Bolton 0-4 Chelsea: easy win for Chelsea
The starting line-ups
Chelsea cruised past Bolton with goals from all of their front three, and Ramires’ first for the club.
Owen Coyle made two changes. Gretar Steinsson replaced Sam Ricketts at right-back, whilst Martin Petrov came in for Mark Davies. Petrov played on the left, with Matthew Taylor switching to the right.
Carlo Ancelotti travelled without Frank Lampard, and so Jon Obi Mikel returned and played in his usual holding position.
The game was a fairly classic match between a 4-4-2 and a 4-3-3. Chelsea were better at retaining the ball in the centre of the pitch, whilst Bolton looked to get the ball out wide, and played longer passes towards their front two.
Mikel and Essien
As so often in those situations, the key play is the ’spare’ man in the 4-3-3, which was Mikel. Bolton tried to deal with him by instructing Johan Elmander to drop onto him when Bolton lost the ball, but this was done half-heartedly and Mikel simply moved into space to receive the ball. His effort in moving into space was certainly greater than Elmander’s effort at closing him down.
From there he played short, simple passes to Ramires and Michael Essien, who were involved in a 2 v 2 battle against Fabrice Muamba and Stuart Holden, and simply showed themselves to be better players. Holden and Muamba often came too high up the pitch and presented space for Chelsea to exploit between the lines – either with one of the midfielders moving forward, or one of the forward players dropping deep. Essien moved forward particularly well.
Bolton poor passing
Bolton frequently let themselves down with sloppy passing and poor touches – the first goal, scored by Didier Drogba with a phenomenal long-range strike – a good example. Zat Knight’s slow pass across the back four meant Steinsson quickly came under pressure and lost the ball, which fell to Drogba in acres of space.
Credit should go to Chelsea for their pressing, of course (more on that later) but Knight had time on the ball, so it was only Steinsson who was under any pressure. No side should be so vulnerable to being closed down that they give the ball away so cheaply in a dangerous area, and though it may seem harsh to place such blame on the defence for such a tremendous goal, that just summed up Bolton’s performance with the ball – not precise enough. Later on, Kevin Davies’ ludicrous misplaced pass in the second half resulted in Chelsea’s third goal, which was effectively game over.
Chelsea fluid
Chelsea were very impressive, however. Drogba looked sharper, Nicolas Anelka’s confidence has returned, Florent Malouda had a good game too. More impressive was the way they combined, their movement into space and Drogba and Anelka’s runs in behind the defence – it was much more the Chelsea of the first few games of the season, where they seemed to have goal options from all over the place.
Support from full-back was sporadic – generally Ashley Cole or Jose Bosingwa took it in turns to go forward – but then Chelsea took the lead so early on, that it was unlikely they were going to push forward too much. This did help them stretch the play, though, allowing the wide forwards into the box to take up goalscoring positions, whilst also forcing Bolton’s wide players back – Petrov is not a particularly impressive player defensively.
Chelsea solid across pitch
Bolton also struggled because their strikers didn’t bully Chelsea’s centre-backs as much as they would have liked – Elmander won one of five aerial contests, Davies won three out of six. The way to get at John Terry and Branislav Ivanovic is clearly with pace and trickery – in the air, there are fewer better centre-back pairings around.
The defending started from the front of the pitch, however. Drogba, Anelka and Malouda started the pressure from high up (rather than the wide players dropping level with the midfield) and as result Chelsea won the ball back quicker. There seems to be a pattern recently that sides lacking a bit of confidence or form are capable of picking up their performances when they have a more positive attitude without the ball – Liverpool fans will testify – and the result here was that Bolton were unable to play their passing game. When they did get possession, they moved the ball quickly to the flanks, as shown below, but aside from a couple of early crosses involving Taylor, they showed little creativity.
Conclusion
There wasn’t a single area of the pitch where Chelsea didn’t outclass Bolton – even down to the goalkeepers, where Petr Cech made a couple of impressive saves and Jussi Jaaskelainen should have done better with at least two Chelsea goals. Ancelotti’s side looked back to their old self – defensively solid, dangerous on the counter-attack and capable of simply overpowering opponents.
Bolton 0-4 Chelsea: easy win for Chelsea
“ramires and mikel better than holden and muamba” ……I would 100% have holden in my team over ramires
Not on this performance.
holden’s ball retention is better than ramires, plus plays with more intensity and is more creative
Interesting to see that the midfield of Mikel/ Essien/ Ramires played well. During Chelsea’s poor run that trio were pinpointed as a problem, but as you said Essien and Ramires proved their class. Less relevant to this game but it seems Ashley Cole is getting forward less and less these days, especially compared to last season. Any ideas as to why?
ashley cole was quoted saying most mornings hes crippled and struggles to get out of bed due to too much stress on his body, this could be an insight
Chelsea needs a LB to let Cole rest some. He really is moving a lot less than he was early this year. Chelsea needs to sign someone like Santon or Coentrao who can either sub for him most games (between 45 and 75 minutes in) and play weaker teams so Cole can be 100% for Europe and big 5 matches in the EPL.
I’d say both of those suggestions, whilst excellent players (or should that be prospects?) are hardly “back-up” material. Both are likely to cost plenty more than Chelsea would be willing to spend on a squad player. What’s more I don’t think either would be willing to give up their current clubs to be someone’s understudy, without prospect, as you say, of playing in European games nor those against the top quality opposition in the league.
Santon is a squad player. Whilst he could be tempted by Ancelotti to move, it would surely be a high risk move.
Zirkhov.
If they sign D.Luiz he can play there too.
Yes, quite. Chelsea should buy either the *actual* best left back in the world (Coentrao) or one of the best young defenders in Italy (who needs to go somewherethat he can play every game – I’d say Milan, who are short on fullbacks) to back up their self-proclaimed “best left back in the world”?
The Barca/Real/Chelsea/Citeh mentality of “let’s just buy all the players” is not only ugly and arrogant, it has a detrimental impact on the game as a whole.
Besides, they already have Zhirkov. And Paul knows knows that Santon “could be tempted by Ancelotti to move” how exactly?
Do you guys think Mikel is not living up to his potential? I feel that way sometimes because when he came to Chelsea from Oslo, there was a lot of fighting between Chelsea and Man United for his signature. He seemed like a bright prospect but his progress has been very slow. I don’t know what is wrong with him but he will get dropped if Ramires picks up the pace of the English game and it will be a waste of his talent.
I fully disagree. I think Mikel is only second to Busquetes as a CDM. He has vastly improved his short range passes and he’s a solid defender. He can win a lot of balls in the air and he’s gotten more patient and comfortable holding the ball. I think Essien and Lampard trust him so much that they always get forward limiting Mikel’s offensive potential and that’s why you don’t think he’s reaching his potential.
Agree with Keith, most people will overlook the contribution of a CDM, what they do is not spectacular, but important for the team.
I also agree that Mikel is improving all the time. Whilst adding the attributes mentioned above, he now seems to have developed mentally a bit more in order to be able to pick his tackles; he is giving away fewer fouls. Further more he is also looking to pass forwards a lot more- at the start of the season, if my memory serves me, there were a couple of assists from balls over the centre halves.
http://www.feeling-football.blogspot.com
“they always get forward limiting Mikel’s offensive potential and that’s why you don’t think he’s reaching his potential”
Presumably exactly Afnan’s point? He was hailed as excellent attacking prospect, however is deployed in a holding role, so he doesn’t fulfil his attacking potential.
I remember reading a good article (I think it was Paul Doyle in the Guardian) about how according to African scouts, a lot of attacking talent is never picked up because all top clubs are looking for someone “in the Papa Boupa Diop mould”. So basically clubs saw Mikel’s physique and thought he should play defensively. Shame really.
Also, I can’t agree that “Mikel is second only to Busquets as a CDM”. I’d say, at least on their day, Daniele De Rossi, Cambiasso and even maybe De Jong are better all round CDMs. Also be interesting to see how Makoun plays with Villa, as he is supposed to be excellent too.
Cambiasso is a better CDM than either. De Rossi is too. On form, I’d rather have Pirlo (though he executes the role very differently..this is where positions break down).
Disagree, he’s not that good. He’s improved a lot and is fairly solid but I can think of 6-7 DMF’s I’d rather have.
can’t say he’s 2nd best in the world given the competition (De Rossi, Toulalan, Song, Vidal, Cambiasso, Mascherano, Schweinsteiger (sp?) etc.) but he’s not a waste of talent or potential, for sure. Maybe he’ll prove to be like Toure in that he becomes more marauding when let off the “holding midfielder” leash.
mikel is no mug and has improved vastly, and although his pass completion % is consistently good, he can be very sloppy when he does give the ball away and moreso can lead directly to a goalscoring opportunity for the opposition. Similar to Micheal Carrick. Busquets and other DMs are better in this respect
I’ve noticed in some of the past few articles you’ve written there have been chalkboards with hundreds of passes on them, and I think that it would better serve your posts to have ones with more specific information. Processing the significance of 300+ passes in a single image can be quite painstaking. Otherwise, keep up the good work.
Never been particularly impressed with Mikel who seems to favour passing sideways and slowing things down. Much prefer Essien to play deep role as he can burst forward when he sees fit.
About time Anelka and Malouda got back on form as have been poor for a while.
Surely too late for a Chelsea surge for the title but they will definitely influence its destination
“Surely too late for a Chelsea surge for the title”
What is it with completely unsupported claims like this being so common? In reality, they’re fourth – 7 points off the top of the table with the leaders having a game in hand, so as many as 10 points back with *fifteen* games to play – that 45 points, or more than they have now if they were to win out the rest of the season. I’m neutral re: Chelsea, but they looked like world-beaters for half a season and just turned it back on. Your claim is absurd.
edit – I understand more clearly the motivation for your claim after having clicked through to your website, which I see is a Man U blog. So I’d speculate that your assertion (that your rivals can’t possibly take the title) probably relates to insecurity about the prospects of your favored team and a desire to avoid consideration of failure.
also, re: Essien, I’d note that his bursting runs forward would are circumscribed too much if he is a sole holder in midfield. I think he’d do better in a double-pivot situation, like Germany or Arsenal have deployed, where he could attack suddenly while knowing there was cover.
In the game against Blackburn, Chelsea played double pivot with Ramires and Essien. Both are good at bursting run and can alternate. Also worth mentioning, I recalled last year’s article here when Chelsea lined-up in 4-2-3-1 against Liverpool (zm said unstoppable??).
But with Mikel returning,4-3-3 suits Mikel better.
Which beg the question, which system is the best? Surely Carlo need to learn his preferred system before last year’s Champions League demise repeat itself…
-Z.
There’s no “best” system, it always depends on the personnel available and the opponent. When a 3-4-3 may be the best against the 4-4-2, it’s too weak in midfield vs a 4-3-3, etc. It’s much like rock-paper-scissors, every formation has a “favourite opponent” what it’s invented against, and likewise has a nemesis which overpowers it.
sure, but not every manager and every team has the ability (or the desire) to switch between formations frequently. using the 3-man defense as an example, only Mourinho and Guardiola regularly use a 3-man defense as a Plan B among the “big” clubs. Man Utd played a couple games with it last season, but that was because of a huge injury crisis where they had no fit centre backs (the back 3 was Fletcher – Carrick – Evra).
anyway, I think that certain groups of personnel do have “better” systems than others. Arsene Wenger said in an interview that he switched from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 (and now a 4-2-3-1) because, in his words, it would be “suicidal” to play a 4-4-2 with the likes of Arshavin and Walcott on the wings. and he’s been remarkably consistent since the switch – since last season, I’ve only ever seen Arsenal play 4-4-2 once, and that was during the Stoke City game after Ramsey’s injury (I imagine they switched to 4-4-2 to overcome the mental shock of his injury and play a system everyone knew instinctively, since they were still learning the 4-3-3 system at the time).
Bringing Bolton into this, the media like to go on about how Bolton have completely changed there style of play, well to an extent, yes, it is better than what it was under Megson, but when I see Bolton, quite alot of the time it’s still get the ball forward quickly to Davies/Elmander.
Furthermore, Muamaba is hardly a great ball player, more of a worker, and Holden similar to Muamba, and none of the defence are particularly very good at bringing the ball out of defence, so in what I consider the key areas, they aren’t really blessed with great ball players, I think Bolton’s so called new style is overated by some.
As for Chelsea, I wouldn’t rule them out, but I can’t see them overhauling United, and I see Arsenal as a bigger threat than Chelsea to stopping United.
holden isn’t a ball player? and is similar to muamba? wow.
Holden is more of a worker, and a runner as opposed to a ball player. Muamba is a defensive mid, but he’s hardly a Carrick type player in that he will sit deep and dominate the play, I’d consider him much more in the Mascherano mould.
They are different in position, but similar in my opinion, in that they aren’t what I would call technical players, but more hard work for the team players.
Regarding the last point (“When they did get possession, they moved the ball quickly to the flanks, as shown below”), I would assume this chalkboard would look similar for many Chelsea opponents given Chelsea’s centrally located midfield lineup of recent years (?). Just a thought.
I agree that Chelsea were the better team. However, I don’t think that this game reveals very much about their current disposition. Rather than being a tactical victory, their success owed more to the elementary mistakes of Bolton – Steinsson and Davies in particular. I was surprised to see the return of Steinsson in place of Ricketts.
Chelsea were able to play well within themselves, patiently waiting for the next opportunity to present itself. Their midfield was disciplined but not required to work hard to create opportunities going forward. Bolton tried to play through midfield but lacked the skill or the space to break through. Bolton have not found a natural replacement for Lee, missing on international duty.
Kevin Davies is recognised for his physical play and Bolton could have expected him to have some success against Terry. On the night he seemed spiritless – when Bolton did play long balls, he competed poorly.
I consider that the result was due primarily to the mistakes and limitations of Bolton players and the ability of Chelsea players to profit from them. I would not place too much significance in the tactical analysis of this particular game. I’m sure that this game will represent a further stage in Chelsea’s recovery and will give them more confidence. For Bolton, their run of disappointing results continues.
ZM,what do you think if somehow,without Lampard,Ancelloti deployes Mikel as a deep lying regista (Pirlo,Xabi Alonso) and Essien and Ramires as his ball winning midfielders,like they are there just to run,tackle and give him the ball so that he can pass long balls to Drogba,or balls over the top to onrushing Malouda and Anelka?
That would be very interesting setup..