Arsenal 1-2 Chelsea: both sides vulnerable down their left
The line-ups after Oxlade-Chamberlain replaced Diaby through injury in the first half. Chelsea's attacking three switched position throughout
Chelsea stay at the top of the table after scoring two goals from free-kicks.
Arsene Wenger went with the pace of Gervinho rather than the physicality of Olivier Giroud upfront, and continued with Aaron Ramsey on the right – although he had to shuffle into the middle after Abou Diaby’s injury.
Roberto Di Matteo left out Frank Lampard and continued with the front four that failed to click against Stoke last weekend, with three versatile playmakers behind Fernando Torres.
This wasn’t an inspiring game – none of the playmakers were on top form, and neither side played good football.
Formations
The sides set up as expected, roughly 4-2-3-1 against 4-2-3-1. A clear issue was the lack of natural width high up the pitch – when Chelsea play Oscar, Juan Mata and Eden Hazard together (rather than using Ramires or Ryan Bertrand as a runner on one flank) their play becomes too congested.
Arsenal’s problem with width was different – Ramsey naturally played narrow on the right, although he did get the beating of Ashley Cole a couple of times early on. On the other flank, Lukas Podolski tended to attack directly towards goal rather than staying wide. Both sides also defended narrow without the ball too, which opened up space on the flanks for the full-backs to advance.
Midfield
The midfield battle was relatively uninteresting. Ramires played a disciplined role alongside Jon Obi Mikel, with those two forming a secure shield in front of the back four. Arsenal’s system was more fluid, with Mikel Arteta and Diaby taking it in turns to stay deep while the other pressed.
The key feature in this zone was the role of Oscar, who troubled Arteta with his high positioning – a couple of times Arteta became so deep that he ended up leaving the Brazilian to the centre-backs, and Oscar should also be praised for his defensive work. He got booked for a late tackle, but Arteta’s influence upon the game was considerably less than usual, and after a similarly fine performance against Andrea Pirlo, it’s clear that Oscar is a disciplined player as well as a creator.
Left-backs
The key feature was both sides’ vulnerability in their left-back zone.
Arsenal’s problem on that side is a long-standing issue – ZM has written on the impetuousness of Thomas Vermaelen many times before, but when paired on that side of the defence by Kieran Gibbs (or Andre Santos, for that matter), both left-sided defenders are very keen to come towards the ball. Gibbs, shares his predecessor Gael Clichy’s habit of trying to steam in front of opponents to win the ball cleanly.
Neither player’s style is an issue in isolation, but when combined it means Arsenal can be opened up too easily down that side, especially with Podolski offering little support. Oscar tended to drift that way too, and Chelsea created a couple of half-chances with neat but simple interplay to get in behind the defence – an early cross across the face of the goal showed this danger.
This was also a problem area for the goals, as both free-kicks were conceded by unnecessary Vermaelen challenges. It’s fair to blame others (particularly Laurent Koscielny, who defended poorly at both) but Chelsea’s interplay was rightly focused down their right against that part of the Arsenal back four.
At the other end, Ashley Cole received very little protection throughout the game – Hazard was generally on that side, although the rotating nature of that band of three means other players were often guilty of staying too high up the pitch.
Cole was beaten by both Ramsey and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and space also opened up on the flank for Carl Jenkinson to cross. A lot of Arsenal’s early deliveries from that wing were low, cleared and greeted with groans from the home crowd – but it’s difficult to know what the crosser was supposed to do when regularly faced with Gervinho and Santi Cazorla up against John Terry, David Luiz and Branislav Ivanovic in the middle – aerial crosses are unlikely to be successful. In the end, the equaliser came from an Oxlade-Chamberlain low cross to Gervinho when Terry and Luiz both towards the six-yard box, leaving Gervinho free for a pull-back.
Subs
It was a surprise that Di Matteo waited so long before introducing Bertrand down the left to give Cole protection. For the second consecutive weekend, Victor Moses looked decent simply by offering natural width down the right.
Arsenal’s substitutions (Walcott for Ramsey with Oxlade-Chamberlain into the middle, and Giroud for Podolski with Gervinho wide) didn’t have a significant impact on the game. It was a shame to break up Podolski’s relationship with Gibbs going forward, which looked better in the second half, and Walcott had little influence after Bertrand’s arrival. Giroud should have scored late on after rounding Petr Cech.
More problematic was Arsenal’s lack of urgency without the ball when 2-1 down. After the substitutions, the front four stayed high up the pitch when the ball was played past them, but the other six players stayed deep – Arsenal were neither pressing as a unit, nor staying deep and compact. Chelsea often played past the first wave of pressure than had plenty of space to keep the ball in midfield, and slowed the tempo effectively for much of the second half.
Conclusion
Chelsea’s two goals were very similar – coming from free-kicks, conceded by Vermaelen, played to the far post where Koscielny defended poorly. The obvious conclusion is that Arsenal aren’t defending set-pieces effectively, especially having conceded from a corner against Manchester City last weekend.
Overall the main pattern was both sides being vulnerable in the left-back zones – neither Cole nor Gibbs received enough protection from ahead, while Vermaelen’s fouls furthered the problem for Arsenal down that side.
Ramsey is so pedestrian. Play Le Coq in Arteta’s position and move Arteta up the field until Diaby/Wilshire return.
there’s a mistake in the diagram
chamberlin and diaby were never on the field at the same time :/
hey ZM, little mistake with the line-ups, you have to replace Diaby with Ramsey
Other than that, good job as usual
Now that I’m thinking about it, I disagree with that line:
“Chelsea [...] slowed the tempo effectively for much of the second half”
On the contrary, Chelsea’s ball retention was quite poor and Arsenal had many opportunities to score in the second half because of this
He says below the figure that those are line-ups after Diaby’s injury.
if Diaby is injured, he can’t play, can he?
Look at who’s beside Arteta
You are right. Sorry.
Michael, wouldn’t you say that Arsenal’s shape was more like a 4-4-1-1?
It doesnt really matter that much does it? 4-2-3-1 is basically the same thing as 4-4-1-1. And with Podolski and Chamberlain both offensive minded players it was more a 4-2-3-1.
It matters as it reveals that Arsenal were slower in their attacking transitions as the wingers were on average a good 10-15 yards deeper than usual in our defensive shape to assist the inexperienced full-backs attempting to deal with two of the best creative players in the world.
This results in the Chelsea full backs being afforded more space and attacking license which increases attacking half possession which requires less energy from the central players and so on, the knock on effects are in the dozens all because of the position of the wingers who were attempting to support the full backs more.
It’s also important to point out that Cazorla had very little involvement in our absorbent state, most of the time was hanging around in the space behind Mikel even when Chelsea were in possession. An attempt to improve our chances on the break that failed although whether that was more effective than dropping him back and allowing the wingers less responsibility is debatable.
I thought Arsenal had little width down their right until Diaby was replaced by Oxlade. Hazard’s lack of protecting Cole became an issue after Ox took the wide right position.
If anyone is interested, my full match report is at
http://arsenalletters.wordpress.com/
I am an Arsenal fan, so I wrote it with some grief…:)
Good write-up, ZM. Glad you noticed Oscar’s work against Arteta, since he put in quite the shift against Pirlo in the Champions League last week as well. With that said, what do you think would improve the trio that “failed to click”? I’d suggest dropping Ramires and putting Oscar next to Mikel, and starting Moses from the start.
That would seem to be in Di Matteo’s thinking, as Oscar played in the pivot when he came on in the league cup game against Wolves. He looked good there, spraying the ball to the flanks and breaking from deep to create a goal, but obviously the standard of opposition was very poor and it’s silly to draw conclusions re quality of performance.
Right, thanks for that. Only caught the highlights of the Wolves match, so I didn’t see where he lined up. Overall, if Oscar starts slightly behind and Moses provides width, Chelsea could pace their attacks better, with space and a cross by Moses or by a late run by Oscar. Right now, I think everyone agrees that the final third is too crowded by its tiny triangles and defenders sitting deep.
I would not drop Ramires. His energy and willingness to defend all over the pitch and put in a cynical or hard tackle when needed wouldn’t/couldn’t be replaced by anyone else Chelsea have available. I do like the idea of adding Moses (or Marin) to the starting 11 to add width, but I’d drop Mikel and let Oscar play deeper in midfield, next to Ramires.
Oscar-Ramires is a suicidal double pivot. I mean like murder-suicide bad
I understand why one would want to keep Ramires in the first XI; even I cringe when I realize that the team with the best shape wouldn’t have him starting. But I would have Mikel in the team precisely for the (opposite) reason you outlined Ramires should be: Mikel’s tackling is far superior to Ramires (the Stoke match is evidence enough, I thought Ramires was searching for a red card), and his patience is better suited for the shielding role. Putting Oscar and Ramires next to one another virtually guarantees that the back 4 won’t have enough cover.
CFC said Oscar isn’t ready for that move yet. It’s his long term position but he’s not a double pivot MF yet
Oscar impressed me today, alot. The guy was everywhere.
No need to panic for Arsenal- with Arteta fit they can challenge and Jenkinson looks better everytime I see him to be honest.
Painful…I have a feeling we are not motivating players enough to perform. Diaby back to ER? however, i wonder how we would perform if we moved Carzola to the Diaby Role and Podolski in the second striker role . Here is how the line up would look like
————–Mannone
Jerkinson, Matsecker, Vermaleen, Gibbs
——-Arteta —-Carzola
———–Podolski/Asharvin
Walcott ————–OX
——–Gervinho/Giroud
I feel we are not converting and creating enough goals. Podolski drafted to the central role can resolve this matter. We always look dangerous enough when we have Giroud, Podolski and Carzola
But for today Konsienly was shaky and need some bench time, Ramsey looks like he forgot his form at Ethihad. We need to apply two Marking patterns. Zonal for non set pieces and and we should abandon it during set pieces. Making the transition from zonal to non zonal would require lots of discipline…
Read more at http://justarsenal.com/arsenal-will-rip-chelsea-to-shreds/16879/comment-page-1#eJcJGZIZfbWdUxZF.99
Haven’t read your article yet but the problem was not in the design of the defensive plays but individuals’ ability to execute them due to lack of playing time or concentration. The mistakes yesterday won’t be consistently repeated this season. That’s not to say I don’t think our defenders are capable of winning individual duels at a high percentage.
Any ideas on how Chelsea dealt with Cazorla so well?
On This Match, i had not wanted Diaby to Start so that Carzola would have filled his role. Now we will have some other teams play with this game plan…
Carzola never plays in the role Diaby played in. WTF?
lol good ol’ Kman
By checking out the football tactics and lineups database I’ve found evidence that your assertion is false. I knew he played all over the field for Malaga last year, and here’s links to the descriptions of 5 games where he was one of two center midfielders, usually behind a #10 and a striker just like at Arsenal but in the last one (against Valencia) he’s in the middle of a 4.4.2 :
http://www.football-lineups.com/match/106775/
http://www.football-lineups.com/match/106766/
http://www.football-lineups.com/match/106856/
http://www.football-lineups.com/match/106877/
http://www.football-lineups.com/match/106756/
So actually yeah, if we wind up short on midfield cover he can drop back and Arshavin can come in to play as the #10.
They did not have to deal with Cazorla. They dealt with Arteta, and Obi Mikel and Ramires controlled Cazorla’s are without too much difficulty.
Oscar
/ \
/ \
/Cazorla\
/ \
Mikel—Ramires
I totally disagree with ZM on saying that the late Arsenal subs did nothing. Arsenal more or less switched to a 4-1-5 with Walcott, Gervinho, AOC, Carzola and Podolski/Giroud all on the pitch at one. Chelsea only had 6 defensive players with Ramires sometimes not being in position because he led the counters. RDM should have added Bertrand (for Hazard), Moses (for Mata) and Romeu (for Oscar) and just down the Gunners with 8 defensive players (back 6 + Romeu + Bertrand). It’d have left Torres and Moses to go counter against a positionally weak Arsenal back 4.
But to say the Arsenal subs had no impact is just wrong. It opened up the game even more and Arsenal should have scored once or twice in that time (say with Chelsea).
I think Arsenal were playing better in tactical sense, and feel unlucky to come out of the match empty handed. Chelsea have better build up passers in CB positions (Terry, Luiz)than double pivot of Mikel and Ramires, so Gervinho and Cazorla pressuring in tandem high up made sense. Also, Ox pinning Cole back was key, since he was the only player that can provide width in that line up.
Interesting analysis by ZM about Arsenal’s left side. Although undoubtedly an excellent center back, Vermealen’s aggressiveness often invites problems. Both of Chelsea’s goals resulted from FK that Verm caused.
first of all lets look at chelsea’s tactics . as like all the other teams that play against arsenal chelsea did the same they played deep played narrow allowed no space in the 18 yard box and hit on the counter attack . but i am still concerned about chelsea’s defending they seem to maintain the shape but they are not closing down the opponent and letting him have space . the goal by gerviniho was a good example of how they let him have that space in the box while there were just maintaining the shape . terry should had been in close attendance with him not letting that much time and space to shoot . you made one good observation and i wrote about this 2yrs ago espn football focus here in india . crosses made by arsenal were bearing no fruit since to beat terry and luiz in the air is an impossible ask atleast by gerviniho and that is the bread and butter on which terry makes his living dealing with aerial crosses . crosses should be made depending on the player you got in the box .
as per as chselsea’s offense in concerned i am not very pleased about it they should be able to dictate the game’s tempo not playing on counter attack and most importantly chelsea’s offense in depended on players brilliance rather than a team effort if you look closely when chelsea’s is on offense then not more than 3 players are involved and too much time is spend on the ball .most importantly they can be caught in a zone . RDM had still not been able to gel players together .last but not the least i would choose lampard over mikel on any day since he can not only spread the ball better but also reads the game better . all and all he got the tactics right which nowadays every team that plays arsenal know how to play against them .
first and formost before talking arsenal’s tactics let me say as how few shots were taken by both the teams . chelsea were playing on counter attack so them making few attempts in understandable but arsenal were hopeless . if the team needs to score then they need to show they are potent not just inside the box but also but also beyond the box arsenal have players who can be potent from distance . you had done a good observation that i had said in my earlier post that high crosses had never bear fruit unless you got a player capable enough to get at the end of it ( big aerially strong ). chamberlain showed a great maturity when he made a good low i suppose even jenkinson made some good low crosses . for the game i think arsenal failed to exploit the space between terry and ramirez . chelsea were playing were playing very deep so there was not much space beyond the back line to exploit but there was some space between terry , luiz and mikel , ramirez which could had been exploited and shots could had been taken from there . arsenal’s attack were monotonous you could guess as to what was arsenal were going to do next . for a change arsenal could had brought mertasacker toplay upfront or even koscielny and trouble the back four .
all and all chelsea may had won it but arsenal gifted the game to chelsea by doing so comic defending . another frustrating thing for me was at times you could see that there was a shot on for an arsenal play but there stubbornness to score a perfect goal from six yards would come in the way and he would pass the ball and it would result in cross which would be dealt successfully .
as per as the players are concerned i would still vouch for gibbs and jenkinson to start for england as they not only good going forward but also are good on defending .
walcott doesnt looks like a arsenal player anymore better pack his bags as he looks to doesnt brings anything good to the table .
I’m sorry, but Podolski “offered little support” ???
Shows you are clueless, and probably didn’t watch the game at all, if you think that. Podolski was far too deep defending on many occasions, he offered little attack is more like. I don’t know why Wenger plays Gervinho as ST, and leaving Podolski to rot in LM positions…
Podolski has few of the qualities required to play up front for a team that almost exclusively faces very deep defensive lines. A better option than Giroud, Arshavin or Walcott when the opposition decides to commit men forward to chase the game but otherwise better out wide.
The Diaby injury was critical, the 17 minutes he was on the field the game passed Ramires by, Mikel looked like he would struggle with the pace of the game further down the road and Oscar was lethargic. It wasn’t until later in the half that their midfield really took over the game with their legwork.
The Oscar role was interesting, the benefits of challenging a playmakers/wingers work rate and defensive sense to disrupt the DLP versus moving a technically adept destroyer further forward.
Does pretty much man marking the DLP fall into the suffoco category or is that a role reserved for a teams best final third ball winner (Cazorla/Boateng come to mind)?
Getting back to the match, Arsene is in quite a predicament with many problems that crossover into one another:
- The team has benefited from the link up play of Giroud but his threat in the box is limited and he slows the game down when he need to chase the game.
- Cazorla/Podolski have developed an impressive understanding but we’re possibly too direct with Podolski starting games.
- Gervinho has played his best football as a false forward but lacks the involvement and intuition of Giroud.
- Cazorla operates magnificently as the most advanced midfielder but needs to be moved out wide to make way for Wilshere if we’re to guarantee controlling the ball against every Premiership team.
I’ve tried to find the solution a few times and failed. On the surface they appear minor problems as we’re playing great football but looking forward the balance isn’t there to allow the team to progress into potential league winners over the next few years.
Missed the edit time so apologies for the double post but would like to add that I’ve commented extensively on various blogs in the past four years about how Arsenal should never cross the ball from open play, even if only for metagame purposes, today reinforces that argument. With our cross completion rate, recycling possession is a better option both for attacking potency and preventing the counter attacks that teams prepare for even before we’ve delivered crossed the ball.
As teams adjust to the change we can work certain crossing opportunities back in and out as necessary, the key is maintaining the balance between the options better than our opponents’ defenses do. With the more experienced players we have now compared to the past few years we’re in a better position to integrate this change than ever.
With the way we attack and the way our opposition sets up to defend us, even with Giroud and Chamakh up front crossing remains a woefully inefficient option.
what .
If the issue is understanding what I’m trying to say, coherent writing isn’t my strong-suit.
If the confusion is that you think my argument is ridiculous, there’s more numbers supporting my claim than anyone could ever be bothered to read.
I’ll start by justifying that I meant AERIAL crosses only. There’s evidence to suggest that aerial crossing is suboptimal in almost every scenario short of having your 6′4 striker unmarked in the box, even for Stoke City it’s inefficient. Even if you are skeptical of the context/sample size of this information, once you factor in the strengths/weaknesses of Arsenal personnel, our style of play and typical opposition strategy it’s abundantly clear that aerial crossing is not only denying us goals, it’s losing us games.
For me the arsenal fullbacks were very impressive once again, taking it in turns to get forward and linking well with podolski and the oxe. Arteta also improved in th second half after being subdued by the excellent Oscar, and helped arsenal end the game well. But the whole defence struggled at set pieces, a running trend, and they probably missed diaby in that regard. I was also disappointed in gervinho’s performance, despite the goal, as didn’t provide a good reference point in attack and was extremely wasteful with his chances. I would have liked to have seen giroud given the chance as I thought arsenal looked better with him on the pitch near the end.
Chelsea got the win but arguably weren’t that impressive as a team. Oscar was fantastic in midfield and Czech was instrumental in stopping arsenal from scoring, while mata created Chelsea’s best chances. But Torres didn’t the line very well, mikel and ramires struggled to control the pace of the game in midfield and the whole Chelsea attacked lacked variety in attack. They have looked better when ramires has played ina wide position and offered more penetration. Sturridge or Moses could offer a similar variety in the attack and create more off the ball movement needed with all these playmakers. But Chelsea have a lot of options as the season progresses in attack, it’s in deep midfield where the problems lie.
I have written a new article, have a read if you have time http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/at-the-centre-of-it-all/
Great stuff!
Please, I would love to see some analysis on my beloved Frankfurt Eintracht!!
I love the way you wrote this article. This is wonderful. I do hope you intend to write more of these types of articles. Thank you for this interesting content!
Thanks-a-mundo for the post.Thanks Again. Want more.’s a I Purchase of high quality wedding, your content, I really like
I totally disagree with it being said that Cazorla was kept quiet.
I can remember at least two occassions when he got into great positions on the edge of the box (or just inside the box) when he had a free shot at goal. He didn’t manage to get them on target but that is his poor finishing on that occasion not Chelsea keeping him quiet.
He also made more Key Passes than anyone (except AOC who made the same).
So explain again how Chelsea kept him quiet?
The reality is, you can’t keep players like Cazorla quiet. They’re too good.
So, maybe a bit of man marking on the set pieces this week maybe for Arsenal
I have seen lots of useful points on your internet site about pcs. However, I’ve the view that netbooks are still not nearly powerful adequately to be a good option if you normally do projects that require lots of power, for example video editing. But for web surfing, microsoft word processing, and a lot other prevalent computer functions they are fine, provided you never mind the small screen size. Thanks for sharing your notions.
I think Carl Jenkinson was absolutely fantastic at the weekend and seemed to have a great understanding with Oxlade.
Chelsea were efficient as always but Arsenal should be very disappointed – conceding two goals from sloppy set pieces and failing to take their chances at the other end of the pitch.
http://tttfootball.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/arsenal-1-chelsea-2-29th-september-2012/
I think Arsenal could have been more effective had they shifted Cazorla to the left flank and played Ramsey behind the striker. Cazorla’s creativity may have been better able to flourish if he wasn’t up against two holding midfielders.