Bergen Blade
Well-Known Member
Chelsea formation and game plan:
- - - - - - - - - - Mendy - - - - - - - -
- - - Azpilicueta Christensen Rüdiger - - -
James - - - Jorginho Kovacic - - - - Chillwell
.- - - -Mount - - - - - - - Werner
.- -- - - - - - - Giroud - - - - - - - - - - - -
A holding midfield duo playmaking from deep. Danger men: Mount and Werner.
Chelsea carried out the same move that a few teams have done against us with considerable success, i.e. pushing wide men high up the pitch for them to occupy our wing backs. They didn't particularly attack a lot down the flanks, that's not the aim. Instead teams hope that our midfield three will have too much space to cover. Chelsea hoped they'd be busy closing down their wide central defenders, and consequently struggle to get close to their holding playmakers, let alone keeping track of their source of creativity in Werner and Mount. They probably imagined they'd have a lot of the ball, pass through whoever we had up front and let Mount and Werner run riot in the space between our defence and midfield, and supporting Giroud.
Blades formation and game plan:
.- - - - Burke - McBurnie - - - - - - -
.- Fleck - Norwood - Lundstram - - - -
Lowe - - - Bryan Egan Basham - - - - Bogle
- - - - - - - - - Ramsdale - - - - - - - - - - - -
Our tweak of the day was to play more of a man marking system at the back. We realise what teams are doing to our wing backs. We can't leave the opposition wide men alone, so they were more or less occupied. The problem was then how are we going to stop their playmakers, while also restricting their danger men in the attacking midfield positions. We didn't want Norwood trying to catch up with Werner.
As said we turned to man marking. Basham focused on Werner. Mount was Bryan's man. Egan dealt with Giroud. It worked for a good while. Basham and Bryan did well and made a number of interceptions and good challenges. Giroud didn't get much service, as Werner and Mount were challenged quickly and aggressively when they thought they'd been clever to find space behind our midfielders.
Our midfielders were quite happy not having to chase back after Werner and Mount, so could put more pressure on Chelsea's deeper playmakers. It worked pretty well too, Jorginho and Kovacic struggled to get good passing moves going. McBurnie and Burke were also closing their centre halves down well, and I think we'd singled out Rüdiger as someone who'd be likely to dwell on the ball and maybe allow Burke to win the ball in good positions. Burke's pace in behind and McBurnie's aerial strength was something we hoped would get us a goal.
For about 30 minutes this worked well. Although Werner looked up for it Chelsea hadn't troubled Ramsdale. There had been a couple of scares, but we'd dealt with them.
A problem with man marking system is that there can be poor rescue plans. If one player slips up, there's not always a team mate in a covering position to help out. It was quite difficult for Basham to know when to stay in position and when to push up to challenge Werner. Seconds before they scored Basham had pushed up and left a gap behind him. Werner ran into that gap as Chilwell played him in - forcing Egan to leave his man Giroud and challenge Werner - forcing Bryan to leave his man to mark Giroud - leaving Mount unchallenged to finish.
I thought the goal was coming. Chelsea were starting to find a bit more time on the ball and our closing down dropped a little bit. That's when it becomes really difficult, especially against top class players. I felt the corner that they got a bit earlier when their man was ten yards offside played a part in them building momentum. Annoying, maybe even key.
It's harsh to criticise the tactics though. Chelsea came with a plan. We realised what they were trying to do and counter acted reasonably well, in a first half where we had one very good early chance, almost a penalty and a couple of other good efforts. A number of other tactical setups may have given a lot worse results.
In terms of player ratings I also think a lot of fans have been harsh. I thought it was a good effort, a game plan that was ambitious and different, but worth a try and it wasn't a million miles from working.
- - - - - - - - - - Mendy - - - - - - - -
- - - Azpilicueta Christensen Rüdiger - - -
James - - - Jorginho Kovacic - - - - Chillwell
.- - - -Mount - - - - - - - Werner
.- -- - - - - - - Giroud - - - - - - - - - - - -
A holding midfield duo playmaking from deep. Danger men: Mount and Werner.
Chelsea carried out the same move that a few teams have done against us with considerable success, i.e. pushing wide men high up the pitch for them to occupy our wing backs. They didn't particularly attack a lot down the flanks, that's not the aim. Instead teams hope that our midfield three will have too much space to cover. Chelsea hoped they'd be busy closing down their wide central defenders, and consequently struggle to get close to their holding playmakers, let alone keeping track of their source of creativity in Werner and Mount. They probably imagined they'd have a lot of the ball, pass through whoever we had up front and let Mount and Werner run riot in the space between our defence and midfield, and supporting Giroud.
Blades formation and game plan:
.- - - - Burke - McBurnie - - - - - - -
.- Fleck - Norwood - Lundstram - - - -
Lowe - - - Bryan Egan Basham - - - - Bogle
- - - - - - - - - Ramsdale - - - - - - - - - - - -
Our tweak of the day was to play more of a man marking system at the back. We realise what teams are doing to our wing backs. We can't leave the opposition wide men alone, so they were more or less occupied. The problem was then how are we going to stop their playmakers, while also restricting their danger men in the attacking midfield positions. We didn't want Norwood trying to catch up with Werner.
As said we turned to man marking. Basham focused on Werner. Mount was Bryan's man. Egan dealt with Giroud. It worked for a good while. Basham and Bryan did well and made a number of interceptions and good challenges. Giroud didn't get much service, as Werner and Mount were challenged quickly and aggressively when they thought they'd been clever to find space behind our midfielders.
Our midfielders were quite happy not having to chase back after Werner and Mount, so could put more pressure on Chelsea's deeper playmakers. It worked pretty well too, Jorginho and Kovacic struggled to get good passing moves going. McBurnie and Burke were also closing their centre halves down well, and I think we'd singled out Rüdiger as someone who'd be likely to dwell on the ball and maybe allow Burke to win the ball in good positions. Burke's pace in behind and McBurnie's aerial strength was something we hoped would get us a goal.
For about 30 minutes this worked well. Although Werner looked up for it Chelsea hadn't troubled Ramsdale. There had been a couple of scares, but we'd dealt with them.
A problem with man marking system is that there can be poor rescue plans. If one player slips up, there's not always a team mate in a covering position to help out. It was quite difficult for Basham to know when to stay in position and when to push up to challenge Werner. Seconds before they scored Basham had pushed up and left a gap behind him. Werner ran into that gap as Chilwell played him in - forcing Egan to leave his man Giroud and challenge Werner - forcing Bryan to leave his man to mark Giroud - leaving Mount unchallenged to finish.
I thought the goal was coming. Chelsea were starting to find a bit more time on the ball and our closing down dropped a little bit. That's when it becomes really difficult, especially against top class players. I felt the corner that they got a bit earlier when their man was ten yards offside played a part in them building momentum. Annoying, maybe even key.
It's harsh to criticise the tactics though. Chelsea came with a plan. We realised what they were trying to do and counter acted reasonably well, in a first half where we had one very good early chance, almost a penalty and a couple of other good efforts. A number of other tactical setups may have given a lot worse results.
In terms of player ratings I also think a lot of fans have been harsh. I thought it was a good effort, a game plan that was ambitious and different, but worth a try and it wasn't a million miles from working.
