Out of Possession Focus: Chelsea vs Man City

What went wrong for Chelsea? 

Thread! 

Chelsea set-up in a zonal 4-2-4 which turned into a man2man press. 

The aim was to disengage in the first line(allow GK have the ball) while Jackson/Palmer pushed City to one side of the pitch which was the cue to go man2man( or press on the flanks ). 

This sometimes worked, but for many other reasons it often failed. Lets see why.

In the high press I often found Jackson/Palmer not tracking the midfielders on time. In the image below Chelsea execute their plan( pin City to wide areas and press aggressively), but Palmer is late to arrive on Kova which allows him receive, turn and pass. 

Now we are left open. 

These situations were a consistent theme throughout the game(now remember, this was just the high press) which was a killer.

James was often pinned by Marmoush and Colwill/Chalobah were pinned by Haaland(image above). 

This is why the plan was to force City on one side, maintain the numerical advantage on Haaland and press aggressively on the flanks. Maresca did not want to leave Haaland alone for obvious reasons.

City dropped lots of players in build up and given we wanted to leave 2 guys on Haaland, they always had a free man. 

Bernado will drop to receive and entice pressure. Gungodan will drop as well with their FBs high and wide. 

This numerical advantage + Citys quality allowed them to progress play while Chelsea slowly dropped deeper.

In the middle of the pitch is where Citys rotations killed us. 

Gungodan would often drift wide forming the "double-width" concept which often pulled Caicedo wide. This created space in the middle for City as Marmoush often dropped and took advantage. Caicedo became uncomfortable going wide and with our wingers pinned, it resulted in what you see in the next page

Caicedo stays in his position when Gundogan drops. Palmer does not recover quickly enough and Gundo gets all the time to pick a pass(for a player of his quality, this is cash money). 

This was offside, but it was a foreshadowing of what to come. 

Sancho was often not sure whether to follow Bernado or keep an eye on the wide FB. This often left spaces for City to recycle in a U shape. Even when we pressed them on a flank, they could simply go back to the CB and quickly recycle to Bernado/Gundo who dropped wide because our wingers were pinned by their FBs.

Everything led to us being passive in our approach. Wingers pinned back. CMs not willing to drop out centrally and press their men. Palmer/Jackson not covering and applying the needed pressure as the 1st focal points. 

This led to a passive mid-block with lots of spaces behind the defensive line.

Everything culminates in the 1st goal we concede. 

It was clear what the plan was, but it failed for many reasons as and it wasn't because we prioritized a passive approach from the beginning. 

My biggest concern however is the physical conditioning. I get it for Enzo/Colwill given they returned from injury, but its concerning for other players. Chelsea were certainly fitter in our first 10 games or so.

In the 2nd half, Maresca decided to go full on man2man but we were always late to our men giving enough time and space for City to play through us. 

It also exposed our backline against Haaland 1v1 which was always going to end with 1 winner.

Chelsea never really took advantage of City's nervy start off the ball. There's a whole lot that can be said on what we did on the ball as well, but to cut it short: it was terrible. 

Maresca has never had his team play the way we did during this game, so if it happened against City its for good reason and not because he decided to play a highline without applying pressure on the ball.

How much of this was on the players and manager? I don't know, but everyone takes their fair share of blame.

Tactical Analysis: Chelsea vs Brentford 

Chelsea ended their winless run against Brentford with a dominant performance. Maresca's brave tactical plan against one of the best transitional sides explained. Why the poor last 20 minutes? 

A lot more to discuss....

A Mega Thread! 

- In Possession -

The plan was a diamond midfield(3-1-6) with Palmer as the central 10, Enzo RCM, Cucu LCM and Caicedo isolated in the middle of the pitch. The biggest reason for this tactic is to overload BREs line of 5 with our 6. 

Subsequently if BRE looked to prevent this, one of the midfielders needs to join the backline which pushes their forward line deeper and allows CHE pin them deep( will talk about this more in depth later). 

However, this is still a very brave set-up against Mbuemo/Wissa. These 2 are some of the deadliest transitional attackers you can find in the league and we saw why later on.

Chelsea looked to use the LCB and RCB for deep half space crossers. With the line of 6 ready to attack the box, the DFs will send in crosses with the aim of Chelsea overloading BRE's 5 at the back(overall BRE dealt with it well). LCMs/RCMs = Cutbacks



Funnily enough, the 1 goal we scored from a cross we don't actually place emphasis on structure > cross. This cross was spontaneous as Noni simply took it on himself once he identifies the space. 

Cucu is a short player meaning its almost useless for him to be in a standing position for a header in the box. He does well to let Jackson take the attention, wait and then attack the space once the cross comes in. This allows him generate the force needed on the header. Very smart play from him. 

Great goal.

It does not matter if a teams whole plan is to sit in a low block.There will be transitions. When they have the ball, during set-pieces and throw-ins are all chances to create transitions against deep block teams and we did it well. Leads to Jacksons goal



- Build Up -
BRE did not press CHE often from GKs, but the few times they did Chelsea managed to play through or were forced long with Sanchez looking to find Jackson 1v1. The rotations in the clip below was nice: Jackson wide &gt; Noni central



- Resets / Counter - Pressing -
It was impressive to see CHE constantly pass the ball around BREs block, slowly probing and remaining patient. Naturally this allowed players get into their zones which pinned BRE back and allowed the players counter press



The patience to get into the right positions, then attack, then press immediately once the ball is lost is why Chelsea played some of their best Football for about 70 minutes this season. Chelsea showed what it truly meant to DOMINATE an opponent. This was not just a matter of playing HOW you want to play, but fully controlling HOW the other team plays. 

As you can see by the graph below, BRE had nothing until the 70+ mark in which CHE got fatigued.
@markstatsbot

Due to how well we pinned BRE, you often see only 2/3 players against our 4/5/6 when they managed to fashion some form of transition. This is an advantage that comes with sustaining pressure, as most of the opposition players find themselves too deep to support transitions. 

- What to improve ? -
I think Marescas management could have been better around the 70th minute. I don't blame him for not subbing in more players because the bench was weak, but CHE were still going man2man until the 2nd half ended.

Chelsea also persisted with the 3-1-6 throughout the 2nd half. BRE starting becoming more aggressive in their press which forced more mistakes in this set up. By switching to a pivot or 3 man midfield, we could have controlled the game better with the ball(theoretically benefits us more as well since they run much more during the game).

This happened rarely, but we had moments in which we passed to Caicedo in very dangerous positions. BRE's whole plan is to set central traps, win the ball and counter. In this instance(image), Gusto gives Caicedo the ball and he loses it. We win it back, but could be a different story in another play. 

Players need to recognize these traps in real time.

{ Out of Possession }
The plan was to go man2man. Jackson arching his run to block off one CB, Sancho/Noni often positioned halfway to be able to press the FB and support defensively + Palmer/Enzo covering the pivots. Chelsea were excellent. 



https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1868521139971952943/video/1

Chelsea consistently forced BRE into making mistakes or won it back in their half. CHE also forced BRE long several times, but Tosin/Colwill consistently managed to win their aerial duels. Our pressing and defenders helped us consistently win the ball back: a major reason we could control them. We gave them nothing when they had the ball.

To show you the danger that comes with the DFs not winning their duels, this is the 1st successful long ball won by a BRE player and it directly leads to their biggest chance.



Given Cucus role of marking Mbuemo, Sancho was particularly excellent defensively. He consistently tracked any runner looking to take advantage of the space vacated by Cucu. 

This level of work-rate is what plugs "holes" in systems. Top work from him. 

- What to improve? - 

I noticed we've been bad on 2nd phases of set-pieces alot, and I think I figured out why. In the 1st image, Jackson/Palmer are at the far side, but once they "think" the ball is cleared they rush forward(in case of transitions) which leaves a massive hole. Sanchez is forced into a spectacular save or its 1:1. 

Palmer/Jackson are forwards so its normal if they are forward thinking, but this needs to be coached out of our forwards. Need to consistently defend as one in these scenarios until there is no danger.

- The goal -
The goal we conceded should never be happening/atleast not how it did. Colwill sees Mbuemo running into space and seems to be caught between 2 minds: run-forward/intercept. In such a situation you never look to intercept with so much space behind you. He should have run forward to be able to see Mbuemo. He could then delay while Tosin caught up, or intercept the pass. 

Tosin is also really poor with that challenge.

Overall, very poor defensive mistakes from those 2.

- Excellent Sanchez -
Its not an exaggeration to say Sanchez won us the points in this game. The saves, the high claims, sweeping actions, knowing when to go long/short all helped us massively in this game. 

We would all be hoping he can be consistent!


Overall, it was a well deserved win with many good performances all-around. As I alluded to in this post, BRE is always a tough game because they are good, but we matched them physically and dominated tactically/technically. We move unto the next game. 

https://x.com/NewsJeffJ1/status/1867632955436204119

Tags: @Asadcfc66 @MobyChe @CFCdruw @fahdahmed987 @ElliotGCFC @Blue_Footy @CFC_Batch @tovers98 @CFC_OBED @cfc_gvido

Tactical Analysis: Tottenham vs Chelsea

How did Chelsea look to exploit, and dominate Tottenham? Maracas subtle, but important tweaks halftime?  What does Chelsea need to improve to contend for the title? Etc...

A Thread 

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1865969308008108217/video/1

It was a game filled with ups/downs and there is no better place to start than the build-up.

{Build-Up}
From goal kicks Chelsea played with the usual 4-2-4, however, the GK would often act as the situational back RCB which pushed Badia as the RB with Caicedo inverting into midfield to partner Lavia. Simply put, Chelsea struggled. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with the structure itself(as we have seen in previous Chelsea games), but having Badia as the RB who is naturally a LCB/LB in possession did not work due to the support around him and the angles. Solanke is an excellent presser, so he always managed to block off Colwill and force Sanchez to Badia/long(when Sanchez tried forcing it, we made mistakes). There are 2 adjustments I think we should have made to accommodate Badia.

1. Given Badia was in an unfavorable position, the pivots should have come closer for more combinations rather than relying on Badia to individually get the ball out himself. In the picture above for example, Caicedo and Lavia should drop closer. More short carries/touches and passes would have helped a lot. Badia is more than capable of holding off one player, releasing and flowing.

2. The 2nd solution is dropping Enzo deeper to make it a 3 man midfield. Their DFs were unwilling to drop too deep, so it would have disrupted their press. If a Spurs player did follow, then we hoof it long which should be advantageous for us anyway. Why do I propose 2? Video below.

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1865967821361938597/video/1

This happens from a reset, but in the video below Enzo drops deeper and no one follows him. Due to Caicedo's positioning, he has Son pinned which gives enough time for Badia to actually angle his body position and pass the ball. This +1 Enzo creates is what helps us have a smooth build up which actually leads to Sanchos goal. This is something we didn't do enough at all and it will have worked very well because Enzo would have been free when he dropped. Let's take a look at our ever changing in-possession dynamics in this game.

{In Possession}
In the 1st half during deep possession, it was a 3-3-4. This was when Chelsea managed to consistently progress play from the back. Why? It all starts with Bissouma being tasked with man-marking Palmer. Spurs press in a 4-1-4-1 manner, so Bissouma was 2v1 in the halfspaces due to Enzo's presence unless a DF stepped up(which they didn't do often due to Jackson's presence.). 

This meant they left Enzo Fernandez as a free man. Enzo consistently knew what spaces to occupy and allowed CHE to play through Tottenham and when we did it was often a 5v5 situation(we should have done better with some of our moments).

To accommodate Badia, CHE occasionally transitioned into a 2-3-5 build-up which allowed Badia to be more central. This makes his angles easier, but not something we saw consistently enough in the 1st half, and we did look vulnerable when we lost the ball with this set-up. 

In the 2nd half, Maresca subbed Lavia off and brought on Gusto. The subsequent changes in dynamics were Badia coming into the LCB spot, Colwill as the CCB IP, and RCB in a back 4 while Gusto was the RB. This meant Cucu pushed up as the LCM and Enzo came into the double pivot. A rigid 3-2-5(Palmer sometimes dropped for the 3-3-4).

The downside of this setup was that Chelsea could not use Cucu as the 3rd receiver with his back2goal as he does not possess the necessary abilities + Chelsea “lost” Enzo's box threat theoretically. This meant it was easier for Bissouma to focus on Palmer, but Palmer took things up a notch. He was consistently either threatening Bissouma with runs in behind the last line or dropping into wide areas to collect the ball. This left huge spaces in the middle. Enzo took advantage from deep with his passing which allowed us to progress play forward.

Our press coupled with the changes made helped us build up in the middle even smoother and sustain pressure higher up the pitch. 

For about 35 minutes we had Tottenham camped in their own half, unable to get out. The best we've looked against a top 6 side in a half.

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1865968666111873424/video/1

{ A Dynamic Pivot }

Maresca adds dynamism to our attacks by giving license to 1 of the pivot players to attack the box once we have the opposition pinned. This is very calculated though, as they only join the box to score/create when the space really opens up. This is also ideal since they see the play unfold before they get into it, making it so they actually attack the spaces that matter while overloading the box at the same time depending on circumstances.

Watch. It gave us 2 of our goals. Caicedo attacks the space to put in the cutback but ends up winning the pen(Sancho btw). Enzo positions himself in an area that allows us to counter-press and also be a goal threat. The ball ball rebounds in the box and he’s there to attack it(Palmer).

This usage of the pivot gives us lots of dynamism.

It can be dangerous when the ball is lost though, given 1 of the pivot players could be incapable of returning straight away, etc. This is where the nearby players closest to the middle need to recover and everyone does it well. Despite this risk, I think it's fine we keep using our pivots this way because our midfielders don't just jump into the box. They really pick their moments, so it's going to be rare to see a rest defence with only one 6.

{Out of Possession}
The plan was to go man2man. Palmer/Jackson tasked with forcing the GK to one side of the pitch and pressing intensely. This is something we struggled with in the 1st half due to mistimed jumps and poor dueling. Caicedo was probably the biggest culprit as he consistently mistimed his jumps which allowed Spurs to kill us with their wide rotations/progression(Badia as the RCB did not help, but I can't fault him). We got much better at dealing with it in the 2nd half due to Gusto.

Tottenham did not get any chance except the Neto mistake that gifted Son his chance until they came into the game after we scored the 4th goal(meaning we allowed them have that control + our subs didn't help).

https://x.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1865969694043238662/video/1


https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1865969912679927938/video/1

I talked a lot about intangibles once we lost the LIV game and it was on display once again. In life/football, you need to control the small things which in turn becomes something big. CHE is a team that can't control the little things at an elite level which allows variance in our game. 

Let's ignore the slips or even build up mistakes. A side that wins trophies does not make the mistake we just did here. Just like how Son spotted the opportunity, our players should have done the same, yet not EVEN 1 seems to realize what's going on. These things come with experience(if we had Silva, he instantly recognizes what Son is up to and communicates to others).

Colwill should have done much better on the 1st goal we conceded and he knows given his reaction after. Solanke literally looks at the far post and acts like he's attacking that side even before Johnson is ready to cross and Colwill sees that. Top defenders dominate their opponents mentally and physically. Colwill loses out here too easily (Solankes strategy is basic and overpowers him too easily). 

Sanchez should do better as well.

We've certainly conceded too many goals and allow teams too many shots, but its not a systemic issue. Our problems stem from mistakes, so its always correctable through improvement/recruitment. 

If we want to challenge, we need to cut out the silly mistakes we make. We quite literally gave Spurs all 3 of their goals. 2 slips, and a corner in which everyone looked mentally checked out thinking they already won the game. We cant do that.

Speaking of intangibles, these are 2 players coming off when the team was winning 4-2. Jackson visibly crying and Neto frustrated by his poor performance. This is the lvl of desire we want from our players. Players who understand what it means to step on the pitch for Chelsea. 

It warms my heart to see Jacksons reaction, because he lacks any real competitor in this team currently and has been on fine form. This is the kind of hunger that takes you places. 

You will get there Jackson. You are more than talented to do so.

Overall good win with much to improve. Maresca was excellent with his subs and placed each player in the right position to impact the game. 

Lets get the next W. 

@Asadcfc66 @MobyChe @CFCdruw @fahdahmed987
@ElliotGCFC @Blue_Footy @CFC_Batch @tovers98
@CFC_OBED @cfc_gvido

Tactical Analysis: Chelsea vs Fulham

Chelsea suffered their first league defeat this season against a team outside the top six. What contributed to their struggles, and could these issues persist?

A Thread! 

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1872692878767734881/video/1

One of our main problems stemmed from the press, so it’s only fitting to start there.

In the clip, we see Sancho marking Diop, Jackson pressing the goalkeeper with the CCB in his cover shadow, while Enzo positions himself between the left center-back and Lukic. Enzo attempts to press with Lukic in his cover shadow as well. Meanwhile, Palmer is caught in two minds: whether to chase Lukic or cover the CCB, whom Jackson fails to recover in time to mark. Iwobi drops deep, and Gusto isn’t as tight on him as he should be. Pay close attention to Neto’s positioning - he’s essentially playing as a right-back.

I wanted to highlight this video first to emphasize how off the pace we were right from the start as well. Going man-to-man was never going to end well.

From the video you can see the idea. 

Our front three pressed their back three, with Enzo playing as the left winger because Neto was tasked with marking Robi. Palmer tracked Lukic, Caicedo stayed on Andreas, Gusto marked Iwobi, Neto dealt with Robi, the two CBs handled Jimenez, and Cucurella was assigned to Traore.

Since we opted to defend with two CBs, their right-back became the free man. When they built up play on the right side, it often took Cucurella too long to apply pressure effectively.

We consistently struggled to cope with Fulham's rotations, which I largely attribute to player fatigue, and their rotations was difficult to track. Jackson and Palmer were often half a yard short of applying optimal pressure. Similarly, Gusto, Caicedo, and Neto failed to close down their markers effectively during the buildup, allowing Fulham's players to receive the ball, turn, and distribute with ease.

Maresca realized Neto was playing too deep trying to mark Robi which messed up our attacking sequences , so he switched Neto on Iwobi and left Gusto on Robi. This did not change much as Neto was still defending higher up the pitch, so he decided to switch Neto and Enzo(3rd image). 

However the changes didnt work. Gusto was struggling with Robi, so Neto was instructed to play RB again. 

On that last image, notice the timing in which we close down FULs players and the spacing in between them. We allowed FUL too much time/space for a team that wanted to press high. This was a major reason they consistently managed to play through us. It got to a point I saw Neto just stay deep when Robi dropped, allowing Robi to easily help aid FUL to play through us. 

The players were tired.

Because of our pressing approach, we frequently found Palmer dropping into the pivot, with Enzo occasionally shifting to the right wing. Our intent to keep two CBs on their striker meant they always had a free man. As shown in the image, their right-back often found himself unmarked, a situation they exploited repeatedly to their advantage.

While it happened rarely we still managed to win the ball back in dangerous situations. We didn't make much of those situations, as we normally do which is something I will talk about later. 

Overall our press was very poor.



{ Build- UP}
Something I found strange was how we almost didn't even try to build up from the back and went long most of the time. This was even more confusing to me as we had the spareman with FUL placing 2 CBs on Jackson. This was a recipe for disaster 



Jackson is almost useless when the team goes long. You could even see it in the video how often he would drop to try to aid our build up and we STILL went long with only 1 forward against 3 CBs. It made no sense why we kept going long, something which was clearly instructed by the coach. 

Its sensible to go long when you are pressed man2man, but we had the numerical superiority in our half most often.

In this clip, despite not cutting through Fulham with our build up, we still managed to keep control of the ball. We should have done more of this which would have helped us control the game. 

The poor press + poor build up is why we had 0 control. 



When we set-up in possession it was the 3-1-6. I liked the fluidity of the set-up as Enzo sometimes rotated with Gusto to play outside the box. Colwill rotated with Cucu to attack the box etc. The timing of our rotations was also very good, often pulling players and creating space for Palmer to receive centrally. 

My only critic is that we should have switched to a 3-3-4. The 3-1-6 can be very direct and seeing as the team was struggling to control the ball, we should have changed to a system that forces control and emphasis a tight rest-defense.

This is an example of how dangerous the 3-1-6 can be and we made this mistake in the 60th minute. It leaves few bodies in the midfield and allows a team like FUL play to their strengths. We were leading, change our system and FUL does the same. 



We struggled with our press and build up. We also struggled with controlling the game even when we had the ball. 

Positional play emphasizes structure first and we didn't do that. Often making silly passes, silly carries, etc. Very poor from us.



If people didn't realize FUL essentially played like Everton did against us and many other teams will do the same.
- Tuck in the wingers
- Aggressive FBs on our wingers
- Force DFs to make risky passes/go long

We can deal with this by adding someone like a Felix/Nkunku as the 10. Even with them I think we are too static against these teams. Need to switch between shapes much more.

Overall we deserved to lose that game. These games will happen, because the team is young and learning. What matters if we keep improving and take every game as it comes.

Ipswich next!

Tactical Analysis: Everton VS Chelsea

Everton's tactical set-up sought to ask important questions to Chelsea. What was Chelsea's plan, and what could have been done better? Possible central combinations despite their block?

Etc....

A Thread! 

Lets start with our in possession set-up.
It was the usual 3-2-5 with a Enzo/Caicedo pivot, Gusto pushed into the LCM role with Disasi as the RCB, Tosin CCB and Colwill LCB. 

However, Enzo would often drop alittle outside the pivot with Caicedo consistently pinning 1 MF(we saw similar when Enzo moved higher in the 2nd half with Caicedo dropping and Gusto pinning-3rd image-). This saw Enzo average 113 touches(his highest this season) and he made good use of it given the context of the game.

Take a look at EVEs shape. They inverted both wingers and applied almost no pressure to our first line. Their sole focus was on blocking all central areas, which left Chelsea with v.few options. Those options being 
- Go long
- Pass to wide CB which leads to a pass to the winger 

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1871052562159603898/video/1

EVE press in a way that allows them to easily counter with enough men if there is a turnover in the middle of the pitch, so the spaces were open in the middle in their initial press(can be seen in images above).  This meant their passive zonal marking could easily shift to an aggressive zonal/man2man pressing scheme. Chelsea knew this, which is why CHE wanted to bait the EVE press to play through/over them. 
- Caicedo playing with his back to Doucoure is meant to pin him and also serve as an offensive trap(if Caicedo receives the ball)
- Enzo receiving almost outside the pivot without being an out and out LCB is meant to draw in his marker. 

EVE did well not to fall for any of our taunts though. 

The video shows what we wanted, though abit scrappy

Longs balls was a theme throughout the game and EVE managed to force us long so often you would think it was part of our game plan. However, given their press we did manage to find our wingers in 1v1 situations/play it in the channel a decent # of times.



A clear tactic was to force EVE on one-side, switch it to the opposite flank to the winger for 1v1 opportunities and cross to the crowded backpost. EVE defended well against this, but we did look dangerous whenever it worked. 



- Could we have done more? -
                          { Central Progressions }
We had very few central progressions which is understandable given how narrow EVE defended, but we did not force the issue enough. We had some good moments, but overall we lacked in consistency in ideas(we are a new team). 

EVEs press was fairly man oriented, so they are there to be manipulated. Its all about where/how you position yourself.

- Up-Back-Through-

The first thing you notice is how wide the DFs are(something we didn't do enough). By stretching the DFs with the 8s positioned higher, we leave a massive hole in the middle. Gusto drops(Young is late), a touch to Enzo and a chance. 



In the image below, Sancho rotates with Gusto. Sancho drops to receive a pass from Enzo, makes the run but isnt seen by Enzo(surprising). Look at the amount of space Sancho finds himself in if he receives that pass which Enzo can easily make. You would trust Sancho to pick out a runner as well. 

We need to get better at reading these cues. These are the best gaps you will find when a team defends the way EVE did.

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1871053413565497357/video/1

What Enzo does here is what you want against teams like EVE. A player that can receive in the half space, take on 1/2 players to discombobulate the opposition and release to the free man. We need to find ways to integrate Felix/Nkunku in these games. Another option is to play Sancho centrally.

Like I mentioned above, Caicedo here serves as a offensive trap for EVE. #16 was always aggresive when  the ball was coming to Caicedo, so maybe we could have trusted/communicated to Caicedo to receive and take a touch from that position. Draw in 16 and use the space in behind. 

Something like this> Caicedo receives and protects, makes a small run in between Disasi/Tosin and releases to one of them who quickly use the space created by Caicedo.

Just a suggestion though.

- Support -
Our wingers had relatively poor games and its hard to fault any of them. They barely had support when they received the ball. 

The images tell you how willing EVE were to drop their attacking players to the backline to defend. This left us consistently outnumbered centrally/wide areas, made worse by our hesitancy to overlap/attack with a +1. In the images below, Disasi and Caicedo should be making that offball run. 

In this regard, Maresca was too cautious of EVEs attacking threat and wanted to maintain his base of 5.

{ Out of Possession }
Chelsea wanted to be aggresive from GKs. Neto/Sancho were often tasked with staying in between their wingers/FBs which allowed them to easily help on defence if EVE went long or to press their man if EVE build up play. Chelsea wanted to consistently keep 2 men on EVEs ST so EVE always had the spare man, but rarely built up play anyway.

They most often went long.

In the mid-block, it was an aggressive 4-4-2 that transitioned into man2man pressing.

- The Offside Trap -
We try to use the box-line as a reference point for offside traps, but its proven too costly.  Players have to look, process and think. This offside trap takes away from whats important.
- By looking to first see if everyone's on the line and watching the ball, you get caught ball watching(what happens to Gusto specifically) 
- Removes the danger POV as you naturally think the line will do its work.

Its caused too many big chances.

Overall it was a deserved point from both sides. These are the games that show you that Chelsea is still a new and developing team that needs time to improve on many things. 

Certainly not the worst result against a side even some of our best ever teams have struggled against.

Tactical Analysis: Southampton vs Chelsea

Marescas calculated game plan dismantled the Saints! Why did Chelsea struggle in the first 15 minutes? Enzo's recent form? Etc..

A Thread! 

It was an intriguing XI from Maresca. One would expect he would rotate the squad, but he made 7 changes compared to the XI against Villa. A few got their first/second PL start(s) and a line up that lacked physicality in the front line. 

As we go through the thread, we understand his rationale.

Maresca mentions the plan being to go man2man from the get go, but it wasn't fulfilled by the players. Often we would see scenarios in the picture below. In this instance Noni goes to press(with man2man in mind), but there is no cover behind him. 

In this video, we see it once again. Nkunku is ready to press and everyone except Felix is lethargic. In the image, when Enzo decides to step up Disasi does not follow, leaving Caicedo exposed in the midfield. 

https://x.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1864548596718198878/video/1 

This results in frustration as the players know they aren't executing what they set out to do. Noni looks behind to question the FB. Nkunku questions Felix while Felix cant jump because Cucu isn't high. 

It was due to these circumstances that Soton managed to constantly play through us and had too much of the ball.

However, everything changes after the 2nd goal. It could be, seeing Noni press result in a goal removed doubts from the players mind or Maresca used that interval to speak to them. 

As we can see in the video, Felix is inside, Cucu/Caicedo high, etc.



We still got bypassed in a few moments due to Enzo getting beat in the midfield, poor pressing from our forwards and poor dueling. 

This comes as no surprise given the team we put out there. Nkunku isn't the best presser. Palmer and Caicedo were leggy. Disasi, etc.

Soton pressed in an aggressive 5-4-1/5-2-3 shape. To combat this Maresca moved to a 2-2-6 structure. A very interesting choice given his usual diamond midfield would have worked just fine. 

In this structure, we had the 2 CBs and Gusto inverted into midfield with Caicedo. The aim was for the 4 players to invite pressure and play it directly to our 6 forwards. Tosin was particularly excellent at finding those players. 

Enzo/Felix were tasked with dropping into midfield to help progress play situationally turning it into a 2-3-5.

One of the reasons I believe Maresca opted for this set-up rather than a diamond which also overloads a back 5 is the fluidity. He knew Soton would go man2man from back to front, but ultimately lacked the quality to do so. Some of the DFs weren't comfortable stepping up, they didn't know who to pick up when our  players rotated, etc. 

By manipulating the pivot(wide, narrow) you could invite as many as 4 Soton players and simply play through or beside the pivot. We consistently progressed the ball CENTRALLY this way. When we did this, it was a transitional chance given how much space Soton left behind as well. 

What Maresca wanted worked well. Soton aren't as bad defensively as we made them look even pre-red card. The set-up exploited their OOP set up impeccably.

https://twitter.com/CFCNewsJJ/status/1864549479770099884/video/1

The downside of this set-up is two-fold.

Its a very direct set up. It often leaves you with no option but to go long when pressured due to lack of numbers in the backline. It also makes it hard to build up when you go back to the GK as the distancing is big between the back 4 and the rest. 

Filip was excellent with the ball as always. His pausa, quick release and disguises is really good. Always finds his man when he goes long and also made some crucial saves.

It leaves you exposed on rest defense. Most often you would see us have only 4 players when defending transitions which is why Soton consistently managed to get into our final third on any transition they had. Cucu was holding width so Felix/Enzo/Palmer were the closest to making recovery runs. 

But this was a calculated "downside". Maresca knew they lacked any attacking threat due to suspensions/injuries. Personally I believe this is the biggest reason he opted for this set up. Soton posed no real attacking threat, so decided to go full on direct/attack to spank them.

In the second half Soton switched to a back 4. This meant overloading the backline with 6 players was unnecessary, thus we switched to a 3-2-5. This subsequently helped us be more stable in possession. Enzo would often leave the midfield to join the backline once we progressed the ball into the final third when they formed a back 5.

Enzo has recently found form and one of the reasons for that is due to the allowance to be the main 3rd receiver. Palmer had more touches compared to Enzo prior to the last 5/6 games. That's changed as Enzo has been the one dropping into midfield as the 3rd man more which has allowed his touches go up. 

This and many other reasons(half space game, better physically, better mental attitude, etc) is why Enzo has been playing well recently.

Sancho is already an important player for us, but he can take his game to another lvl if he's pushed. In the past few games, I have seen him try to score more(he's one of our best finishers). If he can find the balance between creation and goals. Wow. .

https://x.com/NewsJeffJ1/status/1831928969114841103

Overall, it was a game Chelsea should have scored 10. We missed too many opportunities, but this another new experience for our young team and they will surely learn from it. 

Lets get all 3 points from Spurs next!

@Asadcfc66 @MobyChe @CFCdruw @fahdahmed987
@ElliotGCFC @Blue_Footy @CFC_Batch @tovers98 @CFC_OBED @cfc_gvido