Michael Tucker

Chelsea 3 Middlesbrough 0

338 posts in this topic

45 minutes ago, Jasonb said:

Agree with the bold text, the rest kind of makes sense though would have expected to hear something about the formation change too.

The formation change meant nothing - just an artificial way of getting midfielders out of our own box and out chasing down opponents (it worked well though, the players reverted to standard PL tactics over-night).FB, is the kind of thing that happens on a regular basis with 4 at the back.  From the players point of view there formation change was irrelevant.

The real difference was mostly simply the number of pickable players, and fitness levels resulted from that, fewer games and a proper pre-season.

But I would like to hear about how Conte drills the team to play the ball around the back.  The thing that stands out for me is how Azpi and Cahill more or less sprint into positions to receive the ball very wide of Luiz/GK.  There is no strolling around with the ball at the back, it is highly geared to making men available (always an easy option for say Luiz, if pauses to look up, sees nothing on, and is under pressure).

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Droy was my hero said:

The formation change meant nothing - just an artificial way of getting midfielders out of our own box and out chasing down opponents (it worked well though, the players reverted to standard PL tactics over-night).
The real difference was mostly simply the number of pickable players, and fitness levels resulted from that, fewer games and a proper pre-season.

Somehow I think that the change of manager brought about a complete change of atmosphere in and around the club and, moreover, that manager's capability to respond and adapt his approach according to his observation of our play match performance, along with assessing the playing strengths at his disposal and deploying them appropriately, rather than sticking rigidly to his own ideas and forcing an uncongenial style on the team and its individuals, had something to do with it as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Somehow I think that the change of manager brought about a complete change of atmosphere in and around the club and, moreover, that manager's capability to respond and adapt his approach according to his observation of our play match performance, along with assessing the playing strengths at his disposal and deploying them appropriately, rather than sticking rigidly to his own ideas and forcing an uncongenial style on the team and its individuals, had something to do with it as well. 

Perhaps.  But I think you are contrasting a good cycle with a bad cycle.  The difference is mostly that we got into a trough last year by trying harder and harder to catch up with knackered players.  Playing small squads always ends up as a virtuous or a vicious circle.  14/15 was a virtuous one, and a big lead meant we could play without pressure.  15/16 was a vicious one where we desperately needed to  win games.  16/17's improvement on 15/16 is mostly a fresh start.

Still we are probably still better than 14/15 - which means some real progress on top of the bounce back..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Somehow I think that the change of manager brought about a complete change of atmosphere in and around the club and, moreover, that manager's capability to respond and adapt his approach according to his observation of our play match performance, along with assessing the playing strengths at his disposal and deploying them appropriately, rather than sticking rigidly to his own ideas and forcing an uncongenial style on the team and its individuals, had something to do with it as well. 

Please, that's way too logical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

The formation change meant nothing. From the players point of view there formation change was irrelevant.

From Begovic's personal point of view maybe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Droy was my hero said:

The formation change meant nothing - just an artificial way of getting midfielders out of our own box and out chasing down opponents.

I'm almost speechless. The formation change meant huge changes at the back, massively helped Luiz settle in to boss it as he has, completely changed how our full-backs, now wing-backs, operate.

Plus you're saying that it meant nothing except an 'artificial' way of getting midfielders out our box - que?

So, in essence, the formation change didn't change anything apart from what it actually changed; because there's nothing artificial about it - the formation change altered the position of the midfielders.

The formation change was, if not everything, a massive factor in why we've been so much better.

Share this post


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

Please, that's way too logical. 

Certo! Scusa mi amico!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^No - defence formation is determined by the oppo, not our manager.  The "formation" just determines how the names get written on the sheet.

The real advantage of the 3 man defence was that it reminded Matic that he was not needed as a 3rd CB, Kante that his job was to hunt men outside the box not sweep up under Cahill and JT's feet, and the wingers that they were not auxiliary FBs.  It killed off the 8-1-1 format that was making us so vulnerable.  

This is pretty conventional stuff.  I do my best to be non-conventional and contrarian.  Yet oddly it is mostly when I stick to conventional wisdom that people react most strongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

^No - defence formation is determined by the oppo, not our manager.  The "formation" just determines how the names get written on the sheet.

The real advantage of the 3 man defence was that it reminded Matic that he was not needed as a 3rd CB, Kante that his job was to hunt men outside the box not sweep up under Cahill and JT's feet, and the wingers that they were not auxiliary FBs.  It killed off the 8-1-1 format that was making us so vulnerable.  

This is pretty conventional stuff.  I do my best to be non-conventional and contrarian.  Yet oddly it is mostly when I stick to conventional wisdom that people react most strongly.

8-1-1 what are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chelsea-Till-I-Die said:

 

The formation change was, if not everything, a massive factor in why we've been so much better.

Or the fact when we switched to 3-4-3 we went from 8 points behind first to 5 points clear is just a massive coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.