test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Jason

Super Frank Thread

Started by Jason,

3,045 posts in this topic
Just now, Tomo said:

Ive never disagreed with that and infact I've been very critical myself of how he broke up the Kova, Jorgi, Mount midfield for example, something I hope he's learned from.

Or disregarding Giroud entirely for no apparent reason...

2 minutes ago, Tomo said:

ones that only tend to show up after bad results (notice a certain coincidental absence?) or trivial stuff when I say a performance wasn't shit somehow leads to someone translating that to me apparently being happy with the result

Well, I've nothing to say about that. It is as annoying as it is predictable. 

Tomo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, killer1257 said:

THe Club need to act on this asap....this is an absolute disgrace if true. Find the fucking traitor.

Vesper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tomo said:

Three times now he's throughly out thought Mourinho, outfoxed Ten Hag in Amsterdam and has faced Klopp, Pep and Sarri with vastly inferior teams and had his side looking tactically on point.

Yes he's made mistakes that he will need to cut it out to ultimately make it here, but anyone who says there's no potential of a top coach in there is talking shit.

Not sure I can give him much praise for yesterday's game. Spurs have just played two days ago and they have no striker in the squad. It is very2 difficult to win big games without any striker 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mourinho’s back five failed against one that was more natural and cohesive

james-davies.jpg

https://theathletic.com/1627084/2020/02/23/tottenham-chelsea-mourinho-back-three-negative/

When Tottenham were beaten 2-0 by Chelsea just before Christmas, Frank Lampard scored a tactical victory over his former manager. To the surprise of almost everyone, Lampard switched to a back three and, in so doing, exposed Serge Aurier and Jan Vertonghen down the flanks. Chelsea dominated against Tottenham’s 4-2-3-1 formation and ran out comfortable winners.

Come Saturday, Jose Mourinho was desperate to avoid a repeat. He told The Athletic in Friday’s press conference that Lampard would revert to a 3-4-3 and decided to match it by selecting a back three himself.

It should be pointed out that Lampard had the benefit of almost a full week to work with his players but, where Chelsea looked as though they had a clear plan and an understanding of the system, Tottenham resembled a side with little concept of how to make it work or much idea of exactly what it was they were supposed to be doing. Mourinho has generally been a reactive manager during his career but, as his side slumped to a disappointing 2-1 defeat to fall four points behind fourth-placed Chelsea, it felt like he had been too preoccupied by what Tottenham’s opposition were doing.

Having been overrun on the flanks by Chelsea in December, Mourinho doubled down at Stamford Bridge. The back three was most often a back five, with the wing-backs — and that term must be used in the loosest possible sense — Ben Davies and Japhet Tanganga instructed to play extremely conservatively. As early as the fifth minute, Mourinho was out of the dugout telling Tanganga, who is naturally a centre-back, to hold his position.

But despite Davies and Tanganga’s conservatism, they still couldn’t get a handle on Marcos Alonso and Reece James. Alonso ended the game with a goal, three shots and two key passes to his name, while James contributed two shots and two key passes. Tottenham’s wing-backs, by contrast, mustered zero for all of those metrics, underlining the gulf between the effectiveness of the two teams on the flanks. James also put in seven crosses to Tanganga and Davies’ combined zero.

The one time Tanganga did venture forward, Chelsea appeared so surprised that they failed to track his run. Had his touch been better, Tanganga would have had a tap-in after knocking the ball beyond Willy Caballero. Davies, though, resisted going forward until the very final stages and looked uncertain all afternoon. He gave the ball away 25 times — more than anyone else on the pitch — and his 54 per cent pass accuracy was the worst beside Caballero.

1059964-8-82263.png

Alonso consistently bombed forward down the Chelsea left

 

Davies.png

His opposite number Davies barely got forward despite Spurs trailing for 75 minutes

 

Having five defenders sitting so deep also created problems for Tottenham in central areas. If the system was designed to protect Spurs out wide then, like a game of whack-a-mole, all it did was mean others issues popped up elsewhere. An extra defender meant one fewer midfielder and the gap between the Spurs centre-backs and midfield of Harry Winks and Tanguy Ndombele was cavernous at times.

This allowed Ross Barkley and Mason Mount to occupy the half-spaces and create problems for the Spurs defence. Mount broke into the box unchallenged for an early chance saved by Hugo Lloris while, in the closing stages, he drifted into an inside-right position and easily beat Vertonghen before crossing for Tammy Abraham. Again, it was only Lloris’s sharp reflexes that saved Spurs from conceding.

Tottenham’s inability to get a handle on Mount and Barkley was summarised by Chelsea’s second goal. After collecting Olivier Giroud’s header, Mount beat Vertonghen and played the ball inside for the similarly free Barkley. His pass then found Alonso, charging forward from left wing-back to double Chelsea’s lead. It was the perfect exhibition of how to make a system with wing-backs work from an attacking perspective. Likewise, Spurs showed how not to defend with a back three as their defenders were dragged out of position and their two central midfielders were left chasing shadows.

Screenshot-2020-02-22-at-16.18.52.png

Tottenham’s defenders are dragged into the middle as Ndombele and Winks are caught out of position

 

Barkley ended up registering four shots to add to his two key passes and one assist, while Mount enjoyed his most influential game since being granted the freedom of the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in December. Starting in a similar role for Spurs, Giovani Lo Celso struggled to get into the game and was extremely fortunate to stay on the pitch after a dangerous tackle on Cesar Azpilicueta.

As with any match at the moment, there are mitigating circumstances for Tottenham. Clearly, it is extremely difficult without the injured Harry Kane, Son Heung-min and Moussa Sissoko.

But it was still alarming to see them defend so poorly, especially given Mourinho had picked a team designed to frustrate. It was this fixture back in 2004 that prompted Mourinho to say of Jacques Santini’s Spurs: “Tottenham might as well have put the team bus in front of their goal.” But at least Santini was successful that day — grinding out a 0-0 — whereas Tottenham could easily have conceded another one or two goals on Saturday.

And the ones they did let in were deflating. We’ve been over the second already, but the first came from Giroud running in behind Tottenham’s back five, which is a pretty damning indictment of any defence. Giroud has many qualities but pace is not one of them.

One had more sympathy for Tottenham’s attacking players. Steven Bergwijn and Lucas Moura showed some clever touches in the first half and Erik Lamela was excellent when he came on in the second but Tottenham are desperately missing Kane and Son’s cutting edge.

Their absence made Dele Alli being benched until the 78th minute all the stranger, even if he has played a lot of football of late. His reaction to being substituted against RB Leipzig on Wednesday may also have been a factor.

Dele barely touched the ball after coming on and, for most of the afternoon, Spurs’ forwards were starved of service. The shakiness of their back five’s distribution was a contributing factor here, just as it had been against Leipzig. Davies and Vertonghen were especially guilty of either hoofing the ball hopefully or taking too long and being closed down.

After the game, Mourinho suggested there was little his side could have done given the circumstances. “I don’t think any club, in the situation we are in now, can do better than we do,” he told beINSports.

Perhaps, but on Saturday, his opposite number showed how much a team can improve when they adopt a system that their players are comfortable with and are well suited to. Chelsea were hardly in sparkling form themselves, remember, having failed to win any of their last four Premier League games — and were without N’Golo Kante, Callum Hudson-Odoi and Christian Pulisic.

Mourinho’s Spurs meanwhile reminded us that when teams are selected more out of hope than expectation, things rarely end well. Mourinho acknowledged this afterwards but claimed in mitigation: “We have strange game plans but we need to have them because there’s not another way.”

Expect more trial and error in the coming weeks as Spurs strive to find a solution to their striker crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup they did all of us proud, we need that fire and intensity and we will do fine, add additions and we could have something here.

Vesper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atomiswave said:

Yup they did all of us proud, we need that fire and intensity and we will do fine, add additions and we could have something here.

Much better all-round performance, but it has to be said Spurs were very poor.

I've just had a look at our remaining fixtures and it's a pretty tough run in from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, chippy said:

Much better all-round performance, but it has to be said Spurs were very poor.

I've just had a look at our remaining fixtures and it's a pretty tough run in from here.

They werent great but we also made them look more clueless.

All games are tough for us, lets buckle up and get to the finishing line ( top 4 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

They werent great but we also made them look more clueless.

All games are tough for us, lets buckle up and get to the finishing line ( top 4 )

Yes, there are no easy games for us at the mo!

There was a time when we could look at a block of games and have a fairly good idea of roughly how many points we'd have at the end, but that's not the case now. Almost every game feels like it could go either way.

Still, I wasn't expecting much at all this season, so if you'd told me at the start we'd be 4th at this stage and playing BM in the KO stages of the CL, i'd have been more than happy!

 

Atomiswave likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Vesper said:

Mourinho’s back five failed against one that was more natural and cohesive

james-davies.jpg

https://theathletic.com/1627084/2020/02/23/tottenham-chelsea-mourinho-back-three-negative/

 by Chelsea just before Christmas, Frank Lampard scored a tactical victory over his former manager. To the surprise of almost everyone, Lampard switched to a back three and, in so doing, exposed Serge Aurier and Jan Vertonghen down the flanks. Chelsea dominated against Tottenham’s 4-2-3-1 formation and ran out comfortable winners.

Come Saturday, Jose Mourinho was desperate to avoid a repeat. He told The Athletic in Friday’s press conference that Lampard would revert to a 3-4-3 and decided to match it by selecting a back three himself.

It should be pointed out that Lampard had the benefit of almost a full week to work with his players but, where Chelsea looked as though they had a clear plan and an understanding of the system, Tottenham resembled a side with little concept of how to make it work or much idea of exactly what it was they were supposed to be doing. Mourinho has generally been a reactive manager during his career but, as his side slumped to a disappointing 2-1 defeat to fall four points behind fourth-placed Chelsea, it felt like he had been too preoccupied by what Tottenham’s opposition were doing.

Having been overrun on the flanks by Chelsea in December, Mourinho doubled down at Stamford Bridge. The back three was most often a back five, with the wing-backs — and that term must be used in the loosest possible sense — Ben Davies and Japhet Tanganga instructed to play extremely conservatively. As early as the fifth minute, Mourinho was out of the dugout telling Tanganga, who is naturally a centre-back, to hold his position.

But despite Davies and Tanganga’s conservatism, they still couldn’t get a handle on Marcos Alonso and Reece James. Alonso ended the game with a goal, three shots and two key passes to his name, while James contributed two shots and two key passes. Tottenham’s wing-backs, by contrast, mustered zero for all of those metrics, underlining the gulf between the effectiveness of the two teams on the flanks. James also put in seven crosses to Tanganga and Davies’ combined zero.

The one time Tanganga did venture forward, Chelsea appeared so surprised that they failed to track his run. Had his touch been better, Tanganga would have had a tap-in after knocking the ball beyond Willy Caballero. Davies, though, resisted going forward until the very final stages and looked uncertain all afternoon. He gave the ball away 25 times — more than anyone else on the pitch — and his 54 per cent pass accuracy was the worst beside Caballero.

1059964-8-82263.png

Alonso consistently bombed forward down the Chelsea left

 

Davies.png

His opposite number Davies barely got forward despite Spurs trailing for 75 minutes

 

Having five defenders sitting so deep also created problems for Tottenham in central areas. If the system was designed to protect Spurs out wide then, like a game of whack-a-mole, all it did was mean others issues popped up elsewhere. An extra defender meant one fewer midfielder and the gap between the Spurs centre-backs and midfield of Harry Winks and Tanguy Ndombele was cavernous at times.

This allowed Ross Barkley and Mason Mount to occupy the half-spaces and create problems for the Spurs defence. Mount broke into the box unchallenged for an early chance saved by Hugo Lloris while, in the closing stages, he drifted into an inside-right position and easily beat Vertonghen before crossing for Tammy Abraham. Again, it was only Lloris’s sharp reflexes that saved Spurs from conceding.

Tottenham’s inability to get a handle on Mount and Barkley was summarised by Chelsea’s second goal. After collecting Olivier Giroud’s header, Mount beat Vertonghen and played the ball inside for the similarly free Barkley. His pass then found Alonso, charging forward from left wing-back to double Chelsea’s lead. It was the perfect exhibition of how to make a system with wing-backs work from an attacking perspective. Likewise, Spurs showed how not to defend with a back three as their defenders were dragged out of position and their two central midfielders were left chasing shadows.

Screenshot-2020-02-22-at-16.18.52.png

Think as well, which hasnt been mentioned at all, Frank deployed a back 5 where 4 of the 5 players have regularly played in a back 3 under various managers at other teams and here.

It isnt exactly the same obviously Frank has put his touch on it but the basics of it are the same with and without the ball, make the pitch as wide as possible with it to try utilize the free man out wide which eventually ends up creating space in the middle and then make the pitch narrow without it.

The players are used to it and have trained it alot (especially with Antonio who was hugely renowned for team shape exercises in training and obviously 343/352 is his preference tactically). Azpi under Conte here, Christensen at Mochengladbach and here under Conte, Rudiger at Roma, here under Conte and for Germany and Alonso at Fiorentina and here under Conte. Theyve also played it together countless times as mentioned with that time under Conte. 

Thats probably a huge reason as to it looked more natural and how we looked more comfortable in it I think compared to Spurs, who have predominantly deployed a back 4 under Jose (and Pochettino before) more or less every game (Jose only really ever gone 3 at the back by sacrificing a fullback for an attacker when his team needs a goal in stages of games, particularly at Inter, Madrid and here).

The players know their roles more clearly in it imo than when he play a back 4 most weeks. Alonso and Azpi aren't too sure in a 4, they know they have to go forward but leave space in behind them. In a 3 they both have different roles but it also masks issues of theirs, Alonso has a CB behind him who is better positioned to cover him and Azpi isnt as far up the pitch where he will struggle to recover/be caught out of position more.

I think going with a 4 v Bayern would be a huge mistake as well. Go for the same 3 CBs then James and Emerson although Alonso could deserve to remain in the team as his offensive contribution v Spurs was good.

Vesper, Tomo and Strike like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Think as well, which hasnt been mentioned at all, Frank deployed a back 5 where 4 of the 5 players have regularly played in a back 3 under various managers at other teams and here.

It isnt exactly the same obviously Frank has put his touch on it but the basics of it are the same with and without the ball, make the pitch as wide as possible with it to try utilize the free man out wide which eventually ends up creating space in the middle and then make the pitch narrow without it.

The players are used to it and have trained it alot (especially with Antonio who was hugely renowned for team shape exercises in training and obviously 343/352 is his preference tactically). Azpi under Conte here, Christensen at Mochengladbach and here under Conte, Rudiger at Roma, here under Conte and for Germany and Alonso at Fiorentina and here under Conte. Theyve also played it together countless times as mentioned with that time under Conte. 

Thats probably a huge reason as to it looked more natural and how we looked more comfortable in it I think compared to Spurs, who have predominantly deployed a back 4 under Jose (and Pochettino before) more or less every game (Jose only really ever gone 3 at the back by sacrificing a fullback for an attacker when his team needs a goal in stages of games, particularly at Inter, Madrid and here).

The players know their roles more clearly in it imo than when he play a back 4 most weeks. Alonso and Azpi aren't too sure in a 4, they know they have to go forward but leave space in behind them. In a 3 they both have different roles but it also masks issues of theirs, Alonso has a CB behind him who is better positioned to cover him and Azpi isnt as far up the pitch where he will struggle to recover/be caught out of position more.

I think going with a 4 v Bayern would be a huge mistake as well. Go for the same 3 CBs then James and Emerson although Alonso could deserve to remain in the team as his offensive contribution v Spurs was good.

super comment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OneMoSalah said:

Think as well, which hasnt been mentioned at all, Frank deployed a back 5 where 4 of the 5 players have regularly played in a back 3 under various managers at other teams and here.

It isnt exactly the same obviously Frank has put his touch on it but the basics of it are the same with and without the ball, make the pitch as wide as possible with it to try utilize the free man out wide which eventually ends up creating space in the middle and then make the pitch narrow without it.

The players are used to it and have trained it alot (especially with Antonio who was hugely renowned for team shape exercises in training and obviously 343/352 is his preference tactically). Azpi under Conte here, Christensen at Mochengladbach and here under Conte, Rudiger at Roma, here under Conte and for Germany and Alonso at Fiorentina and here under Conte. Theyve also played it together countless times as mentioned with that time under Conte. 

Thats probably a huge reason as to it looked more natural and how we looked more comfortable in it I think compared to Spurs, who have predominantly deployed a back 4 under Jose (and Pochettino before) more or less every game (Jose only really ever gone 3 at the back by sacrificing a fullback for an attacker when his team needs a goal in stages of games, particularly at Inter, Madrid and here).

The players know their roles more clearly in it imo than when he play a back 4 most weeks. Alonso and Azpi aren't too sure in a 4, they know they have to go forward but leave space in behind them. In a 3 they both have different roles but it also masks issues of theirs, Alonso has a CB behind him who is better positioned to cover him and Azpi isnt as far up the pitch where he will struggle to recover/be caught out of position more.

I think going with a 4 v Bayern would be a huge mistake as well. Go for the same 3 CBs then James and Emerson although Alonso could deserve to remain in the team as his offensive contribution v Spurs was good.

Also Reece did at youth level, granted at RCB which was not his position Saturday.

I've always said Jose doesn't know how to do 3atb, I was delighted when he matched us.

OneMoSalah likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tomo said:

I've always said Jose doesn't know how to do 3atb

Not surprising to see, TBH. In the past, Mourinho used the back 3 only when it was time to throw the kitchen sink at the opponent to try and get back into games, and even then, it was basically putting some safe numbers behind the ball and letting the other 7 players attack with abandon, if you like. And considering Mourinho is not known for coaching attacking patterns, attacking plays etc, it's not strange to see that his teams struggle with the back 3 when he goes with it from the start. The back 3 generally requires some proper coaching to actually make it work. 

Tomo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third time he makes the same mistake. After winning a game with the back 3 which was specifically for that one game, he continues with it into the next game..... 

Game against Bayern hasn't started but to me this is a big mistake, again to do the same mistake a third time

He just don't learn......

We could get lucky and get a win, but with Alonso there against Bayern...I don't like this! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected, won‘t blame Lamps for today‘s defeat. However, if we miss out on Top 4, he has to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant blame him for the result. The difference in quality is abysmal. Im more the concerned with the lack of organization, both defending and going forward. 

Im convinced Wolves and Leicester would put a better performance against Bayern at home than we did today. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henrique said:

I cant blame hum for the result. The difference in quality is abysmal. Im more the concerned with the lack of organization, both defending and going forward. 

Im convinced Wolves and Leicester would put a better performance against Bayern at home than we did today. 

 

Wolves I'd agree but no chance with Leicester.

Brendan Rodgers record against elite opposition is worse than Wenger's.

Henrique likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now