Manchester United 2-1 Chelsea: Ancelotti changes formation but still loses the tie

The starting line-ups
Goals from Javier Hernandez and Park Ji-Sung saw United progress to the semi-finals.
Sir Alex Ferguson made two changes from his first leg line-up. Nani replaced Antonio Valencia – he played on the left, with Park Ji-Sung on the right. Rafael was not fit enough to play, so John O’Shea came in at right-back.
Carlo Ancelotti chose Florent Malouda, Nicolas Anelka and Alex ahead of Yuri Zhirkov, Didier Drogba and Jose Bosingwa.
By the end of the game, Chelsea looked well beaten with only ten men – and there was only one minute in the second half when they briefly looked like causing Manchester United real problems, before Park responded immediately. The first half was much more even, however, and it was a very good tactical battle.
Ancelotti changes formation
Ancelotti decided to go with a Christmas tree formation for this match – reminiscent of the shape he used when his Milan side overcame Manchester United back in 2007/08. He used a 4-3-3 away at Old Trafford last season, and the defensive base of the side was similar here – the difference was the roles of Frank Lampard and Nicolas Anelka – their job was to put pressure on Michael Carrick and Ryan Giggs respectively, to prevent those two controlling the match, as they had in the first leg.
That side of the match worked very well in the first few minutes, in terms of Chelsea’s shape without the ball. The new system also solved their main problem in possession in the first match – the yawning gap between the midfield and attack – here, Frank Lampard and Nicolas Anelka were providing the link.
Few clear chances
Chelsea had two main problems when it came to trying to score. First, Torres simply wasn’t playing well – he’s out of form, lacking confidence and sharpness. This will undoubtedly be covered elsewhere. The second problem was slightly more complex. With Chelsea packing five bodies in the centre of the pitch, Nani and Park had to come inside to help out Giggs and Carrick, making United very narrow. That then opened up space for Ashley Cole and Branislav Ivanovic to get forward, but their delivery was extremely poor – and even then, Chelsea would have been better with Drogba trying to get on the end of crosses, rather than Torres.
That said, Anelka poked a couple of efforts narrowly wide in the opening stages. He had a free role to drift around the pitch, and whilst he provided relatively little in the way of creativity, he was more of a force in the game than Lampard. This was another shape that didn’t suit Lampard – he was used too high up the pitch, received passes with his back to goal rather than coming onto the ball, and it’s difficult to remember any meaningful contribution from him. He may even have preferred Malouda’s role, breaking from deep – the Frenchman was more of a threat with his dribbles past John O’Shea down the left, though this meant Rooney had space to wander into down Chelsea’s left.

Rooney played more passes than any other Manchester United player
United strategy
United were more patient – when they won the ball in midfield they played sideways passes, slowed the game and controlled possession. With Chelsea playing a narrow midfield three, switching play was a key part of United’s game, either allowing the wingers to take on the full-backs, or playing in the full-backs, who had no direct opponents. See Rooney and Giggs’ chalkboards, and how many long, square passes they played.
When United had the chance to counter, they did – Hernandez, Rooney, Park and Nani all had the pace to break at speed, and it seemed this would be the most likely avenue for a breakthrough. It was a goal following a set piece that got them in front, however, as Giggs passed for Hernandez’s tap-in.
Second half
Ancelotti sacrificed Torres at half time, and brought on Drogba. Chelsea were immediately more of a threat – Drogba worked the back four excellently with good lateral movement. He worked the channels nicely, was more comfortable receiving the ball with his back to goal, and Chelsea could play longer balls. His chest control and finish for the goal was exceptional (not entirely dissimilar from his crucial goal at Old Trafford last season), and it was noticeable that Essien bypassed the four players between himself and Drogba for the assist – as if he’d given up on the chance of creativity from that zone. Essien played a more attack-minded role in the second half, breaking forward to join the forwards, rather than merely holding.
By that stage, Chelsea had been reduced to ten men after Ramires’ clumsy challenge, and had also brought on Saloman Kalou for Anelka. With a man less, they played a broad, fluid 4-3-2 system that actually competed quite well considering the numerical disadvantage.
Latter stages
Chelsea were unable to put as much pressure on Carrick and Giggs, though, and United controlled the game for much of the second half. After an initial spell of pressure, Chelsea were too keen to sit back later on – they’re not used to pressing, and may not have the physical capability to do so either.

Ryan Giggs frequently switched the angle of attack, and also provided both assists
United responded immediately to Drogba’s goal with Park’s strike, and saw the game out relatively comfortably. Their shape without the ball was excellent throughout the game, and it was telling that Ferguson made just one change – Nani off and the more defensively aware Valencia on – he wanted to change as a little as possible.
Conclusion
Manchester United were well-drilled and comfortable in their system, whilst Chelsea were ramshackle and lacking any kind of creative spark. Ancelotti’s switch to a 4-3-2-1 helped Chelsea in their two main areas of weakness in the first leg – it put pressure upon United’s central midfielders, and helped them play easier forward balls. However, Chelsea continue to lack a creator.
Chelsea found success last season by brutally overpowering opponents with a combination of speed and strength, but in European knockout stages when patience and a bit of guile is needed, Ancelotti’s formula has been extremely unsuccessful. It’s strange that his side features so little creativity - at Milan he often managed to cram Andrea Pirlo, Clarence Seedorf, Manuel Rui Costa and Kaka into the same side, and there was a danger of fielding too many playmakers. Having reached three European Cup finals with Milan, he knows more than anyone else about the formula for success in Europe – but doesn’t quite know what to do with his current set of players. He reverted to his favourite shape, the Christmas tree – but it looks like his season is over before Easter.
Chelsea’s midfield could have done with a player like Giggs, who set up all three goals in the tie. United’s strategy throughout the game was fantastically simple – give the ball to the midfielders, get it out wide, then cross the ball. That strategy – or variations upon it – has worked consistently for decades for Manchester United, and in combination with their ability to counter-attack, they remain a very good side.
Chalkboards from TotalFootball
Manchester United 2-1 Chelsea: Ancelotti changes formation but still loses the tie





and thus ends Carlo’s time with Chelsea
P.S Good job on the analysis
Indeed, I’d be surprised if he’s there next season.
I don’t think he is to blame for Chelsea lacking playmakers and/or creative wingers.
But his time as a tier 1 coach is over.
“He reverted to his favourite shape, the Christmas tree – but it looks like his season is over before Easter.”
– we don’t pay you to be funny, ZM……!
Damn you beat me to it! Under all the tactical jargon there hides a writer, just waiting for such opportunities to express himself!
ZM must have waited for a long time to say this LOL
What were your thoughts on the way Chelsea dealt with Rooney? This must have been a key priority for Ancelotti, as expressed in your preview. In the first half it seemed like Essien was generally picking him up in the centre, but in the second half he was given much more freedom by Chelsea. He never really got into serious goal-scoring areas but he roamed around the pitch at will, constantly picked out great passes and kept Chelsea off the ball.
I think Rooney was the key man today. He consistently found teammates with balls to the flanks, and created havoc whenever he drifted out there himself. His cross for Hernandez’s disallowed goal (about as close as an offside call will ever be, but probably correct) was just beautiful. He was the consistent presence in the hole that Chelsea lacked, and allowed United to turn halted counterattacks into dangerous possession.
I agree, rooney is instrumental to united. He possesses that bit of class that is missing from chelsea, not only in scoring goals but in creating them. Barca have this all over the pitch, messi, iniesta, xavi, etc. madrid have it I’m ronaldo, ozil and perhaps kaka when he is playing. I don’t see it with chelsea, they depend on simply outmuscling you. This works in the epl with their refs but fails in europe where they play more football than rugby. Man city has the same issue although they hade tried to remedy it with silva.
Who is this creative players on chelsea?
Your simplistic view of the world amuses me.
I would like to know, if given a £50m cheque, who Ancelotti would have gone out and bought in January. I’d bet that it wouldn’t have been Torres. The trequartista role has long stumped Ancelotti and he’s tried everyone from Lampard to Joe Cole to Nicolas Anelka. I’m sure he would have signed someone who could provide that spark.
I don’t see Ancelotti surviving past the summer purely because he’s going to need big money to bring in the players he wants and Abramovich probably has other ideas.
A good victory for United nonetheless. I might not like the club but you can’t deny their pedigree when it comes to winning the games that matter.
Maybe Javier Pastore, someone who is totally comfortable in the hole and has real pace and penetration. He would probably cost the full $50 million but im sure he would be much more influential for Chelsea in a game like this…
I have to agree; i think this is the end for Ancelotti…
i wonder, would he have gone after kaka? Seems a perfect fit for this chelsea team, despite the fact that he has lost some pace.
Great last paragraph – found myself nodding in delight.
Giggs and Carrick seem to compliment each other well; indeed, the latter has been our best player in Europe this season.
Great job once again with the report.
Chelsea lost this one as soon as Carlo handed in the team sheet. Not starting Drogba was a mistake before the game not just in hindsight. He simply is more dangerous than the out of form Torres, and more dangerous to United. He gives Chelsea more options and is more suited to their style. But after the initial 20 or so minutes United coped well and wrested control of the game. Giggs and Carrick have done a great job in the middle once again. But just think, an out of form midfielder whom no one wants at United anymore (fans), and a 37 year old winger win the midfield battle against the likes of Lampard, Ramirez and Essien. They adjusted very well and protected the back 5. Add to that Giggs’ great attacking flair and contributions (3 assists) and he has to be the man of the tie. I was surprised at how poorly Cole and Ivanovic attacked. They defended fairly well, but going forward, by their high standards, they were shocking. And Park, once again, comes up big in an important match. Though I thought that United could have pressed CFC more when in possession before Drogba’s goal. Instead they looked only to retain the ball and did not attack Cech’s goal enough. In the end it worked and we got lucky to hit back so soon, but it could have turned up differently. A bit too casual for my taste.
CFC need changes, and need to dump a few players, Kalou (useless), Anelka (if they will change their system to accomodate Torres). They need a proper passing midfielder in the mold of Deco or Xavi. Maye Yossi can be that guy, just behind Torres playing through balls to him with two midfielders backing him up, similar to LFC?
United on the other hand look to have hit their stride and have finally started playing proper United football. With many players coming back from injury the trophies look more achievable than they just a couple of weeks back. With Park, Nani, and Valencia healthy it gives Fergie the option to use Giggs in the middle. And Carrick’s long awaited return to form has been vital and gives United a fairly solid shot at another Treble, thought there is a still long way to go.
How many passing midfielders are out there in the mold of Xavi, Pirlo or Fabregas? The only ones that are young that pop up are Luka Modric who will be quite expensive and I doubt Tottenham will release him and Fabregas won’t come to Chelsea. I wonder how many young midfield passers are out there in any league that would fit Torres. Having Yossi behind him to feed him is still only part of the equation as at Liverpool he had an AM behind him in Gerrard and a CM in Alonso. Once Alonso was sold, Liverpool fell apart. So CHELSEA will still need a passing CM even if we have a trequartista but you still need a central midfielder who can pass and I just don’t see a lot out there.
There is one in our academy in Josh, but I doubt Anceloti will start him next season.
Banega? Montolivo? Pizzaro? Some kid in Brazil or Argentina? I’m sure its not as difficult as you are it making out to be.
Yes, I was not talking about the quality of Xavi, only the type of midfielder needed, that would be impossible, there is only on Xavi. But there are a lot of quality midfielders who could help Torres be effective. And they would not need more, Essien, Ramirez, Mikel can do the dirty work and help out in attacks.
Well if playing with Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Alonso, and Silva hasn’t got Torres going with Spain, I doubt there’s much Chelsea can do.
But don’t forget, freddy, that Spain’s system doesn’t use these players’ creative passing abilities as much as it does their possession keeping abilities. It’s not so much about firing away pass after pass for Torres to latch onto, it’s more about patiently working the ball into a position that they’re happy with. I guess the best description I can think of is that all these brilliant playmakers focus more on feeding each other, whereas any other team would have them focus on feeding the strikers.
If you put any of the players you mentioned behind Torres at club level, eventually his form would start picking up.
There are plenty out there. Should have gone for Ozil in hindsight – he showed his class consistenly for 2/3 seasons in Germany and proved himself further at the World Cup.
Others?
Christian Eriksen, Ajax. Maybe too early for a club like Chelsea, but they could always sign and loan him back for two years.
Miralem Pjanic, Lyon. Again, young (21) but has played over 100 senior games.
Javier Pastore, Palermo. As above.
Juan Manuel Mata, Valencia. Like David Silva began as a winger but as he’s learned the game is often used behind the striker.
Marek Hamsik, Napoli. Established first-teamer for four seasons now. Scores goals. Couldn’t tell you if he’d be the assist man Chelsea need though (ZM might know).
Sergio Canales, Real Madrid. Mourinho unlikely to sell one of his best youngsters.
They’re all options for AM anyway. That’s just the more obvious ones.
Oh, and if Ancelotti does stay… Kaka?
(I know you were asking more about passing CMs by the way, got carried away thinking about young trequartistas.)
Riccardo Montolivio (Fiorentina)? Similar to Alberto Aquilani from what I’ve seen, but a bit less injury prone…
OK last post… Portugal have three that just sprung to mind, all capable of playing deeper that a trequartista but still great passing, creative players:
Miguel Veloso (Genoa)
Manuel Fernandes (Valencia)
Joao Moutinho (Porto)
Do you ever have a thought that you don’t immediately post on the internet?
Not all viable transfer targets (or of the same position/quality of Xavi/Cesc/Pirlo), but off the top of my head:
-Riccardo Montolivo
-Nuri Sahin
-Marek Hamsik
-Ever Banega
-Dejan Stankovic
-Thiago Alcantara
-Alberto Aquilani
-Theo Janssen
-David Pizzaro
-Andrea Pirlo (at this stage, Milan might be willing to give him up)
-Bastian Schweinsteiger
-Tom Huddlestone
-Keisuke Honda
-Gokhan Inler
The list goes on.
well done!
Ever Banega & Huddlestone in the same category…ouch! haha just kidding
Ganso would be a great pickup for chelsea as well.
“Chelsea found success last season by brutally overpowering opponents with a combination of speed and strength, but in European knockout stages when patience and a bit of guile is needed, Ancelotti’s formula has been extremely unsuccessful.”
I’m always confused by comments like this. Why does a team need to start playing with “patience” and “guile” just because the tournament is hosted by UEFA? If you’re winning football matches by “overpowering opponents with a combination of speed and strength” why would you suddenly change your style just because it’s Europe?
I always used to think this was just a cliche echoed around the mainstream media but now I see even ZM using it too.
Am I missing something here?
Because you are going up against better competion who tend to be just as fast and physical.
In the premier league you get so much space in between the lines. against european teams this gap s greatly reduced and you need a buit of guile to break those defences
But they were playing an English side here. What’s wrong with the speed and power that got them a win at Stamford Bridge now that it’s a UCL tie? Metaphorically speaking.
when we say “in the premier league”, we’re talking about the normal epl teams. Champions Cup(even in england) level teams don’t have that kind of weaknesses.
In europe they(chelsea)’re simply dealing with tactically better prepared and physically stronger and faster players; they need something more than physicality to perform better in champions cup.
And so my point remains: they managed that victory over Man U not too long ago, and they got it with speed and power. So to say that such a style fails them now against Man U does not follow.
Because you don’t have Martin Atkinson refereeing British teams? It’s not rugby.
Hey, good comment. The main reason Chelsea can’t “power” their way to victory in the Champions League is because the refereeing is completely different. All continental referees won’t let them get away with their “strong arm” tactics…..
……also, I like your Rugby phrase – I have this recurring thought/daydream where I think about taking up refereeing at a local level (we all think we can do a better job, don’t we…..), which would involve me giving hundreds of free kicks per game, with probably giving at least 4 to 5 penalties a game, until the players learned to stop hitting each other. I would develop a catchphrase which would annoy the hell out of all the players in the League, because every time I’d go to explain why I’ve given said free kick or penalty I’d say – “it’s not Rugby”…….
Truthandinsight,
I agree with you 100% about referees. Referees must follow Football rules.
No wrestling before corner kicks or free kicks.
No shirts holding. All these (wrestling and shirts holding) it must be automatic yellow card – players can’t do it by mistake. It’s all done on purpose. I would personally add this rule – move ball by 10 meters after every foul. Punishment must feet the crime. It should stop those professional files. Another rule change 2 fouls = 1 yellow card.
The excuse “I got the ball” while this player hacked the opponent should not be even considered – because hacking player is not allowed.
LMAO
steve. that is because refrees in european competitions are not tolerant of physical play they simply wont allow u to overpower ur opponents, remember that bolton striker (forgot his name) who was picked for england was yellow carded for backing into a defender something he does every week in the premier league did nt play for england again.
free proofreading
“his Milan side overcame Manchester United back in 2007/08″ should be “2006/07″
Yeah, thats what I was thinking. UTD didn’t even play milan in 07-08.
I’m sure Torres is going to get hammered today and not in a good way but I hope Chelsea keep the faith.
As a Liverpool fan the only pleasure I take in his form is it’s similar (if not worse) to how he played for us this season, showing that he probably does have a problem (and had nothing to do with not wanting to play with us anymore).
I don’t know what his problem could be? He has had injury problems in the past and played OK? He doesn’t really have an excuse for lack of Fitness or match fitness and he has looked dangerous for us in the past on one leg unable to run! Maybe it is all down to how Chelsea are setup, and not having the players to suit him. He has often looked poor when playing for Spain (although he still score from time to time!).
It’s a shame his comments when he left hurt Liverpool fans so much, I thought they were all valid and taken the wrong way, not out of context but out of spirit. I’d happily swap him for Carroll if Roman wants to off load him.
“As a Liverpool fan the only pleasure I take in his form is it’s similar (if not worse) to how he played for us this season, showing that he probably does have a problem (and had nothing to do with not wanting to play with us anymore).”
Yeah, definitely agree. When he left, everyone assumed their body-language-reading had been correct, but it’s clear there’s just something wrong with Torres. Have to say though, I’m not angry at the man, but the idea of Chelsea building their team for the future around someone who may never be a superstar again does get me a little excited.
“I’d happily swap him for Carroll if Roman wants to off load him.”
Carroll will probably never be as good as Torres once was, but Nando’s game was about 90% pace and finishing ability. The finishing will come back, I’m sure, but I don’t think the pace ever will. Without it, he’s just a good poacher, not someone to build your team around, which Carroll still might yet be.
Player for player Chelsea is every bit as talented as MUTD but this is a team game and within a team framework, the MUTD players just work better. Obviously, this has been stated before but honestly Chelsea is very talented individually.
I find it baffling that Chelsea refuses to use the entire width of the field. Everything seems force-fed down the center or off a counter-attack.
Ivanovic and Cole simply can’t provide the width. 9 out of their 11 playes operate at their best anywhere but out wide. I thought Ancelotti was smarter.
Ferguson ate him up deploying Park to free-up Giggs and Rooney. Cole had no choice but to defend. Notice the disallowed goal came from Cole’s sector as well as the 1st goal.
Who would you have played? Yes, they’re talented, but with all their best players out of form, and no one whose best attribute is his passing, there was no ideal team to play today.
Well let me see, that’s not up for me to decide, it was just an observation. Ancelotti, get’s payed large sums of pounds to figure that one out.
In all honesty I’m not familiar with Chelsea’s squad top to bottom but it was a bit optimistic to expect the two outside fullbacks to provide width.
One completely off the wall and perhaps desperate option would be to push Cole up as a wide midfield man/winger and play an extra fullback behind him.
what’s the problem ZM, you perceive with Torres? He’s a damn good buy, now passing through a rough patch. Is he trying too hard or is the bogey of 50 mn hampering him? Can he not be used as a playmaker (creating goals initially). This will give him the confidence to start shooting on his own later on.
Umm, no, he cannot be used as a playmaker. He’s a goal-poacher–granted, the best poacher in the world when on form, but he’s no second striker.
As for the problem, why can’t people accept that he’s just physically not the same player he was two years ago? Why does it have to be a mental thing? This “rough patch” has been going on since the WC started.
I’ll say reports of the death of his pace are greatly exaggerated. Nothing on the pitch suggests to me that he has lost his legs, I’ve watched him and he is still very quick. His confidence is shot, first touch is horrible, and it’s very obvious he and his team-mates are not used to each other yet. And he wasn’t playing too badly for the reds this season before he moved.
He had his moments earlier this year (against Chelsea in particular), but he was mostly awful when Hodgson was manager (understandable since Roy wanted him to be Zamora) and okay when Dalglish was manager. We Reds fans all wanted to see the bright spots, and think a return to form was just around the corner, but in retrospect he wasn’t playing much better for us than he is for Chelsea. He’s going to get better, I’m sure of that, especially as Chelsea learn how to play to his strength, but I’d be shocked if he’s ever the Nando of 08/09 again.
Because his first touch is terrible and his passing is poor.
Torres is a goal scorer and just that. Ironically, because of this he had very few options in January. He’s too one dimensional for Barca, he is ex-Atletico so no to Madrid, Milan is a graveyard for ex stars, Inter have all but gone backwards since Mourinho left, United are Liverpool’s fierce rivals and wouldn’t stump up that cash which left Chelsea and City to fight it out.
In short, he’s screwed should Chelsea bin him.
No he has been way too good of a player to be be left with no club, lets just see how he does after a long break from football in the summer yeah?
I definitely think he’ll find form next season. He just needs some meaningless friendlies against weak opposition to find his form.
But it’s hard to see where he could go that would really offer him the opportunity of trophies and the chance to shine. Of course, a lot of those teams would be interested (with probably the exception of Barca who have this snobbery about them) but whether he would fit in is another story.
I’d say his best bet is Inter but I find the Serie A to be a graveyard.
What do you think about Rooney’s play deeper in the hole? It seems to me he is setting out more as an ACM in a 4-2-3-1 than as a support striker in a 4-4-2.
Whichever he’s doing, I think United have found a worthy replacement for Paul Scholes.
‘United’s strategy throughout the game was fantastically simple – give the ball to the midfielders, get it out wide, then cross the ball.’
I can’t believe you have summed up Ferguson’s whole United career in just one sentence…
With the switch to this system, why the hell didn’t Essien play right back? Mikel is a better distributor and it was a waste of Essien’s energy to play him as the DM.
Malouda surely should have been in the Kaka/Rui Costa role instead of Lampard.
Cech
Essien-Ivano-Terry-Cole
Ramires-Mikel-Lampard
Anelka-Malouda
Drogba
Really not that complicated… and hardly different from the double winning side.
Essien isnt actually that great playing right back if his previous stint there against Utd is any indication. I remember writing on the thread for the first leg that Chelsea had to go 4-3-3 to win at OT with Drogba leading the line. After seeing this match ill stand by what i said then; Chelsea have enjoyed success against Utd at home and away using this formation and i think that may have cost them although at the end of the day Utd were too good and consistent with their football (and having a 37 year old provide assists for all their goals….amazing..)
I also believed that Utd would have played with Valencia and Park out wide to nullify the attacking threat frrom that position but SAF went with Nani which told me that he didnt fear Ivanovics threat on the overlap…
Essien played as right back during 2008/2009 Champions League final. against United..and he was awful. I remember he was frequently bullied by Cristiano Ronaldo at that time. Cristiano did not really have any trouble going past Essien.
If Ancelotti played Essien in fullback, Nani would have had a great time bro
It was the 2007/08 CL final, and Ronaldo had some joy against Essien the first 20 mins, but Essien got a measured of him and pushed him further and further back as the game went on. In fact, it was Essien’s shot from right-back that eventually led to Lampard’s equaliser.
In hindsight, playing Essien at right-back probably wouldn’t have been a bad idea.
True, and Essien was used as a RB several times during the Maurinho era. And did quite well there. Its a mark of a complete footballer, he can play in a number of positions and do it well. Essien has been poor for a year now (by his very high standards), and I doubt Chelsea would have lost anything if Mikel was in the middle instead of him, but I am sure he would have been better going forward than Ivanovic and do was well defending at RB.
I’m not too sure, but if I have to guess, I think there are only 2 reasons why Ancelotti would swap Lampard and Malouda from their usual positions.
- He probably wanted a shuttler on the left to mirror Ramires on the right, and Malouda is more comfortable on the flanks than Lampard
- He wanted more ball possession in the deeper midfield, and Malouda is a better carrier of the ball than Lampard
Lampard had 2 great goalscoring opportunities from his advanced position and United strugled to pick him up between the lines.
So I do not agreed that it was a mistake to play him there.
It could have been a different story had he scored on one of them, especially that low shot early on.
And don’t forget how Chelsea dominated the game before Ramires was sent off.
I think one of Fergie’s masterstrokes was to contain Cole by using Park on his side.
With Ivanovic’s offensive limitations, he then restrained much of Chelsea’s width and one of their most potent attacking weapons. This was even more evident as Chelsea played the narrow Christmas tree formation, depending to some degree on the fullback’s to provide width, initially giving good domination of possession in the middle of the park.
I’m surprised Benayoun didn’t get some time on the pitch. He knows Torres from their Liverpool days and possesses the creativity Lampard lacks from that position. Chelsea were clearly lacking a creative spark and it’s an issue that needs to be addressed.
I said in the preview that I would have chosen Benayoun and I still stick by it.
Considering Torres didn’t even make it to the second half, I would have (riskily) gone with a Torres-Benayoun partnership for the first 45 and replaced it with a Drogba-Lampard partnership for the second 45. A sub for Torres because he was woeful (although in theory would have had more support from Benayoun) and a sub for Benayoun because he isn’t fully fit.
Might sound ludicrous but bar 20 seconds in the second half Chelsea never looked like making the CL semis.
From a cursory look at these responses I’m surprised that it took so long for anyone to rightly surmise that Benayoun should’ve replaced Lampard in that position behind Torres.
Terrible tactical mistake by Ancelotti; but in fairness to Carlo, even when he was in Italy, he never professed to being a tactical genius.
LUCAS PIAZON TO THE RESCUE!!!
and by the time he’s good, they’re all going to be OAP’s.
I think this is the best analysis you’ve provided for ages! This site if fantastic for crystalising the things I’ve noticed but maybe didn’t think enough about. For example, I was impressed by Rooney’s range of passing, but I hadn’t realised he’d done it so frequently.
You make an interesting point about Chelsea’s lack of creativity, they look like an ageing side nowdays, and when you’re game is about athleticism and physicallity, that’s bound to be a big problem. Their 3 attacking midfielders were over 30.
Just think, all that money they spent on Torres could have been used to freshen up their squad with 2 or 3 younger players.
Park Ji-sung….I simply lost my words on this guy. He keeps running, running, and running. He links up excellently with Giggs and Hernandez on the final third. He exchanges position with Wayne Rooney very well and never stops to cover his grounds. He is a very savvy player tactically and very versatile player as well, as he could be deployed anywhere in the pitch (I bet he plays well too if he’s deployed in full back position)
To have Wayne Rooney with Park Ji-Sung -and Darren Fletcher if he’s fit- playing on the opposite side of the pitch as your opponent is indeed a nightmare for your team, because they are annoying flies always trying to disturb you when you have the possession.
Ferguson is undoubtly a genius; he seems to know how to draw the best from his players. To have 37-year-old Giggs and almost-forgotten Carrick overcome the likes of Essien, Ramires, and Lampard in midfield? Oh come on.
Ferguson is simply know how to put players in a positions that will perfectly suit his tactics and nullify his opponents’s strength. Wonder what football pundits say if he manages to get treble this season? If that truly happens, IMO this could be the worst side which ever win the treble. Manchester United simply have one of the best managers in business
Cheers to ye Old Scot!
I agree about Park. He harried Chelsea all over the park (excuse the pun) and had still had the legs to break the offside trap in the 77th minute and the composure to score.
Top player.
Satria, if “this could be the worst side which ever win the treble”, then it is also the second best side ever to win the Treble. Not bad.
Drogba, wow, what a man he is. single-handedly drag chelsea to glimmers of hope even with one man less. Imagine if only he plays like that week in week out !
Im not sad for Chelsea, despite losing this game. In fact, I’m very glad; now we have more time to rebuild and tinkered on how to fit Torres into the squad with less pressure. There’s also now more opportunity for youngsters , especially Josh, to be given a chance. 3rd in the league and CL quarterfinalists isnt too bad honestly for an aging, transitional side.
Was very, very surprised that Benayoun not only didn’t start, but didn’t have a role at all. He has to play him if he’s going to play Torres, shirley?
Chelsea has certainly been a major factor in the recent history of the UEFA Champions League. Amazingly, in the last seven years of disappointment, five of the teams who beat CFC won the CL Final, whilst the other two teams ended up losing finalists (this must give Utd hope that they will break their own German voodoo).
04 – S/F lost to Monaco (Monaco lost to Porto in Final)
05 – S/F lost to Liverpool (Liverpool beat AC Milan in Final)
06 – R16 lost to Barca (Barca beat Arsenal in Final)
07 – S/F lost to Liverpool (Liverpool lost to AC Milan in Final)
08 – F lost to Man Utd
09 – S/F lost to Barca (Barca beat Man Utd in Final)
10 – R16 lost to Inter (Inter beat Munich in Final)
Have they got their tactics wrong and/or been unlucky every year? Or have they been hurt more by (a) the lack of stability at the top and (b) the lack of change on the pitch.
(a) In the seven years, CFC has had 6 managers (Ranieri, Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Hiddink, Ancelotti).
(b) On the pitch, Terry & Lampard are the only survivors from the 2004 Monaco game who appeared in the current tie vs Man Utd. However that number increases to 4 from the 2005 vintage, 5 from 2006, 9 from 2007 and 2008, and 12 from 2009.
Tactics aside then, maybe changing the recipe to stability at the top together with more frequent turnover of players might see a change in fortune?
I think there is no doubt they were unlucky for a couple of seasons. 07 was lost on penalties, 08 was 1 penalty-kick away, and 09 were victims of pretty horrible refereeing. But this season and the last, they were simply outplayed/not good enough, and I don’t think their current crop of players will ever win the CL, which is shame, because this is a terribly talented bunch.
I definitely agree with this.
‘04 – either underestimated or were simply beaten by a better Monaco unit
‘05 – the “ghost” goal
‘06 – the first leg was lost after an unnecessary Del Horno red although Barca deserved the win
‘07 – penalties
‘08 – the final penalty kick
‘09 – Ovrebo and his 50 penalties
‘10 – just not good enough
‘11 – just not good enough
There’s a case that between ‘05 and ‘08 Chelsea had their best chance. Just like Arsenal’s best chance was ‘04. Maybe ‘09 really was the last chance saloon for Drog, Lamps and co. But the trend now is that this current crop is a mixture of not being good enough and being over the hill. The 4 ties (Inter home and away, United home and away) are far too similar in terms of how we lost to say this was a case of just having a bad day at the office.
As a Chelsea fan I’d say we won’t win the CL for another 3-4 seasons. The squad needs an overhaul but with the likes of Luiz, McEachran, Ramires, Chalobah, Sturridge, Kakuta and a few young signings, we might have a chance come the mid part of this decade.
“with the likes of Luiz, McEachran,etc”, but no mention of Torres?! Have you given up on him already?
Haha!
No, not at all. But he’s 27 already and in 3 or 4 years will be 30-31. He’ll still be at the top of his game (if he rediscovers it) but I was referring more to the blooding of younger players.
I see it as:
16 – 19 = youth
20 – 24 = starting to break into the first team and continuing to develop
25 – 32 = peak (although probably lower for FBs)
33 onwards = last chance saloon
Ryan Giggs = Not human
“Ryan Giggs = Not human”
LMAOL!
Sorry ZM, I can’t help myself.
After watching Manchester United sending Chelsea, England’s only hope of winning the Champions League in Wembley this season, crashing out of the competition, Sky Sports have just released a statement to the press.
“We aim to bring quality entertaining football to our viewers every week and special nights like yesterday should bring happiness to our great country. It was disappointing to see that team win but I am sure that with the continued support of our viewers, our talented cameramen, our professional commentators and our dear friends at the FA, we will see real English teams do well in Europe. Our country’s greats like John Terry and Ashley Cole deserve to win anything they want and we are behind our country’s icons and leaders.”
Meanwhile, the FA, seething from last night’s result have vowed that they will do anything in their power to subvert Manchester United’s bid for the treble. With traces of oil dripping from his teeth, FA chief David Bernstein has urged the country’s football fans to get behind Man City in this weekend’s FA Cup clash against their neighbours. Reportedly, there is talk of giving Man City a consolatory goal before the start of the match as a result of Tevez’s expected absence through injury.
When asked for a comment on these incidents, Alex Ferguson visibly bit his lip but declined to comment.
Barack Obama had this to say, “Let me be clear, do you mean soccer when you say football?”
(The above anecdote (and fiction) is meant for the writer’s amusement. Any comments hereafter will only add to it. Thank you.)
Dear JediRage. I loooove your comments in this side, and I deem them very funny and entertaining (I laugh hard reading your comment about Martin Atkinson’s crucial role for Chelsea).
Please keep posting!
‘With traces of oil dripping from his teeth’
Haha i am a chelsea fan, but this made me laugh
I thought your Martin Atkinson post on the other forum was hilarious…..but I didn’t really get that one, I’m afraid…..”real English teams”? – are you suggesting that Man Utd are a power in themselves which exist above and away from these other organisations like Sky Sports and the F.A.? – like I said, I didn’t get it……
……keep trying though, after ZM’s Christmas/Easter comment on this review it’s obvious we all like a bit of humour on this forum……(not too much, mind you)……
I was referring to the United hate in Britain. And the way they are being targeted by the FA and the public in general. Almost makes me believe it’s not a British team. Anyway, I care not. As an outsider it’s very funny to watch.
Thanks for the compliments though.
Nice one, fun to note that United have been picked as the most hated company in the UK, above the banks and oil companies, McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.
Its brilliant. No wonder most English United supporters constantly say United>England.
Chelsea has been so unlucky but team fought well at least there was a lot of effort in the game.
I think that Hernandez presence push Chelsea defense push few yard back and Central Giggs position make considerable effect in this tie.
Sir Alex seems like conjure some method how to deal Chelsea side using Giggs, Hernandez and Park; Rooney looks a lot more comfortable in midfield. Park, Giggs and Rooney keep swap their position make confusion furthermore Hernandez pace make clear effect on slow centerhalf.
Very good game I hope Utd meet Barca side at final.
Congrats to Manchester. Strange game, I really expected more aggression from Chelsea. I just can’t believe that they didn’t add some more efforts and try more. Manchester deserves semifinals…
http://www.worldofbasketball.org
ZM, you hardly say anything about Ramires’ role yesterday, in Chelsea’s midfield. Besides having the obvious defensive instructions to close down Nani, I actually think he was the link-man between midfield and the attack during the first half. More than Lampard, actually.
In fact, during the first half, I could swear Ramires was actually seen more times up the field than Lampard.
The thing is, he is not the kind of player able to make the last pass, and that harmed Chelsea’s game, in my opinion; he carries the ball like no other, but he somewhat failed in making the last pass for the more attacking players.
In the second half, I believe Ancelotti swapped Lampard with Ramires, hence giving Lampard the role you described.
Did I see it completely wrong?
ZM, did you recenctly write for Champions magazine? kudos son, you’re on your way to entering the club of exceptional nglish football writers who actually know a thing or two about football. it’s about time you moved abroad too! I suggest Mexico, you’ll be overwhelmed by the Lavolpista vs Lapuentista debates, 3 vs 4 vs 5 man defence & integration of foreign players. Good luck mate!
any link please?
the latest issue’s preview (#46) is on the Uefa website. i’m not sure there’s an online version
Mati, let’s not infect the rest of the world with more silly Lavolpista vs. Lapuentista debates.
Having watched both their recent club-level work, both men, Lavolpe and Lapuente are nothing more than loud talking frauds.
Interesting enough, Lavolpe recently spoke in Argentina that he’s never used a three man defense in his entire career, but that the press is too ignorant to know better. Always playing the victim.
Looking back at the games of the start of the season, when Chelsea were winning games confidently, it’s obvious that the pairing of Malouda – Drogba – Anelka, is the one that works best for them. Ok, so you’ve got Torres and whatever the reason he’s there now. Obviously you want to get him to play as good as possible, so you have to play him to get him integrated in the side. That said, this was the single most important game of the Chelsea season and to make that gamble, given that it hasn’t worked out as of yet, is baffling. Abramovich must really be piling the pressure I guess.
One more thing I noticed, watching the lineups of the games at the start of the season, is the inclusion of Mikel. Mikel isn’t really a player that stands out, and is often criticized as being superfluous but it’s fairly obvious that he gives Essien and Lampard license to play more adventurous, something that is really missing right now.
In the long run, yes, Chelsea do need new creative players, but right now making Lampard play as the player he can would have been the most important thing. Essien as a pure holding player doesn’t work since then his role has to be filled by Ramires, and he simply isn’t that kind of player, and playing Ramires as the holding player doesn’t really work either.
So basically, I don’t think the problem is that Chelsea are missing a creative player, rather they are missing a defensive one.
Ok, I’m gonna turn my feelings about Torres last night into a comment, and see what people think:
Basically, I had this feeling, when watching the game, that Torres didn’t really play that badly (I know Zm, in this review, made the point that Torres “simply wasn’t playing well – he’s out of form, lacking confidence and sharpness”), but that Chelsea’s STYLE of play and possibly the SYSTEM they used just didn’t suit Torres – the commentators were making the point that Torres wasn’t able to hold the ball up and bring his team mates in like Drogba would do (which Drogba definitely DID do when he came on), but my point is that if thats what Chelsea needed from their Centre-Forward (which is obviously the case – like I say, look at how much more effective Chelsea were after Drogba came on) then they were stupid to play Torres on the first place, meaning Ancelotti gets the complete blame for that decision.
Surely Torres as a player is much more like Hernandez – playing off the last defender, looking to get in behind with his pace and finishing, and sweeping up crosses as they come in from the sides (which Hernandez did twice, incidently). So how do Man Utd play around Hernandez? – they “give the ball to the midfielders, get it out wide, then cross the ball.” – surely thats how Chelsea need to play when they play with Torres……? – When Torres had that good season for Liverpool, he played in a system that was virtually the same as the one Man Utd used last night – a playmaking number 10 given a free-role around him (GERRARD), wingers (RIERA/KUYT/BENAYOUN/BABEL) and a solid midfield pair (ALONSO/MASCHERANO).
Sure – Torres may be out of form, but it’s Ancelotti who’s the criminal here for not playing a system/style that suits him better…….
I wonder how much Abramovich forces these kind of decisions on the coach. I mean, Ancelotti isn’t a stupid manager, he’s won two champions league titles, league titles with Chelsea and Milan, surely he knows how to set a team up.
The Torres signing reminds me of the old Championship manager days. You buy marquee signings because you think they have superpowers that will transform your team into world beaters.
Last night Torres drifted to the left wing, Anelka was deeper than Lampard, Lampard was standing somewhere between Carrick and Ferdinand and Chelsea had no player troubling the two CBs. Drogba runs the channels really well and he did so when he came on. He’s a lot better at passing, crossing and holding up the ball. Torres simply isn’t.
Every time Torres left the box I knew he wouldn’t do anything significant. So yes, Chelsea do need a creator (which they don’t have), a deep lying playmaker or two (which they don’t have), one or two quality wingers who whip crosses in (which they don’t have). So essentially, the £50m Torres signing should include an additional clause of requiring £110m more of players to support him.
Ridiculous.
I do think you’re right, mate. I do, however, think that Chelsea have the players capable of playing around Torres – they may not be the best in the world at their roles, and some of them are basically over the hill, but try this team/system out for size, and let me know what you think:
Back four – Cole, Terry, Luiz/Alex, Ivanovic
Central Midfield two – Essien and Mikel
Wide players – Malouda (wide-left), Ramires (tucked-in on right)
Central playmaker – Super Frankie Lampoon
Striker – Torrid.
– even though some of those players are not the best in the world at playing those roles (Frank, say), I still reckon that team would be very penetrative and creative. If you think that perhaps there isn’t enough creativity on the right (with Ivanovic very one dimensional, and Ramires tucking in), then you could swap Ivanovic for Bosingwa. Or, if you think there’s too much attacking from the left (Cole and Malouda getting forward a lot), then you could switch Malouda to the right (as an inverted winger) and have Ramires tuck-in on the left – with six-shooter Cole overlapping him at will…….
……what do you all reckon? – of course it means moving Anelka and Drogba on, but thats gonna happen anyway, isn’t it?
Well, I was going to address the issue about Lampard and Ramires but you seem to have already done it! God, please do not include Bosingwa in any Chelsea lineup. Defensively, he is dreadful. When I saw him on the team sheet in the first leg, I worried that Nani was going to have a field day. Yet he still managed to screw up against Giggs (albeit Giggs is probably the most consistent player the PL has ever seen).
The problem with switching both Malouda and Ramires is that you shut the space off to Lampard as the two move inwards. Ashley Cole also seems a bit more hesitant getting forward this season and his “I feel 35 when I get out of bed” is a bit worrying.
I’d definitely go with the 4-2-3-1 seeing as all top teams seem to be adopting it (Germany, Spain, Brazil to an extent, Real Madrid, Inter under Mourinho, Arsenal at times, Liverpool at their most potent under Benitez) but I still think there are key flaws in the personnel. If Lampard keeps his starting berth (and he will), then Chelsea need to get a quality deep lying playmaker alongside Essien to spray passes across the pitch and stretch the opposition. If only McEachran was 2 or 3 years older…
Either way, the team is definitely in need of one more quality player. Whatever happens, Chelsea need to bin the 4-4-2 and diamond. And Anelka.
IMO it would be a mistake to assign the central playmaker role to Lampard.It would be wrong for both him and the team.If Didier and Anelka are going, some money should be used to bring in a young-er,speedy,tricky,penetrative player who can move from he centre to wide areas and back and can play the killer pass.Lampard could stay in the centre alongside Essien (that pair hasn’t been proven entirely successful but they haven’t been used with a good playmaker ahead of them).That way Malouda and Ramires could play as inverted wingers when that is considered appropriate.Although Ramires doesn’t seem like the inverted winger type of player so you would need another signing there and then the cheques keep adding up…Then comes the question of Ivanovic.Why play Malouda on the right if you have Ivanovic at right back.He won’t be overlapping that often and his crossing isn’t threatening enough.
All in all Chelsea is a nice riddle for the new manager,although I really believe that Ancelotti should not be sacked.He must be given the opportunity to build the team of the next years
I think at chelsea Ancellotti is more of a head coach than a manager. By that I mean he gets to choose the shape and tactics but doesn’t have the final say on which players to bring in. Players are bought in by Abramovich in a sort of fantasy football type of philosophy without a thought as to how they will fit in with the team (Man City are similar imo).
I don’t think the signings of Torres or Ramires make much sense in respect to the overall team. Torres doesn’t fit Chelsea’s style and Ramires is too much like Essien which stifles creativity when they both play. Ancellotti had a lot of success in Milan playing variations of the 4-3-1-2, but in Milan he had a good mix of creative players and hard workers, Chelsea lack the creative element to play this system.
I see Torres and Ramires as both long term signings. Ramires will be about 28 when Essien is 32/33 and has lost the majority of his pace and power so it seems like a natural transition. Torres is the replacement for Drogba.
The big problem is that Torres was bought at the wrong time. If Abramovich really wanted him, he should have waited until the summer and let him get his head down in meaningless friendlies and get away from the media glare. Instead, he was thrown in at the business end of the season with a huge price tag. Likewise, Ramires probably wasn’t needed for another 2 seasons but he definitely has some potential and his performance against Scotland last month was really good.
I also agree that Ancelotti is more involved with tactics than personnel. In this respect, the rumours about Hiddink coming in as a director would be great if they came true. Abramovich clearly buys based on flavour of the month whereas Hiddink has been there, done that and got the world class CV to show for his efforts.
ZM i have to query your assessment of Fat Frank.
Yes the game doesn’t suit him so much – but he can’t shape United’s tactics.
United are weak straight up the guts as RAM showed. That’s why Lord Ferg has frequently got 2 guys sitting deep, and eventually in the first half he had Park and Nani tucked in as well to shore up the leaks. That doesn’t leave FF any room to move much.
Lord Ferg invites you to attack wider – but of course Chelsea don’t have anyone who can deliver a decent cross. And anyway – those crosses just feed United’s transition game.
Drogba showed how you get at them via the wider channel.
Indeed Robben would have a field day against that set up.
But it is hard to see how it is Lampards fault, or even Carlo’s fault that Chelsea have no decent wingers at all.
Replace Anelka with a genuine right forward like Mueller and IMO that game looks very very different.
Wrote a long analysis yesterday, but then my computer decided to shut down for no reason just as I was basically finished.
To cut short what I said.
Chelsea were crying out for some creativity. Ramires-Essien-Lampard is a hard working trio that can be effective, but last night Chelsea needed a bit of guile to open up United, and those three never looked like providing it.
As for United, Carrick is possibly the most underated player in the world, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration. He’s positionally very good, makes interceptions, and he’s very composed on the ball, you can’t ask for much more.
And lastly, Rooney was fantastic in both legs, but Chelsea didn’t help themselves in how they dealt with him, and I think this a tactical fault by Ancelotti. Did he not realise how effective Rooney was in the first leg in how he dropped off? More to the point did he not realise Essien wasn’t picking him up at all effectively? Same thing happened last night, Rooney dropped deep at will, and then had plenty of time to dictate the play with his passing, which last night, was absolutely immense.
Can see a United v Madrid final. Sir Alex v Jose, Ronaldo back against United, what an occasion that will be!
I have to say i thought Fergie had got this one wrong for most of the first half, Chelsea were having a lot of joy down the left and right, Nani and Park were not getting anywhere near close enough to Ivanovic and Cole, who had great opportunities to cross.
Also, Nani had a tendency to pull inside when United were attacking down the left, seemingly letting Evra go on the overlap. It really didn’t work and it was no surprise that United seemed to have most of their joy down the right in the first half.
Once united scored, however, their tails were up and the OT crowd is always excellent on big CL nights like this, and keep the team motivated on their toes.
Also, Ryan Giggs. As F365 put it this morning ‘the superlatives ran out a long time ago’, couldn’t agree more. He is one of the games greats and only for his unfortunate nationality, surely would go down as the best footballer of his generation (whichever generation that is)
So you think Giggs is better than Zidane,Romario,Ronaldo,Messi,Xavi,Iniesta etc don’t be silly mate.
Giggs is a true great, not only because of his talent but also for his longevity. Best of his generation? No, he wouldn’t even make the all time Man utd 11. Ronaldo and Best are both more talented wingers and Charlton, Keane, Scholes and Robson all better central midfielders.
Giggs is so good I’d play him at Left-Back (I was gonna joke and say I’d play him in goal – but then the Left-Back idea came to me).
WIDTH! Chelsea have one winger. (And the one they have, Malouda, for me doesn’t make the grade.) Therefore Chelsea are too narrow and without this width, find it hard to damage teams high up the pitch. Forget about your TQ’s Chelsea, buy 2 wingers.
Ferguson has clearly got his tactics for Premier League teams sorted out. It does no good to have space on the wings when there’s no room to play in the middle, and United had good size, bar Evra, in the back as well, so the crosses in were going to be low percentage. Manchester City and Arsenal will see the same thing in next two weeks.
Chelsea don’t have great pace anywhere and they don’t have a clever passer. They were forced to hope United would come up the pitch and give them some space to play. Given they had an away goal, United weren’t ever going to do that.
One good idea from above is that refereeing in UEFA games is less tolerant of the Premier League’s just-about-any-contact-goes style. Giggs wasn’t going to be overrun in the middle when the referee isn’t “letting them play.” Ferguson could afford to use his better technical players. Chelsea, needing to chase the tie, had no similar option.
No one talks about how settled United’s squad is. The only new player is Hernandez and he has been used patiently and has a role that’s not complicated anyway. Smalling is new but has had a much smaller role. United don’t have to do anything special in England at this point so the only test will be Barcelona – Schalke can be beaten – who have the talent and form to play anyone. This is actually a problem for United, because a match like their last against FCB will diminish their domestic season, fair or not.
Just watched the replay – Carrick was sublime
That’s ralely thinking out of the box. Thanks!
Experimentation with formations and tinkering can be very useful at times..
Ancelotti is the last to blame for this year’s Chelsea..
Last year’s Chelsea was sensational : attack-minded football and bringing the best out of everyone.. Had they experienced also a different draw in the CL, they would have been at least in the semis (only Inter and Barcelona were better..)
It was clear over the course of the year that some key players are past their prime..
Maybe last year was their last part of their great career..
do you people think that chelsea made a big mistake on letting Deco and not bringing any proven creative midfielder? Despite not playing that often last season, he clearly brought a different talent to this chelsea team.