Fahd
@fahdahmed987
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.
