Liverpool 0-2 Chelsea: Chelsea play ultra-defensively but win the game
The starting line-ups
Chelsea scored breakaway goals in stoppage time at the end of both halves.
Brendan Rodgers named an unchanged side from the nervous win at Norwich last week. Jordan Henderson was still suspended, Daniel Sturridge fit only for the bench.
Jose Mourinho named a heavily changed side, preserving his best players for the return match against Atletico in midweek.
Chelsea’s defensive performance was highly effective, and Demba Ba capitalising on Steven Gerrard’s error meant they were able to continue with this strategy into the second half.
Mourinho’s starting XI
Mourinho had openly said his focus was on the Champions League, and had ‘conceded’ the title race. He also had to cope with various injury problems, and therefore played a starting XI that was almost unrecognisable from his first-choice side this season. Judging by recent selections, only three of this XI: Cesar Azpilicueta, Branislav Ivanovic and Nemanja Matic, would be in Mourinho’s ideal side – with only Matic in his regular position.
It wasn’t exactly a team of kids, as some had predicted – veterans Ashley Cole and Frank Lampard came into the side, Andre Schurrle and Mohamed Salah are internationals (and big-money signings) and Tomas Kalas was the only genuine newcomer. But this was genuinely a second-string starting XI, and while Chelsea’s approach was very negative, it’s still impressive that Chelsea managed to work so efficiently as a unit despite barely any familiarity between players.
Chelsea approach
Chelsea’s overall approach was more interesting than their precise tactics. This was a game they needed to win to remain in the title hunt (Mourinho might insist Chelsea aren’t involved in the race, but a home win over Norwich next weekend puts them top with a week to go – even if their two title rivals will have a game in hand) and therefore many might have expected them to take the game to their opponents. 0-0, after all, was a good result for Liverpool.
Instead, Mourinho decided to play extremely deep, and his first target was probably to reach half-time at 0-0. Liverpool have consistently made terrifyingly quick starts to big matches, particularly at Anfield. If Chelsea could reach half-time goalless, they could take advantage of the fact Liverpool tend to fade after half-time, and maybe win the game in the second period.
Chelsea defensive tactics
Once the approach was decided, the tactics were obvious. Chelsea have become accustomed to defending deep under Mourinho anyway, at least in recent weeks. Besides, they were only playing against one striker, Luis Suarez, and therefore needed to concentrate on minimising his threat.
It was logical for Chelsea to defend deep (to nullify his pace) and narrow (to prevent through-balls, and to encourage Liverpool to cross, which their centre-backs would be happy with). That’s exactly what they did, with Chelsea in a deep, compact 4-4-1-1 formation and the full-backs tucking inside.
Liverpool approach
As a side that has consistently thrived breaking into space, especially at home, it’s somewhat surprising that this is the first top-class opponent that has played deep at Anfield this season. Arsenal retained the ball and were caught on the break, Manchester City also played an open game and were vulnerable to pace, Everton played a high line and were torn apart by Sturridge running in behind. Chelsea, however, parked the bus – or parked two buses, as Rodgers said after the game.
Playing against a such a defensive-minded side continues to frustrate the best sides in Europe, regardless of their approach, but Liverpool were surprisingly unconvincing in their efforts to create chances. They started with a 4-1-4-1 / 4-3-3 system, in contrast from their approach at Norwich where Raheem Sterling and Coutinho were in the centre of the pitch. Here, these players started on the flanks, but then increasingly drifted inside into the congested midfield zone.
Liverpool seemed unsure whether they were attempting to go around the Chelsea defence with width, or playing through the centre. The former seemed the more obvious approach – even if they lacked a big central striker, they could have worked the ball into good positions and played cut-backs. The problem with going through the middle was that they lacked genuine incision from the central midfield trio. Without Henderson and Sturridge, Coutinho has to play in the front three, with Joe Allen and Lucas Leiva in midfield – there was a lack of midfield runners breaking forward to join Suarez, with Lucas’ sporadic efforts unconvincing.
Perhaps this was why Coutinho and Sterling moved centrally, but in those situations the full-backs need to overlap, to prevent the play becoming too predictable. Glen Johnson and Jon Flanagan didn’t do that much, presumably for fear of leaving the defence exposed to counter-attacks, which is perfectly natural in a game where Liverpool would have taken a draw. However, it meant Liverpool rarely looked likely to break down the Chelsea defence, which stayed narrow and seemed quite comfortable. The home side didn’t record a first-half shot on target.
Chelsea attacking approach
When they weren’t running down the clock, Chelsea’s attacking approach was very simple. Theoretically they were attempting to counter-attack, but Lampard wasn’t likely to lead breaks, and therefore it was all about the wide players. They never received the ball on the run – the initial pass out of the defence was very poor which frustrated Salah, and when Chelsea went longer, Ba’s lay-offs were poor to the annoyance of Schurrle.
Instead, it was all about set-pieces. At times Salah seemed keener to win corners and throws near the corner flag than attempt to dribble past Flanagan, but it nearly worked – Kalas came close when reaching a corner, while Azpilicueta’s long throws caused problems too.
Their goal, though, was completely out of the blue. Gerrard miscontrolled, then slipped, and Ba ran half the length of the pitch unchallenged to score.
The goal came on the stroke of half-time (ironically in the stoppage time Chelsea had done so much to create with their timewasting) and was crucial in the pattern of the game. Chelsea probably would have had to open up slightly in the second half to introduce more attacking threat in open play – playing into the hands of Liverpool’s attackers. The goal, however, meant they could afford to sit back, and sit tight.
Liverpool sub
Rodgers turned to Sturridge on the hour mark – presumably he could only manage half an hour – in place of Lucas, and moved to the diamond. Sterling was now behind both Suarez and Sturridge, with Coutinho a little deeper in Lucas’ previous role.
The substitution was certainly the natural change, but it’s questionable whether such a narrow shape made sense against a Chelsea side also playing that way. The full-backs overlapped more, but Chelsea were able to crowd out the three attackers relatively easily – none of them ever picked up the ball on the run at speed, as they might have done in wider zones, and for once this season Liverpool didn’t have a clear purpose to their play.
Gerrard and Suarez
At this point Liverpool needed a flash of inspiration from one of their leaders, and key players. The two men to look to were, naturally, Gerrard and Suarez.
Neither had particularly sparkling matches, for entirely different reasons. Gerrard was evidently determined to compensate for his crucial early error, and embarked up a series of increasingly ambitious long-range shots. In truth, it’s difficult to know how to analyse this. Some were hit from reasonable positions when not closed down, and seemed a perfectly reasonable approach considering Liverpool’s inability to penetrate the Chelsea defence – they instead had to shoot from in front of the defence.
The more it went on, however, the more it felt Gerrard had crossed the line from ‘leading by example’ into ‘trying to do everything solo’, the old criticism – he had eight second-half shots, which became increasingly desperate.
He was at least heavily involved, from the pocket of space between Chelsea’s midfield and one-man attack. Suarez, up against two centre-backs barely advancing, was rarely noticeable and didn’t show much invention in terms of his positioning. He played like an out-and-out striker, when Liverpool might have appreciated him helping between the lines too, particularly after Sturridge’s arrival.
It seems strange to criticise Suarez’s performance at all considering he’ll win the Golden Boot easily and was crowned PFA Player of the Year hours after this game, but his scoring record this season makes for interesting reading. He’s managed 0 goals from 6 games against the top four, compared to 30 goals in 25 games against everyone else in the league.
There are various caveats to this, of course. There’s a lot more to Suarez’s game than goals, he’s often played from the flank against top opposition, and in some of those matches – particularly the 5-1 win over Arsenal, when he came close to two wondergoals – he’s been the best player. It’s also worth considering whether being a ‘flat-track bully’ is a bad thing. Liverpool didn’t win the league in 2008/09 partly because they didn’t destroy minnows ruthlessly enough, which was also what frustrated them under Kenny Dalglish. Suarez’s stream of goals has solved that problem.
Still, against the three sides of Champions League quality, Suarez hasn’t come up with a single goal, the only weakness in an otherwise remarkable campaign.
Chelsea change shape and counter for a second
Chelsea simultaneously became more solid defensively and more dangerous going forward with two subs. Willian replaced Salah and simply showed more drive on the counter-attack – suddenly Chelsea looked promising on the break, partly as Liverpool were pushing forward more. Chelsea’s attackers didn’t always make the right decisions, but they were dangerous.
Schurrle’s injury, meanwhile, gave Mourinho the opportunity to move to five at the back with the introduction of Gary Cahill, which worked nicely against a Liverpool side now playing two upfront. Rodgers then went for broke, taking off Flanagan, bringing on Iago Aspas as another forward, and moving to something more like, roughly, a 3-4-3.
In truth, however, it all seemed a little frantic and a little desperate. Going ‘gung ho’ can be more difficult than it looks. Some questioned, for example, whether Mourinho was really showing ‘tactical genius’ when chucking on three strikers against PSG recently. But the point wasn’t that he introduced extra attackers, the point was that they played in different zones, had clear roles, and the changes didn’t result in congestion and confusion. Here, Aspas appeared to complicate things, and his individual contribution was very poor.
Conclusion
Chelsea defended extremely effectively. Liverpool are breaking goalscoring records aplenty this season, yet barely had a clear chance here – the vast majority of their attempts were from long-range. Their attacking play was generally quite poor – and they simply capitalised on a terrible error from Gerrard for the opener, which shaped the remainder of the contest.
Liverpool were surprisingly short of ideas against a deep defence. It’s hardly a new concept for Mourinho to park the bus, so why didn’t Liverpool have more of a cohesive strategy against this? Perhaps Rodgers was simply surprised Mourinho played so cautiously in a game where Chelsea needed to take the initiative, on paper.
“Congratulations to Chelsea for the win, they probably came for a draw,” Rodgers said afterwards. “We were the team trying to win but we just couldn’t make the breakthrough.” But such a complaint only works if the game finishes 0-0 – it’s tough to say Chelsea weren’t trying to win the game when they eventually did. Alternatively, it’s a fairly damning indictment of your team’s performance if they lost against a side who weren’t trying to win.
It’s also worth remembering that even if Chelsea were playing for a draw, that result would have suited Liverpool. In fairness, Rodgers understood this and played conservatively, by playing a more solid formation and using his full-backs deeper than usual; it’s not as if Liverpool were at all threatened by Chelsea’s counter-attacks at 0-0. Really, it all came down to Gerrard’s error and Ba’s goal.
Should have brought Andy Carroll on for the last half hour. Oh wait, he didn’t fit with “how Rodgers wants to play”.
Liverpool have a thin squad and have been lucky with injuries and opposition naivety this season. Next season they will need more depth and more strategies.
The same Andy Carroll who has managed a miserable 2 goals from 13 games so far this season?
They will need more depth certainly with the additional European matches next season, but I don’t understand how you can say they need more strategies. Rodgers has played like four or five different formations this season. The fact of the matter is that there is no special tactic to break down teams like Chelsea when they set out to defend like they did on Sunday. I recommend you re-watch the Atletico-Chelsea match from Tuesday and make note of how many times they crossed the ball into the box looking for Costa or Garcia, and then make note of how many were successful (hint: the answer is 0).
what is the best solution against Parking Bus ???
certainly not tiki-taka!
park your own bus. Have a picnic in the center of the pitch. Shake hands afterwards and go home a few thousand quids richer.
I wonder if Liverpool ‘parked their own bus’ while Chelsea, needing a win, would have to come out and play. Liverpool could then try to open them up. I think Rodgers has only one game plan and this was exposed pityfully yesterday. Unless he has a trick up his sleeve, they’ll be destroyed in the CL next season
Of course. We’ve only played 3-5-2, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-4-2 diamond. I mean look at the lack of plan B’s there.
Formation isn’t everything. It’s about mentality. You need to be able to contain a team better than you and shut down the opposition in order to win in the Champions League. You can’t just all-out attack all the time, no matter whether that attack is best suited to a 3-5-2 or a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2.
We attempted to park the bus against City after we went up 2-0 and we were lucky to get away with that…
park the bus too. I don’t know why liverpool attacked. They just need to sit deep and park the bus or do some wasting time by tiki taka.
Remember, they only need a draw.
It depends on what you want! Liverpool was more than ok with a draw.So Liverpool should have parked the bus as well!
Tiki-taka.
Seriously. Play with width, but don’t cross. The defenders always want the pitch as small as possible, so you make it big. Circulate the ball left-right left-right left-right and have extreme patience so you don’t get caught on the counter. That’s how Guardiola does it, he probably had the most success breaking Mourinho’s buses.
To be fair, Mourinho probably had the most success stopping Guardiola’s tiki-taka.
Get your own driver!
Perhaps a team of basket-ball players with David Beckham delivering crosses to them?
Maybe even a team of exceptional dribblers with 2 or 3 guys lethal at very long-range shots?
The thing also is you are basically fishing with dynamite with that approach; if you win, you are praised to the skies for your tactical acumen, whereas if you lose, we simply concentrate on the brilliance of your opponents.
Nobody ever critices you for employing such tactics because, invariably, you employ them against superior opposition
Parking the bus yourself.
Get one or two men into the area and commit fouls that the ref can’t see clearly because of the press of bodies. Punch the ball in if you must.
Black&decker
“Liverpool were surprisingly short of ideas against a deep defence.”
This seems to be a trend for practically any top team that plays proactive football against deeply defensive sides. There just really does not seem to be a “go-to” strategy for dealing with them; teams play with width and it leads to too many crosses, teams play narrow and attempt through-balls and it leads to no width. It leaves even Guardiola baffled.
I fully agree with you, JCH.
There’s just no remedy.
If you play a possession based game trying to smoke a highly-experienced deep defence out of their zone it’s quite often a futile exercise.
I am, however, unsure as to whether we do sides playing proactively enough justice. We seem to dismiss anything that doesn’t yield goals in these sort of games.
If the opposition continues to create opportunities/chances in the face of a parked bus, has their strategy really failed to the point it should be laughed at as “clue-less”?
This, by the way, has nothing to do with yesterday’s game.
I’m saying this from a purely tactical point of view quite mindful of the objective of the game; scoring goals.
The only problem, given the successes of teams playing this way, is that it will soon, God forbid, become the weapon of choice for virtually every club under the sun
“… given the successes of teams playing this way…”
for start, thats not true, Spain won the last WorldCup and the last 2 Euros without parking the bus, Barcelona and Bayer Munich won multiples titles in the last few years without parking the bus ever.
Barcelona and Spain played tiki-taka, which is basically another dimension of football unto itself. Bayern Munich though I agree with you. Brilliant attacking football.
Not sure that it’s limited to proactive sides, Chelsea have lost to Aston villa, Stoke and Sunderland this season, who denied chelsea space to break into on the counter. Atletico struggled to create a chance of note against Chelsea for similar reasons.
I agree though, the deep, narrow defending coupled with a height advantage is a nightmare for the attacking side. Pretty much reduced to long shots/retaining and switching possession and waiting for fatigue induced mistakes later in the game.
good article as usual. credit to Jose. playing that 2nd string team and almost guaranteeing a clean sheet is unreal. i had said last wk on here i felt it would be easier than it should be for Livpool and a pity that the game was spoiled by fixture congestion. i think the mind games aspect did harm Liverpool in the end. when you think things are getting too easy..you just switch off and think it’ll happen , instead of making it happen. all wk they’ll have thought this. this is then re-inforced by seeing that chelsea team sheet. admittedly it was “weak” in reality too, so not all in the mind of course, clearly not just kids. good pt about Suarez record v top 4. 0 goals. i think the assist figures are also low..only 1 , if memory serves.
Unreal? That second string team still cost more than Liverpool’s first choice XI. It baffles me how every time Mourinho’s team wins one of these matches where they pack 10 men into the 18 yard box that he pulled off some tactical masterclass, but no one says the same of Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce when they get a result against a top side working with a fraction of the resources Mourinho has at his disposal. And really, the only reason this was a “masterclass” is because Gerrard slipped to let Ba through on goal. Judging from everything up to the point, there was no other way Chelsea were going to score, so the match would have most likely ended 0-0 and Chelsea would have been out of the title race with Liverpool only needing two wins to seal the deal.
It also baffles me how he never gets criticized when his team losses like they did against Sunderland and Crystal Palace in the last month. Imagine if that had been Arsenal fighting for the title instead. There would be no shortage of articles about what a bottler Wenger was, but instead all the pundits continue to wank themselves silly over Mourinho.
Regardless of the cost of the individual players, this team were unfamiliar playing together and only had (as stated in the article) 3 first choice players starting. Undeniably a second XI and an easier prospect to play against than if Mourinho had chosen his team without any restrictions (injuries, looming semi-finals). Also, saying there was no way Chelsea would have scored without the Gerrard slip is naive, who’s to say Chelsea wouldn’t have pushed forward second half? The Ba goal just meant that this was unnecessary. Also Kalas fluffed a a free header off a corner that really should have resulted in a goal. If Liverpool want to be the best team in the Premier League they can’t complain when teams sit deep, but rather focus on breaking them down. They got a little lucky against West Ham a few weeks back, a team that set up to be difficult to break down, only scoring from the penalty spot in a 1-2 victory.
Apart from Kalas, just name one other Chelsea player who isn’t used to playing in this system and for that matter with any of the others.
Even for Kalas, how difficult can it be staying in your own box as a central defender?
The cost of a squad gives an idea of the quality of players. Admittedly, it’s not a perfect metric, but it’s a pretty good indicator in my experience. Even though this wasn’t the strongest XI Chelsea could have fielded, there were still quality players throughout like Ivanovic, Azpilicueta, Matic, and Schurrle. Lampard, Mikel, Cole, and Ba have also all made over 20 appearances each this season. It is hardly unreal that they were able to get a win at Anfield. In fact, I would favor Azpilicueta, Kalas, Ivanovic, and Cole over Johnson, Skrtel, Sakho, and Flanagan, and I would also take Matic, Mikel, and Lampard over Gerrard, Lucas, and Allen. The only area where Liverpool’s squad was clearly better than Chelsea’s was the three forwards. An “unreal” result was Sunderland winning at Stamford Bridge with their Premier League survival on the line. (Does that make Gus Poyet a tactical genius?)
In general, “parking the bus” and attempting to quickly counter seems a natural (and obvious) response to an opponent that seeks to thoroughly dominate possession. In that context, neither team is really taking any risk; one just happens to have the ball.
Teams like Barca and Bayern that seek to keep the ball the entire game shouldn’t begrudge this strategy from their opponent. That defensive response is essentially what their attempts to dominate possession demand. If you’re not willing to risk sharing the ball, then the other team may just not want to play either. And you’re not going to succeed in drawing them out by insulting them with cries of “anti-football”. For the managers, players and fans, the outcome is often far more important than the means by which it was achieved.
If you truly want to beat a bus-parking opponent, you’ve got to be able to play with movement, flexibility and creativity and an open mind as to tactical deviation from the norm. You have to attack as a team from a variety of angles and positions (and not just rely on some individual bit of brilliance from your star). And so, in some ways, bus-parking can actually be helpful, as it forces the attacking team to elevate its performance and take its own game to the next level. It forces the advancement of the sport forward.
As a result, I don’t really fault the team that chooses to defend, because that’s just how they’ve decided to tactically respond to their opponents’ success in attack – in this case, Liverpool is the top scoring team in the Premier League and the majority of its goals have come from getting in behind the opponent’s back line. It’s an obvious response from Chelsea or any other opponent of Liverpool to play deep. They are not obligated to play to their opponents’ strengths. And Chelsea, for one, has demonstrated time and again its ability to defend in numbers with resoluteness in these types of games.
What frustrates fans and neutral spectators, however, is when a team with Chelsea’s resources and talent voluntarily chooses to sit back and not take the game to their opponents. When the dominance of possession by one team (by Liverpool in this case) occurs not so much by design but instead as a result of the other team’s (Chelsea’s) unwillingness to attack or take any risk.
All that said, for a variety of factors Mourinho fielded a tremendously weakened side this weekend and never had any intent to open up the game to begin with. Rodgers must have known this going in. He could have played for a tie as well, but to his credit Liverpool went out and tried to score. They just weren’t effective at doing so, for many of the reasons stated in the article.
The sport obviously is much more exciting when both teams attack, but all this moralistic whining about a team defending is getting old. Each game is its own unique storyline with its own set of characters. I imagine that we’ll see quite a different style of play from a closer-to-full-strength Chelsea later this week.
At the end of the day, if fans of the sport really want to see open, exciting play, they need to encourage both teams to take risks and reward them for doing so (and recognize the costs of taking those risks). Liverpool has played that way this season for the most part, and has been very enjoyable to watch. But the risk is, when committing to the attack, you are vulnerable to mistakes in the back and the quick counter (with this game as a very stark illustration).
When people comment about packing the bus in relation to Mourinho and Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce brand of football they always forget a caveat that despite all said and done Mourinho has won a lot more than these gentlemen coaches combined. Why is “bus parking” as a method of play soul destroying? Why is it dull compared to an “attacking” tiki – taka whose aim is to keep the ball away from the opponents as a form of defensive strategy better?
We live in a world of instant gratification of seeing goals every minute. We want things done yesterday and the likes, if a football team favours bus parking to achieve its results then so be it. There is no need to condemn a team based on its approach the only thing is for opposing teams to find a way of achieving its target (attacking, counter attacking or defensive).
Many post across the internet seems to criticize defensive approach and an undertone of pundits suggesting if there is a way to compel teams as a must to attack (left to some, defending would have been outlawed as an approach in football matches!).
Let attacking teams find a way of breaking through whatever bus or train or coach opponents park in front of their goalpost instead of whining after such matches.
A guy who managed Porto, Chelsea, Inter, and Real Madrid has won more trophies than two guys who managed Crystal Palace, Stoke, Bolton, Blackburn, Newcastle, and West Ham. How could we forget such an important fact?! It’s almost like there is a correlation between winning trophies and having one of the strongest squads in the league and unlimited financial resources at ones disposal.
there’s also a corelation between being given the job of managing very strong squads, and being a fantastic manager. It’s not a coincidence that Pulis and Big Sam haven’t been interviewed for the Real Madrid or Inter jobs…
“being a fantastic manager” <<< any evidence? It could be argued that most managers of big teams got there mostly because they just so happened to be in the right place at the right time (statistical noise) at the weaker clubs that they managed.
The reason why Rodgers did not play for a draw?
Mourinho’s mind games.
1) Keep claiming Chelsea is out of the title race
2) Publicly announcing he was going to field a second string side when he could have kept it a secret.
3) Mou’s parking two bus infront of goal, thereby suggesting he did not wish to win.
What Mou is trying to do is to lure Rodgers to attack him. He has being this all season. Keep playing the weaker team. Trying to convince all his opponents to attack him. That is the biggest weakness Mou have. His tactics are reliant on opponents attacking him. If they do not. A draw is always on the cards. Imagine if all the big teams started defending against him instead. His brilliant record over top teams will disappear.
Mou’s biggest strength is his ability to manipulate people.
Interesting point. However, here is something to consider: don’t you think other top managers have considered defending against him? The truth is that very few, if any, top teams are capable of doing this. For instance, PSG defended deep against Chelsea and conceded.
It’s amazing how eager members of the English media are to help rationalize and justify negative football, as if they are oblivious to the very obvious, legitimate reasons the football world has always looked down on these tactics. The very nature of the sport requires that both teams play for the game to be interesting and entertaining. If all that matters is who wins, then the sport really is as arbitrary and uninteresting as flipping a coin to see who gets a shiny little prize. Perhaps this fearful, unimaginative approach to playing is why English football seems so stagnant and antiquated.
Anyway, a team worth half a billion dollars that sits in its box and tries to steal a game should be considered a disgrace in this day and age. Liverpool are just a competent attacking team, not Pele’s Brazil, Messi’s Barca or Cruyff’s Ajax. It’s fine to say that Mourinho’s approach (and, really, his philosophy of playing) is effective, but maybe a few more Anglo commentators could have the nerve to emphasize that it is more relevant that the approach is extremely dour and not worth watching. Because games like this tell you nothing about who is better, only who is more scared of losing. And that is basically the anti-thesis of what is supposed to make this game so appealing.
is for winning first, not entertaining
I wont feel excited if my team playing attacking football and losing every game
If it’s purely for winning, then why bother watching the game?
You could just watch the highlights after hearing your team has won…or if you are brave enough occasionally listen to the commentary on the radio.
That would fit in quite nicely with your win first, entertain later approach to sport.
Even for defensive teams that win regularly, I’m wondering what it would be like to spend the entire match scared you are going to lose and still be rewarded with a win at the end.
Once in a while, the heart could handle that but, regularly??
With respect to the above comment, maybe it’s worth pointing out that I’m not into bungee-jumping, horror movies and swimming with sharks?
I think that game is a very appealing and entertaining game, nerve wrecking, nail biting, dramas, heroes, villain,it has everything really! Only liverpool fans probably didnt enjoy that game but i really enjoyed it and im not fans of boh team.
Ughh god its so hard to sum up the energy to even bother to reply to comments like this anymore.
What does how much money Chelsea spent have to do with it? Do defenders cost nothing these days? Assembling a competent defence costs money too.
“Because games like this tell you nothing about who is better, only who is more scared of losing.”
Chelsea were set up better, played better, scored more goals, didn’t concede any.
Why are you watching these games if they’re not worth watching? These views are so entitled and tiring, just like the people who insist that there is a singular way of playing football that everyone should aspire to.
What % of teams even try to play responsibly like this right now? There are so many other teams to watch, and here are masses of people complaining about one of the only teams in the elite of European football that play in this manner.
All of the responses to your points are in the my original post.
It’s pretty simple, in any event. It’s not interesting that someone has to win. In that way, the game is like anything else. The only thing that makes it interesting is how you win. Anyone who has ever played the game knows how hard it is to create and how easy it is to destroy (defending in soccer, especially with ten top professionals in their own goal box, is not one tenth as impressive or difficult as attacking). The game has the capacity to be as boring and ugly as it does to be beautiful and exciting (I think this is very, very obvious). It has nothing to do with right or wrong, just the level of your ambition. Mourinho has the lowest possible ambition for a team at that level (and basically no faith in his players to play and create), which is why it is so disappointing (btw if you are Chelsea fan, you are entitled to be satisfied with winning at any cost, but this isn’t a comment about Chelsea the club, so please leave that aside).
It absolutely is interesting that someone has to win. That is the most interesting thing about it. If that does not interest you, might I suggest ballet?
I always love watching Chelsea so called ‘parking the bus’ to me is playing well organized and well planned defense
to see a side who score goals for fun and could not find anyway pass through the defense is so exciting
the even more exciting part is to see how they rage and call for ‘damage of football’
Hey, if you like watching paint dry, more power to ya! The rest of us would like to watch football as it was meant to be.
Jose Mourinho pulled off a tactical masterclass here as evidenced by his bold rotation of the squad, completely understandable in this, the most vital of games for Liverpool, played under a shadow of fixture congestion.
As has been pointed out, Liverpool could/ and I would argue should have also parked 2 buses behind their defence.
The reason why they didn’t is due to the fact that this is a team playing for a football purist manager, with progressive theory. And, the fact is that Suarez, & Gerrard failed to produce, and even Sterling was unable to recreate recent heroics.
The big winner of the day was Manchester City.
They would be worthy winners. Liverpool could be close but no cigar. Chelsea, could match Man City smiles with a 2nd European Cup in 3 years, and a remarkable 3 in 3 years, including last year’s UEFA Cup
With Arsenal, and Man U also hopeful of major success, next season promises to be even better!
Now there is a double standard. If the Prem decided that Ollie rotating their squad at a Villa game (and only lose 2-3) deserves some penalty, should they now start an investigation against Chelsea fielding (or claiming to field) a second string team?
They should not fine Chelsea.
Clubs (in the interests of ensuring the best possible competition, and therefore the best possible entertainment) should be allowed to act in their own best interests.
To clarify, I think that the selection of the players should be the manager’s decision, in the best interests of the club.
This will give the best possible competition, and entertainment in football, as a whole.
No tactical masterclass from Mourinho or failure on Rogers behalf. Everyone knew how this game was going to be set up a week ago!
At the end of the day, players have a far greater impact on the game than the coaches. Liverpool didn’t hit stride regardless of Chelsea’s shape. (Although I agree, the shape affected where Liverpool could exploit) But non-the-less there were still opportunities to penetrate within that structure.
Chelsea benefited from a mistake with clinical effect and emotions took over.
Two good coaches, predictably setting up for a big game, which Chelsea handled with the most professional quality.
The really good news, is that neither team will win the league.
I think that it is clear that Mourinho outshone Rodgers on this occasion, as this was a more important match for Liverpool, than for Chelsea. In my opinion, Mourinho’s nous shone through.
I wasn’t surprised to see the way the game evolved. I would have been more impressed with Rodgers if he had been more defensive, and shut up shop from early on. ‘If Chelsea want to park 2 buses behind the defence, we’ll park 3 behind ours, because, even though we are at home, a draw will be good enough to win the league’.
Of course, the most impressive outcome would have been for Liverpool to thrash Chelsea with a dazzling display of football. However, rather than gamble on an impressive victory, at risk of a loss, why not try to outfox the situation by making sure that the last thing that you do is concede a goal.
As far as blame goes, Gerrard is the obvious culprit for his mistake, but even a goal, or assist, from Suarez, surely well within his audacious capabilities, would have been enough.
To summarise, Mourinho & Chelsea outperformed expectations. They played exquisitely.
Rodgers was not defensive minded enough, due to his purist football philosophy, Gerrard’s mistake was calamitous, and when Liverpool desperately needed a goal, they didn’t have the spark of genius that was required.
Everton may give Liverpool the relief, & ecstasy that they desire, on this coming Saturday.
It’s not over yet !
I’ve really enjoyed reading both the article & the comments. Hidden amongst it all is the gem that parking the bus is simply a defensive strategy that denies space whereas “tiki-taka” is a defensive strategy that denies the ball. I like that. Let’s coin a new phrase for the pejorative term “parking the bus”. Let’s call it “stiki-staka”.
Favourite comment of the lot. I am sick and tired of all those holding tiki-taka high above all other tactics as being “pure football” etc when it is a defensive tactic and usually boring to watch, with long spells of sideways passing. “Parking the bus” is often a sensible tactic and usually results in some interesting play, one team trying to break down a defence and the other looking to break at pace.
That Tiki-taka becomes a defensive strategy is purely incidental.
The idea was to probe and test the patience of defences with the intention of exploiting openings once defences have been lured out of position.
Of course if the defence proves very mature and barricades itself in its own box it’s inevitable tiki-taka would then become largely about possession and thus a means to deny the opposition the ball.
But what else can they do, hold the ball a little and if the opponent doesn’t come looking for the ball, give it back to them or take it out for a throw-in?
this is non-sense….so what else can the defense side do? rushing out and expose their defense space and let the attacking team score?
If you really want the possession,then we just give it to you until you commit mistakes and play counter attack…
You’ve forgotten a 3rd option – a few probing passes to keep the defence honest.
Two years ago Barcelona lost against Chelsea, but they have managed to carve out several good chances against them. Basically, against Chelsea, a team must play fast, decisive one-twos at the edge of the box and let the ball be faster than defenders, so that they lose positional advantage. Alternatively, an attacker has to try to dribble, ideally from wide positions while full-backs go on a decoy run. I did not see Liverpool do any of these things; instead, they crossed like crazy during static attacks. Rodgers seems empty of ideas when against bunker.
So why didn’t the Liverpool full back push up after trailing 1-0.
Seems very odd to me. That left flank needs to be attacked
Chelsea need to play better football than this. Man City have splurged lots of money on players as well as Chelsea, yes, but the least you can say for City is they play good football, and they sign good players.
Chelsea played virtually a back 9 against Atletico… a centre back in midfield, 4 non-offense minded defenders, and workhorses Ramires and Willian. Torres isn’t the player he was, and was in a workhorse role too. The only footballer Chelsea put on the pitch that night was Frank Lampard, who is 35.
Now in the Liverpool game, Chelsea literally had every man behind the ball, like a Stoke or even a lesser-means, lower division team in a cup-tie. They also timewasted a lot (Not enough of a big deal is made of this; it’s highly unsporting, and since all their players were doing it, it’s quite obvious it’s a decree from above, i.e. Mourinho.)
However, we’re not talking lesser means, or even Stoke-type means. This is a team funded by one of Europe’s wealthiest individuals, with carte blanche to sign top players every summer. It’s insane they play so defensively, not even just defensively, but negatively. Moyes’ Everton teams and Ferguson’s Man United teams, and many others, occasionally did a job on a good footballing side, and played a 4 5 1 -type system. However they never did it in this way, with negativity, game after game, often with no real forward intent all game. Fergie never “parked the bus”. All Mourinho has EVER done, is park the bus!! Even with a Madrid side that contained Cristiano Ronaldo, Kaka, Alonso, Ozil, Di Maria…. I personally am no longer enamoured with Mourinho. I used to be charmed by the wit and the affability, but that all seems gone now.
Perhaps the Madrid experience has messed with his head. With Jose, the football was always poor . But at least he had a charm that negated that. Now, the charm is gone and all we have is the poor football. The sooner Mourinho leaves, and Hazard, Oscar etc become the established core of Chelsea’s team, the better.
In fairness I don’t think the prime objective of Chelsea’s so-called timewasting tactics was to run down the clock. Much more likely it was to destroy Liverpool’s rhythm continuity. In other words to make Liverpool as uncomfortable in the game as possible.
If Fergie parked the bus against Barca, he would already have 4 CL titles but not only two
he failed to win twice against a side playing same type of football in both occasion, that is not a good record anyway…
also forgot to mention, Chelsea did play more aggressive play in the league but they concede 3goals and in a match and another 3 again next match and lose the game, that is the point he reshape the type of play and start a 9 game clean sheet in the 2014
Slightly off topic but that Barcelona team’s greatest strength wasn’t the tiki-taka when in possession – it was their ability to get the ball back before the opposition had crossed the 1/2 way line. In the CL final of 2011 MU simply couldn’t do anything. It was the most comprehensive stuffing of any supposedly equal team I’ve ever witnessed. I don’t know enough to know why, but what I observed was that Barcelona’s pressing angles were brilliant. They also knew who to commit to the press and who not to. The biggest surprise in this game was that MU scored.
I’m convinced Mourinho knows how gutless EPL refs are, and maybe even relied a little upon this for the game. How many times did Atkinson look at his watch? Was he doing an impression of Sir Alex Ferguson? How many times did he show a Chelsea player the yellow card for time wasting? If they had the spine to enforce the Laws of the Game, Schwarzer would have had an early shower after 15 or so minutes.
This is the second time Liverpool have been on the end of atrocious ‘non-reffing’ versus Chelsea this season, and Mourinho would have known this. He’s a clever guy for sure. I’m sure they’re not the only side who has suffered from the PGMOL’s referees’ inability to make obvious calls. No conspiracy inferred here – the iffy ones are easy to forgive, as the ref has to make a call, but the Eto’o kick to Henderson in the first leg was a classic non-call by Webb (who has shown time and time again he cannot make the tough calls) which would have seen Chelsea down to 10 within 5 minutes (and undoubtedly a loss).
There is a major issue with the EPL’s refereeing body.
It is their job, whether they like it or not, to ensure games like this are not allowed to be played in this way.
I have no problem with Chelsea’s unimaginative bus-parking – Mourinho is renowned for his anti-football approach – but the obvious time-wasting is not to be allowed BY ANY TEAM and it is a requirement that referees stop this.
But for some reason they won’t.
Hi,
Great post thanks for info!
Play Football Games