfield, and the oppositions are comfortable in defending narrow. So the best thing to do is to stretch the play to the wings and cross. It is evident that we don’t have a right winger who can cross, but Bosingwa, if playing can do a decent job. (I have always wanted us to have a player like Jesus Navas)
ash cole has never been that good at crossing?!