Manchester City 2-1 Chelsea: Mancini gets one substitution wrong, then two right

The starting line-ups
Carlos Tevez and Edin Dzeko helped turn a 0-1 into a 2-1.
Manchester City were without Vincent Kompany and Joleon Lescott, so Micah Richards moved into the middle. Mario Balotelli continues to start ahead of Edin Dzeko in big games, while James Milner was left out with Samir Nasri preferred.
Roberto Di Matteo played Fernando Torres upfront, Ramires on the right and John Obi Mikel in the holding role. John Terry was out.
Early battle
Chelsea lined up in the 4-2-3-1 shape that Di Matteo prefers, with Raul Meireles in support of Torres, and Frank Lampard much deeper. This system changes the role of the wide players significantly: it forces them to form a second bank of four without the ball (whereas in the 4-3-3 they stayed much higher up, especially as Andre Villas-Boas wanted them to press).
This was significant: Juan Mata often got caught too high up the pitch when Pablo Zabaleta made forward runs past him, and when City switched the play out wide they often looked dangerous, particularly after their wide players had come inside and made Chelsea narrow. Ramires, on the other side, is naturally both more disciplined and happy tracking back, and Gael Clichy caused fewer problems.
City dominate but fail to score
City dominated possession in the first half and should probably have had a goal to show for it, but they struggled to create clear-cut chances. Their closest efforts, Samir Nasri’s lob onto the bar and Balotelli’s effort just wide, came with attacks straight down the middle of the pitch.
Indeed, they were very focussed on playing through the middle, with the two wide players coming inside. Often one of the forwards would move out to the left flank, but when they stayed in the middle and one dropped deep, it meant a 3 v 2 situation with Nasri, David Silva and either Sergio Aguero or Balotelli forming a triangle around Lampard and Mikel.
There were further problems when Yaya Toure burst forward into this space – Meireles generally watched de Jong – and it was surprising that City didn’t create more from this zone.
At the other end, Torres generally played up against Richards (probably to combine with Mata towards that side) and drifted wide to the flanks. One area where Chelsea did look promising was when Meireles drifted away from de Jong (who often had to cover too much ground with Yaya Toure high up the pitch, so got drawn to runners) but his end product was poor.
Second half

City's system at the start of the second half
Chelsea made two changes during the second half – Michael Essien on for Meireles, with Lampard up higher, then at 1-0 Didier Drogba came on for Torres, presumably to help Chelsea hold the ball up when under pressure.
But this was all about City’s substitutions. At half-time Mancini took the curious decision to remove Balotelli and bring on Gareth Barry. This meant Aguero and Yaya Toure moving higher, and the intention was probably to get the latter into more dangerous positions, and more specifically to get him permanently into that zone between the lines Chelsea were vulnerable in.
It didn’t really work, though – City didn’t play any worse than they had at the end of the first half, but Chelsea’s fortunate goal meant City simply lacked attackers with the opposition getting ten outfield players behind the ball. They now had too many central midfielders.
Key changes
Mancini inevitably had to bring on another forward, and revert to the system he used at the start of the match, with Toure alongside one holder (though this time it was Barry, not De Jong).
The first forward summoned was Carlos Tevez. Whereas in the first half Aguero and Balotelli played as a front two, switching positions, Tevez was put firmly between the lines to pick up balls in that zone. He played the role brilliantly – whereas Toure’s natural instinct is to drive towards goal, this often isn’t possible when the opposition are playing deep and getting men around the player in possession. Tevez was useful because of his close control and one-touch passing in tight areas – he continually found space between the lines and kept City’s play flowing – Nasri and Silva’s runs looked better when they had Tevez on the same wavelength.
But City still couldn’t breakthrough – Chelsea were playing very, very deep – the defence sat on the edge of the box, the midfield barely crossed the halfway line at 0-1. Aguero, Tevez, Nasri and Silva were playing decent but very intricate football, and City really needed a more static central striker for the other players to work around. Edin Dzeko came on for Silva, Aguero went right-ish, and now City had much more of an all-round threat. Suddenly, they were working the ball wide and getting crosses into Dzeko – they were rarely successful, but they were attacking from different angles, stretching the play, making Chelsea work harder across the pitch. Dzeko’s presence won the corner that resulted in the first goal (a very indirect contribution to the goal, granted, but he was having an impact).
Notably, both Dzeko and Tevez could play with their back to goal – that helped for the Nasri winner, as Tevez’s awareness and touch were excellent when playing the one-two.
Conclusion
Let’s not pretend that this was a tactical masterclass from Mancini – he got his first change broadly wrong, and the second and third substitutions were the obvious choices. Instead, this simply showed what a great range of options City have – Tevez and Dzeko are not merely established forwards, they also offer completely different methods of attack to the other forwards.
This was the sign of a good side – not because of the usual cliches about squeezing out results in a tight game, but because City showed they had flexibility upfront and can deal with different challenges by responding with a fresh approach in the final third.





you have two agueros in the second picture. Great analysis as always though.
don’t you know that they bought three aguero and four nasri las summer ?
That is why they have such a depth in the squad
You’re wrong on this one, Michael. City were much better once Barry had replaced Balotelli.
Don’t agree with that – they had lots of the ball but I can’t remember them testing Cech once in that period
I think City were quite poor the entire game and were lucky to get two goals in the end, but then again, Chelsea were also poor and luck for a few seconds were on their side for the goal.
Both sides had some scrappy passing, never tested either keeper and neither midfield really wanted to commit men forward or even do anything, very static. Man City ran out of ideas in the opponents third – no-one playing was able to supply a killer ball. Toure, Silva and all their strikers bar Tevez took way to long on the ball. Silva on numerous occasions showed quick feet but had 6 or 7 touches before playing a simple ball and this really slowed down attacks. Him and Mata both had poor games and didn’t contribute anything throughout. Especially poor was set price delivery.
I think no team ‘deserved’ to win but individual brilliance from tevez and Nasri was a single highlight for city and the first goal was highly debatable and a refereeing decision. A fair result would’ve been 1-1 when looking at chances created di Chelsea are highly unlikely.
Torres look excellent. Great first touches, hold up play and generally had a good game. Should’ve stayed on for 90 mins.
(sorry for any mistakes I’m typing on an iPhone)
I think City looked like they were the better team. Chelsea played too defencively after scoring and in doing so failed to capitalize on the huge spaces City left at the back (removing Torres for Drogba probably played a part in that). City’s problem was indeed players hogging the ball. They seem overawed in the title chase and probably Mancini realized that and that is why he brought Tevez back?
Essien really isn’t the player he used to be.
Not really a tactical point, but Micah Richards was a man tonight…
City, to use a cliche, allow you to play. Their pressing can be good at times individually but collectively it lacks intensity. I think they can be vulnerable because of this which is why they like to control possession.
Agree with this. Their midfield is especially ponderous.
Chelsea played them well and won last time, wonder what happened? Oh wait that’s right, Roman got rid of another brilliant Portuguese manager.
Not a great example, mate. They were getting thrashed in that match, at home as well, until the players decided to abandon the manager’s instructions.
Well, I can say a lot, but in short: City played better in this game and deservedly won.
Seemed like City suffered from the ’spanish problem’ that you’ve highlighted before – lots of tight play through the middle, often with a 3 or 4 vs 2 in the middle. Given that they could then create space out wide, and stretched the fullbacks, I would have thought the 2nd half would have been a perfect opportunity to bring on Adam Johnson on the right – but he wasn’t in the squad (not sure why? not injured or suspended)
I only watched the second half, granted, but from what i saw chelsea look a bit of a broken team these days. Lampard seems to be no longer able to link Mikel and Essien to the forward players anymore. Torres looked extremely isolated, it was a shame to see him come off as he had very little service throughout. At least he was pressing the city midfielders, something Drogba notably failed to do in the closing stages
Why was David Pizarro not on the bench ? He would be very useful against very defensiv teams – like Chelsea after their lead. It seems that Mancini don’t trust him.
Pizarro’s is by far their most talented CM too.
He certainly has more technical ability, but Yaya Toure might object to your assertion.
To be perfectly clear, I only saw the closing half hour or so.
I wouldn’t really applaud Mancini’s second substitution. Dzeko contributed very little, sure he won a corner, but if you press a center back with short players when you chuck in aimless crosses you can get the same result (see Spain at the World Cup, where the crossed pretty much with the sole intentions of stretching play wider and allowing Pique, Puyol, and Ramos into the area for set pieces). Simply put, Dzeko isn’t well suited to City’s intricate style (not that he doesn’t have skill, he’s a good player), he would play better on a team with wingers to give him space (even if they weren’t crossing, and no, Silva and Nasri aren’t wingers, they’re wide playmakers if anything, trequartista’s with the ingenuity to avoid defensive midfielders). While it’s true that the crosses helped stretch play, it’s like saying Carrol is important for Liverpool because it “allows” Downing to play aimless crosses into the area. If all you want to do is attack from different angle and win corners, you don’t need a tall forward. It’s not just Spain who do this, United are another exponent (although they do score from a fair few, it’s not because they’re aiming for an aerial threat).
Tevez was a good move.
Why oh why though, is Pizarro not playing?
ZM, in your Chelsea/Napoli column, you noted Ivanovic’s awful game, during which the front three were able to play diagonal balls into his unoccupied area. I agreed with this assessment, and for me it only confirmed to me that Ivanovic has been playing well all season except for that match, and how important he specifically is to Chelsea’s success.
It seems that today was further confirmation of his contribution: After he went off, and especially in the second half, City attacked relentlessly on Chelsea’s right, with crosses from Clichy and work from Tevez and Nasri. Did anyone else sense the same thing?
He tends to play well, but then has one or two moments in the game where he just completely loses his man, often resulting in a good chance. That’s just not acceptable for a defender at the highest level. He had another of them today, I forget exactly when. He’s been culpable for quite a few of Chelsea’s goals lost, especially when he plays in the middle.
I agree, for the most part. However, part of that may be the in-match work rate he has (he often joins the attack and stays up) as well as his minutes over the season. Because of his versatility, he naturally has more minutes logged than Cahill, Bosingwa, or Luiz. And I think he’s better on the right than in the middle.
No defender should bomb forward unless they have adequate cover or can recover from their forward runs. For a defender to stay up in “a high work rate shift” is insane.
There are some exceptions, where attacking without cover or recovery is worth the risk. For example, during the last move of the game.
Man City were all over the Chelsea right flank ALL game, not just the second half. City constantly outnummbered Chelsea on that side with Toure and Nasri combining with Clichy bombing forward, a drifting, and Balotelli/Aguero dropping deep. Bosingwa is more adventurous than Ivanovic and combined with the tired legs of Mikel/Ramires allowed City to rampage on that side even more in the second half.
Couldn’t help but think City should of won this game easier…the midfield was so ponderous. Silva lacked his usual incisive passing. Toure was decent. Nasri was MOM for me but how many shots did he sky into lower orbit?
Chelsea looked pedestrian. When Mata has a poor game they simply have no creativity. Poor Essien. How far has he fallen when Mikel is somehow still starting…
On the flip side, what’s the point of Gareth Barry?
Man City – Deserved the win.
Defensively, they were really strong, despite their first choice two not available. Richards was fantastic at dealing with Torres, aggressively tackling him early on before he could get time on the ball. Kolo Toure also had a good game next to him too however, doing all the quiet but effective tasks that kept city from conceding like for example covering for his team mate when he moved higher up the pitch. Kolo also took charge of the ball in defense, passing the ball out with good technique, as Richards didn’t comfortable doing this. A good tactic of Chelsea could have been to press Kolo and let Richards have the ball. Both fullbacks did a good job of getting forward although with mixed success. Clichy actually made more runs forward, but had the pesky Ramires on his back while Zabaleta kept position more, but when he got forward he did it to better effect as Mata rarely tracked back.
In midfield, De Jong was what you would expect; good defensively (stopping meireles well) but offered nothing going forward and high unambitious with the ball. Yaya in the first half however did a great job, given lots of room to move into (as Mikel played too deep) he could charge at the defense to good effect.
Nasri and Silva have great chemistry, which is looking better and better. Silva moves into deeper positions where he can control the game and Nasri plays higher up where he can shoot at goal or exchange passes with one of the forwards. Nasri had the better game today, as the RB rarely followed him inside and Balotelli created space for him inside by dragging Cahill outwide a few times. Silva was more quiet as he was up against Cole and Lampard who did well to cut off supply to him.
The forwards of Balotelli and Ageuro worked okay. Balotelli did well to drag Cahill out of space with good movement, but rarely did anything with ball (barring his once chance). Aguero found it harder in the fist half as Luiz was comfortable moving up the pitch and pressing him. He showed good link up play with Nasri, but couldn’t do much with ball himself.
The first City change of bringing Barry on was a poor choice. Both Barry and De Jong offer nothing going forward, Aguero up front on his own wasn’t really working as was expected to hold the ball up which isn’t his forte. Yaya was still a menace, and actually got into some dangerous positions but the rest of the team was looking worse off for the decision.
The next changes worked out much better. First Tevez came on for De Jong, allowing Yaya back into his first half position. This meant Barry could now be the deepest player and showed much more ambitous passing, Yaya was still able to get forward from deep positions and now Tevez was playing in the hole. Tevez linked up much better with Nasri (as the goal showed) in a similar way to how Aguero was in the first half, and got into some great positions. Though I would have liked to have seen him and Aguero swap roles, as Tevez can play the central striker role much better than Aguero (who was still struggling with his back to goal). The next change helped this, as Silva came off (not his best game) and Dzeko came on up front, with Aguero moving out wide. Dzeko was much better at holding the ball up and was able to win balls in the air (a strategy City couldn’t use before he came on). While Aguero provided a much more direct threat from the right, as he was able to run at the defense and drag defenders towards him.
Overall, City dominated the first half with Yaya getting forward well from deep positions and Nasri benefiting from Ageuro link up play and Balotelli movement. The start of the second half saw Yaya become more dangerous but the rest of the team play worse. Mancini did well to change this by bringing on Tevez and Dzeko, basically returning to the first half formula to get the best of nasri, though aguero on the right proved much more effective than Silva.
Check out my blog if you want http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/the-uk-budget/ an article on the UK budget
Chelsea – deserved to lose.
Defensively they seemed open at the start, with Cahill being dragged out of position. But Luiz has looked much better recently however, looking in form. He played well against Aguero today (especially in the first half) and won nearly everything in the air. Both played better when they only had Ageuro to deal with in the second half, but looked vulnerable again when Tevez and Dzeko came on. At fullback, both players at RB played poor, neither tracked nasri well or got froward to take advantage of Nasri not being in a position to track back. Cole had a better game defensively, helping Lampard deal with Silva, but again did not get forward into the space that was in front of him. The lack of width and bravery from the chelsea fullbacks set the tone for the match, as chelsea were dominated in possession.
In midfield, Mikel played to deep to really stop Yaya getting forward, but did well to stop the link up play between Nasri and the forwards. Without him Man city definitly would have had more clear opportunities. Mikel was also the player who saw the ball most for Chelsea, and almost never gave the ball away, though his passes did lack ambition. But for the most part Mikel had a good game, and was a big reason for City not scoring sooner. Lampard also played his part by helping to stifle Silva with the help of Cole, though he didnt get forward much and was similarly cautious with the ball. These two contibuted to Chelsea’ lack of a link between defense and attack. Though the key problem was Meireles, who offered nothing going forward really. His passing was poor, often giving the ball away while he could rarely get away from De Jong in the first half.
Mata was Chelsea’s biggest threat going forward, finding space when De Jong was too preoccupied with Meireles. He was able to create a few chances on the break, though a lack of any support meant he had to try and do it all himself. But Mata was poor defensively, often letting Zabaleta get forward unchecked. Ramires was the opposite, tracking Clichy excellently, but offering nothing going forward really and often losing the ball when he got it.
Torres was dominated by Richards and Kolo and couldn’t offer anything in attack really, though more support could have seen Richards exposed as Torres often dragged him out of defense with no-one taking advantage.
The chelsea changes didnt change much. Essien and Lampard did similar roles to the players they replaced repectively. While Drogba up front meant Chelsea had a better outball for pressure, but he still wasn’t supported and couldn’t quite do everything himself.
Overall, Chelsea lacked a link between their defense and attack, with Meireles and Lampard both poor in the hole, offering nothing apart from creating space for Mata. Mata was Chelsea’s only threat throughout the game, while defensively Cahill looked shakey at the start and end of the game, when he was up against a two man strike force effectively.
nooo
Am I the only one who sees the similarities between the formation Manchester City started with last night and the 2006 Brazil team when Carlos Alberto Parreira was trying to shoehorn Ronaldo, Adriano, Ronaldinho and Kaka into the same team? Defensively, it set up very much as a 4-4-2, with Ronaldinho on the left and Kaka the right, but offensively those two pushed right on and drifted inside into number 10 positions.
It didn’t work for Brazil that world cup, and I’m not sure I see it doing well here.
True, but there are other more successful examples, mainly Villarreal last year (though this was a disaster), and perhaps Manuel Pellegrini’s sides in general. Fullham under Roy Hodgson also employed the 4-4-2 in a narrow fashion, although the wingers were usually genuine wingers switched to be inverted rather than playmakers wide. One also has to remember that a large part of Brazil’s problem was the use of static strikers (the “twin towers” of Ronaldo and Adriano), something more successful exponents have largely avoided.
I think the advantage Man City have is a wealth of mobile strikers (Aguero, Balotelli, Tevez) and a holding midifelder with some ability going forwards (Yaya) as opposed to the two sitters you often see in South American 4-4-2 box formations. Villarreall shared this with the mobile forwards (Rossi, Nilmar) and passing midfielders (Senna, Bruno, Valero) to provide attacking thrust.
Conversely, one could rightly point out that City do not have Brazil’s wingbacks (Clichy and Richards both have the athletic aspects down, but Clichy can be accused of poor dribbling and crossing, whilst Richards is simply limited on the ball).
I do think that so long as City stubbornly insist upon eschewing the regista, Tevez might be a better choice in the starting XI than the other strikers, thanks to his hold up play, creativity, and tendency to drop very deep. This way City will gain additional creativity and prevent Silva and Nasri from being shut out, whilst exploiting defensive midfielders who have to play wider or more roaming then they’d like to stop the wide playmakers by dropping straight into the hole. In this case, City’s formation would revert to last year’s with the notable exception of one of the De Jong/Barry pivot being sacrificed for a striker.
How far have Chelsea fallen? To offer so little in a game like this.
Di Matteo got wrong decisions.When Chelsea scored the goal,they sat deeper and deeper only with Drogba forward.This was a mistake.Di Matteo should have moved his mids higher and closer to Drogba so they could press in advance and City wouldn’t have managed to put so many balls to the forwards.
a small point, but indicative I think of the way Di Matteo is concentrating purely on results and not interested in rebuilding the team (no surprise as I’m sure he’s under no illusion as to his chances of keeping the job) – Chelsea have given up completely on playing the ball out from the back. Since AVB left Cech has been hitting long balls nearly every time he has possession
Rebuilding a team = making them pass the ball out from the back? I’m not sure how indicative that is of much but the stylistic preference of the players and manager.
Well, no, not inherently – But much of Chelsea’s rebuilding mission under AVB was specifically meant to be the adoption of more total football type-play.
Although it’s tough to blame a caretaker manager not wanting to be too experimental.
Barry is useless
You’re clueless. You don’t like football, do you?
Barry can neither provide the energy like Yaya Toure nor the security like De Jong
Thought Tevez changed the game, pure and simple – gave City the creativity they lacked in central areas.
Did anybody else think City adopted a 4-3-1-2 formation with Nasri, Toure and Barry close together in midfield, Tevez in the hole and Balotelli and Aguero upfront?
For more thoughts please check out: http://thompsontalkstactics.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/manchester-city-2-chelsea-1-21st-march-2012/
Were those three on the pitch at the same time?
- Barry replaced Mad Mario @ Half time
Good site! No foaming at the mouth opposition baiting and some great tactical know how, a few Barry comments won’t change my opinion!
Tevez coming on made your area a livelier place, that’s what we’ve been missing.
As for the Balotelli substitution…. I thought it was correct, the guy is a 10 man formation waiting to happen.
Good luck in the CL from a City fan.
Mr Hansen really doesn’t like Balotelli, does he?
Hey ZM will you make a review of Milan VS Roma?
hey where is the tactical preview on milan barca?