Chelsea 2-1 Tottenham: late Kalou goal sees Chelsea remain in title hunt
The starting line-ups
Chelsea turned the game around after bringing on players more suited to their system.
Carlo Ancelotti started with Fernando Torres and Didier Drogba, assisted by Florent Malouda. The natural shape with the XI that started seemed to be a diamond midfield, or possibly even a lopsided 4-4-2, but Ancelotti had other plans.
Harry Redknapp played Vedran Corluka at left-back, and Younes Kaboul at right-back. Sandro started in midfield, and Roman Pavlyuchenko upfront. Again, it seemed the usual 4-4-1-1 for Spurs, but Redknapp changed the system.
The overriding theme in this game was a lack of creativity and invention in the final third of the pitch. That may seem a strange thing to say – after all, there were three goals in this game – but none of them owed much to creativity. Sandro’s opener was a blast from distance, and Chelsea’s goals owed both to luck and errors. This was an entertaining game, but not one blessed with great technical quality.
Chelsea shape
There was some tactical interest in the way both sides shaped up, as we had two surprise formations on show. Ancelotti opted for a 4-3-3 / 4-3-2-1 hybrid, similar to the system he favoured in some of Chelsea’s crucial league games at this stage last year – at Old Trafford, for example. This suited the midfield three and Florent Malouda, but not Drogba. He was forced to play a wide-right role (though Torres sometimes switched with him in the first half) that he was completely uncomfortable in.
The way Drogba received the ball and the passes he played were very much the style of a central striker being shoved out wide, and Chelsea’s build-up play was slow, predictable and uninspiring. Drogba’s passing chalkboard shows how wayward his distribution was from the right side of the pitch.
Tottenham shape
Harry Redknapp also changed his formation for this match. He dropped Rafael van der Vaart deeper alongside Luka Modric, who played to the right, and asked Sandro to play deeper, between the lines. Indeed, Sandro’s belting strike was met only with Redknapp instructions for him to sit deeper and not go forward. It seemed harsh but was fair in the context of the game – Sandro was playing too high up and letting Malouda scamper between the lines.
It seems that Redknapp may have been expecting a diamond and instructed Sandro to pick up Lampard pre-game, but upon realising Chelsea were playing with a midfield three, needed to tell Sandro to mark space, not a man.
Two interesting formations then, but not a particularly interesting battle between the two. 4-1-4-1 v 4-3-3 – the two holding players were ‘free’ and swept up in front of the defence, whilst both sides also had a spare man at the back.
Tottenham approach
We’re used to seeing Spurs attack quickly and directly, particularly down the flanks. In this game, however, there was a different strategy on show. Spurs’ passing was short, sideways and there was a large focus upon ball retention.Van der Vaart was very deep and barely linked up with Pavlyuchenko at all, whilst Gareth Bale was keener than usual to play passes backwards and sideways. In fact, neither of those two played many successful passes in genuinely dangerous positions.
Bale was up against Branislav Ivanovic, a converted centre-back who played Bale with lots of physical power. He stuck tight to the Welshman, got tackles in quickly – and wasn’t afraid to bring Bale down either. At one point he looked like he was in danger of a second yellow (he committed four fouls on Bale), but in all he handled his man well.
Aaron Lennon, on the other side, barely featured in attacking moves – but he is good defensively and tracked Ashley Cole well.
Spurs’ main problem was the extent to which Pavlyuchenko was isolated. Again, he hardly ever linked up with another player in the final third, and his only contribution around the box was to shoot waywardly. That was partially simply poor play, but also because he had no support, and often no-one to pass to. With Mikel essentially a ‘free’ player, the Russian was often in 1 v 3 situations.
Chelsea attacking play
Having started with Drogba completely out of position, Chelsea looked better when they brought on players who were actually comfortable in the roles they were meant to play in. If we’re talking players who can play as wideish attackers in a 4-3-3 / 4-3-2-1, Saloman Kalou and Nicolas Anelka are far, far better options than Drogba. It’s unthinkable that a manager as Ancelotti would willingly choose Drogba over Kalou and Anelka in that role – compared the passing chalkboards of those two players with Drogba’s above.
The introduction of those two (and Ramires, who provided his usual energetic runs) gave Chelsea more quick, exciting attacking play. Kalou’s late goal came after a couple of slightly fortunate ricochets, but there was movement and penetration in the move, players dragging opponents out of position, and others exploiting the space. In tactical terms, that was how Chelsea grew into the game.
Shooting
Did the game come down to luck? Possibly – refereeing decisions can be scrutinized elsewhere – but it’s worth pointing out that when one side records ten shots on target and the other records just one, any fortunate goals are much more likely to be awarded to the former.
Conclusion
Each side used a ‘free’ holding player and a spare man at the back, so it’s not entirely surprising that there wasn’t great quality in the final third.
It was also because neither side used their natural shape with players in their natural positions – which is arguably what picking a starting XI comes down to.
Chelsea 2-1 Tottenham: late Kalou goal sees Chelsea remain in title hunt
It’s a fucking disgrace!
Mikel is becoming a very good player to have at the bottom of our midfield, his passing was excellent and is being a lot more productive
he wasn’t under a lot of pressure today but 73 out of 78 is very good, won 9/10 tackles too.
If Carlo keeps altering the formation/players I’ll shave his eyebrow off.
Chelsea had 8 shots on target yet I distinctly only remember Gomes making 2 saves?
I can count about 5 shots (2 goals, drogba hit the bar, drogba shot from range and Essien header from corner) and i only watched the first half
Does hitting the bar count as on target? Surely hitting the target is defined by it potentially being a goal scoring opportunity stopped by an opposing player, and if I’m being pedantic Essien’s header was going over anyway.
I would say the goal itself counts as a target, and so hitting the bar counts as on target.
My reason for this is for ZM to base a conclusion on a statistic such as shots on targets is unusually poor. Shots on target is a pretty useless stat as we all know that the team with the most shots on target don’t always win, this is disproved on an almost weekly basis, and that it tells us nothing about the quality of shots.
Don’t get me wrong I’m a huge fan of ZM and his fantastic work and he normally always only uses relevant stats to underpin a point. But I can’t help but feel that the conclusion for this article was some what rushed, probably to gloss over the real defining stat of the match, the number of refereeing mistakes. I realise this is a tactics blog and should remain about tactics and nobody more than my self, being a qualified referee, likes to moan about referees but the number of mistakes that were made by all 3 referees for both sides was pretty shocking. If Spurs had come in at 1-0 at half time the second half would have been far more engaging and Ancelotti and Redknapp’s tactics from the bench have been far more interesting. As it was the opening 20 minutes remained much a similar pattern, Spurs having plenty of possession where as Chelsea looked more potent but looked fluidity in the final third. The real major difference was the fresh legs and willing running of Ramires adding two mid field runners for Spurs to track and moving Drogba more central.
I think you’re putting a little too much emphasis on what was really a minor point. My take is that all Michael meant is that a team who has more shots on target is more likely to be rewarded with a fluke goal or, in this case, erroneous decision. Nothing more.
There’s lies, damn lies and then statistics.
Whilst statistics never really paint a true picture of the play, ZM’s point is that the team which shoots more is more likely to create goal scoring chances and thus will get the rub of the green.
Spurs were pretty poor going forward and whilst everyone up and down the country will bemoan that officiating performance, Redknapp’s men never placed themselves in a position (i.e. in the final third) to get luck from terrible officiating.
But I do agree about stats not being a good indicator of performance. Barca had 71% possession midweek but rarely put Casillas under pressure.
I think you’re taking it a bit too seriously, to be honest. I think it was a relevant stat. One side had ten shots on target, the other had one.
“Shots on target is a pretty useless stat as we all know that the team with the most shots on target don’t always win”
Well yeah, but that’s just neither here nor there. And a shot that hits the bar isn’t on target.
Hitting the bar is not counted as a shot on target. It doesn’t require the opposing team to do anything to prevent a goal.
I thought Gomes got the faintest of touches on it to tip it onto the bar.
Surely it works off the assumption that had Gomes not touched the ball, it would have dipped just under the bar. Hence…shot on target.
great to see gareth bale running the show, really justifying his player of the year award
Gareth Bale? IMO he’s having a bad game. The chalkboard shows that he only managed to deliver two crossess throughout the whole game. IMO we’ve seen better performances from Bale.
BTW Sandro’s goal celebration is LOL
Sandro : Hey Boss! I scored a fantastic goal!!!! Did you see that?
Redknapp : Goddammit Sandro. what are you doin’ lad? I told you to sit right in front of the back four, not to push forward and score goal.
Sandro: ………..
(after the match)
Sandro : Gareth, are you really planning to change shirt next season?
Bale : I still don’t know, mate. Why’s that?
Sandro : Take me with you.
Bale : Huh? Why?
Sandro : I am the next Yaya Toure; I could actually score goals and the Gaffer just does not see my true potential.
*somewhere in Manchester, another Brazillian teammate named Anderson laughed at Sandro’s situation, “Welcome to my life, mate”
hey no offense but pretty sure he means it in a sarcastic way. cheers.
Hahahahaha don’t realize that. My bad
Spurs’ main weakness throughout the season was highlighted in this game – a real lack of creativity in the final third from their strikers. None of their forwards have the ability to link up play or hold up the ball and their movement tends to be very poor. Spurs have scored less goals in the PL than all of the top 4 and Liverpool and they’ve scored the same number as West Brom.
Most matches Spurs are hoping that Lennon, Bale or VdV will deliver something special otherwise they’ll struggle.
Also I don’t understand Redknapp’s insistence on playing 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 every game. Especially this match where Assou-Ekotto was injured. Why not play Bale at left back, have a midfield three of Sandro, Modric and VdV, put Lennon and Pienaar just behind Pav and tell the full backs to bomb forward? Admittedly Spurs dont have a false nine but a 4-1-2-2-1 would suit them quite well and stop Spurs being a predictable team to play against.
I know the focus here is not on the individuals, but Tottenham needs to improve the squad a lot next season, there are too many similar midfielders (and none like Modric) and, besides Ekotto, the fullbacks are all slow and terrible. I know Kaboul is a centreback, but Corluka on the right is bad enough. and if Pav wants to play elsewhere, Harry should let him go. though I know that without CL it will be difficult to buy the kind of players the Spurs are lacking, they’ll need a miracle to get into the CL again with this same squad.
ps: Kaboul was dispossessed (?) every single time he had the ball in the 2nd half.
For me Spurs lack a world class striker and need either cover or a new left back, Assou Ekotto on his day is pretty good but similar to Gomes he lacks the concentration to play at the top level. We have Kyle Walker, who’s playing well at Villa, and Kyle Naughton, who made the championship team of the year playing for Leicester so the position at right back should be interesting next season . So for me Hutton should go, Corluka is a much more solid option and links really with Lennon as well as can cover at centre back.
Pav and Keane should go to try and fund a decent striker. Crouch works tirelessly but just does not have the pace and Defoe does not have the size and Pav could be class if he wasn’t so lazy. For me we should also cut our losses with Woodgate, similar to Hargreaves at Man U they could be world class but they have just become a drain on resources by being so injury prone.
Mostly agree. Spurs are continually lacking quality finishing. Dzeko would be perfect — to my thinking — he would fit in at Spurs for exactly the same reason that he’s not working at City. City uses inverted wingers who cut inside themselves rather than focus on delivery and Spurs have great delivery but no one to finish. Dzeko would be a more potent version of what Crouch currently offers.
VdV or Kranjcar (this is why we need him to stay) at the top of a midfield three (alternate Palacios, Sandro, Modric, and Huddlestone behind for good squad rotation).
At the back they need a quality RIGHT back. BAE is getting better, Gallas/Dawson/Kaboul in center but we should also get a 4th quality backup — Bassong is too unreliable. I would prefer Hutton over Corluka at RB as a backup. Hutton is a good attacking back and could be a tactical switch in the right situation. Corluka is just mediocre all-around.
Hutton?!? He’s atrocious. At least Corluka is solid defensively and links well with Lennon. Besides, what’s the point of having an attacking/overlapping RB when there’s a right-footed winger ahead of him? It’s redundant and makes poor use of space. Plus, Hutton isn’t even good in attack- having pace(and nothing else) doesn’t = good(or even decent)…
I thought the problem with Chelsea is Essien; his passing is sllooww..
Not to dismiss using Drogba and Torres together, they only have one week to test the formation for this game after all . But they need to alternate more because it is too predictable. Drogba sometimes looks good when drop deeper rather than wide-ish right and Torres is very helpful in chasing back defensively. Oh, and also need some clever playmaker; I scream inside myself when there’s a gap to be exploited and no Chelsea player move in- between the line, ugh, Malouda especially could’ve done more on this .
Oh, Anelka can be annoying; his movement and pass for the second goal is terrific but more often than not, he doesnt make that kind of movement when he can…makes you wonder really..
Lastly, Chelsea could do with perhaps Anelka/Ramires instead of Malouda/Essien in this formation. I do hope we stick with the tried and tested 4-3-3 against United though; not a good time to be experimental.
I actually thought Torres movement was excellent and he created space a good few times in between the two center backs. The problem was that the Chelsea players are still adapting to his movement and thus are often sending the ball the wrong way instead of putting him clean through which he could have been on a number of occasions. I also thought Drogbas movement was good even though his link up play was not up to his usual standards and Malouda provided a genuine threat linking up with Cole on the left.
Comparing with the recent game though, you can see that Malouda-Cole link-up is considerably low. Infact, i think in the early part of the game, Chelsea frequently try to penetrate thru right; probably to test Drogba’s new role more.
I still think Malouda had a dissappointing game as he is the one most likely to link-up with Torres and didn’t do that too well; …comparing to when Chelsea take out Torres, his passing and Chelsea’s overall is more slick and allow for a fast tempo play.
I thought they linked up a lot better than they have done in recent weeks. I also thought the swap of Ramires for Essien helped and Essien’s distribution was woeful.
Essien has been really poor for us this year. I was also very critical of Ramires and Ancelotti for playing him in the middle of the pitch where he gets dispossessed easily because of his size. He has adapted pretty well to life on the right. Malouda can be infuriating at times with his selfishness. When he’s not attacking he’s useless.
I would also have to say I completely disagree with ZM about Lennon’s defending I thought Cole was allowed pretty much a free reign down the left and was not dealt with at all well.
Beyond the obvious ridiculous refereeing and Gomes hilarity, this game really illustrated the importance of Benoit Assou-Ekotto.
His absence essentially sent a cascade of problems through the lineup with Corluka playing on his weak side and Kaboul crowding Lennon as Glen Johnson often did for England.
It’s astounding how underrated BAE is by his own supporters. He probably touches the ball as much as anyone on the team with the exception of Modric. His passing range is excellent and his vision is wonderful for a fullback.
This is a game where Tottenham really needed to just put Crouch on and shoot some prayers into the box, but they really couldn’t do that because Kaboul doesn’t have a good early delivery and Corluka was playing on his weak side where he couldn’t do it.
Tottenham do not really have a “system,” but they are usually fast moving and fluid or reliant on long balls, 80% of which probably come from Assou-Ekotto. The one thing they AREN’T is a team that dominates possession, plays slowly, and plays through their opponent. I mean if those of you who watch the team a lot really think about it, Assou-Ekotto is almost as important to their attack as Luka Modric. He always seems to be a huge part of their build up and he creates a lot of goals.
The one encouraging thing about this game was Sandro continuing to develop into an absolute monstrous beast. Aside from his (probably lucky
) thunderbolt, he was the best player on the field by a pretty good margin IMO.
You’re right on Assou-Ekotto, I’ve always wondered why he gets so much stick from people. He’s an excellent all-round left-back, and I don’t see him making many mistakes.
Well, he had a shocking game against Blackpool I remember. I think he’s similar to Clichy, a bit slower but makes fewer mistakes (but still, more than the likes of Evra) and better at crossing. Then again I think Clichy is the worst player in Arsenal’s starting eleven so I can see where the criticism comes from…
Completely, 100% agree with everything you just said. I’ve never understood why BAE gets so much criticism. IMO he’s excellent both defensively and in attack. Very underrated player. Then again, the people who don’t rate BAE are usually the same ones who think Hutton is preferable to Corluka at RB…
Agree about Assou-Ekotto. Wenger should buy him.
i would only say modric for utd . yesterday he was tied up on the left because VDV was preferred to play the linking role had modric been in that then he would had been more effective . another thing is that sandro seems to go for gaining possession rather than just dispossessing the opposition player if he just keeps it simple he would be much more effective . i think had harry bought jenas earlier then things would had been different .
Modric wasn’t on the left. Actually, he was closer to the right, playing centrally(but to the right of VdV) in 4-1-4-1. Sandro? He was fantastic. Have no idea what you’re saying- you say he “gains possession” but should stick to “dispossessing”?!?
Surprised Ancelotti took such a gamble after the Malouda-Drogba-Kalou triumvirate had worked so well. Torres definitely looked sharper but I’d put him on from the 60 minute mark to play off the last defender who may lose concentration and energy.
Kalou seems to be…reinvigorated. I don’t know whether he’s fresher than the other attackers or because he’s fed up of the lack of opportunities these past few months and playing with a point to prove but he seems to be one of Chelsea’s best players in the last few games.
As for Spurs, I do feel sorry for them. I thought Sandro played the holding role very well and in general Spurs ran their luck and were poor in the final third but Redknapp can argue that they deserved a point. Redknapp will probably end this season wondering what could be but at times their attackers simply haven’t looked ‘European class’ (i.e. breaking down the opposition in tight games) and their defence seems to have an issue with keeping goals out. Last season, didn’t they only keep 1 clean sheet in the first 25/26 games? Redknapp surely needs to strengthen that area.
I would say this game could potentially bring Chelsea back in the title race but I genuinely don’t see us going to OT and picking up three points; particularly if Ancelotti gets obsessed with placing his 11 best players on the pitch. If it weren’t for the referee, we’d be waking up this morning bemoaning his decision to play both Torres and Drogba.
This is certainly Kalou’s best year in Chelsea shirt.
I’m sure Carlo would stick with Drogba alone upfront though with Torres benched. That is if he ever learn from our CL game against Manure.
At some point Kalou has to want more time on the pitch. With Sturridge coming back he’d be set to battle even more for that time. Drogba/Torres/Malouda/Kalou/Sturridge are my preferred attacking players for next year. I’d prefer Torres out wide to the right with Sturridge and Kalou to come on and run at tired defenders.
lucky goals
a little off topic but did anyone see David Luiz’s positioning? I thought it was absolutely terrible. On some occasions, he was lucky that he was able to foul the player and prevent the break, and John Terry’s yellow card was pretty much David Luiz’s fault
To me, Tottenham’s shape was still more of a 4-4-1-1, but on attack it looked very much like an 4-4-2 diamond, albeit unbalanced in the forward portion. Bale played way up the pitch, trying to hit at Ivanovic and Luiz, though as the match progressed was less inclined in that regard. On attack VDV was always pushing.
Tottenham’s midfield was pretty fluid, with guys switching positions without much regard. I think your point about the out-of-position Chelsea players made the Chelsea midfield that much more organized and strict in their alignment. When on retreat, it was almost always Essien-Mikel-Lampard.
Hello! kdakade interesting kdakade site!