Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal: Chelsea’s high line ripped to shreds in amazingly open game
The starting line-ups
Chelsea had a clear weakness coming into the game – their defence plays high up the pitch and are prone to pace in behind – and Arsenal exploited it to great effect.
Andre Villas-Boas brought Branislav Ivanovic into the side for David Luiz, who was poor at QPR. Jon Obi Mikel played rather than Raul Meireles in the holding role – the rest of the side was as expected.
Arsene Wenger continued with Johan Djourou at right-back and Thomas Vermaelen was fit only for the bench.
This was a game with plenty of chances and some terrible defending – Arsenal were better at exploiting the weaknesses of their opponent.
Change in roles
The most interesting feature of the game was the difference in pattern from the usual matches between these two. For the last two or three seasons, the storyline was predictable: Arsenal dominated possession and Chelsea sat back, then played on the break (and often won).
Here, the roles were reversed. Chelsea had the majority of the ball, Arsenal were more direct. Wenger admitted in his pre-game interview that Chelsea had ‘a little more creativity’ than his side due to the presence of Juan Mata, which would have been unthinkable at any point over the last few years. Villas-Boas has clearly changed how Chelsea play.
High line
That brings us to the second point, and the key factor in the scoreline – Chelsea’s high defensive line, which ZM looked at in midweek.
This was always going to be a problem – Arsenal exploited this continually throughout the match, and whilst it wasn’t responsible for all five goals, Arsenal could have had five goals based solely upon knocking the ball in behind and using the pace of Theo Walcott and/or Gervinho. The Ivorian’s first half miss at 0-0, for example, was shocking.
It was a a continual problem – the first goal came with Gervinho slipping through unchecked, Walcott’s came when he had space to exploit by bursting through. Individual mistakes contributed to the second goal (Daniel Sturridge not tracking Andre Santos) and the fourth (Florent Malouda’s poor pass and John Terry’s stumble), whilst Villas-Boas wrote off the fifth one, saying that his side were pushing forward to get a fourth game and therefore were always going to concede space at the back, a plausible explanation.
Still, it can’t be refuted that the majority of Arsenal’s chances came by exploiting space in behind, and working a one-on-one with Petr Cech. There is, really, no further analysis needed of such an obvious issue in the match, and something that was covered in great depth in midweek.
Chelsea movement
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Chelsea created a lot themselves – in addition to the three goals, they wasted other chances – particularly at 0-0. It would appear that Villas-Boas knew the threat of Arsenal’s pace from their wingers, but rather than deciding to defend deeper (more on why he didn’t do that later), he instead tried to aggressively push Gervinho and Walcott back.
A key feature of the matches between these two in recent years has been Ashley Cole tearing past Arsenal’s right-winger to stretch the play and provide crosses. It happened twice in the first five minutes – Djourou looked lost at full-back, Walcott switched off and two Cole cut-backs were intercepted by Arsenal centre-backs.
There was a further subtlety to pushing the full-backs forward, though – Jon Obi Mikel often dropped into the defence to form a back three, allowing the full-backs higher up. To as not to lose the 3 v 3 in midfield, Juan Mata moved inside. On the other wing, Daniel Sturridge moved higher up and got in behind Arsenal – Andre Santos’ positioning is very suspect, and Sturridge had two good chances. Santos was also at fault for Frank Lampard’s goal, being beaten too easily by Mata when the Spaniard moved to that flank. In fact, it’s difficult to say that any of the full-backs got the better of their respective winger – the Arsenal full-backs were poor positionally, Chelsea’s were outpaced.
The midfield battle wasn’t particularly crucial in getting the upper hand. As already mentioned, Chelsea had more possession but lost the game.
Progression of the game
How did the game change over time? From 0-0 to 2-3, not much. Part of the reason for the openness was the relentless speed at which the game was played – only when Arsenal were ahead (and even then only in brief spells) did Aaron Ramsey and Mikel Arteta put their foot on the ball and try and control the tempo. The rest of play was frantic, direct and goal-hungry.
The situation did change at 2-3, though – the longest the game remained at any particular scoreline. Villas-Boas made three positive substitutions and Chelsea moved the ball a little quicker. How much did the changes actually impact the match? Looking purely at the way the goals went in, hugely: Chelsea got back in it, yet made themselves susceptible to Arsenal breaks.
Yet in reality, Chelsea didn’t create much at 2-3 until Mata’s long-range effort – and Arsenal only scored their crucial fourth due to an individual mistake, at a time when removing Walcott for Tomas Rosicky looked like they may have lost their attacking thrust and consigned them to getting men behind the ball. Amongst all the tactical problems and substitutions, Malouda’s misplaced pass was crucial.
Conclusion
Arsenal’s defensive problems are still evident. They conceded three goals and this is still an issue that must be addressed. But they won, and they won intelligently. Pace was going to be a factor, they played direct football and created plenty of excellent openings, enough to win any game of football.
This is potentially a very important win for Arsenal, because of the nature of the goals they’ve scored. So far this season there hasn’t been the obvious, logical move towards a more direct style of football that should come when you go from being based around passers like Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri, to quick wide forwards like Walcott and Gervinho.
Too often in 2010/11, even when they have won, Arsenal have built up play too slowly and been rescued by van Persie. This is surely the answer – a cohesive, quick style of play that suits all their forwards. A return to more of a tiki-taka approach in the next game would be a disappointment (although of course, most sides will play much more negatively against them, and it may not be possible to be so counter-attacking).
Villas-Boas will defend his high line. On the basis of this game, it’s a ludicrous decision. But consider his long-term goal at Chelsea – to bring in a more positive, proactive, aggressive style of football – and he’ll argue, with some justification, that such an overarching change in ideology is not compatible with suddenly switching to a more defensive mindset for a one-off occasion. Chelsea have suffered from short-termism in recent years and lacked finesse. Villas-Boas wants to give them more of an identity, and for that he should be praised.
That said, one has to question whether the individuals in his backline can cope with this strategy. A side cannot be so amazingly prone to one particular approach that it’s possible to accurately identify where they’ll lose in the days before the game. Villas-Boas has a great vision for Chelsea, but he can’t be blind to his players’ failings.
Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal: Chelsea’s high line ripped to shreds in amazingly open game
Can i be the first person to say this.
WOW
AVB should either drop his pressing and high line tactics or drop his defence
what pressing?
Fat Frank don’t press! He’s in his own glory days world
Chelsea are clearly going to need to make changes to play this style. Roman wants to have the more offensive style so that’s the way Chelsea will play. The defenders need to be quicker and we need real wingers not converted strikers. This is going to be a transitional year. Too many players can’t play the slow deliberate style and too many others can’t handle the more pressing style. Next 2 transfer windows should be cracking. It was never going to be easy and we have to trust in AVB but in the meanwhile he needs to manage our existing players slightly different.
Fair summary, that.
quick players don’t solve the problems with a high line, as its not a straight foot race – the defender has to turn right around before he can start sprinting – by then its too late.
I think the real area Chelsea are lacking is in central midfield. To play the way AVB wants to play, you need a certain type of player (for example Modric) in midfield. At the moment, none of Chelsea’s midfield players (except for Mata) could be described as ‘playmakers’. The likes of Lampard and Meireles aren’t really the type of players who could fit into a ‘Barcelona-esque’ system, and it is this lack of balance in their squad that makes me think they won’t win anything this season.
Also, about the match, I take your point ZM about Villas-Boas wanting to stick to his principles, but surely for a game like this he should have altered his style of play to ensure victory? (after all, this is what Arsene Wenger gets slated for, ie not changing how Arsenal play in big matches when it appears obvious he should do so)
Chelsea are now 9 points behind Man City, and also level on points with Tottenham. I really admire Villas-Boas as a manager, but I think he got it wrong in this one.
“surely for a game like this he should have altered his style of play to ensure victory?”
Fuck that shit. People are wrong to slate Wenger for it, and would also be wrong to slate AVB. (1) Football is a game played for entertainment. I appreciate defense and tactical skill, but I really don’t go for the “we should play like Greece at the Euros because it fractionally increases our chance of winning” argument because (a) it ruins the game as a spectacle and (b) I like a team that sticks to its ideals. (2) In fact, sticking to your style while making minor tactical adjustments has proven to be successful for the best team in the world at both the professional and international levels, and they style they both play similar to AVB is trying to do. (3) Chelsea could easily have won that game, and in the first 15 minutes I was sure hey were going to. AVB can’t go on the field and finish for his men, but they really should have done better Torres missed a gilt opportunity, and Cole’s two passes into the middle on the break both should have been converted.
It has to be quite satisfying to have posted the Chelsea article earlier this week and then have the game play out like this (regardless of the final score of the game, Chelsea could still have won by taking their chances), a somewhat understated but fully justified “I told you so.” I wonder if AVB wishes he would have selected Luiz today; form issues aside, bringing Ivanovic in meant that they had even less pace at the back.
Do you think Wenger will have been satisfied with the tradeoff he’s made at left back? Santos had a pretty free reign to get forward at Fenerbahce (where his predecessor was none other than Roberto Carlos) and seems to have continued that type of play, but leaves Arsenal short at the back on occasion. Clichy always had pace and was a decent defender, but was often criticized going forward, esp. with regard to his crossing. If the future for Arsenal is as you say in a more direct style, do you think Wenger consciously bought a more attacking fullback with that in mind? Particularly with the natural width now offered Gervinho and Walcott, it would seem that Arsenal has less of a need for the fullbacks to get as involved, in contrast to Chelsea’s narrowness of the past few years, where Cole/Bosingwa etc. were necessary for width.
Personally I’ve never been a huge fan of Santos. I think he’s suspect positionally, and when he does do something ‘good’ defensively, he’s often steaming into an unnecessary tackle where he’ll put his team in trouble if it goes wrong. He attacks with power but not much guile – well-taken goal but then he was responsible for giving the ball away for the Mata goal.
Clichy went downhill massively and was time for a change. Would have looked to Enrique or Baines though, myself.
“Arsenal’s defensive problems are still evident.” But centre-back looks better, it’s the out-of-position centre-back on the right, and the out-of-position pie-eater on the left who just look individually inadequate for their jobs.
“a more direct style of football that should come …. to quick wide forwards like Walcott…”: about bloody time, they’ve wasted his pace for several seasons. The only chap who knew how to release him was the preposterous Bendtner. If they are going to use Walcott correctly at last they’ll force opposition defences back and so make room for the likes of Arteta to operate.
“out-of-position pie-eater on the left”
Ok, I’ll admit this wasn’t his best game, and as ZM points out, his positioning is a bit suspect in general. But he’s a Brazil international who scored a goal in the London derby, and you’re some mope sitting in front of a computer insinuating that a professional athlete is out of shape. How about some perspective, eh?
“out-of-position pie-eater” LOL
Clichy didn’t go down massively. Clichy’s problem has always been that he adds nothing to the attack. Defensively, however, he is still solid as a rock. That’s why Mancini plays Kolarov when he wants more attacking options and puts Clichy in when he wants to close out a game.
Santos is good for seven or eight goals a season. Baines nor Luis Enrique will give you this sort of return.
As far as his defensive positioning, I agree to an extent. He got smoked by Sturridge twice I think. Once when Sturridge knocked it past him and ran past him as if he wasn’t there. The other when Sturridge planted him on his butt and dribbled past him on the edge of the area. Having said that, Theo did this to Cole a few times and even got a goal when Cole fell asleep.
Other than letting Mata cross for Lampard’s goal, a ball that Mertesacker should’ve cleared, he didn’t allow too much to happen down his side. The Mata goal should’ve never happened either. He played a bad pass, but this happens to anyone, especially in the eightieth minute of a grueling game. In the lead up to that goal he was fouled by Lukaku and the referee played on. His tackling, especially late on, was crucial. I can’t count how many times he stood his ground and dispossesed the Chelsea player coming at him.
Agreed, all he seemed to offer in attack was his presence, a couple of weeks ago I saw him make a crazy energetic run and then just pass it off, Had he been better/more confident with his shooting he would have had a crack regardless of his fatigue.
A for Santos, he will let Arsenal down a few times this season but you know when he pushes he is not just going to camp there he will get involveed like the way his brazilian team mate marcelo does. He is good for a few goals this season and I am okay with that. But when Push comes to shove I will prefer a fit and faster Gibbs
Its a bit disappointing that we have had amazing athletes at fullbacks but now we have Jenkinson and Santos, who can both get absoloutely ripped apart by a pair of fast wingers. I can only imagine how much gervinho,chamberlin, Miyachi and of course Walcott enjoy trainning against them.
Its not all about speed but how about this line up
——–Gervinho—Walcott
Miyachi—————–Chamberlin
———–Diaby–Song————
Gibbs—Vermealen-Koscelny—Sagna
It will be interesting to see if AVB can try and phase Terry out towards the end of the season, bringing in a quicker CB in the summer who can help Chelsea recover if they are caught high up the pitch. He has been making noises supporting JT of late but could be an idea to get on his good side before very slowly playing him less and less. Leaving him out of the big games next year will be a big challange, but this is when he needs to be left out more than any other time!
where did this ant-JT campaign come from? For me, JT was fantastic yesterday and none of the goals conceded were his fault – but mere awful tactics (high line against quick forwards).
“none of the goals conceded were his fault”
allow me to provide you with the text of Scot Murray’s minute-by-minute reporting on this game from the Guardian: “OH DEAR, JOHN TERRY! OH DEAR! Chelsea 3-4 Arsenal. Terry has a proper face on after this ignominious debacle. What a cock-up, the tin lid on an afternoon of defensive hilarity. The ball’s passed back towards the Chelsea captain. He turns and falls, skittering hysterically along the turf on his nipples. Van Persie makes off with the ball, rounds the advancing Cech on the right, and rolls the ball into an empty net.”
And as for your trying to blame tactics, well, the fact of the matter is that (1) lots of teams play high lines and win, and even in this very game your silly insinuation is shown to be baseless because (2) Arsenal played a high line against quick forwards and won.
the point you are missing is that such teams have players you can adapt to the system
You’re blaming Terry for the goal when he slipped – if you watched the game you’ll see the pass was nowhere near him….if they had played a deeper line the keeper would have had a chance of getting it before the arsenal player. Also Yes arsenal played a high line and also have a very poor defence – conceding 3 on the day.
Is Alex hurt? Should sturridge have been withdrawn at that time? Should AVB have adjusted at halftime? Was Mikel for Meireles the right choice, or was it Lampard that needed to go.
It sure is fun to watch Lamps and JT lose, especially because despite the aging process, they still insist on using the same amount of hair product. I hope england use them both all the way through 2014.
“It sure is fun to watch Lamps and JT lose, especially because despite the aging process, they still insist on using the same amount of hair product”
Ha, weirdest comment ever!
Didn’t you say in chelase preview that their good defensive stats might show that a good run is ahead of them?Giving a hint that you had implied to manu heavy deafet prior to the game, tho u didn’t.Now when chelsea takes 5 balls out of the back of their net, suddenly they have a horrible defence that you again implied before?Smart in a hindsight?Could you please write couple of PREviews…think we might get something useful non-results orientated stuff out of you then.
“…whilst a higher defence is more prone to one-on-ones, which are naturally very good goalscoring opportunities. As mentioned earlier, this is a particular problem for Chelsea at the moment.
This will be of interest against Arsenal this weekend. Arsenal may have their own problems, but if there’s one thing they do have, it’s pace. Theo Walcott and Gervinho can come inside from the flanks to get on the end of balls over the top, whilst Robin van Persie is in good goalscoring form, and is an expert at dragging centre-backs high up the pitch. This will be an interesting test for Villas-Boas – should he continue to press and risk being caught out, or ask his side to defend deeper?”
This was also way off and its not even a PREview is it?
Not sure if serious but the lines above:
“And, more than that, they’re conceding fewer shots than any other side in the league. They may not have a particularly good record at keeping clean sheets, but if Manchester United’s tendency to concede a lot of shots hinted at a heavy defeat, Chelsea’s tendency to concede few hints at an upcoming decent run defensively.”
—
Sure it was mentioned that they are in trouble against Arsenal defensively(who aren’t?), but in the long term it seemed the article is praising their defence and now its been displayed as the worst defence in EPL.
My 1st post was badly worded but it was an overall rant on how people are just too results orientated when reviewing football and see what they want to see.
I did say that – I assumed they’d defend deeper in this match, but I can understand why he didn’t do it. I think they’ll get better defensively when the players get used to the system.
Oh well, you cant win them all
I write previews for other sites, can’t replicate them here. The Chelsea piece earlier was pretty much a preview.
Ok, cool.I still don’t think that much changed after that one game, where Arsenal netted against them 5 goals in such a open game – hardly changes Chelseas great defence to a poor one, based on the display they put on against Arsenal.Tho I’d agree that Arsenal just pointed out that Chelseas defence can be defeated.
What sites do you write previews for, if I may?
I think you made a very good summary of Chelsea at the mo. The result in one match is not really a very good indication of how a team will perform in the long run. Keep up the good work!
Don’t understand this comment… you can’t say ‘who isn’t in defensive trouble against arsenal?’ and then on the basis of a defeat against arsenal say, well chelsea clearly have the worst defence in the league. DUCY? I mean, if (as seems to be the case) you’re taking it for granted that arsenal can cause chelsea, or anyone else, problems defensively – then experiencing problems against arsenal isn’t anything unusual, and hence you can’t extrapolate a conclusion as strong as the one you’ve drawn – that they’ve got the worst defence in the league. Haye lost against valuev right, but you try and beat him in the ring… it doesn’t mean that everyone can because one person with a clear set of advantages over him has – that’s retarded reasoning. Obviously the parallel here is arsenal’s advantage of pace in the forward line, plus ball-playing midfielders being matched against slow backline of chelsea playing a high line that they’re not used to. Because arsenal can cut through it doesn’t mean wigan can – because wigan have less quality than arsenal, obviously… and the pre-arsenal stats seem to bear this out…
The priceless part about this is that you reckon you’re having a sophisticated ‘rant’ about how people are results-orientated and yet have come up with – ‘now it’s been displayed as the worst defence in the EPL’ – if this comment is on the basis of arsenal’s 5-3 win against chelsea yesterday, then it’s obviously the most incredibly results orientated thing that’s been said in this entire thread! Or do you think that john terry will now fall over every match in the 85th minute so that the opposition can nick a one-goal lead? And even if you say well I just meant that arsenal created enough chances to handsomely win the game and hence that chelsea are clearly vulnerable, you should be aware that that is a completely different (and actually valid) point than the wild sweep of saying now chelsea are savagely exposed as the worst defence in the league on the basis of one game.
You must have misunderstood me completely…I had the issue with ZM that they are saying that chelsea has bad defence basing that on one game(preview to the game implied chelsea has a good defence even further good defence that will be in trouble against Arsenal).I personally don’t think Chelseas defence is good nor bad, but had an issue with ZM beeing a bit too results orientated imo.
For better or for worse, Wenger hates to change his centre back partnership in the middle of the game. Also, he was probably worried that bringing Vermaelen in at such a crucial stage of a high-intensity game at *centre back* might be too risky. I didn’t watch the game, but I’m guessing that when he came on at the very end, he played in midfield or left back – that’s a pretty standard Wenger move. I even remember one game where he brought in Senderos to play as a right winger, just to help out on set pieces a bit.
He took off Gervinho, pushed Santos to left wing and pushed Vermaelen to left back to shore up the wings.
Also, it’s time to look at Wenger’s “unique” in-game decision making.
-Jenkinson for Djourou? Even if Djourou is hurt, Vermaelen in and Koscielny to the right.
-Having already removed Djourou and playing at a time where it’s better to sit deep, Walcott off and Rosicky on? Admittedly today Rosicky looked great, but the game was approaching a stage where Arsenal were likely to need pace on the break even more. Almost immediately after this sub, Chelsea scored the equalizer before RVP’s bailout. If the 4th goal (beautiful in one sense, but an aberration) doesn’t happen, what price Chelsea to strangle their own 4th out of the game?
During the blowout by united, the game completely changed (floodgates opened) when Wenger removed Coquellin.
During the Barca game, Wenger failed to reorganize well after RVP was sent off(where was Diaby, the perfect player for playing with 10? why not make a sub immediately after the expulsion?) .
How many leads have Arsenal blown vs. Tottenham in the last five years? Wenger is constantly out-thought in games, and it is Arsenal’s biggest problem. NOT bad buys. NOT a lack of belief. NOT that mythical Tony Adams figure. Wenger is a lot of great things, but as a tactician he is 10-15 years behind.
@mapavlich:
I thought if Djourou (out of position)was the starter in the first place, Jenkinson on was a bit strange, and when I saw Walcott going off I remember thinking, “Why would he take off the single player MOST LIKELY to score on the counter?”
Nevertheless, part of managing is having a good idea of what each player can bring RIGHT NOW, not just their tactical strengths on paper. I don’t know if Djourou was injured or if Walcott was tired. Like you’ve said, Rosicky played well, actually better than I’ve seen him in quite a while, and Jenkinson didn’t put a foot wrong that I can remember. I don’t think you can just say AW got lucky on those subs. What interested me was that even though Rosicky was nominally a more defensive substitution, Arsenal’s attitude was quite positive after it.Rather than sitting very deep, they pressured the ball high enough that when Malouda/Terry made mistakes, they were able to take advantage. I think this was the right approach, since even with Vermaelen and Mertesacker in, they were always going to be prone to balls into the box, so why not keep attacking?
“.. but as a tactician he is 10-15 years behind” – agreed, at least to some extent.
Not the best game to point this one out though, eh?
You think that the only manager who beat Barcelona and taught them how to beat United in the CL last season is 10-15 years behind tactically speaking? Whatever floats your boat, dude.
These were initially my thoughts–but once all three subs were made, it was pretty obvious what was going on. Wenger replaced the right side, probably b/c Djourou was tired–cb’s don’t have to get forward so much, and I bet that Walcott had put on quite a few miles as well. Note–the goal (a tremendous shot, but also in part a gift from the ref) came from the left. In any case, Gervino settled into the right side ahead of Jenkinson. With Vermaelen, Arsenal shifted to a loose 5-4-1, dropping relatively deep and packing the middle of the field. Even when Chelsea flooded forward, there was little space to operate. And Arsenal’s 5th goal came with three(+) players running hard out of the back.
Maybe it wasn’t the best of tactics (mainly, I think do to the loss of rhythm), but it did the job.
The “10-15 years behind” misses how quickly Wenger was able to shift gears post-Fabregas/Nasri. It’s a different team now.
@mapavlich
Wenger is a great tactician. You just don’t understand tactics.
Jenkinson for Djourou? Djourou struggled all game and I think it was a good idea to bring on a more natural RB in place of a tired, makeshift one.
Why would you move Koscielny to the right when he has been so important in the center? What makes you think he would have coped well on the right?
In the end Wenger’s move was justified because Jenkinson didn’t make any mistakes and Chelsea didn’t create any chances down his side.
Rosicky on was also a decision that made sense to me. I agree Walcott was going to be a threat on the counter, but the problem at that moment was that we could barely string two passes together. What’s the point of having Walcott on when you can’t get him the ball? We needed another passer, another midfielder, who could help us wrest some control back from Chelsea, and if not that, then at least give us some fresh legs for defending. And Gervinho was still on the pitch providing us with a pacey option.
The way we were playing with Walcott on at that point it looked more likely that Chelsea would score than we would.
Again, Wenger’s decision was justified because Rosicky played a part in the counter attack for the fourth goal. So your assertion that Arsenal took off their only counter attacking option is far off the mark. So as it turns out, another good decision.
During the United defeat, Wenger had to do something. I think he probably does regret taking Coquelin off but losing 3-1, what do you do? Do you just try to settle for a 2 goal defeat? It was a risky but positive move that backfired, but at the time it seemed like a logical choice.
And obviously there were other factors in that game besides Coquelin’s substitution.
Why is Diaby the perfect player for playing with 10? How did you come up with that? Just because he can dribble? Not to mention Diaby’s form at the time wasn’t so great.
I think after the sending off Wenger wanted to save his fresh legs for replacing tiring players rather than bring someone new on and tire him too. And we lost a striker not a defender so a change wasn’t necessary as long as we played with a makeshift striker. Not that that was necessary becuase with 10 men against Barca there was no option but to park the bus.
3-1 down Bendtner came on and had a good chance to win Arsenal the game. So again Wenger’s decision didnt’ look so bad.
And you conveniently forget how Wenger out-thought Barcelona in the first leg.
How many leads have Arsenal blown against Tottenham in the past 5 years? Three.
What does that prove?
10 to 15 years behind? You seem like you’re 10 to 15 years old.
Wenger’s substitutions all made sense.
1) Djorou was playing out of position, and would not start if Jenkinson was completely fit (Jenkinson was only fit to be playing for 15 minutes or so, as I am sure he missed many training session this past week due to injury. Your suggestion of Vermaalen in Koscielny to the right is borderline absurd. Why would you move the excellent Koscielny out of the CB position which he was simply majestic today in the most critical stage of the game and try to gamble with Vermaalen who is clearly rusty at the moment after a long injury.
2) Walcott out, Rosicky in…This was clearly a substitution with the intention of protecting the defensively suspect Andre Santos, and holding the ball better in midfield. It was precisely because Walcott was looking too much to counterattack and not helping enough defensively that Wenger felt he should put the brakes on, and it clearly helped in that sense as Arsenal held the ball much better with Rosicky…
Wenger did everything you wanted just a bit differently. Jenkinson kept pace in the side, Rosicky gave them an even better platform to counter attack from and Vermaelen came in to shore up the defence. If you know Wenger you’d know that he doesn’t sit deep to protct leads. He assesses the opposition’s fitness level and knows when it’s time to adjust. He did it against Barcelona last season and did it again today at Stamford bridge.
As far as Van Persie’s bail out, the Terry cock up was as a result of Florent Malouda having to pass it because he had nowhere else to go. And what was Malouda doing next to his centre back? He was there because Jenkinson and Rosicky were on the right, weren’t they? Also, this is the second time that Arsenal score as a result of a loosely played ball back to Terry. Remember the 3-1 at the Ems last season? Van Persie’s third was a result of everything you wanted in the side as well.
If there’s a manager whose substitutions I don’t question it is Wenger. He took Pep to the woodshed for bringing in Keita for Villa last season and he did it to Andres Villas-Boas today.
What I think it “unique” about Wenger is that everyone hates on him regardless of Arsenal’s performance.
Stay in the CL with less $ than everyone else for 6 years while shepherding your team through transition? Shoulda won trophies.
Lose badly to the league leaders when half your team is out injured? Obviously all the manager’s fault.
Defeat your favored rivals? Well, you made the wrong subs.
Always provide for entertaining viewing? Well, you’re not Engerlish so you’ll be suspect forever, especially to the media.
In any event, I think MMT hits the nail on the head with “The “10-15 years behind” misses how quickly Wenger was able to shift gears post-Fabregas/Nasri. It’s a different team now,” and since Waleed, Panenka and Gainsbourg69 all explained how/why you were wrong while also herbing you, I’ll stop here.
Perhaps this sort of talk should be on goal.com or wherever…but who do you think chelsea should buy. my fantasy back line – van der wiel, diego godin, subotic, pereira
In many ways this game highlighted just how good Barcelona are. It’s simply stunning how good they are at playing their high line.
Agreed. Everyone is trying to copy them. It’s Guardiola’s greatest trick…
But Barca system works and works really well. I am not sure that high line was mainly responsible. Barca are not much faster at the back than Chelsea are. The actual fault may lie with Mikel. He should have cut down attacks faster. It has to be a combination of more than one factor but main reason could be Chelsea’s inability to cut down attacks at the start rather than once they are in flow.
I think Barcelona’s defense’s speed is underrated. Abidal is as fast as any LB you can find in a big team. Probably faster than Clichy. Which is amazing considering he’s in his 30s, and Evra and Cole have already lost a considerable amount of speed. Alves is fast enough to keep up with most speedy wingers. The ONLY time I have seem him completely beat for pace was in one of the clasicos last season when Di Maria constantly sprinted past him on the wing. Masch can keep pace with most Strikers he faces. And then there’s Pique, who’s speed is extremely underrated. He seems slow, but he makes up ground at an extraordinary rate. I think these guys have much better acceleration and overall speed than the likes of Terry and Ivanovic.
Abidal is very fast for a defender. So is Masch. But Masch has been there only for a year. Remember last year when Pique and Milito formed the central pair for some time. Pique was damn slow. But be it Puyol, Dani or Masch they hardly ever lose the ball. If they are being outpaced they go into a slide and get the ball back. And Busquets almost always falls back to play almost in the same line as Pique and Puyol. So the centre backs can win the ball back once Busquets has slowed the attack.
Yes he is fast for his size but I disagree that he is anywhere near as fast as clichy. Clichy can flat out FLY
ZM, surpised you see the high line as a benefit. If a team manages to get a decent amaount of possession vs barca then the high line is exploited every time. Their Biggest Weakness. Helps their pressing game, but to play that high is just stupid. You can play an equally as good a pressing game and have a safe defensive line.
Their defence is so vulnerable, if barca didn’t have so much possession they’d concede 3-4 goals consistently in my opinion, hence why teams that try and copy it do poor because they can’t replicate barcas possession and so they get attacked more by the opposition.
Most of the other teams take the little things that Barca do for granted. Deliberately playing balls short during times when most teams cross it in for corners…should tell you all you need to know. Only play balls in the air if it is the most efficient/fastest way to change sides. Or if it (ball in the air) is vertical within a narrow channel down the middle of the field and will put direct pressure on the ball defender or more importantly the goalie. Or ironically, exploiting another teams shockingly bad high line.
Also lost in this is the amount of smart pressure they put on ball handlers, they clearly do their homework and work hard…everyone. This would never happen on a Chelsea, where British darlings such as Fat Frank would never feel the need…or frankly not be able to pressure a defender for more than 30 seconds. That should have been clear to AVB in preseason when his Fatness would let his midfield partner, say a McEachran do ALL of the hawking.
“surpised you see the high line as a benefit. If a team manages to get a decent amaount of possession vs barca then the high line is exploited every time.”
I don’t think you understand. The high line enables pressing, which is what wins the ball back, and in concert with Barca’s excellent skill on the ball makes it so that teams very rarely “manage to get a decent amount of possession” versus the Catalans. Thus your counter-factual proposition (“if Barca didn’t have so much possession”) is a moot point with relation to Barca, and as for other teams I think it’s apparent that implementing the pressing/high-line/possession strategy is difficult, and that difficulty only emphasizes why it’s important to stick with it through poor results in the short term if you want the strategy to bear dividends in the long term.
I understand that completely, however if the line was to drop a few yards deeper – so opposition teams cannot get inbehind so easily it would barely affect their press but would make a huge difference defensively as teams won’t be able to get inbehind. Don’t make the mistake in thinking you need to have a high line in order to press superbly. Look at Inter vs Barca at san siro first leg, and how well they pressed barca yet kept a safe line and didnt push too high.
Do you think it’s time to consider phasing terry out? Given all the drama that surrounds him, and his failing abilities (pace especially) and his perceived incompatibility with AVB’s style of fast-paced pressing, wouldn’t Luiz be a better choice? I think all this “leader of men” stuff is mostly nonsense, Lampard would be a fine captain if you ask me.
No because the options aren’t that much better. Luiz can’t defend at this level and Ivanovic also doesn’t fit in the fast paced pressing type system.
The success of Barcelona and Arsenal in playing a high defensive line over the past couple years is a reflection of the talent of Pique, Puyol, and Busquets in the first case, and Vermaelen, Song, and Gallas in the second. Perhaps “speedy, positionally-aware centrebacks” will be one of ZM’s trends of the current decade.
Not really, Barcelona is now with 8 games with 0 goals conceded playing Abidal-Mascherano together as CB.
he’s never had pace…so if youre slow your a bad defender. Wrong! If you’re slow and the team plays a high line, ofcourse you’re going to be exposed – bad tactics
Being a Chelsea fan, I was hoping you were not going to cover this game- but Chelsea were simply awful in defence. Although, I would not entirely blame the defence. What I thought after watching the game was that the Chelsea midfield moved further up than the defence- I thought that a lot of times, about 4-5 Chelsea players were standing on the Arsenal penalty box line with the full backs wider forward. This left Chelsea vulnerable to counter attacks because there was no one to close down the Arsenal players(s) who had stayed forward during Chelsea’s attacks and they could directly run at Chelsea’s defence. But I could be wrong- this was my impression- perhaps ZM could clarify?
Didn’t note it myself, but there’s probably a lot that passes me by! you might well be right, often no pressure on Ramsey in midfield.
Ramsey was playing a lot more vertically today than he usually does. He usually plays a freeer role like the one he plays for Wales. I believe it was an adjustment made for this game.
You are modest, but I don’t think there is much that passes you by. At the start of a game, I sit with a pencil and paper and decide to concentrate on the tactics of the match, but usually after the first 10 minutes I end up rooting for a side (regardless of whether I know them or not) and get completely engrossed by the emotion rather than the task at hand! Simply your ability to remain unbiased and focused for the whole 90 minutes (+ extra time!) is amazing.
Sturridge was just awful today. Chelsea needs to press harder on the midfielders if they want to play the high line which is what Barcelona does so well. Also, the supply to Torres was quite poor and Malouda continues to make bone headed decisions. Even if Terry didn’t stumble, that was still a horrid decision to pass back, and it was obvious that Terry wasn’t expecting a bad pass. Interestingly though, Chelsea played a 4-1-2-1-2 when Lukaku came on. Which helped Mata score that dipping goal I think. I think this suits Chelsea better where Mata plays in the hole providing through balls for Torres and Mike/Meireles drops deep between the Centre halfs to push the full backs forward to provide width. Ramieres and Lampard are good enough to provide runs into the box and help combat the midfield. Sturridge despite his horrible performance today seems to be a good fit for Torres to be his partner in the attack. He has energy and pace and also can run the channels like Torres does and help out Mata playing in the hole.
Frank needs to be subtracted from that equation for someone willing to work harder do less glamorous box runs and win balls back/maintain possession (by any means) the way Ramires does; Frank is shocking how little he adds. You can run him off balls faster than you can say Charlie Adam.
Perhaps I misread, but wasn’t the article on pressing actually predicting a better defensive run for Chelsea? Easy to claim now that you saw this coming but your article provided no such hint. Trying to have your cake and eat it too? Clever man.
Perhaps you’re being Ironic (Clever man) and I’ve just been stupid enough to take the bait, but you do seem to have missed the point of ZM’s article on Chelsea’s pressing. He made it quite clear that while sides which press heavily tend to concede fewer shots on goal than sides which defend deeply, the few chances they do concede tend to be clear cut/more dangerous goal-scoring opportunities (as opposed to the often less threatening long-range efforts that sides defending deeply concede in higher numbers). ZM also made it pretty clear that AVB was risking being ‘caught out’ by a side with pacy forwards if he persisted with playing a high defensive line (and implied that Arsenal might be the side to catch Chelsea out).
In any case, wasn’t the point of that article to try to show how AVB is changing Chelsea’s playing style rather than to suggest that the pressing game will ensure that their defensive record improves? But perhaps it is I who am misreading.
Shaun is a pathetic hater
wow..what a game. chelsea’s title hopes hanging by a thread, losing their 3rd PL game of the season already. i mentioned in my post on the liv v man u thread that cech and “sir chesny” had 2 of the worst saves ratios in the lge. so maybe this bizarre result wasn’t totally unpredicitable. arsenal had 7 shots on target, just 2 saves by cech. 2 errors by cech which thankfully the mainstream media ( talksport & 5 live )did pick up on for once rather than just go on reputations. chelsea’s projected pt’s now stand at 72 ( 1.9 ave per game ). city’s is an incredible 2.8 per game, and projected to 106 ! they won’t get 106 but 90 pt’s may be more realistic.
What is going on with the top six in the PL why can’t they defend each other? With the exception of Arsenal/Liverpool and United/Liverpool all matches inlcuding two teams in the top six have netted at least 3 goals. We have also had 5 shocking score lines in City 5 Tottenham 1, United 8 Arsenal 1 City 6 United 1 Tottenham 4 Liverpool 0 and now Arsenal 5 Chelsea 3. It has been fun but, it always seemed when the top teams would play each other we would get tight/ low scorelines definitely not this season.
This might be a reaction to the brief wave of tactically deep defending among Europe’s top clubs that followed Mourinho’s successes and Chelsea and Inter. The top teams became increasingly defensive until, approximately this past spring, it became apparent that (a) this resulted in a lot of boring matches, possibly affecting ticket sales, and (b) it became very difficult to get goals on the break when you have two teams playing behind the ball.
In England, Arsenal realized the need for a direct approach because, even with the now-departed Fabregas and Nasri, they weren’t scoring enough goals. Manchester United is undergoing a sort of revitalization following the second successive wollop at the hands of Barcelona, and Sir Alex seems intent on creating a more potent side. Mancini finished the defensive core of his team last year and spent the summer putting together a free-flowing, goal-happy attacking 4. Chelsea is, of course, moving away from the Mourinho-era mentality under Andre Villas-Boas. That makes three teams in transition and one team with the Sheik’s money finally spent to good cause. Not sure about Tottenham and Liverpool.
It’s indeed a drastic change from the Mourinho style, they actually have a couple of players who were still there during the Mourinho reign and they have gone through a couple of managers through the years who have added a couple of their own players to Mourinho’s.
AVB is still a young manager who is still learning in the process and it is a new league to him, he needs time to adapt his owm style while making sure the players are comfortable with it and making sure he signs the right players to fit his system. However it does not seem that he has quite brought major changes to the squad yet apart from Meireles and Mata.
I do wonder though if it’s going to cost them in the end, the highline is suicidal for most teams and the current players as it is and Chelsea have strikers who are struggling not only with the system but their own form.
“Not sure about Tottenham and Liverpool.”
That’s just Tottenham and Liverpool being their normal aggressive selves but incapable of being defensively solid.
You have to give credit to Wenger for acknowledging his defence’s poor positioning and adjusting accordingly. After Cole created a couple of chances to start the game, Walcott played a bit deeper to help Djourou. As for Santos, in the second half he did a much better job of holding his runs and attacking cautiously. Even for his goal he arrived late and only made the run after Bosingwa completely drifted to the middle.
While I questioned the Walcott-Rosicky substitution at first, his presence didn’t allow Chelsea to dominate the midfield after Meireles came on. Pushing Koscielny out to the right flank and playing Vermaelen would have been a big mistake. Koscielny was our best defender today and a positional change could have unsettled the back four after they had finally settled in.
I agree that AVB will have to adjust his defence. Their midfield doesn’t possess the ball enough to warrant such a high line and neither Ivanovic nor Terry is quick enough to recover if the ball gets behind (unlike Puyol). Where has Alex been? I wish Arsenal had successfully signed him at the end of the summer.
Arsenal’s next four PL matches are W. Brom, Norwich, Fulham and Wigan (HAHA). 12 points could see them back in the top four.
Chelsea have Liverpool, Newcastle and Man City over their next five matches. Unless they figure things out quickly their title challenge could be over.
Someone like Thiago Silva will be perfect for Chelsea. They need to start Romeu to distribute the ball because Mikel takes an absolute age! I still think they need a deep-lying playmaker, they could buy somebody like Banega or even use Mcheacran(spelling) there.
Why is Thiago Silva coming up in so much transfer rumours? Why would Milan get rid of their best CB? And why would Silva want to leave a team that is still in the running for another Scudetto and is going to the Champions League knockout stages again? Also Chelsea is more than two months away from the next ransfer window so they are stuck with what they got right now.
McEachran…the guy that made Fat Frank look less incapable of playing modern-day midfield.
Intriguingly, the game is not lost solely because of a high line, more of a case of individuals not executing their job. Midfielders dont track runners and Mikel didnt drop deep enough when both fullbacks advance and most of the goals are a result of ball watching rather than a high line.
Mikel did well in first half, love those spreading diagonal ball to Sturridge/Mata on the right and clever footwork to win the ball but ffs switch off after HT.
In ideal world, Chelsea couldve kill the game earlier and therefore ablle to play a deeper line around 60 min when leading but made to pay for profligacy and had to chase the game therefore unable to shut the shop by playing deeper.
Didn’t see the game. Interesting that the arrows had Van Persie playing off the shoulder of the centre-backs, though. Has his role changed from a false-nine, who spends a lot of time getting involved in the build-up play to that of a more traditional out-and-out striker?
If so, was it just this one game or is this a new feature of Arsenal’s game this season?
So no match reports for Levante whos tactics are the main reason for there success but another report for a defensively shit game in the “SUPER DUPER PL”?
This is becoming the common theme on this site.
Not impressed.
I think ZM is an Arsenal fan.. He has echoed my thoughts vry clearly.. esp. the post Fabregas-Nasri possession play now converted to more direct counter attacking football.. True… Fitting the shape according to the personnel is necessary.. I would like to add one more point… Even during the Fabregas-Nasri period, there used to be loads of possession with very few clear cut chances… Now the team sort of looks very lively and dangerous in goalscoring positions…Even Arshavin is in terrific form in that second striker role..
This game would have brought a lot of belief back… But not all teams will play a high line like Chelsea did… Most would like to sit back and park the bus… Lets see how we grind out results then…
And btw… Gervinho is an excellent buy…
Cheers…
If I am not mistaken, in the UCL game against Valencia at the Mestalla, Chelsea sat deep and countered selectively. They rightly showed respect to the opponent and played smart. From what we saw today, it would seem that Arsenal required a similar sort of respect from Chelsea. So is AVB just trying to create this identity of pressing and possession? Or does he have up his sleeve, the ability to take a different approach when demanded by the nature of the opponent as the game against Valencia would suggest? If yes, then did he just grossly underestimate Arsenal and not show enough respect?
Chelsea played a high line vs valencia and valencia did get inbehind but not as easy as arsenal as they had soldado upfront who is slower than van persie/walcott.
I think one of the biggest tactical trends of the season so far has been an increase in attacking play and goals and this game was an example again. I’d be interested to see if the statistics bear this out in the Premier League and if it goes beyond England.
I think it has a lot to do with tactics. It seems to me that everyone has realised at the same time that you can’t play with two out and out holders who don’t move into attacking positions and expect to break teams down, especially because they’ve often got so many involved predominantly in the defensive phase. But because everyone’s realised it at the same time you get a situation where everyone seems to have gone to playing 1 defensive midfielder alongside a deeper passer who moves around to link play and goes into attack rather than holding his ground and a higher up creator. 1 defensive midfielder can’t block the whole centre of the pitch in front of the defence like 2 can and therefore there is a lot more space in that key area between defence and attack.
It also seems like the wide men are either not as good at or not being asked to defend as much – a lot of formations seem to be much more 4-3-3 than 4-2-3-1 in which the main difference are the wingers pushing higher up, and so a lot more chances are being made down the wings as full backs get isolated 1 on 1 by high quality wide men.
I’d be keen to see if ZM’s wider experience than mine sees similar trends.
Good point. The Makelele role is well and truly dead, in my opinion. Every top team now employs a player who defends very well and can add himself to the attack. Song, Keita and Fletcher are three players who immediately come to mind.
Villas Boas changing Chelsea’s mentality is sort of a reversal of what Roy Hodgson did a Liverpool last season.
I disagree with your view that there hasn’t been an “obvious, logical move towards a more direct style of football.” Perhaps it’s been slow coming but Wenger has tried to place more emphasis on the flanks; indeed most of Arsenal’s goals this season have come from some sort of combination on the flanks. Van Persie has even said he’s adapted his game because of Arsenal’s wide men.
But why it hasn’t been so obvious is because it hasn’t been that effective and that’s because that style still needs good technique. Arteta has added that, linking play up well and it’s no coincidence Ramsey is getting more confident with his incisiveness.
Here’s my post on Arsenal’s three striker ploy before Chelsea game.: http://arsenalcolumn.co.uk/2011/10/28/gervinho-comes-into-form-to-fit-nicely-into-arsene-wenger-grand-plan/
Yeah, I would say that was one of the most noticeable patterns of Arsenal’s transfer dealing this summer, the other one being attack-minded fullbacks with good crossing ability (Santos of course, but also Jenkinson is no slouch, and Sagna / Gibbs were already pretty good at crossing themselves).
But that is my point – the transfer dealings suggested it, but the style of play has been similar to last season. The ball moves forward too slowly. In the last couple games there’s been a change, but too often Arsenal have let the opposition get men behind the ball rather than breaking quickly.
I stand corrected.
http://opitacoboleiristico.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/de-onde-vem-o-problema/
A little bit of brazilian football.
And about the discussion of André Santos, he is really weak defensivly. He attacks well. Even Maxwell – other brazilian player that I’m not a big fan – is more “complete” and “safe” than Santos.
I don’t know where people get the idea that Andre Santos is a poor defender. In the copa America he was good defensively and so far with Arsenal he is hard to beat. If you watch the Marseille game and this Chelsea game, preferably the second half because he has been shit in the first half for both games, you’d see that his tackling is pretty good. He also has two goals in two games which is an offensive output for a left back, anywhere in Europe, without equal thus far this season. And that’s after only played a handful of games at Arsenal.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in his performance against Marseille. Didi Deschamps clearly wanted the draw, and as such we attacked with no width and kept Remy up front with only one player (usually Ayew) in support. That he was solid was probably to do more with l’OM’s lack of width and lack of willingness to throw numbers forward.
He was actually shit in the first half of that game and improved in the second just like in this game. That’s what I was getting at.
Gainsbourg69, for me he is poor defensivly. Against Germany he was ridiculous in a error trying to get out of his own area with the ball – trying to pass “just” Schweinsteiger – giving the goal to Schurlle after Bastian passing him the ball. I think his ability to recover after a attack and his job about marking is too just limited, even more for a team like Arsenal. That’s why, when Andre Santos goes up in the field, I call the space left of A. Santos Road. But it’s very true that he hasn’t failed till here in Arsenal – he is doing a “safe” job in London.
Forget the high line. The biggest mistake AVB made was breaking up the Cole, Malouda partnership. He had the deadliest left sided attack in the league and he just squandered it away. There’s even talk of Malouda moving on which to me would be absolutely crazy.
Dont really think that was that relevant here – can’t think why you’d focus on that rather than the high line!
The purpose of playing a high line is to keep the opposition pinned so the only option they have is playing it out of very crowded areas or hoofing the ball forward in order to release pressure. A better option, if I were Villas-Boas, would be to play Mata where Sturridge plays and Malouda in his usual spot.
What year are you in? I’m pretty sure, even in his short time there he’s seen more of them first hand than you have on your telly. You might as well cut off both of their right feet…
Really is amazing at how far Cech has fallen. Conceded 5 today without any “massive” gaffes, but I don’t think I have seen a worse collective game from a keeper in the Premier League in a while. Beaten at his near post 3 times and challenged Van Persie outside the box where his long reach is useless and allowed him to walk the ball into the back of the goal. He didn’t get any help from his defense as they were in shambles, and he probably deserves some magnitude of blame there, but for a goalkeeper from a team that has any ideas about finishing top of the table, he just is not good enough anymore.
Bollocks. Saying that after just one bad game. Heh.
rubbish cory. best goaly in the league by a country mile.
I suppose you could argue that tactics and personnel combined to make this inevitable, but about the only goals in this game that weren’t horrendous blunders were the Mata goal, which was a stellar strike, (albeit following a poor turnover) and the last goal, which was an overlap caused by Chelsea overcommitment.
And to consider the other goals, I’m not sure that Bosingwa drifting a mile off his man, the defence letting Walcott waltz through while waiting for the whistle, or Terry falling on his face, were necessarily tactical faults. And the first goal was almost decent.
In addition, as Cory points out, while Cech didn’t have a shocker, and Arsenal slammed a few goals in, he would have been a little disappointed on perhaps all but the first.
The one example that springs to mind of using pace against the high line was Walcott’s early break and pass for Gervinho’s horrible miss. But Walcott has always earned opportunities due to pace; he is often poor at finishing.
Meanwhile on the Arsenal defence Djourou got skinned alive early on, Santos gambled horribly, and Mertesacker made weak efforts on both the first half goals.
It seemed to me that early on Chelsea had a huge amount of time in the midfield, creating enormous pressure on the struggling Arsenal back 4 while in turn pressing Arsenal. Arsenal must have been tempted to move a player back there. Arsenal seemed to come out after the half with renewed intent to close down in the midfield and Chelsea chances became much fewer. Song was much more visible. Ramsay plays a long way forwards at times.
Presumably Mertesacker will be riding the pine on Vermaelen’s return as Vermaelen / Koscielny must be key to start in the central back but Mertesacker can’t play on the flanks.
Back to Chelsea, this high line may not be the end of them, but they seem to be struggling for tactical identity with AVB, and sans Drogba.
Great comment .Wish the comment section could do with a rating-based system.
To sum the game up, Chelsea should’ve kill the game early on but they didnt and were punished by that.
“To sum the game up, Chelsea should’ve kill the game early on but they didnt and were punished by that.”
I’ve been hearing this spin. Your just trying to make the loss go down easier. Chelsea had the edge on Arsenal in the first half by a hair, but both teams missed big chances so the scoreline *could* have been anywhere. Arsenal pummeling Chelsea was the only thing happening in the second half. Chelsea’s 2nd half goal shouldn’t have been allowed with Luaku impeding Santos. How the official missed him with his arms sticking all the way out is a mystery. You don’t win games by playing slightly better in one half if you’re lousy in the 2nd.
Oh God, mr Zonal marking, i read your http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/10/26/chelsea-villas-boas-pressing/
After read that article, i was really sure arsenal can beat chelsea, because arsenal loved to counter attacking.
I wonder If i make a bet for arsenal in sport betting website, maybe i will make a lot of money..hheheee
hehehe why no bet hehehehe
Chelsea – The obvious reason for the defeat, was both terry and ivanovic used in a high line. Against walcott and gervinho making runs inside (both pacy) this was a recipe for disaster. Luiz should have played, i know he had a bad game last time out, but his pace at the back was needed. Terry is the biggest culprit and had a horrible game today (even taking into account his goal) looking outpaced and immobile. I thought cole and bosignwa were okay, both got forward well and looked to press walcott and gervinho, the problem was when they came inside and attacked the CB’s after van persies great movement to unsettle terry and ivanovic.
Mikel had a good game, probably the only player trying to control the tempo, and his positioning was good, allowing the fullbacks forward. But i felt ramires didnt press arteta enough, to disrupt arsenal, and looked pretty static (not his usual self). Lampard got into attacking positions well (aka his goal) but looked poor trying to create for his forwards, and wasnt great at keeping his passes simple when needed. Overall ramires and lampard didnt keep posession well enough, and maybe meireles should have included for one of them.
Mata was excellent, getting a goal and a assist, and looked threatening throughout, arsenal never got to grips with him. Sturridge had a good game too, making some great runs and providing a good outlet.
But Torres was shocking, he needed to hold up the ball and help chelsea build up play, but he still looks alien to this concept and disrupted chelsea’s play. His movement was good, to give sturridge space, but he didnt get into good positions himself.
Overall, Chelsea lost because terry and ivanovic couldnt deal with arsenals pace, lampard and ramires didnt play intelligently enough and torres didnt get involved in the game, being dominated by Arsenals CB’s and makign chelsea looked like 10 men.
It didnt help thar Czech had a poor game himself, but this was a one off (hes been excellent most of the season) and nothing to do with tactics.
I don’t think Luiz would’ve done any better. If Chicharito made him his bitch last season can you imagine what Theo and Gervinho would’ve done to him?
Arsenal – Koscielny was excellent today, dominating torres, and dealing well with sturridge when he came inside, the best CB on the pitch today. Mertesacker wasnt as comfortable, looking a bit prone to pacy attacks by chelsea and got caught out a few times in the first half. His positioning was bad too, and i think djourou would have been a better option next to kol.
Djourou didnt looked confortable at RB, and especially against mata, chelsea’s best player, he looked troubled. He has positional problems, was reluctant to track mata inside, and didnt offer anything going forward, meaning mata didnt have to worry as much about tracking back. Santos looked poor too, and i think a poor buy (along with mertesacker), he was easily outpaced by sturridge, looked poor positionally and didnt really offer a consistent threat going forward (when sturridge wasnt going to track back, this could have a good strategy, his goal sort of proves this). His goal was very lucky, and put a gloss on a poor performance, arsenals worst player today.
Song broke up play well, doing well to disrupt lampard and mata, espicially in the second half. He also kept thing simple (very much needed) and got forward on occasion to surprise chelsea. Arteta wasnt so good, he could have helped song out by sitting deeper today, to help restrict mata space in front of the defense. But his biggest problem was his passing. He needed to give arsenal some control over the game, but he was poor today and gave away the ball a lot, mostly by trying too many through balls, which isnt really his job, and was surprising from such a experienced player. Ramsey played well, getting into good positions (exploiting space in front of mikel, rather than going too far forward) and creating a lot of good chances. His possesion passing could have better, again like arteta, they both should have controlled the game more, and really arsenal were lucky to have won, could have gone either way really.
The front three was excellent today and won arsenal the game, Van persie’s movement was excellent, his finishing even better, and his build up play showed chelsea what they were missing with torres. Walcott and gervinho made excellent runs all game and there pace terrified chelsea.
And praise should go to wenger for his subs, jenkinson on for djourou helped arsenal, as djourou had been struggling, and rosicky for walcott was even better, as walcott looked tired, and rosicky helped keep possession well and helped press with fresh legs.
Overall, arsenal won with a superior attack, spearheaded by the best striker in the premier league right now, and with a great performance from the back by Kol and from Song in midfield. arteta and ramsey could have controlled the game more (arsenal never had control really, and were lucky) and mert and santos had bad games (showed by 3 goals conceded).
Spot on imo. Well played.
Disagree on Arteta having a poor game. I thought he was quietly very effective on the ball. Behold his numbers:
94 – Pass completion rate Mikel Arteta
78 – Passes attempted by Mikel Arteta
10 – Long balls attempted by Arteta
9 – Accurate long balls by Arteta
4 – Attempted tackles by Arteta
4 – Successful tackles by Arteta
1 – Accurate through balls by Arteta
1 – Key passes by Arteta
1 – Assists by Mikel Arteta
And Santos improved in the second half, apart from giving the ball away for their goal, not much came down his side for Chelsea
Arteta’s passing accuracy was 94% overall and 100% on through balls, both stats according to Opta. Silly to say he gave the ball up with his passing.
Hmmm the stats do show a good apssing performance, and i cant argue with that, i just think the choice of both arteta and ramseys passes were not intelligent enough. A bit too gung-ho by both, which was more expected for ramsey, but with arteta, i believe he should have tried to slow the game down at times and control the tempo. This never happened, and really this game could have gone either way.
So even though his passing rate was excellent, i believe his choices werent as good, Arsenal may have won the game, but it was far too open, which is down to arteta not controlling the game.
ZM
Though you are usually incisive, I disagree with the order of Chelsea’s
priorities that you have mentioned. Mata moving in to push fullback up?
I think it is other way around.
Everybody knows Mata drifts freely. However, if his main objective to move
inward is to free a path for Cole, there is no need for him to go all the way
to the right flank at such a regularity.
Hi ZM, its irrelevant to this article but I was wondering if there’s any chance you could write an analysis on Wayne Rooney in a midfield role for manchester united. He played there against Everton and I was just wondering what effect it has on the team and how he plays there.
So you know Rooney play there but didnt know what effect it has on the match? In case you were not watching, United won 1-0.
With due respect, you should just go to Manchester’s blog for this. or Everton’s
theexecutionersbong.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/5-tactical-points-on-everton-0-1-manchester-united/
http://www.stretfordendarising.com/2011/10/29/everton-0-manchester-united-1-5-things-we-learnt/
http://www.stretford-end.com/
There is no default Barcelona mode to pressing. It doesn’t have to come as a whole unit, there are variants. I know you mentioned V.Boas’ admiration for Guardiola and certainly watching this you get the impression that imitation is the highest form of flattery. However I do think VBoas is a bit knee jerk in his plan to modernise Mourinho’s Chelsea.
The pressing game has been successful in other forms. Ancelotti’s Milan for example played a reasonably deep line with two of the diamond Seedirf & Gattuso relentlessly pressing. That of course is less effective since there is more space for opponent to evade pressing with one touch pass. However it doesn’t expose the defence, Guardiloa’s system is very prone to pacy counter attack – one of the reasons they are obsessed with possession and fast ball retain transactions.
Hence, with the profile of Chelsea players it would be better to assume a pressing strategy with fail safes attached. You simply cannot assume the barca system to be default annyone striving towards it as admirable; entitled to time and leisure. It is a contradiction of myopia in it’s essence.
I agree with Gainsbourg69. Santos’ tackling ability is better than both Clichy and Gibbs. Clearly, it’s too early to judge him on whether or not he is good enough for Arsenal or not. Every player needs time to settle in. Transitioning from a club like Galatasray to Arsenal needs time. It’s not like he’s come from the Italian league or something. He definitely needs to improve his positioning, which dare I say will happen with more games played.
One thing he needs to do quickly is lose weight. He’s too plump for the EPL. You can get away with other leagues but if you are not fit in the EPL you will struggle. Even Nasri when he came to Arsenal found it difficult to cope with the pace of the league. Quite often people would outrun him and dispossess him with ease. Finally, he lost weight and adapted to the playing style of the EPL, but it took a while. I’m sure many would disagree with me, but I would play Santos ahead of Gibbs.
My girlfriend supports Fener and she would kill you if you told her Santos played at Galatasaray.
I agree with you about Santos’ weight. He can stand to lose about ten pounds. With regards to him getting better the more games he plays, it is only natural that a player who comes from a different league and has to adapt to a new system will struggle a bit to adapt to his sorroundings. This being said, he didn’t do too bad in the second half yesterday. He improved his positioning, linked up well with the attack and even scored a goal. Not bad when all is said and done.
Are you for real?
You praised yourself for saying Man Utd might be open to a big scoreline by conceding too many shots (self praise is no praise but at least in this case it was deserved) and said “…but if Manchester United’s tendency to concede a lot of shots hinted at a heavy defeat, Chelsea’s tendency to concede few hints at an upcoming decent run defensively.” Now you say “…Chelsea’s high defensive line, which ZM looked at in midweek. This was always going to be a problem..” What?! The article was completely positive towards Villas-Boas and now you pretend you’ve “…accurately identify where they’ll lose in the days before the game”. What a load of opportunistic nonsense. I’m pretty sure that “But…” section in the Chelsea article was not in the original post either, I certainly don’t remember reading it.
A word of advice, a year ago this website posted tactical reviews of games. There were one or two previews for the big games too but written in the same vein. This year the articles are a little different. You’ve ventured into the trap of crystal ball gazing. If you want to do that you will be wrong 50% of the time however you try to cover it up.
If you want to be taken seriously as a football jounalist and graduate to a column in a respected newspaper or sat in between Alan and Alan on a Saturday night, then try to hold on to your credibility. Admit when you’re wrong and stand by what you said instead of being another hindsight expert.
You mentioned that Chelsea is in transition in term of play that is true, but your forget another reason why Chelsea played a high line: Gervinho. Before his arrival teams knew that playing deep was enough to nullify Arsenal offensive threat. However Gervinho is very good in 1v1 against the full back where he can go to the byline and cut back or come inside and shoot. Something that mean that defending deep may invite more pressure.
I suspect that AVB decided that Gervinho’s threat was greater than Walcott’s. He tried to nullify that threat by playing higher and trying to force him and Walcott on the back foot with Sturridge and Mata playing their area.
However I do not think that he has the personnel to play that high pressing game. Mikel is nowhere near the quality of Makelele to play that type of defensive midfield player. Without Essien high energy hassling of opponents Chelsea midfield failed to put Arsenal midfield under any kind of pressure. I do not remember any kind of tackles made in that part of the field. Ramires and Lampard love both ghosting into the penalty box and are good at shielding/intercepting, but they lack the terrier like type of play when defending.
Under Mourinho Arsenal midfield used to be overcrowded and out-muscled. With a midfield three of Ramsey, Song, Arteta versus Lampard, mikel and Ramires Chelsea could not out-muscle Arsenal any more and because of the tactic they did not overcrowd the Arsenal midfield either.
The high line without any bite in midfield handed the advantage to Arsenal. They kept playing behind the defence and should have scored more goals from their opportunity.
Arsenal played diagonal balls behind the defence in space knowing that Walcott and Gervinho would beat Chelsea full back. By playing a higher line, he exposed his entire team to pace.
IMHO another thing that has been missing in your assessment is that the misses by both Arsenal and Chelsea had a direct bearing on the goals scored.
In the first half Arsenal saw that Santos was in difficulty and the wide midfield were not quick enough in coming to help. Koscielny, Mertesacker and Djourou slided toward the left. Lampard ghosted at the near post and left Per Mertesacker in no-man’s land.
The first two misses by Arsenal at the beginning of the first half came from Walcott skinning Cole (who IMHO has not been very good this season). Arsenal first two misses at the beginning of the second half also came from Ashley Cole leaving space behind him.
Chelsea overcompensated on their left. Santos’s goal came from that overcompensation. The entire Chelsea team is on the left quadrant. As Sturridge forgot to track back, Santos was free. However had the Song’s pass been intercepted then Arsenal was exposed on their left side.
Three points to add:
1. Chelsea were let down by Torres. If you are going to hold a high line and press, then then the front players need to press, and Torres didn’t. Arsenal’s defence had time to carry the ball towards the halfway line, making it much easier to release balls behind Cheksea’s back line.
2. Chelsea let Torres down. His frustration at passes not being released quickly enough (Cole and Sturridge’s crosses being examples) when he’d already made his run was clear.
3. Chelsea need a right sided midfielder. A proper one, not a converted striker or central midfielder playing right. They have been susceptible for nearly a decade to balls in behind the fullbacks, and it’s getting boring watching them cone unstuck time and again that way.
I think a key tactical finding of chelsea this season is that there wide players arnt going to track back. Sturridge is a striker, mata drifts inside, anelka is a striker. Only malouda when used would track back.
So a good tactic might be to push your fullbacks forward when attacking to try and overload chelsea down the wings.
very true and definitely another weakness for chelsea.
This game was simply awful. Why are Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, so suspect in defence these days? Why are there all these ridiculous scorelines ? 8-2, 6-1, 4-0, 4-3, 5-3…. great entertainment but I can’t help feeling that the Prem is going down the drain a little?
Also, someone said Baines won’t get you 7/8 goals a season : Yes he will, from Free-kicks. He was unlucky not to tickle the net against Man U yesterday.
Anyway, is everyone enjoying the ‘new’ attacking Prem? I’m not… the defences are just silly, its like the 90s again. Teams trying to copy Barca and failing…
And as for Villas-Boas, i may end up eating these words, but i think he is damaged goods to be honest
When you build a team, you start from the back (Like Mancini did at City) NOT the forward line… AVB’s Chelsea havent really produced any result, or performance, to inspire at all to be honest, and I fully expect them to be out of Champions league on or before the Quarterfinal, and out of Premiership title run-in.
Look at Villas-Boas’ record. Portugese League (with the unquestionably best club in the country), and Europa League…. I mean, its not exactly Premiership and the Champions League, is it? I think he has potential, and great ideas, but TBH , if he keeps losing to Man U/Man C/Arsenal/L’pool/Spurs, he will not be Chelsea manager come the end of the season! Di Matteo will, and probs do a better job.
last year Baines scored 7 goals, it’s true – but 3 of them were penalties. a penalty is just as good a goal as anything else, but he’s not competing against other left backs to score penalties (or free kicks for that matter) – he would be competing against RVP and Arteta. in terms of goals scored in open play, I can see the point people are making about him vs. Santos.
At the peak of their transitional systems (2008), both Manchester and Chelsea had a high ability to effect ‘game management’ including without the ball.
These days the prem teams apart from City look dreadful in the middle of the park.
Personally i doubt whether Utd’s midfieldless system will work. Its already superceded by the constraint led style at barca and seems regressive in intent.
It is plain suicidal to play Terry and Ivanovic in a high line.
Terry is a bit of a carthorse. Even Capello realised that – I remember Capello trying to play a high line and he quickly abandoned it.
And I think it is about time for people to realise that Terry is past it. He simply isn’t the same player of 3 years ago. People seemed to avoid the fact that he got destroyed along with Upson for England in the World Cup.
And I wish people stop going on about Barcelona. They are superb, but it isn’t the only way to play football.
Chelsea are in trouble. Even with the title win in 2010, they’ve lacked something since Mourinho left, and it’s only a matter of time before they have their top three place usurped. City and United are definitely the best two teams in England, while Spurs and Liverpool are much improved.
Terry, Lampard and Cech have all regressed over the past couple of seasons, but honestly, the entire team needs a face lift.
the problem is, Terry, Lampard, and Drogba seem to be the dominant figures in the dressing room. it’s hard to replace them from a morale standpoint, but that’s what needs to be done. I think that’s a bigger problem than Mourinho leaving. their inability to develop young players (despite throwing money at the academy) is a related issue. if teams like Barcelona and Man Utd – with all the pressure they have to win – can still integrate good young players into the first eleven, why can’t Chelsea? they have McEacheran, Bruma, Romeu, Sturridge… some of the best young players in England… I can understand not wanting to go to a full youth movement like Arsenal or Dortmund, but when your older players are underperforming, and you have such a good stable of young talent…
People going on about Barcelona… well, they are the team to beat (or , rather, lose to) at the moment, and have been for 3 odd years, and look to be for at least 3 more years. Their domination is amazing, they reguarly have well over half the possession, a silly amount of chances, feature the 2-time Ballon d’Or, half the team won a Euros, THEN a World Cup…. so…. we probably won’t see a better team in our lifetimes.
And everyone IS trying to copy at least one facet of their style.
Its an overall point about football though; Barca have perfected football. IT makes sense to deny the opponent possession, bcos then they cant score. Its simple and they are good at winning the ball back and charging the man on the ball. Teams look lost on the ball against Barcelona. its the ’sterile domination’ of which Wenger spoke. Not to mention on the ball they possess two or three of the best passers and dribblers around, and possibly among the best Of All Time.
Their style, though, is basically Holland and Ajax of the 60s-70s, which was essentially a copy of Gustav Sebes’ ideas at Honved, MTK, Hungary, Benfica. Which was essentially an up-grade of the Austrian team of the 30s. The Russians were also developing similar ideas at the same time.
If you watch the Total football Holland team, its remarkably similar to todays Barcelona. Cruijff and Neeskins also went to Barca and instilled a Dutch mentality – technical skill, wide forwards, 4-3-3 and 3-3-1-3 kind of formations, players changing positions, and mixed it with the Spainish short passing, skilful tiki-taka game…. a potent mix.
Also interesting is the case of Suriname, which has produced an insane amount of top-level footballers for a small place with not much infrastructure, simply bcos (IMO) of a Dutch mentality mixed with South American flair culture. An extremely potent mix – unbeatable really.
So everyone going on about Barcelona isn’t exactly sycophancy (is that a word?). Its more making a general point about all the great teams who tried to perfect the game of football.
Awful defending from both teams, djourou has ZERO awareness, gets too tight to opposing player and is so far apart from the nearest CB that you could fit a double towed truck, along with christopher samba laying vertically behind it, between it! Allowing balls over the top, or inbetween that gaping hole of hell. Chelsea on the other hand had a dreadfully slow midfield that couldn’t cope with the movement of ramsey and co, ramires may be mobile, but lacked the positional sense, awareness, responsiveness and anticipation of any danger infront, to side, or behind him. Lampard lost so many ball it was untrue. And mikel was over run in his DM position. Credit to koscielny though, he was immense. After that chelsea’s backline were to confused whether to drop deeper or press the marauding midfielders and the floating, false 9, RVP, and eventually did both! Making their back 4 turn into a zig zag, horror show. Seems everyone wants to copy barca and their high pressing, instead of sticking to basics of keeping a solid, tight unit that is hard to brake through and only has to run about 30/40 yards instead of 70/80, and then counter. Which has worked for greece, man utd (before this season), inter milan and italy, to name a few of champions of big tournaments of the past few years. Concentration has to be kept for 90 mins but it’s easier as there is less running, just more communication needed. And if there is a lapse in concentration, there may be a player covering. While when you press high and the space inbetween the channels are wide open, it’s hard to dictate anything as you are being exposed.
Is playing with a high line not a poor choice for the EPL? Is there a successful precedent for this style?
My thinking is that in a league where most teams’ have a direct/vertical style and the personnel to make it work, the risks of a high line will be greater than in continental leagues where the build up is slower and teams do not seek to consistently break down their opponents with balls over the top/through balls.
I’m not sure about the stats on this, but my assumption is that there are more attacks on the defensive line in the EPL than in other leagues and that they happen at a higher speed. Furthermore, the majority of EPL teams may be less technically adept than continental sides, but they do have the skillsets to take advantage of a high line – speedy wingers and strikers who are used to taking advantage of balls over the top. EPL teams at the top who might usually choose a less direct approach typically have the option to go more direct in order to take advantage of the high line (e.g. Arsenal.)
Is the high line always going to be doomed in the EPL, or can it work with the right personnel/execution?
It’s an interesting point – I don’t remember anyone winning the league with a high line since Arsenal pre-Wenger. But my memory might be deficient.
Another thing is that since many sides still play a long ball, the preferred type of centre-half is the aggressive heading type. These types don’t tend to be very quick. So playing these high up the pitch, when sides play a long ball to the “large” striker to flick it the the “small” striker, is plain suicide.
I think the change in the offside rule also had an effect, mixed with the attacking nature of the league.
And I have to say, the tactics of “lets copy Barcelona” is not very clever.
This is surely the answer – a cohesive, quick style of play that suits all their forwards. A return to more of a tiki-taka approach in the next game would be a disappointment (although of course, most sides will play much more negatively against them, and it may not be possible to be so counter-attacking).
Seems to me the Arsenal way has worked over the past few years and now that the shock of losing their three best midfielders. Wenger seems to have adapted to the players strength.
Its called adapting.
As you mention the quick counters can and will be nullified by teams which is when you try to break the teams down with ball control.
A team that can do both well is a lot better than a team that changes from a ball possession game to a sit back and wait for counters.
Well, clearly
Great win love scoring 5 at Stamford bridge but as an arsenal fan I’d just like the guys take it one game at a time and then hopefully we will have a good season after all… I think chelsea will recover with wins away to genk and rovers this week.
it was just a big, dumb game of FIFA really
Hello there, I believe your internet site may very well be possessing browser compatibility troubles. When I appear at your internet site in Safari, it seems good but when opening in World wide web Explorer, it’s some overlapping. I just needed to provide you with a fast heads up! Other then that, amazing weblog!
Most people bring into the world seen Disney’s “The Lilliputian Mermaid” energetic movie. But there are a sprinkling others which are unexceptionally prime – classics. Here they are:
1. My lid pick pro a mermaid motion picture is “Plaster”. Not alone is it droll and the cabal wonderful, but there is from head to toe a tittle of fearsome footage of Daryl Hannah mermaiding in the ocean. We can’t get enough of that! Keep in haul that this is not a children’s movie. It was made in the ’80s, and towards the most part it is okay on the people to watch. But there is a ungenerous scintilla of nudity (when the mermaid is walking into Unknown York discernible of [url=http://www.teaserandtrailer.com]teaser[/url] the ocean with nothing but her lengthy whisker to envelop her) and there is some suggestion of what she and the Tom Hanks characteristic untypical are doing in the elevator, however nothing is shown. The talkie is wonderful, with a abundant testimony and daunting mermaid footage and lots of laughs, as fount as a great romance.
2. My impaired lid choosing is “The Secret of Roan Inish”. This is a repository, quiet flicks the whole folks can enjoy. It was made in Ireland, and as such is slower and quieter than most American movies. It is thither a lilliputian Irish freulein who moves to busy with her grandparents. While there she unwittingly stumbles upon the enigma circumambient the key the family used to live on, called “Roan Inish” (Cay of the Seals). As she slowly solves the conundrum, she brings [url=http://www.teaserandtrailer.com]movie trailers[/url] healing and singularity without hope to the family. In this moving picture the allegorical material is a selkie, not a mermaid. The selkie lives in the form of a seal. On provocation she climbs up on a swing and removes her seal outside, revealing a admirable woman. So this talking picture is a undersized tittle particular, and you wish not in any way look at a seal the changeless begun again.
3. My third favorite mermaid talking picture is “Aquamarine.” This possibly man is geared to the teen crowd. It has nothing unseemly, so the whole family can enjoy it. It’s a delightfully numerous construction of the ideal Tiny Mermaid story, with a wonderful set someone back on his ending. The mermaid in this movie is abundant, more like a regular teen girl. There are several good shots of her in the water. The messages in this silent picture are high-class quality, such as resolve, love, in person certitude, selflessness and courage. And it is also very funny.
4. Number four of my outdo mermaid movies is an familiar black and drained enduring called “Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid.” You intent should prefer to a brave pronouncement this silver screen to watch, but VHS versions are to hand because of mark-down on Amazon.com. All of the underwater footage was filmed in the illustrious Weeki Wachee Springs in Weeki Wachee, Florida, alone a year after this underwater theater opened. Made in 1948, this talkie is close by a married yoke alluring a vacation in the [url=http://www.teaserandtrailer.com]trailers[/url] Caribbean. The man is verging on 50 and is having a mid-life crisis. While on vacation he accidentally fishes up a breathing mermaid from the bewildered! Ann Blyth plays the enchanting mermaid and you transfer mania this wonderful film. The lone objections a father capability have is the exercise of extramarital flirting, and some laughable scenes with a ridicule infuriating to send up smoking.
5. One that is a dab distinct, and which no more than recently came out, is a Japanese anime Miyazaki movie called “Ponyo on the Rock-face before the Sea”, or sparely “Ponyo”. In this whole the fish-girl is depicted as a goldfish with a sensitive mien, which is slightly strange. But in an singular twist, this five-year-old fish-girl has to get the teeny five-year-old somebody boy to love her faithfully, or she make turf out d dress into wave bubbles and be no more. It is such a sweet interpretation, these inconsequential children knowledge to love and reliance each other in such an babe in arms way. It is a chronicle of be amazed and daring and should not be missed.
6. My pick in search number six is Disney’s “The No Mermaid”. It was the movie that got Disney backside into the prevailing film province again in the 1980s. The music and white are a delight. I memorialize how thrilled I was when it first came unconfined – it is a delightful mermaid motion picture, high jinks throughout the whole family.
http://www.teaserandtrailer.com
Disagree with the problems with the backline. I think part of the problem is the system being new but overall the players need to get a much better understanding of the system. The players must press as a unit and pin the ball in tight situations forcing an errant pass or obvious long/through pass that can be easily cleaned up by the Centerbacks. You very often see one Chelsea player chasing the ball and others staying in position instead of pressing together. This creates too much space between players and someone picks up the ball in space and can pick out passes behind the backline or switch the ball to the opposite flank. The main factors to decide if pressing and playing high up the field will be successful is the first mans pressure on the ball then the second player(which can actually be 2 or more players) positioning to step in and win the next pass.
Also I think you missed Ramires individual contribution to the match. Coming off an injury he really worked his ass off and was the only player truely pressing the ball in my opinion.
Pretty good post. I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.