Chelsea 0-1 Liverpool: Meireles grabs winner
The starting line-ups
Two interesting formations produced a tense, tight game which was won by Raul Meireles’ goal.
Carlo Ancelotti gave Fernando Torres his debut, fielding the same 4-4-2 diamond system as against Sunderland in midweek, with Nicolas Anelka in the hole behind the front two.
Kenny Dalglish continued with his three/five at the back formation, with Jamie Carragher in for Sotirios Kyrgiakos and Maxi Rodriguez replacing Fabio Aurelio.
Torres threatened to be an instant hero when given the ball by Rodriguez in the opening minutes, but blasted over from the edge of the box. After that, the game settled down into a cagey, static contest in the first half.
Basic shapes
Torres and Drogba took it in turns to work the right and left flanks, but both stayed central throughout and didn’t really look to stretch Liverpool’s defence. Everything was narrow, and Liverpool coped pretty well. Lucas Leiva stayed goalside of Nicolas Anelka, meaning Liverpool always had a spare man when Anelka moved forward to join the front two.
Liverpool’s midfield ’square’ in midweek was effectively tilted to become a diamond here, and as we’ve seen before when two diamonds play each other, the game can be rather stilted. Each midfielder had an obvious opponent to track, with Lucas / Anelka, Steven Gerrard / Frank Lampard, Rodriguez / Michael Essien and Meireles / Jon Obi Mikel the usual battles. There was little creativity from that zone.
Liverpool on top
Liverpool were the better side even before they went ahead in the second half, however, for two reasons. First, their diamond had much more fluidity. Chelsea’s midfield roles were obvious, with the diamond remaining intact throughout, each player in the same position. Liverpool’s diamond was based around more mutual understanding – Meireles was usually at the head of the four, but sometimes it was Gerrard, sometimes Rodriguez, sometimes Lucas would venture forward and another player would drop in and hold. That kept Chelsea guessing, and though it didn’t produce anything particularly exciting in the final third, did make Liverpool the side more likely to cause the opposition defence problems.
The second factor was more a question of formation – with the diamonds cancelling each other out in the centre, it was left to the wide areas for drive and attacking thrust. Here, we had Chelsea’s full-backs (in a four) against Liverpool’s wing-backs (in a five), with the latter given much more license to get forward and support the attack. Glen Johnson and Martin Kelly were often immediately in a position to receive a forward pass in space, and stretched the play. In contrast, Ashley Cole and Jose Bosingwa had to motor forward to move into attacking positions, which made Chelsea’s build-up play more laboured. Johnson becoming free on the left resulted in the best chance of the first half, where Rodriguez somehow missed an open goal from inside the six yard box.
On the other hand, this meant that Liverpool had one fewer striker on the pitch, and therefore there was little chance of interplay upfront. Chelsea certainly had that potential, and Drogba playing in Torres created a great chance – only for Jamie Carragher to perform a typical last-ditch block. Overall, however, Liverpool maximised their advantage in wide zones more than Chelsea maximised their advantage in having an extra striker.
Second half
Little changed until on 66 minutes, when Ancelotti decided his shape wasn’t working, and replaced Torres with Kalou, moving Chelsea to 4-3-3. Before noting the tactical aspect, it’s worth considering the psychological boost Liverpool must have received by seeing Torres depart having barely had a kick in the second half. Tactically, it was potentially a great move from Ancelotti – by playing three forwards stretched across the park, he was going to either subdue Liverpool’s wing-backs, or force their centre-backs out wide.
However, within three minutes, Gerrard’s cross found Meireles at the far post, and Liverpool were ahead. Coming so soon after the switch, Chelsea may have confused by the change in formation – after all, they were now 3 v 4 in the centre of the pitch, and Meireles ran in unchecked to finish. The main tactical impact of the goal, however, was that Liverpool didn’t need to worry about the situation at the back – with a 1-0 lead, their wing-backs would happily be subdued, to form a back five and see out the game. They defended well all game – Chelsea only had one shot on target in the match, a Florent Malouda attempt from an impossible angle that Reina blocked easily.
Latter stages
As it happened, Ancelotti ended up moving to a 4-2-4ish system that Liverpool’s back five coped with pretty well, maintaining the spare man they’d had at the back for the majority of the game. Ahead of that, Liverpool now had 4 v 2 in the central midfield zone, with the diamond shifting across to shut Chelsea’s full-backs down – though they offered little threat, especially when Branislav Ivanovic moved out there to make room for David Luiz.
The final 15 minutes was about good individual performances – most obviously at the back, but also in midfield. Lucas was superb, using the ball well, and dominating the zone in front of the back four without the ball by nipping in ahead of Chelsea players to make interceptions.
Conclusion
Ancelotti played into Liverpool’s hands with his narrow formation. The three-man defence coped very well with Chelsea’s two strikers, and it’s likely Chelsea would have had more joy had they played their 4-3-3 earlier in the game. The Kalou-Anelka-Drogba trio has the potential to play in a 4-3-1-2 and a 4-3-3, but by having two central strikers, Torres and Drogba, on the pitch, Chelsea couldn’t change shape without turning to the bench. It would have been interesting to see if Dalglish would have abandoned his three at the back if Chelsea moved to a 4-3-3 earlier.
Liverpool’s players played their roles very well – the centre-backs won individual battles, the midfielders rotated well, the wing-backs got forward, and Kuyt scrapped upfront. In all, Dalglish won the tactical battle here.
Chelsea 0-1 Liverpool: Meireles grabs winner
When Poulsen came on for Meireles Dalglish flattened his diamond. I think it was by design, but do you think it was to defend wider (as Chelsea had switched to a 4-3-3) or to defend deeper (they had the lead so could sit back more) or both?
Yeah, it looked like 5-4-1 at the end to me, with Gerrard (mostly) on the right and Aurelio at left mid. I thought it was about the latter (defending deeper).
I think it was about both actually as Gerrard could defend against Cole if he bombed forward and to a lesser extent Aurelio against Ivanivic.
Agreed on all points ZM.
Torres didn’t look quite fit enough, perhaps a combination of tiredness/new system/occasion, and Drogba was off-colour too. I’d hoped the big Ivorian would be back on top after that superb goal he scored recently, but he doesn’t have the same presence or consistency this season. I thought Bosingwa and Cole should have played a lot higher up the pitch to worry Kelly/Johnson, but both of their passing in the final third was poor, espcially the Portuguese.
But, full credit to Daglish. He stifled Chelsea well, took advantage of their ‘newness’ and you could see that Liverpool were more enthusiastic in running from midfield, the goal being case-in-point. Interesting that the defensive error came from Cech and Ivanovic though. Perhaps Cech won the argument in the dressing room over their first-half altercation: Ivanovic was much less aggressive in attacking Gerard’s cross, good as it was, and Cech simply didn’t deal with the situation with as much venom as he accosted Ivanovic in the first half.
I’ll be interested to see how Liverpool line-up at home to teams they’ll be expected to beat. Surely he’ll drop a centre-back to accomodate Suarez?
Yours sincerely,
A Chelsea fan who wants to initate discussion to avoid the fact that we won’t be winning the league this season…
It will be interesting to see what he does with Suarez. I’m more and more starting to think LFC just won’t have a “usual” formation and will change a lot, which could be good or disastrous. However, if he does want to persist with 3 at the back, I think Suarez could slot into a slightly wider and more advanced version of the position Meireles played against Stoke.
I don’t know if Cech called for the cross on the Miereles goal, but I couldn’t help wonder if Ivanovic wouldn’t have tried to clear the ball if Cech hadn’t berated him so much in the first half.
Liverpool created a few good chances and probably deserved a goal. Chelsea never really looked like creating anything in open play. A mistake or set piece was the only way I could see them scoring.
There wasn’t a lot between the teams, but considering what was at stake Chelsea’s performance was pretty disappointing.
Jamie Carragher just got arrested.
Apparently he had £50m in his back pocket all afternoon.
ha ha good one.:-) in fairness to kenny , he seems to be a really good tactician. he did not Even use his 57 million summer signings..
Back pocket jokes get sssooooo boring after a while
King Kenny is back on track! 3 5 2 is in my opinion best counter to 4 4 2! I think that Liverpool have now some kind of momentum, they are going well. I think that Carlo made a mistake for not starting with 4 3 3 from the begining. I think that Kenny anticipated that they will play 4 4 2 diamond and therefore started with 3 5 2!
There’s only one up front. It looks more like a 3-3-3-1 or even 3-1-4-1.
3-1-4-1 only makes 9 !. don’t worry. i made same mistake myself ! . on telegraph match stats site, gerrard actual average position was ahead of meireles, so almost 3-1-5-1 when attacking, as above when defending i guess.
the formation used by liverpool was a 3-5-1-1. i for one like this formation. i play alot of football manager games. the english media seems to hae a negative outlook on it but it is a very versatile formation. if your team is on the back foot you essentially have 5 defenders(should be enough) when you’re attacking you have about 6 players up with the defesive midfielder staying back(lucas as well as the 3 centrebacks.
scenario: you get hit on the counter by a winger (walcott for example)while johnson and kelly(wingbacks are attacking)agger simply slots into the left back to mark walcott(on the right wing) and lucas (defensive midfielder drops back to cover the space. its an effective technique not negative (especially when carrol and suarez will be up front. this tactic has width, numbers in midfield and enough quality up front.
1 fail to score last season for Chelsea. 7 now after this. ( man u have 3, ars 4, liv 5 ) alright having 3 strikers up front, but where’s the creative passing/width/dribblers to give them the ball ? .
I think this is the fundamental flaw that Ancelotti hasn’t addressed. A midfield of Lampard, Essien, Ramires, Mikel is completely devoid of creativity. When Chelsea score and teams open up, they can rack up cricket scores. When teams sit deep, defend narrow and shut off the space, Chelsea can’t set up even half a chance.
Ancelotti MUST buy a trequartista. And it disappoints me to say but unless Lampard can be more effective in a more withdrawn role, I just don’t see how he can occupy a starting berth. Drogba, Anelka, Malouda, Torres and to an extent Kalou can provide the goals. In this respect, Lampard isn’t needed. What they don’t provide is that central creativity that the team is screaming out for. A Sneijder, Ozil, Kaka, Gerrard, Fabregas or Iniesta would go a long way to sorting out their problems.
and Chelsea needs a Pirlo too,a deep lying playmaker.
I dream about them buying Riccardo Montolivo, but I don’t think it will happen. It would definitely help them a lot though!
what about lampard playing this role? if anelka turns into an attacking midfielder it could see him drop deeper and play a la pirlo? especially because he’s getting on a bit, can’t see him always being a box to box player. scholes has done it, can’t see why lampard couldn’t too.
Lampard doesn’t have the passing range of Scholes. But I would fancy he would be better dropping back rather than pushed into the point of the Diamond.
Lampard has played relatively deep for England at times but doesn’t control the game from there.
Because Lampard can’t do ‘those’ type of passes. He never has been able to. His threat is also largely nullified the deeper he plays.
Not sure about a deep lying playmaker. Mikel retains possession very well and Ramires/Essien will provide a lot of energy in midfield. I think Chelsea’s problem isn’t in the middle third but the final third. They just don’t create enough
yes. clearly, even though they just spent 75 million pounds, the solution is always BUY SOMEONE ELSE!
The players you list as trequartistas can only be considerd similar if it’s because FIFA 11 lists them all as “CAM” or something, because they fulfill different roles on their respective teams.
I was so delighted liverpool won this game, and I’m not a devoted partisan for one team or the other usually, it’s just good to see the obvious villains get what’s coming to them. It’d be even better if they got utterly stomped by a team that finds affordable players or grows them, like Villarreal or Udinese.
I do hope for your sake that you were drunk when you wrote that. My post never mentioned the Torres transfer nor did I offer an opinion on it. You might have a total disgust for Chelsea and that’s perfectly fine so long as it doesn’t keep you up at night but I’d prefer if you focused on my points and not posting a bunch of drivel.
Chelsea HAVEN’T had a trequartista in many years and have often struggled to impose themselves in the final third when coming up against stubborn defences.
Fulfill different roles? Let’s see:
Sneijder, playing in the trequartista role for Inter in a 4-2-3-1.
Kaka, playing trequartista in a 4-2-3-1 for Madrid but has been shunted out to the right to accommodate Ozil.
Ozil, see above.
Fabregas, playing in a more advanced position in a 4-3-3 or the trequartista role in the 4-2-3-1.
Iniesta, playing in a more advanced central position.
Nice to know you play Fifa but keep your life stories to yourself.
someone’s got ants in their pants! i think he was just saying that chelsea aren’t going to go out and buy someone (especially because the window’s closed) – so it’s pointless to mention who they *might* go for. like the transfer rumours that come out a day after the window closes, it’s like, sure… bit late now!
there aren’t many teams in the prem who actually use a player in this position – arsenal are propably the exception with nasri/fabregas playing there. it’s tough because you have to base the whole team around this linchpin and it’s not a risk all managers like to (or can) take.
Anelka as a False Nine was a horrible choice. He is not an attacking midfielder, thus the attack was cut off from the center.
Torres is a static sandbag. He was robbed numerous times by Carragher.
@Chelsea fan – I don’t think that dropping third defender is required for this formation, you can simply move your wing backs higher up the pitch. Especially because Johnson can play as winger, not sure about Kelly.
Dalglish seems to have found a decent formation for the players available to him at the moment. The system does not need decent wingers and the left back area is covered by an additional CB. When both Suarez and Carroll are ready to start every game they might change to 3-2-2-1-2 or 3-4-1-2. Lucas-Meireles-Gerrard in midfield and Carroll-Suarez/Kuyt upfront.
Of course we can’t say this will remain Kenny’s preferred formation.
I seems like the change to a diamond with two strikers came at the most unfavourable moment against a team playing a diamond and three at the back.
more attacking full backs (or wing backs) would have been a solution for Chelsea. Even if two at the back looks a little risky. What would that have been, a 2-1-4-1-2? Also a solution could have been Anelka moving wide (a sliding diamond).
Maybe Ancelotti should have tried to play 4-3-3 without a sub in the first 15 minutes of the second half?
But the goal for Liverpool came at the best time, and with the better midfield diamond it reads like a deserved win.
For Chelsea to switch to a narrow 2 striker system days after Dalglish had success with a 3 at the back system was simply tactically inept.
I’d go further than the report says Chelsea played into Dalglish’s hands all week. They solved Dalglish’s biggest motivational problem by paying 50 million for Torres which released valuable funds needed to strenghten Liverpool’s squad, deployed a diamond formation on match day and went down to a 1:0 defeat.
But you have to admit, that people at Chelsea don’t sit in their office and think only about the Liverpool game. Yes, the two striker system was a failure. But should they not sign Torres just because that could solve motivational problems of the next opponent? If/when Torres starts scoring, the signing had never been a failure. What ever Liverpool is doing then.
chelsea reminds like myself when i see a bid ending on ebay.(i don’t think i just buy). clearly they did not think this over. or was it ancelotti or abramovich who bought torres. eventually he has to find a way of making them play together. he shouldn’t have started torres in this game and just changed the formation altogether. he should have started malouda and anelka wide to force johnson and kelly back. when you do that liverpool are basically toothless gerrard never scores against chelsea(plus he had a bad passing game) kuyt is a donkey upfront. liverpool would still be difficult to break down but chelsea would have given themselves a better chance. the fulham game would have been a good time to take a chance and start torres, change formation but not sunday
Very surprised that Chelsea went with two up front and Anelka in behind, this seemed to play into Liverpool’s 3 at the back.
On the Sky Commentary Martin Tyler said that “one way to beat 3 at the back is to play 3 up front,” in a strange way, as Jonathan Wilson and ZM have explained so well in the past the best way to beat 3 at the back is actually to play with only 1 up front or perhaps with a false 9.
On another matter is Mikel’s only tactical function to show people how NOT to play the deep lying midfield role? I think of him as the anti-Busquets!
The guts to play 3 at the back against chelsea at stamford bridge was applaudable.
Not really. It’s three defenders vs two strikers, which is still numbers up like two defenders vs one striker.
I don’t think he means it was gutsy in the sense of attacking, but rather, as ZM pointed out on Wednesday, not a single team played 3 at the back in the PL until we did at Stoke. It was gutsy because it’s the kind of thing you get killed for in the media if it doesn’t work.
it was
I don’t really see it as gutsy, they won their last match playing 3 at the back and probably had a good idea that Chelsea would play this system that seems ideally suited to 3 at the back.
Liverpool’s discipline was very good, they executed their plan well and deserved the win after creating the better chances.
it was applaudable because it was tactically spot on, but wasnt really gutsy. Gutsy would have been playing 4 at the back with no spare man
Gutsy isn’t the same as stupid.
I don’t know what Dalglish’s thinking was, he played it at Stoke and again against Chelsea does he see it as the way forward or was it just a short term measure? A lot of people laughed at the idea of “King Kenny”, he has been out of the game for a while, to come back and switch to a formation that seems to have gone out of style would probably have led to derision if it hadn’t have worked.
In saying that Liverpool’s squad is full of centre backs, central midfield players and lacks wide players of all descriptions… Maybe he just got lucky.
Or maybe he is making the best use of the resources he has at his disposal. Think really hard about this.
This looked like a diamond defense to me, which is largely out of style because it is not very good against the lone striker formation popular in the Premier League.
If the two striker formation becomes more popular, I can see more teams using the diamond defense or three center backs instead of two.
If that happens, one can argue that Dalglish was fashion-forward, not out of style.
Well, Tyler was right. 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 is the right option, with the wingers moving between the forward line and the midfield.
In what way is the 4-3-3/4-5-1 tactically superior compared to Dalglish’s 5-4-1….you get outnumbered in midfield due to the diamond vs ur 3, plus you’d be even less offensive than chelsea were by conceding 3 centre backs to ur 1 striker, instead of having 2 strikers.
I commented, but then when it displayed I realized ZM had already said what I wanted to say, so now I will just say, “concur”
The discipline under King Kenny has been awsome…..lucas has been good
Inter vs Roma ..its been a great match so far
As commented on the ‘Anelka as Trequartista’ article this formation was predicted to be a poor choice for Chelsea. Too narrow when going against a team who have been focused on attacking with their fullbacks/wingbacks when they have played 4-3-3 and even more so in the new 3-1-5-1 look.
The Red revival has been fun to watch, interesting tactics from Kenny, credit to him for bringing in good staff and trying some new ideas.
On the Chelsea not making the most of their extra striker point, i think it’s important to note how whenever Torres received the ball Liverpool hounded him instantly often with 2-3 players teaming up. He turned the ball over so frequently, it was hard for him and Drogba to ever link properly. Torres completed 9 passes in 66 minutes, he was never (allowed to be) in the game.
Isn’t that the point of defending? Liverpool’s 3 man defense helped them in that, but you could expect Ancelotti to play 2 strikers and a trequartista. Dalglish reacted (or anticipated as you like) superbly, helped by the good performance versus Stoke.
It was a closed game due to both diamonds and an numerical advantage in defense for both teams. It was clear that the team that would score the first goal, would probably win the game. Very good game of Lucas by the way!
no formation had any advantage in any area of the pitch, but was just a case of who was the harder team to break down, and that was Liverpool. Liverpool didnt test chelsea much but when they did they were easy to break down, due to Mikel’s inability to stick on Meireles, and let him drift throughout the game and most importantly for the goal
Am I crazy for thinking Lucas is becoming one of the PL’s best DMs? I’d take him over Huddlestone, Palacios, and Song, for sure, and I’d at least think about it with Mikel and De Jong. Fletcher and Scholes are probably better players, but Lucas fits in better with Liverpool’s midfield.
Not bad for someone whom everyone (including me) was pretty certain sucked this time last year.
Scholes is by far the best midfielder in the premier league and I’m not a United supporter. However, I do agree that Lucas is turning into a fine player. There used to be a point where he’d be heckled every time he appeared on the team sheet but he’s really turning into Mr Dependable.
I’d go so far as to say Lucas is better than De Jong, Song and Palacios. De Jong is simply a traditional defensive midfielder who thrives on battles. Lucas, like Busquets, is a lot more subtle and always offers an option.
He’ll never be an Alonso who is a phenomenal footballer but Lucas could well be a great cog in Liverpool’s wheel for years to come.
Yeah, I agree with all of that (except I’d amend the Scholes comment to best deep-lying midfielder).
Scholes is a great player, but I still say I wouldn’t swap Lucas for him, even for just one year. A Scholes-Gerrard-Meireles midfield would be, well let’s be charitable and say defensively fragile, and Scholes would be starved for targets with us having no talented wide players. That’s all I meant–as a DM, Lucas is a better fit on Liverpool.
And yeah, he’s no Xabi Alonso, but neither is Busquets. I know you’re not disagreeing with this but, I think he’s someone to build around, not (as many LFC fans still seem to think) someone to improve upon as soon as we solve LB and wide areas.
No, that would be Luka Modric. How can one(Scholes) be the “best midfielder” despite not being capable of making even a simple, timed challenge? Even if the term used was “attacking midfielder” or “deep-lying playmaker”, I’d still take Modric anyday.
Yes, you’re crazy — Lucas is not even the best in the city of Liverpool (Fellaini) and nowhere near the top in the league. Nothing wrong with applauding him when he performs well, though, as he did yesterday.
I would take Fletcher over Lucas every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Premier League Stats
By Opta Sportsdata Last updated: Thursday 03rd February 2011
Tacklers Team Tackles Success rate
Holden Bolton 102 66%
Parker West Ham 96 78%
Lucas Liverpool 92 67%
Vaughan Blackpool 89 75%
Muamba Bolton 88 70%
A little harsh on Lucas isn’t it? Granted tackling stats alone don’t mean anything, but he has been defending well, better than Fletcher or Fellaini perhaps?
Interesting picture you have there though.
Hey, nice stat there, but let’s just say Lucas has quite a lowlight film reel to go along with that as well. Plenty of things don’t show up in the stat sheet.
For example, the first game of the season vs Arsenal, he went so far out of position going for the wrong guy that Kuyt was shaking his head, like wtf are you doing?? He completely left where he was supposed to be.
Honestly, plenty of people are starting to big up Lucas lately, but a lot of it is that Kenny & Steve are flooding the midfield to help him out. When we went 4-4-2 under the previous manager there was more space and Lucas could not keep up. Watching Wigan and Stoke’s midfields beat him like a rented mule was awful to watch, but hopefully we will keep the current formation and not see a repeat of that…
I think 3 at the back can work well for Liverpool against weaker opponents too. Agger is key, though, because he can control the ball and pick a pass ( it would have been hard to guess that he would be key under Roy or Rafa, though). To be successful, the wingbacks have to bomb foward and the midfield must keep the ball. Ironically, I think Chelsea will play 3 at the back moving forward as Luiz will be asked to anchor their diamond much deeper and Cole and Bosingwa will push much higher. Odd to think that 3 at the back might be so popular this year (Napoli, Barcelona, Liverpool, perhaps Chelsea too)
King Kenny may have spent some twenty years away from coaching, so his tactics might have been obsolete, but his tactical performances so far are successfull, leaving questions about Hogdson’s 4-4-2 which seemed a lot more obsolete..
Liverpool’s shift to 3-5-2 is something i was longing to see, from the begging of this season, simply because it suits many players style and especially Glen Johnson’s, who is superficial defensively when playing as a full back (Kelly is far better as a fullback), but can cover the space with great efficiency as a wing-back (he is a world class player in this position).. Also the trio Skrtel,Agger, Carragher is high class combination IMO, and i think Carragher should be the ’sweeper’..
With Carol upfront and Suarez(i preferred young though) playing as a ‘central winger’, this system can be devastating when facing 4-4-2 s or systems with 2 upfront, something than many sides still feature in england..
What is obvious is what players does Liverpool need to buy in the summer to successfully alternate between this and a 4-3-3 (with compact lucas-gerrard-meireles and wide wingers -not kuyt,maxi):
-a wing-back (as good as GJ offensively, maybe Coentrao), but able to cope as a fullback, given that the tam lacks a player there..
-a DM better than Lucas (Although he should stay)
-Lots of subs (Another Cf, maybe a winger/shadow striker more like A.Young, subs for Meireles/gerrard, CB)
Good analysis. A player like Lee Chung-Yong would be perfect, and hopefully a lot cheaper than Ashley Young.
Once Mr Dalglish returns to four man defense, four man in the middle of the pitch (either in diamond or box shape) can be established as a long term option. It’s obvious that natural width in this Liverpool side comes only from fullbacks.
I think kenny daglish did a good job at setting his team up to defend, but not the other way around. If it wasnt for bad defending liverpool would have never scored. This would have been a good game for andy carrol. With his aerial prescence he could get on the end of the crosses from johnson and kelly. Also he is a natural target man who can effectively occupy 2 center backs at once.
I Think anchelloti should have gone 3-4-3. He would have all the center backs occupied and the his wingers could put alot of pressure on the chelsea fullbacks. He could of even wen 3-3-1-3 With 2 wingers and a center mid in midfield. Than he could of used an attacking mid fielder up ahead of the 3 to better play in throughballs.
Hey check this blog. For all lovers of football, tactics, or any one who wants the mysteries of football explained http://footballphilosphy.blogspot.com/
I don’t really agree, Liverpool didn’t attack very often but when they did they had Chelsea stretched. They attacked in numbers when they had the chance but didn’t go gung-ho. It would have been interesting to see what Liverpool would have done if they had gone a goal down, or the game was played at Anfield but for an away side at the league champions it looked very comfortable.
Watching as a neutral I thought Liverpool always looked more likely to score a goal then Chelsea, and i’m sure Ancelotti didn’t want to do anything that would make them less secure at the back.
Hey JohnGM, great blogsite, I’ve just checked it out, I’ll continue looking at it from now.
Do you (or anyone) have Ian Holloways email address so we can send him your Blackpool piece? I really mean it, I think he should read it, cos I really want Blackpool to stay up this season, and I’m worried that they are going into freefall and will end up going down…..
….also, on the subject of Chelsea/Liverpool, I just think that playing Anelka as a creative playmaker is completely the wrong move, cos I’ve said for ages that the only role Anelka is good at is playing up front, on the shoulder of the last defender and getting onto the end of moves and finishing them off. I think he’s World-Class at doing that, but trying to use him in ANY other way is complete nonsense, cos he simply doesn’t have the attributes to create and open up play (when used as a playmaker) or go past opponents with the ball and put crosses in (when used as a wide attacker). I’ve been saying all week that Chelsea don’t really NEED Torres at the moment – what they don’t have enough of are skillfull, creative wide-type players to go past opponents and open up play. The best player they’ve got for that is Malouda, who didn’t even play today – another massive mistake from Ancelotti.
I find that most of the time a team isn’t playing well is usually down to players given roles that simply don’t suit them, meaning you don’t get enough out of them to enable you to win – for example, by the end of Roy Hodgson’s rein he had Mereiles playing on the right-wing – he clearly isn’t a right-winger (one commentator said that he kept coming inside and didn’t offer enough width – of course he didn’t – he’s not a right winger – it isn’t his natural game to stay on the flank and dribble past full-backs and put crosses in – he likes to be in the middle and dictate play). Another big example was when Mourinho was forced to play Shevchenko at Chelsea: Mourinho’s big mistake wasn’t to play Shevchenko, but to not base his team around Shevchenko properly. During Mourinho’s third season at Chelsea (when they lost the title to Man Utd), because he obviously didn’t want to leave certain players in his squad out of the first team (therefore not allowing himself to upset certain players he liked cos he didn’t want to say to one or two of them “sorry my boy, I love you, but for the good of the team you can’t play – I have to pick this other guy instead, cos he gives the team something that it needs to beat teams”) his midfield and strike force was consistently: Makelele, Ballack, Essien, Lampard, Drogba, Shevchenko. Now, where in there is the width? sure, Ballack can use his left foot (meaning he played on the left of the midfield), but he never had the attributes to provide a cutting edge on the left wing (this was at the time when Mourinho was falling out with Arjen Robben, which is why he wasn’t used). Another example of this is when Harry Redknapp went to spurs and suddenly turned their season around. All he did was play players in their NATURAL positions (wingers out wide, central midfielders in the middle, strikers up front etc.) and made this management malarkey look like an absolute doddle.
I don’t really know why I went into that long rant about players being used incorrectly, but it all just flowed out of me (it’s something that I see happen all the time)…..cheers.
Lol i wish i had his email and i have the same concerns about blackpool to. I also agree that anelka doesnt have the attributes to do a good job as a trequatista or even operate as an inside fw. I think anelkas pace might have gone down a bit (i wouldnt be surprised every one loses that extra yard of pace they used to have when they turn 30) and thats why he isnt being used right on the oppositions defensive line.
I think liverpool were very clever today they knew chelsea were going to play a narrow strata formation and didnt have any good wide players so they collaged the middle. Reducing the space chelsea had to play in.I think it will be intresting though to see how liverpool will react when they play at team who has good wingers and will attack them down the flanks.
Lastly you are spot on cramming your best players into your team wont guarantee you the best results. Its not about the sum of the parts(just because you have the best 11 players doesnt mean you will have the best team) It is about the team as a whole. (how the the different areas of the team attack, midfield and defence all operate together) For example real madrid and barcalona have a team that is very similar in quality but the majority of Barcelonas team has been together for a long time, and real madrids “team” is newly formed. One of the reasons why real lost to barca was that barca operate alot more as a whole than just as a sum of parts. Remember football is the ultimate team sport. It relies on 11 players working together well to win. No other sport relies on this much collaboration from a group of individuals.
Hey check this blog. For all lovers of football, tactics, or any one who wants the mysteries of football explained http://footballphilosphy.blogspot.com/
sorry for the long post
Chelsea don’t have an attacking midfielder and it has shown throughout this season. Without a number 10, they’re left to pass aimlessly around midfield until they get it wide and then look to beat the full back. When you come up against well drilled teams, you’re always going to lose. Surprised Ancelotti didn’t ask for a young, creative number 10 in January.
Your statement is kind of true, except for the fact Chelsea haven’t had a true ‘No.10′ in the entire Abramovich era. Deco, perhaps, but he was never an automatic selection, except possibly in Scolari’s brief term. And in that period (2003-the present), they’ve won 3 PL titles and a few FA Cups, and had a CL final and 2 semi finals. So it’s a major overstatement to say that a ‘well drilled team’ will ‘always’ beat them. They’ve obviously functioned well without a creative midfield force for 7 seasons. But I do think this current Chelsea XI, minus the impetus of quality wide players like Robben and Duff (in his prime), and without the midfield power Ballack, Makelele and an in form Essien used to supply (Mikel, Ramires and a below par Essien are no substitutes), do need a new approach, and like you say, a No.10 with technical quality and creativity would help a lot.
Yeah, I think the bigger point is you can either build up play out wide, or you can build it up through the middle, but you need creativity in one of those places to break down a solid defense, no matter how good your finishers are. Right now, Chelsea don’t have a creative No. 10, or any creative wide players except for an off-form Malouda. If they don’t score early (and Anelka isn’t being covered by Steed Malbranque), things can get tough. That said, they still have a ton of quality and –they just don’t add up to a title-winning team.
It’s also true that in the Mourinho period, Chelsea posed much more of a threat from set pieces. The champion Chelsea team of 2004-06 didn’t have a lot of creativity either (Robben mostly, plus perhaps Duff, J.Cole and Gudjohnsen), but unlike Ancelotti’s Chelsea, they scored a lot from set pieces (Terry particularly). It follows that if you don’t have creativity in the centre or out wide, you don’t create a lot of chances (usually), so you have to be extra efficient from set pieces, and I don’t think Chelsea are half as effective as Mourinho and Steve Clarke had them.
Don’t need a no.10 or much creativity if you have a solid defence like Mourinho created
Yes Baxter, but the reason Chelsea won those two titles under Mourinho was cos he used a formation and tactics that suited ALL his best players: Drogba up front though the middle, Robben and someone else out wide (whoever Mourinho deemed to be on form at the time – usually Duff), Makelele holding in front of the centre backs and two attacking midfielders ahead of Makelele with license to get forward at any opportunity (Lampard and Gudjohnson / Essien). The key player in all of this was Super Frankie Lampard, cos Mourinho had found a role that brought the best out of his direct attacking talents (remember, at this time, under Mourinho, Lampard was considered to be, quite rightly, one of the very best attacking midfielders in world football). When Frank was at West Ham playing as a regular box-to-box central midfielder, he wasn’t that good, and since he’s gone back to playing that sort of role he again has shown you don’t get the best out of him playing him that way (whenever he’s played in that role for England he’s been rubbish, apart from, perversely, against Germany in the last World Cup when we got tonked – he was brilliant in that game).
Lampard is a unique player because when he’s given a very specific role (i.e. within the front two of a midfield three, with the third midfielder holding behind him) then he becomes truly world class, scoring goals for fun (as he did under Mourunho, and hasn’t done any time before or since) and dictating play. Sure, he isn’t what you’d call a ‘classic’ number 10, but he’s the closest Chelsea have had to anyone performing that sort of role when he did it under Mourinho……we should all (people on this site) manage our own teams. I reckon we’d do a much better job than a lot of the carlatans that are out there…..
also, Chelsea won last years Premiership cos they used a reasonably balanced formation and tactics (two strikers, good creativity in midfield – Malouda was briliant last season) and Man Utd weren’t good enough to beat them (they were in re-build mode after letting Ronaldo and Tevez go……surely letting Tevez go was one of the stupidest, egotistical, pig-headed momements of Ferguson’s career so far – I genuinely think Man City can still win the league from Man Utd this season – The Manc derby is coming up, and I don’t think Man Utd are really anything special – I’d be surprised if they make it to the end of the season without losing another game…..we’ll see….)
This was actually the second part of my point but I couldn’t be bothered to go into depth about each player so thank you.
Chelsea were (someone correct me?) one of the first teams to use a 3 man midfield and it often allowed Lampard to have extra space to perform in. Now that a lot of the bigger clubs (United in big games, Liverpool, Arsenal, City) are using 3 man midfields, they’re nullifying Chelsea’s central attacks.
If Chelsea bought in a flair winger, I wouldn’t see this as that big a problem. But down the right neither Anelka nor Bosingwa put in world class crosses or beat the full back with ease and it’s suffocating Chelsea’s options in attack.
Right now, Chelsea just don’t have the personnel for a 4-4-2 diamond. Sure, they’ve got a lot of energy in midfield but that number 10 is sorely missed.
Brilliant performance from Liverpool in my opinion.
On another article on this site, I mentioned that at first, I thought the sacking of Hodgson was unfair, I was wrong. Things were stale under Hodgson, Dalglish has freshened things up, and he’s got Liverpool playing very organised, disciplined, but most importantly, efficient football. I wasn’t even alive when Dalglish won the league with Blackburn, so didn’t have much of an idea about what he was like as a manager, but I assumed he’d be a bit like Maradona/Argentina for some reason, bascially just go out and attack, but from watching Liverpool under Kenny, that’s just not the case at all, however, I notice Steve Clarke is the assistant manager, how much do you think the tactics are down to him…
As for individual performances, I thought the whole Liverpool team had a good game, but I thought Lucas was fantastic today. He’s got a mention in the chalkboards, but no real mention in the general write up. He’s not the tallest, but he won loads of headers today, he won interceptions, he won tackles, he passed the ball well, and offered very good protection to the defence. Made a scapegoat by many, and a laughing stock by many also, but I personally think he’s a very underated player. Also, Martin Kelly, only made a handful of Premier League starts, he goes up against arguably the best LB in world football and he takes him out the game, fantastic performance, restricted Cole to about one attacking movement all game long, hopefully a future England international.
As for Chelsea, disappointing, everything was played in front of Liverpool, of course this is a testament to Liverpool’s impressive organisation, but the penetration from Chelsea was poor, and when they had the ball in Liverpool’s half, they rarely looked like they were actually going to threaten. I think it’s massive they get Anelka performing in this ‘Trequarsita’ role. Mikel/Essien/Lampard is a good midfield, but when you need a bit of flair/guile or a penetrating pass to open up a defence like Liverpool’s today, I don’t think them three are going to provide it, hence Anelka needs to offer more than he did today.
This is actually the second time that Kelly had a great defensive game against Chelsea’s very potent left side (he was more up against Malouda last time). I don’t understand why Kyle Walker got called up ahead of him. Granted, they’ve both done close to nothing in the PL, but why not take the kid excelling in a Europa League fight rather than the kid excelling in a relegation scrap? Not to mention, everyone at Liverpool thinks Kelly is a better than the first-choice England right back, Glen Johnson. Hopefully he’ll get his shot soon. (I should point out that I’m aware I’m a massive homer, but I do think Kelly deserved a shot above Walker.)
As a non-English Liverpool fan, I am hoping Kelly is never called up by England. The last thing a developing young player needs is to be influenced by a crap manager like Capello and more matches to wear him out. Johnson, too. He is adapting to left back and it won’t help to be put at right back again and confuse him.
Not sure Capello is a crap manager… I don’t see how Johnson going back to his natural position will confuse him as well, he can’t have forgotten it already can he?
Liverpool’s best signing/tactical move has been bringing in Steve Clarke. Who better to mastermind a win over Chelsea?
thats true, but dont forget that Steve Clarke has a good reputation thoughout the EPL, and would be a agood reference point for Dalglish to run ideas past. I think it will become a good partnership and one that Liverpool should definately look to tie down for the next few years…
Why would Liverpool’s wide defenders be naturally more attacking than Chelsea’s? Chelsea had 2v1 at center-back and Liverpool had 3v2. Is that somehow a natural result of these formations or just the way the game played out? I didn’t watch the game. Just curious.
Theres a general rule of thumb that for zonal marking you need a minimum of 3 players(to cover the space at the back)and at most 5 players in your back line. Basically the fact that liverpool played 3 at the back gave their fullbacks the peace of mind to press forward more because they know they have enough players back(3) to cover space. Chelsea played 4 at the back so their fullbacks have to worry about leaving their (2) center backs exposed with their forward runs. Also since liverpool used 3 at the back they played wingbacks rather than fullbacks so naturally their wingbacks got forward more.
Hey check this blog. For all lovers of football, tactics, or any one who wants the mysteries of football explained http://footballphilosphy.blogspot.com/
sorry mate but this websites better
Do you think that the dumb 3-center forward lineup with Torres starting was completely at Abramovich’s behest? I mean it was ridiculous to just throw Torres in the deep end like that especially with Drogba AND Anelka also playing… it seems like the typical Abramovich thing to do; buy an expensive player and shove him in the lineup at will with no regard for the consequences, or that this is a formation which epicly failed last season.
It’s been well covered that this was a total tactical disaster and I don’t think Ancelotti is a total tactical disaster kind of person. Bringing Torres ON at 60 minutes instead of OFF would have been so, so much better its inconcieveable that it went the other way around. And the random 70 minute introduction of Luiz when chasing the game was also kind of odd. It really seemed like it happened on Roman’s whim. Torres should’ve been brought on to change things up if losing or as a direct sub for Drogba/Anelka. To mess things up this bad is incomprehensible. And it was just when Chelsea were beginning to get back into some kind of rhythm.
It is kind of like 2006/07 when Mourinho had to accommodate Shevchenko, and it threw the whole Chelsea system out. The difference now is that Ancelotti also has to accommodate Anelka, so he has to box 3 strikers into a team that plainly functions best with 1 (Drogba). Until core members of the team the likes of Drogba, Lampard, Essien and Mikel move on/retire, this Chelsea XI is served best by a 4-3-3, and I’m sure Ancelotti knows that, just as Jose did when he tried that turgid ‘midfield square’ 4-2-2-2 in 06/07.
It seems a basic case of one coach putting his best players out there, regardless of how it hurts them tactically, vs a coach who made tactical choices and then filled them will the players best suited to the roles.
Pandering your formation to fit players is rarely a good idea; tough choices need to be made and feelings will be hurt, this is a grown up’s game and Ancelotti surprisingly missed that today.
Really if you thought any coach would make the player choices to fit the needs of the team it would be the very accomplished Champions league winning one, and the player hero to make the sentimental player choices and shoe horn them into a poorly designed formation.
I think this 3 at the back formation is great against teams with 2 strikers, and it can even work with 1 striker supported from deep rather than from wide, as Agger can step forward in comfort. Against a 3 man front it will become a 5vs3, which will be very negative.
I think the solution against a 3 man front is to play Lucas as a very deep holding mid who drops into the back line at times, like Busquets does, this still allows the fullbacks nearly the freedom they have as wingbacks, and still allows Gerrard and Merieles attacking intent.
“Really if you thought any coach would make the player choices to fit the needs of the team it would be the very accomplished Champions league winning one, and the player hero to make the sentimental player choices and shoe horn them into a poorly designed formation.”
1. Carlo Ancelotti, like Kenny Dalglish, played football at the highest level. Granted, he was not as good as Dalglish, but he was still an excellent player.
2. Kenny Dalglish is a VERY accomplished manager. For one, he has more league titles than Ancelotti. Dalglish has only managed in the European Cup/Champions League once and that was with Newcastle. Liverpool was banned in the late ’80s from European competition so one will never know if at this point in time Dalglish would have more European Cups than Ancelotti.
I didn’t mean to exaggerate the difference as much as it came across; yes both played at very high levels, but I was more getting at the point that Dalglish is such an inspirational figure at the club he is managing, in a way that Ancelotti is not.
As for Dalglish being an accomplished manager, that is of course a good point. Ancelotti is considered a modern leader in terms of tactical development. Ancelotti was integral in using Pirlo as a deep lying playmaker, perfected the use of a double trequartista in the 4-3-2-1 and generally getting the most out of that formation, and balancing a midfield to hold 4 playmakers (taken from the ZM article on teams of the decade).
I guess my point was just to show that:
1. Dalglish was short-changed by the media in terms of his tactical skill.
2. That Ancelotti got the formation wrong this game, although to be fair to him pressure might have been put on him by Abramovich.
Your points are well taken though.
This victory was acheived with pure tactics and although Liverpool scored a somewhat scrappy goal they got the win that Dalglish tactics deserved.
I was astounded however that Ancelotti took nearly 70 minutes to change a system that you could clearly see was not working after 10. Ancelotti has come across to me from his time at Chelsea as someone who has a bit of tactical nous but is too tentative to use it until it is too late and he would rather be a chancer who relies on a moment of good fortune or an piece of individual brilliance to win a game.
I think that system could have made more of an impact yesterday if Cole and Bosingwa has taken a risk to try and make runs in behind Johnson and Kelly which is surely the best way to provide attacking width in the diamond system? Its not as if Mikel would not be adept at dropping into the center of defense and the center backs couldnt have pushed wide.
Sitting behind the goal our lack of width was evident and alarming from the beginning. Clever tactics from Dalglish or Steve Clarke playing two athletes as wing backs, Johnson and Kelly, stopping Cole and Bosingwa getting forward. If we had played our usual 4-3-3 then Liverpool could not have played three at the back. Chelsea’s success over the past few years has been built around 4-3-3 going back to Robben and Duff either side of Drogba.
Ancelotti has a lot of thinking to do over the next few weeks.
I think Steve Clarke could turn out to be one of the best signings Liverpool make. Clearly very astute tactically and the players seem to respond to him too. I expect he is doing a lot of the good work that is showing on the field.
Chelsea were always going to suffer with lack of width and this was made worse by having a lack of creativity in centre midfield.
Anelka was poor and is not suited to that role and I am not convinced the ego’s of Torres and Drogba can work together. I imagine both Anelka and Drogba will leave in the summer.
It seems ironic that England’s first choice right back is not even the best right back at his club. Kelly has been really impressive on the right both in defence and attack since he has come in.
Although Kenny Dalglish has been out of coaching/management for many years it isn’t such a surprise that he is still up to speed with tactics and team formations.It’s common knowledge that his appetite for watching matches is insatiable.Also, he has a shrewd coach in Steve Clarke.But how come Clarke did not show very much shrewdness when he was at west Ham?Or were the players too bad?
basically two striker formation fizzed because it can be easily countered by three cbs. and speaking of Dalglish keeping in touch with time , these 2 striker formations were the fashion in 90s and 80s and during the earlier part of 21 century these fizzed out.
And I thought formations containing 3 CBs in the back was dead…
you should watch Serie A. Several sides play variants of 3-5-2, like Napoli and Palermo, and they are pretty good
you do mean Udinese by spelling “Palermo”, don’t you?
Udinese have played 3 at the back very often this season, and have done very well, so I am not sure what you mean by that comment.
Palermo plays with 4 at the back.
Formations based around playing 3 at the back are far less common than was the case a decade or two ago, but that was mostly because it is hard to do against a forward line of 3 forwards, or to a similar but slightly lesser extent, 1 striker supported by players close in behind in “the hole.”
Against 2 central strikers though, they are a great option, possibly the best option. Just to further point out the failure of Capello as England manager, what he did at the world cup in fielding 2 central strikers (even more clearly than in qualifying where it could be argued the formation was closer to a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1), played directly into the hands of the 3/5 man defense of Algeria, and his stubborn refusal to change killed off his credibility in my mind.
Like the author says though Dalglish was not even challenged to make changes as just after Ancelotti made the change to 4-3-3 Liverpool scored and were able to sit on their one goal lead for the last 20 mins with a 5-4-1. Had Ancelotti had the guts to admit he had got things wrong sooner then Dalglish may have had to come up with another idea. As it happened he was able to keep virtually the same shape throughout the whole game as Ancelotti kept things the same until it was too late. It will not always happen that the opposition will play into Dalglish’s hands so I think it is too soon to portray him or indeed Steve Clarke who’s West Ham team were awful defensively last season as tactical genius’s so to speak.
I think its unfair to say that Chelsea played into Dalglish’s hands, when Dalglish saw this Chelsea diamond formation last week and set up his team to counter it effectively.
Kenny was innovative with tactics when he was last in charge, he obviously has a good footballing brain. There is no reason he wont be as tactically innovative this time
rare winger-less game in the premier league, huh?
it’s just me or even drogba will fit better as a trequartista than anelka?
it’s very curious that cases of a striker becomes a trequartista (forlan) and the inverse (totti)
There is really daunting thinking ahead for Ancelotti. His bellowed diamond isn’t always his best friend in modern football. Aside of formation (agree with ZM), the use of players on Sunday was poor. Frank Lampard and his shooting ability too far away from goal, Anelka playing trequartista position too slow and without the needed creativity, where has been lost the energy of Essien (didn’t watch many Chelsea games this season, but in general got feeling they play too slow), Drogba and Torres usually play their best football when they are on their own in attack.
Looking further, if Ancelotti wants to play with one attacker and Lampard behind him he’ll end up with millions on the bench or on the wing, where the star strikers are ordinary players. Adding to that, Chelsea does not have one top class winger who can create magic on the flanks on regular basis – and you need them against top opposition (or against really well organized defensive five of Liverpool). Playing classic 4-4-2 would probably limit attacking threat of Essien and Lampard.
To summon it up, it’s hard to find one formation that would bring the best out of this quality bunch of players. Who did the shopping?
Regarding Torres, whatever said after the game he could become a great buy. But will super Drogba have to leave London for that to happen? Otherwise I liked the first glimpses od Luiz. He looked like a CB who can step up into midfield and make numerical advantage in center of the pitch (at least when Liverpool’s four midfileders were stretched by blue FBs).
As for Liverpool, dull but efficient. Hard work in defense and good use of players. Dalglish found the way to play Gerrard and still free Meireles for his forward runs. The reward are the goals of Meireles. Remember his intelligent runs from the world cup (chance against Brazil, goal against North Korea). Just shame for Liverpool that he plays his best football in Gerrrad’s position. Interesting to see how Dalglish will accompany this two in formation with four defenders (can’t win the league with playing 3 CBs all the time, can you?). Play Meireles/Gerrard deeper or move one of them on the wing? And there are still Suarez and Carroll questions. Play with two strikers and flat four in midfield and the freedom for those runs of centrally played Meireles/Gerrard is gone. Unless … the diamond, the not always such good friend?
Sorry for grammar and length
>(can’t win the league with playing 3 CBs all the time, can you?).
I think instead of asking whether or not you can win the league that way, you need to ask if it’s better than the alternative for Liverpool, because previously we had a shakier defense and less width in attack. Given the lack of wingers and abundance of attacking midfielders in the squad, it might make sense for a lot more games this season. The nice thing is they showed at Chelsea that they can do it without being negative.
You can go a long way in the league with a great defense and just enough skill and quality up front to win by one goal, as ManU have been proving this entire season. Perhaps Liverpool can use it to make a run deep in the Europa League!
Joe Cole can’t be very happy.
way to remember the forgotten man.
yeah, maybe chelsea should buy him back for that trequartista role. ha ha
If I were Ancelloti, I probably would have had Anelka make diagonal runs wide right and Drogba drift wide left( Drogba seems comfortable on the left), providing the width that Chelsea seemed to lack. Essien also could have acted as a ‘carillero’, to provide width on the right when Anelka decided to drift into the hole. Lampard could play more narrow on the left higher up the field than Essien, inviting Ashley Cole up the flank. and possibly letting the rest of the back four to slide over and become a back three whenever Chelsea play Ivanovic at right back. That’s actually what I thought Ancelotti would have done before seeing this article/this game, but Chelsea ended up pretty narrow.
“Johnson becoming free on the left resulted in the best chance of the first half, where Rodriguez somehow missed an open goal from inside the six yard box.”
Actually, Gerrard created the two best chances of the game (including the goal) with his forward runs and crosses. This was a part of the “fluidity” you mentioned.
Yes, but it stemmed from Johnson being free on the left :S
Certainly Johnson free on the left was involved in the move and I agree with that second factor as well as the first. It seems I quoted the wrong text.
My intention was to point out that you said Liverpool players “would venture forward and another player would drop in and hold. That kept Chelsea guessing, and … it didn’t produce anything particularly exciting in the final third”, but those runs forward did cause the two biggest chances of the game; two examples of something very exciting. The fluidity of the formation and the unpredictability of the forward runs were what ultimately got the ball in Chelsea’s net, IMO.
What does everyone think will be this years top 4?
I have to say Utd Arsenal Pool City. I really want Spurs to get there but I can’t see it.
Dude, I’m a huge Liverpool homer, and even I don’t think the top 4 is likely. It *could* happen, but we’re 6 points back of Spurs and Chelsea, having played one more game *plus* we have to play everyone else in the top 7. It’s nowhere close to likely.
With Chelsea being very inconsistent, Liverpool seemingly improving and Spurs going along steadily it will be really interesting to see who gets in. I can’t see arsenal, united or city dropping out so I think its a race for that 4th spot. Exciting and unpredictable
Excellent stuff again ZM, so thank you!
And a quick question to you Chelsea fans, how long is Yossi out for? I think he could do a very good job at the point of the diamond. He definitely has the intteligence to play that role and has a touch of flair in him.
And what about the young McEachran? I’ve seen him play only a couple of times, but he did a very decent job, especially for such a young lad. Is he someone who could play that position in the future, or is he more of a midfielder?
Top blog ZM, everyone has been blaming Liverpool for turning the oberhyped game on Sunday into a boring 0-1 but the fact is we played very well, it was an excellent performance where King Kenny got his tactics spot on.
To people discussing the top 4, I’m a Liverpool fan but think the top 4 is a step too far this year, would be delighted with a top 6 finish, good European run and strengthening again the summer. YNWA
Interesting to see the chelsea formation as 4-4-2 with a diamond. When I saw the line up I assumed it was 4-3-3 with Drogba and Anelka wider and Torres central. As a MU fan I also assumed that Mikel and Essien would both hold in front of the back four. Both of these things would have resulted in an attacking diamond of Torres – Drogba, Anelka – Lampard.
What would have happen if Chelsea had played two on each wing? I assume Liverpool would have had to switch formation to handle Kelly and Johnson getting over run.
Is a flat 4-4-2 (with wingers and over lapping full backs) the best against this Liverpool formation? Or would the old (Rafa) liverpool formation of 4-5-1 (Torres as the one) work even better? I doubt we will learn anything on the weekend against Wigan (sorry Wigan fans, I’m Warrington born and bred)
P.s. I don’t think this question as been answer yet. I’ve tried to read all the post but gave up on some replies once they went off on another topic. New to ZM.
what on earth is wrong with squad rotation. chelsea can still play their 4-3-3 rotate drogba/torres, anelka/kalou. different games different players. fergie rotates berbatov at times and his topping the scoring chart.
no need to change formation. 4-4-2 wont work whether its diamond like on sunday or flat. if it’s flat this means that chelsea doesn’t hav a quality right winger and what if malouda89left winger) gets injured.
4-5-1 wont work either same problem with the wingers.
probalby chelsea should do like liverpool 3-5-2 with a.cole and boswinga at wingbacks, luiz,terry,ivanovic centre back. mikel essien lampard in midfileld drogba,torres & kalou malouda rotate up front.
I’ve seen very little mention of Gerrard playing as the shuttler in a diamond. His stamina and dynamism are perfect for that role. Like Ancelotti’s Milan proved, narrow midfields can work as long as the fullbacks are attacking and the central midfielders are dynamic. Also, he’s not wide enough to force a cross and not deep enough to spray the long ball (he doesn’t have any wide target anyway). I’ve always said that, had he been born Brazilian, he would have been a right sided shuttler or right wingback. He gets to play a true box to box role, with a holder to cover him when caught to high up the pitch. Good stuff from Kenny, one of the few able to convince Gerrard to modify his position for the good of the team.
I just wonder how effective is Anelka going to be playing him topping the diamond. Also Ancelotti seems always favor deploying a lone striker (i.e.Christmas tree formation) with AC Milan, to play Drogba and Torres a 4-3-1-2 is more suitable. Would Ancelotti try to use Mikel in the position behind the two strikers.
this game was a rare tactical win
not a talent win or other types of win we usually see
for those who doubt anelka’s ability to play the number 10 role (why is everybody using a weird latino name for #10 here??? ^^), he played it in fenerbache, a little bit in psg too, and he actually insulted his coach and provoked a strike during last world cup because the coach didn’t want him to play behind a second striker (henry on the bench)and prefered to play gourcuff there
so he can make it in my opinion even though he’s not totti, and the main reason for his absence during this game, as well as drogba and torres’ absences is the tactical victory of dalglish (has explained you know where ^^)
he’s more of a second striker than a true number 10 midfielder, but if you watch preceding chelsea game where he was at the right of the 433 he very often went everywhere on the field to try to add dynamism and fluidity to the passing game of chelsea, a lot more than frank lampard, he actually was stepping on lampard’s role quite often…
personally i would like to see lampard play the 10 role, at least before benayoun comes back
i think he has the gesture quickness, quick thinking and movements required to do it
and playing lampard there would mean hopefully seeing mceachran on the ground
mceachran always brings fluidity and dynamism to the passing game of chelsea, which they often dramaticaly lack of
with essien and/or mikel close to him his lack of power won’t be very weakening
mceachran could do the pirlo role in this formation in my opinion, he has the personality to do it, more than mikel who has the skills but either plays simple or makes bad choices (too bad because he would be world class if he could have more personality on his passing
game)
also if chelsea want to improve quickly i think they should forget essien for a moment, he’s not in his best form and it’s affecting a lot his performances, when he used to be everywhere on the field he now is everywhere 1 second too late every time
maybe it’s time for ramirez to finally step up, even though i’m not sure the new formation is better suited for him…(can’t be really worse)