Chelsea 1-0 Barcelona: Chelsea score the type of goal they were trying to score, and the type Barcelona were trying to prevent

The starting line-ups – Meireles and Lampard briefly swapped positions
Didier Drogba’s goal in first half stoppage time gave Chelsea a surprise victory.
Roberto Di Matteo brought in Raul Meireles, with Salomon Kalou dropping to the bench and Juan Mata moving wide. David Luiz was injured, so Gary Cahill played at centre-back, and Branislav Ivanovic at right-back.
Pep Guardiola didn’t select Gerard Pique, electing to play Adriano at left-back, so Carles Puyol could play in the centre of defence alongside Javier Mascherano. Andres Iniesta and Cesc Fabregas both started.
Chelsea rode their luck and Barcelona squandered chances – but overall this was a very disciplined display from Chelsea, and an extremely impressive defensive performance.
Approaches
This was a clash between two clearly contrasting styles. Barcelona, even by their standards, went for a ball-hoarding approach. Lionel Messi played much deeper than he usually does, coming into midfield to help retain the ball. Iniesta, rather than a natural winger, was on the left to give extra passing quality out wide. Alexis Sanchez was a wide player stretching the play, rather than in the centre-forward role he’s played in some other big games this season. Guardiola paid Chelsea a lot of respect with his approach, and though Barcelona had the majority of the ball, this was actually a conservative Barcelona display.
Di Matteo went very defensive from the start. A few sides – notably Real Madrid, but also Milan – have started off pressuring Barcelona heavily and breaking up their rhythm in the first ten minutes, with some success. There was no intent to do this from Chelsea tonight – they sat back with three holding midfielders (Frank Lampard barely got into the opposition third and remained in his position), which was a modification of the previous defensive shape Di Matteo has used. Ramires was understandably pushed out to the left to track Daniel Alves’ runs (those two were once in competition for the right-sided shuttling role Dunga wanted in his Brazil side). Mata was on the right, not his natural role, but he did OK by keeping things narrow.
Therefore, this wasn’t remotely a possession battle. Barcelona were the only side looking to keep the ball, and the passing totals of 158-754 were pretty much what you’d expect.

Chelsea deep and narrow
Chelsea’s first task was trying to prevent Barcelona playing through the centre, and force them out wide. Their approach here was interesting – Lampard and Meireles flanked Mikel. Lampard started on the right with Meireles to the left – then they switched, but Meireles kept fouling Fabregas, so they switched again – but they were basically doing the same job anyway.
Jon Obi Mikel’s role was particularly interesting. Usually, in a 4-3-3 / 4-5-1, you’d expect the central player to be the deepest of the three midfielders (like Sergio Busquets, for example), but Mikel was often the man to move up the pitch and close down Xavi Hernandez. Lampard and Meireles would stay quite central, quite tight. When the ball was then moved out wide, Mikel would drop back and form a line of three again, or sometimes slightly deeper than the other two. But he very rarely played on his own in front of the defence.
This worked well, and Messi hardly got the ball between the lines. The only time he got a large amount of space to run with the ball at the centre-backs was late in the first half, when he had dispossessed Mikel himself and created his own attack (he teed up Fabregas, who shot weakly and allowed Ashley Cole to clear off the line) – forward passes into that zone from Xavi or Busquets were difficult, because Chelsea were packing the zone around Messi.

In a sense, Mikel was playing something similar to the role Pepe fulfilled in the Clasicos last season – brought in as a central defensive midfielder with a physical presence, but then asked to move higher up and get into the face of Xavi – although he did it in a more disciplined manner than Pepe did.
Barcelona struggles
Chelsea were helped by the fact Messi kept coming too deep, and although it’s clearly a chicken-and-egg situation (as Messi becomes frustrated at the lack of service and drops further and further from goal to get the ball), Barcelona tend to look weaker when Messi comes in front of the opposition’s holding midfielders. He needs to have faith that the other players can provide a good forward pass into his feet, even if it wasn’t forthcoming in the first half.
Fabregas was given the job of floating around, trying to pick up the ball in small gaps, and burst through the defence into goalscoring positions. However, his touch and (more obviously) finishing were poor, and too often it was he and Messi trying to beat five Chelsea players (the two centre-backs and three holders) in central positions. Barcelona were significantly outnumbered in this zone, and by far their best move of the match, the chance they created for Sanchez to hit the bar, came when Iniesta drifted inside and played the pass from between the lines. The rest of the time he stayed very wide and often tried to dribble past Ivanovic – which he can do, but it’s not where he is best.
Overall Chelsea were extremely narrow, helped by the fact that Ramires was on the left and is excellent at shuttling from inside to out, and also by Mata’s tendency to drift central.
Chelsea breaks
With the ball, Chelsea only really had two strategies. The first was to hit Drogba – early on he nearly had a chance by collecting a long ball over the defence from Petr Cech, but he couldn’t quite control the ball properly. For much of the first half he was frustrating, constantly caught offside, but this was because Barcelona were trying to squeeze the play even more than usual. They were afraid of Drogba’s aerial power, so were pushing him away from goal.
The second approach was down the left, into the space behind Alves. He is, of course, the most attacking full-back around, and it should come as no surprise to see him high up into the Chelsea half. But, in a way, it was something of a surprise – Alves can play much more cautiously, and at this stage last season, when Real Madrid had spent the Clasico mini-series getting Xabi Alonso to hit long diagonals in behind the full-backs, Guardiola ordered the full-backs to stay as part of a back four. In a game where Guardiola was taking a cautious approach overall, it was a surprise to see Alves given so much positional freedom – it was a huge change from last year’s semi-finals:

Look how much Chelsea focused their passing down the left:

Ramires was always going to be key – he is both the most energetic and the most vertical player Chelsea have. It may be an odd comparison, but his role was similar to the one Victor Moses played in Wigan’s 2-1 win at Arsenal on Monday night – tracking the full-back up and down, but being quicker to sprint forward at transitions, and therefore being the main outlet on the counter-attack out on the left. Chelsea continually looked to the left, and though it only worked once, for Chelsea’s only shot on target in the entire game, it did the job. (Incidentally, Arsenal’s winner at home to Barcelona last season also came from the left-winger, Andrei Arshavin, getting free because Alves was caught in the opposition half – albeit from a different situation when the ball arrived from the opposite flank.)
But tiki-taka, as has been noted before, is partly a defensive tactic. By retaining the ball for so long and keeping so many players in conservative positions, Barcelona were actively trying to prevent Chelsea breaking. Fabregas described them as “a counter-attacking side” yesterday:
“They’ve gone back to the type of Chelsea that was more successful. Playing on the counter, trying to hit the target man, sitting back and using that number nine as a reference point…they are a very, very dangerous team. They are like motorbikes now. Faster, quicker to get the ball forward…when I was at Arsenal and now with Barcelona, even though we kept possession, it’s hard. We would dominate the ball, create chances and then a counter-attack from Didier Drogba and goal…they have a super-fast counter-attack.”
It shows what Barcelona thought the main threat was. For them to concede such a goal will have been particularly disappointing for Guardiola, and the positioning of Alves must be questioned.
1-0
Chelsea taking the lead in the first half was key to the rest of the game. It’s impossible to be sure, but it’s a decent bet that had they not gone ahead, they wouldn’t have kept a clean sheet. They needed a result to take to the Nou Camp, and at 0-0 they would have pushed the full-backs on more, probably given more freedom to Lampard, and maybe even have replaced a holder with an attacker. Barcelona would have enjoyed more space going forward. The comfort of the one-goal advantage gave them the license to sit behind the ball, with even Drogba coming back and helping pick up Sergio Busquets late in the second half.
Chelsea’s unwillingness to come forward was a real problem for Barcelona. Their best moves in the first half (the Sanchez shot off the bar, the Fabregas shot off the line) came from direct play through the lines. Here, they couldn’t play vertical passes and had to keep moving sideways. This was a problem because they didn’t have natural wingers in the side (Iniesta is a central midfielder, Sanchez has spent much of the past two seasons playing centrally), which was why Guardiola brought on Pedro Rodriguez and Isaac Cuenca , but neither had a great impact.
Chelsea were able to keep their shape throughout – Salomon Kalou came on for Mata to increase their chances on the break, while Jose Bosingwa replaced Ramires (tired, and on a yellow) very late. They relied on a couple of terrible Barcelona misses, but can be pleased with their performance without the ball.
Conclusion
“Is it better to face Messi and Barcelona with one permanent holding midfielder or two?” was the question earlier this week. Chelsea went with three, and were brave enough to give Xavi time on the ball, with sporadic pressure from Mikel, the central of the three holders. With further narrowness from the flanks, Chelsea simply packed the centre of the pitch, and Barcelona seemed surprisingly unable to get through this.
But the importance of the Chelsea goal to the clean sheet shouldn’t be underestimated. That gave them license to park the bus – both here, and in the Nou Camp next week.
Are you thinking of doing some Euro 2012 Betting with the competition edging closer? Make sure the place you head to make all of these bets is at betfair.com!





You basically said it, but poor finishing basically cost Barca today. They should’ve scored at least 3 of there chances.
I think Barca played well though. Against a team that parks-the-bus on a narrow pitch, it’s not easy to create chances like Barca were creating but they still continued to make good chances.
Also about Messi dropping deep – It’s because of Fabregas in my opinion. Iniesta is just completely wasted on the wing and Pep shouldn’t be playing him there just to cater for Fabregas, who isn’t nearly as good at keeping the ball at the moment. It makes Messi drop even deeper to help out in midfield more than what he usually does.
The only way i see cesc as a regular is if he takes up messis position and messi goes back to the right wing
Also on the finishing, I have always thought barca will never be as clinical as they were with henry,eto’o,messi
In henry and eto’o they had some of the best finishers. Their veteran status meant they had such good composure because they have done it thousands of times (including scoring at training) it becomes automatic.
Right now the closest they have to such a player is villa, and he is injured
Messi’s finishing is not clinical, then?
Barcelona’s season is about to come to a crashing end. Hold off on that renewal Pep!
Football lost yesterday against a bunch of mercenary’s owned by a Khazar.
1. Your reply has nothing to do with my comment.
2. Your reply also may have nothing to do with reality, but we’ll find out soon enough.
What is very funny is that Chelsea fans think that 1-0 is a good result and that they can win the tie in Camp Nou. But what they don’t realise is that many teams have gotten good results against Barca in the Champions League away but you cannot get a good result in Camp Nou. Ask Shevchenko, ask Higuain, ask Van Persie, ask Motta! The tie will be decided in Barca’s favour within the first 20 minutes. The referee cannot resist the roar of the crowd and will ruin Chelsea’s chances with a penalty or a sending off – just as it should be! I look forward to the moaning of Di Matteo after the game almost as much as the final against Bayern. “It’s a f*cking disgrace!”
aside from messi obviousely, he has proved he can score consistently for 3 years.the more times you do it the less likely you are to miss chances. I havent looked at the stats but i doubt that anyone else has a good history of scoring goals at say 20 a season. When you get that many goals some are bound to be tap ins. You might miss a few but the more you miss the more you get it out of your system and gain the mentality needed to Not miss in a big match
Pedro scored 23 and 22 the last two seasons in all competitions, which were his first two full seasons in the squad. He’s off form this year.
Villa of course has scored 20 goals a season like clockwork. 9 goals before the injury this year.
13 goals in 37 games for Sanchez around several injuries and getting settled with the team. Shade under 20 goal pace if he had been healthy enough to play 50 games, and with health he likely would have been ahead of that pace. Over time he’ll probably be a consistent 20+ goal scorer for Barca.
Lack of Villa, lack of form of Pedro, and development of Sanchez are the reasons we don’t see other 20 goal scorers this season. But there’s also a sense that Pep is trying to develop some longer term strategies and players than simply send out lineups that will roll up big goal scoring games.
To be fair though, Chelsea’s and Barcelona’s pitch sizes are similar – the field at Camp Nou is merely a meter longer and a meter wider. UEFA regulations are pretty strict, varying by 5% in length and about 8% in width.
Camp Nou is 72m wide, Stamford bridge 67m. So Stamford bridge has some 7% less of width, not too significant indeed.
Well from the official Barcelona website (http://www.fcbarcelona.com/camp-nou): In accordance with UEFA stipulations, the playing area has been downsized to 105 metres x 68 metres.
Confirming from the official FCB website, the pitch has been downsized to a width o 68m in accordance with the UEFA regulations. (previously 72m wide)
A 1 meter difference between 67 and 68 meters is not 7-8%- it’s more like a 1.5% difference. That’s nothing. English pitches almost always look smaller on TV due to the preference for low and close camera angles.
The grass does not lie. I don’t care what is published. There are 3 grass cuts within the 18 yard box each 6 yards wide at Stamford bridge and the Camp Nou.
Watch on you tube for yourself. There are 6 – 6 yard cuts from 18 yrd line to center line for a total of 9 – 6 yrd cuts or 54 yards – 108 yards total length at Stamford. Conversely there are 7 cuts at the Camp or 10 – 6 yard cuts. Thats 120 yards. Also note the 10 yard hash marks at the corners and the distance to the edge of the 18. Nou camp is larger by at least 6 yards. Stamford is a crackerjack box and Chelsea and their bus fit perfectly in the parking space. Chelsea’s bus is too small for the space at the Camp!
1. “Iniesta is just completely wasted on the wing and Pep shouldn’t be playing him there just to cater for Fabregas” According to http://www.football-lineups.com/team/Barcelona/La_Liga_2008-2009/analysis (you can change the year you look at in a pulldown menu) Iniesta started out wide 9 times in the 07-08 liga, 13 times in the 08-09 liga, 7 times in the 09-10 liga, 6 times in the 10-11 liga and (so far) only *once* in the 11-12 Liga, Barca’s first with Fabregas.
This demonstrates: that (A) Iniesta played as a wide forward sometimes before Guardiola was coach; that (B) he also did so while Guardiola was coach long before Fabregas arrived; and finally that he has done so less since the arrival of Fabregas.
2. When Messi and Fabregas play together Messi drops deep because Fabregas excels at making driving runs beyond the striker from midfield (see http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/07/17/world-cup-final-2010-robben-elia-navas/ and http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/11/14/del-bosque-spain-tactics-false-nine-euro-2012/) – it’s how playing with a false 9 works, the CF drops back, hoping to drag CBs out of position, and then the midfielders run into the space vacated.
This hasn’t been worth posting for, er, the last two years…. http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/02/08/when-will-john-obi-mikel-get-the-credit-he-deserves/
I am waiting for you to have a reason to post this one.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/21/denilson-arsenal-arsene-wenger-passing-ratio/
Good gracious what a shame of lost potential for this kid. The reports I heard from Brazil were not good.
I thought Fabregas had an awful game, although Barcelona played well. Actually, I was surprised, because I thought it would have been tougher for Barcelona. Instead Chelsea sat back. They were clinical and scored from their only opportunity, while Barcelona probably would have scored 2 or 3 any other day. Still, it must be noted that Barca’s finishing has been shockingly poor in the past month or so, with Messi the only consistent scorer. This was key: Chelsea sacrificed their numbers to completely close Messi out of the game, in the hope no one else would score. And they were right: both Sanchez and Cesc got two clear cut chances, both failed to score. That’s one area where Barcelona have gotten worse in. Last season, Pedro and Villa were both consistent goal threats.
If it wasn’t for the away goals rule, I would still label Barcelona as pretty heavy favorites. As it stands, I now think Chelsea are slight favorites.
Chelsea got lucky. EXTREMELY lucky. Petr Chech was having his mojo tonight.
That’s pretty much what the game was all about.
I was freaking screaming to Barcelona, “TAKE SOME RISK, DON’T JUST PASS THE BALL!!! THE CLOCK IS TICKING!!!”
No need to take risk, Very strange how they go back to the Camp Nou, just like Madrid with a 1 goal deficit to overturn. Unlike Madrid though, they need to score twice to pull the result out. It seems though that Bayern will be much more dangerous on the counter then madrid, so the odds still pretty heavily favor Barca to go through as opposed to their spanish counterparts.
I wouldn’t say heavily favored as opposed to Madrid (it seems you underestimate Chelsea), but I agree that there is no need to panic for Barca.
If it were another team, a 1-0 loss in the first leg away from home is a pretty terrible result, but even if the game at the Camp Nou is played in exactly the same manner as today’s game, chances are Barca make a few of those chances.
More favored than Madrid to go through was what I meant, with both teams facing a 1 goal deficit and Madrid having an away goal.
Getting through a disciplined team defending well it’s not as easy as simply walking in there. I’m a Barca fan and I give Chelsea all the credit in the world today. They scored, we didn’t. It’s a very simple game.
It’s Barca – they can’t not pass!
Could have used Tello, although that is a big gamble considering it would mean taking off Iniesta or Cesc.
Game was not all that enjoyable, but Drogba, my god what a big powerful machine.
Big, powerful diving machine you mean.
i find his rolling about on the floor obnoxious as well, but you can’t deny the man is very good when he’s upright, and I say this as a neutral with respect to Chelsea.
I think RDM deserves huge credit. The way Chelsea played tonight was no fluke, that performance, must have taken hours of preparation to perfect on the training ground, and Chelsea were immensely disciplined and organised tonight. Interesting that they were broadly prepared to allow Xavi time on the ball. If I was to plan a team on beating Barcelona, he’s one of the first players I’d be planning to deny, and I always think that I’d leave Busquets free, and close his passing options to the more dangerous players, but it seems RDM took this approach with Xavi? The way they closed and denied Messi’s space was fantastic.
That said, Barcelona should still have won the game. How different it could have been had Alexis shot dropped an inch lower early in the game… Also, Barca had more than enough chances to win the game, Fabregas missed two good chances, another one for Alexis in the second half, and Pedro’s shot that hit the post and Busquets dreadful follow up.
As for the second leg, personally, I think Barcelona will go through. The bigger pitch will benefit Barca, I think they’ll play with more intensity, and I can’t see Chelsea holding them off.
As I said earlier, pitch sizes aren’t any different, really – merely a meter in length and a meter in width. The rest of your conclusion is pretty much what I’d say about the return leg as well.
It isn’t important the size of the field as pitch conditioning and 120.000 roaring Barcelona supporters.
I dont know if playing in Nou Camp will make much difference, coz even in hostile environment last nite Barca still managed more 70% of possession. So the home support should affect more their finishing quality rather than in controlling the game.
they hold 70% of the ball because chelsea let them.
1 meter width and length more might not seem like much, but when you look at total area it seems significant
Chelsea pitch area: 6901 m
Barca pitch area (same as arsenal): 7140m
an extra 239 meters, which is alot more space
The upper limit for international matches 8250m, so why don’t other passing teams increase pitch size to this upper limit. There must be a point where increased pitch size benefits more fit teams, compared to passing teams.
239 meters represents a 3.6% increase. Is there any reason to believe that Barca would be more than 3.6% more effective on that much larger a pitch? Would that have lead to a change in the result?
Pitch size and width does matter. Teams that are used to playing in wide and long pitches, such as Man U at Old Trafford tend to struggle in shorter and narrower pitches because their players are not used to playing in such conditions. Short and narrow pitches also enable teams to pack their midfield and defense better as well as close down space.
first, as several pointed out before, uefa regulations changed huge differences in pitch size. second, id be interested where u guys come up with these current pitch sizes? if its the club´s website or wiki, i really wouldnt rely on it.
instead, just open our beloved google earth, fly to europe´s holy grails of soccer and measure it yourself. in my trials, camp nou was among the narrower (!) pitches, with my home club (second-last bottom amateur league) featuring a staggering 72m width. not much brilliant passing going on there, though
so stop the “camp nou hulk size myth” – now!
Boy’s, It’s not the length, but the width that counts…
Absolutely!
It means on average each Chelsea player now has an extra 23 square metres to cover(think how difficult it can be stopping Messi if he’s just 2metres away from you)
In reality though, since Chelsea will largely be playing in their own half, we are looking at just over 10 square metre extra for each player.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that about 80-85% (18) of the players will be looking to play in Chelsea’s half
absolutely not!
these numbers seem high, but are not realistic. in virtually almost all situations, the effective size of the pitch (where players are) is compressed into a fraction of the total size.
if u take the absolute numbers like u did when calculating the increase, each chelsea field player would have to cover 7000/10=700 square metres or 350 if they “play in their own half”. seems unrealistic? well, it is; and therefore so is an increase of 20 or ten square metres.
i even would go so far and agree that length, as qwe mentioned, isnt very important, because players are positioning at absolute points (16m box, e.g.). it doesnt matter so to speak, if valdez is now five metres farther away from his attacking squad when in the playing zone, the distances between the players remain the same. so the increase in absolute playing size is this already mentioned 1,5% – and that we will all agree upon, is nothing.
Dear adept, “meter” is a length unit, not an area unit. What you mean is square-meter, or m^2.
Xavi with time on the ball against 10 men is not that dangerous of a risk. He has lost confidence and is not releasing some of the diagonal balls that he use to release. You can see the strikers waiting to make the run and he looks up and sees them but is afraid to release the ball. It has been like this for the past two months or so. Maybe he is under instructions to make the safe pass but I think he has lost confidence in his touch and ability to get that ball to the streaking striker.
Not true. He released several long balls that were accurate. The only problem was that Terry and Cahill are a head taller than Messi and Sanchez so they simply overpowered them in the air.
Barcelona created 24 shots on goal…that players of Cesc’s quality failed to finish sitters in front of goal can hardly sum up what happened in London today. Soccer is a game of luck, skill, tactics, technical ability, speed, size, mental preparation and toughness, etc., etc. Tactics are but one aspect of the game…not the whole of the game. I have been reminded that this website is a place to debate tactics, but the more I read the more it reminds me the notion of debating by Fiat…meaning we get to assume that “all things being the same” tactics are paramount to understanding outcomes in games. All things were not the same…and never are in sports.
If any of their 24 occasions at goal go in, this is a silly article to have written. Chelsea were lucky and Barcelona unlucky. That Chelsea conceded possession and parked the bus and won the match today (as the article points out), makes it sound as if brilliant execution of a plan/tactic explains the result.
What if Alexis finishes that goal that found the crossbar? Would the article start by saying “poor Chelsea defending and risk-taking allowed Barcelona to get in behind their defensive line”? In other words, an unlucky/poor finish by Alexis means Barcelona had to keep coming…WHICH THEY DID…24 times.
If one of those occasions is finished as they should have been and then Chelsea must come out and score which changes the whole complexity of the tie. Chelsea didn’t defend or execute so well, but were instead fortunate to have caught Barcelona on a day when finishing early in the match was sub-par.
If I stood in front of a dart board blindfolded throwing darts long enough, eventually I’d hit a bulls-eye….Chelsea was that lucky dart where countless teams have failed. If they defended so brilliantly, why did they allow Barcelona to get off 24 shots? Couldn’t that game have easily been 1-3? 1-2? 1-1?
I agree to an extent. Chelsea were solid, but not any more solid than Levante was against Barcelona in the weekend. Only difference is that Barca took their chances in that game, and Levante were more threatening offensively than Chelsea.
For all the praise Chelsea will get for their defensive performance, it wasn’t nearly as good as the 1-1 in 2009. It was good, but Barcelona had 4 clear cut chances that should have been finished.
First: I have used this argument as a Chelsea supporter several times this season (indeed, I think had Ramires, Sturridge and Torres been a bit more clinical in front of goal, Andre Villas-Boas would still be manager). I also give full credence to the “Barca were unlucky” approach.
However, ZM told a story of how the tactical approaches to the match played out, and it was clear to me throughout the match that his description was accurate–attacks went up to Drogba or with Cole and Ramires; Mikel played up when Barca had the ball around the center circle, the entire team fell back into a compact defence. It is impossible to stop a team of Barcelona’s quality from getting off shots; the idea is to minimize the damage of the shots. In addition, ZM makes it clear that the score affected the tactics within the match. *Of course* if Sanchez had nestled that chip, the match would have been different. But counterfactuals do not an argument make.
One thing missing from this analysis is the positioning of Cech. From Cole’s outburst in the first half when Cech failed to collect a long ball, it looks like the side was coached to expect Cech to play as a sweeper.
Very good point re:Cech. Not exactly his natural position, and he looked out of sorts doing it, just as Cech looked very uncomfortable under AVB’s high line (I particularly recall the match against Arsenal at the Bridge). Contrast to Valdes, of course, but Cech looked late on a lot of balls coming in deep when Chelsea pushed up a bit in the first half. To insert another counterfactual: I wonder what would have been had Sanchez played centrally? Ignoring even the obvious increased narrowness… though the more obvious solution would be to change the side, but then I’m venturing too far into the hypothetical.
Hmm, not sure about Sanchez, since I haven’t seen much of him since his return from injury. I was surprised that Iniesta was so ineffective, and I thought perhaps it was because he was so wide.
But yes, Cech’s strengths are stopping long shots, pulling off reflex saves, and making himself big when he’s standing on his line. He looked silly against Arsenal, but those goals weren’t entirely all his fault, as you note. He was brave on a few at the outset, but punched away one ball that I suspected he could have claimed, and was late on the one I referenced. That’s why the amount of shots didn’t worry me (aside from the last gasps!). Shots are inevitable with the kind of game Barcelona plays, but where the shots come from is really important.
I totally agree; where the shots come from is important. You would always back Cech against all but an exceptional long shot.
The glaring miss was Fabregas. When Messi put him through he had the ball with a decent amount of time in front of goal but he hit it weakly enough for Cole to be able to clear.
All the other misses were under pressure from a really hard working Chelsea defence. That makes getting a good shot on target much more difficult.
I am a neutral with a leaning towards the enjoyment of watching Barcelona in full flow but I give full credit to Chelsea’s skill and effort tonight. The return leg will be fascinating.
Sanchez played centrally in the first La Liga Classico this season, with Messi *not* playing on the right side but in a more interesting position/role. Excellent analysis of it here:
http://www.barcelonafootballblog.com/12254/match-review-part-2-el-clsico-madrid-1-3-barcelona-system
I’m with Iason (fwiw, Levante played very well indeed), in that I agree to an extent with you Woodyche. BUT, your argument runs the risk of reducing all shots on goal to an equivalent chance of scoring. Not every shot is created equal, and the creation of shots matters tremendously. Drogba’s winner was a pretty easy shot to take (but not to create, given Ramires’s run and assist, and Lampard’s steal and pass), whereas say Cesc’s chip was an incredibly difficult shot. I don’t mean to argue that Barça shouldn’t have put away one of their chances, but they were restricted to fairly difficult chances. Watching a lot of their league matches, lots of their goals are really quite simple, many many tap-ins. Those simple goals belie the amount work that goes into creating those chances, generally when Barça dissect teams with movement, positioning, and passing. That said, Chelsea did really well positionally and were very disciplined, two things that Barcelona surely must appreciate, even if the the aims for doing so differed wildly.
While I understand Chelsea may not be the best advert for what FIFA has intended football to be (elegant, attacking, passing, etc), give them due credit for fighting with all they’ve got. They did defend well, better than Real Madrid has in many recent Clásicos, mostly by staying on their feet and being disciplined. It was luck, yes; but not all luck.
You’re right that there a lot of elements in football, but they’re inextricably linked together. I also follow football in the papers and listen to commentators on TV, and they largely ignore (or incorrectly analyse) tactics. Usually football pages end up as gossip columns Mr Cox (ZM) does some reporting work elsewhere (such as the Guardian’s Football Weekly), and its frustrating to hear him try to talk to people only concerned with scandals and the like. That’s why I think many of us on here focus so prominently on tactics.
Lastly, cheers to you, from one football fan to another. Your central point is very correct: at the end of the day, the most important feature of a match is which team manages to get the ball into the other team’s goal the most. Sorry for the long-winded ramble!
So if you’re reading this far down below the line, ZM, cheers and thanks for another great article.
I am, cheers
My layman’s familiarity with the statistical analysis in other team contact sports leads me to agree with Woodyche. The job of sports commentators is almost by definition an exercise in drawing poorly-founded inferences from small sample sizes. http://xkcd.com/904/
That said, the tactical analysis is still interesting and useful. And ZM is generally pretty good about sticking to descriptions rather than building narratives.
I agree that contingency is important, and very important in this game.
I don’t think its a fair criticism of the article. He doesn’t maintain that tactics are the key determinant in most games. ZM implictly acknowledges this when he wrote late on:
‘Chelsea taking the lead in the first half was key to the rest of the game. It’s impossible to be sure, but it’s a decent bet that had they not gone ahead, they wouldn’t have kept a clean sheet.’
Shots on target isn’t the best indicator of the flow of a game in this circumstance. It’s not uncommon for teams who park the bus to concede 20 shots on goal, of which perhaps 15 or more were simply no threat at all because they were deep and predictable. Indeed, the team who is less confident they can break down the defence will shoot more from distance.
It’s the couple of times were a team sets up real chances and doesn’t convert that matter, as you say.
Fully agree. This result was clearly the result of luck. The statistic with the greatest correlation to the result is shots on goal, and Barcelona lead that statistic 6-1. Barcelona totally dominated the game and created the most chances, but even this kind of dominance doesn’t guarantee victory. A football match is short, it’s only a small sample, and as such randomness play a huge part in what you see.
I agree completely, it’s a travesty that Liverpool aren’t top of the Premiership having such strong correlation with winning from all their shots on target.
It’s funny that you criticize ZM for misuse of statistics when he actually looks holistically at statistics in combination with his own observations and event graphs, whilst you completely abuse statistics by talking exclusively about shots on target being a good result predictor whilst neglecting (or just being ignorant of) the fact that counterattacking teams very often win with much fewer shots on target because they tend to create 3v3 situations with much more space and time for shots.
Moar data plz.
You may be right, but Liverpool is a possibly misleading example. It’s completely within the realm of random variation that Liverpool may simply be unlucky. With a total of only 38 games played in the Premier League(and many of them decided by only a single goal or less), there’s a large possibility that in any given year the table position of any given team is not reflective of its true ability.
In fact, football is generally very good about acknowledging this. We talk about form being temporary and class being permanent. We acknowledge unfair results and goals going “against the run of play.”
For example, In ice hockey (A sport in which a comparatively large amount of statistical analysis has been published publicly.), the explanatory power of shot quality is quite low. It varies highly for the same team one year to the next and from one game to the next. There’s very little evidence that team shot quality is indicative of a teams true ability.
I’m willing to believe, I even think it likely, that shot quality is better dictated by a team’s tactics, and certainly scoring effects are much larger, in football than in hockey, but these are items worthy of analysis and not items on which to hang an argument. That said, while shots-on-target(shots on goal doesn’t mean the same thing in hockey as it does in football) is highly correlated with wins in ice hockey, I haven’t yet seen that demonstrated for football. I’ve heard people say it, but never demonstrate it statistically.
If? If the queen had balls, she’d be the king.
“If any of their 24 occasions at goal go in, this is a silly article to have written.”
This is a silly game to play. What if Gavrilo Princip missed Archduke Ferdinand? What if Van Persie hadn’t ben fraudulently sent off in the Arsenal-Barca match last year? What if Sandra O’Connor had not cast the swing vote to hand the reins of America to the election-stealing shrub? What if Marvel comics had never published a comic book called “What If…?”?
“What if Alexis finishes that goal that found the crossbar? Would the article start by saying ‘poor Chelsea defending and risk-taking allowed Barcelona to get in behind their defensive line’? ”
No. It would have read something like “Chelsea’s plan to defend deep and play on the counter thwarted as Barca record an early goal and… [this could then read "go on to score 5" or "hold out for the 1-0" or anything in between] because this is a website where people look at what actually happened instead of considering counterfactual hooey.
I was impressed by Chelsea’s discipline. Only two cards, I believe. This is the defensive style Mourinho would play if he didn’t have the hot head triumvirate of Pepe-Ramos-Marcelo as the base of his defence at Madrid. That being said, Fabregas is a waste of time in a big game like this. He always fails to deliver. They should go with Cuenca and Alexis as their wingers with Messi playing centrally and Xavi and Iniesta in their central positions. Barcelona’s lack of scoring depth at the moment is shocking. One reliable scorer in the entire team. Fucking Xavi has been doing better than their supposed goal scorers.
I really hope the Camp Nou game won’t be the nightmare scenario for Barca like it was against Inter two years ago. I still have nightmares about that game myself to this day. I hate it that these no talent teams just park the bus and then get lucky with quick breaks. And then the manager takes the credit for a “genius strategy”. It isn’t strategy because against Barca you have no other option. It is quite pathetic that Drogba literally is Chelsea. I really hope Barca get it together for the home leg. That being said, I really do believe in my heart of hearts that Chelsea will find it difficult to keep Barca out for the entirety of a match at the Nou Camp. Barca just have to be focussed, play with their heads and take no prisoners. And leave Fabregas the fuck out. How is it that they have better options on the bench this year, but were a much more potent scoring machine last year? Because they had a system, and they stuck with that motherfucker throughout. Too many injuries this year and too many players of the same type packed into the same narrow area of the pitch have hurt them. Messi cannot be expected to break through a team with three dedicated holding midfielders on his own.
let’s see if chelsea could pull of an inter in the return leg.
Chelsea and Inter’s situation are rather different. Inter had a 2 goal advantage and could afford to concede 1. Chelsea only have 1 goal to their name. So should Chelsea pull a Inter next week, then they have legally allowed Barca another 30 minutes of time to kill them off
To be fair, one man is probably a larger difference than one goal.
Totally agree. If Inter had 11 men, they would have been more adventurous than their backs-to-the-wall display. If Chelsea can avoid a sending off in Camp Nou, I would think they will score once, and Barca would need 3 goals, which against this Chelsea defence will be tough, even in Camp Nou.
I doubt it very much.
We have seen enough of Mourinho’s ultra-defensive tactics to believe he could have allowed Inter to be more adventurous.
His teams are only ever remotely adventurous(at least against Barca) when they are trailing.
Everytime his teams are a man down, we are somehow expected to believe they would have attacked had they had all 11 on the pitch…
Was really impressed by Chelsea tonight. Worked incredibly hard to keep a solid structure and playing as they did it was vital Drogba started, not Torres.
Ramires has really impressed me of late. Very selfless player. Against Tottenham he played narrow and doubled up on Modric and today he gave his all to help deal with the threat of Alves and was often doubling up with Cole on Alexis.
This result has definitely set up the second leg perfectly.
If you wish to read my views just click here: http://thompsontalkstactics.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/chelsea-1-barcelona-0-18th-april-2012/
Seems like the 4-3-2-1 pyramid bus in combination with great individual defenders and the two offensive midfielders running in the gaps on the wings is the best approach when playing Barca. I praise myself for saying it for years
But I fear Chelsea will likely be ripped apart in the 2nd leg. You cannot count on Barca wasting chances like this in two consecutive matches.
The pyramid gives Dani Alves a ton of space. You just figuring they don’t have the aerial presence to make a team pay for leaving Alves alone? Plus, the easiest place to counter is right behind him. I wonder about a diamond midfield with a left winger and a single striker shaded right.
Exactly this.
It gives him lots of space but in areas where he is not very dangerous. I guess the best approach is to let them play on the wings and close the channels to the center. Have you ever seen a high cross from Barca into the box which cauesd problems?
And as soon as he goes forward he is confronted with the left defender and the left defensive midfielder. The left offensive midfielder can use the space behind him for breaking.
I think Manu lost last years Final because they only had two defensive midfielders in front of the Box and all goals came from that area.
Leave them out there and shut the center and mark them if they come inside what they always do. I know easier said than done.
yeah, I thought Milan had the right idea but not the squad to pull it off. I’ll give RDM a lot of credit, I figured he’d stick with the 4-2-3-1 just b/c it’s been “working” in the EPL. If he changes shape and it blows up in his face you leave yourself open to the MSM lobbing bombs at you. But he did it and it was the right move, pack the center at the expense of the wings. Try to capitalize on Alvez playing high up on the right. Kudos RDM.
Which is basically what Milan played; diamond midfield, Robinho to the left, Ibrahimovic as a target up front.
I was thinking of a true left winger dedicated to tracking Alvea more than Robino would. Not too different from what Chelsea played, Mata as a central attacker putting in a shift and Ramires as a defensive winger.
Is Messi putting himself under too much pressure to get his record cleared against Chelsea?
Another spectacular write-up for a great semi final.
Something to note is that Chelsea showed teams that proper discipline and organization on defense can shut down any opponent. It has been said for many years that a well-disciplined and organized line of 4 with the holding midfielders can defend miraculously against many attackers.
Credit must be given to Ashley Cole. He was superb defensively and had a storming match. His defensive awareness and his ability to strive forward to assist in link-up play on the counter attack is extremely valuable (along with Ramires’ energy).
One thing I noted about Barcelona is they’re lacking some luster this season. I strongly believe this is due to their loss of David Villa through injury. He’s a natural goalscorer and a proven marquee finisher (see Spain’s World Cup display or 2010-11 Barca) and they are missing quality in front. Messi on the wing with Villa in front would have made a serious difference today. The same can be said if they still had Eto’o in the team. Iniesta operates so much better with Xavi-Busquets than Fabregas does. I would not be surprised to see Fabregas dropped for the return leg.
And let’s be honest, Chelsea will have to roll out a similar approach this Tuesday. Chelsea can expect to see Barca play like Barca in the Nou Camp – probing the central midfield, passing to death, pressing like crazy ants without possession, and Alves bombing forward. They know what they have to do, and, as you stated, the execution must be superb for them to outlast Barca and punch their ticket into the final.
I just wanted to say: the lion share of Chelsea’s defending wasn’t done by the back four. The three holding midfielders were essential so that Cahill and Terry wouldn’t have to face Messi or Alexis coming between lines with speed. A line of four wouldn’t be that useful in that moment. I agree that Chelsea defended superbly, but let’s not exagerate what one line of four can do: it took quite more numbers for Chelsea to pull it off.
Guess that what happens when Barcelona do not respect their opponents, and say this and that in the media about Chelsea supposedly fearing this team and that team. Same thing happened with Napoli and their players saying things like that. Now what? Eat your humble pie.
I think you are drawing too much into a statement made by Dani Alves in an interview. It wasn’t anything like 2009 where Chelsea presented a fotress infront of Barca. This time they did penetrate the defense atleast six clear cut times. But then again you can’t blame Chelsea for Barca not taking their chances. It seemed from the onset like a night that was not meant to be – Sanchez hitting the bar hinted it, but when Busquets shot high infornt of an open goal it was confirmed. I think Barca will take some comfort from the fact that they will be playing in front of their home crowd next week and can expect to create some clear cut chance. But the problem for Barca is that they need to score early to make the progress a bit smoother. And also it is to be seen how much the Clasico drains off the players.
I think Barcelona players and managers showed a lot of respect before and after the game (The Iniesta quotes today seem to be taken out of context) and certainly a lot more than in 2009.
I’m a Chelsea supporter btw…
One point, I don’t think Cole was yelling at Cech. It looked to me like he was yelling at the goal line official to call a foul.
Correct, I don’t know why people listen to those announcers.
Cech saved Chelsea. Valdez cost Barca. Plain and simple.
In all fairness if both sides had converted their chances it would have been 6-2 to Barca.
Please let’s not have that sort of defensive crap take over the game like it did for a decade.
This is in particular response to ‘defensive crap’. I do not see it being written in FIFA’s rulebook that only attacking football is real, or important or valued. Barçelona are special because they play in a way that few other teams do. If every other team played the same way, Barçelona would be just another team. If defending was so easy, or so unimportant, then you and I should be playing defenders for Chelsea and Barçelona, shouldn’t we? Appreciate it, it is not easy to be organised, cohesive and focused for 90 minutes and also keep calm and not get sent off. Barçelona are a wonderful team, they deserve to win, but there is no such thing as ‘defensive crap’.
Are you so good at it that you would pass judgement on a whole generation of players, coaches and all people associated with football?
The “defensive crap” does really exist.
It used to be a middle name of ITALY international team where they do any trick to stop the game and slow it down and if they scored first at 15mins you will have to watch super boring 75mins after that.
Everybody hate this kind of football.
0-1 result from 15 VS 7 shot on target is fine for fan what ever any team win it sound like a exciting game.
but
0-1 result from 24 VS 3 shot on target is not what we like the game to be what ever any team win
I thing both team show us disciplined & patient which I do admire both.
But if more team can beat Barcelona with this tactic more boring football we would have to watch.
ps. Football is a GAME and GAME suppose to be competitive & fun for both player and watcher.
Get this right, Chelsea FC and Italy do not exist to entertain you, they exist to win trophies and they will adopt whatever legal tactics are required to do that. Neutral fans might not enjoy games as such, I’m sure Chelsea fans couldn’t care less as long as their team wins. Complain all you want about “defensive crap” but fact is a defensive display like Chelsea’s is very hard to emulate.
Why would you be a fan of a team that doesn’t play entertaining football ? That’s the real question. My team, right or wrong ? Pathetic.
@Ira: “Why would you be a fan of a team that doesn’t play entertaining football ? That’s the real question. My team, right or wrong ? Pathetic.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much how supporting a football team works. You support your team through thick and thin. That’s why crappy 4th division teams still have supporters.
Or should I say, that’s how supporting a football team used to work, before the game became such a global entertainment commodity, and all the youtubers, x-boxers and fanboys decided they were supporting whichever team was currently playing the most exciting football.
Well, just have a look at the 1982 World Cup campaign: Italy beat Brazil (with Falcao, Socrates etc.) 3-2 and Germany 3-1 in what are considered classic football matches.
In the very entertaining and open semifinal with Germany in 2006, Italy had three attackers on the pitch in the extra time.
Not bad for a “defensive crap” team, huh? The supposed defensiveness of the italian national team is very often overstated and overplayed, mostly because of jingoism.
Yeah and i’m sure you would love to see the team you support relagated with attacking football.
Attacking football,defending football doesn’t matters for fans who buy tickets and support their team.
And barcelona is playing with one of the most defensive tactics of all time.
oh please, dont start with that crap. most people say they like a certain style but then when it comes time to their team winning, they dont care.
Ive sat through enough Bolton, Blackburn, Stoke, Sunderland, Villa, Wolves, Liverpool and other games (outside the top 4-5 teams) this season just to be told by droolers how the Barclays’ is ‘exciting’ that I find your whining hilarious.
Even got to see West Ham play in the english division where ‘english ball’ is alive and trust me, they aint no Barcelona.
I have yet to hear many teams say that entertainment is their goal. Coaches get hired and fired to win. Period. No one give you a new contract for moral victories or for entertaining while losing.
“Everybody hate this kind of football.”
Do they?
I found last nights match very exciting and enjoyed it thoroughly. Maybe you just don’t understand what’s going on on the pitch well enough to appreciate it.
I do understand your point ^^
as I mention I do admire both team.
I just that
There are people who appreciate “THE WAY TO STOP BARCA”
but
I am a kind of people who appreciate “HOW BARCA WIN”
We need team than “BETTER” than BARCA
not a team that only can stop them.
The irony here is that it’s Barcelona who are largely responsible for this “defensive crap”. If their style wasn’t entirely predicated on maintaining +70% possession, their matches would be far more open and opponents would actually be able to do something other than defend. I’m in no way suggesting that Barca alter their brutally effective strategy for the benefit of the neutral viewer, but realize that the “defensive crap” you hate is this systems inevitable by-product.
whats your point?
I’m a little bit puzzled how Barca failed to stop pretty much the only avenue Chelsea had to score, Drogba. They literally only has one thing to focus on defensively, Chelsea, hoped for a chance on the counter and the space between Drobga and the rest of the team was massive. He was isolated 99% of the match. Seriously, I am no Barca fan, but I don’t understand tactically how Pep could not prepare his defense to stop Drogba, especially considering they knew this is exactly how Chelsea would play.
Can anyone offer some insight?
He was isolated 99% of the match. Seriously, I am no Barca fan, but I don’t understand tactically how Pep could not prepare his defense to stop Drogba,
That 1% is what we call luck I guess. Just pure luck.
No such thing as luck. There is just doing it and not doing it. Don’t make excuses with “luck”. Barca hit the post twice not cause of bad luck, but because Sanchez and Pedro had terrible finishing today. If they were on song, those would have been inside the net, not bad luck, just bad finishing. Pedro has been awful most of this season, while Sanchez has been disappointing at Barca compared to how much he dominated teams in Serie A.
Sometimes I really do feel like Messi has to do everything for himself.
LoL
Don’t push it that far.
Last weekend I just passed a too fast direct ball to my winger. He couldn’t caught up the ball.
BUT
The ball went directly to the corner flag hit it and bounced back which allowed my winger to recovered the ball.
What should I call that?? We(my team) call it LUCK lol
pure Luck!!! Just look at the cross from Ramirez to Drogba. Very nicely timed, pace and direction. BUT: There were plenty of defenders almost in the line of the ball, all in motion, and yet, the ball miraculously found the very narrow corridor through all these legs and found Drogba, who didn’t hit the ball particularly well…..and were Cech in Barcas goal, it wouldn’t have been a goal either.
And when Xavi threads a through-ball in the narrow gap between defenders, thats skill. But when Ramires does the same, its luck, eh ?
Exactly, no such thing as luck, there is skill, some players have it better than others, it can vary over time, form comes and goes, and most of all, effort is usually the most important.
I think playing a high defensive line, to keep Drogba away from goal, was the strategy, as ZM noted, and the goal was a result of that high line.
Giving the ball away near a high defensive line is dangerous, especially when the right back is nearly always forward. That opened up space for Ramires and a quick counter, the kind Chelsea were clearly playing for.
Both center backs were on Drogba when Lampard won the ball, so they did have him covered. Once Lampard passed to Ramires and it looked like he might be in, they both ran over toward Ramires, and left Drogba open. Perhaps they could have done better, but staying organized against rapid counterattacks isn’t easy.
As was the case in the Bayern v Real match, the central pairing had a tough time handling 1 big, physical center-forward. I’m not sure if La Liga defenders are too used to dealing with that type of player. Pepe and Ramos, in particular, were uncomfortable handling Gomez(which is extra funny considering the bully reputation of those 2).
Prepare your defense to stop Drogba? The dude is 1.89m and built like a tank. It’s really easier said than done…
Didn’t know tanks crumpled to the ground and magically resurrected every 5 seconds.
It was a tactic to break up momentum and to help Chelsea win free kicks obviously. Worked wonders even though it was disgusting. The funny thing, is that there have been few complaints from Barca fans, and even fewer dives from the Barca players. Was very strange watching all of them stay on their feet except Sanchez.
Btw, Great great job by the ref. I don’t think I can remember a single bad call from the game.
I think that Abidal’s absence has unbalanced the back 4 in a fairly crucial way. Adriano is a utility man whose most common use is as something approaching a wing back, but he lacks the terrifying athleticism of Alves, which makes his ability to cover his flank while simultaneously providing width limited. Abidal often operated as virtually a third centerback during games in which Alves was given more freedom to make his attacking runs, and while Abidal’s conservatism might have restricted the fluency of Barca’s left flank as Iniesta struggled, he would have been much more likely to cover Drogba’s run, in addition to giving Puyol more license to come out and challenge Ramires as he made that cross. This strays pretty deep into hypothetical territory, but I feel that Barca are inherently unbalanced without Abidal this season.
In all honesty though, I just want to know what the hell Mascherano was doing. Poor guy finally digs his way into a great side and then he completely loses the most obvious striker in football. That must suck.
If they wanted a defensive right back, why not just play Puyol there with Pique in the central defense?
While I’m not entirely sure WHAT it was, I’m sure there was some thought behind the selection of Adriano.
while mourinho is trying different things to stop barca – the best way is indeed to park the bus and have a big striker and play long balls.
Hope barca win at camp nou. I want to see a tactical high quality final
bayern chelsea or real chelsea will be boring. hope for an elclasico
Totally agree
Lol, anyone other than Barca in the final will make it more interesting.
I think that Barca was very lucky to face United, which struggled against any sort of decent high-line pressuring teams, in CL final. Barcelona is still a great team but strong central holding midfielders with good one top striker like Drogba can always hurt them with counter attack.
I guess Guardiola figured that Puyol and Mascherano would be more than enough to keep an eye on him – they probably should’ve been, let’s be honest, but that’s the way it goes some times. On another day Barcelona could’ve given them a 3-0 bath.
1-0 as opposed to 2-1, like in the Madrid-Bayern game, makes a huge difference.
Chelsea know that if they only concede 1 goal in 120 minutes they can get to a penalty shootout. If they can nick a goal through Drogba, Barca need to get 3 goals.
It’s very hard to stop Drogba, as seen today. If you can give him 5 half chances, he’s a fair bet to take 1 of them. And i doubt there’s ever been a better striker for a situation where you leave him up front alone against 2 CBs. That means you can play very defensively and still have an avenue to score.
It will be very interesting to see what De Matteo does if (and almost certainly when) Barca score their first goal in the return leg. If it’s not too early, my guess is he’ll stay defensive and try to get to penalties, where it’s pretty much a coin toss. That’s a huge luxury to have. It should be an incredibly exciting return leg.
Chelsea defended well. They were disciplined, narrow, and didn’t resort to tactical fouling. Unlike other teams that deploy a counter attacking strategy, there was no cynicism on the part of Chelsea. Having said that, Barcelona created quite a few chances. Unfortunately, their finishing was poor. They hit the post twice, had a weak attempt cleared off the line, and missed two sitters. On another day, it could have well been 1-4. With Barcelona not scoring an away goal, Chelsea can again afford to play on the counter. Lets see on Tuesday if Barcelona remembers to bring their accuracy boots. By the way, can we get this referee for the return leg? I can’t remember his name, which is always a good thing.
On another note, I hope this dispels the notion that Barcelona are “a bunch of divers and whiners that get help from referees”. From my observations, Barcelona usually dive and whine when the other team deploys cynical aggression. When the other team doesn’t, a la Chelsea today, Barcelona keeps it clean. And Barcelona lost today because they couldn’t finish the 5-6 clear chances they created, not because the referee decided not to help.
Felix Brych, Germany
Good point, and no chance for Chelsea fans to complain after the indulgent handling of Drogba’s diving and whining. The one where he came flying at a stock-still Busquets, barely touched him, then went down as if shot was especially ridiculous. Even when he fell and it looked legitimate to me, the replay would show that he had been the perpetrator.
Moments before the goal, I thought RDM would pull him off at halftime to avoid the booking he deserved and get someone on who would stay on his feet long enough to have a chance of scoring.
You should at least wait until the tie is over to say the officials didn’t favor Barca. After all, look what happened to Arsenal last season.
Van Persie was wrongly sent off, no doubt. But you can’t concentrate on one bad call and not ignore the others. Barcelona had an onside goal called off and an Arshavin handball in the box missed in the first leg. If Uefalona does exist, then I’m not sure why they would miss those calls.
I am interested to know what directions RDM gave mata before the kickoff. He worked for the team but I think he was the missing link in being able to attack. Maybe he was too tired from chasing the game or he was uncomfortable on the right but I’d prefer Essien/Sturridge in that spot next week over mata.
Also I think it should be noted the quality of RDM’s drilling of the tactic of looking for ramires on the left. When Lamps picked up the ball you saw his first instinct was Drogba but he quickly glanced to his left which was obviously the offensive tactic and found ramires. Drogba was. Ever going to score on an individual effort because you’ll see th CB’s were always doubling him left/right or front/back. He was always going to need to be the third man in the move.
Mata just doesn’t have the stamina, nor the pace, to perform on the flank in a match like this, but to be fair, very few players have. Ramires’ fairly unique skillset (especially for a Brazilian in Europe) simply made Mata’s performance look worse than it was. If you could design a match to highlight Ramires’ strengths, it would’ve been this one.
Mata is a flair player and as such he was always likely to be among the more anonymous players in a match like this. With Chelsea having less than 30% possession, his chances to create something were very few and far between.
I agree, so do you think his selection was correct? I guess it would’ve only taken an assist to consider him having a great match in a game like this.
If I were Di Matteo I would surely start Fernando Torres at the Camp Nou. He’s so much better at tracking back and putting pressure on team’s holding midfielders/deep lying playmakers than Drogba and given the 1-0 result, there’s no immediate need to score. I think Chelsea lost the game to Man City when Torres came off for Drogba. Sure both were isolated up top when Chelsea had the ball, but defensively Torres was so much more impactful than Drogba.
Drogba played SOLELY because of his game against Tottenham. He holds the ball up better than Torres and is a constant aerial threat. That being said, you’re probably right, Torres may well start next week.
I agree that Torres would be better for the job defensively, but I think Chelsea should work under the assumption that they are going to need a goal at some point in the game. Holding Barcelona to 1 goal over 120 minutes is quite a task at the Nou Camp and even that would only get them to penalties and a 50% chance to progress. They are going to need a goal and I think Drogba gives them a much better chance to get it off either a free kick or hoofing the ball forward.
Did you see Torres marking in the box in the match versus Arsenal? He just left Koscielny and allowed him a free header that came back off the post.
Barcelona did not finish clinically but so were some of the breaks from Chelsea – especially Meireles – had there been a better passing midfielder, definitely could have picked mountain loads of space that barcelona left behind.. And Barcelona defending !!! – sometimes they defend like a league one side – with just two or three defenders, so desperate and falling all over the place … unable to head a single ball out .. with quality counter attacking, more than one goal against barcelona must be possible…
Parking the bus at the Nou Camp next week by Chelsea should not be a thing of worry for Barcelona. Afterall Chelsea parked the bus last night and Barca still generated 24 scoring chances so they just need to take 1/8th of it to be very comfortable.
But really, is a 1-0 advantage good enough to take to the Camp Nou to face this Barca side?
Depends [wow, how insightful was that, right?
]
If Barca starts missing chances like last night, it will get frustrating for them. Lot of that might depend on El Clasico result. If they are in right ‘mood’ they can allow themselves to be patient, because even if it’s 0:0 at 80th, they are still on time to do something. But I don’t think it will be 0:0 for too long on Camp Nou.
Chelsea defended very well, but they were lucky. Despite their good defending and Barca not having the best of games [why waste Iniesta on the left?!], Barca still had couple of great opportunities – some of which a team of that level absolutely should have taken, and it was embarrassing for Fabregas and Busquets to miss them like that.
I’m going to go against the flow a bit here. I don’t think Iniesta was ineffective because he was so wide, but because he wasn’t wide enough. He kept drifting into the left-central space that Cesc should have been covering but seldom did, skewing the shape towards the right and effectively disabling half of Barcelona’s attacking options.
Guardiola recently criticised Tello – a pure winger – for not being disciplined enough at fulfilling his basic task: in Guardiola’s words, to “walk the chalk” on the left flank. Why should a different rule apply to Iniesta when he’s been assigned the same role? Pedro stays very wide. So does Isaac Cuenca, and even David Villa did too (before his injury revealed the existence of Cuenca and Tello to the world).
The problem, evidently, is caused by Guardiola’s apparent commitment to accommodating Cesc Fàbregas in big games, come what may. You don’t make such a big signing with such a fanfare to end up leaving the guy on the bench for a CL semi-final (well, unless it’s Fernando Torres). Cesc’s repeatedly wayward positional discipline – Messi aside, whenever a player is described as having a “free role”, tactical alarm bells should ring – is a cause for some concern. While he seemed to think that by hanging around within 10-15 yards of Messi – wherever he’d wandered – he was providing the necessary support, all too often the result was that Xavi and Busquets were left stranded, prompting Iniesta to cut inside to give them more options but, as mentioned, sacrificing width in the process.
In the second half, Guardiola patched this situation by letting Adriano mirror Alves and play a far more attacking role, but the decision to get Cesc off and Thiago on came far too late. The midfield looked so much more creative once Thiago was there to ping the ball around with Xavi, Busquets, Alves, Messi and Pedro – but with only ten minutes to go, by then it was too late.
All that said, I think ZM’s review describes the match well. All I’d dispute is any defensive tactics that allow 24 shots on goal can be called “extremely impressive”. As a couple of commenters have said, all it would have taken is for just two or three of those shots against the woodwork, missed sitters or Cech’s fingertip saves to have gone in and we’d be talking about another Barcelona masterclass – the still-pending “Cesc Question” notwithstanding.
in my opinion, both arguments are valid: iniesta was too wide, because hes best when he plays more central together with xavi.
and he wasnt wide enough last night to make his role effective.
solution? iniesta back to central.
fully agree with your assessment of cesc. i failed to watch lots of barcas early league games this season, when cesc seemed to be in good form. however, clearly hes in bad shape now and needs a rest on the bench. see here his goalscoring over the course of the season http://www.whoscored.com/Players/8040/Fixtures/Francesc-Fbregas
it may be too early to say, but in general i think hes overrated by pep and may not have been worth 40millions comparing to upcoming talents like thiago who cost almost nothing.
pep has to find a way countering blocked central areas of the field. conventional wisdom says to play wide and play crosses. as barca doesnt have tall heading monsters, he needs another approach like walking down the chalk with passes into the box (see lahm/gomez goal vs real on tuesday).
I honestly believe that Chelsea would have had an even harder time defending if Cuenca was on the pitch instead of Fabregas. He’s a natural winger, and is calmer than Alves. He wouldn’t be just trying to cross into that crowded box. With one more natural winger (and Alexis trying to stretch play on the other side), Barça could have tried more overlaps on the flanks. Chelsea were showing them that area, Barça should have taken it more often and with more men. Fabregas crowding the midfield and Iniesta moving inside ended up playing in the hands of Chelsea’s parked bus.
the more men they crowd into the wide areas the more likely they are to concede a counterattack through the middle.
When Cech is playing like he did last night, you can allow shots on goal.
Chelsea did basically everything you have to do against Barcelona – they were very well organised and defended extremely well, they were very clinical in taking the one chance that came their way, and (possibly most importantly) they rode their luck.
As has been said in some of the above comments, Barca could have had 3 or 4 on another night, Fabregas being particularly wasteful (although he did redeem himself somewhat with that brilliant chipped pass for Sanchez in the 2nd half). It is for this reason that Barca are still favourites going into the second leg – they won’t be as wasteful again, and Chelsea’s luck will run out (although as I said Chelsea’s victory was about more than just luck)
Just on the subject of pitch sizes; I’ve looked up the dimensions of Stamford Bridge and the Camp Nou and there appears to be almost no difference. Can this be correct?
When you watch the games (I’ve never been to either stadium) Chelsea’s pitch looks significantly smaller.
Is this just a result of the position of TV cameras or something? I find it very hard to believe that the pitches are (roughly) the same size at both stadiums.
It’s an optical illusion, I suspect, probably caused by the shallow (old-Wembley-style) slope of the Camp Nou stands and the broader verge all around the pitch. Stamford Bridge just looks more “cramped”. If you look at the distance between the centre circle and the D of the area, and between the sides of the area and the corner flag on the two pitches, there’s little appreciable difference.
Yeah, I think you’re right.
Do you think there’s a difference in the conditioning of the grass that makes Chelsea’s pitch appear tighter; is it harder to pass quickly?
And, by the way, this isn’t me searching for excuses for Barca or anything like that. I’m not criticising Chelsea or attempting to downplay their result.
I’m just having a hard time accepting that I spent the whole game last night thinking; ‘Barca don’t look comfortable on this surface, there’s no space’, only to find out that there just as much space as at the Nou Camp. Feel like my eyes have been lying to me all these years.
Space also ‘appears’ due to the positioning of players from both teams and they were both very narrow. Barcelona at home stretch teams and are more attacking, I think this helps make the pitch look more spacious if you see what I mean.
Camera angles though definitley, Highbury looked like a 5 a side pitch!
2 Points to discuss ZM:
1) Ivanovic was cautious as another Yellow meant he would miss the 2nd leg. Adriano should have doubled up with Iniesta to put extra pressure on that flank cause frankly Asley Cole was brilliant on the other. That would have stretched Chelsea and opened up space in the middle.
2) Most of the time Ivanovic was yards away from Gary Cahill and there was space in between them specially in the first half but I dont know how Barca missed that trick
It would be interesting to see computer data on Dani Alves’s positioning in the first half compared to the second one. It seemed to me that he has more reserved in the sedond half. Probably Guardiola realized before half-time that that was the only way Chelsea could score from open play.
I think Guardiola might have told Alves not to go forward to much from the start, but after half-time he seemed to seet much deeper.
Great defensive performance from Chelsea, but Barcelona were so wasteful and I still expect them to go through at Nou Camp.
Chelsea were very smart in defence. The CB’s left Messi to drop deep and rightly didn’t follow him up the pitch, Cole could concentrate on Sanchez (with Ramires making sure Alves could’t overload that zone) and Ivanovic played narrow as usual which worked well against Iniesta who constantly moved inside.
In midfield, there 3 CM’s defended extremely deep, stopping Barcelona playing in that zone and taking it in turns to press xavi whenever he moved forward in more dangerous positions. For me Lampard had a mixed game, tackling well in midfield, but poor at tracking runs, which saw Fabregas make late runs into the penalty area unmarked at times. There was no attacking intent at all from the midfield three.
In attack, Ramires was Chelsea’s best player defensively and offensively. He tracked Alves all game and provided an attacking outlet on the break as ZM mentioned and as the goal showed. Mata was ineffective in this game and was pretty poor at tracking Adriano, Chelsea looked much better with Kalou on the right, his pace was more effective and he probably should have started the game. Drogba had a strange game, he didn’t do much offensively apart from the goal, but provided Chelsea with an out ball when under pressure and his constant diving worked well to get free kicks high up the pitch. He also dropped onto Busquets when off the ball and made sure he didn’t get too much freedom on the ball.
So it was a good disciplined performance by Chelsea bar perhaps mata. They stopped Barca playing in front of their defence, had an outball in drogba and could threaten through Ramires on the left.
http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/ check out the blog if you get a chance
I am not sure I Understand why Guardiola picked Mascherano over Piqué. Puyol and Mascherano are not natural sweepers, and their tendency to be attracted towards the ball resulted in Chelsea’s goal:
When Messi lost the ball, Drogba moved right. Both Mascherano and Puyol followed him. I guessed it makes sense if you think Drogba is the only threat but that left a huge space behind Alves with nobody to cover. Lampard played a very clever pass, but then something terrible happened: seeing Ramires bursting forward alone, BOTH Puyol and Mascherano ran towards him, leaving Drogba totally unmarked.
Credit should go to Lampard and Ramires, but seeing both CBs rush one way, and then another, both time leaving huge space uncovered was odd. Had Piqué been there, Puyol would probably have felt more comfortable letting him deal with Drogba alone. If not, Piqué would probably not have rushed towards Ramires like that.
Piqué’s lack of pace is a problem if you want to play a high defensive line, but he is I think a more nutural CBs even though he did not have a good season
I saw that too…there was a clear defensive error by the CBs. One should have gone out to meet Ramires and one stayed in the centre. Just a clear communication error. You would expect even school boy CB pairings to have shouted “X goes” and dealt with the situation better.
Surely this is the risk when you play a team of midfielders? Messi was the closest to an actual forward in the starting lineup, yet he spent much of his time in the centre circle. Alexis was the only one making attacking runs for all of those playmakers to pick out – but he’s still not an actual striker and Barca paid for it when he failed to finish either of his two good chances.
They looked much, much better after the substitutions, with Messi higher up and Pedro on the pitch. Luck is always a factor, but it’s pretty logical that if you have more strikers on the pitch, then one of your chances is more likely to fall to a clinical finisher who can bury it.
Despite all that I don’t think 1-0 is enough for Chelsea to take to Camp Nou though.
ZM, actually I have never seen Barca creating so many chances, against parked bus, that too a team like Chelsea with such defensive qualities. Just because of that I would not admit, it was a disciplined defensive performance from Chelsea. Their 2009 performances were discipline, as Barca created near to nil chances. But yesterday, inspite of all the bus, they still managed so many good chances, is really a credit to Barca. If not for Chech, and the profligacy of Cesc/Alexis and even Busquests at the end, most of all lacking any luck, this would have been the best Barca performance against any parked bus side.
Playing Iniesta in the left flank, against parked bus’s is not a good idea. He is at his best when he is in the centre.
Messi, inspite of being heavily followed was behind all their chances created, except for the first Alexis chance which bounced on the bar. Normally when Messi is so heavily followed, he has a too bad game, by his standards. Not y’day.
Congrats to Chelsea in sticking to their plans. The pitch in Camp Nou is slightly large and wondering if that would help Barca anyways on Tuesday.
Drogba what an actor. ZM Drogba wasting like 2-4 minutes every 10 minutes into the game was also an important tactic of Chelsea.
again, stop that “camp nou is large” myth. this thread alone gives several pieces of info that it is not – and may have never been – a large pitch.
Exactly. Ironically this was one of Barca’s most impressive performances against a big team that parked the bus. They were much worse against Chelsea in 2009, Inter, RM. Barca not only created far more clear chances than they normally do but also gave up less chances.
Chelsea really rode their luck in this match.
Barcelona – They really should have won this game. They were only really threatened defensively by Ramires on the left which created the only clear chance Chelsea had apart from set pieces. Drogba won a lot of free kicks, but rarely got the better of the Barca CB’s. The Barca fullbacks/wingbacks managed to get forward a lot, basically playing as wingers for a lot of the match. Ramires tracked Alves excellently and stopped him overloading Cole, but Adriano was free to get forward untracked and found a lot of space with Ivanovic playing too narrow. The problem was that Barca didn’t have a target in the penalty area, so whenever either Adriano or Alves had the ball outwide they usually just passed it back into the midfield.
In midfield, Busquets and Alves were left to keep the ball in deep positions and dominate possession. Xavi was pressed when he did move forward and found it hard to provide that killer pass. Fabregas found it hard to play in between the lines, but was left untracked at times when making off ball runs into the penalty area and should have really scored (poor finishing by him as ZM noted).
In attack, Iniesta was probably the wrong choice on the left as he played into Chelsea hands by playing very narrow, Barcelona could have benefited from having pedro or one of their speedy young wingers out on the left. Really Villa would have been perfect for this game and its a shame he is injured. Sanchez couldn’t get the better of cole, especially with Ramires helping out on the left. He also could find any space centrally as the CB’s stayed in position even when messi dropped deep. Messi was dangerous as usual but probably dropped too deep into crowded zones. He had a lot of shots blocked and Chelsea seemed ready for anything he tried to do.
Barcelona could have done with villa out wide on the left and maybe even someone like Ibra up front. He would have provided a target when the ball was out wide for crosses, plus messi could have faired better on the right, finding more space to run at the defence.
Don’t forget Didier Drogba’s diving skills as a big factor of this game. Maybe because the court was looking like a swimming-pool.
you really want to get into a diving contest with people like Busquets and Danny Alves in the Barca side….?
Be honest. If you watched the game, you saw no diving by either of the players you mention, while Drogba made at least half a dozen obvious dives and stayed down for quite a while each time to get himself and his teammates a rest.
It’s silly to pretend that is not a tactical decision.
the point is, how can you complain about someone diving when you have at least two players who are well known divers playing in your side? it’s hypocritical.
They were saving it for Saturday…
Well executed and very consistent. But of course he comes from the rough and tumble Premier League, so those sorts of actions are just waved off.
Very well written analysis. The second leg at the Nou Camp is going to be very interesting.
Given everything I’ve read on this game, are we not in danger of letting goals determine analysis? Only one team here put on a great defensive display, and that was Barcelona. Chelsea had only one shot on target, and no other chances apart from that. By contrast, Barcelona had about six very good chances. Of course goals are not overrated when it comes to winning games, but they are very much overrated when it comes to analysing them.
The 1 occasion the Barca defense was called upon to defend, they failed. You call that a “great defensive display”?!?
Ha point taken. But what I’m getting at is the notion that defending only means what you do when the opposition has the ball. In a 90 minute game you are called on to defend for 90 minutes. IF a team were to have the ball for the entire 90 minutes, that would be the perfect defensive performance. They may not do anything good with the ball in terms of attacking the opposition’s goal, but they have defended their own goal — by defending the ball — perfectly. And so given the different systems each team employed, Barcelona’s was a lot more successful in terms of what constitutes “defending” within that system. Not as successful as last year’s match against Arsenal (who failed to have a shot at all, not to mention one on target) but quite excellent nonetheless.
This was the same Chelsea of 2009 but a different Barcelona. ZM’s regular pieces on Barca’s tactics show that Guardiola is constantly changing the team’s ways of playing. This was a much better Barcelona…going by the chances they created. In 2009, it was his 1st season as a manager and they’d not met a team that defended like Chelsea. Yesterday, I think they expected this and had the right plans to deal with this and maybe they weren’t lucky or congs to Chelsea. For Chelsea, this was much better than 2009..considering Barcelona’s experience. But what happens after? I think Chelsea have no other way of playing and for me, that’s what is going to do them. Of course, you expect Barcelona to step up a gear and find a solution to the bus. And they’re very capable.
“Details matter”
Jose M.
A theory only has validity in as much as it explains observed phenomena. Do you truly believe that Chelsea’s tactics and strategy had anything to do with Barca hitting the post twice, with Fabregas basically fanning on an open goal, with Alexi and Fabregas missing easy chances ? If a theory can’t distinguish between alternate sets of outcomes it has zero explanatory value.
Of course if we really want to be logically consistent, the only possible relevance of Chelsea’s tactics and strategy to the game is that they FACILITATED all of Barca’s chances ! Either that, or they were completely irrelevant to what transpired.
they cant be irrelevant, because u have to compare the effectiveness of behaviour to non-behaviour, that is in this case eleven men standing still.
facilitated isnt that bad a description. id add “facilitated that exact amount of barca chances” comparing it to possibly less or more chances with a different tactical approach.
i agree that post-match analysis is greatly distorted by the outcome. thats the same in a lot of post hoc analyses in all kinds of areas.
an easy solution to that is taking some stats or even subjective observations into account. of course, u have to be careful with numbers and try to interpret them thouroughly, but a good indication of attacking quality for example is the “shots on target” number from within the box. or chances rated as “likely leading to a goal” to provide a more arbitrary and subjective category. passing accuracy is another one – again all subject to interpretation: risky passes are less likely to succeed than safe ones. the last indicator are – what a surprise – goals which are the only parameter to count. but which are also not always a good indicator to analyze a game as several have mentioned already.
considering this, it was a pretty good game for barca. of course that doesnt mean chelsea wasnt good at defending or barca lacked a key to unlock the defense even better.
and we often forget that we dont judge perfomances independently from the “true” strength: if nikoel aposia had managed those number of chances, we wouldve praised them and condemned chelsea.
This result was the best possible Chelsea could hope for. Barcelona can easily kill this off at Camp Nou. The only way Chelsea would have given themselves a real shot at progressing would have been to nick a two-goal advantage.
Barcelona generated four great chances that would be finished 9 times out of 10 on the road. Chelsea will be under an almighty onslaught at Camp Nou next week.
Chelsea’s best case scenario next week is a 2-1 defeat. I’ll predict 3-0 to Barca.
Four chances that would be finished nine times out of ten? And yet none of them were. It’s a good thing you don’t set odds. Speaking of odds, what are the odds that Barca get a penalty kick at the Nou? 10 times out of 10, is my guess.
A popular dismissal of tiki-taka is that the possession doesn’t translate to chances, but that’s not an argument anyone should be making for this match. Barcelona put six on target, and could have easily been awarded a penalty for the foul on Iniesta. Barcelona completely dominated the match, and deserved at least a 3-1.
If Real doesn’t injure half of Barca’s line-up this weekend, I would not want to be in a Chelsea shirt next week.
Look at the graph, most of their passes were on THEIR side of the field… backpasses when the other team isnt holding back and not pressuring you might add up on the % of possession/
Chances and opportunities is one thing, possession that is padded a lot less meaningful.
But the side and back passes help to shift the defense and open up gaps, which eventually lead to the large number of chances they created.
To me, this match highlighted Barca’s main weaknesses this season, which they seem unable to address. These are, in order of severity:
1. Inability to finish. Of course, this is not a problem fixed by getting new personnel. Everyone’s got to finish better. Finishing practice should have been made absolutely top priority in training sessions over the past few months. I don’t think it has, and it’s haunting them.
2. Poor pressing coordination. They seem disjointed when pressing – that is, you see teams sometimes passing through them – barely – but still doing it. It’s a small margin, and for me, the root cause is that some players are slowing down due to age and lack of rest. Xavi, Iniesta, Alves, for example. They can’t press as recklessly as they used to. They have to pick and choose their moments and look for higher percentage situations to trap.
3. General slowing down problem. Like I said, main players have aged, are tired, etc.
a. Alves problem. Like I said, he’s slowed down and no longer can just kick the ball past defenders and chase. That threat was immensely important in the past. The removal of the threat has narrowed the Barca attack and eased defending. Alves has become more of another midfielder and no longer a crossing winger. But Barca attacking tactics seem not to have adjusted to this reality. One option they should try is to have Alves perpetually overlap and do nothing else. This would bring about the defensive stretching so badly needed.
b. Alexi problem / midfielders problem. Awful finishing. Too tense. Why? He is not being himself – Alexi Sanchez the dribbler and playmaker. He’s been asked to be a non-risk-taking finisher, and though he’s trying, that’s just not him and so he seemingly never gets into a groove. Which is why his finishing is awful. He’s got to at least be allowed to have more possession and to take more risks, to dribble more. Others have to make the runs, too, not just him. This is where the aging is a problem. Xavi and co are not making the runs they used to. But they must, especially Fabregas, Keita, Busquets, Messi. Otherwise it gets too one dimensional.
i dont think pressing is a problem. I think pressing has become far better than last year and the year before. chelsea couldnt pass the ball ( 80% tells you something)
And barca only allowed one shot. Pressing is very organised
Only problem is alexis – perhaps he is better suited when he is the central of all barca’s attacks(that may not happen cuz of messi)
I love alves and he is better than ever this season( dunno what fault do you see
On pressing… Yes, perhaps it wasn’t too evident in this match, but for the season as a whole, I think it’s been a big problem. And you don’t see the impact of the problem in terms of possession, but in terms of interceptions leading to scoring chances, and turnovers leading to opposition scoring chances (because the turnovers were not sufficiently suffocated).
Alexis… I don’t think he should be the end focus.
Alves… He’s not stretching the play the way he used to. I don’t have any stats, but he rarely seems to get to the goal line and cross. And I see defenders closing in on him even in the midfield, which tells me they’re no longer afraid of him just running by them. How many times have we seen Barca play it around in the middle, and just as the defence really tightens up, pass it out to a sprinting Alves who put in a cross behind the defence? This is just no longer happening.
It’s not a fault – he’s just not as fast as he used to be. It’s just that the width he used to give them was an important part of opening up the defence, and since that’s not longer there, Barca have to make adjustments.
I forgot to add, in the poor finishing section, that besides the lack of width, the lack of long distance shooting threats.
I agree, Barca does not have a true long range goal threat. Not that they need one in most games, but a player like Alonso, CR7, Gerrard, Scholes, or Schweini who can bang them in from 35 yrds is nice.
If CR7 were wasting possession for Barcelona with his huge amount of long range shots, Barca’s high back line would become suicidal. No thanks!
My view is that Chelsea stuck to too rigid a game plan. Yes they defended well and in large numbers and walked away with a 1-0 win, but had Barcelona taken their chances (and there were some very close ones) then the score would have been much different. The Nou Camp will be a different prospect and Chelsea cannot simply park the bus and hope for a 0-0.
On the night Barcelona were not at their best. Whether this was due to the rain, tiredness, Chelsea’s tactics – whatever the reason, Chelsea and RDM were too rigid. In the second half Chelsea had no shots at all. Given that their 1 shot on target was converted to a goal, with some pretty poor defending from Barca, should Chelsea have not taken note of this and gone for a second and possibly third goal?
More on that here:
http://www.grombox.com/chelsea-could-rue-their-1-0-win/
Credit is due to Chelsea, they performed about as well you could have expected from them. They were very disciplined, Di Matteo has certainly got the players onside as far as the game plan is concerned.
That said – and it appears this has been the general feeling – had Barcelona taken just one of their chances, the tie would have a very different complexion. Had they taken 2 or more of them, the tie would be over and this article might have been more about the areas where Chelsea went wrong! That’s football though and Barcelona only really have themselves to blame.
I’ve noticed in recent seasons that Barcelona have created a hell of a lot of chances against English opposition, but converted very few (percentage wise). Just last season, but for wasteful finishing the score lines against Arsenal and Man Utd would have been quite embarrassing. I think there may be something in the idea that Barca don’t like playing in England. Again though, this point would have been blown out of the water had Barca just taken their chances.
It’s the beauty of this game.
On an opposing point, Drogba is an embarrassment. It’s so much more annoying that he is such a good player as well.
I agree with you on this, especially the Drogba comment. Embarrassment sums him up. John Terry stated after the game he put fear into Barcelona’s defenders. Probably because they were frightened he was made of balsa wood
Barca’s problems are partly self-generated. At 0-0, no matter how you pack the bus, Man Utd can’t fail to score the goal they need. So, how does this apply to Barca’s game? There’s a whole lot of bodies (of opponents) and you look up and only see 1 barca shirt! among them and worst of all, no other barca players are making runs towards inside the box. So, the crossing will be useless hence every time, the ball’s cut-back to central areas.
Solution. Have 3 or more men in the opponents’ box with others waiting/making runs outside…(confusing and panicking the opponent )and just overload them with shots/crosses. You can’t fail to score and more so, a side of Barca’s quality should put away 5-6 chances every game.
Considering Pique is the only player over 5ft tall and Chelsea had big players and everyone knew they would play high balls, why not have him in this game?
Barca’s inability to play wide or have a plan B is something that is overlooked beacuse Plan A is so good. But taking away the concept of centering crosses out of the game of football isnt something all teams should strive for. Mexican players are very skilled technically and not the tallest in the world but they are more balanced because they dont eschew parts of the game.
Its not their style, I get it.
You dont exploit EVERY facet of the game and you have no one else to blame.
Pique just came back from injury.As it was the 1st of three big games Pep wasn’t going to risk his season. Perhaps if it was the last of the three.Also I don’t understand the point about Mexicans?
If anything to me this match shows how far Barcelona have come over the last several years. I thought Chelsea’s defensive performance was brilliant: they parked the bus as effectively as any team has against Barcelona, Inter included. And yet they still had to ride their luck tremendously to hang on to a 1-0 win at home. Against Chelsea (2009) and Inter Barcelona looked a little lost about how to deal with an opponent sitting so deep. Yesterday I found them very composed and effective for most of the game, and they should have had a result. This is not to take anything away from Chelsea who were as close to perfect in executing their tactics as I can imagine them being, there is just clearly a massive gulf in quality between the teams, and Barcelona will create chances against even near-perfect defending.
Barca were so dominant that I’m not even sure if Chelsea have any other options except to try to repeat the performance and hope for similar doses of luck.
Never ceases to amaze me how Messi gets free whilst playing a one-two. Almost every Barca game you wish to watch this situation will occur: after Messi has fired in the initial pass the tracking player will slow down, or stop completely, and ball watch; allowing Messi to go free to collect the return pass. This is particularly true when he’s cutting in from the right and usually results in a curled left foot finish into the bottom corner.
This type of defending is Sunday league and inexcusable.
So there.
He makes good defenders look bad, it happens to most guys.
If Chelsea wins this leg, by playing the same way, man, I am going to say how lucky they are. I mean, Chelsea playing system was having a wonderful Cech and a very clever Drogba (yes, if I had to draw a graphic, I would put 9 stood players defending and Drogba alone, and laying on the ground). It was almost the same match compared to Barsa-Milan. Milan got 2/3 shots, and scored the very first one. Well this time, Barcelona missed their opportunities. It’s very simple. You win by scoring more goals than your opponent. But this game, I guess, will be completely forgotten as Barcelona faces Real Madrid next time, so confidence and stamina will be determined by this match and its result instead of the one we saw yesterday.
Here’s a graphic about the game:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2jb9pif.jpg
“For much of the first half he was frustrating, constantly caught offside, but this was because Barcelona were trying to squeeze the play even more than usual. They were afraid of Drogba’s aerial power, so were pushing him away from goal.”
Maybe they were afraid, but Barca are always playing significantly higher up the pitch with their last four whenever Puyol is playing centre, no matter who their playing. The amount of respect the other players are showing in every situation, wherever puyol wants the backline, is immense. When it comes to offside traps, he never fails them.
Sorry for my bad english, Love your site!
One wonders how long barca can keep it up. Sanchez new to the system, villa injured, pedro out of for, xavi out of form ?, alves becoming predictavle, abidal out injired, iniesta out.of position…. It would be the most.impressive thing yet from that team, if they eere to somehow do a double this season and/ or next season.
pedro should have played in place of cesc, with alves pushed forward on the right wing.
that would have stretched the attack more and also given more penetration. Sanchez should be played in the centre with messi behind him
cesc is too slow to be one of the front three and lacks finishing
yes
Lol this f***ing bus-parkers qualified, the final is gonna suck now, but I must agree this was all Messi’s fault, here and in London, he’s paid to score not to defend like he did at Chelsea’s home. He shouldn’t of taken the penalty either, he looked pale-green from the TV and someone should have taken the ball from him, he was to important to be substituted and a whole team payed for it. To bad a team that sits all game in the penalty box goes to the biggest club Final. Again, Barcelona could have killed the game at 2-0 and qualify easily but they insisted to play ‘beautiful’ and they lost, at 2-0 in numerical superiority they only had to wait for the tuck load of goals to come but they rushed to play ‘tiki-take’.
lol parking the bus? Chelsea scored two away goals. It was an amazing defensive performance.