Corinthians 1-0 Chelsea: Corinthians disrupt Chelsea’s passing and pinch a scrappy goal

The starting line-ups
Corinthians lifted the World Club Cup after a typical 1-0 win.
Tite left out his number ten, Douglas, and instead selected Jorge Henrique to play a disciplined role on the right.
Rafael Benitez moved David Luiz to centre-back with Branislav Ivanovic going to right-back. Frank Lampard and Ramires started in the middle, and Victor Moses was chosen over than Oscar.
Chelsea had their chances – particularly late on – but overall Tite’s strategy was effective, particularly in a negative, spoiling sense.
Tempo
On the rare occasions European and South American club sides face each other in a competitive match, the pace of the match is always important. Corinthians may be one of the more ‘European’ sides their region has to offer, but a notable feature of this match was how they tried to slow the match down.
Chelsea had thrashed Monterrey in midweek because the Mexican side were simply unable to cope with a Premier League tempo – they had given Juan Mata (in particular) and the rest of Chelsea’s attackers too much time in midfield, and Benitez’s side simply battered them in a 10-minute spell of speed shortly after half-time.
Here, it was clear Corinthians ‘won’ the battle of the tempo, turning it into a slow, patient match. There were two parts to their approach – with and without the ball. In possession, when there was no opportunity to counter-attack, they simply held onto the ball for long periods, and Chelsea moved back into a solid defensive shape, not pressing high up the pitch, and letting the likes of Paulinho and Ralf knock the ball around casually.
However, Corinthians were also clever without the ball. They didn’t press Chelsea’s centre-backs constantly, but lone striker Paolo Guerrero occupied David Luiz to prevent him moving forward on the ball, and Gary Cahill was left free. His passing lacked incision and contributed to Chelsea’s slow passing, while in midfield Corinthians got into positions to press near the halfway line, preventing forward passes being played into Ramires and Frank Lampard.
Juan Mata was sometimes left in too much space, and Corinthians weren’t particularly compact, but Chelsea lacked a mdifielder with space (or ball-playing ability to find him). As a result, their passing was unambitious and sideways, and they didn’t pick up the tempo until the final few minutes.
Formations
Chelsea were in a straightforward 4-2-3-1, but Corinthians played an unusual modification of that system – although as explained here by Roberticus, it’s not unusual for them. On the right, Henrique stayed in position and offered Alessandro defensive support, which was crucial considering how dangerous Chelsea were down that flank against Monterrey. But on the other side, Corinthians were very fluid. Normally, in a 4-2-3-1 like this, you’d expect Emerson to drop back and be part of the second bank of four. But instead, he stayed high up in a position to counter-attack – often Guerrero’s closest support – and Danilo shuffled over to the left, despite nominally being a central midfielder.
That fluidity was why Benitez started Moses rather than Oscar – a natural winger to take advantage of one-versus-one situations against the left-back, and Corinthians’ fluidity down that side was another reason Chelsea needed to play quickly. If their transitions were swift, they’d be able to exploit Corinthians’ lack of defensive shape, but if they played slowly, Corinthians could get Danilo back into position. The Brazilian side committed a few tactical fouls when Chelsea looked set to launch counter-attacks, underlining how scared they were of this approach.
At other points, seemingly when Chelsea had long spells of possession, Danilo narrowed slightly and Emerson defended the left, with Corinthians becoming more 4-1-4-1, which made them look less vulnerable to Mata between the lines.
Although Corinthians weren’t playing good attacking football – Emerson’s decision-making on the counter-attack was poor – they were successfully stifling Chelsea’s passing, and the number of long balls Chelsea played towards Fernando Torres was amazing. Lampard was generally the man to play those passes, and although a few were accurate and Torres’ first touch was often very good, it was incredible that Chelsea were so readily bypassing their attacking band of three, the playmakers Corinthians would have been most worried by.
Second half
The longer the game went on, the more it seemed Corinthians were successfully frustrating Chelsea. Their attacking play barely improved in terms of quality, but they were seeing more possession in good areas of the pitch, and eventually forced a scrappy goal.
The real question from the second half was why Benitez persisted with his starting XI for so long. The logic in starting Moses was sound, but if Chelsea were unable to get the ball to him (some odd, narrow runs from Moses hardly helped, and made his role in the side pointless), it clearly wasn’t working. It was amazing that Oscar – a player who could have lifted the tempo of the game, and prompted some fluidity and counter-attacking from Chelsea – was only introduced at 1-0.
Benitez’s other two changes were also very late – Cesar Azpilicueta replaced Branislav Ivanovic to offer more thrust from right-back on 82 minutes, while Marko Marin replaced Hazard on 86 minutes. The changes were both (a) unadventurous and (b) very late, which makes Benitez’s decisions difficult to understand.
Conclusion
It may have been a negative, reactive performance from Tite’s side, but the approach unquestionably worked in favour of the South American champions. They had to ride their luck, and depended upon Chelsea missing a couple of decent opportunities, but the game was played at the tempo they wanted, and they prevented Chelsea’s attackers from having a significant influence on the game.
Did they do enough with the ball? Probably not. This won’t go down as a great example of how to attack a stronger side, but it was a fine demonstration of defensive football through clever positioning and pressing.





I love how you’re always so objective in your analysis! In my country commentators and journalists almost all “swing with the tide”, as it were – you can always see a trace (oftentimes far more than just a trace) of added praise, many times undeserved, for the side who won, no matter how lucky they might have been. It’s very annoying… You, on the other hand, give teams exactly the amount of praise they deserve and always point out when they did something wrong, even if it didn’t end up being exploited by the other team, in the end, for various reasons.
I also thought Corinthians were most unimpressive on the counterattack and should have created more for a side about to become Club World Champions, and the fact that they did win, in the end, while deserved, in a sense, mainly thanks to their keeper’s fine performance, was mostly due to the weakness of their opponents, who clearly were nowhere near as clinical as last year, when they would often need at most 2-3 chances to score (understandable, of course, given Drogba’s departure).
Even so, they needed Torres to miss some massive chances before they could win it. But yeah, had they played this spring’s Chelsea, I think it’s hard to imagine they would have stood a realistic chance of winning. They certainly would have needed to be much, much luckier than they were today. The same thing goes for any of this season’s top teams in Europe. I think Corinthians would have been a rather modest and unchallenging opponent for any of them. Sure, their defensive play was alright (against Chelsea), as you point out, but there are many, many better attacking sides than Chelsea in Europe right now (Barcelona is the easiest example to come up with – they would have crushed Corinthians just as easily as they crushed Santos – but also Real, Dortmund, Juventus, even Atletico or Shakhtar, I’m sure, and there are probably others as well) and any of them would have been substantial favorites against a Brazilian side playing the way they did in this final.
Thanks for your kind words.
Yes, I was a bit disappointed with the counter-attacking. Overall I thought the reactionary side to Corinthians’ game was excellent, but they were poor with the ball.
In Brazil some journalist said something right about Corinthians, I think:
We say Barcelona’s side defends itself with the ball. Corinthians try to attack without the ball.
They have a plenty of goals scored in pressing situations, forcing turnovers. Tite is obsessed with the idea of keeping the lines close to each other, reducing the distance between defense and attackers.
It’s an interesting side. Not a beautiful football… but interesting.
Hurrah for the return of Roberticus!
Well said!
It is only fitting that Chelsea lost in Japan–it is the worst team, by a significant and embarrassing degree to represent UEFA since the inauguration of the new FIFA Club World Cup in 2005.
Chelsea should have signed me.
You need to give a credit to Paulinho, he did very well in midfield, he contributed on that goal too.
If only Chelsea still have Raul meireles, lampard looks out of form.
In defense of Lampard, this is his first start/full match after injury, playing alongside Ramires. Terrible midfield depth leave CFC having to try some very odd midfield duo – Oscar and Ramires for example. Lampard has adapt well with position changing – at least better than Gerrard does. He wasn’t perfect there but having covering pair will help. Mikel-Lampard is much much more solid than this match pairing but it is a shame that Essien who is a more natural partner is declining rapidly.
Also, accurate long balls was the underrated part of his game. Luiz can learn a lot from him. Also, if CFC have a semi-competent striker, Lampard should have had one assist in the match. Sometimes I just wish Lampard play as a striker instead; couldn’t do worse than someone pretending to be a striker surely.
It is totally FSW (Benitez) fault that he fail to realise Lampard wasn’t fit for 90 yet continue to play him . Roberto di Matteo at least tend to get his subs correct. I fear Roman get the sack incorrectly this time. I hope not.
Nah, it’s Luiz they should try as a striker. Or Cahill. Or Ivanovic. Anyway, not Torres or Sturridge.
This illustrates a common problem I noticed playing casual football. If you’re not just playing very direct (ie. hoof it up to a target man/goal-mouth scramble), then it just takes one or two players on your team who aren’t ball players to make the game very difficult for you. Assuming the opposition work out who those players are and just stand off them. I means they can afford to close down the players who can actually play, perhaps in a 2 v 1. In the end the ball has to go to one of the ‘less able’ team mates, who then will lose it in some aimless or over-ambitious hoof downfield.
Standing off Luiz is a bad idea, as he has the ability to drive forward with the ball and make something happen. I’ve noticed this with Cahill before – I think when he was playing for England – he’d have the ball in tons of space and look around desperately for an easy pass before hoofing it up field. I noticed it at the weekend too, where Swansea stood off Gallas.
If you have a Drogba, then you’re fine – otherwise you have a problem.
I’ve seen that given as the reason why Lescott is out of favour at Man City. He can’t pass.
From a Corinthians’ fan perspective:
The highly anticipated (for us Brazilians, anyway) battle between two great tacticians was more level than expected. Corinthians had been poor midweek but certainly were up to their best yesterday. While Chelsea had impressed in the semi-final, but still lacking in consistency.
After the game Tite admitted he chose to play Emerson upfront with Danilo on the left immediately after seeing Chelsea’s lineup. He expected Benitez to keep David Luiz as DM as that move worked well against Monterrey, and moved Danilo inside, for his game is more physical than Douglas’.
Rafa, on the other hand, must have seen how Aboutrika’s incisive passes troubled Corinthians in the second half against Al Ahly and thought Frank Lampard was the perfect man to do the same. Indeed, Corinthians didn’t put much pressure on him, hence the high number of long balls as you observed.
So Tite saw Chelsea going in with no DM and decided to exploit that pocket with Emerson on the counter, almost as a classic big-guy/small-guy pairing uptop. It could quite have worked had The Sheik been on a more inspired night. He wasted his teams’ best chances in the first half.
Slowly Corinthians realised the Chelsea juggernaut haven’t arrived and decided to do what they do best – play on the opposition half, break in from the sides and get Paulinho bombing the area. The first part worked well as they outnumbered Chelsea players at the touchlines, but when cutting inside the lack of a “number 10″ made them lose the ball and give Chelsea some good counter-attack opportunities.
At that point Paolo Guerrero stepped up as the hub of Timão’s attack. Chelsea defended too deep and allowed him to bizarrely make the most chest controls in a football match. Corinthians gained momentum that led to the goal and kept them in control until the 80′~85′ mark, when Emerson and Guerrero came of and the team just soaked up pressure waiting for the final whistle.
Also worth to mention Danilo, who was MOTM for me. That man is a brain with legs. He was always playing smart passes behind Ivanovic, keeping the ball in tight spaces, and perfect in dictating the tempo beside hugging the touchline for most of the game. It was fun when he dispossesed Torres “like taking a candy”.
Overall it was a great game of football. It was a game between a team with no stars, but everyone knows what is their game, against vastly superior individuals with no solid gameplan. Scoreline was kept low by poor finishing (both sides) and great goalkeeping (from Cassio) but it was a tense, 50-50 match that restored Brazilian pride after last years’ Santos drubbing.
Good match for the south americans to win..i think your side very well deserves it.
Agree with you about Danilo, fellow corintiano. He makes it look all so easy, the goal itself when he cut inside onto his right foot, it appeared like if he was on a shooting practice. And after the goal, he didn’t lose the ball once. Always finding a free man, or the space to pass calmly away from an opponent. Brilliant, and he was almost unnoticeable. He is the “big game man”, even more so than Emerson.
Congrats from a “colorado”. I was actually pleased to see Tite winning this one – not just because we’re from the same town, haha, but because he deserves it. The guy lives and breathes football.
The worst CL winners in history.
And just look at their record against good teams this season.Average team who wouldn’t finish top 6 in La Liga.
It’s really unexplicable how Benitez picks Moses instead of Oscar.
Maybe it’s because I like Oscar very much, (for me one of the finest brazilian players of his generation, surely one of the smartest) but I simply cannot understand the logic of Benitez.
If it’s another great player, like Mata and Hazard, then OK. But it’s Victor freaking Moses we’re talking about. It’s like Benitez is trying to make things harder for his team. And it’s not like Chelsea were facing a great left-back, who needed to be pinned down his half with speed and counter-attacking so that Ivanovic weren’t overloaded – Fábio Santos is hardly a threat upfront.
Besides that, a question (specially for UK fans): did the UK press say anything about Oscar complaining to be benched for the final? Some reports, in the brazilian media, said that Oscar, while warming up during the game, said Benitez “was crazy”. But I hardly believe that he would say such thing…
Oscar is slower than Moses, delays ball passing, lacks upper body strength. In fact, he is over-priced than the African player.
Even so, that qualities don’t compensate for Oscar’s tremendous abilities with and without the ball, in my view.
If Moses did a good defensive job like, let’s say, Jorge Henrique did on the opposite side – doubling up against the winger – then ok, it’s an tactical option. You choose a physical, powerful player over a (much) more technical one, one that can turn the game around in one play. But he didn’t even help Ivanovic that much, didn’t stretch the play as planned, at one point got so frustrated he started making the same runs as Torres…dunno, seems like an odd choice.
Sure, it’s not his fault. He’s picked to start, he’ll do within his capacity. That’s all on Benitez: if he picks a specific player for a more tactical choice but his own gameplan doesn’t suit the player in question, than you start questioning whether it’s the right approach.
Stopped reading before I reached the end of this article,ZM at least try and hide your contempt for teams that get the better of English teams.It is nauseating and xenophobic.No wonder nobody comments any more,you are coming across as very bitter in your articles and they are no longer enjoyable to read.Also stop trying to censor my comments you big baby.
Examples of Zonal Markings bitterness:
“but overall Tite’s strategy was effective, particularly in a negative, SPOILING sense”
Is that really a necessary way to describe this game? Corrinthians had 48% possession and at least as many chances as Chelsea yet you make them sound like….Chelsea.
“nderlining how scared they were of this approach.”
“Stopped reading before I reached the end of this article,ZM at least try and hide your contempt for teams that get the better of English teams.”
Haha, what an odd one. I was actually really pleased to see Corinthians win – why wouldn’t I be? They had a gameplan, Chelsea didn’t. Why on earth would I be bitter because an English team lost?! To be honest, if anyone had a problem with xenophobia, it’s probably you – you seem to base your entire reaction to my articles around the fact that I’m English! Sorry you don’t enjoy the articles any more.
I haven’t censored you – I’ve had problems with spam, so the majority are being held in moderation before approval, to prevent that. Hopefully this is just a temporary measure
Ok about the censoring part but I am English myself.
“of how scared they were”
no hint of xenophobia here.
Agreed.
what’s wrong with being scared of the opposition’s approach? aren’t Chelsea scared of Barcelona’s approach in every Champions League encounter? you people need to grow up. having followed ZM from almost day 1, I have no doubts he enjoyed Corinthians winning purely for how well they executed their game plan. nothing is worse for a tactical-fanatic than watching a team with no game plan.
The second half effective and pressing mid field play by Corinthians is what disorganized,wore-out,and killed the initiatives Chelsea had in first half. Why? No Mikel Obi who would have effectively tracked and broken up those mid field play.
It is suicidal for Chelsea to play big teams without Mikel and Chelsea often loses when the guy is not in.
He is their best passer of the ball and on the ground not aerial passing that Chelsea resorted to against Corinthians.
Benitez will fail if he continues to exclude Mikel, in matches against big teams.
Hey Michael. Great Article as always!
As a Chelsea fan I’ve always had to argued with my fellow supporters about the relevance of Mikel. He may be one-dimensional, unimaginative and doesn’t have more to offer more than his defensive awareness. However, apart from Romeu, no midfielder in Chelsea gives the balance that Mikel gives Chelsea. He’s absolutely vital in the DM role because of his positional awareness and simple passing. He was clearly missed in the game.
I was shocked that Mikel didn’t play. Benitez started Lampard and Ramires, and both like making runs to the box, but unlike Ramires, Lampard can’t run back to his position because he doesn’t have the legs anymore. That made it so easy for Corinthians to break against our back four (that’s if the full backs are in their half). More often than not they had so much space to run into and judging by the amount of space we left them at times they should have scored more. Emerson was quite wasteful.
Other things I realized:
- Ashley Cole had one of worse games as a Chelsea player. Missing tackles, headers and wasn’t as consistent as normal.
- I had no problem with Victor Moses starting, but I felt he didn’t get the ball enough. + it would be a shame if Oscar started in the middle with Mata moved to the wings: he’s way way better in the center.
- I felt David Luiz should have had another go in the middle. Neither Ramires or Lampard had good games on the ball and judging by the SF, Luiz would have run about way more than Lampard while Mikel would provide the balance Ramires doesn’t.
- I felt Piazon was right though: Corinthians wanted it more. You could see the ambition in their running and tackling. Ramires really didn’t run as much and Hazard had two people to beat rather than one in the SF.
All in all, I felt it would have been better if Mikel was playing his simple game in the final rather than Lampard and Ramires playing their expansive game at the expense of the balance of the team.
I agree fully on the Piazon point, and perhaps that was greater than any tactical factor. It clearly meant a lot to them, and they seemed fresher throughout the game.
I agree on Mikel. He’s not a spectacular player, but he plays that role calmly and efficiently – I’d be surprised to see Ramires-Lampard in the Premier League in the next fe weeks
Michael replied me! nw pls follow me back…@Y1nka_XVII…
Is anyone going to comment or mention anything about Lampards abysmal and selfish performance?
If fat Frank cant go up and down the pitch why doesnt he just do a job for the team and stay back instead of forcing the play and playing into the oppositions plan.
enjoyed this match from a one-sided tactical perspective. not so much from a spectacle side. Corinthians’ fans deserved it though, truth be told. I’m off to congratulate Roberticus