Sunday 21 August 2011

Team analysis: Chelsea FC - does the formation suit the players?

Hello and welcome back to the All in All Football blog where the game we love is discussed in detail to try and bring food for thought to your debates! Today Dmitri Kharine and I will be discussing Chelsea FC, their squad selection problems, possible alterations to their formations and if their players match their style of play – We hope you enjoy reading.

Igor: Currently Chelsea play the 4-3-3 formation of the Jose Mourinho era:

Team selection from Chelsea vs. West Brom (20th August 2011)

GK: Hilario
RB: Bosingwa CB: Alex CB: Terry LB: Cole
CM: Ramires CM: Mikel CM: Lampard
RW: Kalou ST: Torres LW: Anelka

This formation is supposed to allow an attacking central midfielder (Lampard) to push up and join the striker as both attacking wingers drive at the flanks and either cut inside or deliver the ball to the incoming midfielder or to the moving striker.
Unfortunately Chelsea showed once again during their home again with West Brom, that they are incredibly stagnant – no creativity or movement in the final third forced the Blues to stand still as players waited for the ball to be delivered to their feet.
Only after Nicolas Anelka’s goal in the second half did Chelsea come to life and show some intensity in their movement and passing. Ultimately the Blues have a very difficult time transitioning from defence to offence, something that is absolutely essential when playing the 4-3-3 formations. The ball moves slowly through the centre of the park neglecting the formation’s strongest asset, the ability to spread the ball wide and counter-attack using flying full backs and wide wingers.
Although Chelsea took the 3 points, there is plenty of room for improvement and it is even worth considering other potential options, formations, players and style of play.

We believe these 2 can work together.
Dmitri: Last season there was plenty of debate whether Torres could work alongside Drogba or Anelka. Carlo Ancelotti tried on numerous occasions to find a way to strike an effective partnership between his star strikers, but it seemed his efforts proved ineffective.  I can’t help but feel that they weren’t given enough time and it is necessary to continue trying until Chelsea’s strikers click.
Chelsea have been dominant in the past with the 4-3-3 and it is Andres Villas-Boas’ natural formation, so it’s expected Chelsea would have started in this set up. Let’s not forget that other possibilities at Chelsea’s disposal in the form of 4-4-2 or the Diamond, the latter especially considering they had spells of success with it.
Looking at the starting XI, Fernando Torres once again looked lively and his numerous displays with the ball at his feet suggested that the Spaniard is certainly growing in confidence.
The issue I have is Chelsea did not spend £50 million to be praising Torres’ work ethic, enthusiasm and skill with the ball; he must score goals. Torres is currently still sitting on 1 goal in 20 appearances for the Blues and this is simply not good enough, especially considering he is forcing a proven goal threat onto the bench.
Football is certainly a game of politics and due to Torres’ price and age, he will have priority over Drogba, but I think if you remove all those factors and ask fans who they would prefer lead the front line, the Ivorian would be the clear winner.
Chelsea did not pay £50 million for fancy footwork.
There’s no doubt in my mind that both Torres and Drogba need to play in the centre so it’s useless attempting the 4-3-3 with Drogba on the Right Wing as was opted for in the second half of the Stoke vs. Chelsea game. Torres has been so effective using his great footwork and we all know he has pace, so why not try playing just behind Drogba? This would allow the Spaniard to run from deep and latch onto Drogba’s passes as the Ivorian plays the role of a technical Target Man. We saw against Stoke that Torres is very good at linking other players into the game, so I feel that playing in the hole could be a viable option for the Spaniard as it seems to cater to all the skills and abilities he is showing at the moment. Manchester United play 1 striker (Hernandez) and 1 striker in the hole (Rooney), perhaps the Blues should try something similar.

GK: Cech
RB: Ivanovic CB: Alex CB: Terry LB: Cole
DCM: Mikel
RM: Purchase      CM: Lampard      LM: Malouda
           FW: Torres
                                                                       ST: Drogba

Igor: The issue with the 4-4-2 and Diamond formations however, is that Frank Lampard becomes the odd one out. The 2 central players (let’s take Mikel and Lampard in this example) must resemble or indeed be box-to-box midfielders who can cover the centre of the pitch or your free-roaming forward (Torres) will be required to play a huge part defensively (like Rooney).
When a team playing 4-4-2 or Diamond have the ball, the wingers push out wide and if Frank Lampard were to join the attack centrally, it leaves a huge hole in the middle of the park that is only covered by one player (Mikel). If Chelsea were to play this formation, they would need another I’m not going to say defensively minded player, but someone who will sacrifice some offensive capabilities to be able to help Mikel cover the centre of the park if Chelsea were to lose possession. So as a revision I would propose the following:

GK: Cech
RB: Ivanovic CB: Alex CB: Terry LB: Cole
DCM: Mikel
RM: Purchase      CM: Essien     LM: Malouda
           FW: Torres
                                                                    ST: Drogba

Providing he is fit, Essien has proven that he can contribute offensively while at the same time maintaining a 100% defensive work-rate across the entire match. Playing both Essien and Mikel in the centre would allow 2 wingers to effectively hog the flanks allowing Torres to play a free-roaming role just behind Drogba.
This debate can go full circle because you could easily argue that Chelsea would lose a potent attacking threat in the form of Lampard, but fans must ask themselves, would they rather see Lampard for 2 more seasons or find Torres’ form and have him play at his best for 3 – 5 campaigns.
I love to discuss Chelsea’s options because I feel they have plenty with the talent the squad possesses and think it’s incredibly unfair to suggest Chelsea have only 1 way of playing. Although 4-3-3 is effective, it forces 1 world-class striker onto the bench, something that I strongly feel if AVB could avoid doing, he would do so.

It is criminal that this man starts on the bench.
Dmitri: It would be interesting to see if AVB will always continue using an anchoring midfield player because he could opt to replace in this instance Mikel for a more creative player such as Modric and push him into a central role. To play without an anchor however, would require the entire team to press off the ball (very reminiscent of Barcelona’s incredible defensive work ethic) because if 1 player does not do their part, the team will be exposed centrally due to a lack of the aforementioned anchor. Chelsea will need to purchase a concrete right-winger as well because playing Ramires in that position is not beneficial in the slightest.

Igor: Using Barcelona as the example because every top team aims to be able to play like the Catalonians, everyone has been asking where will Fabregas play in that side – his cameo against Real Madrid in the Super Cup showed that Barcelona can sacrifice a defensive midfielder and play 3 creative central midfielders because of their ability to press in the attacking third.
In our opinion, Lampard is the odd one out.
This is 21st century football and shows that it is possible for Chelsea to sacrifice Mikel and play for example, Modric in the line-up you suggested above, just as long as every offensive player does their part defensively in the attacking third.
The question we must then ask is whether Chelsea can do this and also it’s obvious that Lampard does not have the legs to be part of a midfield ready to press at that type of intensity.

Ultimately it is all down to time. If AVB is given an opportunity to experiment and find that killer form, Chelsea have the potential to be winners, there's no arguing with that. With such pressure and limited time, it's absolutely no surprise that AVB immediately went with what Chelsea know, regardless of the fact that it does not utilize their 2 best players. 

Thanks for taking the time to read our analysis. We hope you enjoyed the content and perhaps it got you thinking about some new points that you weren’t considering before. If you would like to get in touch, please feel free at my Twitter @ss4Igor and stay tuned for more content and the Gameweek 2 analysis set for release Tuesday lunch time!

No comments:

Post a Comment