Fahd

TOTTENHAM 3:4 CHELSEA 

Tactical Analysis & Match Report

On a night that threatened to slip away from Chelsea, they staged an ice-cold comeback to turn the tide. Despite a few nervy moments late on, Enzo Maresca's side held firm to claim another three points in the derby.

In-depth tactical analysis thread

A London Derby between fierce rivals Chelsea and Spurs are always bound to entertain. This match delivered another classic match. In a rollercoaster game filled with an abundance of errors and goals, Enzo Maresca's Chelsea rose victories at the final whistle.

In this thread, I will analyse all the tactical elements in a comprehensive break down of the match.

Let's dive in.

Let's start with Spurs out-of-possession (OOP). As many PL fans are aware, Spurs adopt an approach. In the opposition's attacking third, they initially have a zonal approach where they press with a -1, which can transition to a man-to-man (m2m). However, in the middle third, they're always looking to jump from their mid-block (with no definitive structure) to a m2m.

This pays off in the opening 5'. Cucurella tries to receive a backward pass from Colwill, but a slip turns over possession to Johnson - eventually capitalized by Solanke who scores.



In the attacking third, Spurs, as mentioned, press with a -1 as Solanke looks to curve his run to shadow mark a Chelsea CB. Here, the Spurs RW, Johnson has dual responsibilities - pressing the Chelsea CB that Solanke has shadow marked (if Colwill is found) whilst shadow marking the Chelsea LB (Cucurella) or just pressing the latter.

Since Sanchez is involving himself, Solanke will also press the Chelsea GK whilst Son supports him to press Badiashile.

(On a side note - Spurs usually tried to funnel their press toward Badiashile who is left-footed but playing down the right).

I like Chelsea's structure here by having the GK deep and pushing the Chelsea RB (Caicedo) into midfield. This helps them to get a 4-2 build-up structure whilst having an extra man at the top, which we'll come to. 

The drawback of Spurs' system and upside of Chelsea's is that there's always a free man between the lines. If you look at how the above move plays out, when Johnson (who has dual responsibilities) comes out to press, he leaves Cucurella vacant.

Furthermore, Enzo is free because of a few reasons: 
- Bissouma man-marks Palmer who drags him out, leaving space in the center.
- The Spurs CBs are too late/hesitant to step out and close him down to not compromise the backline shape.

Therefore, Chelsea have an overload in the first phase (6v5 including the Chelsea GK) whilst having a 5v5 in against the Spurs backline.

And plenty of space between the lines.

However, for Chelsea, when they weren't able to involve the GK in the play, it was a 5v5 in the build-up phase. From here, Chelsea struggled to break Spurs. If you keep a close eye on the lead up to the second Spurs goal, you'll notice this.



A get out of jail free card Chelsea could use here was a long ball into the channel. With Spurs adopting a high line, it could be played behind the defenders as well. Jackson would often drift to the left to receive in such instances.


And as mentioned, when Chelsea used the GK for the +1, they were more comfortable progressing the ball - both centrally and through the wings. Chelsea score their 1st goal from this as they used the initial +1 overload and then exploit the space.



Chelsea's high press involved having a -2 (including the Spurs GK) in the first phase - allowing a +1 in the backline for coverage.

Thus, Jackson and Palmer would have dual responsibilities. One would shadow mark a Spurs CB to then press the GK - usually Jackson. Whereas the other would press the opposite Spurs CB and shadow mark the Spurs DM (Bissmouma) - often Palmer.

Over the pitch, there'd be man-marking responsibilities. Colwill would be a free sweeper - Chelsea's +1.

Sometimes, though, Chelsea did use a -1 frontline press (inclduing the Spurs GK) and go m2m everywhere else on the pitch.

At times when the frontline press was a step behind, Spurs could use their rotations and movement to hurt Chelsea - like they did here with Son coming close.

No pressure on the opp. + high line is a bad idea. City fans would especially know.



In the middle third, where Spurs would struggle was when they'd try to transition from a mid-block to a m2m - what I talked about earlier. Here's an example to demonstrate it:

Spurs step out of their block in the mid-third and try to press Chelsea m2m. However, a disconnect between the frontline and the Spurs backline leaves huge space between the lines for Palmer and Enzo to exploit.

Chelsea's DMs are also adept at playing under pressure and break out of it with the ball at their feet.

In the first half, there were plenty of transitional phases which could've turned to goals for either side. There's nothing tactical here really. Just two teams willing to go at each other when there's space to attack.


Maresca was unhappy with Chelsea's balance in the build-up phase so made a tactical adjustment at half-time - bringing on Gusto, a natural RB, for Lavia.

Thus, we saw Caicedo play as the pivot in possession with Enzo whilst Cucurella advanced in the LHS. He has good chemistry with Sancho as we saw against Bournemouth as well. They combined to create a few chances early in the second half too.

More importantly, it provided Chelsea better balance in build up as now Badiashile would operate down the left where he was more comfortable. In settled possession, Colwill would also occupy his preferred CCB spot.

(@WhoScored)

Chelsea also were pinning Spurs in a 4-5-1 OOP shape after scoring the first goal. However, there were plenty of possession turnovers and losses in the middle third especially for both teams to capitalize. 

(@markrstats) 

Spurs had their moments of individual mistakes in the second half, giving two unnecessary penalties to Palmer, who created history after netting both - being the first player in the PL to score 12 penalties in a row. 

There was of course also the excellent Chelsea moved that ended with a goal for Enzo, who finished his chance expertly with his weaker foot. Class.


Spurs valiantly attempted to conjure a comeback at the end and scored a goal but ran out of time to get a fourth. Chelsea could've controlled the game better in the final periods of the match.

(@markrstats) 

Chelsea's hot form continued as they lit up North London. Although Liverpool have a game in hand (against Everton), Chelsea are just 4 points off the top spot. The manager, players, and some fans (including myself) have disregarded any title shouts. But if this form continues and the competitors continue to drop off, we all might have to come into agreement soon that Chelsea are in the title race.

Nonetheless, a solid away performance earned Maresca's team three points as they march on .

Follow me for more post-match analysis and other tactical threads.
https://x.com/fahdahmed987/status/1863347438381056192

Tags
@MobyChe
@Jon_Mackenzie
@AlexGoldberg_
@SamCFC_footy
@Asadcfc66
@NewsJeffJ1 
@InvertTheWing
@PeterNotDrury
@CFCCentral3
@EuroExpert_
@ytalksfootball
@ZacDjellab
@siphillipssport
@MrGeorgeBenson
@NiiNiiFC
@liam_twomey
@SS____899
@ExpectedChelsea
@MT_Analysis
@1905pod
@umirf1 
@htomufc

MANCHESTER CITY 3:1 CHELSEA

Tactical Analysis & Match Report

Chelsea endure a disheartening 3-1 defeat at the Etihad, outplayed by the reigning champions in a one-sided match riddled with tactical errors and ineffective execution. The setback makes their pursuit of a top-four finish increasingly challenging as the season progresses.

In-depth analysis thread

After a disappointing few months for Enzo Maresca's Chelsea, a match against reigning champions Manchester City provided an opportunity to alter their season's momentum. 

Pep Guardiola's side were also wounded as they suffered a 4-2 defeat in the Champions League just a few days ago against Paris Saint-Germain.

Although the match on Saturday night gave the west Londoners hope in the opening period, tactical decisions and poor game plan executions allowed City to stir a comeback and win the tie.

In this thread, I will evaluate the tactical nuances that shaped the game in detail.

Let's dive in.

The match started with clear tactical plans from both teams. 

City set up in a 2-3-5. However, it wasn't entirely a fixed system as a few players had unique roles.

Firstly, the newcomer from Frankfurt, Omar Marmoush, operated a second striker next to Erling Haaland. The pair were regularly in close proximity to the other.

Matheus Nunes and Josko Gvadiol maintained the width, with the latter advancing from left-back, which we will come to later.

Lastly, Phil Foden was provided the license to float around as a no.10.

Meanwhile, Chelsea shaped in a passive and narrow 4-4-2 mid-block whilst using a high defensive line.

The strategy to unlock Chelsea was clear from the outset - attack the space in-behind through clever runs. With Marmoush and Haaland central, they had adept off-ball runners. Furthermore, this plan made sense with the personnel they had operating around them in Nunes, Gvardiol, and Foden, who are all good passers of the ball.

Although Marmoush was offside in the below move, the intent alluded to above is evident.

We will discuss this topic further as the game goes on but I'd like to touch on the fundamental weakness with pursuing an out-of-possession (OOP) system where a team uses a high defensive line whilst not applying enough pressure on the ball.

I'm not a fan of most teams using this because to pull it off, all eleven players must be switched on all the time whilst getting the little details like body positioning and orientation 100% right. Using this against a top team like City requires that performance level.

Plus, using such a high line with subpar off-ball pressure is inherently really tough to defend.

You'll hear a similar perspective from coaches as well. I've seen @Tactx_ discuss the same plenty times.

But of course, I always try to understand why managers opt for such systems - which is something I'll come to later in this thread because I partly get why Maresca has done this.

It's important to acknowledge their thought process because well, they're some of the best coaches in the world so it'd be naive to think that they're completely wrong.

Anyway, back to the game. In the 2nd minute, Trevoh Chalobah's clearance found Nicolas Jackson contesting with Abdukodir Khusanov for a header. Neither player wins the aerial duel but the balls falls to Khusanov who looks to pass it back to Ederson.

Poor choice by the youngster, who only moved from Lens a few days ago, as the ball is at a low height. So, he does not get enough power on the header.

This is capitalized by Jackson who pounces and squares it off to Noni Madueke to open the scoring.

1-0 Chelsea.

Khusanov was under a lot of pressure after this huge mistake on the big stage. He also goes on to make two mistakes with misplaced passes in the following minutes. 

Knowing that he is struggling to maintain composure, Bernardo Silva begins to drop deeper to assist with build-up. City still maintained their shape but Silva started dropping deep often. Kovacic would also drop into the backline to help.

Chelsea's mistake here is that they reverted to a passive mid-block despite putting City under immense pressure. You could feel the tension in the stadium.

Although the visitors did transition from a zonal to a man-oriented (m2m) press in the few moments after the goal, they reverted to being passive quickly.

I'm of the opinion that Maresca failed to adapt to the game state. Sure, we can have a conversation about the pros and cons of Maresca's initial set-up. However, I think that once City are 1-0 down and under immense pressure, the onus was on Chelsea to dial that up by pressing intensely.

Doesn't have to be a m2m press from the get-go. Could've just executed a tactic they were actually trying to do in certain moments - transition from the zonal to m2m press. 

However, they didn't do it enough after going one up.

They stuck to a passive approach, which allowed City to regain their composure as they sustained possession better and found their rhythm. 

How I see it is that Chelsea let it happen.

As mentioned previously about the requirements of Chelsea's OOP plan, it needed all players to be switched on. However, there was one player who especially let his team down during the OOP phases - Madueke.

I don't like singling players out, but his defensive performance in the first half was extremely poor and it cost Chelsea. Sure, Maresca is asking an attacking player to perform defensive duties. But as Madueke has discussed himself in previous interviews, it's vital in the current tactical environment for the forwards to contribute.

And Madueke was just completely switched off in the first half.

Guardiola's plan of advancing a left-back also played a role to be fair. Because when a fullback advances from a deeper position, any lapse of concentration from the opposition marker can be advantageous. 

That's exactly what happens for City's first goal.

There could potentially be some criticism for James here as he could've been stern in communicating to Madueke that he needs to focus to track Gvardiol.

James can't track the Croatian because his focus is on Marmoush and Haaland.

More generally, you could see Maresca's passive defensive approach failing as the first half went on. Chelsea continued to drop deeper. Forming a back five and sometimes even a six. There wasn't any particular shape because Chelsea were trying to keep up with City's rotations.

So, Enzo Fernandez began man-marking Foden. Caicedo on Ilkay Gundogan. James on Marmoush. Madueke supposedly on Gvardiol

Chelsea were just pinned back.

Structurally, if Chelsea forced midfield turnovers, they still had the opportunity to break City through the middle. As we saw in this glorious chance, Moises Caicedo's tackle in midfield and following pass to Cole Palmer slices City's rest defence.

I feel like he made the right choice by trying to set up Jackson, but overhits his pass slightly.

There is an argument for Jackson to try and score first time with his left foot. Although it'd be difficult, I feel like a top striker should be able to finish those chances that are more challenging to execute.

Nevertheless, there weren't enough of these midfield turnovers that led to a chance.

(@markrstats)

When Chelsea had the ball in the defensive third, to build up, they'd use a 4-3-4 with the goalkeeper being involved. Here, Reece James would invert early to open the passing lane into Madueke.

City pressed with a -2 as they left Robert Sanchez and usually Marc Cucurella free. So, the ball from the GK to LB was an easy way out to beat the City press.

Jackson would also now drop to Chelsea's left side to help. The plan was that if the visitors won the ball, they'd be able to find a pass centrally or a switch to the right where there'd be plenty of space City would be dragged to the left.

As the first half progressed, they did look to go completely m2m by pressing Sanchez and marking Cucurella. But this would leave Caicedo/James/Fernandez free in the middle.

From goal kicks, however, Chelsea weren't able to connect short passes as City went m2m.

When Chelsea progressed possession down the right flank, Palmer would often look to drop into the pocket to collect a pass in space with the aim to turn and find Madueke on the run. Or, there would be opportunities for switches to the opposite flank.

Something I discussed in the pre-match thread that wasn't capitalized enough was the space City would leave in midfield when the transitioned their press. Chelsea usually are good at finding these weaknesses. But they failed last night to do so.

In more settled possession phases for Chelsea, which was rare in the first half as they only recorded 35% possession, they'd form a 3-2-5 with James inverting. This was against City's 4-4-2, which would transition to a high press when the west Londoners played back.

Nevertheless, in settled phases, City did well in blocking passes into the half-spaces by cutting off the passing lanes. When forced wide, Chelsea had to use combinations to play through, which never really worked.

After the half-time break, Chelsea's OOP intent had a slight alteration. They were pressing high when City had the ball in the defensive third. It didn't include pressing the keeper, as they'd find the free man. Rather, Chelsea sat off them until they tried to progress the ball. This was because it was 7v5 if you include Ederson.

Furthermore, in the middle third, they were willing to transition from a zonal to m2m now. This is what was lacking in the first half.

And they did so with a -1 in the frontline press.

Additionally, Madueke was more diligent with his man-marking responsibilities now.

The second half began with a spell of Chelsea possession, leading to a few sequences that ended with a box entry. However, they weren't effective in converting those moves to shots on goal. In fact, Chelsea had only 4 shots on target. 

The xG performance was consequentially disappointing. Apart from Madueke's goal and Jadon Sancho's chance (after Palmer initially squared Jackson who then passed it to Sancho), Chelsea only created 0.68 xG.

As the second half progressed, City regained controlling possession as Chelsea's pressing intensity dropped. By then, Christopher Nkunku had also come on for Jackson.

A drawback of Chelsea's second half defensive approach where they didn't want to press Ederson to prevent City from building out easily was that they left the backline susceptible to long balls. 

They had to now deal with City's runners - Haaland, Marmoush, and Foden.

We saw Haaland's all-round game on display much better as well as he did well to hold off defenders, bring his teammates into play, and make clever runs.

The very next play after this is when another disastrous moment happens. Ederson, again, has time and space to play the ball over the top, which he does towards Haaland, who is 1v1 against Chalobah.

Haaland wins the initial flick and chases after it with Chalobah in close proximity. However, Sanchez has stepped up, thinking that he'd be able to sweep the ball away.

That was a wrong decision as the ball has moved toward a less dangerous zone - the right flank. Now, he's completely off his position. He doesn't/can't retreat at this point. And Haaland delivers the chipped finish to push City in front.

From that point on, Chelsea could barely do anything. OOP, they were in that state where they'd press m2m even in the middle third. So, with City's rotations, they midfielders could often find space in the middle. 

The talking point here is less of the tactics and more of the psychological development needed in this young team. Of course, as I always say, this is understandable. Nonetheless, it still must be said that Chelsea never looked like they could stir a comeback.

Then, of course, the final dagger that sealed the tie. Again, it starts with Ederson having time and space -> long ball to Kevin De Bruyne -> flicks it to Haaland (watch Foden now, by the way) -> Chalobah gets drawn to Haaland as he wants to support Colwill -> Foden runs in behind and receives the ball -> goal.

It's very hard to provide a conclusion for this game as there are so many talking points - as you would be able to tell from this long post-match thread. If you've stuck along, I really appreciate it.

Nonetheless, to boil it down, there were: 
1. gaps in the tactical plan, which were thoroughly exploited by City.
2. failure in Maresca's part to adapt to the new game states.
3. players failing to execute tactical plans defensively whilst being inefficient offensively.
4. lack of general energy levels.
5. mentality issues.
6. individual errors.

I believe that covers all of it.

Chelsea are in a precarious spot of trouble now. Firstly, the race for UCL qualification has got tighter now. There's arguably one or maybe two positions (depending on how many UCL spots are afforded to the PL) up for grabs with many clubs in the chasing pack.

The upcoming run of games have mixed difficulty levels. Nonetheless, Maresca needs to get his team back on track immediately before their form slips any further.

That being said, there are still 15 games left. There's time to recover.

Tags
@MobyChe
@Jon_Mackenzie
@AlexGoldberg_
@SamCFC_footy
@Asadcfc66
@NewsJeffJ1
@InvertTheWing
@CFCCentral3
@EuroExpert_
@Carra23
@ZacDjellab
@siphillipssport
@MrGeorgeBenson
@NiiNiiFC
@liam_twomey
@SS____899
@ExpectedChelsea
@MT_Analysis
@1905pod
@umirf1
@htomufc

CHELSEA 1:2 FULHAM

Tactical Analysis & Match Report

An intense west London derby saw the Blues seize an early lead, only for the visitors to stage a spirited late comeback, capitalizing on Chelsea's fatigue to bring an end to their impressive unbeaten streak.

Analysis thread

Two west London rivals faced each other at Stamford Bridge earlier tonight in a well-fought contest. Chelsea and Fulham, two in-form teams that have exceeded pre-season expectations, produced a competitive match.

Despite taking the lead in the first half through a magical Cole Palmer move, Fulham surged to stage a dramatic comeback after Marco Silva's shrewd substitutions.

In this thread, I will comprehensively evaluate the tactical battle that unfold in west London.

Let's dive in.

In settled possession, Chelsea set-up in a 3-1-6 shape - a system we've seen Maresca opt for on multiple occasions this season.

This meant that Cucurella would join the frontline in the half-space whilst Gusto tucked in to join the back three.

Meanwhile, Fulham were in an organized 4-1-4-1 structure.

Though on paper this meant that Chelsea had a +2 advantage against Fulham's backline, Silva's set-up delegated responsibility to the wide men (Traore and Iwobi) to shadow-mark the Chelsea no.8s (Cucurella and Enzo).

This would negate direct access into the Chelsea no.8s. However, the Blues could still get the ball to them through wide combinations or if the Fulham wide men got their pressing angles wrong.

The downside of Fulham's structure was evident in the opening minutes when Chelsea generated a chance after bypassing the frontline press.

Traore gets his pressing angle wrong -> Tosin to Cucurella passing lane opens -> Cucurella finds Sancho -> cuts inside and delivers a dangerous cross into the penalty box.

Fulham were prepared for such situations. Although it did not always help mitigate Chelsea from creating chances, they still had a plan.

The nearest midfielder in the second line of pressure would shift to the free Chelsea no.8, with the rest of the members consisting the second line shifting across.

Therefore, leaving the opposite no.8 free.

However, it's worth noting that this shift in the second line press was not always when the initial press failed. Rather, the Fulham wide men would occasionally look to press the Chelsea wide centre-backs.

Additionally, the narrowness of the Fulham OOP system would leave wingers isolated 1v1 against the fullbacks.

Fulham's frontline press, however, was aggressive and well-drilled. It involved the following:

- The Fulham striker initially pressing the Chelsea centre-back, and then curving the run to press the goalkeeper whilst also trying to cut a pass to Caicedo.
- The Fulham wide had each different roles. The Fulham LW specifically had dual roles - initially sitting off to deny central access before pressing the opposite centre-back.
The RW only focused on the Chelsea LB.
- The last member of the Fulham frontline press would sit on Enzo first before jumping to Caicedo if found. Meanwhile, the LW would simultaneously shift to mark Enzo.

As for the rest of the team, the Fulham LWB would man-mark the Chelsea RB. The Fulham RWB would man-mark the LW. And then, the LCB would mark the Chelsea RW.

The Fulham DM would then mark Palmer whilst the centre backs had a +1 on Jackson.

You can see this all in-action from the below screengrabs. Specifically, try to focus on how the Fulham players shift across.

Super well-coached.

However, the passive mid-block approach cost Fulham a goal. Especially with Palmer roaming and finding pockets of space, a lapse of concentration was enough for Chelsea to capitalize magnificently.


Apart from the goal, there were other chances for Chelsea against Fulham's passive mid-block. Palmer was clever with his movement. Once he receives the ball in such areas, it's really difficult to defend him.


Before we touch on Chelsea's defensive and Fulham's offensive tactics, there are two aspects to talk about. Firstly, Chelsea's wastefulness in the attacking third when it comes to executing the final pass/finish.


Secondly, there were also plenty of turnovers throughout the game. With both teams capable in offensive transitions, many goal-scoring opportunities were created. Look at this clip below where there were continuous back-and-forth moments.


Defensively, Chelsea tried to press with a -1 from the front. Following were the roles:

- Jackson pressed the Fulham CCB before curving his run to press the GK.
- Sancho would press the opposite CB.
- Enzo man-marks the RCB.
- Palmer on the Fulham DM.
- Caicedo man-marks Pereira. 
- Neto man-marks Robinson
- Chelsea's backline then has a +1.

This would transition to a man-oriented press if the Fulham RWB who's initially unmarked is found.

This defensive scheme changed in the second half as Sancho sat on the Fulham RB (since he was constantly found out in the first half). Enzo would also initially provide central coverage before pressing the Fulham LCB.

Fulham's build-up structure would alter between a 4-2-4 and 4-1-5 depending on the positioning of Pereira, who dropped deep at times whilst pushing up otherwise.

When the Fulham GK was involved, the CB Andersen could also push up as a pivot.

The issue with Chelsea defensively was less about the tactics and more about the execution. Especially in the second half, Chelsea looked very lethargic. This and a poorly timed press led to uncoordinated OOP moves.



As for Fulham in-possession, they'd form a 3-2-5/3-1-6 with the wingbacks pushing up to provide the width, Traore and Iwobi playing as 10s in the half-space, and Pereira dropping in and out from the midfield and frontline.

They mainly worked their chances through the left wing whilst also relying on transitions for creating chances.

Well, an argument you could make is that when the Chelsea players were exhausted, Maresca could've opted for a passive and compact mid-block. But he didn't. More generally this season, Chelsea hasn't really relied on that tactic as well. Maybe that's because it isn't developed yet. Something to think about for sure.

The drop in defensive intensity (not like it was high in the first half) changed the tide of the game.

(@markrstats)

Meanwhile, Fulham upped their OOP intensity - looking to transition to press the Chelsea CBs early and have their second line shift across (as discussed previously). With Chelsea now not as crisp in-possession, they found it difficult to break Fulham.


Moreover, the issue was that in the middle third, Chelsea were caught between a man-oriented responsibilities for some players (mainly the frontline) whilst the remaining players played zonal. This would open up space to be easily played through.


The fatigue also translated to the psychological side, with Chelsea players switching off on when to jump up and when to drop off. There were numerous situations in the second half where Chelsea's rest defence was thereby left vulnerable.


Another criticism I'd also have is regarding the substitutions. Rather, the lack of them. Yes, the bench wasn't strong. But there was still enough quality to tweak a bit apart from Nkunku for Jackson. 

Overall, the inability to control the match with possession when we were leading coupled with the defensive issues Chelsea have carried over the past few weeks led to the loss. It puts a stop to the winning streak and thereby the momentum but it's a learning curve for a developing side. And a gentle reminder that there is a long way to go before maturing into title contenders.

Tags
@MobyChe
@Jon_Mackenzie
@AlexGoldberg_
@SamCFC_footy
@Asadcfc66
@NewsJeffJ1
@InvertTheWing
@CFCCentral3
@EuroExpert_
@ytalksfootball
@ZacDjellab
@siphillipssport
@MrGeorgeBenson
@NiiNiiFC
@liam_twomey
@SS____899
@ExpectedChelsea
@MT_Analysis
@1905pod
@umirf1
@htomufc

CRYSTAL PALACE 1:1 CHELSEA

Tactical Analysis & Match Report

Chelsea continue to rekindle flashes of their previous form; however, their winless run persists following a frustrating 1-1 draw against Crystal Palace.

Thread

Enzo Maresca's Chelsea hoped to end their winless run at Selhurst Park last night. Although they started the match brightly, Crystal Palace grew into the game before hurting the visitors late in the game to snatch a point.

In this thread, I will analyse the match in detail to discover all the tactical nuances.

Let's dive in.

In the opening period of the match, the prevalent tactical battle took place in Palace's half. Chelsea set-up in a 2-3-5 shape, which we will talk about more. Meanwhile, Palace organized in a 5-2-3 structure that could also morph into a 5-3-2 or 5-4-1. Lots of numbers there, but you get the idea of what they're trying to do - compact the middle whilst ceding space out wide.

What's important to note here is that the wide area is a pressing trap. So, when Chelsea move the ball into the flanks, Palace will look to congest the space out wide and cause turnovers.

Chelsea's in-possession (IP) approach revolved around exploiting the wide areas. Since the Palace front three were narrow, it didn't make sense for Chelsea to play with a back three. That's because it'd make it easy for Palace to put pressure.

However, by building with a 2-3, with the fullbacks out wide, they'd have wide receivers in space.

This is facilitated by the winger pinning the Palace wingback as well.

Therefore, Chelsea were able to create wide overloads (2v1 - Chelsea fullback + winger vs. Palace wingback). To prevent such overloads, Palace would have to either pull a midfielder/winger out wide to give support. This would either compromise their compactness in the middle or their rest attack structure. And sometimes both.

Apart from wide combinations, another way to create chances was to play balls in-behind the Palace defensive line, like we saw Acheampong deliver. However, the runs in-behind weren't really well coordinated.

Furthermore, Chelsea tried their usual methods as well - crosses from the half-space or wings. Playing to Jackson who'd lay it off to a teammate to try and penetrate through the middle. Finding the Chelsea no. 10s was also another route.

Then, 1v1s and overlaps/underlaps from the fullbacks/no. 10s could be used.

During the opening period, Palace decided to be passive - preferring to sit in their mid/low block whilst ceding possession. There would be a few occasions when they'd jump out. The reasons could be a few. 

For example: 1. Palace might've engaged in a press earlier in the move where they tried to turnover possession after Chelsea went into their pressing trap. 2. Chelsea would've had a weak pass that Palace want to pounce on.

Below is a good example - Chelsea play into the wide trap -> Palace engage in a high press -> transitioning to a man-to-man (m2m).

The issue for Palace in such scenarios are twofold: 1. Chelsea have a +1 to build-up with short passes (because of the GK). 2. More space opens up between the lines for Chelsea to play through. The latter is especially important as the Blues are proficient in offensive transitions.

The above two reasons combined leads to a chance in the opposition penalty box for Chelsea.

Richards recovers really well to get a block in.

Chelsea's first goal comes from a moment where Palace look to transition their press to a m2m. However, this time, the Blues made them pay with Sancho turning his marker before setting up Palmer.

The goal well-worked and superbly executed.

It also showed the drawbacks pressing Chelsea m2m in the middle/attacking third. When given space, the Blues have the quality to dissect opponents.

Let's touch on a few other tactical details during this opening phase.

When Palace caused a turnover during this period, they'd look to go long and play their forward line directly. However, as mentioned before, since the rest attack structure wasn't great (since Chelsea pinned them deep with their IP shape), the visitors would easily regain possession.

When Palace had the ball deep in the defensive third, Chelsea deployed a m2m press. This was a bold decisions by Maresca as it left the debutant Acheampong 1v1 against the in-form Mateta, who is a hard to handle physical striker. But generally, the 18-year-old did well in his duels.

Palace would thereby often look to go long to Mateta rather than trying to build through short passes.

After going 1-0 down, Oliver Glasner tweaked his system. It wasn't a structural change. Rather, the Palace manager altered his team's out-of-possession (OOP) intent. Instead of staying passive, at every opportunity when Chelsea passed backward, Palace would transition their press to a m2m.

This plays into Chelsea's favour since there'd be more space opening up between the lines - as previously discussed.

Although, as shown below, Chelsea took advantage of it on a few occasions, I though that they could've done better in playing through Palace consistently. 

A reason for this I'd say was on Sanchez. Won't entirely point the finger at him, but on the ball, he wasn't great last night. He'd either be caught misplacing a pass or would often go long. Without an aerial threat up front, going long just wouldn't work often.

After going a goal up, Chelsea also struggled to retain their foothold on the match - carelessly turning over possession and allowing Palace to grow into the game.

Palace also began having more possession. 

What's also frustrating here is that before the above turnover happens, Chelsea have an overload against Palace's press, but still fail to play through them.

This, I think, has to do with a lack of maturation in Chelsea's young team. This is understandable considering the average age of the starting eleven. 

It is an area Maresca has to work on. When in a winning game state, the team has to better manage the match.

This is subjective, but I thought Chelsea's game management even in settled possession was poor. Palace began gaining momentum as the first half wore on. So, I thought Chelsea could've slowed the game down a bit. It was becoming more chaotic. 

Hence, Chelsea could've brought the tempo down. Instead, they were rushing their attacks. I'm not suggesting that the team should've just passed it around for the rest of the half. Rather, just for a five-minute spell, keep the ball and stifle Palace's growing influence on the match.

As for Palace IP, they'd form a 3-2-5 with the wingbacks providing the width whilst Sarr and Eze drifted infield into the half-spaces. From here, they're avenues for chance creation were:

1. Using the wingbacks to create a natural 5v4 overload - delivering crosses into the penalty box. A simple switch to the wingback would be enough to initiate such a move, for example.

2. Finding the no. 10s in the half spaces as Chelsea's m2m press could leave space in such areas.

(@SofascoreINT)

The first half concluded with Chelsea being the dominant side having created the better chances. However, failing to increase the margin of their lead was a little disappointing, with Palmer and Jackson receiving high value goal-scoring opportunities.

In the second half, there wasn't any structural or substitute changes. However, there was a slight alteration in the positioning of Enzo and Palmer, as they swapped sides.

Now, Palmer operated in the LHS whilst Enzo played on the RHS.

(@markrstats)

The warning signs for Chelsea were evident early in the second half. Persisting with the m2m OOP style in all phases of play throughout the match has its drawbacks. When fatigue kicks in, players get their distances and timing wrong. A slight lapse in concentration can, thus, undo the entire defensive unit.

Props to Palace for maintaining their energy levels. They were ready to capitalize when Chelsea dropped off.

In the below example, Chelsea gets caught out as Enzo is overloaded 2v1. I wonder if the Blues were trying to press high with a -1 or if they were simply late in going m2m.

If I had to guess, it was the latter because it's Sarr who drops off to create that overload - either a Chelsea CB or Caicedo should be marking him.

This moment of confusion in the press is well illustrated by the disjointed positioning of the backline + Caicedo. 

This situation could've been very profitable for Palace since Mitchell was bombing down the left flank to attack the back post as well.

The move ends with Eze getting a shot off, which nearly missed the far post.

As the second half progressed, the energy levels of both teams declined. That led to more back-and-forth situations again. Albeit there were brief spells where Chelsea controlled possession, as discussed earlier, it was never for an extended period of time.

Both teams had their chances, but didn't score until Palmer's mistake in trying to turn without having properly scanned, led to a turnover that ended in a goal.

For the remaining minutes of the game, Chelsea tried to break down Palace. However, the home team did well to defend their box.

So, what went wrong last night? Let's break it down for each half:

First:
- Failure to capitalize on moments when Palace would transition to a m2m press by playing through them via short passes.
- Not converting the many high value chances in the penalty box.
- Allowing Palace to grow into the game by not controlling the tempo.
- Not getting shots on target.

Second:
- Chelsea's m2m defensive approach in all phases of play wearing the players off.
- Lack of substitutes coming on to bring fresh legs and energy.
- Decreased high value chance creation against Palace's passive mid/low-block.
- Failure to dominate the duels. Palace won 60% of the ground duels and 68% of aerial duels.

Overall, Chelsea suffered from fatigue once again - creating much fewer chances in the second half whilst conceding two high value opportunities.

Albeit there were only a few feasible options on the bench, Maresca didn't want to rely on them. Moreover, the lack of physicality in the team proved to bite them again.

For Maresca, the defensive issues remain. The fact that Chelsea don't have a passive mid-block OOP system means that they're susceptible to drop in levels of energy. Even more so considering the lack of options on the bench.

The winless streak has extended to 4 games now. That needs to end quick for Chelsea to maintain their foothold on a top 4 spot.

Tags
@MobyChe
@Jon_Mackenzie
@AlexGoldberg_
@SamCFC_footy
@Asadcfc66
@NewsJeffJ1
@InvertTheWing
@CFCCentral3 
@EuroExpert_
@Carra23 
@ZacDjellab
@siphillipssport
@MrGeorgeBenson
@NiiNiiFC
@liam_twomey
@SS____899
@ExpectedChelsea
@MT_Analysis
@1905pod
@umirf1
@htomufc

CHELSEA 2:1 BRENTFORD

Tactical Analysis & Match Report Thread

Chelsea swatted the bees in a result that makes it increasingly difficult to argue they are not in the title race. However, the victory was far from straightforward, with Brentford growing into the game and almost stinging the Blues in the second half.

Enzo Maresca faced one of the most tactically astute managers in the Premier League in Thomas Frank on Sunday night. Although there were moments of discomfort for Chelsea, the performance was mostly impressive. Two goals from Marc Cucurella and Nicolas Jackson sealed the victory. However, a 90th minute goal from Bryan Mbuemo gave the home team a late scare.

In this thread, I will comprehensively analyze the Chelsea-Brentford clash.

Let's dive in.

Since Chelsea dominated possession (62%), let's begin with their in-possession (IP) shape and plan. The Blues set-up in a 3-1-6 formation with the following tactical and personnel instructions:

- Gusto, Tosin, and Colwill forming the backline.
- Madueke RW, Enzo RHS, Palmer 10, Cucurella LHS, Sancho RW, Jackson ST, and Caicedo DM.

This was against Brentford 5-2-3/5-3-2 passive mid/low-block structure. So, Maresca's tactical set-up had the following aims:

- Overload the Brentford backline 6v5. However, the opposition's midfielders did a great job in supporting their fullbacks.
- Pin the opposition deep by using a high defensive line.
- Since central progression would be difficult, utilize the wings and half-spaces for crosses into the box.

The emphasis on crosses was evident throughout the game with the tone being set from the beginning. We saw this early in the match with Chelsea patiently probing Brentford's defense before Gusto launched a half-space cross to Jackson.



I liked the tempo shifts by Chelsea. When there were moments of disorganization in the Brentford defensive unit, Chelsea were willing to go direct and attack the space. They weren't always patient. When the opportunity arose, Chelsea attacked quick.



Hence, during such rare moments of Brentford's defensive disorganization, Chelsea could also use central channels for ball progression. 

Although Chelsea were patient with their attacking moves, upon losing possession, it was paramount to be energetic in the counter-press. Brentford is a capable counter-attacking outfit, who can punish teams on the transition. Hence, they'd look to hit the channel as soon as they won the ball.

Here, it was important for the backline to recover quickly. But I'd say, the positioning of Robert Sanchez was of even more significance. His anticipation was key on the night. His judgment was generally spot on.


Brentford, however, were only passive in their middle-defensive third. In the attacking third, they press high and went m2m.

For Chelsea's ball progression, this meant that:
- They could either look to directly play into the channels for Jackson/wingers/deep runners.
- Or they could play through Brentford by connecting passes and via clever movement.

However, the downside was obviously that if Chelsea tried to make those short passes, they were susceptible to dangerous turnovers in the defensive third.

Here's an excellent example of how Chelsea could play out from the back adeptly. The Blues would also look to go long at times.



When Chelsea did go long, whether it be from goal kicks or just deep build-up scenarios, it was important to win the duels. Which, against the physical Brentford side, was a tough challenge. Below was the consequence of not winning those duels.


Brentford's high press system was of course more complex than that. Although they'd eventually land in a m2m press, initially, the aim was to have a compact block that denied easy central progression. This would provide the Chelsea fullbacks space.

As soon as a pass was played out wide, Brentford would jump and go m2m as they'd usually have the physical advantages in those duels. I'd argue that Chelsea had the mobility advantage, however.

Also, Chelsea adopted their usual 4-2-4 shape in build-up.

Furthermore, in the middle/defensive third, they weren't always passive. Upon certain pressing triggers, namely backward passes, Brentford would transition to a m2m. 

Chelsea's pressing scheme was interesting. Similar to the game against Aston Villa, the Blues initially pressed with a -1. This would leave a fullback free. However, it would transition to a man-to-man (m2m) if the frontline press was broken. 

As you can see below, the Brentford no.30 was free initially.

However, Cucurella's position was dependent on whether Brentford broke the Chelsea frontline press. As you can see below, Cucurella doesn't man-mark anyone but stays in midfield to support the backline if a long ball was played.

This ensures a +1 on the backline during moments where Brentford have good opportunities to make that pass whilst going m2m when they go short. Clever game plan.

Moreover, when they sat in a mid-block, they did not intend on defending passively. Instead, they'd proactively charge at Brentford m2m as soon as a backward pass was played.


After a flurry of crosses in the first half, Chelsea earned a goal after Noni Madueke excellently found Marc Cucurella in the penalty box to give the Blues the lead.



The adjustment made by Frank after the first half was a change in tactical intent rather than a structural alteration. In the first half, Chelsea were dominant. Although Brentford largely defended well, they produced very little going forward. So, Frank decided to be bolder out-of-possession. He did so by instructing his team to be proactive OOP.

Instead of settling into a passive block, Brentford began transitioning into a high press often.

This is nicely represented in the xG and xT plots below.

(@markrstats)

The match became more transitional with both sides willing to attack vertically. This meant that there were more spaces opening up between and behind the lines for Chelsea and Brentford to exploit. Thus, the match became more chaotic.

There were really very few moments where Brentford attacked using their settled shape.

During the moments Brentford attacked, there was some fluidity and similar to Chelsea, they'd also look to access the wide areas before crossing. For context, Brentford attempted 11/18 crosses in the second half.

(@SofascoreINT)

Here's an example of Brentford being more aggressive in the press - transitioning to a m2m early and making the game more back and forth.


Chelsea's defending when Brentford had the ball in the middle third was lacking. But their best chances of the game in moves where they kept winning the duels - one for Norgaard acrobatically saved by Sanchez and another for Carvalho which hit the post.
https://x.com/fahmedclips1234/status/1868670016918523979

It came down to capitalizing on the opportunities and Chelsea did just that with a well-worked counter that doubled the lead. The Blues are just so lethal on the offensive transition.


Brentford gave Chelsea a late scare after Mbuemo capitalized on an offensive transition (something Brentford are also good at). However, the Blues were victorious in the end after earning a well-deserved 2-1 scoreline. 

Although even I am yet to declare Chelsea as title contenders, like Maresca, the players, and many supporters, the results make it harder week on week to maintain that stance.

A huge issue, in my opinion, that has been exposed over the past month or so, has been Chelsea's lack of organization in the middle and defensive third.

I'll explain my thoughts below.

Thread

(Image credits: @Tactx_)

I've been wanting to write a thread for a while about this but haven't found a slot to get it done. Ideally, I'd have illustrations and examples to show you what I mean, but for now, let me just explain what I've observed.

(Hopefully I'll be able to do a part 2 of this soon with examples from the many games that I've spot this issue in)

In the middle and defensive thirds, Chelsea lack a clear OOP structure. Against Bournemouth, there was at least a general 4-4-2 shape that I could see. However, it was not executed consistently.

Nonetheless, over the past weeks and months even, this has been apparent. Maresca does not adopt a fixed structure. If anything, I struggled to figure out what the plan was.

So, I thought about it for a while, and here's what I believe is happening.

Since Chelsea are still a developing team and it's Maresca's first season at the club, he's employing principles that are easy to understand. From an out-of-possession (OOP) and in-possession (IP) perspective.

Hence, Maresca has created basic structures as foundational principles from which he hopes to build on and make them more complex and cohesive.

We've seen Maresca himself talk about this as he's mentioned that IP-wise, Chelsea have a general structure. Let's for now just refer to it as a 3-2-5, with specific roles and functions. However, depending on the opponent or game state, he is willing to tweak a few areas whilst maintaining the overriding principles that are consistently implemented.

From an OOP perspective, Chelsea have adopted a high press in the opposition's defensive third whilst having a mid-block (kind of but not really) in the middle third. And in the defensive third, it can look like a 5-4-1 often.

However, the issue has been that when Chelsea have defended their middle and defensive thirds, there often isn't a consistent structure. It always seems disorganized. It's as if the frontline have an instruction to press m2m whilst the rest of the team defends zonally.

This disconnect can leave acres of space between the lines.  Quite simply, it's just easy to play through Chelsea.

This lack of structure also means that there are huge distances and gaps between the players. A simple dribble past one of them will open more space, again.

Additionally, it's also easy to manipulate Chelsea's shape this way. You can simply drag the frontline pressers away before attacking Chelsea's midfield and defensive line.

On another note, in the middle and defensive thirds, in some games, they regularly try and press the opponents m2m. Which to me doesn't make sense for one main reasons: fatigue.
Always looking to transition the press from zonal to m2m causes fatigue. And that's what we saw against Fulham and Ipswich.

So, the question is: why does Maresca deploy such a system? Or, why hasn't it been corrected yet?

I think it's down to the fact that it's his first season and therefore difficult to address all phases of Chelsea's game. Sure, I get that. However, I disagree with the plan he's employing right now.

I admittedly may be incorrect here because the counter argument is that Chelsea's players are not yet well-drilled and having spatial understanding to carry out a rigid zonal mid-block.

But my disagreement with Maresca's current OOP approach comes from the fact that Chelsea have been exposed too many times now. When we can't outscore the opponent, we're likely to lose or draw.

That being said, the OOP structure against Bournemouth was better and I have a feeling that Maresca is trying to build that zonal OOP structure now. But it's very imperfect and we still have the tendencies of the frontline to jump and press m2m (maybe because they don't know how to time it properly)

This isn't a thread as a reaction to the draw against Bournemouth, by the way. It's been on my mind for a while. That's because it's been a consistent issue for weeks now.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on this topic as well - 
@MobyChe 
@NewsJeffJ1 
@Jon_Mackenzie 
@Tactx_ 
@TalkinTactics 
@EBL2017 
@JohyanCruyff 
@ConnorHolden00 
@CFCCentral3 
@SS____899 
@InvertTheWing