Bayern 1-1 Chelsea: Chelsea win it on penalties

The starting line-ups
Chelsea lifted the European Cup after a tight match was decided on penalties.
Jupp Heynckes named his expected line-up: Diego Contento came into the side at left-back, Antoliy Tymoshchuk played at centre-back, with Toni Kroos deep in midfield, allowing Thomas Muller a start in the attacking role.
Roberto Di Matteo’s line-up featured one surprise name – Ryan Bertrand was given his Champions League debut on the left side of midfield, meaning Florent Malouda was only on the bench.
The tactical battle didn’t really go Chelsea’s way – but the penalty shoot-out did.
Possession
As expected, Bayern saw more of the ball, although their first half domination was very slightly less than the 60-65% predicted in the preview. In a strange way, Chelsea’s attacks might have been more dangerous had that figure increased – Bayern weren’t committing huge numbers forward into the final third or piling on the pressure, and therefore Chelsea didn’t have many spaces to break into. Credit should go to Bayern for this, though – the full-backs were reserved and Didier Drogba wasn’t a huge force upon the game until late on.
Midfield battle
Often, games where one side sits deep and allows the opposition onto them don’t really have a ‘midfield battle’ – one side is letting the other dictate the play, and focus upon getting men behind the ball.
This was slightly different, however. Di Matteo’s decision to go with a 4-2-3-1, rather than the 4-3-3 he used against Barcelona (although really, this was 4-4-1-1 and 4-5-1 respectively, considering that Chelsea spent the majority of the time without the ball) was crucial. Instead of having three defensive-minded midfielders, the absence of Raul Meireles meant he only had two: Frank Lampard and John Obi Mikel. Juan Mata was higher up, in a natural number ten position, and only half-heartedly helped out defensively.
There were two reasons that Mata didn’t concentrate on getting goalside of Bayern’s midfielders. First, the fluidity of Kroos and Bastian Schweinsteiger caused him problems – when Mata dropped onto one, that man would stay in position and allow the other forward – Mata often found himself unable to occupy the right player at the right time. Second, Di Matteo probably told Mata to stay in space, in positions where he could receive the ball and prompt breaks, a little like Shinji Kagawa did against Bayern last weekend in the German Cup final. Mata found this difficult, however, and with Bayern’s full-backs staying quite deep and Chelsea’s wingers not able to break past, Chelsea’s transitions weren’t very effective.

Muller
Muller was the game’s key player. As mentioned in the preview, when played as the number ten Muller tends to drift right. This was probably partly the reason Di Matteo chose to field a defensive-minded player on the left wing, in order to give Ashley Cole more protection if Muller tried to overload him.
But although Muller was right-of-centre, he didn’t have to move out to the right wing because he found a little pocket of space to work in. With Frank Lampard playing slightly higher up than Jon Obi Mikel, the biggest area of space between Chelsea’s lines was perfect for Muller, and he continually picked up the ball in behind Lampard.

Chelsea were particularly vulnerable when their two problems [(a) one of the deep midfielders bursting forward unchecked and (b) Muller getting space] combined. Once in the first half, for example, Mikel was dragged across towards Muller, which then left his zone bare, so Schweinsteiger stormed into it and had an attempt from a left-centre position.
Bertrand’s other task, to help Cole defend against Robben, broadly worked. The Dutchman may have had 15 (!) attempts on goal in the 120 minutes, more than Chelsea, but the majority came when he was off-balance, and when he had been shepherded into a pack of Chelsea players. Chelsea’s ability to block shots was unbelievable – they blocked over half of Bayern’s 43 attempts, partly as they defended so narrow.

Transitions
Nothing really went right for Chelsea in an attacking sense, though – Mata struggled to prompt counters, Drogba found himself outnumered and when he peeled away onto Philipp Lahm to try and use his aerial advantage, the delivery from the right was poor. Chelsea also failed to win a corner until the final moments, so set-pieces wasn’t a productive source of chances, while long balls from Petr Cech generally found Tymoshchuk nipping in front of Drogba and Jerome Boateng covering behind him.
The game didn’t really progress in tactical terms – the only substitution before Bayern’s goal was Malouda replacing Bertrand, which seemed partly due to fitness reasons. Chelsea’s shape didn’t alter.
Goals
But Muller increasingly became pivotal. In addition to getting space between the lines, he kept popping up at the far post, against Cole. In a 20-minute spell that culminated in his goal, Muller had five attempts from a similar position, and also got John Obi Mikel booked for a rash tackle towards Chelsea’s left-back zone. He was the game’s key player in tactical terms, and would have been a fitting matchwinner.
Both coaches changed things after Bayern went 1-0 up. Di Matteo went for broke – Torres on for Kalou, and Chelsea went with a shapeless, desperate but completely understandable two-striker approach for the final minutes. They seemed as likely to concede a goal as score one, but from their only corner of the entire match, Drogba pounced with a superb header.
Heynckes had responded to Chelsea’s change by introducing an extra defender – Daniel van Buyten came on to provide more aerial presence at the back, with Muller departing. Like Chelsea’s change, it was simply another man to help in the required zone for five minutes.
Extra time
But it wasn’t just five minutes – because Drogba’s equaliser forced extra-time from Chelsea’s only corner of the game.

Therefore, both managers now had to shuffle their players into a workable system. This was easier for Heynckes: Tymoshchuk could move forward into Kroos’ role, Kroos could move forward into Muller’s role, and Bayern were in a fairly natural formation they could have started the match with. However, without Muller’s clever positioning, they were less of a threat going forward.
Di Matteo was in a more difficult situation – he wanted to keep the same formation, but had two strikers on the pitch. Rather than assigning either Drogba or Torres to the right-sided position on a full-time basis (or bringing on Michael Essien to play there) he asked Drogba and Torres to switch positions and take it in turns to defend that side of the pitch. Chelsea didn’t look comfortable there, however, and Drogba’s clumsy tackle on Ribery resulted in a penalty, missed by Robben.
Chelsea very nearly paid for Di Matteo’s refusal to introduce a more defensive-minded player – but while Heynckes made a defensive change after Bayern’s goal, when Chelsea equalised Di Matteo kept two strikers on the pitch. He must have been tempted to replace Drogba – but the Ivorian ended up scoring the winning penalty.

Conclusion
Despite losing the tie, Bayern won the tactical battle. The fluidity of their two deep midfielders meant they kept on creating good chances, while Muller’s positioning was a continual problem and something Chelsea never responded to. Roberto Di Matteo’s side defended much better against Barcelona (even if Pep Guardiola’s side also created chances), which was probably because they played with an extra holding midfielder in that match, rather than because of the selection problems in defence tonight.
Indeed, Chelsea’s last-ditch defending was superb – David Luiz and Gary Cahill played remarkably well considering both were injury doubts, while Ashley Cole’s ability to spot danger and react to it quickly was once again highly impressive. Petr Cech also starred in goal, and while Mikel couldn’t cover the entire space in front of the defence, he did his job manfully.
Just as in the Europa League final, the FA Cup final and the German Cup final, the more reactive side emerged victorious.





I’ve made this point a billion times. BUT WHY DID VAN BUYTEN NOT MARK DROGBA!
He hasnt played a match since January. Boateng is the right choice there.
I meant for the corner
Shows how dangerous Chelsea could have been had they won more set pieces, good tactic from Bayern that they didn’t.
Havent been on this nonsense for a while, and things haven’t much changed. Chelsea were far from reactive in the FA Cup… they dominated large spells of the first half, and only when Liverpool discovered they were going to lose, did they become slightly reactive.
Also Bayern winning the tactical battle defeats your conclusion about reactive sides. Far from it, Munchen stuck to their normal plan of spreading the ball, and relying on the muscle of Gomez. The tactical shift was obvious and came from Chelsea. They needed to neutralize Robben, who is after Messi and CR7 the most potent goal threat. RDM playing bertrand on the left made Robben wonder, and unable to cut in. That was how chelsea won the tactical battle… if there was one.
What has that got to do with me saying Chelsea should have won more corners? bit confused ha
just because buyten’s tall doesn’t mean he’ll be good at marking a tall player
Unsubtle Drogba saves the day. I believe that this is the first time I have ever seen a German miss a penalty.
Germany’s football set-up and mentality are completely different from the older days (probably ending in 2002-4). They’re now freewheeling, great on the ball, weak defensively, probably don’t have the concrete winners’ mindset anymore and these days they miss penalties!
Kroos and Lahm both missed against Real Madrid, remember. Not to mention Podolski breaking the streak and missing against Serbia in WC 2010.
I’m a neutral fan who love Football, i respect team that play Football the beautiful way, very sad to see Chelsea win today playing such negative Football, they were anything but beautiful, outplayed by every single team they faces during the Champion League, and for that, Chelsea are worst champion ever, anything but champion, a bus full of passenger have just won the Champion League. No sane person with love of Football can call this team a Champion, Chelsea is all about negative football, parking a bus in front of goal, relying on luck, not even counter attack, one chance or two to score. Against Barca, they had three chance and they score three goal, today, they had one chance and they scored a goal. Can anybody really believe that Chelsea were better than Napoli, Barcelona and Munich? NO, they were not, I doubt it even their own fan would believe that, one title won’t mean anything, a team that build history is one that play beautiful football, to me, Barcelona and Munich were Champion and not Chelsea, oil and gas money won’t buy you beautiful football, maybe one title or two, but history does not look kindly upon team without style, school, teams that play negative football. The negative football of Chelsea had made many fans to hate this team, rather than gain more fans. Sad day for the beautiful game today.
I don’t think Chelsea would have been nearly this defensive if 1) they were playing on a neutral pitch and 2) they had Ramires, Ivanovic, and a healthy CB (or two). Chelsea were missing their best front 6 player in Ramires, they couldn’t force either CB to make long runs, and they had to help Bosingwa cover Ribery with extra cover from Kalou since Ivanovic was out.
Yes, Bayern were also missing key players but the 3 they were missing compare in no way to Ramires, Terry and Ivanovic. RDM would have been really stupid to try and play “beautiful” football with both of these disadvantages.
BTW, I think counter attack football (where the counters work) is very beautiful. I don’t understand why this idea of possession=beauty has spread. Maybe that’s why I like Chelsea. The counter attacks under Mourinho were beautiful.
Chelsea played the way they had to, they defended extremely well, they were very organised and disciplined and they deserve credit for the way they’ve dealt with Barca and Munich. This is a tactics website, Chelsea placed alot of emphasis on tactics clearly, the way they played was a product of meticulous, pain staking detail on the training ground I’m sure, and RDM has done an incredible job.
There’s many different ways to win football games.
relax … life is football and its full of disappointment but to hear a negative comment and negative attitude from an intelligent football lover like you? … SAD DAY FOR BEAUTIFUL GAME TODAY
napoli, barca and bayern can think and grow further technically,tactically, defensively(HELLO), etetcra etc ….doh!
want to see the rainbow? chelsea put up with the rain on a sunny day for 7 years
Chelsea were bad against Benfica too. They only managed to squeak through because of their horrible tactics and luck.
I agree with Keith, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for you 70% percent possession, with slow horizontal passes, and few occasions on goal, for the amount of possession might seem like a thing of beauty, but for me it’s ugly as hell. It’s as much of anti-football as parking the bus, you can say that the passing is a thing of beauty, but I can make the same case for flawless well coordinated defense, and superbly orchestrated counter attacks. At the end of the day both styles are capable of winning trophies, making the fans happy,and making the match really unbalanced, and unexiting one.
Obviously Drogba, Cole, and Cech will receive most of the headlines, but I’d like to single out Mikel for praise. I’ve always rated him, and couldn’t really understand why people bashed on him so much. He dwells on the ball for too long at times, but received such an exaggerated level of criticism. Today though I thought he performed amazingly, good positioning and understanding with Lampard (he seems to be taking to his free-er role as more of a double pivot in a 4-2-3-1), used his physical skills to hold onto posession (something he sometimes struggles to do despite having the body for it) and perhaps most importantly distributed quickly.
I agree, Mikel was great today, alongside Cole and Bosingwa he was one of Chelsea’s best players. He kept it simple when Chelsea needed a breather and made vital tackles throughout the game. One criticism from me would be that he doesn’t have the range of passing to start quick counter attacks, this was an area that Chelsea was poor at.
mikel is great, but he is wasting his talent playing defensive midfield at chelsea. he is not natural defensive-minded, he can be nigerian number ten, the next jay-jay okocha. last night performance from mikel was confident, as he try numbers of time to skip challenge from bayern players. but, in that same sense, lampard was much better than mikel, as mikel caught behind from muller, and ribery few times. mikel should move to italy or spain, realizing his potential as number eight players like lampard, but because his lack of speed, italy and spain will suit him well. chelsea already have romeu, natural in holding midfielder, physically dominant and discipline in front of the defense
I think Mikel should actually be a CB. A defensive MF who can make beautiful passes seems to be the new CB trend. Javi Martinez, Ramos, etc.
I agree, Mikel was Chelsea’s MoM.
The game was lost when Heynckes substituted Muller for Van Buyten. You do not mess with your backline if they are playing well no matter what the other team does.
I wouldn’t say that decision ‘lost’ the match, but I’m not a fan of those defensive substitutions either. In theory, you have an extra defender to protect the 1-0, but at the cost of unsettling your defensive structure (one that had served them well for 85m) and, on top of that, you lose an attacking option (a vital one, as ZM points out). Moreover, psychologically, it says: OK we’ve done enough, the ball’s in your court: we’ll sit back and defend now – you have 5 mins to attack us. I’d prefer to keep the initiative and push for a second. And it wasn’t as if the Torres>Kalou switch necessitated introducing an extra defender. Torres (or Drogba) just took on Kalou’s role positionally.
Totally agree! Byren could have just kept the ball for the remaining 5 min with Mueller, Lahm and Robben!
I think the person he subbed on was correct, the way he went about it was wrong. Heynckes should have gone immediately to the system they went to after Drogba scored, with Tymoschuk in midfield. As it was there was a lack of understanding in the defensive line
The the first substitutions for either team was a disaster. Malouda caught napping with Muller sneaking in and then changing a defensive partnership right at the end of the game. A big no no. It would have been better to have Van Buyten charging around the midfield to break up chelsea’s attacks than plug him in the the heart of defense. I cant believe Mario Gomez is a German international. He was practically the difference. Klose would have buried those chances. Absolutely woeful. It was the same story back in the semi against Real but the away goal threat kept Real at bay. His conversion rate is not good enough. I will rather have a striker that will need 2 or 3 attempts to bang in a goal irrespective of the opposition than one who bangs them in by the bushel when the game is won or doesn’t matter.
Chelsea is without a doubt the worst CL league winner of all time. They managed a total of about 10 chances through 7 knockout matches. Their opponents had about 100.
I still don’t think Di Matteo should get the job. Obviously you need to ride your luck to win but Chelsea took it to an obscene level.
Definitley agree. He should leave on a high instead of getting sacked when he doesn’t fullflll lofty expectations. He isn’t a great tactician. He has good man management skills with a load of luck.
Really, after how many strong teams the Chelsea defence has been ‘lucky’ against, one begins to think that having men back can make shots harder and restrict opposition goals to a chase-able level. I mean, the fact that they were sent down to 10 men in the semis was a matter of Barcelona’s ‘luck,’ insofar as it didn’t really have much to do with the football, Bayern’s hosting the finals (a rather notable advantage in a one-leg game) wasn’t any particular footballing achievement of theirs, nor were Chelsea’s suspensions, and whenever opponents have scored – which they have – Chelsea have managed to equalize. Generally speaking, they didn’t give off many high-quality chances, got chances which involved either few defenders (on the counter-attack) or exploited their height and strength advantages, and when an opponent converted a chance they clawed their way back. Often, the strength of a team is better shown by their ability to dig their way out of holes than to simply blast opponents away.
Ultimately, just about any closely fought game can be reduced to a matter of ‘luck,’ and if either of these fixtures had gone the other way it could just as much be put down to luck and factors outside of the football. This doesn’t really seem to express more than the fact that football is a percentage game, and Chelsea ultimately played the percentages very well, making other teams get less freedom to shoot and using their height and strength advantages to deny them an alternate route past the defence. In addition, they seemed to have a psychological fortitude and determination which greatly complemented their tactics, and couldn’t necessarily be accounted for by simply comparing statistics; on the other side, of course, their tactics and discipline hardly did much for their opponents’ mental states, and given that football is a mental battle as much as a physical one (something which is easily overlooked when looking at tactics as simply dots on a field), this meant that ultimately when they acted, they did it better.
When a team has to rely on Barcelona hitting the post at least 4 times, missing 2 wide open nets, and then relying on Gomez and Robben having an absolute stinker, then yes, Chelsea were extremely lucky.
Messi missing his penalty was lucky (although whatever Ivanovic did to the penalty spot may have helped). Sanchez’s failed chip was probably lucky as well. Apart from that, the other times the ball hit the post Chelsea either defended well enough to only allow very tight angles for the opposing strikers to work with, or Cech was highly effective at full stretch to cover the neccessary breadth of goal.
Chelsea got through these games because they forced their opposition’s ‘clear cut chances’ into slim shots. Most of Bayern’s stronger chances, like Barca’s, had to be dispatched very quickly with one touch or often a volley – which is probably why they found it so difficult to score more than they did. Chelsea didn’t allow their opposition enough time or space to compose good shots but were ruthless whenever they took advantage of rare opportunites to counter.
Puyol’s flicked header that beat Cech but went just wide, Sanchez earlier with a shot that beat Cech but was just wide, Cesc beating Cech but not putting enough weight on it allows Cole to cover, Gomez dummying the defender to create an open shot, Robben missing a penalty, Robben shooting right at the keeper from close range. I’m not discrediting Chelsea, they did defend well. But they also gave up more chances than a solid defense normally does. On many occasions they did force the opposition into bad shots or blocked them. But there were also quite a few moments in which Chelsea was lucky their opposition couldn’t finish.
their defence FORCED them to finish poorly.
ah, just bitter eh, mate? you should read posts about Di Matteo two banks of four system defense in this site. true that chelsea not defended as well as when they played barca in nou camp, partly because RDM play 2 defensive midfielder, not three because of suspensions of chelsea key player (meireles, ramires). another aspect of chelsea game is they have amazing determinations, which i think is came from senior players like drogba, lampard, cech. look at the time chelsea score since semifinal, always in last 10 minutes of game! i don’t want to exaggerate this, but that mentality, is something you learn from italian football, calcio loaded with full of drama
I’m not bitter at all. As a neutral watching the game you were left scratching your head as to how Bayern kept missing the chances they created. And the answer was part defending, part bad luck for Bayern. I’m not criticizing Chelsea’s style of play or their defensive tactics. Chelsea played IMO with more heart, determination and grit than Bayern. And when Neville keeps saying it’s written in the stars, when Torres says they had better luck; that leads me to believe that Chelsea did have some luck. But then again, why shouldn’t they? Considering how they suffered in the past, this was bound to happen.
I don’t understand the denial coming from the Chelsea fans here.
You rode your luck and there’s nothing wrong with that, you couldn’t beat Bayern or Barca in the midfield zone so you packed out the ‘zone of truth’ and took your (few) chances when they came. Chelsea still relied on some very poor finishing from Bayern and Barca, not to mention the shitty penalties by Messi and Robben, but they won. That’s football – the best team doesn’t always win – and that’s why it’s so fun to watch as a neutral.
Enjoy your well deserved victory, but when you come to talk football on a website like this you can’t deny the objective fact that Chelsea relied on Barca and Bayern repeatedly finishing badly and fluffing their penalties. Them’s the facts son.
Doubt Chelsea won the Champions League by luck. Bayern’s strikers, to be fair had a poor game, especially Robben and Gomez. Credit should go to Chelsea. Against Barca, Chelsea’s defence was not at their best and were pulled out of shape at times. But against Bayern Chelsea’s defenders did well in denying Robben the space he needs to do his trademark cut in and shoot which to be is a big improvement from the semi-final against Barca. THough I must say I feel sorry for Bayern who worked very hard but could not get the result they wanted.
Against Barca, I must say Chelsea were lucky not to concede but Barca did themselves in as well. All of the goals Barca conceded were due to their high defensive line, which has been exploited by fast strikers in quite a few teams this season. The high line in the second leg that led to Chelsea’s 2 goals was the main factor that sealed Barca’s fate. Especially given tht they conceded a similar goal in the El Clasico before the second leg, Barca were slow to learn from their mistakes which cost them their campaign, both at home and in Europe.
Do you have any clue about club management? A manager just won two most prestigious club cups possible and you want to replace him? to put pressure on the guy coming in? Even if RDM rode his luck he has full backing from every one within the club, including the players and coaching staff, which AVB obviously lacked to succeed. You’re one hilarious guy.
If you take into consideration why Roman went with AVB at the beginning of the season, then it’s understandable why some people aren’t sure if Di Matteo would get the job. Di Matteo has done wonders since becoming coach but he has done so primarily by playing counter attacking football. It seems that Roman wanted a more attacking style of football. I don’t think Theo was trying to be funny at all.
Di Matteo was worse than AVB in the league. Hardly “has done wonders”. With AVB’s points per game average at 1.7, DiMatteo achieved 1.6. He took charge at Chelsea while at 5th place with 3 points off the 4th place and ended the season at 6th with 5 points off fourth. It’s amazing how perceptions sometimes differ from the real life.
He did obviously not care about the league any more though, whereas AVB’s main target was fourth and still was doing badly. I say give him a chance, would be unfair to sack him.
So basically he ended up with 0.1 less points per game (‘worse’) despite having the Champion’s League and FA Cup ending stages as priorities, and generally playing a second team in the league.
Still, I’m sure he regrets not having got that fourth Champion’s League position.
Jock, just a simple question, would you try to finish fourth with an old squad knowing that you have a slim chance to do so or sacrifice the league and go for the 2 silverware which are more winnable if you play your cards right? This explains why Roberto Di Matteo has had a worse record in the league than AVB. To put it this way, when RDM took over, the Chelsea’s leauge campaign to get fourth was fast becoming a bad leg that needed to be amputated. Thus, Di Matteo had to sacrifice the race for fourth place and try to get into the Champions League via the back door, which is to try to win it. Credit needs to go to Di Matteo who had the guts to make such a brave and risky decision.
Whats he going to do when he has to take the initiative against a side who aren’t QPR?
You mean like Napoli? Or did I dream up that 4-1 win when Chelsea’s backs were to the wall?
I would have agreed had he not won. But his now has the respect of every chelsea player and any future player, as he can say he has won the biggest trophy and they should listen to his tactics. It would be incredibly harsh to sack him now and he has played good football before at West Brom, so I say give him a chance, at worst he could provide a good foundation for the next manager to build on.
@Kaneprior i like your blog
Thanks
Mueller did well. Gomez was terrible though. To be fair, Robben and Ribery constantly cutting infield and shooting rather than going down the line to get in crosses didn’t help.
I’m glad that Mueller started this game. Whilst starting Kroos as the number 10 worked against Madrid, I like Mueller as a player – he was sensational in the last WC and has been consistently good for Bayern since becoming a regular.
I’m just wondering – and I ask because I don’t see Bayern very often – how effective Mueller could be as a central striker. I know Gomez has had a superb season, but I have some doubts about his all-round game. Gomez’s finishing and movement are both good, but I’m unsure about his link-up play.
Moreover, Klose’s not getting any younger. Euro 2012 will surely be his last major international tournament. I’m wondering what the likelihood is of seeing Mueller up front in the future (perhaps with Goetze playing on the right – who will surely break into the team sooner rather than later.)
Mueller seems to have all the attributes to play that role. He’s good in the air, has good movement, anticipation, is a good finisher and is very composed. I guess he’s possibly not that strong or good at holding the ball up, but those will improve and arguably aren’t essential for a “modern” striker anyway. I think it’s a possibility. What do people who have seen more of Mueller think? Is he likely to end up in that position/capable of playing there or does it not suit him (perhaps being better at ghosting in behind an “occupied” defence than “occupying” it himself.)
Jogi Loew already publicly stated that he will test Marco Reus as centre-forward in training camp. He will probably whip him out in the friendy against Switzerland on May 26th.
Müller has had a poor season under Heynckes, but that’s largely because his position was usurped by Jupp’s favorite boy Kroos. The two are fundamentally different players – Kroos a master of technique, but Müller a posterboy for the new fluid and imaginative style of football Germany has been playing lately.
Basically, I think Müller can handle whatever Löw makes him do. His problems this season come from the fact that he doesn’t quite fit into Jupp’s Bayern, but for the national team, he can do anything.
I think the most important factor here is that he’s a rather poor finisher.
Who Gomez?!? Didn’t he score 40-odd goals this season?!?
Seriously this year’s CL made me believe that there’s kinda “fate” or “destiny” or something. Although they did defend brilliantly against barca and also well against munchen, the number of one on one (or even easier) chances they’ve allowed were many enough to justly end their campaign but somehow, really somehow, they managed all thew way through to the trophy.
Congratz to Chelsea
but I don’t want any of VDV, Bale, and Modric to leave Tottenham by this result…
But as a united fan i’ll more than welcome if ferggie decides to buy modric…
I guess one could say Chelsea defended brilliantly against Barca in the second match, though I still think that’s a bit of an overstatement. But they didn’t really defend that well at all against Barca in the London match. Barca generated a lot of very good goal-scoring opportunities in that match. it’s not that hard to really imagine that game could have ended up being a clear victory for Barca. Results are what count, but too often folks use the hindsight of the score to determine how well a team played.
After all, it has nothing to do with tactics
On the subject of penalties, isn’t it odd that Robben took both in-game penalties agaisnt Real Madrid and Chelsea (a terrific one against Casillas, btw) yet featured in neither shootout?
I love Robben and not accusing him of being a bottler; I just find it a strange managerial decision.
He is a choker, he also missed the crucial penalty against Dortmund in the title deciding game.
Robben is king of bottling it seems.
-Missed a penalty and open goal against Dortmund
-Screwed up two 1v1’s versus Spain in the world cup
-Yesterday…
And probably more.
I think it’s because the idea is the keeper has an advantage if he can see a shooter twice. That being said, Robben bottled two key penalties this year (against Chelsea and Dortmund).
actually those two pens were exactly the same and both time CAUGHT by the keeper! not just saved but they hold on to the ball.
gomez would be my penalty taker all the way.
He himself said afterwards that you should not go up to the same GK twice.
“Look at Ronaldo, he scored the in-game penalty, but Neuer saved the shoot-out one. That’s why I didn’t want to go again.”
But his miss in extra time was really, really costly.
Apparently, Robben, Kroos, and Tymoschuk refused to take penalties- Olic stepped up and said “fuck it, give me the ball!!”… What a legend…
His penalty was awful.Weak and almost straight at Cech, plus he missed a sitter during extra time. Sorry, not a legend.
Who’s run was more impressive? Inter 2010 or Chelsea 2012? Inter probably played better, and were much more attacking at home vs Barca, but does that make Chelsea’s run more impressive or just lucky?
Inter all the way. God knows how this Chelsea team won the Champions League, but they did it, congratulations. But they aren’t the best team in Europe, and despite being a reactive, defensive team, they aren’t even great at defending. This Chelsea team won with reactive tactics, but it didn’t highlight or celebrate the actual beauty of defensive football. The Inter team of 2010 did. Yes, they played very defensively, but they did it was such perfection, it almost made me (a Barcelona fan) enjoy it. Seriously, I think that Inter team was one of the best of the last 10 years. I don’t want to discredit this Chelsea team, but damn… How on earth did they win?
I would say chelseas, because they are less talented and stood almost no chance, with inter there was always that feeling the special one might do something special.Chelsea’s run has more of a story behind it, new manager, old veterans proving there worth. they showed some fight in managing to win their group, coming back vs napoli, beating barca, and conquering a home team in a final.
I would say Inter personally. Not to take anything away from this Chelsea side but Guardiola said it himself. Against Inter his Barcelona team was only able to carve out 2 or 3 clear opportunities. Against Chelsea the opportunities came but they were not capitalized on. Inter also beat a very similar Chelsea side twice, as well as Bayern 2-0 in the final. I really think that Inter side will go down as the most underrated treble winners of all time. Mostly due to the fact the world is so focused on BPL and La Liga teams right now. That being said great final and great display by Chelsea today. They were deserved winners. Feel bad for Bayern though, you just feel its a matter of time before they get one.
This makes the Inter team in 2010 look so much better now. They were nowhere near as this defensive and actually had decent technical players in each position. They could rightfully be called the best team in Europe at that time. Chelsea have been extremely lucky, they didn’t even pull off a great counter attacking plan, they transitions were poor and Drogba was dominated. They needed both Barca and Bayern to lose this games by themselves and if an underdog was gonna win this year I would rather have seen someone like APOEL do it.
But fair play to Chelsea, they did all the hard work and actually won the CL at last.
No doubt that Inter’s run was far more impressive. Chelsea must be congratulated for finally winning the CL but they only defended fantastically for one 43 minute period out of those final 3 games and that was in the 2nd half at Camp Nou (after Messi’s penalty miss). Barca and Bayern created multiple opportunities during the semi final first leg, first half of the seconnd leg and final. As Kane says above, Chelsea didn’t win this CL, Bayern and Barca lost it with their awful finishing.
I definitely agree with the above sentiments.
I certainly enjoyed Chelsea’s ’story’ i.e. their run up to the final in Munich.
Lest we forget Inter 2010 defeat the Champions of Russia, Ukraine, England, Spain & Germany to win their CL title. They were most certainly underrated.
Well, it’s like Greece in 2004. It’s a nice story, the underdog who surprised everyone and beat the host in the final. A team without real stars that become heroes. But they’re not remembered for the way they played unlike Spain in 2008.
It’s only like Greece 04 in the style of football played. Greece were without stars- Chelsea have one of the most expensive squads on the planet…
If not for bad finishing, Bayern played a brilliantly beautiful game till the Drogba equalizer. Schweinsteiger helped controlling Drogba on Cech’s punts, Chelsea barely had a whiff at Neuer’s goal, they created chances, rarely gave the ball easily. Like ZM said, a tactical victory for Bayern.
I also agree with the sub-in of van Buyten, as they needed more height to weather what would have been a most likely onslaught of highballs coming into their box.
The mistake was to have Lahm (all 1.70m of his) covering the near post on that fateful corner kick. There should have been someone more suitable; maybe they really missed one of their suspended guys for this one occasion.
Congratulations to Chelsea, and my condolences to Tottenham for reaching fourth after 38 Premier League matches but not getting a sniff at Champions League football next season.
I would go so far as argue that Chelsea winning this year’s Champions League needed way more luck than Greece, when they triumphed in Portugal eight years ago.
Does anyone else think that Bayern deploying inverted wingers cost them this final? Sure, they played brilliantly nonetheless, but at times in the final third bayern looked a biiiit lost, and i think from the evidence of the game that, against so narrow a defence, bayerns wingers crossing on their natural feet would have made a difference, since all the cut ins and shots (what inverted wingers theoretically would excel at) were blocked.
Also, not so tactical here, but Gomez is a big-game bottler. If i was on the Bayern board i would be calling to sell him and replace with a more reliable striker. the off-chance Gomez will bury one when you really need it isnt worth it. When he skies the other 5 or 6 shots. Sorry Gomez, just not good enough on the big stage.
Also, Robben had a poor game, his corners, free kicks and penalties are generally not very good, can’t see why he’s on corners and penalties.
I have to say I also found it surprising that Bayern didn’t opt for more crosses, especially because Chelsea defended very narrow. At one point in the first half, Robben and Ribery swapped wings and it seemed that Gomez may get crosses latched on to him. He didn’t, however, and this resulted in him having a bad game (not his individual qualities, as some have pointed out).
Also, Bayern’s only goal was Muller’s header resulting from a cross.
I was just about to post the same thing, and I also said it about Madrid’s inverted wingers after their 2-1 Classico win. Di Maria and Ronaldo being on their weaker sides slowed Madrid’s counters to such a degree, that a 3v2 for Real quickly became a 5v4 for Barcelona.
Of course, Bayern weren’t relying on the counter by any stretch of the imagination, but they did have a good number of breaks, and Robben/Ribery’s insistence to get on their stronger feet really killed any chance for fluidity. When you have a break, it should be a simple matter of ‘ball down wing, winger races past fullback for a moment, one-touch pass across the box, striker taps into empty net’. For Bayern, it was more like ‘winger bursts past defender, winger puts foot on ball, winger twists and turns, winger passes to striker, rushing defender blocks’.
Having said that, “Robbery” tend to be very good at stretching play and knowing just when to cut inside.
I would suggest that maybe both of them- Ribery for sure- lack the outright pace to beat a full back on the outside. I cant imagine Ribery getting the better of Cole for instance, just running at him.
Perhaps on Greece. No one in their right mind can say Bayern played the losing game. As a team, I thought we were superb. It was just stupid individual errors: Mueller missing those volleys, Gomez looking a step slow, Robben bombing the ball into the crowd again and again, Boateng failing to jump with Drogba on the goal, Robben missing the PK, and so on.
Chelsea are probably the least deserving side to have won in the Champions League era. That’s life.
There is no least deserving team to win a final. Bayern were just not efficient enough.
I acknowledged they won. But they also won in most fortunate of fashions. That’s all.
I agree. Even aside from the wasted chances of Bayern and Barca from open play, what are the chances that both sides would miss a penalty? If either Messi or Robben had scored their pk, we almost definitely wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.
I didnt watch most of the game, but i expected the wingers to switch flanks often so they could get some good crosses to gomez
Why? So he could fluff another one towards the corner flag?
Not sure why people rate him an excellent finisher, the guy needs a dozen chances to put one away.
He grabs loads of goals but with Robbery and Muller assisting him for tap ins…
“the guy needs a dozen chances to put one away.” Rooney’s getting a bit like that.
So would you rather Boateng/Van Buyten were covering the near post and Lahm left to man-mark Drogba?
Actually the more I watch teams conceding at corners, the more convinced I am zonal marking at corners is the way to go.
What’s the point being obsessed with a particular player and still losing him when the ball comes in?
The only sides that seem to do well at man-marking are those with big defenders and even then they still rely on man-handling the man they are assigned and hope the officials don’t penalise them!!
My point about the corner kick was that there should have been someone more suitable. If not for the suspensions I guess Alaba or Schweinsteiger would have been at the near post. Both are about four inches / 10cm taller than Lahm and might have flicked the ball for throw-in instead.
Zonal Marking (those for set pieces of course) also has its disatvantages; mainly that the attacking players can have a run up (the defenders cannot) and time their jumps unimpeded.
I would like to see study on Zonal Marking versus Man Marking; as this should be relatively easy to quantify.
In fact Germany got knocked out from the 2010 WC by Puyol running from the deep, completely unmarked. Neither works, it seems. Germans just can’t handle corners anymore…
Me too. I get the feeling zonal marking gets a worse rap than it deserves. What if a coach had his defenders make preplanned runs which would take them through area of the penalty box so that they had more speed when they jumped? Or even have the bigger players zonal mark and the smaller just try and get into the way and impede jumps (since their point isn’t to win the ball anyways, I’ve personally found as an average height guy who’s too skinny to win the ball defending a corner I can usually do plenty of damage through pure gamesmanship and jumping with to a stronger opponent).
The amount of luck Chelsea has had in their Big Cup campaign is next to impossible. They just can´t expect to continue winning in this manner.
Agreed. I’ve never seen a team so lucky. This is why I think Di Matteo won’t be back and the old guard will slowly be phased out. However, congrats to Chelsea though. Sometimes things are just out of your control and no amount of intervening can change the outcome.
Any good team that stays together for some time follows two “Bell Curves”:
1. For pure football
2. For winning know-how
The two peaks are about 2 years apart. It is not at all unusual for the biggest wins to come when the team is well past its footballing peak. Next season Chelsea will probably end up about where Liverpool are right now. They need to be courageous and rebuild the guts of the team.
That’s true. The core of the Bayern team are now the same age as the core of Chelsea team in 2008. I believe Bayern is still on it’s way to the top. Their starting XI is pretty good, if their bench becomes a bit stronger, they can do well in the next few years too.
Chelsea could very well go the same way as Inter or indeed Liverpool.
£50m of Roman’s money and Torres bottles the shoot out. I feel that Torres is still as hit and miss as he has been for the past three years, but the hits are getting bigger now. That said, the feeble dribbles and terrible touches on the ball still seem to stand out.
Tactics are only interesting when the football is interesting.
no not really,tactics are more interesting when the football is boring
It doesn’t justify the extreme luck of the present moment, but in being the most consistent team of the Champions League in the 2000s decade yet losing on two shootouts, a last-minute goal and and Luis Garcia’s non-goal, Chelsea have previously had an awful amount of bad luck in this competition.
Just sayin’.
It’s only luck when it benefits a defensive team, apparently.
No, it only luck when a teams opponents waste numerous chances from open play as well as 2 penalties.
I am not really a big fan of defensive football especially for bigger club, I just hope that the way chelsea win the UCL will not make most team play more defensive next season
lucky to come back against napoli, lucky to beat barcelona, lucky to beat bayern…how much lucky can you get? obviously its not luck if they keep doing it over and over. we have to understand the limitations of our brains, and that we as humans do not have the ability to fully comprehend how this chelsea side manages to win. but honestly look at how many near-world class players they have drogba, mata, cech, ashley cole, ramires, torres, terry, lampard. individually speaking bayern are not that much better.
Apparently for Chelsea, you can get VERY lucky. Enough to become European Champions. Chelsea without a doubt have some world class players but the way Barca and Bayern created so many great chances, and missed, you would have to say they were lucky. When both Messi and Robben miss penalties, you have to say Chelsea was lucky. When Barca hit the posts about 4 times in 2 legs, Chelsea was lucky. However, considering how unlucky were in the past, they were due some good fortune. Chelsea won from a combination of good defending and poor finishing from their opposition.
Chelsea set out to play defensive anti-football (which is perfectly fine, you should do whatever you need to give you the best chance) but didn’t even play it that well. Defensive football is meant to stop the opposition creating chances and frankly they failed quite miserably at that.
Still, you have to offer congratulations. It appears that it was written in the stars this year…
Defensive football isn’t anti-football, unless you’re a douchebag fan of a team Chelsea beat this year, than yeah it’s anti-football.
Being defensive in itself isn’t anti-football, but being defensive and hoofing the ball up to your big lump of a striker and hoping something happens certainly is in my opinion. Madrid, Inter and other teams have proved that you can be largely defensive but still play brilliant incisive counterattacking football. Chelsea certainly did not fit into that category yesterday . Even in the semi finals Chelsea offered some threat of a quick counter attack but that was lost due to the loss of Ramires and Mata dawdling on the ball too long.
And as I stated, I don’t think anti football is necessarily a bad thing. Teams should do whatever they have to when faced with a more talented side. My main point is that over 3 games Chelsea didn’t defend fantastically well as the opposition still created numerous good chances.
This is nothing to do with bitterness. There are plenty of other forums to go and have unintelligent, bias conversations with footballing fan boys. I l try to us ZM comments as a source of intelligent footballing debate.
It’s funny because I am not a fan of Chelsea, nor a fan of ignorance and insolence. Defensive football isn’t anti-football. For every 2 shots taken by Bayern, one of them was blocked by Chelsea. How is that anti-football?
And on the note of intelligent footballing debate, plenty of people like Jonathan Wilson, Gab Marcotti, Oliver Holt, et al. have all rubbished any talks of Chelsea being “anti-football.”
I already stated that defensive football isn’t automatically anti football, so not sure why you felt the need to repeat that.
How does a high number of shots blocked imply that they were not playing anti-football? I don’t see much correlation either way, but if anything surely it implies that they were defending desperately rather than intelligently.
I very much doubt their plan was to allow Bayern to have 40 shots, even if half were blocked. Some of the last ditch defending was heroic, but it hardly implies controlled defensive play and a succesful game plan. Admittedly 10-15 were hopeful potshots from Robben/Ribery, but there were still a large number of decent opportunities inside the box
Have you got any links to these pundits rubbishing the notion of Chelsea playing anti-football? I’d be interested to read them to see if they can influence my opinion? Also, if playing with 9 men behind the ball and hoofing the ball up to a target man is not anti-football then what sort of tactics would you consider to be so?
oh so when you literally say “defensive anti-football” it doesn’t equate anti-football and defense? Good to know.
Jonathan Wilson: at the 11 min mark.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/audio/2012/apr/26/football-weekly-extra-podcast-chelsea-barcelona-champions-league
Gab Marcotti on twitter: “Jim, anti-football’ has no meaning beyond whatever subjective meaning you choose to apply to it. So let’s not even debate that. Were Chelsea good? Not compared to Barcelona. Look at the chances created. Were they heroic? yes, because they faced a much better team and hung on for dear life. That takes discipline, self-belief, etc. qualities we associate with heroism.Was Milan’s plan better? That’s debatable. It’s down to the players you have.”
They’re there mate, you just have to google a name + anti-football.
No, but you can consider football to be going against the beauty, entertainment and nature of it if you pack 11 players (or ten if you lose a player for kicking another) in front of and in your penalty area, and tell your forward to roll around as much as possible to kill time.
At that point I’d consider it a bit anti football. Yet anti football is very much an aspect of football and im thankful it has only won when god has intervened and the best player in the world kicks the ball one millimetre out where he wanted to, so the ball crashes off the cross bar.
You can get everything in the world right (or wrong) as a coach, but you cant remove the element of luck that factors into each game at random.
Parking the bus is anti football, finish. Imagine if Barcelona or any other team for that matter decides to stay in their D-lines as well and just hoofs the ball to Messi, etc. Parking the bus as an anti football concepts, is only negated by teams who have pride, history and value their supporters and the general watching public.
Look at how Dortmund defeated Bayern. They played the same defensive way as Chelsea. 2 lines of 4 behind the ball, having only 40 % possession. But how many shots did Bayern create? I would say about 10. But whenever Dortmund has the ball, they counter attack with speed and precision.
Pointing out the number of near world class players Chelsea have only strengthens the fact that they shouldnt have been playing so defensive. It is down to bad coaching that these good players are incapable of playing proactive game.
Really surprised by Chelsea’s approach to counter-attacking, and ultimately with Mata’s inability to launch them.
Chelsea were nowhere near as direct as they have been with Ramires on the side… Kalou did provide that energy from deep (albeit in a completely different way), but Mata was always holding the ball far too long…
That started to create a pattern in the game of attack vs attack, instead of attack vs counter-attack.
Chelsea were being cautious when trying to counter and Bayern was quick to recover.
Was this planned? Probably so… Mata isn’t too direct, but I never seen him playing so cautious.
Another point to consider, was Bayern’s finishing…
How many of those 40+ shots actually tested Cech?
This particular point actually reminded me of the final vs Inter…
7 were on target, 22 shots are blocked -> which points out to Chelseas excellet last ditch defending.
Bayern’s inconsistency settled the game, not Chelsea’s defensive brilliance. They were nowhere near the Inter side of 2010, of the the most dominant teams of the decade. How many times they actually threatened Cech, except from trademark-esque Ribery/Robben inside cuts/shoots? Zero. Inverted winger tactic is always a pain in the ass against narrow defences, and that made a huge impact today in the game. Why not deploying Ribery and Robben in non-inverted winger positions, and try to feed Gomez with low/mid crosses? It works most of the time against tight marking, narrow defences (second goal against RM @ Semifinals GM1).
Were we watching the same game ? Bayern had countless chances with embarrassingly poor finishing.
Though I do agree that Chelsea’s defence/counter attack were nowhere near 2010 Inter level, the stars were just aligned correctly for Chelsea to win this year. I mean if your team had 4x post saves and messi’s missed penalty vs barca and embarrassing finishing + robben miss from bayern in the final I guess its their destiny to win it.
Sagnol, Lizarazu, Salihamidzic, Deisler etc… Bayern’s signature style, play down the wings and bomb crosses. Ever since these guys left, Bayern has lost their identity.
or established a new identity?
I wouldn’t say one style is better than the other. It’s about how good you are with your style.
Unfortunately, when a team decides it’s happy sitting narrow in front of their own goal, there’s really no specific tactic that’s going break them down. All you can do is plug away and hope that they’ll make individual errors. It becomes a numbers game- if you keep trying, probability is you’ll get a penalty and/or 1 or 2 decent chances. If you don’t take them, well….
What nex for chelsea, I say cash in on the old guard and try to get younger and play more positively
Hmmm, I’d ask Andre Villas Boas about that.
I suspect this Chelsea team will crash spectacularly in the next season or two if the rebuild job AVB began isn’t followed up on. Their tactical options are so limited with the current personnel, and they’re as dependent on Drogba as ever. You can park the bus and ride your luck three matches in a row in the CL and win it on penalties once in a lifetime. but it’s not a sustainable model for success. An honourable defeat today and a chance to rebuild with lower expecations next season could long-term have benefitted Chelsea more than this win. A season like Inter’s just-completed season is well and truly on the cards in the next 1-2 seasons.
yes the are so many similarities with the inter squad. I dont know what abromovic wants now, I heard rumours a while ago that he would not offer di mateo the job even if he gets the fa and ucl double, I think it all depends on how much faith he has in him.
After this season, expectations are as low AND high as possible for next season I predict they will spend big again. Next season will be big for them, if they are not careful they could be looking at finishing the table at around 6-7 with little or no trophy succes.
But isn’t the whole point of competing to win stuff, and not just to be perennially on the train towards maybe, possibly winning stuff one day in the future?
For me, I will ask Abramovich for the money to sign Modric. Based on Tottenham’s desperate attempt to keep Modric last season, it is clear that Modric is disenchanted with being a big fish in a small pond. Especially given that Spurs will be palying in the Europa League next season, Modric might be desperate to head for the exit door as soon as Euro 2012 is over. Abramovich’s millions might persuade Harry Redknapp to relent but there will likely be competition form Sheikh Mansour as well.
…it just wasn’t for Bayern …3 matchballs.. they went ahead after wasting a lot of good chances …they had the penalty in extra time… they went ahead in the penalty shoot out…but Chelsea took the chance they didn’t have… think about this: even Schweinsteiger’s penalty, if he would have touched the post 1 – 2 mm more inside, the ball might have bounced into the goal … 1-2 mm more outside and it might have bounced from Czech’s back into the goal…
it just wasn’t Bayern’s turn, they played an excellent game and overall an excellent champions leauge season…
thanks both teams for a great game and entertainment and a fair game, nice gesture from Drogba at the end when he comforted the Bayern players … I guess I really knows how it feels…
Chelsea is one of the best team in Europe for while, Only all sort of bad lucks keep this side getting CL title for nearly 6-7 years. It is funny that this side actually is nowhere near at best and they win the CL title at last.
If you have Drogba in your side then there is always hope. The beauty of Drogba is that you don’t need to build side around with Drogba, He will adapt and do whatever manager want to do that is big difference.
I think Gomez did enough to suggest he’ll be a substitute for most of Germany’s games this summer. He didn’t have as many clear-cut chances against Chelsea than against Real Madrid in the first leg, but my God.
ha
there are a few points that i would like to extend first of bertrand was introduced to cover for robben but henykes countered it by moving his wingers in each others zone for instance if robben had the ball then ribery moved from left to right to gain the numbers advantage and muller was primarily used to stretch the play and cover the wingers position which was left open . ashley cole tried to get tight on robben but the effectiveness of bayern midfielders and specially muller he would go and occupy that space left behind by cole which would help robben to get free . heynekes may had watched the inter – milan game where he tried to flood one zone with players and tried to open it but the decision making of three of his key players and most importantly heynekes decision to allow these players to dictate proceedings was bad . how many shots did robben, ribbery and kross had outside of the box . there decision making was poor they could had kept the ball and passed it around and tried better . heynekes did not control this again like the continental teams there were too central trying to open through the middle how many crosses did they make . most importantly whenever a cross was made chelsea defended in 6’s and 7’s how could not heynekes spot it and asked robben and ribery to deliver crosses when they had stretched the play most importantly the goal came from a cross . another thing kross never tried to get beyond gomez he is good give and go player and should tried instead heynekes had him contended playing just outside the box . last but not the least but when you miss the chances that easy like the ones missed by bayern you are destined to lose . oh and let me correct you when olic let the ball in path the player who could not reach was vanbuyten not kross.
now calls will be made to give him a full time job since di matteo won the holy grail . but to be honest i didnt saw any tactical acumen by di matteo where on he could claim to be special . he just organized the team ( or you can say they were galvanized after avb was sacked ) . chelsea did had any tactical plan i dont think mata too positions left open by kross when he ventured forward and he did drifted to the left from the start but then i think chelsea’s plan was mata would find drogba and he would hold had pass it kalou who looked like getting beyond and who was supposed to make things happen by his pace and skill . although chelsea started poorly as the game progressed they passed the ball better but as soon as bayern got the numbers back they seem to get lost . i didnt like bertrand instead of a proper player since it didnt serve any purpose bayern countered it nicely by flooding that zone with an extra player . for me drogba and lampard won the match for chelsea . if roy hodgson was to start cahill for england then i would call it a very bold and gamble since he looks very stupid in one on one situations and commits easily .
very good analysis. Havent seen anything of Cahill to suggest he warrants an England place and is any more than a capable, but stupid, premier league centre back
Has a side ever won the champions league having been so out played in so many games? The defensive performance against barca was excellent, you can’t stop them entirely but that aside they have been lucky and second best so often. Chelsea have been so good in other seasons that you have to say they deserve a winners medal, just funny they get it the season they were weakest and performed the worst.
About the point of chelsea should of been looking to have less rather than more possession, it seemed after half time they wanted better ball retention in my opinion as more of a defensive strategy i suppose in real time its hard to see that muller is getting space behind lampard. Not a great tactical note but whatever.
Congratulations to Chelsea.
A great day for the club, but not for English football.
Chelsea only won coz of a corner kick. I can’t remember one threatening situation before the equaliser. But Bayer threw it away. Many shots but not that much on target, miss penalties etc. Cech: man of the day.
Bayern not Bayer. And may there was a threatening situation before Drogba scored, but I think there was no big chance for Chelsea in the first 80 minutes.
Bayern should have won this game; they dominated the ball, created the best chances and defended excellently against Chelsea breaks. Really it the woeful finishing of Gomez, the choking of Robben in another final and the substitution to bring on Van Buyten at the end that lost them this game.
A few points:
- The Bayern CB’s and Chelsea CB’s were superb in different ways and it shows how this game was goaless for so long. Tymo was excellent at challenging Drogba for long balls and Boateng covered if he didn’t win it, leaving Drogba subdued for almost the whole match. Luiz and Cahill worked excellently as a partnership too (future pairing) though Luiz became more rash in his challenges as the game wore on. They both lost Gomez at times, but Luiz dealt with most of the crosses and Cahill was excellent at blocking shots from Ribery/Robben and the rest.
- Bertrand offered nothing going forward (he constantly lost the ball on counter attacks) but defending wise he was great at stopping Cole from being overloaded by Lahm, Robben and Muller. This was helped by Cole being easily the man of the match, he read the game excellently, nullified Robben and was dreadfully unlucky to be caught out by Muller for the goal. On the other side Bosingwa also did a great job against Ribery, and as ZM predicted, both fullbacks had to have a great game for Chelsea to win and they did.
- Bayern in possession were excellent. They were patient, switched play from side to side, let either Schweinsteiger or Kroos get forward into dangerous positions and stopped Mata from having any effect of the game. Chelsea would have been better off with Essien in deep midfield to be honest, Mata has hardly played well in the CL run and his missed penalty summed up his confidence. Mikel was excellent in deep midfield, keeping passes simple when Chelsea need to relieve the pressure and making vital tackles, though he lacked the range of passing to start any dangerous counter attacks.
- Finally Gomez was awful in front of goal, he had some great chances and should have got at least one. Bayern’s dominance deserved better finishing and considering that this is Gomez’s best attribute, you have to say he has cost Bayern this title. Robben also chocked under pressure in yet another final (was poor in last CL final, missed vital chance against Spain at WC) and should have won his team the trophy with that pen.
Congrats to Chelsea though, they worked so hard and players like Cole, Lampard and Drogba deserve to have a CL medal. But I hope Bayern will win sometime soon, as Lahm and Scweinsteiger deserve to win one too in their career. Check out my blog if you get the chance http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/
there are a few points that i would like to extend first of bertrand was introduced to cover for robben but henykes countered it by moving his wingers in each others zone for instance if robben had the ball then ribery moved from left to right to gain the numbers advantage and muller was primarily used to stretch the play and cover the wingers position which was left open . ashley cole tried to get tight on robben but the effectiveness of bayern midfielders and specially muller he would go and occupy that space left behind by cole which would help robben to get free . heynekes may had watched the inter – milan game where he tried to flood one zone with players and tried to open it but the decision making of three of his key players and most importantly heynekes decision to allow these players to dictate proceedings was bad . how many shots did robben, ribbery and kross had outside of the box . there decision making was poor they could had kept the ball and passed it around and tried better . heynekes did not control this again like the continental teams there were too central trying to open through the middle how many crosses did they make . most importantly whenever a cross was made chelsea defended in 6’s and 7’s how could not heynekes spot it and asked robben and ribery to deliver crosses when they had stretched the play most importantly the goal came from a cross . another thing kross never tried to get beyond gomez he is good give and go player and should tried instead heynekes had him contended playing just outside the box . last but not the least but when you miss the chances that easy like the ones missed by bayern you are destined to lose . oh and let me correct you when olic let the ball in path the player who could not reach was vanbuyten not kross.
now calls will be made to give him a full time job since di matteo won the holy grail . but to be honest i didnt saw any tactical acumen by di matteo where on he could claim to be special . he just organized the team ( or you can say they were galvanized after avb was sacked ) . chelsea did had any tactical plan i dont think mata too positions left open by kross when he ventured forward and he did drifted to the left from the start but then i think chelsea’s plan was mata would find drogba and he would hold had pass it kalou who looked like getting beyond and who was supposed to make things happen by his pace and skill . although chelsea started poorly as the game progressed they passed the ball better but as soon as bayern got the numbers back they seem to get lost . i didnt like bertrand instead of a proper player since it didnt serve any purpose bayern countered it nicely by flooding that zone with an extra player . for me drogba and lampard won the match for chelsea . if roy hodgson was to start cahill for england then i would call it a very bold and gamble since he looks very stupid in one on one situations and commits easily .
Chelsea had no formation. All they did was ride on lady luck and then smash and grab
Why is this analysis the same as on The Guardian? Who’s stealing who’s shit?
Because Michael Cox writes for the Guardian while running this site^^
He writes for the Guardian as well. Zonal Marking IS *Always* the mother of football tactics.
Congrats to chelsea. Boring final to be honest. English teams have become like the old Italian teams (execept not quite so stylish)…defend and defend. Admitedly, this was partly due to injury and suspensions but I doubt they would have played any differently even with a full squad.
How times have changed
good point
Bit harsh. Last two finals Manchester United came to play football. Didnt park the bus and got spanked by a superior Barca side.
Is it me or did nobody notice that as the game progressed, Bayern actually went down in the quality of it’s attackers? Mueller out through substitution, Ribery injured and Robben increasingly looking jaded. Chelsea could throw on a fresh Torres and Malouda without either appreciable gain or drop in quality, but Bayern couldn’t?
Luck: Well even the special one said you need luck to win CL ! As for Chelsea’s season mirroring Inter’s I believe it is already happening and not 1-2 years down the future. Perhaps that’s why Roman is getting Marin, De Bruijn and Hazard (latest rumors) to play more on the ground and behind Torres.
Up you blues !!!
Yeah, that’s one of Bayern’s current problems. The first team is excellent and can stay on for years, but the bench is a bit thin. That’s why we couldn’t keep up with Dortmund, who didn’t play in Europe after Christmas.
It’s why Barcelona couldn’t keep up with Real Madrid either. If Benzema has a bad day, Higuain comes on and the other way round. Barca doesn’t have that, they started to stumble when the first team got tired. As did Bayern.
The Chelsea players know how it feels to lose a final after a shoot-out, they can tell the Bayern players that they can always get another chance.
Drogba apparently comforted some of the Bayern players after the game. He (Drogba) deserved yesterday as massively as Terry didn’t.
It’s true. Drogba missed a penalty in the shoot-out of the Africa cup final earlier this year, Côte d’Ivoire lost that shoot-out. He knows what the Bayern players must have felt. I think it’s nice that he went to comfort them.
I can’t decide if the far worse team winning football games is part of football’s charm, or bad for the game.
When was the last time the winning team was so thoroughly outplayed in both the semis and final, but were somehow let off the hook and won the thing?
Greece 2004.
Greece had minimal resources and were tactically interesting (strict man marking, spare man at the back at all times, 3-4-3, etc.). I think Greece are a charm (like APOEL).
Greece only allowed some 10 shots in the final against Portugal. That is what I call good defending.
I’d always say: it’s more for the charm of the game. generally, i love to see the underdog winning (though, yesterday i was a bit more with the german team).
and, i have to repeat what i said elsewhere: when chelsea HAD to score in either matches, they did it within 2 minutes (one man down against barca) and then within 5 minutes against bayern. there’s more about this chelsea than parking the bus and loads of luck.
see above:
>>Zero on May 20, 2012 at 3:05 am
>>
>>… football is a mental battle as much as a physical one (something which is easily
>>overlooked when looking at tactics as simply dots on a field), this meant that
>>ultimately when they acted, they did it better.
>>
As in many aspects of life,human spirit triumphs sometimes over overwhelming advantage in skills and strategy/tactics as in this case of stunning Chelsea’s victory.
I think ZM is correct in pointing out that Mueller was the key man tactically. Jonathan Wilson opined that Toni Kroos a much better and more intelligent player but this is an erroneous observation as Muller is a one of the most hardworking, flexible and intelligent players in the modern football today. It is no coincidence that he plays much better for the German national team when he gets to play with equally tactically aware and intelligent players like Klose and Ozil. In bayern his game suffers because of Ribbery and Robben.
ZM is correct in saying that Bayern is less fluent in moving from defence to attack when Mueller plays. But when you have speedy players such structured build up play is not only unnecessary but also allows opponents to break play or slow Bayern down. That has always been Bayern’s Achilles heel since they like to dominate possession and this gives their opponents to re-group and break their play. Bayern has been most effective when they move quickly from defence to attack.
However I don’t necessarily agree ZM that Bayern got their tactics right. I think most commentators correctly predicted the tactics of both teams. So there was no surprise. However the reason why Bayern failed to score was due to the play of Ribery and Robben. Because both are inverted wingers, they liked to cut inside and shot instead of going to the by-line and attempt to cross.
Ribery and especially Robben seemed to be going for glory by constantly trying to shoot or converge at the center rather than stretching Chelsea at the wings. This made the job of Chelsea easy as Gomez was starved of the ball and the fullbacks were never really tested.
Even when they do not have the ball, both Robben and Ribery tend to move to the center to receive the ball and in the process allow Chelsea play narrow and close down space.
Cole had brilliant game ably helped by Bertrand. But much of this was due to the fact that Bayern did not attempt to pressure him by trying to get to the bye-line. It tool Mueller to stretch Cole on the right.
Even without his penalty miss, Robben in my book the flop of the match. He was selfish, predictable and his shooting was very poor. I am surprised that Bayern extended his contract recently. He certainly not the player he was 2 years ago.
Another key feature was the fitness level. There was a notable drop in the tempo of Bayern’s game in the 2nd half and they were practically reduced to walking pace by the extra time. it wasn’t difficult to see that Bayern players were actually dreading the penalty kicks as they were exhausted.
On the positive side, for Bayern and the German national team, Kross and Schweinsteiger combined very well and fluently in the central midfield. Kroos in my view was Bayern’s best player. Schweinsteiger on the other hand is still yet to find his best form.
As for Chelsea, Drogba, Cech and Cole combined their considerable footballing skills with unbeatable spirit to produce a match winning performance.
The difference between Bayern and Chelsea was characterised by the performance of their two players – Drogba and Robben.
The shittest and most lucky side to ever win the CL,they have won it by relying on teams outplaying them but missing great chances/penaltys.
I can’t believe they have spent a billion pounds to play shit on a stick like that.If you’re going to play shit on a stick at least learn how to defend properly.
I concur
Those uefa officials should get their asses of their seats and come to pitch to give players their trophy.
Players going there and celebrating cup in that thight space is disgusting.
I personally think its kinda romantic to celebrate at the tribune, not on the pitch. Retro thing
Congratulations to the people of Russia, whose money has funded Chelsea’s long path to Champions’ League victory. What a triumph for the beautiful game!
Considering what Russia’s oligarchy (i.e. Abramovich) have done to the country, you should’ve added: “starving.” The starving people of Russia.
It is always easier to be reactive
Hi ZM:
I’m curious that you didn’t address the issue of service to Gomez. Indeed, despite Muller scoring I got the impression that Chelsea (specifically Cole) were deliberately allowing him and Robben to get the ball on the right because on the ball he was most ineffective and neither him nor Robben played crosses (the only means by which Bayern scored, and the only means they had of bypassing the deep and narrow Chelsea defense). Also, I would be interested to hear your treatment of Bayern’s play after the loss of Ribery.
I thought I would add a few other points left out in the article: Cech saved 3 penalties, touched 4, and dove the right way all 6 times. Bosingwa, often accused of being a defensive liability, was excellent and as per your preview both Chelsea full backs needed to be, and were, exceptional.
Finally, regarding Torres, I got the impression he was playing only on the right as a straight swap for Kalou, but was much less aggressive in defense until the last 15 minutes. My assessment of the “2-striker” system you discussed was as follows: Malouda sat deeper than Torres on the left and saw little of the ball anyway. Meanwhile, Drogba continued to drift toward Lahm to win aerial balls, and Torres tried hard to find space and ended up moving higher up and more central because his teammates didn’t give him the ball when he called for it.
Thoughts on any of these observations? Love the site, read most of the articles, it has transformed my understanding and appreciation of the sport. Thank you!
I’m pleased with Chelsea’s performance tonight, from a neutral fan. They’ve consistently shown that a team who defends well, is more clinical in front of goal (1 corner opportunity, 1 goal), and gets the right luck at the right times, is the team who usually wins.
Think back to a lot of teams who have won the Champion’s League. All have a combination of those three things.
It’s interesting to note the similarities between Puyol’s 2010 WC SF header and Drogba’s header to equalize yesterday. Both were from unmarked players running from deep towards the near post and both were goals to the left of Neuer.
I thought when Muller was subbed off after his goal, Bayern had committed the classic case of sitting and waiting for the clock to run out. There is no doubt in my mind that Muller would have buried his penalty chance instead of Olic or Schweinsteiger (although Bastian has not been known to miss that many from the spot).
That being said, Chelsea need some key improvements on their squad depth, especially when they experience a fixture congestion between December and January (Club World Cup, Premier League, FA Cup 3rd Round). They have options, but after the acquisition of Marin, they’re going to need consistent players who can step up to allow key players to remain fresh. And, for Bayern, if other clubs poach Dortmud of their talent (Kagawa, etc), Bayern’s XI will be very competitive on all fronts next season.
It’s hard not to be romantic about football, and this year’s Champion’s League has been no exception to that. Well done Bayern, and congratulations to Chelsea.
explain to me how Chelsea defended well.
Um. What.
Chelsea’s win can be compared to Greece winning the European cup a few years ago. Playing anti-football, negative reactive football, relying on the mistakes of the opposition to nick a lucky goal. Yes they won it, with incredible luck, but like Greece, no-one will remember them or call them a “great team”. History will forget this tasteless win. For the supporters od this ugly parking-the-bus kind of “football”. If everyone starts to play like this, who is going to watch these games anymore. Imagine all the teams playing with a small-team-mentality like that, so boring. Anyway; next CL Bayern, Madrid, Barca, Real and City will be the clear favourites, Chelsea won’t be lucky twice. I rate Milan , Juve, Napoli, Manu, Arsenal, PSG higher than Chelsea.
“like Greece, no-one will remember them or call them a “great team”"
Ironically enough: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/29/greece-euro-2004-tactics/
It simply shows that it is always easier to be reactive in the modern football, regardless at club level or at international level
That Greece team played and defended a lot better than this Chelsea team.It’s unfair to compare them to this Chelsea team who relied more on sheer luck than good defending.
this.
Call me biased, but Greece still played attractive football for 50% of the Euro that year. Their biggest stretch of luck occured during their match against the Czechs, who were the best team of the tournament in my opinion.
As for nobody remembering them, I’d surely put England ‘66 in that category.
Chelsea were definitely the worst side to win a major tournament in a long while. Maybe ever.
Apparently Real and Madrid are different teams :p
Anyway, I hope to see Juve do well as well. The top 5 teams in the world right now are definitely Real, Barca, Bayern, Juve and City
At first I laughed when you said Juve, then I realized in what a sad state so many of the “big” sides are in these days. Still, I’d put Dortmund ahead of Juve- both for quality and the way they play the game.
You remember them we remember them and thats good enough.
Every team need luck to win title, Chelsea suffer a lot of unlucky moments and biased refree in past, they due some luck.
And to have Bayern and Spurs pay for it. Well at least for Bayern, they will come back stronger. None of their players will leave and their top youth players (especially those who missed the game) will become even better. But for Spurs, there will be an exodus. They will be stuck in mid table for the next few years and wonder when they will see CL football again.
Don’t forget the third party in this. Belgian champion Anderlecht actually had Chelsea’s spot in the group stages. They move into the qualification spot vacated by Spurs.
This UCL was AMAZING for me
All the negative comments surrounding Chelsea’s accomplishments in the UCL by other team’s fans towards Chelsea’s supporters is not taken seriously or maybe just with a tiny pinch of salt. Sure we may have lucked our way through games even the group stages against Bayern Leversken etc were tough from what I can remember or we fluked our win this year against all the other Champions League teams.
As supporters we are glowing inside and outside for the next few months I can imagine. It was a proud moment I can imagine for all of Chelsea’s supporters not just in England, but around the world in their own pubs or at home soaking up that moment our clubs name was being engraved on the trophy that we had finally triumphed in the best club competition in the world. Against some people (players/media) would say in surmountable odds.
If you support another team and we managed to beat your side or it was beaten by one of the other teams that we played and you believe they would of beaten Chelsea. #chinup there is always next year. And stay humble.
Since the last 16 2nd leg against Napoli the team was getting written off by the media and other teams, and their fans. The self-belief shown in Chelsea was unbelievable. Also to beat the teams that knocked out the other premier league teams from the competition was something special. To see comments on twitter from Manchester City players, Everton players, United players, Arsenal players etc supporting and cheering our run through the champions league was humbling.
Napoli knocked out Manchester City, we beat Napoli. Benfica knocked out Man United, we beat Benfica. Barcelona knocked out AC Milan who in turn knocked out Arsenal, we beat Barcelona in Barcelona and with 10men.
I’m not going to excuse John Terry’s moment of madness when he kicked Alexis Sanchez, it was a stupid thing to do and to see it come from our captain I and a lot of our supporters were livid.
And then to beat Bayern Munich in their City, in their stadium who I must add beat Real Madrid on penalties was enormous. In the final we were missing a few key players as were Bayern who had lost a few too.
I’ll be the first Chelsea supporter to say we had heaps of luck, some of it we created ourselves and some pure dumb luck during the final 16, quarters, semi and final.
I do really feel sorry for Tottenham even though they are rivals they deserved 4th place this year, it was just bad luck that we managed to beat Bayern on penalties.
Over n Out
http://www.mmx.co.nz/dropbox/inbayern.jpg
Earl
How do you feel about the fact that before Abramovich came along, you were gonna ‘do a Leeds’. And now, for nearly 10 years, money that rightfully belongs to the Russian people has paid for your ’success’?
This is the most hollow of ‘victories’ in the history of the competition. That you did in such un-appealing style of play just makes it even worse.
Hopefully in 5-10 years time people will think ‘whatever happened to that club from London, who bought the Champions League with stolen money?’ because Abramovich has got bored of his toy and Chelsea will have ‘done a Rangers’(a phrase soon to be entering the lexicon of British football, particularly in England).
I’m trying to understand your feelings of animosity towards Chelsea and its supporters. And I empathize with your feelings that for you our victory was hollow in some way or that the players are hollow in your opinion.
I don’t quite understand why you are speaking in 3rd person about Roman and the other English clubs (Rangers and Leeds). He is Russian so is part of the Russian people you referred to, and he is one of the most well known successful Russian businessman in the world and half of that I can imagine will be attributed to his investment in Chelsea FC. It’s his money though, he is not a Tzar though so he is not taking money from peasants on Russian farms and pouring that money into Chelsea FC. That is his money and his alone.
Both Rangers and Leeds have a distinguished history in English football but that does not bode well for the future by itself in my opinion. Sure you will get players that will go there and do their best to emulate past players or their heroes’ successes but this will only get you so far. You need to invest so much more in your club nowadays in “Modern Football” from when Leeds and Rangers were successful. You need to plan for the future and the Chairman and Chelsea Board realised this when taking on a foreign owner to generate, and inject wealth in to the club. You can live year in and year out on a celebrated history; it only lasts for so long though before you need to look for investments outside the club to sustain your success.
The supporters of Chelsea regularly commend our chairman and the board of directors who had the vision or envisioned sustainability with a foreign owner. Not a lot of clubs were doing it back then, which is part of the reason we got to where we are now, part because of our boards willingness to take on a foreign owner and look towards the future and the other part being Romans investment.
Change is great though not just in life, but in general with sports and football too. I think both Real Madrid and Barcelona realise that this change is good for the game when both Presidents and players of both clubs congratulated Chelsea on their success and called us the Kings of Europe. As it’s a change from the clubs with an illustrious and celebrated history that normally win the elusive trophy, that both of those clubs without a doubt have through the years.
There will be another 2 club’s coming along like Chelsea in the near future one from the Premier League in Manchester City and also from Ligue 1 in Paris Saint Germain both will be looking to emulate Chelsea and put their mark on the UEFA cup. I just hope they don’t try use our team as a blueprint or recipe for success as it has been filled with lots of heartache and disappointment up until a few days ago
To end I’d like to say I had a chuckle to myself about was when I was watching ESPN Press Pass last night and they had a poll near the end of the show made by other sports writers around the world with the title being “Who is the biggest Fairytale sports success of all time” which was due to Chelsea’s success and all of them said Chelsea, my club will get my vote too. It’s impossible to see the future though. To friends that watched the game or highlights on the news that don’t follow our sport they were amazed that modern sports can produce the scenes that followed when we all saw Drogba score his winning penalty.
Over n Out
Unlike all of the poverty-stricken clubs which had joined them in the semis.
Didn’t read all the comments but just wanted to say …
When will this bloody right-footed player left winger/left-footed player right winger tactic end?
Did this game not prove that this type of tactic is completely counter productive when playing against a defensive opponent?
I understand the need for Robben to play on the right for a couple of minutes during a game but a complete 120 minutes without 1 shift to the left!!! It is so predictable and when a player is not at peak ability it kills the offensive punch of his team … he runs into space that an upcoming midfielder can exploit, drags all the defenders in and makes it even more crowded and only has the option to try a desperate shot or a difficult pass through defenders.
Play Robben out left and have him cross it in to Gomez or a midfielder running up, he can always cut in and try a shot with his weaker right, I’m sure it’ll just be as effective as the billion shots he took with his left. Switch him to the right for select periods of the game.
On top of that never, never let him take another corner. A missed penalty is not bad, it happens 30% of the time, but wasting corner after corner (see graphic above) is inexcusable for a player who thinks he’s all that … “training buddy”, that’s what I’d say to him, he actually needs to train a lot in taking corners.
(Same story for Ribery apart from the corners, which he didn’t take).
Yes I understand that the upcoming backs should be doing the crossing in the modern 4-2-3-1 … but they didn’t in this game so putting that responsibility on the wingers would have been better, as it stood no one was crossing the ball in from out wide.
I hope that Dutch national coach watched the game and learned something.
I don’t think it’s fair to arrive at the conclusion inverted wingers are ineffective on the basis of just 1 poor game by one of the best exponents of the tactic.
The problem was that Herr Gomez was too static!
You need a striker to be creating space in the middle by pulling defenders from the centre. Tell me how many defenders would have stayed central to block all those shots with a central striker un-marked??
Skillfull wingers(inverted or otherwise) who cut in rather than whip in crosses have been terrorising defenders since the days of Jazinho and Sir Stanley Matthews
Gomez it more a player that creates space with his presence (so two defenders try to mark him). Klose’s play is more about movement. At least that was the case the last time I took a look at both, and that was a while ago. Gomez might have learned some movement (can you learn movement?).
Gomez drew Cole to him allowing Muller to score. Alot of his CL goals came when Muller played on the right in the first half of the season. Hat trick against Napoli and double against City were the higlights. Since then, he scored most of goals against Basel, which didnt really mean anything.
@donhowe
Gomez is really quite underrated. He messes with a lot of defenses and you can see by the goals that he gets the he somehow always manages to get a body part to contact the ball and work it over the line … he almost did so v Chelsea.
They compact the field and against a very defensive side this is exactly what you’re trying not to do, you want to stretch the defense and make the spaces between the opposition players as wide as possible. Then the cuts inward also have a better change of succeeding because the players are spread out and need to cover more ground to close the gaps … watch the Robben rushes … there is a diagonal line of Chelsea players yawning and just waiting for him to cut in and try to shoot.
How can a central striker pull defenders from the middle when a winger cutting in is drawing 1 or 2 defenders into the middle … where is the central player supposed to go? Out wide? Then who’s in the middle for the tip in or the rebound or to block the goalies view? If he goes out wide then just let him go, the ball is coming inside with the winger who has 2 players between him and goal and is running towards CDMs … I wish I could draw you the various scenarios, writing it down in words is pretty difficult.
I didn’t say that a winger should not cut inside … far from that … I said that a winger should put an unpredictable element in his game … both cut in and go around the outside and cross it in from the back line.
It is my opinion that a winger can do this more efficiently on their natural side (yes, also the cutting in) and to add in more flavor change with the opposite winger once in a while.
A winger should:
- be able to pass his defender on speed or skill,
- put in a cross,
- cut in and take a shot.
if a winger can’t do one of those, move him back into wide midfield or reform him to be a wing/wide back where he can get by players using 1-2s with team mates (depending on the skill lacking). Example see Marcelo at R.Madrid or Fred Bouwma at PSV, Michael Reiziger etc.
Its all relative as a team should be fluid. If Robben is cutting in, then the striker should drop deep and the RB or CM should make a run out to the wing. The top teams can do this with clever movement and chemistry. For Bayern, Lahm usually bursts down the wing to provide crosses, or Muller makes runs out the to the wing.
That sort of tactic is more attacking, as you have Lahm crossing the ball, then Gomez, Ribery, Robben and Muller in central positions ready to head the ball in.
Basically an inverted winger needs a lot of movement from the rest of the team, but provides a lot of different options compared to just having the winger stay wide and send crosses to the striker, which is very reliant on the striker having a good day.
In this game Bayern would have won with this approach 9/10 times, they were just unlucky this time. You criticize Robben when he plays on the right, but he has reached two CL finals and a WC final in the last two years, hardly a failure.
agree … a team should be fluid. But … we can all agree that this was not the case here in the final … that’s what I’m getting at. I mentioned before in one of my other replies that Lahm is the one to come and cross it in, but for some reason that didn’t happen and so this key aspect of a 4-2-3-1 was missing.
I was really surprised that it wasn’t tried much more to have wingers on natural sides … let me put it this way …
Everyone knew that Chelsea would defend and do so deep (as v Barcelona), they would rely on the break. It is very, very difficult to break such a defense down by going through the middle for nearly every attack (be it wingers cutting in, 1-2s through the middle etc.) so the way to make the defense work at defending is by spreading them out and making spaces big so that it is difficult to help other defenders out without leaving someone, somewhere open … do it right as an attacking team and the striker will drop so deep that you kill any chance for counters (except if you are Valencia version 2000, or maybe current Napoli).
Another option that Bayern could have done was play a central midfielder in central defense … which they did (Tymoschuk) … this to keep ball circulation high (the role J.Martínez has at A.Bilbao, actually a midfielder but plays in the back line).
There are many ways to make a team fluid, not just 1 … in 120 minutes of football a coach (or intelligent players) should be able to see if a tactic works or not, it obviously wasn’t so a switch was warranted. My preferred starting point is wingers on natural side and then switch, the modern variant is exactly the opposite, I think it’s a mistake to start like this (if you have the right players).
Again … please note that I NEVER say that a winger should stay out wide and cross it in … NOR do I say that a winger should stay on one side throughout the game … I am actually arguing for MORE fluidity by switching players in positions throughout the match … have Lahm run at a defender for a bit, then Ribery, have Robben cut in and then Ribery all on the same side. Müller can throw in some runs out wide … each player has a different technique and strength … this would have made A.Cole sweat a bit more, actually work a bit more than just shepherding Robben in for a near 120 minutes.
I criticize Robben for not having the vision to just go to the other side for 30 mins. and see how that pans out and to tell Ribery to try it from the right. There seem to be discussions on the field between players over almost everything, but I feel that one of the things missing from the top teams nowadays is a tactically astute player who can move his teammates around without the coach having to yell instructions from the sideline.
I agree that Bayern would normally have won 9/10 times … but the point is they didn’t win so obviously something wasn’t working … when you have that many shots and corners etc. you have to think to yourself “hey, lets try a second approach”.
It has nothing to do with luck … all technique, skill, tactics etc. If you try to shoot from outside the box through 4 players at a goalie like Cech, you know the percentage of shots going in will be extremely low.
I’m repeating myself … see my other posts above and below for further details.
Amen to that Kaneprior!
So succint!
Having said that Bart does make a lot of sense too just that I tend to embrace your explanation much, much better
Havn’t read your full comment, but:
“When will this bloody right-footed player left winger/left-footed player right winger tactic end?”
Ribery and Robben often moved to the other flank and that works quit good. I think inverse wingers can work, but shouldn’t become an one trick pony. Robben had so many shots. It would surprise a lot defenders if he passes the ball into the box. but he sees the oportunity to shoot (because that is what he does), he needs to expand his horizon.
In his first year at Bayern he was very successful with his trick (cut inside and shoot), but after this injury (at the World Cup) and a season nearly missed due to injuries his trick doesn’t work anymore. He has to adapt. Particularly, coz everytime he doesn’t play the pass, his team mates can’t score (of course Robben might score).
Inverted winger are a difficult topic. With movement, fluidity, and team play it can be very successful. On the other hand, if you have a traditional winger, he will stretch the play. Bayern has only (high class) inverse wingers or has to move Müller to the flank. Not that many options.
I agree with you … that’s why I say start a winger on the natural side and then move him to change the pace a bit (say 10 mins each half).
When Robben used to play for PSV (and Holland see Portugal Euros and pre-Portugal era) he used to be a left winger and he was excellent so I don’t see why he couldn’t be so now. His attitude is what has changed dramatically. At PSV he was already a bit of a egotistical player but it wasn’t that bad cuz there were players around him that kept him in his place, now he’s at the top and no ones telling him he should play a certain way, he’s out right because he wants to play out on the right, he whines all the time in the Dutch media if there is even a slight suggestion he should be out left.
I think that crossing is easier with your good foot (I used to play right winger) than with your bad foot, shooting is easier with your good foot but it can be okay with your bad foot whereas a good cross with your bad foot is kinda unique.
I think that putting in crosses for Gomez to get onto would have caused more problems, in this game, than trying to shoot through 3-5 Chelsea players … furthermore, Cech is one of those goalies that really doesn’t mind mid- to long distance shots …
Look at the graphic ZM put up for Bayern shots and Chelsea blocks … the diagonal coming in from the right to the penalty spot are basically blocked Robben shots because he had to pass the left midfielder (marking him) left defender (moving in) left center back and left central defensive midfielder (squeezing in to the side the ball is on).
Everyone was going on about how one-dimensional Barcelona are in their attack and have no Plan B … well this is the same here … the strange thing was that Robben and Ribery did not change sides ONCE! in the game (except for Robben to take an odd corner from the other side – I was analyzing Robben’s play for some mates with regards to upcoming Euros (I’m Dutch, they’re Spanish) so focused on him throughout the game and didn’t pay attention to anyone else – don’t really like either team anyway).
If you watch the Muller goal again you’ll see Ribery making it to the back line, passing it back to Schweinsteiger and then crossing it in for the header. One way of doing it on the opposite side, create space for the midfielder on that side to cut in or put in a cross. I think Ribery is more suited for opposite side play as he has more unpredictability in his play, that said, when Robben is on fire he really is darn good … problem is, when he’s not he’s wasteful.
No idea why my reply is so long, I agree with you on all your points.
You must have been watching a different game then.. Ribery and Robben DID exchange wings and Muller especially hugged the touchline a lot of time in the second half..In fact, Robben had his first shot on target from the left wing when Ribery played in the center and Muller was on the right..
exactly … see my note above in brackets … except on the occasional corner … you can’t take a corner out on the left and then run straight across to the right … it takes a bit for play to develop to the point when you can cross back over to your original side … so you might linger on the corner side for a minute or so … I mean prolonged action, 5-10 minutes on rushes, one after the other … just like there was on cut in after the other.
I watched the Blackburn v Man Utd game where Valencia scored a peach of a goal.
Prior to that he had whipped in 16 crosses which ALL but 1 were confidently headed away by the Blackburn defence.
I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the commentator praising Valencia and saying what a dangerous player he was!!
Can you imagine if Nani had failed with 15/16 of his dribbles or passes?
Would the commentator have been as generous with his praise? Surely not and even the Manu fans would have been calling for him to be substituted.
Quite frankly I find all this crossing(to no-one in particular) such an in-efficient way of creating chances.
Against the better sides it rarely bears fruit as evidenced by the self-same Valencia who is United’s top assist provider this season with 13 but,all but 4 came against the bottom 5 sides!!
If you expect the same rate of success from crosses as you from dribbles or short passes, you need to watch a lot more football.
read the following blog post on shooting accuracy and chance of a goal in relation to headers and shots and distance to goal …
http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/how-headed-goals-can-shape-season.html
Most shots from cutting in will come from around 16 yards or so … 10% success rate in becoming a goal.
Put in a cross and if it turns into a header (or shot – low cross) say at 4 yards from goal you’re at 50% conversion rate.
Even if only 1 cross in 5 finds a teammate (with resulting head or foot shot attempt) I have a better chance of scoring a goal!
Give me a cross (with appropriate striker or in rushing midfielder) any day than cutting in and shooting (yes Bayern had appropriate striker in Gomez and rushing midfielder in Muller).
Maybe you are right, I should?
Crossing is not an end in itself…it is supposed to be a means to an end!
Ultimately whether dribbling, crossing or passing you are looking at one thing; creating chances. Thus I can not see why we should be more lenient towards a wasteful crosser
I think it should go without saying that there are some situations and some lineups that are better suited for an aerial, crossing attack and others that call for penetrating the defense via dribbling and short passes. Barcelona tried to penetrate against Chelsea doing the latter and failed dramatically, maybe going to the air would have been worth a try? We’ll never know, because they couldn’t be bothered. And they lost. But they still have dominated Spain and the continent (as have the Spanish national team) using this method, so obviously it can work. Just not all the time.
“15/16 failed dribbles is bad, so 15/16 failed crosses must also be bad” is a bad argument because it is much, much harder to find a head with a cross than it is to find one’s own foot with a dribble, but a successful cross has a much better chance of creating a goal than any one successful dribble.
@donhowe
Agree … a wasteful crosser is very irritating … see my comment on how Bayern took the corners. This is basically a free cross in an ideal situation. Very wasteful.
Chelsea with Mata crossing it in and Drogba on the receiving end show how a corner is taken.
(I can’t believe I’m positive towards C. I can’t stand them, hehe).
Crossing not only a way to create chances (like dribbles and passes) but it also stretches the defense out if done right … that was my point … they needed to stretch the defense out and that would result in chances from better opportunities (than shooting from far away) through cut ins, dribbles, passes etc.
agree … you need the right striker to cross it in … who did Man U have up in the centre? Rooney, Hernandez? well that explains it.
You put Drogba, Gomez, Carroll, Tim Cahill, Van Nistelrooij, Falcao, Llorente etc. on the receiving end and then you’re in business. You of course need a striker who can actually head and has the physical power to hold off numerous defenders …
As for all assists of Valencia coming against bottom sides … well they were most likely playing defensive formations … hence whipping in the occasional cross in the Bayern-Chelsea game to a striker like Gomez, may have actually worked.
But it’s not like Valencia didn’t know about this lack of height during or before the game!
Thanks Bart for that link.
I haven’t read it in full to fully appreciate it in its’ entirety but I think the gist of the article is that the closer you are to goal the more likely you are to score hence why you have a team Arsenal that mainly plays their way into the box and a “Delap-idated ” Stoke that mainly scores headers.
It appears they are not necessarily talking about crossing…even if the headline would make you believe so.
true … but isn’t it the coach that puts the players on the field? Why play Valencia if you don’t want a wide threat and crosses in?
Yeah, the article is not about crossing, but about the chances of scoring from a certain position … the only way to score a header though is with some sort of cross (corner, winger whiping it in, cross from a midfielder on the corner of the box – see CL final).
Thanks for the discussion donhowe …
… gets my mind whirling a bit and me thinking about how I view the game.
You have good points and I’ll take them up.
I’ve got to get back to work, I believe I’m repeating myself anyway.
Enjoy the Euros coming up! I’m sure we’ll see each other on the discussion boards again here during them.
Crossing isnt just about getting a header on goal. If you cross from wide, you are drawing the full back wide as well, thus creating more space in the box for strikers to operate in. If you cut in, the full back will also follow you, and you will find yourself crowded by the full back, centre back and defensive midfielder. This is why Cole managed so many last ditch blocks, because he had nothing to do outwide. In the ideal situation, if a winger cuts in, his friendly full back should overlap and fill the wingers space out wide thus creating a dilema for opponent fullback to whether follow the winger or cover the overlapping fullback.
I agree on Robben’s poor corners — I thought throughout the game how terrible they were. That was one of the less-reported side effects of Bayern’s suspensions: their regular corner taker is Badstuber, somewhat surprisingly so as you would expect the big center back to be in the middle looking for headers on corner. However, Badstuber is a converted midfielder and and excellent passer and dead-ball player.
Another surprise to me was that Bayern in the second half of extra time didn’t push Van Buyten forward to play centre forward with Gomez. Van Buyten has an amazing scoring record for a centre back and has played emergency centre forward in the closing stages of games for Bayern many times, when they needed a goal (and indeed they usually get that goal — Bayern are notorious for late fluky match-deciding goals). As he came on for Mueller anyway, Bayern could have done so without upsetting their defensive line-up. I guess it comes back to the lack of crosses: playing two tall physical centre backs only makes sense if you can get high crosses to them.
I agree fully bart, who knows what would have actually happened, but Robben on Left and Ribery on Right, with Contento and Lahm overlapping, would certainly have stretched Chelsea (Which it would appear to be what one would want to do) and crosses into a striker like Gomez would be better than what he got – slick passes and some rebounds.
Klose’s movement is much better than Gomez, and Klose’s headers are among the best I’ve ever seen, a deadly combination. He had a great season at Lazio; not looking like such a good decision from Bayern to let him go.
Gomez gets a lot of tap-ins, honestly, I don’t rate him that highly, his movement isn’t even that good, he just gets a lot of tap-ins, mostly because the attacking trio behind him are so good. He is static, his headers are good but not standout brilliant, his dribbling is quite poor and decision-making in big games, is very poor.
However he is still a good target from crosses. Bayern didn’t take crossing seriously enough; with the inverted wingers and with Robben on corners – Im not even sure if one of his corners found a Bayern player! And he took at least 5 in the game. Whereas it takes Lampard one corner (Not an inswinger either) to find Drogba.
Also, some people here are arguing this point, yes he did not play 120 minutes on the right (Robben), but I watched the game intently and honestly my estimate is he spent 105-110 minutes playing on the right. He did not look to go to the left. Ribery appeared to be on the right sometimes. but I would say he spent the vast majority of the game on the left. As you say a winger needs to change his game up and have some tricks up his sleeve. He cannot become predictable and easy to defend against – especially in the Final.
another point has been made on this thread about substitutions. Chelsea appeared to have better attacking options from the bench. While in and of itself this isn’t true, it is true that Chelsea started the likes of Bertrand and were able to bring on Malouda, Torres. Bayern started all their forwards bar Olic, (who was pretty poor lets be honest, his movement was ok – he also teed up van Buyten nicely – another sub who was poor despite having an easy remit – Mark drogba) who missed a spot kick in the shootout.
Bayern’s attacking options are better but they started them all. Which worked, they dominated, but perhaps giving themselves a better option from the bench would be useful. Some squad players are required from them I think – although the suspensions did not help at all for this Final – but should have kept Altintop, Klose. Also, after Robben’s penalty miss in extra time, I dont see why he was still on the pitch. As has been mentioned, he took in-game penalties in semi- and Final, but in neither shootout. So if he isnt on the shootout, and has had a really poor game (Poor corners, poor shooting, penalty miss) Why keep him on? Why not sub on Pranjic, down the left wing, push Lahm onto right wing, with Boateng at right-back, van buyten and Tymoshchuk at centre back, Contento at LB, Shweinsteiger andKroos in centre mid, Olic behind Gomez? At least give it a try
Bart, your ideas on the dragging of players from defence and what the wing-forawrds should be looking to do are spot on. Couldn’t have put it better myself. I agree totally. My comment earlier was similar.
I see Klose’s ineffectiveness might be due to Robben and Ribery. Kloses main strengths, headers and combination play, gets completely neglected when you have wingers who dont cross and often like to take on the whole defence on the own.
Very informative article.Muller is one of those players you see and say to yourself “Why are you so good?” Nothing seems to really shine out compared to some of the other top players but it is his positional play and reading of the game that makes him so deadly.
I cant believe that so many posters say that Robben actually played in the right wing for 120 minutes ? I noticed so many times in the game that Muller couupyied that touchline and Robben and Ribery switched wings on many occasions and even tried to play from the center.. They have been doing this many times in the Bundesliga matches too..
I agree with the poor crossing though.. Heynckes lost the match with not switching the tactics and asking Lahm and Contento to overlap more and put in the crosses.. Have seen Contento a few times and he has always impressed with his crosses.. The only time he did that was perfect anf Gomez headed it over..
To me the flops of the match were Heynckes and Robben.. Gomez is inconsitent but it was more due to the selfish and ineffective Robben that they wasted so many chances.. Besides, this guy seems to be missing chances at critical moments.. did it in the WC final, against Dortmund and again here.. doesnt have the nerves.. It would have been better for Bayern to sell this egomaniac than giving him a new contract.. His ego was accepted in 2010 when he was effective, or atleast scored important goals.. but last 2 seasons, he has been poor.. Would have been better for Bayern had he got injured in the second half instead of the first half..
Chelsea, well what can we say.. the dumbest team to lift the CL in a long time.. hope they have exhausted all their luck so that they dont cross the group stages if they play in the similar way..
Robben mostly switch over and played down the centre. Ribery played right many times but still chose to cut in rather than cross.
the worst team of the 4 semi-finalist won, thats why Football is such an interesting game.
A word on Mueller’s substitution, supposedly that was because of some problems with his calf, so it may be not fair to judge this the same way as a sub for tactical reasons, given how Bayern’s bench wasn’t exactly packed with offensive options. That being said and as much as I hate to admit it, but it is near to impossible to attribute two censecutive wins in the same (and be it utterly ugly) style to luck alone. I think this one was about identity or put another way, about a clear idea of one’s own limitations and finding a collective answer to that. Maybe the one and only aspect of the game, where Chelsea really outshined Bayern and obviously that was enough. (For the records: I hate both with quite a passion, so I am as unbiased as anyone could ask for…)
So, waht are the conclusions to this years finals? To me one of the more interesting ones is that both finalist may actually have been served not quite so well by this seemingly quite successfull campaigns. With Chelsea it is rather obvious and maybe close to tragic, that the abandonment of AVBs reformative approach led to short-term success, but I see that this has already been discussed at quite some length. Maybe it is not so obvious, that something quite similiar may prove true for Bayern also. Seems to be, that 9 out of 10 observers are now commenting how tragic it was for the oh so obviously better team to loose and that reflects their selfjudgement rather well as became already obvious after their defeat at the german cup final, where Lahm, far from humbleness, proclaimed exactly that – after having conceded 5 goals to a Dortmund side, who didn’t even need their best football to hand that out. Maybe there is a grain of hybris build into possesion play, but as I always told my ex-gf: it is not about quantity, quality is what counts at the end of the day. Or more appropiately night – in both cases.
(Hope this isn’t too cramped with dodgy vocab and grammatical blunder, been some time since I wrote any text in english linga.)
My friend always tries to get me to watch MMA because he thinks my martial arts background makes me an ideal fan but the last two times I went over to his place, it was just two college wrestlers humping each other for 15mins, not doing anything and throwing 5th rate punches.
On the other hand, he’s come over to our place when ive had barbecues for the two semi final and finals of the CL and we agreed after the penalty shootout to never force the other to watch their favorite sport. Yes, it was exciting 15 mins with two goals and a PK blocked but I knew it wasnt going to be pretty just like he knows that two college wrestlers in MMA ends up with a lot of nothing. Real fans of the sport will suffer through a Clay Guida or a park the bus team but for casual or non-casual viewers, it just confirms the worst of the sport.
will you review the Italian Cup Final Juve – Napoli?
I’ve seen some excellent insights for this game.. I’d also like to add my own.
Seen people discussing around inverted winger whether to cut inside or cross byline. What I want to add is it is all tied back to what formation the team is playing.
As Bayern plays the 4-2-3-1, which is the trend most technical team would like to play. It is legit to have inverted winger. 4-2-3-1 is all about possession because the extra midfield inserted (comparing to the traditional 4-4-2). Teams that can keep possession as much as they can, they have every right to use the 4-2-3-1. The only problem for 4-2-3-1 is lacking of the central striker. While the opposition plays extremely deep and compact like in Chelsea’s case the lone striker Gomez is hardly find space for scoring opportunity from the crosses because he will be marked by two central defenders. Inverted wingers in this case provides more direct goal threat because they can shoot or pass by cutting inside. Playing in the middle certainly offers more options of creating chances. As for stretching the width it is more down to the responsibility of the full backs. While the wingers cut inside the full backs should burst forward to provide width and cross. Cotento and Lahm werent doing particularly well in this game. Maybe it is because they play conservatively to prevent being exploited down the flanks.
In my opinion Robben wasnt playing that bad like one has said (neither was Ribbery) They did not score but they fulfill part of responsibilities by helping dominate the possession, which is part of purpose of playing 4-2-3-1. While I also agree they should have crossed more to switch the gameplan I think the best approach to Bayern is to switch to a more direct formation 4-4-2 in the later of this game. So Robben or Ribbery can go byline with more crosses (by swapping positions in the stronger foot) and Bayern will see one more striker unsettling the opposition’s defense and perhaps change the game momentum. Having said that while Ribery being injured and Muller being substituted Jupp has less options to change to 4-4-2 (because no substitutes he can trust to adapt the 4-4-2)that may explain he did not change anything in the conservative perspective when going in the extra time.
Both Barca and Bayern failed to protect their lead, they got what they deserved for not buying a top-class defender
I think my school team can defeat any european team now – with a little bit of luck. Just stuff the goal with eleven players! It will be a bit painful but we can do it for 90 minutes. And then with some luck in penalties we can win. Hurray!
If chelsea can be so negative, nothing wrong with being a bit mroe negative
See, you actually undermine your own point here, because your school team could quite clearly not do that.
Chelsea with all that money play like that…what a joke…at least Bayern, Barca, Real, Man U Arsenal, City have a go and try to attack
if there is a way to win, why choose the way that may lose? I just dont get it
isn’t parking the bus a tactics that is allowed in football rules? Defending with 9 to 10 men is breaking the rules? If i am coaching and I know I can park the bus and win it, I will definitely do it 100 times to win it every time instead of risking to attack freely and lost the game
Chelsea, with all that money, doesnt really have a good team. The coaches come and go and nobody was given a chance to develope a good playing style with Chelsea. Besides, some of the older players are too used to play the old way and was reluctant to change under AVB. In the end, you just have to play park the bus and hope for the best. That been said, Bayern forced Chelsea to park the bus because they are just so much better. Same reason why Real had to park the bus so many times against Barca.