Valencia 1-1 Chelsea: Chelsea let the lead slip
The starting line-ups
An open game ended with a point apiece.
Unai Emery used the same outfield XI he fielded against Barca having rotated at the weekend, although there was a change in goal – Diego Alves came in.
Andre Villas-Boas went with the usual 4-3-3 – Florent Malouda started on the left, and Juan Mata drifted in from the right, with Frank Lampard restored to the midfield.
This was fairly evenly-balanced – Valencia were better in possession, but Chelsea probably had the better chances. Emery marginally got the better of the tactical battle in the first half, but a draw was a good reflection of the balance of play.
First half
A nervous start in the opening minutes for Valencia suggested that Chelsea would dominate early on, but after around ten minutes, Valencia settled down and started passing the ball nicely.
They had the better of the opening period, dominating possession and cleverly finding gaps between the lines, constructing some good passing moves. With Chelsea standing off the Valencia centre-backs and sitting in their own half, those gaps owed a lot to the nature of Chelsea’s formation.
Valencia attacking routes
Valencia had two main approaches. The first was similar to the first half against Valencia – they worked their left-hand side, and used Jordi Alba and Jeremy Mathieu in tandem to stretch Chelsea. Mata, surprisingly starting on the right, played a little too narrow and also switched off when Valencia got Alba forward. Therefore, Jose Bosingwa was overloaded, and Mathieu was intelligent with his movement, coming inside to drag Bosingwa in, opening up space for Alba going forward.
The second involved Pablo Hernandez. With the midfields matched 3 v 3 and clear battles taking place, Hernandez took advantage of Frank Lampard being Chelsea’s furthest-forward midfielder, coming inside and acting almost as a ’second number ten’, along with Canales, who was usually watched by Jon Obi Mikel. Ashley Cole didn’t want to come too far into the middle, and Chelsea were surprisingly open between the lines, especially when Mikel got dragged to the right (which was partly because of the aforementioned Alba-Mathieu development).
Chelsea started well but increasingly sat back. They pushed their full-backs relatively high up the pitch, with Mikel sometimes dropping into the back. Malouda stayed wide, Mata came inside, but Chelsea’s best moments often came from Ramires bursting forward. It was peculiar that Villas-Boas played Mata on the right, considering Valencia’s threat down the left against Barcelona.
Second half
It didn’t happen straight away, but early in the second half, Chelsea switched Mata and Malouda. This was one of the key factors in the game – Mata was more comfortable on the left, less defensively-restricted, and able to come inside and influence the play from the centre of the pitch. Chelsea were more positive on the ball, far more effective in the final third and had numerous good opportunities. Malouda created the goal from his new right-sided position after simply dribbling past Alba on the outside.
The game had become more open, though, with Valencia rotating their midfield trio even more to try and get in behind Chelsea. Emery was the one who wanted the win, but he might have been better off keeping the status quo from the first half – the openness played into Chelsea’s hands.
Enery made three attack-minded changes, but their main threat came from simple balls over the top – as has been evident earlier on in this campaign, Villas-Boas wants his side to play high up the pitch, and the centre-backs don’t seem to have the pace to turn and sprint to balls played in behind. Valencia had four chances through a chip over the defence.
The new manager’s influence was clear as Chelsea tried to control the tempo of the game by keeping the ball, but errors in possession demonstrated that they’re still not used to this style of football. Valencia won the ball in midfield and constructed quick breaks down the flanks, with Pablo Piatti (on down the left) a major source of creativity. Sofiane Feghouli also had an impact, on for Hernandez – he worked both channels to provide overlaps when the ball was in midfield. On the balance of play their goal was not harsh on Chelsea, but the home side (literally) needed a helping hand – they still struggled to thread balls through for chances in open play.
Villas-Boas wasn’t quite sure how to use his bench, and his substitutions didn’t help close the game out. Kalou on for Lampard (regardless of the handball) hardly seems a move to shut out Valencia – Malouda moved into the centre and more gaps appeared for Valencia. Youngster Oriol Romeu, a holding midfielder who can keep the ball and break up play, would have been a more obvious option.
Conclusion
A game of various phases. Chelsea dominated at the beginning of both halves, but Valencia looked stronger for the majority of the game – their passing was quicker, though they did lack a final ball.
Managerial changes in the second half influenced the outcome – Emery pushing Valencia forward left his side a little prone to quick Chelsea attacks, but then Villas-Boas’ substitutions didn’t address Chelsea’s weakness at the back, and the continued high line was a real problem.
ZM is watching Bilbao’s next two games in Spain – back with weekend analysis on Monday
Valencia 1-1 Chelsea: Chelsea let the lead slip
ZM, you have a typo in the second point (Valencia attacking routes), you have “Valencia had two main approaches. The first was similar to the first half against Valencia [...]” it should say Barcelona instead of Valencia.
cheers
avb got the subs very wrong in the second half. if chelsea are sitting back and playing long-balls, then you want drogba on to win the aeriel battles and hold it up – that’s not anelka’s game
and then kalou on for lampard? kalou isn’t a player who can keep possession and run the clock down.
shame that the game was ultimately decided by the penalty the ref gave valencia and the ones he didn’t give chelsea, but by now most chelsea fans accept that’s how champions league decisions go
“shame that the game was ultimately decided by the penalty the ref gave valencia and the ones he didn’t give chelsea”
Shame you had to come here to whinge about the referee – a decidedly non-tactical matter, as well as one where people’s biases can cause them to come to different conclusions.
keeping the ball up is actually what anelka is good at, when they were attacking relentlessy down the flanks after banega was substituted, kalou was suppose to help bosingwa and anelka was to hold the ball up, he also almost scored with help from kalou, a silly handball aside, the subs did their job
Thanks ZM. So the draw is a fair result?
ZM can you explain why Mata plays more on the left than the right? I know your reasoning for him struggling on the right today was due to defensive duties but he nearly always plays on the left for chelsea. Surely his attributes are suited to him starting on the right and drifting in, David Silva-style? I know its hardly a hugely important point, just wondering seeing as inverted wingers are in fashion at the moment
Just because it is a fashion, does not mean it is the right thing to do. It depends on the players you have, and on the opposition.
Barcelona started the “fashion” but I remember last year that they didn’t play inverted wide players.
I couldn’t see the sense of playing Mata on the right – he has played so well for Chelsea on the left and drifting into the middle. But Chelsea don’t have a right-winger – Anelka is probably the best there, but he is a striker. Kalou is useless. Sturridge is a striker too. I think this will be Boas’ next buy.
It’s a personal thing and I’m barely good enough for Sunday leagues, but I’m right-footed and feel more comfortable cutting in from the right side, it’s easier for me to hit the ’sweet spot’ of goal from the right edge of the box. Maybe Mata is similar.
Things you have to think about are:
-Does the player use pace to dribble or quick cuts and turns?
-Does the player prefer to pass from the middle to a side or from a side to the middle? ie. through balls, a Xavi-esque ball behind the full-back or a Messi-esque ball from the wing to the middle?
-Where is the player’s favourite shooting position?
-How does the player like to interact with his supporting full-back?
-Crossing?
etc.
Some players are better on their strong sides, Sanchez is a fantastic right-forward, he never plays on the left despite being right-footed.
Great stuff Michael as usual.
I’m slightly cocnerned about the Valencia play in the final third this season. There seems to be so much focus on retaining control in central area’s and shifting it patiently, that the flash runs and inctricate passes from last season have taken a back seat.
With Juan Mata gone it will obviously become harder because of the way he can play between the lines, and laying Piatti there will be difficult as IMO he lacks a tactical train of thought right now which may take some time for him to fully understand. Pablo took his time doing so and Soldado this side of the game could be applied.
I thought Canales offered much to be postive about this evening too. he dropped deep adeptly and began to start attacks rather than play that final ball – that of course takes something away from the last quarter of the field though with him not there.
Mainly I’m just pleased to see the reaction following the opener. Too many times I’ve seen Valencia lose focus after conceding and/or not gaining a lead when they have been in the ascendancy.
Totally agree about Canales,I thought he was really effective all the way through. It would be brilliant if he did well this season after last year’s disappointment, though a future at Real Madrid could be beyond him.
I think André Villas-Boas substitutions were more based on squad rotation and not so much to counter certain issues Chelsea were having. He must of thought that Chelsea would manage to at least hold the lead.
I don’t see why at 1-0 up at a difficult venue AVB would be particular interested in “squad rotation.” Bringing on Kalou was a definite mistake, as ZM mentioned, Oriol Romeu was the better option.
kalou (for the penalty) did not make a tactical mistake. AVB put on kalou for more of an attacking threat on the counter. Kalou even created a 1 on 1 for Anelka, later on after the penalty incident. Yes Romeu would have kept the ball better and is a holding midfielder, but our manager is the kind who tends to go with the vision that Attack is the best form of Defence. So no questions asked. We just got unlucky because Kalou lost his head for a while there
Valencia pressed very well after they went behind which put pressure on Chelsea’s possesion. Also thought that David Luiz dealt with balls over the top far better than John Terry and think this is worth a mention. Also I thought that David Luiz composure and positioning was a big positive Chelsea can take from this game and I’m surprised you did not mention this. Also thought Valencia’s switches to the flanks were good and maybe Emery took this idea from the way Utd played against Chelsea? Also Chelsea’s quick transitions from defence to attack and vice versa are getting more impressive game by game. I can see Ramires getting a hatfull this season if his finishing continues to improve as he gets himself into some great positions.
saying valencia pressed well at any time in the game is being kind. They pressed better than chelsea for sure. The reason they dictated possesion is because chelsea let them, by sitting off. David Luiz is very eratic and too eager to win the ball at times and showed again today with a couple of needless unexperienced fouls. I agree ramires gets into great positions because of his fantastic work rate. Unfortunately thats his only asset, if his technical skills matched his work rate he’d get double figures.
Agree about the ref. Thought he was totally awful and these extra officials are an absolute waste of time.
You’re right. He was frightfully bad.
1. you “agree about the ref” with who? ZM didn’t mention the ref.
2. Chelsea fan?
You and me had an alarmingly similar write up on this. Mine’s here http://lankyguyblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/valencia-1-1-chelsea-valencia-respond.html
One thing I do disagree about is that I thought AVB’s substitutions were perfectly acceptable and well thought out. Possibly could have brought Drogba on to allow a more direct option and put Anelka out on the right but overall I thought he did well.
“Valencia had two main approaches. The first was similar to the first half against Valencia” – Barcelona*
I just noticed someone already said that, woops.
Although scoring the only goal for chelsea, lampard should not be playing. At this point i’d rather have anyone else playing in midfield. Him and malouda are just so wasteful in possession it’s appalling at times.
if your gunna go on ball retention, then surely lampard would start over ramires? And Mceachran would be starting.
Possession stats for Chelsea midfielders so far in the EPL:
Lampard 86% passes completed with 2 assists
Mata 85% with 1 goal and 1 assist
Ramires 83% with 2 goals and 1 assist
Meireles 81% with 2 assists
Malouda 75% with 1 goal and 1 assist
McEachran 100% — has only attempted 6 passes; therefore, not a valuable statistic
Statistics cannot match actually watching the games. For pass rates, it depends on where the passes are going, and how quick or slow they happen. A great passer of the ball will attempt more forward, riskier passes. An average player will just pass it square and backwards. Not that this is a bad thing – just trying to say, statistics don’t tell the whole story.
well thats wrong, a good passer is a player who make the right pass at the time, whether its a sideways pass to keep possession or a killer pass to help create a goal. Just because someone trys risker passes doesnt make him a better player. Look at xavi, he hardly makes killer passes (low assists every season) but is a brilliant passer. Then look at ganzo at the copa america, allways looked for killer passes and lost possession.
concur with kane prior here that the statement “An average player will just pass it square and backwards” is way off base.
Agreed, it’s also good to remember that corners and free kicks are factored in (I remember ZM mentioning that Charlie Adam generally had a lower pass completion rate than you would expect because he took all the set pieces for Blackpool). While corners and freekicks aren’t incredibly frequent occurences, they happen enough to alter statistics (unless you’re Barcelona and take all your corners short anyway).
Looking forward to the analysis’ on Bilbao over the weekend. I was looking forward to them with Marcelo Bielsa as there manager, hopefully they’ll get better.
Possession numbers doesn’t matter. So many think it does because of the success of Barcelona and the Spanish national team.
Unless possession is used to create chances, it is rather useless — unless a team wants to possess its way to 0-0 results. Barcelona possess the ball very well, but they are always looking to create a chance with possession.
The question should not be whether player A or player B can help keep possession better; the question needs to be who helps the team possess the ball in order to create chances.
As has been discussed here and demonstrated elsewhere on numerous occasions, the assertion
“Unless possession is used to create chances, it is rather useless”
is incorrect. Possession can be defensive as well as offensive, because as long as you are in possession the other team is not, so they cannot score.
That was implied by the second part of the sentence, which you left out.
Since you like saying obvious things, here’s another one: the point of soccer is to score more goals than the other team.
Look, if I knew you were going to get snarky, I could have criticized how you don’t seem to be able to match a plural subject with the correct verb form.
I thought you were wrong to say possession stats don’t matter.
Let’s say one scores off a set piece, or a counter attack, or a penalty, and then uses possession as a defensive tactic. They won the game, and it was because (a) they took their chance, and (b) they held onto the ball so that their opponents could not make any chances. There. Possession matters.
Have to disagree with you and many others on this – a point missed by in fact many otherwise good commentators as well.
Having loads of possession, as Jonathan Wilson (of The Guardian) wrote in an excellent piece during the last world cup, is both an attacking and defensive tool at the same time. Even if you’re not scoring 5 goals a game like Barca, having long spells of possession helps prevents the opponent from scoring simply because they have to have the ball to score. Eg. lSpain in the last world cup – won majority of their games by 1-0, but being composed of diminutive players tiki-taka and heavy pressing when out of possession kept opponent’s chances to a minimum (for instance take the semi final against Germany – they were outplayed completely by possession – a team I thought would knock Spain out eventually )…
This is also likely the same reason why teams like barca do not hit crosses from corners etc, which baffles many people too..
yes. Although you do not have to dominate possession in order to win a game, there is many benefits. Think of it as the more possession you have the more time you have to unlock the opponents defence. The difference could be 10 minutes to attack a team in a game to 70 minutes!
Ramirez was playing so high that i thought they were playing 4-1-4-1. Valencia were finding a space between the lines because it was only Mikel that was covering that area. Against weaker teams it is justifyable for Ramirez to play that high, but against stronger teams i suggest he plays on the same line as Mikel to reduce the space between the lines.
With Mata and Bosingwa on the right they were always going to struggle on that side, knowing Valancia’s strength along that wing.
The Chelsea subs were strange, I could sort of understand the Anelka one as they were probably looking to hit on the break and would have better use of Anelka’s pace than Drogba’s hold-up play. But the Lampard – Kalou one really was odd. AVB probably didn’t have too many options on the bench but he could have brought on Ivanovic and pushed Luiz up into midfield solving both problems of having a defensive sub in the midfield and having a better defensive player in Ivanovic playing Center back. But maybe he felt it was too late (83 mins) in the game to introduce a new CB into the fray?
Has Luiz ever played defensive midfield for Chelsea? I know people keep saying that he’s capable of doing it but if he has no history of doing it a manager would be very unlikely to decide to shove him into a new position just to protect a lead… Obviously he has qualities that could be useful in midfield, but it’s been discussed before that the qualities that you possess in one position don’t neccessarily translate into a different position. See D. Alves’ relative lack of quality when starting at right midfield, despite the fact that he looks so much like a midfielder when he plays at right back. It’s more than ball skills, and amount of attacking nous relative to the other people playing your position. Your starting position, and how comfortable you are with the field in front of you, rather than 1/2 of it behind you (the difference between center defense and central midfield), help determine this.
Forgot to mention, great analysis as usual Michael/ZM!
That’s a great question! I do believe I have memory of him starting his earlier games for Chelsea in midfield. Although I now that I think about it wouldn’t bet on it just being wishful thinking. He has played there for previous clubs though for sure. He definitely is a little reckless for a CB at present but looks a decent talent for the future. Back on the point I agree that if he hasn’t played there earlier then it would be a gamble, but Kalou? C’mon! That’s worse than a gamble.
Although when you think of Kalou’s failings, handling in the box usually isn’t one of them. Although it surprised me mainly because AVB seemed to have written him off (subbed him off 30mins it against Stoke sans injury) and hasn’t played him since…
I agree that all the Chelsea substitutions were questionable.
Anelka replacing Torres didn’t change much. Torres was still playing OK and he;s suspended for the weekend, so might as well let him run.
Meireles for Ramires seemed to weaken Chelsea. Valencia dominated possession after this – perhaps because Mikel and Meireles between them sat back too much so there was little scope to work the ball forward and relieve the pressure.
I would have left Lampard on rather than replace him with a forward. Favouring Kalou over Drogba is a strange substitution. With 7 minutes to go and hanging on, Drogba is the man to collect clearances and hold possession. He is also much better than Kalou (and most other Chelsea players) at defending high balls into the penalty area – I can’t imagine him handling under pressure. Surely AVB is aware of this despite Drogba being unavailable for a few games.
I agree. I think Meireles for Lampard would probably have been a better choice, leaving Ramirez on the field to continue on his driving runs on counters.
Drogba for Lampard (if that’s what you were suggesting) later in the game would probably have unbalanced the side a bit, no? Leaving a midfield of Mikel, Meireles and Malouda to fend off waves of Valencia attacks.
As mentioned in the main article Romeu was on the bench, would have been a good way to strengthen midfield without playing anyone out of possesion
Great stuff from you, man. I?ve read your stuff before and you?re just too awesome. I love what you?ve got here, love what you?re saying and the way you say it. Peace y?all!
Valencia – Very good preformance from valencia, who i thought might struggle having lost mata. But they look very good, Banega makes them play, his passing and decision making is really good. But i do think they need a new partner for him, as albeda looks a bit worn to partner him, and cant cover the space banega leaves behind him. I think they should look at getting a younger energetic CM to cover for banega’s lack of an engine. Unless they do, and im just not thinking of a player like that in there squad, any ideas? i also think miguel was the weak link in defense, malouda and then mata had the beating of him, and it looks like he is too slow to play against top wingers.
Chelsea – Terry just hasnt looked comfortable in chelsea’s defense this season, i would be worrying about him just as much lampard, though with tery, just playing a deep defense means you would have a very good penalty box defender. But with a high line, he just doesnt have enough pace, or the even the quickness in his turning, and is beat with simple balls over the top. Davuid luiz played really well i thought, considering this. Chelsea also didnt use the fullbacks enough, espicially cole, as hernandez didnt track back, and he could have really exploited valancia down the left. Lampard still doesnt suit his position despite the goal, he needed to be the link man, and play higher up the pitch and create moves. But he didnt do this and lacks the ability to do it. I do think the rest of the team was good, ramires really impressed me (having a very good season so far) and torress, mata and malouda looked a dangerous unit.
you can’t blame terry for villas-boas playing a high line – thus exploiting his own players weaknesses. Terry performances are as good as they’ve ever been, and theres a myth going around that he’s going downhill. Same as Lampard, their performances are like they’ve always been – consistent.
He cant just play to terrys strength and just ignore the team, the rest of the team seem to benefit from a pressing game with a high line. His performances arnt as good as they have ever been, he never used to get caught out like he does now, and his challanges seem a bit more desperate the last few seasons, rather than calm and calculated like they were at his prime.
Lampard does a get a bit of stick unfairly, mentally he is one the best around still, and it looks like he still one of the fittest players around. I just think he is losing the energy he once had to run all over the pitch, and this effects his defensive side of the game, as he doesnt press well, when the team enphasis is on pressing. And ability wise i dont think he was ever really special, his technique isnt great, he cant dribble well (an underrated ability that CM’s need, Xavi is one of the best dribblers around) and most importantly he never had the sort of creatvity that chelsea need from there midfield (Mata has it, but playing him out wide, restricts his control over the game, or if he come inside, loses the team width and penetration.
1. chelsea don’t play a high pressing game. They have a high line definitely but they certainly dont press high up the pitch to get it back immediately.
2. Lampard scoring 3 yesterday says enough about his energy levels to get in the box.
3. CM’s don’t need to dribble! Xavi rarely ever takes more than 2 touches!
4. Lampard’s technique isn’t great? He probably has the best technique in the world for striking a football from long range, hence being a one-off central midfielder player who hits double figures consistently every season.
5. Agree chelsea have been missing creativity as lampard isn’t the most creative player, and agree mata isn’t being played in the best position and should be playing in the hole.
Your 4th point is wrong, at least in the EPL.
Frank Lampard scored 10 goals last season in the EPL. All but one were scored from inside the penalty area — six from open play and four from the penalty spot.
The prior year, he scored 21 goals. All but one were scored from inside the penalty area — twelve from open play and and nine from the penalty spot.
In fact, almost all of his goals were within a five yard radius of the penalty spot.
1. Chelsea do press, not Barcelona standards, but they press well, ramires and lampard are expected to press quite alot, while mikel/meireles hold position. If they didnt press they would be torn apart by giving too much time to the opposition CM’s to play balls over the top, but this only happens occasionally.
2. I have to admit Lampard had a good game yesterday, even taking away his goals, i thought he got into excellent positions in the hole, and his pressing was good actually. But i dont think he can keep up the same level throughout the season anymore, he will have good games if he isnt played every game, depends how smart villas boas plays it. And you have to take into account this was against (in my opinion) the worst team in Premiership right now form wise.
3.Xavi is excellent at dribbling, he brings the ball forward a lot in games, as does iniesta, both are excellent dribblers and can quickly get past players without needing pace. Lampard doesnt have pace but never picked up this ability to dribble well, which is useful for top teams, when they need to break down teams. Think of xavi for the first goal in the champions league final, and also over great CM like zidane, Gerrard, even xabi alonso had great close control, Lampard lacks this close control.
4 As the aaron as stated, lampard doesnt actually get a lot of long range shots, and when he used to i remember them taking a lot of deflections ha. It not his technique but rather his timing of runs and finishing which are excellent (mostly mental, so he wont lose that). But he does have bad technique for one of the top players around (obviously he has great technique compared to most footballers) But at the top level, his technique isnt up to scratch. Not completely neccesary for a footballer to succeed, but it does become important when you get older and cant rely on your physical abilities as much. Scholes and Giggs kept going because they have excellent technique, especially scholes.
Villas Boas is building a new team, but he’s got the sense not to just drop Terry and Lampard and loose all that experience and leadership. Look at the way Man U have used Scholes and Giggs the last few years…
But I’m sure he is working towards a team that’ll have Luiz and Ivanovic either side of Romeu (in the Busquets deep lying pivot position) which gives plenty of pace to cover the high line he plays with, and the attacking fullbacks.
I think Mata is turning into a bit of a defensive liability. Obviously, he’s got huge amounts of skill going forward, but consistently is lax at the under end. Against Manchester United, it was his lack of concentration that resulted in Nani’s goal, and again yesterday he was found wanting on several occasions.
Great analysis ZM!
ZM is watching Bilbao’s next two games in Spain – back with weekend analysis on Monday…YES!!!!
Great news if confirmed, especially with this awesome display againt PSG !
I would like to see Chelsea switch to 4-2-3-1 in the bigger matches as I think that would make the best use of Mata in an attacking sense and also alleviate him of defensive responsibility in deeper positions. Also would prefer one of Lampard, Ramires plus more of a passer/creator alongside them such as Mereiles or McCeachran. The only problem with this is there where then do you fit Mikel in who really has to play in these big games! I don’t see the 4-3-3 being a problem against weaker opposition but it gives Mata responsibility to support his full back which I don’t think he is best suited too against high quality wide players/Full Backs.
ZM, thanks for another informative write-up, and enjoy Espana. I look forward to hearing about Bielsa’s Bilbao.
Surprised that ZM covered this match among so many in 2 days.. Another excellent work ZM… keep it up..
BTW, did anyone watch Madrid’s first goal ? Wow!!! Haven’t seen anything like that for some time.. involving 4 players.. absolutely stunning.. they look much better with Kaka instead of Di Maria who keeps diving..
Best chelsea line up:
Czech
Bosingwa Luiz Alex Cole
Ramires Mikel Mata
Anelka Drogba Malouda/Sturridge
Terry is too slow and will cost chelsea in big games, he is only good when protecting a lead. Lampard lacks the ability to dribble or play a killer pass, and is past his best, Mata needs to be played centrally, he is wasted on the wings. Anelka is a key player for chelsea is lethal himself (excellent runs and finish) but also can play great passes (pass for torres). Drogba is still chelsea’s best Striker, holds up the ball excellently and is a great threat in the air.
Completely disagree.
1. One of the problems with Mata is that he’s somewhat positionally undisciplined, not too great defensively, etc. Not to say that Lampard is much better (Ramirers is very overlooked for this fact), but years of playing box-to-box for England and in a midfield 3 for the club, has taught him to be, at the very least, adequate with those larger responsibilities. Mata is perfect where he is: one the wing, cutting in, using his Spanish-patented dribbling to beat defenders.
2. Drogba is the antithesis of the vertical passing game that Villas Boas wants to accomplish.
1. Mata played centrally for valancia all of last season. And if anything his lack of defensive responsibilty means he should be played in the middle. Out on the wing he has to track the fullback (most good teams play attacking fullbacks), but if he was played centrally, with mikel and ramires behind him, then he wouldnt have to do much defensive work, because even if the other team were playing a midfield three, that third midfielder would be a holding player, not getting foward.
2. I think drogba can be played with a passing game. He has fantastic technique. The only advantage torres has over drogba is pace and timing of runs. Drogba is much better in the air, both are similar finishers, and drogba has by far the better build-up play. If a team really wants to play a passing game, then all the players playing should be able to pass, drogba can do this (high assist record for last few seasons) torres is just a finisher of moves. Plus it gives the team a good option if the passing game isnt working. Then have either anelka and sturridge make inside runs when drogba drops deep to help build up play OR get the ball to anelka and malouda out wide to cross in for drogba.
How has Canales been this season? I haven’t seen him play yet, and I really thought he would have a break-out year.
Canales was excellent in the game n I think will develop into a quality false nine / second stiker in few seasons…
Separately good analysis ZM..!
hi, good job as usual.
You should watch Paris St Germain – Lyon (sunday night). The 2 best teams in France for the moment.
I think you’re giving Valencia too much credit, Mathieu wasted lots of balls when they were on attack, Canales was marked well & didn’t inspire & Valencia were so vulnerable in defence. The only reason why Valencia passed the ball well & had good chances was because of Chelsea’s ill discipline.
On another day, where Chelsea plays a strong attacking game for the whole match, they will get past Valencia.
I know is off topic, but I m coaching a 13-14 years old team and i wanna make them play the Inter 4-2-1-2-1 under Mourinho(I have the new Sneijder),beacuse I belive that team had it all, team spirit,central axe Cesar-Lucio-Sneijder-Milito,quality and hard working.Can you tell me what do you think about their style of play,defensive phase, transition between def-attack, attacking phase.Will help me improve my knowleges about the sistem.
P.S.I wanna find all of you opinion so feel free to e mail me JPMCALCIO@YAHOO.COM
My advice to you would be to buy a DVD of that Inter team so you can watch them whenever you want. After you do that, get out of coaching immediately because you aren’t in it for the right reasons.
As long as he’s not diddling kids I’m sure his reasons are fine.
Wrong — youth players are not there for a coach to play “Football Manager” with. That he wants to have 13 year olds play a specialized 4-2-1-2-1 formation based on a European champion instead of coaching the players according to their inherent strengths is evidence that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Either he should scrap that ridiculous plan of his or he should do what I prescribed above.
I completely agree. At that age you don’t even need proper positions, just try to get their passing, anticipation and vision as good as possible!
Great analysis (as usual) ZM!
I find it blatantly disgusting that ZM can abandon this website at a whim every few days without writing an article or at the very least allowing another individual to offer an insight.
Why? It’s my website – I make no promises about the content I will put up, nor do I charge for viewing it.
You’re kidding I hope james…I think we all want more articles but we’re not exactly paying Michael for any of this content, are we?
http://opitacoboleiristico.wordpress.com/
Brazillian football and tactics about Europe.