Did Tuchel Try To Implement His Philosophy Last Season? - What Went Wrong?

A brief summary of Tuchel’s philosophy - Contribution by Ryan Gunness

Throughout last season, the term “Tuchel’s philosophy” has been thrown around by most Chelsea fans, begging the question, what exactly is it?

At its core, Tuchel’s philosophy is based on ball retention and verticality into the opposition’s final 3rd (1). A philosophy which promotes direct, attacking football, in the form of a 3-4-3 diamond as such (2). Here, regardless of formation, a 3-2 base is favored as a vertical launch-point for attacks (3), with a midfield diamond as its “connector” (4), to a front 3 which provides both width and symmetry into the final 3rd (5).

Heavy positional rotation is often required, as both central (seen above) and wide (6) 3-4-3 diamonds are created throughout the game, allowing Tuchel’s teams to play both through and around defensive lines. All in all, adding dynamism to an already direct philosophy centred on verticality.

How Tuchel implemented his 3-4-3 diamond at Chelsea

In September, we began to see Tuchel really implement his 3-4-3 diamond philosophy at Chelsea. Though short-lived, it was the infamous period of the “inverted wingbacks”, whereby Tuchel rotated his no.10s and wingbacks to form central (7) and wide diamonds (8) as such.

During this time, verticality was the name of the game, with a 3-2 base which directed blistering attacks through our dynamic front 5. With games against Leicester and Juventus being at the forefront of such period, it was a time which showed glimpses of just what is possible under Thomas Tuchel.

What went wrong in October?

With an injury/illness stricken period on the horizon, the bricks that made us dream of a possible title charge, quickly collapsed. The very foundation being, the long-term injuries to our starting wingbacks, Reece James and Ben Chilwell.

Simply put, replacements Cesar Azpilicueta and Marcos Alonso did not possess the technical ability nor “legs” to fulfill the wingback role in Tuchel’s 3-4-3 diamond. That is, both players lacked the 1v1 ability/speed to act as “wingers” in wide positions (9), as well as the ball retention capability to act as “no.10s” in tight spaces (10).

Furthermore, with age not being on either’s side, both simply did not have the capacity to consistently take up such forward positions and get back to form a “back-5” continuously throughout the game. So, what did Tuchel do?

How Tuchel adapted to missing Chilwell and James

To adapt to the physical and technical capabilities of both wingbacks, Tuchel refrained from his 3-4-3 diamond philosophy, and switched to a more pragmatic approach. Here, despite formation, Tuchel’s men would build/progress attacks using a 4-1-4-1 as such (11), allowing Chelsea to attack via overloads/ the switch of play as follows (12). At this point, gaining as much points as possible through our player-absentee crisis was the main priority, with Tuchel “ditching” the foundations of his philosophy that were previously laid.

Playing through defenses, with verticality at its epicenter, was an important aspect of Tuchel’s original 3-4-3 diamond philosophy, however, it required “top tier” ball retention in positions between the lines, something that was compromised when Chilwell and James were injured and not allowed to rotate with our wingers. This is why Tuchel switched to a more pragmatic way of football, one that would reduce risk of turnovers/counters, in order to gain as much points as possible.

All in all, despite not being pretty, Chelsea did just that, achieving top 4 which leaves our future.

By Ryan Gunness