*A contribution post by @RyanGunness
Tactical Mechanics
On paper, it was a battle between Chelsea’s (blue) 4-1-4-1 and Brentford’s (white) 3-5-2.
In the 1st half, Brentford defended using a 5-3-2 as such. This allowed Brentford to match Chelsea’s CBs (2v2) and midfield (3v3), making build up difficult for the home team (A).
How did Chelsea respond? To beat Brentford’s press, Chelsea set up in a 2-3-5 as such. This did two things, it allowed: 1) Chelsea’s wingers to engage Brentford’s wingbacks (B) and 2) Chelsea’s attacking 8’s to engage Brentford’s midfield (C). Creating space for Chelsea’s inverted fullbacks to become main outlets/ball-carriers in build-up (D).
At this point, Chelsea were faced with the challenge of breaking down Brentford’s low-block. Looking at Chelsea’s set up (E), it was evident that they intended to play around Brentford’s defense.
Here, Chelsea used rotating passing triangles (amongst their winger, CM and fullback) to get in behind and send crosses into the box (F). Here, Chelsea’s opposite CM provided support as a 2nd striker, with their opposite winger keeping the width for possible switches of play (G). What was the problem with this approach?
The problem with this approach lays within its one-dimensionality. If you look closely, Chelsea’s attackers set up horizontally alongside each other, with little to no presence between the lines (H). It is this presence between the lines which facilitates combinations that plays through defenses, making for quick, one-touch, beautiful football (I). To break down such low-blocks, top teams around Europe usually occupy both wide and central areas (J), allowing for quick/slick combination play both around and through defenses.
In the 2nd half, Tuchel attempted to fix this. Here, Chelsea switched to a 3-5-2 via the introduction of Reece James, Kovacic and Lukaku (K). Having two strikers in the box, there was no need for the opposite CM to provide attacking support in such areas. Instead, the opposite CM was now allowed freedom to occupy zones between the lines, an aspect Chelsea lacked in the 1st half (L). At this point, Chelsea were able to simultaneously play through and around Brentford’s defense, creating many chances to score in the last quarter of the game (M). Unfortunately, the home team were not able to capitalize on these chances, losing 3 vital points in what is a tight top 4 race.
Where do we go from here?
The problem remains that, when coming up against low-blocks, Chelsea do not ask enough questions of the opposition. Today was a clear example of two contrasting halves when it came to attacks. In the 1st half, Chelsea made it easy for Brentford, solely attacking via the flanks with horizontal crosses being their only outlet. In the 2nd half, Chelsea made it more difficult for Brentford, launching attacks from both diagonal and central areas, in addition to from the flanks. This is the direction Chelsea has to build on, attacking wise, if they are to successfully breakdown low-blocks. Tactics however, is just one half of the puzzle. Questions remain over the technical abilities of certain Chelsea attackers, and whether their attributes suit quick, possession based, one touch football.
Written by: Ryan Gunness