Chelsea 1-1 Liverpool: poor quality game with goals from corners
The starting line-ups
Brendan Rodgers started with three centre-backs, but switched to a back four during the second half.
Roberto Di Matteo used his expected front four, but surprisingly used Cesar Azpilicueta at right-back, presumably because he wanted pace and/or attacking drive. Branislav Ivanovic shifted into the centre.
Rodgers included Jamie Carragher, with Martin Skrtel unavailable. Suso was only on the bench, having often started in a front three in recent weeks.
Liverpool dominated possession throughout the game, but became more dangerous when reverting to a back four.
Formation battle
It’s not often you see a 4-2-3-1 take on a 3-5-1-1 (or 3-4-1-2, if you prefer). The interesting battle is always between the wingers and the wing-backs – in other words, the positioning of Juan Mata and Eden Hazard against Jose Enrique and Glen Johnson. Do they try to track the wing-backs, or stay higher up?
One of Chelsea’s main problems this season, certainly in a defensive sense, is the lack of tracking from their wingers, particularly Hazard. However, there was no doubt they were forced into a more defensive role than usual by the energy of the Liverpool wing-backs. They didn’t actually have to track them all away, because of the presence of the Chelsea full-backs and the absence of any wide, higher Liverpool players, but they certainly didn’t press Liverpool’s outside centre-backs, and instead dropped back near the halfway line.
Liverpool dominance?
As a result, Daniel Agger and Andre Wisdom had plenty of time on the ball, and Liverpool dominated possession significantly in the first half. However, the majority of their passes were slow, sideways and not remotely penetrative, because Liverpool simply had too few players in attacking positions.
As mentioned previously, a decent template for Liverpool in this 3-5-1-1 system would be Udinese – they get the ball forward and play on the counter. Liverpool held onto the ball for too long and allowed Chelsea to get men behind the ball – which is precisely what Chelsea usually don’t do well, so Rodgers wasn’t taking advantage of Chelsea’s weakness. Liverpool didn’t get a shot on target in the first half, and conceded a set-piece goal after poor marking.
Television cameras picked up Rodgers instructing his midfielders to flip from a ‘2-1′ to a ‘1-2′ format midway through the first half – rather than sitting alongside Joe Allen (who had a poor game), Nuri Sahin moved up to join Steven Gerrard, as Rodgers wanted more players in advanced positions.
Liverpool change shape
The line-ups after Liverpool moved to a back three. Suso, the substitute, and the players who changed position significantly are hightlighted.
Earlier in the day Manchester City turned their game around by moving from a back four to a back three. Rodgers did the opposite, bringing on Suso for the ineffectual Sahin – the Spaniard played just behind Suarez. The rest of the side completely changed shape – four other players moved significantly, and Liverpool were something more like a 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 system.
Now they had more attacking options, more natural width on both sides, and an extra goalscoring threat with Suso getting into the box more naturally than Sterling. Again, the goal came from a set-piece rather than through any overloads or creativity in open play, but Liverpool had upped the pressure on the Chelsea defence.
Oddly, that was the only significant change of the game. Rodgers clearly doesn’t trust half of his bench, so Suso was his only replacement, while Di Matteo’s changes were broadly straight swaps, all after the equaliser had been conceded.
Conclusion
Rodgers’ initial formation decision, and subsequent backtracking, was the main talking point. By starting with a back three, he seemed to stifle Chelsea’s creativity by pushing their wide attackers back, but robbed his own side of an attacking player, and the ball spent far too long in defence.
Whether that constitutes success depends upon one’s perception of these two sides’ abilities. It feels like Liverpool should be competing toe-to-toe with Chelsea, but then a 13th-placed side would generally be happy to go to a 2nd-placed side and create a tight, scrappy game based around set-plays, and come away with a point.
It was more of the same from Chelsea – Di Matteo has found a formula and is sticking to it (small defensive changes aside) for the majority of his games. Both Juventus and Liverpool have caused them positional problems with a back three, however.
Another poor performance from Torres also limited Chelsea’s flair. I feel RDM should look at using Eden Hazard as a false 9, as this also would solve the issue of his lack of defensive responsibility. That would free up space for Moses or even Marin (remember him)to be used as more natural left-sided options. Oscar and Hazard seem to have a good understanding and relieving Hazard of his defensive duties would see him reach a higher level as well IMO.
Don’t know if its completely fair to drop as much blame on Torress as usual…for most of the match he was playing 1 vs. 3 the whole match, Liverpool controlled possession, he got no service from the fullbacks on the flanks and Chelsea didn’t create their usual chances other than oscar’s and mata’s misses…on another underperforming player nuri sahin really seems like he needs to return to dortmund..his career has gone downhill..
Good point, hazard movement is usually very good, so could help create alot of space for Moses or Marin. But it would put a lot of responsibility on either of them to finish the moves, though Torres is hardly putting them away right now. Another problem could be Oscar, who is at his best dropping deep creating space, not running past the striker and providing penetration. Would be a good experiment though.
Chelsea found their form weak after Man U lose, though every body knows how it happen but thats is not the issue now, in selection RDM got it wrong, i may say with flop Torres, Torres shouldn’t have started the match with many reasons, Oscar shouldn’t have been tooken off but Torres earlier than allowing him to continue messing up, then, I want to correct somebody here, liverpool were no where near dominance, you can still watch replay of the match or check the stats then you found out who completed more passes and created more chances and whose keeper were given a lot of pressure.
I’m not sure what your last sentence means, though I’d certainly admit Chelsea were much the better team up until the equalizer despite LFC’s dominance of possession. That said, Liverpool were clearly on top for the last 20 minutes or so and were the side disappointed to see the game end.
I mostly think Rodgers is doing a good job with a weak squad, but I can’t understand why he doesn’t try to do something about the lack of goal threat coming from anyone but Suarez. With Borini out, we don’t have a single true wide forward with consistent goal threat, and yet the midfield three consistently play very deep and make few runs into the box. Sahin and Shelvey have occasionally broken out of this mold, but they’re very much the exception. Why not play a true 4-2-3-1 and tell Gerrard or Sahin to play as a second striker? (This, of course, is more a general question than one specifically about this game.) Of course, Rodgers did seem to see this today, and we played with a true 4-2-3-1/4-4-1-1 for the first time in the league this season. And we looked so much more dangerous!
Gerrard could play in a more forward Postion, but Sahin is not the Player to do that. Its just the Opposite. He is a classic deep lying playmaker and you want as many Players in fron of him as possible. If you can watch some old BVB-Games, you can see how you use his talent, and he is an outstanding talent, the best way. Individual he was definitely a good signing, but with Allen already at Liverpool and Problems on other Positions, not the type of player to make the squad complete.
Yeah, I know that, but he’s played behind the striker and done quite well in a couple of games already, and is one of the few players who knows how to time his runs into the box. It’s not ideal for his skill set, but like you say, with Allen and Gerrard without the legs he once had, we need his passing ability less and a goal scorer more,
interesting point. having allen and sahin in same team means rodgers can replicate milan side under ancelotti. switch to 4-3-1-2 or 4-3-2-1, with allen, sahin and gerrard packing the midfield, let suso or sterling playing the false nine behind suarez. let borini plays alongside suarez. why rodgers insist spray the ball to the flanks if he have such a talent in midfield. maybe rodgers can give up his obsession with posession, and played some attractive counter attacking style. i wish rodgers was italian…
The attacking midfielder behind two strikers is conventionally called the Number 10, or trequartista. The new term “False 9″ is used when the team does not have an out-and-out striker, and the player who is supposed to be the lone striker often drops into midfield, like Messi.
Thank you for your explanation. I just don’t get the exact words to describe sterling because he still very young and can develop many skills beside his pace and dribbling. i think false nine is the closest one, because in recent years liverpool never play with classic number 10, so sterling can be opting as out and out striker, if you will. maybe, he can develop like ozil, that cox describe him as central winger, hybrid combination of half playmaker and half winger. playing behind number 9, but no longer in static position, i believe false 9 is closest one
I thought Chelsea almost had a dream start. Created chances, kept a good shape while the Liverpool centre-backs were misplacing passes even under light pressure. Probably Rogers should be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the team in the first half or maybe just because he got famous with Swansea and the short passing approach. Now Liverpool’s single threat is Suarez on the break.
It seems to me like their short passing game has no future at all.
Maybe a 4-4-2/4-3-3 hybrid could work for Liverpool with Sterling playing between the winger and striker position with Henderson inside him.
It’s a good idea in theory, but Henderson proved last year that he doesn’t (at least yet) have the tactical intelligence to play that half-winger/half-central midfielder position well. Though I do remember him playing very well against Arsenal in that position.
I’ve agreed with it…Sahin is energetically play alongside Gerrard but in deep position, how he create like others classic deep lying playmaker..Rodgers should think again..his child boy’s Allen didn’t work at all & look restricted on his side..i believe if Liverpool can play more forward & keep on pressuring chelsea with their approach ( quick passes) it could be dangerous. Just let another player like Suso up front & let do the experiment 1-2 as Gerrard move back a bit rather with Sahin opposition & Allen will be on the bench just for 1 game..let ’s try how
In the first half Liverpool’s defense did not have much cover in front of them. Chelsea were a bit wasteful when they had possession in the final third. Oscar, Mata, Hazard usually had the ball without much pressure for long periods of time.
The more Rodgers tries to integrate the whole team, the more they seem to be functioning in individual silos!
And as pointed out by Dino, Suarez is Liverpool’s main threat, but they still try to attack through crosses from wide positions rather than play through the middle.
have to say i feel really sorry for sahin because he can be an outstanding player like he was at dortmund.
he didn’t play for like a year at real madrid (just a few subs and 1 or 2 games in the cup) and now doesn’t play regularly again for liverpool. how is he supposed to get in form with that? and as if this isn’t bad enough he also has to play out of position. this attacking central role doesn’t suit him at all, he is a classical deep lying playmaker like alonso. alone his lack of natural pace suggests to play him in a deep role. dortmund even wanted to sell him before klopp came because he was so slow, thank god they didn’t cause we probably wouldn’t have such a good player by now then. lots of lpool fans already see him as a fail and i think it’s not fair to him.
again, another lack of tactical options from Chelsea under RDM. i wonder why he only use 4-2-3-1 formation with same starting XI almost every game. there are actually few points that worth scrutinized in this article. cox himself, stated that three man defense against one man is lack of logical explanation. cox pointing mancini approach when city face ajax in CL. in that sense, how come rodgers decision to play three man against one player is kind of wasteful?
another point is RDM is unlikely candidate to make this “new chelsea” progress in attacking sense. he completely distrust his player like marin or moses, as well as reluctant to make hazard, oscar and mata switch to new position. too many cynics blaming torres for his lack of pace, but RDM didn’t try to play hazard partnering torres. with his rapid pace, hazard can act as false 9 to catch incisive pass from torres or mata. as in midfield, the duo of mikel-ramires needs alternative for more attacking sense. dropping oscar to partnering either mikel or ramires, or playing them together can be fine solutions. i remember germany and bayern double pivot consist of all around midfielder with physical presence (khedira, martinez) and creative midfielder with discipline in positioning and intelligence (schwensteiger). so, why RDM never try to switch from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-3 even 4-4-2 or maybe 3-4-3 (cahill-luiz-ivanovic can be as wonderful as juve defence trio. as an Italian, i expect him to have many tactical plan, but so far he just didn’t utilized his squad to its fullest potential. RDM must have many answer to face many different opponent in many competition. i just rated RDM doesn’t have what it takes to lead this new chelsea into attractive attacking brand of football.
again, another lack of tactical options from Chelsea under RDM. i wonder why he only use 4-2-3-1 formation with same starting XI almost every game. there are actually few points that worth scrutinized in this article. cox himself, stated that three man defense against one man is lack of logical explanation. cox pointing mancini approach when city face ajax in CL. in that sense, rodgers decision to play three man against one player is just kind of wasteful.
nother point is, RDM unlikely candidate to make this “new chelsea” progress in attacking sense. he completely distrust his player like marin or moses, as well as reluctant to make hazard, oscar and mata switch to new position. too many cynics blaming torres for his lack of pace, but RDM didn’t try to play hazard partnering torres. with his rapid pace, hazard can act as false 9 to catch incisive pass from torres or mata. as in midfield, the duo of mikel-ramires needs alternative for more attacking sense. dropping oscar to partnering either mikel or ramires, or playing them together can be fine solutions. i remember germany and bayern double pivot consist of all around midfielder with physical presence (khedira, martinez) and creative midfielder with discipline in positioning and intelligence (schwensteiger). so, why RDM never try to switch from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-3 even 4-4-2 or maybe 3-4-3 (cahill-luiz-ivanovic can be as wonderful as juve defence trio. as an Italian, i expect him to have many tactical plan, but so far he just didn’t utilized his squad to its fullest potential. RDM must have many answer to face many different opponent in many competition. i just rated RDM doesn’t have what it takes to lead this new chelsea into attractive attacking brand of football.
I believe the caption for the last figure should read: “.. moved to a back four”.
! HAPPY DIWALI TO YOU MICHAEL AS WELL AS ALL THE ONES WHO READ THIS BLOG !
first of all i really did not understand as to what was rodgers trying to do in the first half .
with the 3-5-2 how was he going to open the chelsea defense . he has 2 d/m in form of sahin ( a surprise for me playing him in that role since he did performed better in gerrad’s role .) and allen secondly gerrard was playing in behind suarez ( another surprise because i dont think he is good in that role ). reason for playing him in that role is may be because he was defensively poor in the last game and he cant just be dropped right which will affect rodgers credentials . i just couldnt understand as to how they were going to open chelsea defense since both mikel and ramires were posted right in front of the back to deny any space in that zone and more overly you could see them very narrow . so liverpool’s offense was quite a guess work for me and they had a wrong player in the playmakers position .
at this time untill any new players for liverpool arrive their offense will be in god’s hand and suarez’s poaching ability . it was a stupidity to let caroll go who could had been effective in many situations atleast rodgers should had a 6 months period with him and seen whether he is capable to get in the mould he wants him to be . to let him go after just 3 or games is a stupidity .
for chelsea i had said time and again that the front players dont look to be combining well . they spend too much time on the ball . they have individual quality but RDM hadnt been able to use that and put it in a pattern or mould it in proper shape . if the opposition is defensively proper then chelsea struggle to open them up they dont play that one touch football and even though mata , hazard and oscar have got great individual qualities but they are not ronaldo and messi that they can single handedly open defense so unless and untill they combine and RDM find that proper pattern chelsea will struggle .
Dear Mr Cox, excellent work, as ever. I would just like to point out that in your last picture, you have “line-ups after Liverpool moved to a back three”, when in fact they moved to a back four. Just a minor glitch in an otherwise brilliant analysis.
I know this blog is about tactics, but one of the biggest issues for Chelsea was the failure to finish their opportunities. Oscar and Mata missed excellent one on one chances in the first half; Torres came close with a header in the second. They failed to take these chances, making them vulnerable to a Liverpool resurgence. Chelsea, I think, could do with a top class striker. Torres isn’t awful (as some would have you believe), but he’s still no way near what he was; am not at all sure about Sturridge, who Di Matteo doesn’t seem to favour.
Liverpool looked the more likely to win the game by the end, when Enrique had a shot saved (earlier, Cech had to stop Suarez with a fine piece of goalkeeping), but it would have been much harder for them to come back if they were 2-0 down.
Hello, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, superb blog!
The name should have been Douchebag.
@ michael kors bags:
Have you read any other articles on this site? Or any other content by ZM publisher Michael Cox (i.e. for ESPN or The Guardian)? His analysis is consistently accurate and addresses key aspects of matches not restricted to goal scoring. As you said, this is not an institutional blog, it is a private publication. Fans who respect the type of analysis discussed here are not prevented from reading quality work just because it isn’t mainstream.
With that in mind please don’t come on this site and criticize its content for not “saying something” without actually raising specific criticism. Compelling arguments against the author’s analysis are taken seriously and responded to professionally. Most of ZM’s audience is literate, respectful, and appreciates the unique perspective provided here. So if you want to criticize, fine, but don’t waste our time with unsubstantiated criticisms like “youve just painted quite a picture through this issue you know nothing about” that most of us can’t take seriously.