Fahd

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