Promising a more adventurous and entertaining approach to football, Andre Villas-Boas has certainly done well to dispel the pragmatic Chelsea style that counterpart and former mentor Jose Mourinho instilled into the side. Unfortunately for AVB though, one of the key components of Mourinho's all-conquering side was their defensive solidarity, and that seems to have evaporated quite suddenly. In 2004-05, the season Mourinho first won the title at Chelsea, their side conceded just 15 goals all season, compared to the 17 the current Chelsea team has already shipped in.
In many games this season, Chelsea have deployed a "high defensive line", a tactic employed by many, including the current Barcelona side. This tactical ploy affords opposition forwards space behind the defence, but also increases the likelihood of them being caught offside, and squeezes the play in midfield, pressuring the middle of the park. Unfortunately for AVB though, the gambit cost them more than it helped. Off the top of my head, the Blues allowed clear cut chances against West Brom, Norwich, Man Utd and Arsenal due to catastrophic failures of their high line.
Against Newcastle though, the Chelsea high line was almost non-existent, and AVB's side came away with a very good three points, and a clean sheet at St. Jam - oh, I mean the Sports Direct Arena. The defensive performance, of course, was helped by an immense display from John Terry, including clearing an effort off the line to preserve his side's lead. Far cry from the black mark he has been receiving recently from many corners (including me) especially after his slip-up against Arsenal.
But Terry's stalwart display was indeed helped in no small part by the abandonment of the high line. Looking at the areas in which he made and won interceptions, tackles and headers, you can see that Chelsea played much, much, deeper at Tyneside.
One of the important factors that determine the success of a high defensive line is the presence of pacy defenders. This is due to the fact that they need to be able to compensate for the inevitable failure of the offside trap, and get back to make amends for any errors on the part of their fellow defenders or officials. We can all agree that even a youthful John Terry never was never a sprinter, and so playing a much deeper line suited him and Chelsea as a team.
The discipline of the entire back-line is also important for the deployment of a high-line, and while Mourinho's side (who didn't play high) had Ricardo Carvalho beside a John Terry on top of his game, AVB has to work with Branislav Ivanovic or David Luiz, both of which are prone to bookings and have been shown to be vulnerable to pace as well. The fact that wingbacks Cole and Bosingwa aren't the best defensively doesn't help matters. Playing the Serbian at right-back alleviates that wing-back problem, but then you have him as well as Luiz alongside Terry, since AVB seems not to fancy Alex. Tactical discipline is another matter, with the great Milan side of Arrigo Sacchi marshalled by legendary Franco Baresi, master of the offside trap and flanked by Alessandro Costacurta and a prodigal Paolo Maldini. The defensive gaps that Chelsea have allowed (in addition to the failed offside traps) against Liverpool and Arsenal in particular, as well as David Luiz's tendency to bomb forward, suggest that this tactical discipline is another issue.
Finally, perhaps a very important difference between Jose Mourinho's selfish Chelsea and AVB's charitable one is the presence (or absence) of one midfielder specifically. While many have called out Arsenal for not replacing Patrick Vieira, Chelsea have similarly not replaced Claude Makelele. Both Frenchmen were the anchormen in the midfield of their London sides, adding much-needed strength, grit and stability to the back-line by acting as a buffer or shield in front of the back four. Other notable anchormen include Mascherano at Liverpool, Gattuso at Milan, and Tiote at Newcastle, who was missed against Chelsea of course.
One of the aspects of his AVB's imported "Porto 4-3-3" (as I like to call it) is the role that the holding midfielder plays. AVB has rotated between Jon Obi Mikel, Raul Meireles and most recently Oriol Romeu as that holding midfielder, who does still serve to protect the back-line, but is also supposed to act like a third ball-playing defender while the wingbacks attack. Indeed, the attacking contribution of Cole, Bosingwa and Ivanovic (when played there) have been very important to Chelsea this season, but it is currently imbalanced from a defensive standpoint.
This tactical nuance is most keenly seen at Barcelona, where Sergio Busquets (and sometimes Keita) plays as that "third defender", who is still able to play clever passes from the back to add to the attack. It is this passing ability (or lack thereof) that has seen Javier Mascherano move from defensive midfielder to central defender (a limited defender, some will call it) in the Catalan side. Mikel is not that sort of clever player. Meireles has a great range of passing, but his talent is wasted playing too deep (like Wayne Rooney). It is no surprise then, that it looks like the best person suited for the job (as seen in the past two weeks) is a graduate of the La Masia academy. Romeu isn't a long-term solution though, as Barcelona already have very clever clauses to buy him back at a cut-price if he does succeed at Chelsea (which he is expected to), like Bojan Krkic at AS Roma.
So it does look like AVB has abandoned the high-line that has been so risky for the London side, at least for now. Additionally, he has put faith in the young Romeu (and Daniel Sturridge) for now to help integrate his vision of how a 4-3-3 and how football should be played. It will be interesting to see if Chelsea continue this trend, and either way, how the futures of AVB, John Terry and Chelsea pan out in the months to come.
For all football-related news, views and more, be sure to follow @ESSAFC on Twitter and to "Like" ESPN Star Sports AFC on Facebook!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment