Chelsea’s change in defensive system under Roberto Di Matteo
Three Chelsea systems without the ball: (a) Villas-Boas' 4-3-3, (b) Villas-Boas' 4-2-1-3, (c) Di Matteo's 4-2-3-1
The major change at Chelsea under Roberto Di Matteo has been the difference in the wide positions, stemming from a combination of the change of style, and the change of formation.
Andre Villas-Boas wanted 4-3-3 and lots of pressing – therefore the job of the wide players was to close down the full-backs, and they defended high up the pitch.
Villas-Boas then started playing with Juan Mata as a central playmaker, but the formation remained more 4-2-1-3 than 4-2-3-1 – a minor difference, but the wide players were still staying high up the pitch, even as Villas-Boas went from a heavy pressing game to something more cautious.
Di Matteo’s formation, on the other hand, is 4-2-3-1 – Chelsea are defending with two banks of four behind the ball, something they haven’t done for a long time.
With their past few coaches, Chelsea have been used to playing 4-3-3, or 4-3-1-2, or 4-3-2-1, all of which defend with either a four and a three, or a four and a five, depending on how cautious they were playing.
Defending with a second line of four is very unusual for Chelsea, and Di Matteo deserves a lot of credit for implementing the system so quickly and successfully. Oddly, Di Matteo’s major problem at West Brom was the lack of defensive organisation, and Roy Hodgson’s job when replacing Di Matteo was all about getting the side structured without the ball.
The major effect of the change in system is the identity of the wide players. Daniel Sturridge, who regards himself very much as a forward pushed out wide, rather than a wide midfielder, could work well within the 4-3-3 as he was playing high up, close to goal, and usually receiving the ball within thirty yards of goal. Now ‘his’ role has changed completely – it involves retreating 30-40 yards when the ball is lost, and defensively Sturridge is not particularly adept.
On the other flank, Juan Mata is also no longer quite right for the wide role. This is a different situation – at Valencia he played that role well enough, and he’s certainly more defensively aware than Sturridge. But a combination of factors – (a) his fitness, which has clearly dropped significantly in recent weeks, (b) the fact he’d been used to pressing high up, and now would be being told to drop deep, and (c) the desire to play him in a central role, perhaps the most important factor – has meant he also no longer plays on the flank.
Therefore, in Sunday’s game against Tottenham, it was Ramires and Saloman Kalou who played in the wide positions. These two are clearly less spectacular players, but both are much more disciplined and underrated in terms of their efficiency with the ball. I’ve written about Ramires for the Guardian, but Kalou was also impressive yesterday, and of all the Chelsea players who could broadly be termed attackers, is probably the most aware tactically.
There is also now a central midfield two, rather than a three. This is less of a departure from the 4-2-1-3 we saw occasionally under Villas-Boas, though Chelsea are still getting used to playing this way. Yesterday it was unusual to see John Obi Mikel often briefly higher up than Frank Lampard when Chelsea didn’t have the ball, and that ‘two’ is now functioning as a unit rather than with one given the primary defensive responsibilities.
There was a little bit of confusion about how to pick up Rafael van der Vaart – in the old 4-3-3, he would clearly have been tracked by Mikel, the only holder. Now, there has to be more communication and improvisation as the opposition number ten varies his position.
How Chelsea will cope with Lionel Messi this week Messi remains to be seen, and it’s difficult to work out whether it’s better to play with two holders or one holder against him. The only time Messi looks relatively infffective is when he has to come deeper than both men in a double pivot to pick up the ball – as was the case for Argentina in the Copa America, and for Barcelona in the Copa Del Rey defeat to Real Madrid last season.
That is probably what Chelsea will be hoping for, which means Di Matteo will ask his double pivot to play very deep, probably allowing Barcelona’s midfielders a lot of time on the ball.
Good stuff, he has worked it out quickly as you say, maybe having better players makes it easier than his time at West Brom?
Chelse will most likely do a 5-4-1 against Barca,and hope to earn something from counters. And may be the 4 forwards Pep used in the recent matches, might have been a prep for this match. who knows.
5-4-1? We don’t have 3 healthy CBs.
At least not the sort of 3 that play for Juventus or even Napoli! great Bayern v Madrid preview http://www.theirtactics.com/bayern-munich-v-real-madrid-tactical-preview-to-a-titanic-clash/
playing 5-4-1 at home, with the away leg still to play, is suicide
Excellent article but one question on the last part about Messi. If Messi plays in the space between the lines, why Chelsea not use a three man midfield with Lampard on top and Mikel with Essien (for example) behind? That way a) there would be two holding players stationed relatively deep as it is stated but also one who likes to retain possession and another who is more energetic; that way Messi would anticipate a double challenge in order to work his magic b) Barca’s three-man midefield would be matched c) Lampard would be a better choice to “carry” the ball from defence to attack when Chelsea breaks on the counter-attack and d) there would be finally someone there to press Busquets (Mata in a 4-2-3-1 generally tends to the left so, despite finding space, he would still leave Busquets unmarked).
Your A and D comments counter each other. You want Chelsea’s midfield to press Busquets AND stay deep to limit Messi’s space. You can’t do both. In your scenario, Lampard presses Busquets and Barca simply pass around him because Mikel and Essien are sitting deep. If Chelsea press high as a team, thus pressing Busquets and keeping the space between the lines tight(to stop Messi), then Barca simply play balls in behind Chelsea’s slow defense and you’re back to why Villas-Boas was let go.
On top of which, you claim Chelsea’s 3-man midfield would match Barca’s…. well not if the holding midfielders (Mikel and Essien) are picking up Messi, who essentially then becomes a 4th Barca midfielder into the equation.
Actually Lampard presses Busquets and the holding midfielders pick up Xavi and Iniesta in the original scheme. So midfield is matched. Also, if Chelsea stays deep then Barca pushes forward so Busquets would still be high enough for Lampard to press him, for the midfield to match Barca’s AND nullifies Messi’s presence. Finally, Messi will be having trouble because of this kind of players being present at that space NOT picking him up directly as man-markers. As about the 4th midfield man, yes, in that manner it wouldn’t work to match it. But the point is that Messi is an extra midfielder when he has time and space to drop naturally behind as he usually does. With Mikel and Essien in that zone this would be harder and thus less effective. But good you brought it up because I was probably unclear about what I was thinking
Ah, but Busquets doesn’t really push forward even if the other team is dropping deep. IF Chelsea play 3 in the middle, then it means 1 up top(probably Drogba) and 2 outwide. In this case, Barca will play a four man defense. When they do play a four man defense, whenever they have the ball, Busquets drops back between their 2 CB’s who are then pushing out wide. So now Busquets is nowhere near Lampard to pick-up.
Sitting deep may nullify Messi as much as one can nullify Messi, but then you’re giving Busquets all the time on the ball.
I’m curious how Ancelotti’s 4-3-2-1 would do. It would offer plenty of space for the Barca full-backs, but I would consider them the lesser of 5 evils :p
Such are the the problems when playing one of the best teams ever. I won’t say best ever because I like prefer Sacchi’s Milan
Milan’s 4-3-1-2 this season is an option too. No, they didn’t win but they were in with a chance against the best team in the world, which is all you can really ask for against them.
I’d run out Milan’s 4-3-1-2. Play narrow with Ramirez and tell Malouda (gulp) to help out on Alvez. I don’t know who I’d have play in the Robinho role. Torres if you feel you need to go for broke (ask him to fill space behind Alvez) or Mata and ask Lamps to link. I’d probably do the latter.
I’m sure RDM will play the 4-2-3-1 anyway. be curious to see who plays on the left.
Good point though Busquets drops deep to form a three-man defence mostly when not in possession. The point is to press him when Barca try to pass the ball. Totally agree about the Milan part. I’m sure it would work well some time although Chelsea aren’t used to it so they can use it properly on such an important game.
Couple of Points. I don’t think Essien is fit, either that or he is really struggling to get the same levels he had before the injuries, which may have something to do with doctors telling him to reduce muscle mass in his thighs as his knees simply cant take the strain. I think RDM will play virtually the same XI for all the important games until the end of the season. Drogba has had a lot of rest since basically the Napoli game and I have a feeling RDM will be saying, tiredness isn’t an issue considering he is basically fighting for a job. I personally would play Ramires on the left like he did against Napoli as he could be one of a few player in world football to keep tabs on Dani Alves. Alves is often incredibly underrated because he become important after the first phase of Barcelona play fails. He slowly creeps forward if the play starts on the left hand side because he cant make lung busting runs all game. If they cant break you down straight away he always has 10 yards of space because keeping the back four close together is possibly the most important aspect to defending against Barcelona. If we are able to defend without him we have a fighting chance. There will be a massive difference in that I fancy Fabregas to play, Pep to surprise everyone, and I also notice that in the 1-1 draw barca had Xavi Busquets and Keita in midfield. yaya Toure played CB, so we are up against a completely different animal. Maybe Fabregas will play in the leg at the camp Nou but he is the perfect player for English opposition.
There is also a possibility that Mata wont start vs Barca. You cant let Biscuits free; see what happen at last year final. If Mata is tracking Busquets, he wont be in space and both will negate each other. This is quite similar as to when Ozil plays vs Barca . Also, expect to see Ramires and Kalou switching wings.
The forward of choice is interesting. Torres + ‘pace’ or Drogba who is a more capable lone striker and would relish the chance for revenge. Sturridge can be use as a potential game changer.
This is just my opinion however, and it is more likely the lineup which brilliantly works against Valencia will be RdM choice.
Drogba is a much better tactical choice than Torres for the CL tie. Torres will be a spectator while Barcelona dominates the ball. Chelsea needs Drogba to drop deep to pick up the ball and hold it up. He must be an extra outlet in the center of the pitch.
If Chelsea wants to see how these dynamics work against Barcelona, they should watch tape of Kanoute and Forlan against Barcelona in past seasons. Fergie was yelling Rooney off the pitch at Wembley last year because he would not drop into the spaces and work hard enough when Barcelona had the ball.
Mata is a better choice on the left than in the center against Barcelona. Mata is not particularly well made for aggressive tracking and chasing in the middle when out of possession. If he does start in the center, he will be drifting left to try and create overloads. However, this would mean Chelsea plays exclusively for the counter.
I agree. Drogba provides energy and a physical presence upfront. This will certainly trouble Pique and Puyol. Plus if Chelsea want to play aerial balls to beat Barca’s pressing as their game involves playing with the ball on the ground, they have Drogba as a possible attacking outlet.
Is it mostly a change of system (or style or formation), or a change of Lampard’s position on the field?
If we assume Di Matteo has a say in it, he obviously wants to play Lampard. And Mata, certainly when Torres is playing. Playing both in the front half may be too much of a defensive liability – so there you go. Frank still can take the penalty’s so his goal scoring opportunities are still guaranteed, and partnering a defensive midfielder isn’t too difficult, for a good player. Van der Vaart’s only place in the Dutch eleven is also this one, next to Van Bommel. No tackles but improved football.
The rest of the Chelsea team is than picked easily, as you point out regarding Sturridge, Kalou and Ramires.
Kalou was less Kalouless than usual. Mony a Mikel maks a muddle: but not yesterday. An alternative view would be that Spurs must have been rather dire if they managed to make those two look good enough for Chelsea.
Maybe it was a “covert” long-term tactic by Spurs to make Kalou and Mikel look better than they are to ensure they stay at Chelsea and further hinder Chelsea’s long-term progress. Sacrifice 3 points for 3 years of bettering your rivals …… they may be on to something :p
One thing I’ve been wondering lately: is there such a shape as 4-2-3-1, or is it in fact- a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-2-1-3, depending on how deep the wide players drop without the ball? Or is 4-4-1-1 basically a 4-4-2 with a supporting striker, and the sc. 4-2-3-1 is a 4-4-1-1 with a playmaker?
I would have a guess in saying the formations depend on the individual roles. Even though they may line up a certain way logically, or in the past, you can only say for certain which formation it is after the match has been played. Unless, you are the manager, then you work it out during the match, and if you are really good manager(i.e. know where your weaknesses and strengths are) you can probably predict the likely formation before the match.
Anywho, I digress. 4-2-3-1 would entail a playmaker with wingers(used loosely here) who have equal job in closing full backs down and retreating to form a second defensive line. It is a slightly more attacking formation. 4-4-1-1 is more defensive, so the wingers have to form a second bank of four when the ball is lost. Here the 1 behind the forward has to have some skill / composure with the ball so it doesn’t always have to be a playmaker which is a mostly creative role, but a player who has more supportive role either helping out the midfield or helping out the forward. Fairly hard job to do as they have to decide when to go forward or back as they are the link. Most usual pass is out to the wings to invite the wingers forward. 4-4-2 is can be attacking or defensive. I see it as an attacking formation nowadays as the midfield is not packed with bodies and the attacking fullbacks nowadays. The emphasis is usually wing play, the CM pass it out to the flanks and they work the channels to cross for the forward who usually has good aerial ability or they can give on the floor cross or cutbacks if they don’t have an old fashioned number 9. Neither CM want to get ahead of the ball, again due to the fullbacks bombing forward.
I would tread carefully in calling formations the same. They are used to hopefully get closer at pointing out how the team plays which is down to individual roles.
Did I help at all?
E@zy
That was kind of helpful, but it’s just that the notation doesn’t make sense compared to other shapes, or alternatively, it’s used too loosely. Majority of teams labelled as playing 4-2-3-1 do defend with two banks of four, effectively making it a 4-4-1-1, and the shape numbering/notation is pretty much always induced from the shape the team takes without the ball. Eg. 4-1-4-1 vs. 4-1-2-3, 4-4-2 vs 4-2-4 etc. There’s a distinct difference between them, whereas 4-2-3-1 can be a bunch of things.
It’s not logical to break the norm, and induce the numbering from the attacking shape of the team, and it’s equally illogical to call it 4-2-3-1, since there’s no band of three even if the wide players do press the opposing fullbacks- either the attacking midfielder presses just off from the forward, or stays just ahead of the midfield two. It’d simply make much more sense to call it either a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-2-1-3.
It’s like cappello said, you can play whatever formation for attack, but on defense, you should be playing with 10 men behind the ball and maybe the lone striker up top.
Formations change constantly throughout the game, so it’s difficult to actually know what formation the teams are playing.
Guardiola changes his tactics constantly, sometimes I’ll see alves stay back as a RB, then sometimes it’s as if he’s playing RW.
The formation is just a starting point, once the game starts it changes continuously.
Formations can be whatever you want them to be (attacking, defensive, etc). Formations are neutral. It’s the roles/responsibilities that you give each player that makes them attacking/defensive, aggressive/passive.
For example, you can play a 4-4-2 with a very high defensive line with aggressive pressing and you could be called an attacking side. You can play a 4-4-2 and sit back with two banks of four and be called defensive.
A 4-4-2 that presses often looks 4-2-4 or even 2-4-4. The numbers themselves don’t matter. What’s more important is what they do in their position, not where they start it.
Yet another good read. Very interesting. Against Barcelona i’d start Drogba, when in the mood he can take on any defence on his own at times, as shown against Tottenham over the weekend. My team would be, Cech, Ivanovic,Luiz,Terry,Cole, Mikel,Lampard, Mata,Essien,Ramires, Drogba.
4231 formation however Essien would play deeper, closer to Lampard and Mikel then Drogba, helping to stifle and add steel to the central zone, and when he has the ball quickly deploy it to Drogba or Mata. Ramires on the left because of his energy, and pace i reckon could help utilise the space Alves is bound to leave on the counter attacks. Id have him playing a similar role as he did against Napoli at home, a kind of left-sided defensive winger but able to push on with help from Cole. Mata on the right, when on the attack can cut infield linking up with Drogba with supporting runes from Essien or even Ramires to overload the area Busquets occupies. Just my thoughts, but nevertheless im expecting a fasniating encounter.
For Barca i reckon it could be Valdes, Alves,Pique,Mascherano,Puyol, Xavi,Busquets,Iniesta, Fabregas,Messi,Sanchez. Fabregas and Messi dropping infield to disturb Mikel and Lampard, with Sanchez attacking Ivanovic and Luiz (Or Cahill) with diagonal runs, leaving Iniesta crucially with space to exploit. Movement will be as important as ever for Barca.
What can be said of Mighty Wigan? “Martinez for England” perhaps?
Serious point, ZM: have you got a post anywhere showing how Martinez uses his three centre back formation?
“The only time Messi looks relatively infffective is when he has to come deeper than both men in a double pivot to pick up the ball – as was the case for Argentina in the Copa America, and for Barcelona in the Copa Del Rey defeat to Real Madrid last season.”
What of the counterexamples from this campaign of Messi starting behind a centre-forward? You yourself wrote after the first Clásico: “Messi was playing as a number ten (and often even deeper than that) rather than a false nine.”
He’s been playing deeper than ever and has scored more than ever: this is a case of correlation (for the Copa America and Copa del Rey finale) not equaling causation.
And he had plenty of assists while playing in the Copa America (and could have had more if not for the forwards’ finishing).
Because he wasn’t dropping deep against both men in a double pivot?
Drogba as the lone striker seems to be an obvious choice for Chelsea due to his physical presence and current form. Compared to the other players available he offers more for the team. However coming up against Barcelona could his physical presence become a hinderance? Barcelona players, even the centre backs, are well known for their theatrics; a strong aerial challenge could easily lead to a card for Drogba which would reduce his effectiveness in the role.
Great website by the way.
As a Barca fan, I am very worried about Drogba’s threat, especially when he challenges Pique. Since Pique, as all of us know, has an extremely dreadful season, who even causes Barca losing the title.
what I would give for a Bayern-Chelsea final
It’s an interesting aspect, no doubt, how fast Di Matteo made a change in a few weaks, that Villas Boas couldn’t in several months… or a better answer might be, he didn’t want to.
Great article on Ramires, btw!
Just to add up, and being a Benfica fan and him (Ramires) being one of my favourite players (despite only playing 1 year in Portugal), Ramires is not only someone with incredible stamina, but also has very good pace and excellent tackling ability.
If you combine all that with his fair technical ability, shooting, and positioning, you have a player that is a master at pressing.
In today’s football, pressing has a close relation to success. And Ramires is absolutely brilliant at that.
In a age were box-to-box midfielders are extinct, replaced by holders and false 10’s, he presents a unique and valuable skillset.
Agreed, ramires, marchisio, vidal those are real midfielders
Its a shame for chelsea he that he will be wasted on the wing covering alves, it would be nice to see him pressing xavi/inesta/cesc
Very true.
However, if we had actual wingers to play that would track back, then ramires could play on in the middle.
But, without ramires on the RW, kalou or malouda(i hope not) will play left, leaving sturridge on the right, and everyone knows sturridge does NOT track back. Which is why I’d like to see Torres on the right, his workrate has become so much better and his crosses have been top notch the past couple games. Plus, he actually presses and tracks back!
Torres on the right might actually work well
If pep comes out with the flexible 3/4 at the back with puyol at leftback/left cb then I would say its a good matchup for torres he would not be up against a pacy rampaging fullback. If he gets a few breaks on the wing he could whip in crosses for drogba who might be relishing the pique/mascherano partnership.
valdez
drogba ^ masch-pique-puyol
ramires mata torres alves busq keita
mikel lampard messi cesc
cole terry cahil ivanovic sanchez inesta
cech
Di mateo might opt for more energy in place of lampard with meireles. What chelsea would give for essien in his prime.
Boswinga at right back would bring in some energy but Ivanovic has been solid
Pep always has a few tricks up his sleaves, Keita will start, always seems to play away in europe, plus Xavi is a doubt.
You never know who will play on the wings, cuenca/tello/pedro could play.
Just realized the matchups dont look right
Chelsea in 4231
——–Drogba
Ramires–Mata–Torres
——Mikel-Lampard
Cole-JT–Cahil-Ivanovic
Barca in 3313/4213 depending on alves
—Masce-Pique-Puyol
Alves-Busq-keita
——-Cesc
Sanchez-Messi-Inesta
I wanted to ask you a simple question. Should chelsea play with two forwards or just one? I mean barca defense has struggled against two strikers(vs real madrid, copa del rey 2012 second leg second half) and against man Utd in the CL final when rooney went to join the forward line he got a goal, remember? So is a flat 4-4-2 a better option than 4-5-1/5-4-1/4-2-3-1 ??
Barca can switch to 3-4-3 then, also Rooney’s goal is an offside one
If you go 442 you might aswell have a diamond. I think if you had to choose where to concede space then the flanks would be a good option.
You would have to be able to clog up the centre of the pitch. Alves and Abidal looked almost useless the first time they versed ac milan. Delivering crosses that couldnt do much or congesting the centre.
Im sure pep would switch to a back 3. Maybe a hybrid 442 diamond/ 4231 would be good. Sturridge as a striker/winger perhaps. di Mateo doesent seem to trust him though
I won’t either, since he doesn’t track back. He basically hates defending, and If I were RDM I’ll simply fax everyone he’s available for 20m.
If you don’t want to defend, you aren’t deserved to be a footballer.
But for me, most importantly, make sure Stamford Bridge a barely playable (that is, make sure the ref just won’t call off the game) swamp. You aren’t going to be punished for that, and if this can hold Barca at bay, why not.
I wonder if Drogba has the stamina for 90 minutes; probably not.
Also, Chelsea have a height advantage all across the pitch could we see something like the match against Napoli where Chelsea had great success getting balls in to heads?
I did notice that Sturridge seemed to reduce in effectiveness with this kind of formation, and did seem to spend a lot more time deep in his own half, not giving him the same counter-attacking opportunities as usual. I suppose that one solution could be playing him in a striker role, of course, though that’s unlikely, but I also noticed that in the game against Wigan, as soon as Sturridge came off for Torres (who didn’t get back nearly as much playing on the right), Torres was getting some very good runs across the right on the counter-attack due to starting further forward. While Torres did seem to slip as soon as he reached the box a couple of times, he did end up contributing to the winning goal.
It seems that playing Sturridge in a role more akin to that which he had at home against Man City (also one of the games under the AVB-era where Chelsea played a system most akin to what they have now), where his position was primarily oriented towards counter-attacking, could well be a good way to get more pace in attack and break down the weaker teams, which this Chelsea have occasionally seemed to have trouble doing (eg. with Wigan and Fulham.) In any case, how Sturridge is currently being played does seem to weaken Chelsea’s attack somewhat, insofar as it takes one of the offensive players into a position where they don’t seem that comfortable.