Chelsea 2-1 Liverpool: Chelsea lift the trophy
The starting line-ups
Chelsea won their fourth FA Cup in the last six years.
Roberto Di Matteo went for his usual 4-2-3-1 system with no real surprises – Didier Drogba was upfront and Saloman Kalou got the nod on the left.
Kenny Dalglish left out Andy Carroll and went for a 4-3-3 system with Luis Suarez upfront alone. There was also no place for Jamie Carragher at the back.
This was basically two completely separate games – Liverpool before Carroll, and Liverpool with Carroll.
Opening
The game started extremely cautiously, with neither side committing players forward and instead playing short, simple passes in midfield and across the backline. With the two midfields closely matched, no players in this zone got time and space on the ball to pick a good pass. The one slight exception was Jay Spearing, because while Liverpool used Jordan Henderson and Steven Gerrard to press John Obi Mikel and Frank Lampard, Chelsea focused upon getting back into shape. Spearing’s passes were generally short and sideways, which is his job in that position, though as the man with most time he could have been a little more incisive – his one attempted penetrative pass was to no-one, drifting out of play for a goal kick.
The game needed an early goal, and Chelsea pounced with what is now their standard route of attack under Di Matteo – the ball played out to Ramires on the run. Their strategy was highly based around counter-attacking, and this was only exaggerated once they went ahead. There were no particularly interesting features of their overall play, though it was interesting to watch Juan Mata’s movement and positioning – he drifted laterally into pockets of space either side Spearing and in behind Gerrard or Henderson, causing Liverpool problems in exactly the same way he did in the league meeting at Stamford Bridge.
But with Chelsea now sitting deep and content to soak up pressure, this was no longer a real formation battle, in terms of one trying to outmanoeuvre the other in midfield. Instead, it was all about Liverpool trying to break down a resilient Chelsea defence.
Liverpool approach
Frankly, Liverpool were terrible for 45 minutes. The obvious analysis is that Suarez was isolated, but this in itself isn’t necessarily a problem. In fact, Suarez is one of the best ‘isolated’ forwards around – he was superb in the Copa America when Diego Forlan dropped deep and left him upfront alone. But he likes to work the channels – he’s clearly not a target man like Drogba.
Therefore, Liverpool had to be more intelligent to get him into his favoured positions. They needed to either play the ball forward quickly before Chelsea had got back into shape, or drag the full-backs out and increase the space between Chelsea’s centre-backs and full-backs. The latter was something they did excellently in the semi-final against Everton, with Leighton Baines moving up the pitch to Jordan Henderson in deep positions, and Suarez taking on Sylvain Distin in a one-against-one battle he clearly won. But he never got the opportunity to do that against Terry, with Bellamy playing an odd, anarchic role that saw him drifting into the centre of the pitch. Chelsea could stay narrow, and Suarez was barely noticeable.
Therefore, most of Liverpool’s play went down the left. Here they were fielding two ‘linear’ players, Stewart Downing and Jose Enrique, and their play was too slow and predictable – and without a target man, crosses weren’t particularly useful. (This has been an incongruous part of Liverpool’s play this season – there’s often been no obvious correlation between the use of wide players on their natural side to cross, and the use of Carroll to get on the end of crosses). Neither Downing nor Enrique are in great form, and the major threat in the first half came when Daniel Agger moved forward to briefly overload Chelsea in that part of the pitch.
Dalglish moved to more of a 4-4-1-1 system towards the end of the first half, with Henderson moving right and Bellamy permanently in the middle.
Carroll
From 55 minutes
It would be a little unfair to criticise Dalglish’s tactics from the start (the line-up would have fared better in a more evenly-balanced game when Chelsea were attacking more, which may have been the case had Liverpool not conceded an extremely sloppy early goal), it’s fair to question why he didn’t immediately introduce another forward for the second half. Liverpool were awful in the opening period, and with Chelsea parking the bus, the obvious man to bring on was Carroll.
He eventually arrived, but after 55 minutes rather than 45. During that ten minutes Chelsea scored again, and it was ten minutes less of heavy Liverpool pressure. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but a quick straw poll of Liverpool fans at half-time would surely have produced a consensus that Carroll should have been introduced straight away.
Spearing was the man to depart, with Gerrard and Henderson now the midfield duo. Neither had a particularly great game, but they were more purposeful on the ball, with more diagonal passes than Spearing played, helping Liverpool move the ball much quicker into wide zones.
Of course, there was nothing subtle about the effect Carroll had – he won aerial balls, got on the end of crosses and provided a central pivot Liverpool could play around. He also showed great awareness to nod the ball down to onrushing teammates. Bringing on a big man to thump the ball towards is the most primitive tactic in football, but it worked excellently and Liverpool were inches away from equalising.
A 2-2 would have been Liverpool’s most unlikely comeback since Istanbul in 2005, when Liverpool radically changed shape to turn the game. But Rafael Benitez made his changes at half-time during that game – even if Carroll’s goal had been awarded, it was still a mistake for Dalglish not to make his changes at half-time too, to give Liverpool as much time as possible with more of a goal threat.
Conclusion
Quite a standard game – Chelsea counter-attack early and go ahead, then spent the rest of the game defending with Liverpool struggling to break them down. Then Liverpool have a target for longer balls, and Chelsea struggle to deal with the constant pressure. It was as simple as that.
Dalglish is fully to blame. He still hasn’t worked out this Enrique-Downing partnership is so predictable. He would have been better off playing 17 year old Sterling on that side. Downing and Bellamy are too”vertical” to play both at the same time and expect good movement. I feel sorry for Maxi and Kuyt and the way they have been Sidelined by Dalglish. Finally I thin Shelvey is much better deeper than Henderson and a lot more intelligent in playing halls forward. Long story short Kenny left all his intelligent players on the bench.
I agree, Both doing the same thing and getting in each others way. Kuyt on that side would have been a better option, drifting into the centre and into the gaps Suarez was creating. Also thought Gerrard didn’t get forward enough in the first half, when he could have connected with Suarez more.
Mostly agree. Kuyt, Maxi and Bellamy are clearly the three best wide players in the squad, and yet it’s Downing who is pretty much the only guaranteed starter in big games. I get that he’s tactically very different from the other three, but it’s in a way that clearly doesn’t mesh with the rest of the team. As you say, he has an abysmal partnership with Enrique, and it’s little better with Johnson on the right, where he always holds onto the ball forever. Also, what’s the point of starting a left winger who can do nothing but cross and is never a goal threat when you’re playing Suarez alone up front? Maxi is so brilliant at getting in the box and finishing off moves–Downing is the exact opposite.
Downing plays because he’s the only out and out winger we have in the squad at the moment. By playing Downing it creates more space in the centre of the pitch for Suarez and Gerrard to work. If Maxi plays out left he will come in and make things narrow and no space.
Carroll should have started though instead of Bellamy which would have allowed Downing to get at Bosingwa and test him more than he did.
Not true, if Enrique plays, then it’s perfectly feasible to start a winger that cuts inside on that flank, since the Spaniard always stretches the play. That’s why his and Downing’s partnership doesn’t work, because both always want to run down the touchline. It would have been so much better if they bought a right-winger eg. Lennon instead of Downing, because Johnson is happy to change it up and attack through the middle.
Are you sure you got Kalou and Ramires’s positions right after the 55th minute? It certainly seemed like Kalou was back defending with Bosingwa a whole, whole lot against Downing and Jose Enrique in the 2nd half.
That was after Meireles subbed on and Chelsea goes 4-3-3
Hi ZM could you please update your “upcoming” section? Thanks!
ZM, just a thought… How comes you rarely cover Scottish football anymore? Thanks
I’m not ZM, but I’d say the fact that the Scottish title race was over in January probably has a lot to do with it.
Because it’s shit?
The site is about tactics though – rather than simply write ups of ‘big’ matches – and there are tactically interesting aspects in every league. The title race may have ended early but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to consider. The title race in England has been limited to two teams for quite a while too. There are interesting things going on in the relegation battles but also, every league has at least one or two teams who play with a distinct style that stands them out from the rest.
To be honest, I’m surprised at the high frequency of articles on English matches when, of the bigger leagues, it’s not the most intriguing from a tactical point of view. A number of reports end up like the Chelsea-Liverpool one above. Don’t get me wrong, they are still great to read but a lot of the matches themselves don’t offer much for discussion.
A few points on the game:
-Thought Terry dealt with Suarez well in the first half, keeping him quiet, but found it much harder when up against Carroll. Carroll managed to occupy both CB’s, creating a lot more space for suarez to play in.
-As ZM mentioned, Bellamy didn’t have a great game. He was helped by Johnson getting forward a lot, but didn’t see a lot of the ball and wasted it when he did. He isn’t really a great player when up against deep defenses, and it probably wasnt the right game or position for him. Johnson was good though, and had a good game going forward and pushed Kalou back into non-dangerous positions.
- In midfield, Gerrard and Henderson did a good job pressing Lampard and Mikel and stopped Chelsea countering easily. But Spearing had a mixed game, he did okay on the ball, playing some good passes, but he lost Mata too easily at times, and you would rather mata in possession than spearing.
- Liverpool attacked down the left too much throughout the game and the combination of Downing and Enrique just doesn’t work. They both stay far too wide and get in each others way, Downing should have mixed up his game more. It also let Ramires break easily when Enrique got forward too much, and he easily had the beating of Enrique every time for pace.
- Drogba didn’t have a great game and rarely got much from the Liverpool defense, but he did finish excellently with one of his few chances and won Chelsea the game.
- Lastly, in the second half Gerrard moves deeper and helped dictate the game, playing some great passes to the wingers and stretching play. He was sometimes too rash and tried to rush attacks, but it worked at times, as it got the ball forward quickly before Chelsea could settle. It also helped that Suarez could now drift into wide positions and double up (especially with Bellamy) and Liverpool were unlucky to not get an equalizer from their pressure. Chelsea were disappointing with their breaks in the second half, with Ramires and Mata tiring a bit, they should have brought on malouda for ramires to continue to break against Enrique and Meireles for Mata to give energy in the middle (which he did when he came on, but saw mata move outwide and have no effect on the game).
http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/football-articles/ Also created a page for any football related articles I write, and good football websites to check out, give it a look if you want
another standard game in PL, this league has become so average in comparison to what it was 5 years ago :s
it’s slowly going down with the best english players rolling away from their golden age…
we may have to wait for 5 years and players like wilshere approaching their top to see english football coming close to its end of 10’s level again
the german league may be the best in 5 years time how sad is that?
What?
There’s not much point Carroll’s using his head or chest to set up shots for midfielders if they are going to blast the ball miles over the bar. Do they practise these skills?
Until Carroll arrived it seemed that every Chelsea player was better in his position than his Liverpool counterpart. After Carroll arrived it seemed that it was Liverpool letting down Carroll rather than vice versa. It doesn’t look as if Liverpool have a controlling intelligence at the moment.
I thought for a period of time after Carroll arived that Pool midfield, which had been poor in the first half, was at massive risk of being overrun. There were a number of times where Chelsea got into space behind them, with Gerrard especially slow in getting back in defense.
To a degree it was the risk that Liverpool had to take down 2-0: push forward in search of pulling one back. But another part was that Gerrard + Henderson in the middle against Chelsea’s 4-2-3-1 were at risk of being overrun.
The “dominance” late be Liverpool was as much due to Chelsea pulling deeper and deeper to defend, and sending far fewer people forward to counter. There was one telling counter late when it was 1 vs World as no one came forward quickly to support, and one almost thought Chelsea were thinking there were down a man against Barca they were so passive.
I think that if Kenny went with Carroll at half we would have seen Chelsea go up 2-0 eventually, and probably potted another when Pool started opening things up to score after the initial change failed.
As a United fan, I’m perfectly happy to see Carroll get a few Big Goals down the stretch this year. One can only hope that it deludes Liverpool into wasting more time on thinking he’s a key part of their future.
I concur–Chelsea had 3 or 4 breaks after their second goal. Liverpool’s midfield looked really lethargic, and had Chelsea buried one of them, Carroll’s vibrancy would have been a mere footnote rather than a “What if?”
Also, Chelsea chose to drop deep after Ramires exited–his absence did more to stem Chelsea’s counterattack than anything.
I disagree on the Ramires/Chelsea dropping deep remark. Ramires was taken out in the 77th minute. Carroll had already scored in the 64th and they pressed for the remainder of the half. Chelsea may have dropped deeper after Ramires was gone, but they were already pushed back before then. The main reason was because Suarez was roaming behind Carroll and linking up with his wingers.
I’d be interested in a reaction to my (probably) controversial assessment, which I think partly relates to Dearieme’s comment, “It doesn’t look as if Liverpool have a controlling intelligence at the moment.”
From my assessment, Gerrard was possibly the worst player on the pitch for Liverpool and was the major reason for their failure before Carroll came on. I say this because he had responsibility for the attacking midfield role. Why was Suarez so isolated? Why did Liverpool concede so much control to Chelsea? The reason was Gerrard.
Did anyone notice how Gerrard played out of position for the majority of the match? When he finally returned to his positional role, it was often too late. He may have loads of individual skill, and you should be able to build a team around a guy with this skill. But you can’t build a team around Gerrard – he must be a nightmare to have in a team, because from where I was sitting he did a better job of stuffing up Liverpool’s shape than Chelsea did.
Your views?
If I’m not mistaken, you’re inadvertently referring to the common feeling outside of Anfield that Steven Gerrard is a technically gifted player, but not a smart player. In other words, he’s a great player but not a great footballer. He knows how to strike a ball, how to pass, how to dribble but he doesn’t know when or where to be. In a way, managers have told him where to be in certain situations or where the ball is supposed to be played but it doesn’t seem Gerrard knows why, simply that that’s what he was told.
I think you have a point and it does seem to be a problem with top english players as I think Rooney is similar in this respect. Imo this Roy of the Rovers kind of play has been an issue for the England team that none of their managers have addressed.
It can also be a problem for Liverpool their league form in the Gerrardless first half of the season was actually quite good they were certainly in the hunt for the champions league. Since Gerrards return in the new year they have been very poor.
Jonathan Wilson wrote about the Gerrard problem recently.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/apr/10/the-question-steven-gerrard-liverpool
Jambonzz…Agree with you, since gerrard return from his injury, Liverpool are somewhat having a tactical dilemma.The balance of the side distrupted.With Gerrard tactical inability, players around him found neccesity to adjust to his nature of plays: his runs, his shots, his positioning, eveything about him does distrupt’s the harmony of the way Liverpool playing….
Gerrard do have the unpredictability that would be big asset in our play, just the thing that Kenny could’nt find a way to utilise it is very dissapointing…
its why I’m dreading seeing him in a England shirt again this summer :/
It is easy to see that Steven Gerrard is an extremely gifted football player; but I have to concur with a lot of what is being said here.
Assuming that his natural ‘game’ will never change, what IS his best position and in what formation? Surely, he is too gifted a football player to not be very useful in the right formation whilst accepting that his natural game will never change.
Anyone who has played and watched football in this country -at whatever level- is fully aware of the English footballing culture that produces a player such as a Steven Gerrard.
I have thought for some time that when Gerrard ages and loses his natural dynamism, then he could become an effective, orthodox central midfielder? (obscure I know; but I checked Zonalmarkings glossary and couldn’t find a decent description) That is to say, that with age his legs will keep his ego in check and he won’t keep charging around the field creating more problems than he tries to solve. A nice thought; but then you see another over hit hero ball and….
Is it Gerrard’s undoubted ability that frustrates? Because we can see what he ‘could’ be. Or has Gerrard’s naturally energetic approach realised his full potential already.
I don’t know; but I do know that you can take the boy out of English football but you can’t…….
Awful game, that you had to watch it and give a report on it makes me say full credit to you. Liverpool at least “tried”, Chelsea have reverted to the awful style they played with under every coach (apart from Vilas Boas) when facing a team who are decent in keeping the ball (and that’s not a compliment, Liverpool are the best example of “sterile” domination).
The teams that got to this final (and the Carling Cup final and Champions League final, as Liverpool and Chelsea have/will participate(d) in those respective tournaments) are broken teams – Di Matteo played progressive, proactive football under WBA (and leading Arsenal 3-0 at one point at the Emirates was the best he showed – it was superb). He certainly knows or can try to play the football Abramovich wants, but it will be a disaster. Why?
Even the players who are correct for that system – Mata, , Ramires, Essien, Lampard, Luiz, Bosingwa, Sturridge and Torres, to name the most suitale. Mata doesn’t have the fitness for it, Ramires, Essien, Bosingwa, Sturridge do not have the tactical ability/flexibility, although they all could if treated properly. Torres would work well in that kind of system – he did so for Atletico and for Liverpool, but his form is out of touch and he is only regaining it now.
Finally, Lampard would have to be some kind of “pivot” or be included in the side, he is too important to be left out of this Chelsea side! Terry gives the leadership, Lampard gives the direction. Some thought Mata would replace Lampard as the driving force and pivot of Chelsea – they are wrong, Mata does not have the fitness, stamina, strength or agility or experience that Lampard has.
For Liverpool, Downing tries hard but he was useless in the first half, not because of his ability but because the manager got it wrong (in my view). Downing, as ZM put it, on the left, is a “linear” player, crossing the ball is his objective (and he does it well), having Suarez and Henderson to cross for is just no good. If it takes 55 minutes and 30+ games into a season to realise it, then so be it.
Liverpool are a “linear” side, but Dalglish knows that and he’s trying to fix it. He needs time!
agree that chelsea became really awful long ball team again, this is explains drogba renesaince
I’m not sure what was ‘awful’ about their style. They won, and were generally very comfortable. They always looked the far more likely team to come away with the FA Cup. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
I don’t know whether this is a fact or my premonition only, but I don’t see a “20 million pound player” in both Henderson and Downing. When you pay such amount of money in a player, you’ll expect a player who can turn things around all by himself, sort kind of Mata, Suarez, Silva. Instead, I see “mid-table players” in them.
I wonder what Liverpool was thinking when paying the amount, didn’t they watch some kind of video or something? Didn’t they have discussions, or debates, among their scouts?
Chelsea, however, could not just rely on their old guards –they must do a lot of transfer businesses next season. They could not just rely on the combination of:
1. Pass the ball to Drogba, he hold it
2. Mata makes space, moving into channels while Ramires makes a darting run on the right.
3. Drogba passes the ball to either Ramires or Mata, while waiting for other companies like Lampard to join.
Their play is so predictable! And not sure Drogba staying for the next season, too.
By the way, I really wish Di Matteo had introduced Torres though, he would be useful in counter attack movements. Hoping as well that he could score a fairytale-like goal like in Nou Camp. By the way Petr Cech on Carrol ooohh what a save!
I agree on Henderson and Downing. I think it’s right to expect more from both of these guys. Henderson is only 21 though so we shouldn’t write him off completely yet, he looks like he is still finding his feet at Liverpool and hasn’t made a role his own yet. He has a good engine and has shown glimpses of quality so has got potential.
Downing, on the other hand, is 27 and has the same flaws in his game that he had 5 years ago (and if anything has lost pace since he first emerged). He is quite one dimensional, predictable and like you say, just doesn’t have it in him to take the initiative himself. You’d expect better for his transfer fee, as well as expect someone with the close control – on both feet – to be able take the ball in tight situations, whilst under pressure. In his defence, he isn’t helped by lining up with Enrique but again, Liverpool could have gone out and spent the money far better than on someone like Downing.
In fairness to Gerrard, playing in the AM position he was as isolated as Suarez. In the opening 15 mins he didn’t see the ball once because Spearing and Henderson didn’t play it forward. He didn’t have a good game, but he left Suarez isolated because if he didn’t drop deep Liverpool had no one in front of the Chelsea midfield willing to play the ball forward.
This Liverpool midfield is a testament to the Benitez system; when they had Alonso and Mascherano playing in the double pivot they had more defensive awareness than provided by Spearing (both in the tackle and cutting out passes) and they had two players willing to hit balls forward.
I think Liverpool need to move back to a 4-2-3-1 with Gerrard deep and Suarez in the AM position. Carroll was not only a good target but also one of the best players in the side when he came on. He needs to start. Downing needs to play on the right where he will come inside to support Carroll and where he is more likely to take advantage of the knock downs Carroll provides. It is notable that the best cross of the match came from Suarez in a deeper area. Downing is a better player when coming inside and attacking defenders. He gets too deep on the left and his delivery isn’t good enough to play like Beckham did (slowing play, creating a little space and hitting crosses).
To be fair, there’s a reason Benitez didn’t want to play Gerrard in deep midfield. He understood Gerrard’s lack of positional sense and either played him on the wing or behind the striker. In the Beniez system the forward players pressed intensely, perfect for Stevie G’s all action playing style.
Absolutely but, then he caved in and sold Sissoko so he could accomodate Gerrard in CM.
I have always thought you can not play Gerrard in a 2-man CM; he’s simply a tactical disaster!
Which is a real pity as technically he has very few weaknesses.
The best I’ve seen him play in CM was for England in a friendly against Brazil. I think when he realises he can not add to a side offensively, he does a pretty good job in CM.
Of course in an all or nothing game as Milan would attest, he can be lethal
No, Rafa ‘caved’ and sold Sissoko to accommodate Mascherano to play alongside Alonso and Rafa played Gerrard as a second striker off Torres.
You must not have watched Liverpool much this season. Perhaps the only thing worse than Downing yesterday is Downing on the right attempting the inverted winger role. He cannot do it.
And yet Downing was one of the best players in an England friendly earlier in the season (was it vs Sweden?). Why can’t Liverpool get more out of him? Is it related to the way their immune system rejected Hodgson?
Benitez never played Gerrard in CM, even after he sold Sissoko. He was always played wide right, then in behind Torres. SG only played in the middle during Rafa’s first season, or when we were playing very small teams so didn’t need 2 DM’s!
EDIT: Sorry, this should have been a reply to the thread above
The Liverpool squad is a complete dogs dinner.
Their squad is weak. If you look at all their actual midfield players, there is a lack of depth, apart from one midfield type. Lucas is the ball-winner, Adam is the passer, and Maxi and Downing are the wide players. It is true that Downing has not been as effective as he should have been, but one can say only Lucas is the one that has performed, and he is injured. Strangely, Maxi doesn’t seem to be very creative, but he is great at scoring goals.
The rest of the midfielders are headless chickens – Gerrard, Henderson, Spearing, Shelvey.
Dalglish decided on this imbalance. It isn’t the fault of the individual players. Henderson was a disastrous signing not only because of his (lack of) ability, but of his uselessness in the balance of the squad. It should be no surprise that playing a midfield of Gerrard, Henderson and Spearing was going to be ineffective.
Since the departure of Mascherano and Alonso, Gerrard looks like a headless chicken. Sorry about that, experts.
Henderson is 21 years old for goodness sake. I think you should go back and read what Liverpool fandom said about Lucas when he was that age and who now, according to you, “is the only one who’s performed.”
Give the lads, Carroll and Shelvey included, some time.
The real problem with liverpool’s midfield appeared when Lucas got injured. Spearing should have stepped up and do the job (or at least don’t make it worse), but it only shown how a static and limited player he is. Without Lucas who single handedly covered the back-5 the offensive players look like headless chickens. Big mistake from Dalglish that he didn’t go for another defensive midfielder during summer or even winter.
Sorry to break it to you, but you can’t judge players only by the price tag. Shelvey is 20 and cost about 1,5m, quite baffling to say “he didn’t perform”.
“Kenny Dalglish left out Andy Carroll and went for a 4-3-3 system with Luis Suarez upfront alone.”
The above is contradictive. If Suarez was left alone up front, then LFC they only played with one man upfront. When you show positions of a team you do it the way they defend.
Liverpool played 4-1-4-1.
Suarez is a good player, but before AC came in they played without a central striker. Then its very hard to score.
Have to say that this was a bad an FA Cup final as I can remember. Maybe I’ve got a short memory though…
Anyway, it seems to me that Liverpool went into this game expecting Chelsea to be more attacking from the start and their plans were undone when this was not the case. Obviously this is only my opinion but the midfield played very conservatively and practically all of Liverpool’s ‘final balls’ were aimed in behind the Chelsea defence. With Chelsea sitting fairly deep there wasn’t much space there and – as ZM points out – with their fullbacks able to stay close to the centre-backs, the lack of space was compounded by stability in numbers against an isolated Suarez.
When Chelsea scored they were able to concentrate on playing this style even more, but Liverpool persisted in doing the same thing for most of the game. Their only two real changes – before Carrol’s introduction – were to get their midfield to press a little higher and to swap a couple players around. This left a fairly big gap between their midfield and defence and Chelsea should have exploited it better when they countered.
I think also the inclusion of Bellamy was strange. He’s not a winger and his wondering in field was not productive against Chelsea’s efficient protection of the central area in front of their defence. His inclusion is another reason why I think that Liverpool possibly anticipated a more attacking minded Chelsea.
Another explanation is that the Liverpool players were forced into doing what has been desribed simply due to a lack of ideas.
Been a liverpool supporter all my life and will remain one forever
But, even I can see we had the great fortune to appoint a telented Scottish manager in 1959 who set about correcting all the floors in the birtish game that had been exposed by Hungary in 1953 and 1954 and we had a clever board who let him and the other talented coaches as the club get on with it.
In the 1970s the whole poject came to fruition. They realised zonal marking made the classic centrehalf (the proverbial overcoat for the centreforward) redundant and played two winghalves at centreback (Thompson and Hughes first; Lawrenson and Hansen second).
The they introduced a classic passing deap-lying Scottish inside forward in the shape of Kenny Dalglish to work the gap between midfield and the front line.
Result, 15 years of domination of the domestic game.
Today, the game is about money, you correct the long-standing problems of the Brtish game by buying foreigners. We are a club inbedded in the culture of a City that has experienced decades of economic decline. Shanks, Paisley, Fagan and Moran have all gone, as has much of the culture and the routines they nurtured at the club.
What I grew up watching was a once in a lifetime experience. Play built from the back, players moving into space to retain the ball, a collective effort to win the ball back when it was lost. All very un-Brtish! I saw my my club lording over everyone else because it had corrected floors in the British game that everyone else took as a unchangeable given.
I’ll never see it again. I do not think Kenny has a clue how to turn it around and I doubt he ever really undertsood how Liverpool was built in the first place. If he did he would never have sacked Chirs Lawler, he would not have let Alan Hansen play on right through until his knees gave way and Sammy Lee would still be on the coaching staff. In fact, his first phonecall when he got the job back would have been to Roy Evans and he should have asked if John Toshack (undoutably the best managerial talent to emerge from a Liverpool squad over the last 30 years) was interested in a role at the club too.
Long balls to Andy Carroll to get back into the game! Yup it raised by hopes too but really.
Bob Paisley only tried it with Michael Robinson as a last resort. As a tactic, it is as un-Liverpool as Roy Hodgson’s rigid 4-4-2.
It’s a little harsh to suggest that this game contained little of tactical interest, because the game was dominated by execution more than anything else. Chelsea had no need to change anything until the 70th minute because everything was working perfectly. Liverpool changed several things and never at any point did anything work until the “elephant on the bench” make an appearance – that is, the one thing that was missing from the pitch that Liverpool refused to use.
Little is mentioned about the first half, but wingers were swapped, Gerrard went from attempting to create from midfield in varying degrees of advanced or withdrawn positions on the left. None of them worked in any way whatsoever. Except on isolated occasions, every attempt by Liverpool to move into the opposition half resulted in the loss of possession, a misplaced pass or retreating again into their own half. It was quite the worst Liverpol I’ve ever seen (apart from last Tuesday) in 40 years of watching.
In contrast, Chelsea did not attempt any form of long ball until long after Carroll’s arrival in the last 20 minutes. Lampard and even Mikel moved smoothly into the opposition half, often picking the ball up in central midfield with no-one within 10 yards. How this was possible surprises me even now. The only thing stopping it being 4 to 6-0 at half-time was the equally incomprehensible shooting from 30+ yards which was never going to trouble anyone. The opportunity was there to do anything they wanted. Spearing was delinquent in almost any covering that was required while Gerrard and Henderson seemed to be any position except the right one. Enrique as well seemed to have little interest in where Ramires was either before or after the first goal.
Nothing much changed in the second half. Chelsea had become almost blase about how easy everything was and over-elaborated when it was easier to score, until Mikel evaded Gerrard as if he wasn’t there and passed a simple ball into Lampard. Spearing was rounded as if he didn’t exist, the entire defence was exposed to anything Lampard wanted to do and the only forward anywhere near the box was allowed to receive, take a touch and shoot before the first defender arrived. Removing Spearing a few minutes later was a blessed relief.
The thing to note is that while Skrtel handled Drogba reasonably well in the air, no-one actually handled Ramires, Drogba nor Kalou’s slalom runs on the floor.
What turned the game toward Liverpool in the end was bringing the big man on and lumping a series of poorly directed long balls at him – that’s Liverpool going long ball, not Chelsea. The crosses, however, were dreadful. Many times Carroll had to travel a distance of 5 yards and more to fetch them, while many others sailed into the same nowhere-territory as the first half.
Chelsea defended against an Alamo of long balls for the last 20 minutes and withdrew a ridiculous amount to allow it to continue, leaving just one man up front and no-one within 30 yards of him, so the ball returned again and again, with little quality.
The short version is that Chelsea played far superior while any football was being played, while Liverpool lacked any guile to get past them. In desperation a big man was brought on more out of desperation than planning and attempted to batter the door down, ultimately unsuccessfully. Success from the football beat the shit-or-bust long ball game once everything else had failed.
The LiverpoolvsChelsea game is quality, there should be more goals in it but Torres was unlucky not to score, would of been special
Best online manager game. Play football and hockey and win Champions League! Follow us on this link: http://www.powerplaymanager.com/r384368
I have heard a lot about Benitez’s tactical change at half-time in Istanbul 05, but don’t know what the change actually was, can you give a link to a tactical piece on that epic game please ZM?