Nicolas Anelka as a trequartista?
A possible new position for Anelka
It was assumed that Fernando Torres’ arrival would mean a place on the bench for Nicolas Anelka, but Tuesday’s 4-2 victory over Sunderland showed that Carlo Ancelotti might have a different role in mind for the Frenchman.
So far this season, Chelsea have generally lined up in a 4-3-3 shape, with Anelka and Florent Malouda either side of Didier Drogba. In the long term, Torres might not be competing with Anelka and Drogba, who will be 32 and 33 respectively by the end of this campaign, but for the final months of the season, Ancelotti has somewhat of a selection dilemma, with three top-class strikers.
Diamond
It’s difficult to see how Ancelotti could not play with two central strikers, likely to be a Drogba-Torres combination. Rather than turning to a standard 4-4-2 shape, something Ancelotti has never been a fan of, it’s likely he’ll revert to a diamond, similar to the 4-3-1-2 he favoured at Milan, and the same shape he started his tenure at Chelsea with.
That diamond is often remembered as being unsuccessful, and the move from the diamond to more of a 4-3-3 shape towards the end of the campaign was certainly crucial in launching Chelsea towards the title at a time when they seemed to be hitting a brick wall. For the first three months of the season, however, the diamond worked well. Chelsea simply came across injury problems that prevented them playing the diamond effectively.
Last season’s problems
First, when you play a diamond, width from full-back is essential. Chelsea had that from left-back through Ashley Cole, but Jose Bosingwa’s injury meant a lack of a similar option on the right. Paulo Ferreira and Juliano Belletti didn’t quite have the legs, Branislav Ivanovic was a centre-back shoved out to the right and not good enough on the ball. Sir Alex Ferguson exposed the problems there when he went to Stamford Bridge and dominated the game (despite United managing to lose 1-0) – he played Antonio Valencia high up the pitch on the right, Wayne Rooney upfront and an off-centre diamond in midfield, effectively letting Ivanovic have the ball. He didn’t hurt United, and Chelsea barely threatened in open play. Bosingwa’s return to fitness solves that problem.
Second, Ancelotti tried to play either Michael Ballack or Deco on the right of the diamond. Again, neither had the energy required to play that role, and after Michael Essien became injured in early December, Chelsea’s diamond was too static. Now, with Ramires – a player signed on the strength of his performances playing as a ’shuttler’ on the side of a diamond for Benfica and Brazil – Chelsea don’t have that issue either. In short, a diamond is now an option again.
Anelka deeper
A diamond was on Tuesday with Torres not yet available, but rather than playing Anelka and Drogba upfront, Ancelotti used Anelka in a deeper role, behind Drogba and Saloman Kalou. By all accounts, Anelka had an excellent game there. “Nicolas Anelka played very well”, said Ancelotti. “He used his ability in behind Didier Drogba. His performance was fantastic tonight.” His passing and tackling chalkboards are both very impressive.
Interestingly, there is relatively little difference between the positions Anelka took up in the trequartista role, and the positions he took up when playing on the right of a front three, suggesting he could adapt to the new role easily.
False nine becomes a number ten?
It is also worth considering that for last season’s trip to Old Trafford, Ancelotti preferred Anelka over Drogba for his link-up play. There, Anelka essentially played a false nine role – as Robin van Persie has for Arsenal, as Carlos Tevez has for Manchester City, as Wayne Rooney has for Manchester United. But interestingly, van Persie, Tevez and Rooney are naturally ‘withdrawn’ forwards (“number tens”) – Anelka was perhaps the first false nine who played that role despite being a recognised ‘out-and-out’ striker (a “number nine”), suggesting that his game has changed as he’s got older.
He wouldn’t be the first pacey striker to turn into a link player towards the end of his career – Michael Owen played behind the front two towards the end of his stay at Newcastle, and played the same role for Manchester United last weekend quite well, because he is now a more intelligent forward than he is a clinical forward. Thierry Henry often spoke of the idea that as he lost his pace, he would drop deeper and use his vision to become more like his old teammate Dennis Bergkamp. Henry’s alarmingly sudden drop in ability meant this didn’t happen on a permanent basis, but Barcelona’s game against Valencia last season – when he came on in a link role and turned a 0-1 into a 3-1 – showed he definitely had the characteristics to play there.
A lot depends on how attack-minded Ancelotti wants to be. A front three of Anelka, Drogba and Torres is very offensive, but then let’s remember that Ancelotti was happy to go to Anfield last season with a front six of Drogba, Anelka, Malouda, Kalou, Lampard and Ballack. When the time is right, he’s quite capable of going gung ho, and therefore Anelka-Drogba-Torres is an option for the remainder of this season.
Nicolas Anelka as a trequartista?
Though Anelka playing as a lone forward/false 9 looks good as he’s shown he’s quite capable of it, he’s no trequartista
If he plays behind Drogba and Torres, it’ll probably evolve into a 4-3-3 with Nico drifting wide right then Drogba/Torres tending 2wards left.
I don’t think Anelka is quite capable of some complex movements required unless he adapts like Kanoute has done because he’ll have to drop into midfield territory a lot sometimes to help the team dominate possession as there are two players ahead of him. It’ll be a complete makeover that requires lots of intelligence. I consider Anelka a very intelligent forward but is he really ready for this?
IMO Carlo should show Anelka Stankovic’s games against Bologna and Udinese if he expects Anelka to pull this off.
If this is not just fanta-football, it will be very interesting to watch.
If we somehow would miss the width on the left,like on Old Trafford last season,can Zhirkov or Malouda play a shuttler role on the left of midfield,like Ramires on the right?
Brilliant article ZM it looks like hopefully a new dawn for Anelka as a Chelsea fan i would hate to see him leave as i think he is one of the most technically gifted players in the league, so here’s hoping for a front two of Drogba and Torres with support from Anelka on Sunday vs Liverpool. Also do you have any thoughts on that game??
How could he not use this formation but who does this match up the 3-4-2-1 that Dalglish (are we required to refer to him as King Kenny)previewed.
Not very well for Chelsea, IMO. L’Pool with 3 at back could lineup well with this front line and give them a +1 advantage when the fullbacks press up. Unlikely but even in their 4-3-3 Liverpool will look to get the fullbacks up and gain an advantage in attack. We know Torres doesn’t support his defense and the other two fellas just don’t have the legs for all that tracking back IMO. Kelly & Johnson have been playing very well as the wide men in Liverpool’s attacks, if I were Chelsea I would not give them the room to get involved.
Chelsea should be giving Essien & Mikel a run out to close down L’Pool’s passing game in mid field and then use Drogba to hold up for attacking mids (Lampard Ramierz Malouda), I think.
This system could work for Chelsea againts some teams but I just think it gives Kelly & Johnson too much room to run, if Chelsea’s mids go out to cover the fullbacks then the middle of the field will be open for Lucas, Meireles & Gerrard to pass & move right up the pitch. Torres & Drogba won’t be tracking Liverpools young fullbacks all the way back up the pitch, at least not these ones.
How do you find a place for Malouda in that setup? I don’t think Carlo will leave him out that easy.
Malouda on the left, Lampard driving forward from deep (not sure how that’d work out), Ramires/Essien battling for that right midfield role. Sounds crazy but this seems to be what ZM was suggesting with that last bit about Carlo going gung-ho. Mikel could be brought on if a more defensive set-up was needed. Besides, I’m sure Chelsea has more than enough games to rotate its midfield set-up to keep everybody satisfied.
for the midfield 3 I personally would suggest that Essien is undroppable. He can play each of the 3 positions and should always be used. Malouda (or Zhirkov, though it seems like he’d be better used to give Cole a rest) can play on the left, Ramires on the right, Mikel in the middle. What I’m wondering is about Lampard. is he fit enough to be a shuttler? Does he spell Anelka at the point of the diamond?
Not surprised to see that Anelka’s passes are similar in the hole as he as to when he was supposed to be playing out on the right. Rarely saw him out wide, he was always cutting in, often as deep as the centre midfielders. Key to him working in this formation though is not slowing up the play and taking too many touches as he likes to, he definitely prefers to be involved in the build up these days, even though his pace off the defender and finishing is probably second to none at Chelsea (before Torres arrived).
Think this formation just gives Carlo another option. Less predictable for opposition managers now and it won’t be something that we do every single game.
I think Malouda may sometimes play behind the forwards, but considering his form since October, it won’t be too hard to leave him out.
cmiw, Anelka once said that it was his favorite position during his Liverpool days
ancelotti actually had a massive hard on for 442 when he starting coaching. he learned under sacchi who was a massive 442 advocate. One of the reasons he sold zola to chelsea was because zola didnt fit his system. So although he hasnt used the formation as much as he used to he was at one stage a fan.
Anelka as a treq could work but i think in reality anelka is given a free role on that right hand side and likes to come deep to get the ball. He will still play on the right because simply put the left is lampards space, every1 moves for lampard.
the 4-4-2 diamond if played properly against a 4-4-2 flat or 4-3-3 is far superior in every department
I think the main weakness of this set-up for Chelsea would be the classic weakness of a 4-4-2 diamond: dealing with raiding opposing full-backs, as Phil Bardsley’s goal proved on Tuesday. Mikel is a highly adequate deep-lying playmaker, but still has a lot to learn regarding his defensive positioning, and this formation may put an increased onus on him. As cam said up there, I think it will be more of an option for Chelsea against less ambitious opposition, rather than a permanent shift. Playing it against the likes of Daniel Alves or Maicon would be suicidal.
the 4-4-2 diamond can cope against attacking full backs as say for example against a 4-3-3, the midfield can easily shift to position themselves in a 4-1-3-2 shape, i.e. with then 4 vs 3 in the centre and one of the “3″ can move across and track an attacking full back. It can do this as the “3″ only occupy 2 central midfielders and so you have a numerical advantage. This rule can apply to every full back that attacks, although the only time it wouldnt work is if two full backs attack simultaneously, thus ur right it would not work against barca and another strategy would need to be adopted, however it can prove to be succesful if approached in this manner for every other team
it can work even when two fullbacks are attacking,one of the strikers can play wider and deeper role making the fullback on his side hesitant to go forward.samuel etoo is a perfect example.
asking a striker to track an attacking full backs run all the way back to his own box and back is asking a lot, especially vs an energetic full back…however it is rare to see a team that has 2 full backs attack simultaneously thus a 4-4-2 diamond can be adopted for every other game
Q: Nicolas Anelka as a trequartista?
A: Lol.
no offense ZM, you’re brilliant. but talk about a disaster waiting to happen.
Not really sure what this comment means…
just a proofreading: Henry changed the match against Valencia from “0-0 into a 3-0″, not “0-1 into a 3-1″
. Cheers!
Can I be the first to suggest benching Drogba? He seems to be completely pass it and nowhere near as good this season as he was the last season.
I think it could work quite well actually. Especially if Torres lines up left of drogba. This would give them the option of Torres dropping a bit deeper left, Amelia moving right, and looking a bit more like a 4-3-2-1, though a tad lopsided. Ramirez is tailor-made for the right side, and I think Malouda on the left would work well, allowing him to still move wider left, knowing Essien can cover from the back role. Honestly, lampard looks the man out of ancelotti goes this route.
I still think the current 4-3-3 is a very viable option, with Torres and Anelka swapping right side roles, but also rotating up front with drogs. A front three of Malouda, drogba, Anelka, or Malouda Anelka Torres, or Malouda drogba Torres or Malouda Torres Anelka is just that many more options. The older boys should be glad to get some games off.
I just don’t see the dilemma. More options is better, well, to a point, but I think adding one top level striker isn’t too much of a problem.
I think Lampard’s lack of flexibility will eventually dismiss this formation rather than the other way around. Remember that there were a lot of calls for Chelsea to back to a 4-3-3 because Lampard just wasn’t scoring enough and they eventually did.
Essentially, this formation would suggest that Lampard is no longer required in the team. With Mikel holding, Ramires/Essien on the right, Malouda/Zhirkov on the left and Anelka/Benayoun playing the trequartista role, Lampard doesn’t fit in.
For me, Lampard is the big problem. Buying/playing a trequartista would solve a lot of Chelsea’s problems for the simple fact that they aren’t creating enough. Look at all successful teams in the Champions League of late and they have a man who can create something special on the edge of the box. Lampard isn’t this type of player and his need to continually operate in that space means Chelsea haven’t bought a trequartista.
So it’s either drop Lampard and buy a specialist trequartista or keep Lampard but lose all flair in the midfield. Tough choice as Lampard is sure to score goals.
I would say it was obvious that this will be one of the formations he will use for the rest of the season. It could be to them what 4-4-2 is to United – to beat the crap out of rubbish teams. Chelsea will play 4-3-3 in the big games, does it matter what they play against Stoke? Liverpool beat Stoke with a joke system, Kenny said after the game he only played it because it spells BOOBS on a calculator. Fact.
and ur reason for that liverpool system being a poor one is….?
Kenny went with a 3 man defence to offer height at set pieces. And judging by the amount of headers Kyriacos won, I’d say Dalglish got it spot on. He also allowed Meireles and Gerrard to get forward, something that both of them are very good at doing.
It was actually a smart move. Nothing to do with a ‘joke’ formation.
the formation was actually similar to Brazil’s trademark 4-2-2-2 box formation, so it certainly isnt a joke!
I think it is a great analysis, and we’ll see how often Anelka will play the no. 10.
But at one point the whole number ten story becomes confusing. Rooney, Tevez, van Persie natural number 10?
What is number 10? A link player, a playmaker, a naturally ‘withdrawn’ forward?
For me, van Persie is a striker, maybe on of the best false nines you can find. And Rooney and Tevez are very mobile, hard working strikers. But I would never call one of these three a classic number 10, a playmaker, a trequartista or something like that. Even though they are good players. Of course Anelka could become a no. 10, but we should wait and see if he is a plamaker or ‘just’ a withdrawn forward.
I think they’re all “9 and a halfs”
Yeah,
someday nines, other days only “halfs”.
When will we see a 5 and two-thirds?
You missed Forlan’s world cup performances, HE was the first withdrawn forward.
I think Hidegkuti might have beaten him to that accolade by 60 years or so…
As for recognized strikers playing a false nine role, me and a friend have this joke calling them a “false ten” ;P
Very interesting, especially the note about how Michael Owen has done this.
Do you know of any players like Alan Smith who moved from Striker to Defensive Midfield? Granted, his move came because of an injury, but it is still rather unique I believe.
You’ll find some player moving around the pitch over the years. Torsten Frings started as striker, moved to right back and is now a holding midfielder. But his days in the opponents box were over before he became a first class player.
When you take the time as junior players into account, Sammer was a striker, as far as I know. Then (attacking) midfieler, later ‘libero’ and today he would be a defensive midfielder or regista.
Dwight Yorke took up a midfield position for Sydney FC after initially being signed as a striker. He was most often in the deep-laying playmaker role, which did come with defensive midfielder duties.
guti
Laurent Blanc used to be a number 10 before he became a libero.
With a converted striker playing as a trequartista, Chelsea need creativity from deeper, which Mikel/Essien may not offer. Anelka is a direct player, and doesn’t offer the subtlety needed to break down stubborn opposition. Its not like the Pirlo/Kaka situation, which had a deeper creator dominating the buildup and a direct attacker creating chances.
I will reserve judgement for Anelka in this role after seeing him do it in a few more games. As I mentioned to some people, Steed Malbranque was largely playing as the holding DM versus Chelsea. Lets see how he does against some real competition.
Having just read Jonathan Wilson’s piece on the same issue it’s clear that neither of you have paid much attention to Bosingwa or Ivanovic’s actual effectiveness at RB. Bosingwa’s defending, while never a strong suit, has been absolutely dreadful this season. Ivanovic on the other hand is an excellent defender wherever he plays, and to say he “is not good enough on the ball” is to completely ignores how effectively he played at fullback last season. In case it’s slipped everyone’s minds, this was the season Chelsea broke the PL record for goals scored. Ivanovic uses his power and good engine to get up and down the flank, providing plenty of width and energy in the fullback position. The sooner we can get him out there the better it will be for both the attack and defence.
As for the conundrum up front, it will be interesting to see how Ancelotti approaches it. I would be interested to see if Drogba could make a go of it on the left flank of the 4-3-3, playing a similar role to that Villa has done for Barcelona. He generally looks good on those occasions when he receives the ball out wide, he has the ability to beat a man with a few tricks in his repertoire, is a very good crosser (almost always looks up before whipping good balls in – a reason for his good tally of assists in this and last season), and has a good shot from outside the box. It would allow Torres to play down the middle and for the team to keep the formation it is comfortable with. However the question remains whether he could stick to the position and not end up drifting too much into the middle.
Anelka has been very hot and cold in his free roaming role on the right, but he clearly enjoys playing that way now. Looking at the Barcelona model again, there is a great amount of potential unpredictability and goalscoring threat in a front three of Drogba-Torres-Anelka, but they would all have to learn to use their movement effectively, taking turns providing the width needed, tracking back when needed, and generally working as a unit rather than as three individual strikers.
“Having just read Jonathan Wilson’s piece on the same issue it’s clear that neither of you have paid much attention to Bosingwa or Ivanovic’s actual effectiveness at RB.”
That’s an interesting way of saying “I disagree”.
Ivanovic isn’t good enough on the ball – he’s solid, reliable but with a diamond midfield you need width and genuine direct play from full-back – Ivanovic doesn’t offer that. Chelsea’s goalscoring record – great – but not sure how much that can be attributed to Ivanovic, and either way that misses the point that we’re talking about the right-back’s role with a diamond midfield – most of Chelsea’s goals weren’t scored with the diamond, they were scored later in the season wit hthe 4-3-3.
Having a right-sided shuttler means it might not be as much of an issue, but it’s an entirely fair point
Have a look at some games from last season. Ivanovic got down the touchline almost as frequently as Ashley Cole. He helped give the team some much needed width and length down the touchline, especially as Anelka has an ongoing tendency to drift both into the middle but also backwards deep into the midfield. Ivanovic’s getting forward so regularly had a much more important part than many seem to realise in giving added balance and shape to our overall setup for the majority of last season.
Bosingwa is perfectly decent going forward as well, but he has very little composure on the ball and for all his pace and dribbling ability tends to lose possession much more regularly than Ivanovic, making them pretty much even in terms of overall attacking effectiveness as fullbacks. And as stated, the Bosingwa of this season has looked like a disaster waiting to happen against any half decent attacking player on the flank. On paper, yours and JW’s arguments seem perfectly straightforward. And it’s very easy to bracket Ivanovic into an equally neat and tidy category like “shuttler.” But I’d argue for a more nuanced reappraisal of just what Ivanovic was able to achieve overall in the fullback role last season, despite not having the classic attributes that most would usually look for in the position.
Apologies, looking at your site I see that shuttler means something different entirely. I suppose it was the slightly derogatory and utilitarian notes that I detected in the term which I thought reflected a somewhat derogatory and utilitarian take on what Ivanovic offers at RB for Chelsea. Ivanovic does indeed spend a great amount of time shuttling up and down the flank at FB, but he does so with purpose and drive, and can do it at full tilt for an entire 90 minutes. It may not always look pretty, but it gave a lot of much needed impetus and width to our play and we have missed that purposeful forward dynamic, combined with the defensive solidity that he offers, on the right flank this season.
And the assists stats back up this claim for Ivanovic’s effectiveness going forward. According to Soccernet, Ivanovic provided 6 assists in 43(3) starts(sub) appearances last season. Bosingwa has yet to provide an assist this season and in his only full season at RB for us (08/09), only managed 4 assists in 44(0) starts(sub) appearances. Even the excellent Ashley Cole has yet to manage more than 5 assists in a season. There is more to Ivanovic’s game than meets the eye, though I admit a cursory glance at his style of play wouldn’t hint at that.
If you’ve actually been to Stamford Bridge, you’ll see that Bosingwa is a lot more direct in his build up play than Ivanovic. Ivanovic does not try to beat the man or offer blistering pace to double up on full backs; Bosingwa does.
What Ivanovic does offer is reliability and the fact that he’s solid. But as ZM pointed out, Ferguson found that completely shutting down Cole and letting Ivanovic have time and space on the ball would eventually see Chelsea attacks peter out.
This is incredible analasys ZM.
However, i think that Chelsea are still gonna have promblems with width from the right because Ivanovic is not “Wing Back” to be right back at the diamond, While Bosingwa is just too much suspect at the defence to play at full back.
And about Anelka At Terquartista, this is nice idea on the paper, But I prefer to wait untill Anelka is tested versus proper holding midfielder to be convinced about this idea.
I’ve tried to work out various formations which could work but they generally end up with:
A) Anelka being benched
B) Lampard being benched
C) Essien having to play the holding role.
I suppose Chelsea could try a 4-3-3 with Drogba on the left, Torres in the middle and Anelka on the right. Drogba would naturally cut in and shoot or cross whilst Ashley Cole tries to get to the byline. Likewise, Anelka will play closer to Torres and look for Bosingwa to overlap. With a midfield trio of Lampard, Mikel and Essien, Chelsea will have the same trio that have proved successful in recent years.
However, I find that even this has too many implications. Drogba, Torres, Anelka, Lampard, Essien and Mikel will all try to play through the centre and we’ve seen how an organised defence (most notably Germany v England) can cope quite comfortably against such narrow play. The other issue is that neither of these 6 players are trequartistas or registas and whilst Anelka put in a good performance on Tuesday, he tends to be a bit hit and miss on the right wing.
A bench of Malouda, Ramires, Zhirkov, Luiz, Benayoun, Ivanovic and Kalou may look good but a few of them (mainly Zhirkov and Benayoun) would get very little playing time and I can see a few disgruntled players.
The question of what constitutes a No.10 is subject of much conjecture, and definitions vary slightly across some cultures, but in the case of Tevez, Rooney and Van Persie cited above, I think Michel Platini’s term “nine-and-a-half” is perhaps the best description. Ditto Bergkamp.
Ancelotti is thinking of playing David Luiz as a holding midfielder. What would that spell for the rest of the team?
but can anelka effectively link up both Torres/Drogba?
Van Persie/Tevez/Rooney are naturally creative players and can do all these intricate passes towards their partner(in Chamakh or Berbatov).but anelka….
i see anelka more as a second striker(in a 4-4-1-1 formation) rather than a “borderline striker-attacking midfielder” role
Hey ZM I’ve sent two messages and neither seem to have hit the board. Are they in your junk folder or do you just think I’m foolishly misguided in my analysis?
Great analysis as always ZM. I have only one request – could you add terms like “false nine”, “number ten” to glossary for all not so knowledgeable football fans reading your website ?
Brilliant article.
Great stuff as ever.
I’m of the opinion that the 4-4-2 diamond suits Chelsea particularly. They don’t have good enough wingers but they have 2 of the best attacking full-backs in the world. Bosingwa not getting great press in other comments here, but for me he’s fantastic.
Furthermore it seems the ideal way to squeeze Drogba, Torres and Anelka into the same side. While Torres and Anelka may be able to play wide in a 4-3-3, it doesn’t suit either of them. Also wondering if the tip of the diamond might suit Frank Lampard as well.
I don’t think Lampard has the required subtlety, technique and creativity to thrive in the trequartista role. A large part of his game is based on the timing of his runs from deeper positions to finishg attacking moves. Playing in a more advanced role he would be starved of the space to run into. Ancelotti tried him there early last season and he wasn’t great.
Yeah it was a bit of a disappointment seeing Lampard not doing great there. I was thinking more of a “flattened” diamond rather than trequartista. With Torres and Drogba up front I’m not sure how a defence would react. But suspect a deep line – because Torres will thrive on through balls of the quality that the likes of Lampard and Malouda can provide. But the deeper the line the more space for Frank (i’d imagine)..
But there is a conspicious lack of a player, like you say of subtlety, guile and creativity. Ozil being an ideal example – do Chelsea need to splash out 1 more time? Wenger is adamant that Roman isn’t finished with his spending and will throw in even more cash. I’m not so sure, but for these sugar daddy types an exciting young playmaker would be a glorious signing. Kagawa? Pastore? Wonder if even Snjeider could be tempted by the EPL? Certainly room for improvement at Chelsea there and with a bit of coin, players are out there.
Rumours that they’re looking at signing Marek Hamsik from Napoli
many thanks for the analysis ZM, I had hoped you would do this but given your commitments ….
I will be interested to see if Ramires gets a starting position, I think he offers more options in attack that Essien, and more in combination with Essien than Mikel. And with both being very fit tracking back should not be a problem.
Similarly, I wonder of Dalglish will persist with the wingbacks we saw midweek. Kelly appears to be a great find – not sure whyit took so long to play him.
Hopefully it will be a fascinating tactical encounter
Why playing 4-4-2 diamond with a holding midfield? I kno this is a different league from serie a but chelsea looks like a better version of ac milan now with the squad given. Why not playing 4-3-1-2 with 3 breaker in the middle, I believe all chelsea midfield players are more than capable of fit in that role.
I maybe a fool comparing real life and football simulation games, but even tho u put Anelka right there in the hole behind the striker, he is definitely not a trequartista type of player. His role more likely is an inside forward wit his driving run to the box as both of the strikers occupy the defenders and open up a space. CMIIW but trequartista role tends to dictating play and spray passes or killer ball..and thats not Anelka i think
‘but chelsea looks like a better version of ac milan now with the squad given’
IMO barring Dida, the Milan 4-3-1-2 during the mid part of the decade was superior. Maldini, Nesta, Stam, Cafu, Pirlo, Gattuso, Seedorf, Kaka/Rui costa, Shevchenko, Crespo/Inzaghi.
I’d keep the familiar 4-3-3 shape but just have Drogba play slightly more on the left cutting inside, instead of Malouda, or perhaps start with Malouda all together as Drogba hasn’t been himself as of late. I’d have a similar role style to Roma’s 4-3-3, with Anelka dropping back slightly behind on the right (like Menez) with Drogba/Torres going forward more (like Vucinic/Borriello). However as said, perhaps it wouldn’t work trying to force Anelka back more, so maybe just start with Kalou on the right.
ZM, seems like you were right about the formation but not the players in the midfield. Obi will play holding, with Lampard and Essien infront of him.
Also seems that Liverpool are keeping their 3-5-2 formation. I think the midfield battle will be tight. The key areas are the fullback areas. I see that the Chelsea fullbacks have some height in the box and definite runs from the midfield. The Liverpool not so much height and not sure about the midfield runs. I also fancy the quality of the Chelsea fullbacks over the Liverpool ones.
Torres and Drogba have to pull the CBs wide, whereas Kuyt up on his own isn’t going to cause too much trouble.
I’m predicting the Liverpool formation will be mostly 5-3-1-1 due to Chelsea’s dominance and quality.