Thursday, 10 March 2016


yesterday chelsea played in their home against PSG . chelsea needed a goal to advance but were beaten with the same scoreline with which they lost the first game .
the lineups are very well known to all of us . the only change and which was positive one for me was playing kennedy in place of baba rehman . kennedy has a decent pace and certainly can match his brazilian compatriot in that one and is decent going forward so playing him was good sign for me . while he made on good change he kept the stupid mikel who is lazy and who's game reading is very poor in the middle of the park . his ineffectiveness does can be considered a reason for chelsea's downfall .
now the started the game with both teams playing deep . i dont know why PSG play deep they have two decent pace in their legs . the trouble was for chelsea . chelsea were playing deep and it is rightly so because both cahill and ivanovic dont have pace in their legs and would struggle if di maria or lucas runs past them. the trouble with chelsea was that even though they were playing deep . they were holding their last line 5 yards in front of the box so there was a space behind the back four to exploit . the trouble was that chelsea were offering psg time and space in the middle of the park which was dangerous . there were two errors in the first goal scored by psg which chelsea committed . first off zlatan made the diagonal run across the back four and cahill who was man marking him should have gone with him . had he gone with him then zlatan wouldnt had been able to turn that easily and pass the ball across the goal . secondly mikel  and fabregas with their support cast in the middle of the park . they didnt work hard to close psg down and make it hard . psg played the tactics well by bringing the wide playes inside and trying to achieve the numbers superiority in the middle of the park but then chelsea should had been able to deal with it . if you look at the statistics then psg had so much possession but was it worth it or did  they threaten each time when they had the ball . the passing game that they played in the middle and the back couldnt be replicated in the final third . psg had all the possession but were they able to play through zlatan or get zlatan properly in the game in the first half . except for the first half goal psg's threat was minimal and courtois goal wasnt  threatened . in the second half they brought zlatan more in the game . the script was just like the first game .
i was disappointed with chelsea's tactics . if you look at silva and luiz then first thing they were staying goal side of costa . they were not trying to press him up . he was offered time and space in the hole and i expected it to be exploited . if you look at the first chelsea goal then it is a proof of that where costa was given the time by silva to twist and take the shot . this was in the first half . i expected hiddink that he would exploit the space that costa was offered and try to have somebody run beyond costa and costa passing him on . costa cannot pass properly . i havent seen players playing off him just like lampard use to play off drogba . plus his positioning sense is not good . i will explain this later . willian and costa didnt had any cohesion between nor is any cohesion in the chelsea team and because of that chelsea cannot move the ball faster . they have to find to out where the support cast is . there were moments in match when chelsea won the ball in the middle of the park because psg were trying to be too cute and could had been to paid had chelsea had any cohesion .
the most interesting statistics that i would like to not is the numbers of times that psg lost possession in the middle of the park where on i think they over pass the ball . psg pass the ball better but at times it is aimless . they try to take the risk by trying to outpass the opposition but in doing so they dont bring the ball up in the final third quickly enough instead they keep it passing in the midfield and at times they loose it and that happened number of times last night . had chelsea had a better cohesion and better couter attacking ability then i think chelsea could have had psg pay. the trouble with chelsea is that this team never had cohesion instead it is dependent of players qualities to open the opposition rather than team interplay .
the explaination as to why costa has no positional sense is being explained in the following pic . chelsea broke psg attack and willian went past rabiot and he searching for the players in the box . at that time costa sould be lurking in and around the six yard box . his position would had kept back four occupied which would had created space between the back four and middle on the cut back or if there was a space between back four and goal keeper then ball could had been played there . but costa staying inside for the cut back meant the chance was lost .

Monday, 7 March 2016


valencia played ath mad in the their home yesterday . but before i describe the game let me talk about gary neville's comment . he said that valencia matched one of the best team in europe for 70 min then let me tell you that he is making a stupid statement . none of the best coaches or even any of the coaches talk like that . just either admit that either you were second best or there is a fault in your coaching or in your game plan and that is why you were defeated . i dont think neville is made up for coaching . he should be constantly making adjustments telling his players as to what they need to do or try to improvise on the game plan with which the team is playing . the best coaches remain constantly glued to the touch lines talking to their players passing instructions and thinking about the game .i am sorry but neville just doesnt cut like a good coach .
valencia started the game with a 4-1-4-1 formation or with 4-1-2-3 formation whichever you like to take . valencia had alcacar up front with cheryshev and feghouli alongside him . while gomes and fuego were just behind them . enzo perez was in front of the back four trying to protect them . while the back four consisted of cancelo,mustafi,santos with siquiera . ath mad have their tried and tested 4-6-0 formation with vieto and griezman upfront with koke,gabi,krainvetter and saul in the middle four while the back four consisted of juanfran,gimenez,hernandez and felipe luis .
now we know how ath mad play they start slow . they start by weighing up the opposition sitting back in the half having all the players behind the ball . they like to play on the counter but there is an important statistics that i would like to mention or try to find this . ath mad must have had the most no. of shots on goal or attempts beyond the box or from its edge . yes they are very good at counter attacking and defend very resolutely but their one feature which had not been highlighted is that they tend to conserve the energy at the start of the battle . they start to come up the pitch as the game start to progress . when the opposition start to get tired that time ath mad start to prees them . plus a good thing about simeone's coaching is that he has really taught them good as to when they should press and when they should sit back and invite the opposition to open them .
now gary neville must had watched the game between ath mad and real madrid and must had noted some points from it but then he made the same mistakes which real madrid in their game . real madrid were in control of the game till their was not much space between the back four and middle two . valencia's back two dont have the pace which vieto or griezman has in their legs so trying to catch them in an off side trap was stupidity . so gary played the back four pretty deep in doing that he stretched the game and also made ath mad cover more grass to have a shot at valencia's goal . but the one mistake that real madrid made and what neville made was that he didnt had enough protection for the back four . the back four wasnt going to come up and press instead they were waiting for griezman or vieto to go beyond them but as i had said earlier griezman wont try to get beyond the back four instead will try his chances once he gets around the box . the reason why valencia were struggling was because valencia didnt had enough players in front of the back four . they only had perez . he was 2-1 against griezman and vieto . mustafi and santos were not coming up to help perez since the cohesion on defense was very poor . gary should had noted the influence of griezman on ath mad game and the way he plays and what should he do .
while the valencia's defense was not very great but it was helped about by some poor ath mad passing and some decent valencia defending in individual battle's they were very poor on the offensive side of the game . now in what world is alcacar going to win the aerial battle against ath mad's centre back . firstly gary tried to stretch game by playing fehouli and cheryshev very wide . he tried to stretch the game . he played andre gomes and fueigo in supprt of the front three . valencia move the ball from flank to flank but then the most frustrating thing was their inability to bring  alcacar in the game . it would be worth noting the number of touches he had during the first half or the number of successful passess he had . just like alcacar he couldnt bring andre gomes into the game who i think is one of the best players on the ball . plus neville's valencia didnt really had the idea as to what they were going to do when they were in the final third . it wasnt that valencia werent getting space. with koke moving inside to support griezman and vieto siqueira was getting the space to move forward . but their was lack of imagination from valencia plus a clear lack of coaching inputs as to what they need to do when they bring the ball upfield . valencia's goal was because for the first time cheryshev moved inside and alcacar instead of trying to chest the ball headed it in the path of cheryshev showing his good game sense . other than that valencia just didnt had nothing to show in the game . valencia played too wide which was never going to ath mad . since they themselves defend narrow and allow the space in the wide areas trying to draw out opposition so as to hit them on the counter and explore the space left by them .

had gary just kept the a good tab on griezman and tried to frustrate griezman then he could had been able give headache to simeone . secondly why not give ball to ath mad and sit back and ask ath mad to open them up and try to hit ath mad on the counter . if somebody had watched the carefully then you would had seen that ath mad were always in the trouble when valcenica could stop them in the track and hit them on the counter even when they would soak ath's attack and hit them on the counter . gary showed no tactical nuance which is necessary for a coach . i was disapponted with him and i think valencia too would be .