Blogger #18
Football is a funny game. The responsibility and the media
attention that the managers receive is unreal. More often than not, they are
painted as the sole reason for a team winning or losing. Great footballing
teams are often referred to by the manager who was at the helm through that
period (Arrigo Sacchi’s Milan, Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona, Jose Mourinho’s
Chelsea, etc.) and deservedly so. But for a majority of individual games,
holding the manager responsible for ‘tactical malfunctions’ is quite absurd
because tactics and formations don’t always win games. There’s only so much a
manager can do with tactics and beyond that, it’s up to the players.
Much of the post-match reaction to this match was centred on
Mourinho ‘outwitting’ Pellegrini. While Pellegrini didn’t make it any easier
for himself by refusing to shake Mourinho’s hand at the final whistle, raising
questions on Pellegrini’s tactical nous based on the result of this match defeats
the point because tactically, Manchester City were fine.
Line Ups, Shape and Intent:
 |
| Line-Ups |
Mata was once again benched as Mourinho started with Hazard
and Schurrle on the wings. Torres was preferred over Eto’o to lead the attack.
The City line-up showed some interesting decisions. With
captain Kompany injured, Demichelis was drafted in for his first start of the
season. Further up, Negredo was sacrificed for an extra midfielder as Javi
Garcia was brought in. Yaya Toure was pushed higher up, behind Aguero.
Although both teams retained a formation that roughly
resembled the popular 4-2-3-1, their intentions were nothing similar. Mourinho has
often conceded the possession in big games, content to play on the counter, and
this game was no different. City largely dominated possession (54.5%) while
Chelsea were content defending deep, drawing their opponents in before hitting
them on the counter. (A strategy that was highly effective in Chelsea’s midweek
CL win at Schalke. They won 0-3 with just 40% of possession).
Differing Strategies:
A lot of questions have been asked post-match regarding Pellegrini’s
decision to leave out Negredo out of the starting line-up. Pellegrini revealed
in his pre-match interview that he was aware of Chelsea’s counter-attacking
threat, and he set about neutralising it. As I pointed out in my review of the
Manchester Derby (read it here if you haven’t), City are prone to leaving gaps
between defence and midfield with Toure and Fernandinho in the side (neither a
proper defensive midfielder) and in the absence of Garcia, Oscar might have had
a field day. While the argument can be made that City missed Negredo and his
hold-up ability, Garcia had a solid game and kept the ball moving, completing
48 passes in his time on the field with an accuracy of 98%. If Pellegrini’s
logic behind including Garcia was to help ball retention and close the gaps in
midfield, it worked out alright.
Silva reprised Nasri’s role from the game against United. Roaming
all over the pitch, he was crucial to City dominating possession completing the
highest number of passes compared to any other player on the pitch. Nasri
played a similar role on the right wing, although to a lesser extent, his
ability to cut inside onto his right foot restricted due to his position on the
right wing rather than the left. But it
looked like sterile domination for much of the match and Chelsea were content
to sit deep and let their opponents have the ball.
 |
| Silva making his presence felt all over the pitch |
If and when City got into Chelsea’s penalty box, Chelsea had
the numbers on their side and City were restricted to shots from narrow angles.
But City had some brilliant phases of intricate passing, and scored their goal
from one such phase. Some quick passing found Terry and Cahill much higher than
the centerbacks would have wanted, and Aguero had more time and space to rifle
a brilliant shot past Cech, albeit from a similar narrow angle.
City’s packed midfield, their high line and possession based
play meant that Chelsea had to hit them with high paced counter-attacks that
could exploit City’s high line. Chelsea found two ways to do this, either with
simple balls over City’s defence, or by shifting the ball quickly to their
forwards and asking them to beat their opposing man in 1v1 situations.
In the absence of Kompany, City lacked a commanding presence
in their defence, and their offside trap was sometimes found lacking (why a
team which has spent almost 600m on transfers in recent times should rely so
much on a single defender is beyond me). First Cahill blasted over, and soon
after Torres missed his customary sitter from another lofted ball.
None of the designated ‘wingers’ or wide players that
started the match were wingers in the classical sense. None of them hugged the
touchline, aiming to beat the opposing wingbacks on the outside, as a Valencia
or Navas would have. While the wingers involved in this match primarily played
their game in the centre of the pitch, their approach to it was quite
different. Both Silva and Nasri drifted all over the pitch, getting involved in
the build-up play, making short passes and constantly recycling possession. On
the other hand, the Chelsea wide-men looked to receive the ball in wide areas
and dribble inside, looking to beat City defenders (Hazard leaving behind Zabaleta
flat on his ass comes to mind) before going for the killer pass. Generally,
City looked happy to deal with this, the extra man in midfield helping, but a
moment’s lapse from Clichy led to Chelsea’s first goal, Torres steaming past him
before crossing for Schurrle to tap in.
 |
| Chelsea attempting numerous dribbles |
While we’re at it, Torres deserves a mention. He had a great
game, more than making up for his earlier miss with some fine bits of
individual play and dribbling. City found him difficult to deal with, and
Torres ended up being the player who suffered the most fouls (He also attempted
the highest no. of take-ons).
Much of Chelsea’s one touch passing was done in deeper areas
by the likes of Terry, Cahill, Lampard and Ramires. The fact that Terry
completed the highest number of passes for Chelsea is testament to this. The
presence of David Luiz might have helped here. He possesses a far better range
of passing compared to Terry and Cahill and could have helped in faster transitions
from defence to attack.
Final Thoughts:
It was left to Hart and his antics to gift Chelsea the
winner. While Hart will have to take most of the blame for the goal, it was
another long ball over City’s high line causing them problems.
Ultimately, it was three individual errors (Clichy, Cech,
Hart) that led to the goals. But Cech will feel hard done by. He acted
instinctively. All Cech's training
would have made him set up for a shot back across the goal but he was undone by
a moment of brilliance and laser-like accuracy from the Argentinian, one of the
moments of the match. That and Torres’ dribble into the box and hitting the bar.
‘El Cashico’ cannot match the El Clasico for technical quality, but these were
two moments of genuine class.
Of course, next time, Cech will be more cautious but, next
time, Aguero will probably lob it in the far corner, back-heel it between the keeper's
legs or get down on his knees and head it in. Who knows what the cheeky bastard
will do next?
Pellegrini will have to rethink his plans for Hart who has
made 7 errors leading directly to a goal since the start of last season. No
other EPL keeper has made more during the same period. For a title challenging
team, that is quite a blatant weakness.
City played well for much of the game, and were undone by
woeful individual errors. Mourinho got the three points, and most of the times
that is all that matters, but Pellegrini can take heart from this performance.
There was much to be positive about.
