28-12-2010, 14:40
|
#938
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2003
Age: 40
Posts: 1,025
|
Re: Football Season 2010/2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
The fact Chelsea didn't get a second wasn't down to resolute defending by Arsenal but more that Chelsea didn't capitalise.
I don't know if it's an absence of the likes of Viera, Gallas (and Pires, I don't remember him that aggressive before?) but there does seem to be a very soft underbelly running through your team, even worse than we did.
|
Complete and total rubbish. It was exactly resolute defending which kept Chelsea at bay as all the stats testify and any actual match and tactical analysis explains: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/12/...elsea-tactics/
Quote:
Probably the most surprising selection – Walcott over Arshavin – turned out to be key. He was disciplined defensively and dangerous when he got the ball (even if his touch let him down a couple of times) and gave Ashley Cole far more to think about than in the previous fixtures between these sides, when the left-back was a constant threat on the overlap.
The defensive job was not all about tracking runs into deep areas, however. The most important feature of Arsenal’s game today was not what they did with the ball, but how well they pressed Chelsea when they lost it. Walcott was important in this respect – compared to Arshavin’s lethargy, his energy and willingness to chase non-stop typified Arsenal’s approach as a whole. And ‘as a whole’ is the most important part there – Arsenal pressed cohesively, as a unit, rather than in ones and twos.
The difference between the two sides without the ball is demonstrated well by the different positions of their interceptions:
The natural result was that Arsenal played high up the pitch, and therefore Chelsea’s main (only?) tactic with the ball was to knock passes over the top of the Arsenal defence for their forwards to chase. There was little understanding between the runners and the passers, however, and frequently Chelsea were caught offside. More credit is due to Arsenal for working as a unit without the ball, but it’s also worth considering whether Anelka’s pace would have made a difference here, especially Kalou had a very poor game.
|
|
|
|