Part 2 Chelsea versus Liverpool tactical analysis
Some of the spectators were awaiting a fairy tale like start for Chelsea but their 50 million pound man, Fernando Torres, failed to influence the match in any shape or form.
In the first ten minutes of the match, Torres had his first chance of the match but the Spaniard’s shot swirled way over the bar.
In the second half, the 26-year-old had another opportunity but this time http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Jamie-Carragher-c17728 intercepted the shot with a goal saving tackle.
Other than these two incidents, Fernando Torres’s contribution in the match was as good as nil.
The lack of width in Chelsea’s play meant that Liverpool were extraordinarily comfortable on the night when it came to defensive responsibilities.
http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Didier-Drogba-c11044 and Fernando Torres were static for much of the night and even when they drifted out wide, Johnson and Kelly tracked back to a great effect.
Moreover, Liverpool relatively dominated Chelsea in terms of tactics in the first half as well.
Kenny’s men played with much more dynamism in attack, mainly due to Johnson and Kelly’s wing play. Liverpool’s midfielders also impressed to a large extent as they didn’t play with the rigidity that was characterized by their opponents.
Both, Meireles and Gerrard, exchanged places with each other at the top of Liverpool’s midfield diamond.
http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Lucas-c22528 also showed ambition on some occasions when the Reds were in possession of the football.
These minor yet sophisticated interchanges between Liverpool’s midfielders were essential to the threat that they posed to Chelsea’s defense.
As a result, http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/John-Terry-c18895 and co. were kept guessing throughout the match as to who will pop up at the tip of Liverpool’s midfield diamond.
Potentially, http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Chelsea-c38786 had an advantage in the final third of the field. Ancelotti had fielded two strikers (three if you include Anelka).
On the other hand, Liverpool only started with a sole striker in shape of Dirk Kuyt. The appalling factor was that neither Drogba nor Torres maximized on their match up against Carragher, Agger and Škrtel.
Alternatively, http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Liverpool-c39809 did capitalize on the width that they had through Johnson and Kelly.
This was evident through Liverpool’s one and only goal of the match.
http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Martin-Kelly-c24395 down the right hand side Liverpool’s attack. The Englishman played a one-two with Kelly before crossing deep into Chelsea’s penalty area.
http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Petr-Cech-c29837, Meireles produced a fine finish to give his team the lead.
Surprisingly enough, just before Liverpool took the lead, Chelsea withdrew http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Fernando-Torres-c13707 from the field of play and reverted to a 4-3-3 formation as they introduced Solomon Kalou in place of the ex-Liverpool striker.
Kalou’s introduction inspired a tactical change as well as http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Nicolas-Anelka-c27786 was shifted to a supporting striker’s role from his trequartista responsibilities. This meant that Chelsea now had width on either side of the field regardless
of the inabilities of Jose Bosingwa and http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Ashley-Cole-c6809. Much to Kenny Dalglish’s credit Liverpool dealt with this maturely.
Their lead allowed them to revert to a five man defense as Kelly and Johnson started to play as full backs rather than wing backs.
Additionally, Liverpool gained a numerical advantage in central midfield as well as http://www.senore.com/Football-soccer/Frank-Lampard-c14097, Obi Mikel and Essien competed against Gerrard, Lucas, Rodriguez and Meireles.
This change carried them through to the final whistle as the Reds completed their double over the Blues.
The views expressed by the writer are his own and do not reflect the editorial policy of www.bettor.com
Tags: