Chelsea 2-1 Arsenal: Chelsea stronger in the first half, Arsenal better after the break
The starting line-ups (Chelsea's three attackers sometimes switched, although they were keen to keep left-sided width)
Chelsea took charge with a commanding start to the game, then held on in the second half.
Rafael Benitez was without Victor Moses and Jon Obi Mikel because of the Africa Cup of Nations, and David Luiz was injured. This meant Ramires and Frank Lampard was the only possible midfield duo, with three creators ahead. Fernando Torres surprisingly started upfront, rather than Demba Ba.
Arsene Wenger was without wide forwards Gervinho, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Lukas Podolski, as well as Mikel Arteta, so he started with the same XI that beat Swansea in the FA Cup in midweek.
The game was all about the tempo of passing – Chelsea moved the ball quicker in the first half and dominated, then this suddenly dropped after half-time, allowing Arsenal back into the game.
Shapes
With various injury problems, both coaches were effectively forced into these starting XIs. Had others been available, it’s likely that Benitez would have been more cautious, probably with Ramires wide-right to stop Kieran Gibbs, while Arsene Wenger might have preferred Theo Walcott as a central striker.
But the surprising thing about the first half was Chelsea’s time and space in midfield. This Arsenal system, with Santi Cazorla wide, would usually be a decent way to get numbers into the centre of midfield, with the Spaniard becoming a fourth passing option. Instead, Chelsea got an incredible amount of license to play easy, short passes and work the ball forward through the centre of the pitch – Arsenal’s level of pressing this season varies significantly from one match to the next, and here they seemed happy to stand off Chelsea, letting them play in the centre of the pitch.
Chelsea left
Chelsea’s three creative players rotated positions at times – particularly Juan Mata and Eden Hazard, but it was particularly notable that they always kept a player very wide on the left in the first half. This was interesting, especially because it’s the natural instinct of all three to drift into central positions, but Chelsea repeatedly stretched the play very obviously on the left, then the central midfielders used their time on the ball to hit diagonals out to that flank. Jack Wilshere, although one of Arsenal’s better performers, didn’t seem sure of his role without the ball, and although he generally got himself goalside, he didn’t pressure the ball in the early stages.
This caused Bacary Sagna all kind of problems, and the Frenchman was clearly Arsenal’s most vulnerable defender in the first half. With space ahead of him, Sagna tried to motor forward and support Theo Walcott, but was often caught out of position when Chelsea attacked – sometimes because the home side’s transitions were quick, direct and effective, but sometimes because Sagna simply jogged back from an advanced position. The opening goal owed much to a brilliant first touch and a clinical finish from Mata, but also to Sagna being out of position, unable to recover in time. That said, with Walcott always trying to make runs in behind, Sagna didn’t get much support. As the below image shows, many of Chelsea’s ‘long’ passes in the first half were into the right-back zone, where Arsenal had to make lots of tackles:
The second goal was scored after typical energetic closing down from Ramires, who was clumsy with his tackles and wasteful with his finishing, but his energy was vital in putting Chelsea on the front foot. His pressing on the halfway line, to win the ball in the lead-up to the penalty, was precisely what Arsenal weren’t doing in the first half.
That said, when Arsenal got the ball into the final third, they actually looked promising. Walcott sent an early ball through to Olivier Giroud for a very fine chance, but the Frenchman missed the target. Later in the first half, Walcott repeatedly got in behind the Chelsea defence, only to be flagged for offside – the timing of his runs was poor, but there was at least penetration.
Second half
The turnaround after half-time was astonishingly dramatic, especially considering the lack of significant tactical switches from both managers. Chelsea were more cautious, although it’s difficult to say whether this was intentional or not, while Arsenal – out on the pitch early after half-time, as if they’d received a rollicking from Wenger – suddenly stepped up their play.
Arsenal’s midfield triangle shifted little, with Coquelin more solidly in the holding role, and Diaby joining Wilshere and helping to press Chelsea’s two midfielders. Arsenal played a little higher up the pitch, closed down in more advanced positions (see below), prompted by Wilshere, and most crucially, passed the ball more crisply. Cazorla, having been a passenger for the first half, suddenly became involved and played a couple of nice passes – he would argue that, playing this role in this formation, he needs his side to dominate possession to influence the game, otherwise he’s simply stranded near the touchline, asked to track a full-back.
Still, he did what he should have done – on paper – from the start. He drifted inside, provided the extra man in midfield, and sent through-balls, allowing Walcott to become, in effect, a second striker. Arsenal’s goal – Cazorla inside, slipping it through the defence for Walcott breaking in behind – was the exact type of goal this system is intended to produce, and from there Arsenal were in the ascendency.
Subs
Arsenal’s problem was the lack of exciting options on the bench. The first change was forced on them – Francis Coquelin, who performed well, had to be replaced by Aaron Ramsey through injury. The Welshman is a more naturally attacking player, but it probably didn’t help the balance of the side, forcing Abou Diaby and Wilshere to become more negative. The other change Wenger made, Andrei Arshavin for Diaby, with Cazorla moving central, rather summed up his lack of reliable options.
Benitez spent the first part of the second half making the hand gesture that became his trademark at Liverpool – arms outstretched, moving his hands together as if playing an imaginary accordion, urging his side to become more compact. It was an incredible role reversal from the first half, a perfect example of how momentum counts for an awful lot in football. Chelsea were now simply giving Arsenal too much time in the midfield zone, and it became obvious that Frank Lampard and Ramires – for all his mobility – isn’t the tightest, most positionally reliable midfield combination.
Benitez introduced Ryan Bertrand for Oscar, in a move that helped protect Chelsea’s back four, but persevered for a frustratingly long period with Torres upfront. He showed one burst of acceleration against Thomas Vermaelen that looked like the Torres of 2008, but Demba Ba was more of an outlet upfront, and helped to relieve the pressure in the last ten minutes, although some good last-ditch defending was needed, particularly from Gary Cahill.
Conclusion
Not so much about positioning and formations (indeed, the managers might have played differently with other options) and more about the speed of passing, and the level of pressing. Chelsea moved the ball nicely in the first period, then Arsenal improved after the break. Ramires was Chelsea’s most effective presser, while Wilshere encouraged Arsenal to be more tenacious in the second half.
However, the most interesting positional aspect was how Chelsea kept a man wide-left in the first half, switching the play wide and causing Sagna difficulties at right-back. That was surely a deliberate policy because it contradicted the natural movement of the Chelsea attackers, and it’s a sad reflection of Sagna’s current form that he was apparently targeted as a weak link.
Fantastic write up, once again. Just like to add that with Per Mertesacker was playing as the right center back, although he is a solid defender and a fine reader of the game – his brutal lack of mobility meant he was often unwilling to move wide to cover for Sagna. With Oscar moving into deep, wide positions (exploiting the distance between Walcott and Sagna), it caused uncertainty in Sagna’s positioning – does he move up to press Oscar and leave space in behind for the immobile Mertesacker to cover, or sit deep and let Oscar have the ball. In that respect, wonder what difference Koscielny would have made had he not been banned.
Cheers Dennis – and that’s a good point about Mertesacker. For the first goal, in particular, I thought he was too narrow and attracted to a runner (Hazard, maybe? Can’t remember) leaving too much space between him and Sagna.
Koscielny was available though – he served the suspension v Swansea in midweek. Presumably the clean sheet there (and Kos’ foul last week) persuaded Wenger to name an unchanged team.
Still, playing Vermaelen and Mertesacker both against a pacey attack (especially Hazard/Mata) is dangereous – Vermaelen was beaten twice by Torres & Mata on counterattacks (both after a set piece situation, if I recall it well), and could only compensate by good positioning, but both times Mertesacker was nowhere to be seen.
This could be partially be resolved by having a quick and more defensive-minded midfielder (which they should have bought when they sold Song this summer), which seems to me the most urgent need, besides either a scoring striker or a huge confidence boost for Giroud.
Also the in reverse fixture Wenger played Koscielny and Vermaelen because Mertesacker was injured and Arsenal looked good enough at back when the ball was in open play but lost because without Mertesacker they are much more vulnerable from set pieces. Perhaps this loss was playing on Wenger’s mind especially with the added presence of Demba Ba.
I thought this was the most fluid that Chelsea have looked in attack under Benitez, with Mata given more freedom to drift into the channels, allowing Oscar and Hazard to occupy central areas from time to time. Movement was the key to beating Arsenal today.
Also think that Wilshere was forced into playing too deep after 20 minutes or so, with Arsenal more of a deep 4-5-1 and Giroud looked very isolated. In the gap in between the Arsenal midfield and the Frenchman, Lampard and Ramires were given acres of room to play in.
For my thoughts on the game just click here: http://tttfootball.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/chelsea-2-arsenal-1-20th-january-2013/
In the first half Diaby stay deeper than Coquelin, but his lack of defensive awareness makes Arsenal’s pressing ineffective. When Wilshere or Coquelin press, Diaby just back up but don’t know how to deny Chelsea passing options. That let Chelsea midfielders have too much time and space to move the ball around.
I cant recall any game Arsenal playing well with Diaby in holding role.
I agree with most of what you said. Sagna was clearly exposed by walcott’s desire to cut infield and not track back. In most cases you would expect a midfielder to help out the full back. Diaby,coming back after a long injury layoff was not able to go full tilt at all times causing Wilshere and Coquelin to work extra hard. Ramsey would have been a better choice to start in hindsight. He has a good engine and he has shown some good touches recently.
Also, about the tempo part; I have noticed that Arsenal play much better football when the tempo is quick with one touch passes similar to Wenger’s early sides. They fail to break down defenses when they try the patient probing style of the Fabregas era. This is probably due to the fact that no one in the current team, except Walcott, makes runs into the channels like RvP or even Nasri. Your thoughts???
I think Benitez lacked sense of cahnging the game while the match wears on. He allowed Fenando 80minuts of none performance on the pitch. That’s an awkward move for a coach. Betrand was a nice sub, but Ba’s sub would have been earlier for the pressured exerted on chelsea by Arsenal would have reduced drastically. I wonder how Benitez will face man u with this sense of reasoning.
I thought the biggest problem for both sides was the lack of a good holder in midfield, which was exposed for both teams when ther weren’t dominating. Arsenal neither pressed well or closed the lines between midfield and defence, leaving the likes of mata et al space to dominate the ball and open up arsenals defence. In the second half arsenal started pressing well and got cazorla into the game, which definitely changed the game around. With no solid holding midfielder either, Chelsea couldn’t deny space to cazorla who preceded to set up Walcott and giroud with alarming regularity.
Puzzlingly if arsenal had started the game more aggressively like Wenger had said he wanted before the game, then their midfield 3 could have dominated Chelsea’s 2 quite easily and they could have maybe won the game.
I wrote an article on my blog, if you fancy reading it click on the link
http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/2013-economic-trends/
Hello Michael!
Do you know if there is a way to use the stats zone not having an Apple device?
Thanks very much in advance.
I don’t understand why Wenger – epsecially with the players currently at his disposal – is so stubbornly fixated on a 4-2-3-1. I did not watch yesterday’s game (was traveling), but surely given what he has to work with, a 4 – 3 – 1 (cazorla) – 2 (choose from Giroud, Podolski, Walcott) would get the best out of his players? Podolski would benefit, Walcott would play in a more advanced role and exploit spaces between centre half and full back, Cazorla would be as involved, and potentially more numbers in midfield would counteract the fact that we have no holding players? While it would lead the full backs more exposed (Podolski does work hard on the left), it would offer more protection in the middle and, I would imagine, more potential to control possession more and impose our style of play.
I felt sorry for POT (Poor Old Torres): he no sooner gets a severe haircut than the snow falls on him. Apart from that one magnificent headed goal, he’s really been feeble this season: £50M wasted.
let me tell you on the football field managers try to find a mismatch which they can exploit . if you look at arsenal in the first half you could see walcott against cole never was he going to beat cole in the race nor has he got the quality to get past people . in the first you could see whenever chelsea lost the ball both torres and mata dropped in the midfield to press arsenal midfielders . it would be an interesting statistic as to how many times they lost the ball in the midfield . arsenal just didnt passed the ball better . for arsenal coquelin was the defensive midfielders wilshere was the creator behind giroud but i dont know what role diaby had . couelin isnt the one who can do the dirty work nor can he initiate attack plus his adamant attitude not to pass the ball even when he was under pressure caused them to loose possession nor has he got the vision to spot players . diaby dont know what he was doing because he could had helped his team by coming for the first pass from the back and help release pressure on his team mates . at times you could see all three arsenal’s midfielders standing in the same zone . if they could make the second pass then it was to walcott czorla’s positioning in the first half was very half nor was he enough nor he helped his midfielders . now wallcott was against cole who is quite and again wallcott strength is to chase ball behind the defense not beat people 1 on 1 . there had to be a midfielder in the near vicinity who would helped him in that play . giroud was hopeless nor could he keep the ball nor his finishing . only when wallcott moved in a bit centre where on the he would run in the space between the centre backs and the fullbacks did he had something to show in the game . arsenal adamant game to move the ball through the centre can at times back fire and it did so this time . arsenal’s kids need to toughen up they should be able to stand over the ball and should try to excel in the one on one condition . although you covered the match ups and the team shape you didnt cover the way they moved the ball an aspect very much important .
oppoiste to that was chelsea they lined up torres against mertsacker ( i was criticized a few months back when i said he was the weak link in the arsenal defense against a team who will play floor game ).the one good thing that rafa has done and still need to do is that he has cut done time spent by the players time that they spent on the ball and their positional sense has improved .
I am very new to web design as I have no prior experience and know little HTML.. I just want to know what the best software is to purchase to design blogs. I have downloaded CS5 Design Premium with Dreamweaver and Photoshop, but I realize this is a little advanced for me and expensive!!!. Does anyone have suggestions of software or ways to build blogs and websites easily and inexpensive?. . THANKS!.
Terrific write-up as usual, Mr. Cox.
Can you think of a tactical reason for Benitez’ keeping Torres on as long as he did? Does he allow the team to assume a different shape to when Ba is playing?
Thanks,
here. I believe I will visit this kind of place once again soon.
I truly enjoy this template youve got going on on your site. What is the name associated with the theme anyhow? I was thinking associated with using this style for the web site I am going to make for my school project.
intext:”Write a comment”
Currently this Auѕtralian busіneѕs’s solutions are marketed in in excess of 30 countries around the world, which includes the United States. Commonly we plug our equipment into wall outlets which are a accurate sine wave Air conditioner source. 1 of the fancy points to do with smaller microwave is reheating espresso without the need of mess at a sought after temperature.
Also visit my site – lonerboristeria.com
8Nw4Nn Muchos Gracias for your post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.
r9W9DH Great, thanks for sharing this article.Much thanks again. Will read on…