Saturday, May 28, 2016

2014 Champions League Final: Match Analysis

Image result for angel di maria champions league final
In light of the upcoming La Liga match Champions League final/Madrid derby, I decided to go back and rewatch the 2014 CL final between the same two teams. It was a fascinating match, with two great managers (Simeone for Atleti, Ancelotti for Real) facing off. Although Real ended up winning 4-1, the game was infinetly closer than the scoreline indicates. Real dominated much of the game, controlling the ball and creating more and more chances as the game went on. Atleti, however, gave a masterclass in defensive discipline, and until they ran out of energy kept Real fairly frustrated.

Lineups

Real was without their normal pivot, Xabi Alonso, and Sami Khedira was in doubt after being out for half of the season. Khedira was able to make it back into the lineup, although he only played the first hour. Ancelotti lined Real up in a 4-3-3, with Khedira in the pivot. Angel Di Maria and Luka Modric played on either side of him, although neither stayed close to Khedira. Both, but especially ADM, drifted outside, to balance the inward movements of Real's wingers, Ronaldo and Bale.

Atleti set up in their classic 4-4-2. Their defense, and change to 4-5-1 later, will be discussed below. Diego Costa, in doubt because of a hamstring injury, insisted on playing. Costa only made the first 10 minutes however, costing his team a sub that was desperately needed later in the game.

Real's Buildup
Ancelotti made some interesting tweaks to Real's normal 4-3-3. Without Alonso to stabilize possession, Ancelotti went for a more aggressive, direct approach. Many times either Sergio Ramos or Raphael Varane would play long balls directly to one of the attacking 3, bypassing the midfield. This allowed Real to go over Atleti's strong midfield presence, and with all 3 forwards skilled in the air, it was a somewhat effective strategy.

The midfield 3 were also very uncompact in possession. Both Modric and Di Maria pushed out wide. This balanced the inward movements of Bale and particularly, on Di Maria's side, Ronaldo. The strategy seemed to play into Atleti's hands, as they seek to force teams away from the middle, but Real used wing overloads to break into the center, especially in the final third.

Real also played with asymmetric fullbacks for the first hour of the game. Coentrao on the left pushed very high up the field, while Carvajal stayed deeper, although he did contribute to the offense.

What resulted from the movement on the left was an interesting triangle forming. Ronaldo made runs into midfield, playing mostly in the half space, although he had the positional freedom to roam the field at large. Coentrao pushed high, filling the wing. Di Maria dropped back to fill in Coentrao's open space at full back, while still playing a vital role in the build up.


Here you can see the triangle clearly. Di Maria is deep, Ronaldo is in midfield, and Coentrao is in the attacking line.

There you can see the benefits of the triangle. It created an overload, numerical and qualitative, on the left side, and was difficult for Atleti to deal with.

Much of Real's game up was based on giving Ronaldo, and Bale to a lesser extent, a free role, to float around the field and stay in a dangerous position. The movements of the midfielders, fullbacks and Benzema were all supposed to balance out Ronaldo's free role. Even Bale played around Ronaldo, staying to the wing more when Ronaldo drifted over to the center and right half space.

Atleti's Defense
I wrote a fairly in depth analysis of Atleti's defense in my analysis of their loss at Barcelona this season, so take a look at that for more. But Simeone has changed his defense slightly in the past two years, so its worth taking a look at the differences in this game.

Atleti was much more passive two years ago, in defense, then they are now. Against Barcelona, and against Bayern in the Champions League semifinal this year, Atleti pressed higher up the field, forcing the possession based team backwards and using pressure to disrupt their buildup.

In this game, however, Atleti very much sat in their own half and allowed Real to have the ball. Even their, Atleti was passive, rarely putting pressure on the ball unless it came into midfield. However, their compact 4-4-2 and shifts across the field kept Real out of the middle.

In that clip, Atleti shift with the ball, forcing it to the wings and out of the center. Real pass around the perimeter of Atleti's defense, with Atleti putting little pressure on the ball. It's only when Di Maria tries to dribble through the center does Atleti close him down. Three players collapse on him, forcing a bad pass and a turnover.

Atleti also put on a good counterpress, especially early in the second half when they were trying to counter Real's speed. This hints at Simeone's later developments, where we've seen Atleti ramp up the pressure in recent games.


Later in the game, after Atleti had scored, Real gained more possession and increasingly put offensive pressure on Atleti. Simeone was concerned with Real's penetration of the center, especially from Di Maria's runs, and shifted from a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. Adrian, Costa's replacement, dropped onto the wing of the midfield.

While the change helped Atleti regain control of the center and keep Real out of dangerous zones, Atleti lost any semblance of pressure on the ball. With only one forward, Atleti had no access to the ball, and afforded Ramos and Varane, as well as the fullbacks, far too much time to pick out long direct passes. This increased passivity allowed Real to pin Atleti back and back, and even with Atleti, masters of last ditch defending, a team can very rarely hold on by a thread for as long as Atleti needed too.

Di Maria's Increasing Role
Di Maria became more and more important to Real as the game went on. In the initial lineup, he played very well in the fullback/deep playmaker slot he fell into with Coentrao going forward. With Atleti not pressuring him, Di Maria was free to playmake and create chances on and off the ball for the attackers. 

Atleti also struggled to deal with Di Maria's running ability on the ball. He time and time again cut through Atleti's lines, breaking into the center of the field, like below.

Di Maria was also Real's primary threat on the counter. When they countered, Ronaldo, Benzema and Bale were all fairly central, usually with the two wingers in the half spaces. It was a very well structured counter, balanced across the field. Di Maria usually led the counter, with the ball, from the wing. He is one of the few players in the world who can beat Atleti's superb 1 v. 1 defenders, and thus was able to break Atleti's counterpress and break Real out onto a counterattack.

Bale's goal, and what was eventually the game winner, came off a Di Maria counter attack. ADM dribbles past three Atleti players, a sight rarely seen, before taking a shot. Courtois saves easily, although he probably could have done better to knock it out of the danger area. Bale swoops in and head the rebound in, to win Real the decima.

Ancelotti's Subs
After an hour Ancelotti made some key substitutions. He brought off Khedira, partially out of concerns for aggravating his injury, and Coentrao for Isco and Marcelo, respectively.

Isco was a more attack minded player, reflecting the flow of the game. By that point, Atleti had failed to mount a serious counter for at least 10 minutes, and Real were in complete control. Ancelotti could afford to sacrifice Khedira, a defensive pivot, or Isco, more a number 10. The change allowed Real to create better chances in possession.

Marcelo's entrance was interesting as well. He played almost as an inverted fullback (like we've seen Phillip Lahm do under Pep at Bayern), as you can see in the clip below. He played in the halfspace, opening room on the wing for Di Maria.

Ancelotti still used a sort of triangle, as he had with Coentrao. It changed slightly, however, with Ronaldo still in midfield. Marcelo, as we've seen, also moved into midfield, a bit deeper than Ronaldo, while Di Maria shifted onto the wing. This triangle was, as it had been, the main focus of Real's build up, and gave both Di Maria and Ronaldo freedom to create.

In the above clip, you can see how the triangle allowed each player to play off the other. Atleti was very focused on Ronaldo, and when the ball is moved into him he wisely quickly plays it back out onto the wing. Di Maria and Marcelo make complementary runs, opening space for the other to dribble into.

Conclusion
In the end, Atleti simply ran out of gas and heart. Ramos' 93 minute equalizer was killer, a stab in the heart for Simeone's team. Despite the massive letdown, though, Atleti managed to keep even with Real for the first extra time period. However, with no subs left and several players struggling with fatigue, Atleti couldn't hold on. Real had fresher legs, and their counter attacks ended the game. After Bale scored, Atleti just lost all heart. Real's third goal was the most open I've ever seen Atleti, with almost no one moving to close down Marcelo as he dribbled down the middle of the field.

It was a fantastic game, and provides interesting context for this one. Hopefully Simeone v. Zidane will be as intriguing as Simeone v. Ancelotti was. 

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Lacking a System: Thoughts on Chelsea-Sunderland

Another weekend, another disappointing loss. We somehow lost, 3-2, at Sunderland, a team that fights for relegation every year like Sisyphus rolling his stone up the eternal hill. I believe our performance illuminates a recurring issue of the team under Hiddink. We have no system, no real approach to playing, and thus we have no stability.

The game seemed in hand for much of the first half. After a period of early discomfort and pressure from Sunderland, and an inexplicable yellow card for Gary Cahill, we settled into the game. Diego scored in the 14th minute, and Hazard looked like the Hazard of last season. Fabregas was playing well, we controlled midfield somewhat well, and were limiting Sunderland's chances.

Then, after 5 minutes or so of decent pressure, Sunderland scored just before half. In the minutes after the goal and before half, they pressed us harder and harder, forcing more and more mistakes. They were on the ascendancy, and would surely go into halftime with all the momentum.

But then we hit them once on the counter, Matic took two great touches and finished to make the score 2-1 again. Sunderland lost all the air in their sails, and instead of going into the dressing room pumped, they entered deflated.

We came out and again dominated the early portions of the second half. But they steadily grew in influence, gaining more possession, although they weren't able to get many chances.

Then, just as suddenly as Matic's goal had come, first Borini and then Defoe scored in two minutes, to take the lead. In the 66th minute we were in control, cruising to 3 points. In the 70th we were underdogs, fighting for 1.

For the rest of the game we had little to offer. Sunderland soaked up our pressure, and unsurprisingly (given our complete lack of a coherent counterpress or even just good counterpressing defensive midfielders) were able to get several chances off counter attacks.

The quick ups and downs, ebs and flows, of the game exemplefied a recurring issue of Hiddink's time. We are playing without an identity, without a system. We don't know what we are. We play generic, youth level soccer, with no overall philosophy. Under Carlo Ancelotti, we played attacking, possession based football. Under Mourinho we were defensive, lighting quick on the counter attack. Even Andre Villas Boas, a disastrously bad tenure, tried to install a style of play.

For all of the talk of the "stability" and "calm" Hiddink has brought to the club, in the dressing room and off the field, he has failed to transfer those qualities to the on field product. Chelsea has been anything but stable.

We are prone to massive shifts of momentum in games, both for good and for bad. The match against Tottenham, last week, and the second leg against PSG are also good examples. Against both teams we were locked out of much of the game by superior teams. Their offensive structures allowed them to retain possession well, and when they lost it they were in good shape to counterpress.

We, on the other hand, had a weak defensive shape, with poor access to the ball, and struggled to pressure either team. However, for certain periods of the games, in 5-10 minute stretches, we were able to rachet up the intensity of the game (both homes matches) and put pressure onto the visitors. We pressed in a haphazard and unstructured manner, but, in small doses, it was effective in forcing turnovers and getting us chances on the counter.

But in both matches, PSG and Tottenham regained control after 5-10 minutes, and drained the stadium and team of intensity. They controlled possession for long periods, and gradually forced us back into our half.

In both matches, and against Sunderland, we were at the mercy of the flow of the game. We were passive, allowing the match to take us were it would. We did not establish control over the flow and tempo of the game, like the great teams do.

Barcelona, Bayern, Dortmund, Real and Atleti are all so fantastic and dominating because they dictate how games will be played. They have systems that all the players work in and out of. Some, like Bayern, Dortmund and Barca, control games through possession. Atleti does it through not having the ball, by giving other teams the ball and dictating where they put it.

But all of these teams know what their game plan is, know how they are going to play. We, on the other hand, walk out on the field as a group of 11 individuals. We certainly attack and defend together, but with little idea or structure of how we are going to do that.

Our offensive structure is horrendous; our press is poor and uncoordinated when we use it, which is rare; we cannot counterpress, consistently leaving our backline of old, immobile men vunerable to quick counterattacks.

While Hiddink may have brought calm and stability to the players and club, he hasn't done that to the style of play. I would dare to say, and this is a gutsy statement, that Antonio Conte comes into a worse on field situation now then he would've if he had taken over directly for Jose. At least then the players would have not wasted five months playing bland, meaningless, thoughtless football.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Thoughts on Chelsea-PSG 1st Leg

As the Champions League restarted play this week, we faced PSG for the third straight year. This was the first time, however, that we were considered clear underdogs, due to a combination of our poor form this season, and PSG's fantastic play in Ligue 1. They currently sit 24 points clear on top of the table, having lost no games in the league. While this is certainly due to the lower quality of the French league, it is clear that PSG are on a different level this season. They alone can perhaps challenge the Bayern-Barca-Real triangle that has dominated Europe this season.

For a full breakdown of their style, see Tom Payne's fantastic 5000 word analysis for Spielverlagerung (definetly worth the time it takes to read). But, in short, Laurent Blanc has shifted the Parisians from a counter-attacking, individual talent focused style that his predecessor Carlo Ancelotti had installed, into a centrally-focused, possession based team. With one of the best midfields in the world (Veratti, Matuidi, Motta, as well as Rabiot and Pastore), a stellar attack and arguably the best center back pairing in the world in Thiago Silva and David Luiz, PSG has the pure talent to match the best in Europe. On top of that, Blanc has a deep bench at his hands, preventing injuries from ruining the team. His tactics have turned PSG from a brilliant individual side into a machine of efficiency and quality.

Given the opposing form of our teams, the 2-1 loss was, at least on the surface, a very good result. The Parisians were held to just two goals, despite dominating the play, and Mikel scored a vital away goal.

But, while it was a good result, it was not a good performance in my opinion. I am surely in the minority of Chelsea fans here, but I believe that the result was more about PSG's inability to convert good build up to good chances, than it was about our own defensive solidity. Here are my thoughts. They are in no way comprehensive or even really complete, but they're just what I thought about the game.

Poor Game Plan
PSG are incredibly centrally focused. Their 3 man midfield stays in the half spaces and the center, only venturing onto the wing to get the ball. The wingers in the front 3 often drop off into the half spaces, and Ibrahimovic rarely tries to make runs behind the backline, choosing to hold up play and create more. What results is effectively a 6 man midfield. Opposing midfields are overrun, defenders step out of the backline, and space is opened for Angel Di Maria and Lucas to make runs behind.

This doesn't take much to notice, and it is not like PSG suddenly sprang this strategy on us; they've been doing this for several years now. You would think that Guus Hiddink, a world renowned manager, would at least have seen the strategy coming, much less prepared the team for it, and set us up to at least hold our own in midfield.

But no. We made no attempts to stop their build up play, both in their half and in our own.

We did put on an occasional press, but it was flawed from the start. PSG relies on quick passing combinations to beat opponent pressure, and are very skilled at it. We helped make them make these combos easier by both failing to cut off passing options and failing to close down the man on the ball quickly enough.


Maybe this was our strategy however: press after losing the ball to stop PSG from hitting us quickly on the break, not to regain the ball but to simply stop quick counters. And with a makeshift center back pairing of Cahill and Ivanovic (neither known for their athleticism), it would make sense that we didn't want Di Maria and Lucas free running at the backline. But the simple matter is that it either wasn't consistently applied, or wasn't a strategy at all. The second example shows PSG easily passing through our midfield, and if Azpilicueta hadn't tracked Lucas' run we would have conceded.

But what was inexcusable was our awful defending in our own half. If wasn't that we decided to sit back and soak pressure; that would have made sense.

Instead, we played a fairly open defensive shape, with little positional discipline from the attacking midfield trio and Costa.


Both of the above examples show both PSG's superior build up play, and our own horrendous defending. There is no way that any professional team, much less a Champions League level one, should let another team pass that easily in midfield. Because PSG only scored two goals, and struggled to create chances for much of the match, many Chelsea fans believe that we let PSG play their meaningless passes in midfield, then buckled down in the final third and stopped them.

But their build up play was anything but meaningless, and if they had been slightly better in the final third then we would have been buried. I also think, watching the end of the game, that had Cavani started, PSG would have created many more chances. Cavani, not only on his goal but throughout his time on the field, made more runs behind Cahill and Ivanovic, putting distance between midfield and defense, and opening more space for Ibra to work in. This should be a big concern for Hiddink going into the second leg in several weeks.

Strong Peformance from the Fullbacks
Both Azpilicueta and Baba Rahman played great games. They were crucial to the defense, especially given the lack of mobility in the center backs. As can be seen above, Azpilicueta on numerous occasions stopped runs from Lucas in behind the center backs. Rahman was less of a target, surprisingly, although this is probably due to Di Maria, a more centrally focus player, lining up on his side.

Both came into midfield to several times, as well, to help mark Ibra and to counter PSG's overloads. Most importantly, both played fairly mistake-less matches, rarely allowing PSG room to create on the wings.

They played crucial roles in attack. Because we effectively fielded 5 central midfielders and a striker, the width they provided was vital to keep possession and creating chances. Rahman's overlapping run, and the cross that ensued, in the 22nd minute created perhaps the single best chance of the game.

With the news that John Terry will be out of the game on Sunday, and given the great performances, it's hard to see Hiddink dropping either of the two.

Hazard Unfairly Targeted
One of the big consensus points among Chelsea fans after the match was Hazard's "poor performance." I had thought that he had played well, and was very good offensively at the least, so I was surprised by the seemingly universal opinion.

As I rewatched the game, I affirmed my original thought. Hazard was crucial to the 10 minute or so period where we finally found our feet as PSG's initial pressure in the first 20. He retained possession well, and helped circulate the ball back and forth across the field well. He played several crucial passes in that period, including the one that played Rahman through to cross to Costa.

I think his comments in several outlets leading up to this game (where he said he didn't enjoy training at Lille, and said it would be hard to turn down PSG) soured many Chelsea fans opinions, understandably. But was is frustrating is that fans have combined these interviews with Hazard's frustratingly poor form to reach the decision that he should just leave the club. I hesitate to believe that any club should let such a great player go, even if he has been in poor form, for anything other than an exorbiant amount of money.


In conclusion, it wasn't a world beating performance, but neither was it awful. Yes, our defending was quite poor, and more worryingly the game plan was poor, but we were missing Matic, as well as Zouma and Terry. Both Terry and Matic should be back for the second leg, and that should help us to at least contest midfield.

Hiddink now knows what to prepare for. I would expect, given his good performance at the end, that Cavani will start, which will be a major concern for our slow and ailing back line. Hiddink has three weeks to prepare, so there shouldn't be any excuses.

For some more detailed match breakdowns, see Tom Payne's at Spielverlagerung and Miles Olusina's at Outside of the Boot.