We are going towards the first international break of the season: Chelsea closed this first stint of games in Premier League with just 4 points in 4 matches. For the Blues we are all aware this could be a difficult season (especially at the beginning) considering the new massive revolution they had during the transfer market.
The other curiosity around Chelsea was the appointment of Mauricio Pochettino as manager: after Tuchel, Potter and Lampard, this is the fourth manager in less than one year sitting on bench at Stamford Bridge and after the bad experience of the Argentinian coach at Paris, the main demand is if he can be able to give a tactical identity to his team.
I will analyze some situation Pochettino is implementing at Chelsea based on the last match lost at Stamford Bridge against Nottingham Forest in order to understand what is going good and what is going wrong.
IS THIS THE MOST APPROPRIATE SHAPE?
Looking at the last match against Forest, Pochettino still used the same formation of the initial 3 games of Premier League. This means a 3-4-2-1 with some fluidity based on the phase of play: generally we are used in the last months to see teams starting with a 3-4-2-1 modelling their shape with the ball in a 3-box-3 with the scope to enhance the circulation of the ball in the progression zone and looking at the width by using players able to win duels 1 vs 1.
This is not the case of Chelsea, which is playing with 4 at the back during the build-up phase and creating a triangle in the progression zone composed by Caicedo, Gallagher and Enzo Fernandez. Moving to this shape means for Chelsea to move Lewi Colwill wide on the left, while Conor Gallagher is required to come deeper to help Caicedo in the progression zone. In principle this shape is not bad at all, since allows Blues to consolidate and keep the ball and take control of the match, however we are aware that with this shape the potential of Colwill and Gallagher is reduced.
This is not the only doubt about the effectiveness of this approach taken by Pochettino: this 4+2 structure in build-up does not create any positional superiority. Especially against teams playing with an organized low-block like Nottingham Forest, it was simple to track players and avoid a quick and consistent progression of the ball. In this example we can appreciate again the shape of Chelsea in build-up with Colwill wide on the left and Gallagher dropping deep, but also we can see how Forest was easily able to keep track in the central zone through its 5-4-1 shape with the two central midfielders Mangala and Yates who follow Caicedo and Gallagher (in this example Yates breaks the line to engage Gallagher) while Danilo and Gibbs-White stay on the flanks in an intermediate zone to close passing lanes in the half-spaces; in addition the 5 men defensive line allowed one of the defender to step up to engage players receiving between the lines (in this case Sterling and Enzo Fernandez).
Using the same starting eleven, I believe a different shape would have helped in better progressing the ball and allowing players to act in more familiar situations. My proposed plan would have been to let Colwill tuck-in as well as Disasi in order to perform the same job he used to do at Brighton and in England U21 team in the last European Championship, namely playing more the ball from the centre-left and looking for progressive passes by using the movement of Caicedo and Enzo to attract the two central midfield thus creating space to reach Jackson and using his link-up qualities to generate dinamic superiority between the line by using run and movements of Sterling and Gallagher behind Forest defensive line. Also the Collwill ability to keep the ball and attract the pressure could create space behind the pressure generating positional superiority. Basically this different shape allows Colwill to be more involved in the build-up and Gallagher to look for spaces between and behind the lines, one of his best ability.
"THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE DID NOT SCORE". YES, BUT...
Pochettino at the end of the match underlined the fact that Chelsea failed to score, otherwise the final result would have been different. If we look at the final count of the xG, it is definitely true that Chelsea did not score even if collecting 2,3 xG. But this number tells the whole truth? Not at all.
 |
| Source: FbRef |
The above table shows the details of each shoot attempted by Chelsea against Forest, the total amount of 2,3 xG is spread among 21 shoots, which means 0,11 xG/shot. Looking in detail at each shoot we can see that there are three big opportunities, one on the first half the others in the second half.
I have shown above why the structure implemented by Pochettino was not effective in progression phase, that's why in the first half, even having field tilt and huge possession percentage, Chelsea did not create important chances except the one from Sterling after 2 minutes. Indeed, that opportunity was coming from a transition generated by a counterpressing: the structure created by Pochettino was able to keep control also thanks to the behaviour when the ball was lost. In this situation the triangle of midfield, being covered by the three in defence (which had numerical superiority against Awoniyi and Gibbs-White) was able to collapse close to the ball, then getting possible a quick ball recovery and move the ball quickly to Chilwell who found Sterling cutting from the far post. Aina was able to block Sterling's shot and it was the only important opportunity to score in the first half for Chelsea.
In the second half a good opportunity arose cause Pochettino switched some position as suggested in my previous paragraph. In this situation, in particolar, Jackson had a good opportunity which started by him dropping deep to link-up centrally in the progression phase; this allowed Gallagher to do his favourite job, running in the penalty area forcing Forest defenders to collapse to one side giving space to Jackson to run into the penalty area in a favourable position to shoot. But, same as for Sterling in the first half, his attempt was blocked by a Forest defender.
The most important opportunity, however, was created when Pochettino changed the full structure of the team also using the substitions. As we can see from the progression phase of the action leading to Jackson miss, the width is given by Madueke and Mudryk, while the midfield is staggered with Enzo as base of the triangle while Palmer and Maatsen are located diagonally on front of him, this allowed a quick progression of the ball and the counter movement of Jackson moving deep and Sterling running behind the defence created enough space for Palmer to send the ball to Sterling who tried to cut back to Jackson who missed to score an open goal.
CONCLUSION
So, at the end Pochettino was right to say that Chelsea missed to score, but did Chelsea create enough to score more? I believe not, since Chelsea lost most part of the match struggling to find the right shape to create opportunities and to put the players with goal in hands in the right position to find the net.
The roster available to Pochettino allows him to create a different shape for his Chelsea, and the changes made in the second half show that the Argentinian coach is looking at the alternatives. let's see which will be his choice after the international break.
No comments:
Post a Comment