Fahd
@fahdahmed987
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/...
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.
