Thread by @JohyanCruyff

Chelsea clashed against Crystal Palace in a very even game which lead to the points being shared, Palace were extremely difficult to break down but why was that the case? And could we have changed anything to have a better chance of winning?

THREAD:

Chelsea lined up in a 4-2-3-1 which quickly became a 3-1-5-1 shape with Enzo & Cucurella moving between the lines to have a 3v2 against Palace’s double pivot & a 6v5 against Palace’s back 5

Palace lined up in a narrow 5-4-1/5-2-3 shape

In theory having these overloads against Palace’s midfield & defence sounds great, there’s a spare player upfield which could make it difficult for Palace on who to mark

But we struggled to get in positions to take advantage of it because of how Palace stifled our build up

There was a few reasons for this, we’ll start with the first two which were tactical issues, Chelsea had a 3v3 against Palace’s frontline so they lacked a spare player to carry forward & pass forward

Meanwhile Mateta dropped off slightly to block any pass into Caicedo

This was a problem we faced in our previous games with Palace, with Mateta central & blocking the passing lane into Caicedo, Palace’s double pivot could stay slightly deeper to block any passes into the players between the lines

Not much room for our CCB to carry into

There was also personnel issues at the back

Chalobah isn’t great at opening up his body to play passes down the line on his weak foot so he was constantly forced inside & it made us predictable

Acheampong had some good moments (more on it later) but had 2-3 cheap giveaways

These cheap giveaways are bad enough anyway but it’s made even worse by the fact that Palace would have a 3v3 to counter against us should they win the ball

The middle centre back in a 3 needs to be a extremely calm in possession, it’s why Maresca only trusts Colwill & Tosin

When we did get the ball forward there were more issues

If the ball was played into Caicedo &/or a ball was played backwards, one of the double pivot would look to step out onto him whilst the wide centre backs would jump onto Enzo & Cucurella man to man so they don’t get space

Glasner’s side were extremely well coached on when to make these jumps & when to drop off so major credit has to be given to them for it

But even when we got the ball between the lines we only had 1 player (Palmer) who is good in those positions, could a Simons help?👀

Pedro didn’t hold the ball up well enough & with Neto being left footed on the right & Gittens being right footed on the left, they’d naturally want to come inside at times which made us even more narrow which Palace wanted

Probably why Maresca moved Neto to the left 2nd half

That was one change that Maresca made but did he change anything else?

Well he did start to give Palmer more license to roam freely because Palace’s double pivot were 4v2 down in midfield so they had other players to track & this worked at times

But the problem is even when it did work you’re taking our best attacking player & forcing him to come so deep that he’s not threatening Palace much at all

Near the end of the 2nd half Caicedo started dropping into the backline to have a 4v3 against Palace’s front 3

This left us in a 4-0-6 which would make it difficult to connect short passes & left a huge gap Palace could run into if they won the ball

However Maresca instructed the backline to hit balls over the Palace midfield into our frontline to try & win second balls as we had that 6v5 advantage (leads to our biggest chance)

A nice change as we needed to go for the win, but not ideal for a whole 90 for the reasons above

The other change was Cucurella & Enzo starting to drop deeper & wider to receive the ball at times to receive in wider areas as the Palace centre backs weren’t comfortable stepping out that far with a lack of pressure on the ball

But sometimes they came too narrow when receiving

So what do I think Maresca could’ve changed? Well for next time I’d like to see a 4-2 build

Why? Because it gives us a 4v3 on the first line, the fullbacks are wide but deeper so the wingbacks can’t commit straight away, & we still have a 3v2 in midfield

If their wingers stay narrow there’s space for the fullbacks to drive into

If they move wider then you finally open up space in the middle to take advantage of that midfield overload, Mateta now has 2 players to cover instead of 1, if we lose the ball there’s 4v3 cover

Then as you move higher up the pitch, you can morph into a 3-1-5-1 or (ideally) a 2-2-5-1 to keep the advantages of a 3v2 between the lines & a 6v5 against Palace’s back 5 that Maresca wanted to utilise

Though there’s still issues

The main one being it would most likely require our fullbacks overlapping

It doesn’t suit Cucurella (could he move into the half spaces?) & Maresca still clearly doesn’t trust the fitness of James going forward, maybe could use Gusto, Palmer on the wing & Simons 10 if he joins?

So another alternative could be to originally keep the 3-1-5-1 shape but have one of the wide “10’s” move deeper & wider earlier to receive the ball

If a midfielder follows then Palmer can drop into that area to receive & drive forward (essentially creating that 4-2 base)

Meanwhile our wingers can be used to pin the oppositions backline

In this example Cucurella could drop deeper & wider to receive whilst Gittens pins Munoz to stop him pressing Cucurella, as Palmer drops either he or Pedro could then pin Richards to stop him jumping to Palmer

Alternatively you could have a winger move inside

Then if the wingback steps out to one of our players deeper & wider, they can run in behind the space vacated & we can find them with a ball in behind due to a lack of pressure on the ball

I would’ve also like to have seen Sanchez step out as an extra centre back more to create a temporary back 4 to create a 4v3 advantage

Obviously have to be careful not to lose it if he’s off his line but again if their wingers are narrow, go wide, if they’re wide, go narrow

Hopefully those ways could help us build up better against back 5’s in the future

Especially because when we did get past Palace’s mid block (via winning the ball higher, attacking space quickly after winning it, or via an Acheampong carry into space) we did look threatening

End of thread

Tags: @CFCCentral3 @MobyChe @EnzoSZN_CFC @Asadcfc66 @SS____899 @ConnorHolden00 @the_elastico @_CFCRoy @cfcdom_ @23Pankovski @samiichels @_CFCRoy @cfcdom_ @ChessyHour @LKCOYB @_JoeAlexanderr @daudi10emmanuel @Blue_Footy @EuroExpert_ @KierDoyle @NewsJeffJ1