Spanish sports fans have gained a sad reputation for abject behaviour toward minority groups.
English fans will remember the night in November 2004 when Spanish fans hurled racist abuse and made monkey chants at England's black players in a match between the two countries. This prompted Ashley Cole to announce that he will never play for a club in "racist Spain".
In 2008 racing car driver Lewis Hamilton was jeered and subjected to monkey chants by pathetic fans in the course of the Barcelona Grand Prix.
Before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a photograph of the Spanish national basketball team was released displaying the players making slant eyes in a mocking manner.
And now a new story has emerged from Osasuna, Spain. A match between Real Mallorca and Osasuna was marred by antisemitic chants thrown at Real Mallorca's Israeli goalkeeper Dudu Aouate.
According to referee Alfonso Alvarez Izquierdo, "From the 14th minute and on five other occasions in the first half, (anti-Semitic) chants... were directed at the visiting goalkeeper by the home fans behind the goal, every time he touched the ball," the referee said in his match report posted on the Spanish federation Web site. Izquierdo informed the match delegate and a message was put out over the stadium PA system calling for the chants to stop. They were not repeated in the second half."
According to Haaretz, "The fans waved Palestinian flags and also shouted "murderer" at Aouate.
Aouate sounded unfazed by the chanting, telling local media that, "This happens to me every time I play here in Pamplona. It really makes me happy that we won."
This is not the first time that the Israeli 'keeper has been subjected to anti-Semitic taunts by Osasuna fans. In 2006, while playing for Deportivo La Coruna, he also came in for some untoward treatment."
The Spanish football federation is set to bring Osasuna before a disciplinary committee.
PlainSoccer.com Premier League Leaderboard: Week 16
Didier Drogba takes the lead once again after a two goal performance versus Everton.
| Player | Club | Goals | Assists | Combined |
| 1.Drogba, Didier | Chelsea | 13 | 5 | 18 |
| 2.Fabregas, Cesc | Arsenal | 6 | 10 | 16 |
| 3.Persie, Robin van | Arsenal | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| 4.Defoe, Jermaine | Tottenham | 12 | 1 | 13 |
| -.Bent, Darren | Sunderland | 10 | 3 | 13 |
| 5.Lampard, Frank | Chelsea | 4 | 8 | 12 |
| 6.Rooney, Wayne | Man Utd | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| -.Torres, Fernando | Liverpool | 10 | 1 | 11 |
| 7.Milner, James | Aston Villa | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| -.Giggs, Ryan | Man Utd | 2 | 8 | 10 |
| -.Tevez, Carlos | Man City | 5 | 5 | 10 |
| -.Saha, Louis | Everton | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| -Agbonlahor, Gabriel | Aston Villa | 8 | 2 | 10 |
| 8.Gerrard, Steven | Liverpool | 4 | 5 | 9 |
| -.Lennon, Aaron | Tottenham | 3 | 6 | 9 |
| -.Adebayor, Emmanuel | Man City | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| -Bellamy, Craig | Man City | 5 | 4 | 9 |
I work almost every Saturday morning, so it isn't that often that I have the opportunity to actually sit in-front of the tv which happens to have the sports channel necessary to watch the Premiership. What seems to happen more often than not? Internationals. What a waste. As someone who has no loyalty to any European country, why do I care if England's playing Georgia. I don't care if it's Euro qualifying. Just have every team play every 4 years in some pan-European tournament or something like that - or play friendlies after the season has finished. Don't ruin my Premiership watching by scheduling friendlies or qualifiers during one of those precious weeks that I could actually watch that league. I'd rather watch Wigan & Hull. Why? Wigan is fun to watch and its match against Hull actually is meaningful.
I've never talked to anyone who actually enjoys friendlies. Before the recent regime in England, friendlies 'didn't matter' according to every Englishman who I mentioned another Eriksson draw or a US victory to. The thing is, they do matter. Robin van Persie's injury shows us this. I don't really think that Wenger has a great case, but I feel sorry for the guy. There is no justification for Italy & the Netherlands to play each other during the domestic season - especially when the game was as physical as it was. Neither coach will want to tip his hand before the real tournaments, so I doubt that there is much that can be gained by playing a match like this.
I was going to post something along these lines as soon as I realized it was internationals the last time, but I didn't have internet access. At least I could add in the vanPersie injury. I suppose the only thing that internationals are good for is that the teams without as much depth end up resting their internationals a little more and it gives a more favourable mid-week matchup to the lower-table teams than could otherwise be hoped.
Fabregas must have read my recent article on Arsenal.
He told the Guardian,
He told the Guardian,
"Throughout the game [at Manchester City in the 3-0 Carling Cup defeat last Wednesday], we had a lot of possession but didn't really have anyone to go in behind the defenders, apart from Carlos Vela," Fábregas said. "We had a lot of similar players who like the ball into their feet. Sometimes it's true that you need a different kind of option."
Fábregas need only look across London to see the striker who he rates as the finest in the world. Didier Drogba was at his muscular, destructive best in orchestrating Chelsea's 3-0 Premier League win at the Emirates on the Sunday before last. What Fábregas would give for a similar player at Arsenal.
"Overall, I saw a Chelsea team that was normal but a team that has probably the best striker in the world, and that makes such a difference‚" Fábregas said. "An average team that has the best striker in the world can always do something and Didier Drogba makes all the difference to them. Without him, their team would not be the same. Perhaps we had the same kind of problem against Chelsea as the boys had at Manchester City, not really having someone whose game is to go beyond defenders, and we were a little small to fight against them on crosses, too."
This raises the matter of the status of Arsenal forward Eduardo da Silva.
He has been given a huge opportunity to showcase his skills in the absence of Robin van Persie, but so far he has failed.
He is good but not great with the ball at his feet which means he has to be a lethal finisher. Unfortunately for Arsenal, he has not been a lethal finisher of late. Chelsea came to town last week in arguably Arsenal's biggest game of the season. Eduardo attempted 0 shots and had few effective touches of the ball. He failed massively on the big stage. His performance in this game, I think, really disappointed Arsene Wenger and Arsenal's midfield support players.
Eduardo was dropped for the next league game.
Arsenal need the option of a big presence in attack.
PlainSoccer.com Premier League Leaderboard: Week 15
Aston Villa midfielder James Milner breaks into the top 6, setting himself up for a potential inclusion in the England World Cup squad. Most surprising so far, however, is the form of Manchester United winger Ryan Giggs. He remains one of the best players in his position in the Premier League.
| Player | Club | Goals | Assists | Combined |
| 1.Fabregas, Cesc | Arsenal | 6 | 10 | 16 |
| -.Drogba, Didier | Chelsea | 11 | 5 | 16 |
| 2.Persie, Robin van | Arsenal | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| 3.Defoe, Jermaine | Tottenham | 12 | 1 | 13 |
| 4.Bent, Darren | Sunderland | 9 | 3 | 12 |
| 5.Torres, Fernando | Liverpool | 10 | 1 | 11 |
| -.Rooney, Wayne | Man Utd | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| -.Lampard, Frank | Chelsea | 4 | 7 | 11 |
| 6.Giggs, Ryan | Man Utd | 2 | 8 | 10 |
| -.Lennon, Aaron | Tottenham | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| -.Milner, James | Aston Villa | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| 7.Gerrard, Steven | Liverpool | 4 | 5 | 9 |
Richard Rae at the Independent interviews Fulham goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer about his role as special representative for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and tackling persecution in Burma.
Thanks to The Score for the link.
Thanks to The Score for the link.
How long was Didier Drogba on the ball during Chelsea’s victory over Arsenal? 50 seconds? And yet he was the most influential player of the match.
Carlo Ancelotti has arrived and we should be impressed.
Searching to close the gap at the top of the table on Chelsea, Arsenal entered Sunday’s match versus Chelsea seeking a convincing victory, but they ended as the losing side of a convincing 3-0 victory. Arsenal played the more pretty football, controlling 55% of ball possession and attempting the greater number of shots. Yet it was a conspicuous fact to every viewer that the team who controlled the ball for the minority of time and had the fewer shots was by far the dominant team in the game.
Clearly shocked by the margin of victory, Arsene Wenger immediately tried to lift up the spirit of his players. He praised his side’s ball possession, questioned decisions by referee Andre Marriner and then turned on Chelsea match-winner Drogba, downplaying the impact of the striker’s performance. It was as if, to Wenger, Arsenal were the better team who were cheated out of victory.
The question for regular viewers is not whether Arsenal were cheated out of a victory, but why did Chelsea dominate Arsenal the way they did given such little possession?
Didier Drogba was a key difference between the sides, putting in a superb offensive display. Wenger may note that the Ivory Coast international only touched the ball for little more than 50 seconds of 90 minutes, but Drogba produced from that minimal amount of ball possession two goals, while he forced a third. He anticipated crosses into the box better than any other player on the pitch and his touch upon delivery ensured cheers for his fans. It was a brilliant performance from the Premier League’s top goalscorer.
Arsenal, on the other hand, found few scoring opportunities without a finisher with the anticipation and touch of Drogba and facing a resolute Chelsea defense. Of twelve aggregate Arsenal shots in the game, only two were on target. In the second half, with Arsenal needing to come from behind to gain something from the game, Chelsea’s backline limited Arsenal to just one shot on goal. Perhaps more impressive from the standpoint of admirers of defensive acumen, Chelsea limited the Premier League’s top goalscorers to only one shot on goal from within the penalty area in the entire match. Arsenal ran into a defensive wall that was too strong for them.
Chelsea’s first goal came in open play toward the end of the first half. Left-back Ashley Cole took advantage of Arsenal’s lack of a right winger to surge forward before sending a sharp cross from the left of the penalty box to set up Drogba to skilfully turn the ball into the top right of the net from six yards.
Two minutes later, another surge and cross from Cole to the anticipatory figure of Drogba led Chelsea to double their lead. The pressuring Drogba forced Arsenal centre-back Thomas Vermaelen to attempt a clearance from a dangerous position facing goal. Unfortunate for him, the ball jumped straight into the top right of the goal.
Arsenal came into the second half intent on breaking down the Chelsea defense, but they certainly did not prepare properly for the menacing Chelsea backline. 45 minutes. 1 shot on goal. End of story.
Chelsea reinforced their dominance over their London rivals in the 86th minute. They were granted a free-kick thirty yards from goal. Drogba stepped up and with a superb, crisp strike made the score 3-0.
For all Arsenal’s possession, Chelsea were the better team. It is a conspicuous fact to all viewers that Chelsea dominated Arsenal. Ancelotti overcame the challenge of Arsene Wenger. As the Daily Telegraph put it, “this was heavyweights overpowering middleweights, Didier Drogba knocking over Diddy Men. No contest really.”
A deeper story of this victory was the strategic demolition Carlo Ancelotti made of his Arsenal compatriot. The two tacticians offered vastly different approaches to the game. Both prepared their teams to play a successful game. Players were told about the necessity of cooperation, positional play, passing strategies and defensive teamwork to limit the effect of opposition possessions.
Wenger’s focus in preparation for the game was clearly to use quick, accurate passing and the adjustment of positions to meet the ball carrier to break down Chelsea‘s defensive walls. They lined up with four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards, but this formation was constantly broken in order that each player adjust his position to meet the ball possessor. In order to break through the hard tackling Chelsea midfield diamond and feed the forwards of Arshavin and Silva, Wenger moved his right midfielder, Samir Nasri, to the middle of the pitch and played four central midfielders. The young and masterful midfield four of the tackling Song alongside the ball carrying Denilson, Nasri and Fabregas had the task to control the ball and feed the forwards of Arshavin and Silva. Yet this strategy did not work effectively against Mikel, Essien and company. With this eye on midfield dominance as the key to success, Wenger had his forwards - the decisive and highly skilled Russian Andrei Arshavin and the striker, da Silva - constantly dropping back to support the midfield when the path to goal clogged. Arsenal did indeed control the majority of possession, but Chelsea ensured this was meaningless to success.
Many opponents would have been bewildered by Arsenal’s slick passing. Fifteen years ago, if a Premier League team passed the way Arsenal did - with effectively three ball carrying midfielders and quick, highly skilled forwards constantly dropping back to within reach of the ball carriers - any opponent would have been made to appear like the local pub team. Even today, most teams cannot keep pace with Arsenal and they are deservedly the top scorers in the 2009/10 Premier League. It is the brilliant Fabregas, the best player in the Premier League in my opinion, who is the architect of this strategy of dazzle and goals. His task is to meet the ball carrier as often as possible to get on the ball and then use his creativity to bewilder his opponents, create goals and score goals. Against Chelsea, he did once again gain possession of the ball more than any other player in the game, helping Arsenal play with slick, acute passing. But unfortunate for Fabregas and his teammates, Chelsea are not a Premier League team of fifteen years ago (Tim Sherwood at his peak would not break into the current Chelsea side) and are equally innovative in their approach to the game. Arsenal could opportune little from their dominance in the realm of ball possession, while Chelsea did opportune much from what little possession they gained.
While Arsenal controlled the majority of possession and conducted the bulk of attacking, they were shutout - the ultimate embarrassment for attack minded players - while Chelsea scored three goals. This was the first time that Arsenal had conceded three this season. It would equate to nothing but folly to suggest anything other than the fact that Arsenal were fairly beaten by a more effective team. But what about Chelsea‘s play allowed them to leave Arsenal’s stadium as comfortable winners?
Chelsea entered the game intent not on controlling possession but on maximizing the use of each individual toward the team goal of leaving leaving victorious. I cannot resist but to offer this quip from a manager of old explaining how his side begot a victory:
“While they did the bulk of the attacking we scored the goals that mattered. Yet often, for all their pressure, the opponents had few dangerous shots, and their efforts were either charged down or kept to long range. In contrast, we had the clear-cut opportunities. At times we must have seemed to have thirteen players because we had an extra man helping to block our own goal and yet a spare man popped up to score at the other end of the field. Our victories were triumphs of tactics. We planned to make the utmost use of each individual, so that we had a spare man at the right moment in each penalty area.”
Arsenal did the bulk of attacking, but they had only two shots on target, one from within the penalty box. Chelsea restricted Arsenal to shooting from beyond scoring range, while even these shots were charged down at maximum speed. Concretely, the Blues blocked six of twelve Arsenal shots. Though, for all the deserved praise of the Chelsea defense, I want to articulate how Ancelotti’s midfield setup was the key to victory.
Chelsea lined up in a 4-4-2 diamond formation with essentially four central midfielders - the tough tackling Jon Obi Mikel, Michael Essien, Frank Lampard more to the left and Joe Cole as the most attacking midfielder. It needs little proving that this four has a greater physical presence and defensive skill than the Arsenal four. For all Fabregas’s ball touches, the best player in the Premier League did little when it came to planting his stamp on the game. Mikel and Essien kept watch of his every move and prevented him making a mark, even with Nasri adopting a middle position to power up the Arsenal centre. With this accomplished, Arsenal struggled to create opportunities, leading the Arsenal forward duo of Arshavin and Silva, as has been said, to drop back and serve as auxiliary midfielders (I will not understand why Wenger dropped Silva back deep where his effectiveness is minimized. He is weak on the ball. His strength is on the defensive line. Under any other manager, his ball possession skill would take a back seat). Ask any defender and they will tell you it is better to stop the ball reaching a striker in the penalty area than to tackle him. You shepherd your opponent, moving him away from the danger zone or into a crowded area. Chelsea did this. Aresenal’s forwards obeyed. This clustering in midfield allowed the Chelsea defense to prepare more effectively for Arsenal’s attacking moves. Silva, as Arsenal’s centre-forward, had a total of zero shots. Arshavin had a total of two shots, both blocked. Coming from deep, these guys were watched like hawks and given no space. Quick passing matters most in the offensive zone. Chelsea offered quick attacks. Arsenal did not. A key task of Mikel and Essien was to slow down the Arsenal midfield, force the attacking duo to drop back and thus ensure any Arsenal attacking move was easy to read. This was accomplished. Arsenal were too short in attack to change things up and send the ball long and could not send the ball wide due to the fact that they started with no wingers while Sagna and Traore clearly have weaknesses in attack. Sagna was not going to trouble Cole the way Cole was going to trouble Sagna, while Traore was not going to trouble Chelsea’s right-back, Ivanovic. Chelsea limited Arsenal to one method of attack: short, quick passes through central midfield. Ancelotti read Wenger’s book and understood Arsenal’s weaknesses. The Gunners could not break through the Chelsea defense to get shots on goal.
In attack, Chelsea outmatched the Arsenal defense. Keys to victory are having a multitude of attacking means and quick, acute passing in the application of these means. Arsenal, as I have explained, did not have these. Chelsea did. First, in addition to goals, Chelsea had the greater number of shots on goal and the grater number of shot in the opposing penalty area. They were quicker with their passes in the offensive zone and enabled their forwards to get space in the Arsenal penalty area, something Arsenal could not accomplish.
For all Chelsea’s defensive skill in central midfield, it is simply impossible to call any of Mikel, Essien, Lampard and Cole weak ball possessors. Each of these players is a two dimensional player. He can contribute to his attack and defense. Lampard is one of the top three attacking central midfielders in the Premier League. In short, Arsenal had to take caution with Chelsea’s central midfield. But, while Chelsea’s central midfielders are two dimensional players, Arsenal’s, though as a group better in attack, are significantly worse when it comes to defending. Arsenal’s midfielders had to always be aware of this Chelsea threat from central midfield. They could not run out of position in the middle of the pitch for too long at risk of the side getting outnumbered in a Chelsea counter attack.
With both sides clustered in the middle of the pitch, the wings became of prime importance and this is exactly what Ancelotti wanted. Ivanovic and Cole, it was known, would eat Sagna and Traore for breakfast. In terms of the wing battle, most important for this game was the battle between Sagna and Cole. Sagna is a great right back, but a one dimensional, defensive right-back. Cole is a great defensive left-back. He is also a great attacking force. With no right winger running at him and minimal threat posed by forward runs by Sagna, Cole had the green light to surge forward whenever an opportunity presented while his teammates had the instruction to quickly get their left-back the ball when he surged. Cole surged. His teammates quickly passed to him. Cole set-up two. Cole 2 - 0 Sagna.
Chelsea’s multidimensional and quick attack caught Arsenal by surprise. Quick passes through the middle and wings troubled the Arsenal defense, while the Arsenal offense could only offer passes through the middle.
The game of football is not about possession. It is about goals. Arsene Wenger and Arsenal showed their weaknesses in the game against Chelsea. They have one dimensional players who, for all their skill, can be read and restricted by a strong team with an intelligent manager. Chelsea, on the other hand, have few players with noticeable weaknesses. Each of Chelsea’s defensive and midfield players is a two dimensional presence on the pitch. This enables Chelsea to shut down opponents in one area of the pitch knowing an attack can be set-up in a different area - through the middle, left or right. A manager’s task is to maximize the use of each individual in his team toward the goal of winning. When his team has the ball, each player must adjust his position to meet the necessities of the attacking strategy, exploiting the opponent‘s weaknesses. When his opponent has the ball, the manager must ensure that each of his players adjust his position to meet the necessities of the defensive strategy, restricting the danger of the opponent. Each of Chelsea’s defensive and midfield players can perform well according to both offensive and defensive strategies. Arsenal’s brilliant midfield and attack, led by Fabregas, was forced to cluster, while Chelsea could attack with ruthless speed in multiple areas of the pitch. Arsenal had certain players who struggled to adjust to defensive strategic necessities, while others who struggled to adjust to offensive strategic necessities.
Ancelotti’s outsmarted Wenger in his approach to the game.
For all of this analysis showing Ancelotti‘s skilful approach to the match, there are still questions that remain unanswered about Wenger. Why did Wenger tell his forwards to drop so deep and feed Chelsea’s original strategy to cluster and so easily read the Arsenal attack? Why did it take so long for Wenger to send a winger onto the pitch? Why has Wenger not purchased a strong defensive central midfielder who would provide those in front of him with greater freedom of movement on the pitch? Why has Wenger not purchased a strong striker to allow for greater diversity in attack? It appeared as if Wenger was so focused on ball possession as the variable of success that he allowed his team to control possession without creating scoring chances, something Ancelotti was fine with. Ancelotti displayed his managerial acumen this match. Chelsea were deserved winners.
Sources:
Daily Telegraph, Arsenal 0-3 Arsenal
ESPN Soccernet, Gamecast
Bernard Joy, Soccer tactics, Phoenix Sports Books, London, 1956
Carlo Ancelotti has arrived and we should be impressed.
Searching to close the gap at the top of the table on Chelsea, Arsenal entered Sunday’s match versus Chelsea seeking a convincing victory, but they ended as the losing side of a convincing 3-0 victory. Arsenal played the more pretty football, controlling 55% of ball possession and attempting the greater number of shots. Yet it was a conspicuous fact to every viewer that the team who controlled the ball for the minority of time and had the fewer shots was by far the dominant team in the game.
Clearly shocked by the margin of victory, Arsene Wenger immediately tried to lift up the spirit of his players. He praised his side’s ball possession, questioned decisions by referee Andre Marriner and then turned on Chelsea match-winner Drogba, downplaying the impact of the striker’s performance. It was as if, to Wenger, Arsenal were the better team who were cheated out of victory.
The question for regular viewers is not whether Arsenal were cheated out of a victory, but why did Chelsea dominate Arsenal the way they did given such little possession?
Didier Drogba was a key difference between the sides, putting in a superb offensive display. Wenger may note that the Ivory Coast international only touched the ball for little more than 50 seconds of 90 minutes, but Drogba produced from that minimal amount of ball possession two goals, while he forced a third. He anticipated crosses into the box better than any other player on the pitch and his touch upon delivery ensured cheers for his fans. It was a brilliant performance from the Premier League’s top goalscorer.
Arsenal, on the other hand, found few scoring opportunities without a finisher with the anticipation and touch of Drogba and facing a resolute Chelsea defense. Of twelve aggregate Arsenal shots in the game, only two were on target. In the second half, with Arsenal needing to come from behind to gain something from the game, Chelsea’s backline limited Arsenal to just one shot on goal. Perhaps more impressive from the standpoint of admirers of defensive acumen, Chelsea limited the Premier League’s top goalscorers to only one shot on goal from within the penalty area in the entire match. Arsenal ran into a defensive wall that was too strong for them.
Chelsea’s first goal came in open play toward the end of the first half. Left-back Ashley Cole took advantage of Arsenal’s lack of a right winger to surge forward before sending a sharp cross from the left of the penalty box to set up Drogba to skilfully turn the ball into the top right of the net from six yards.
Two minutes later, another surge and cross from Cole to the anticipatory figure of Drogba led Chelsea to double their lead. The pressuring Drogba forced Arsenal centre-back Thomas Vermaelen to attempt a clearance from a dangerous position facing goal. Unfortunate for him, the ball jumped straight into the top right of the goal.
Arsenal came into the second half intent on breaking down the Chelsea defense, but they certainly did not prepare properly for the menacing Chelsea backline. 45 minutes. 1 shot on goal. End of story.
Chelsea reinforced their dominance over their London rivals in the 86th minute. They were granted a free-kick thirty yards from goal. Drogba stepped up and with a superb, crisp strike made the score 3-0.
For all Arsenal’s possession, Chelsea were the better team. It is a conspicuous fact to all viewers that Chelsea dominated Arsenal. Ancelotti overcame the challenge of Arsene Wenger. As the Daily Telegraph put it, “this was heavyweights overpowering middleweights, Didier Drogba knocking over Diddy Men. No contest really.”
A deeper story of this victory was the strategic demolition Carlo Ancelotti made of his Arsenal compatriot. The two tacticians offered vastly different approaches to the game. Both prepared their teams to play a successful game. Players were told about the necessity of cooperation, positional play, passing strategies and defensive teamwork to limit the effect of opposition possessions.
Wenger’s focus in preparation for the game was clearly to use quick, accurate passing and the adjustment of positions to meet the ball carrier to break down Chelsea‘s defensive walls. They lined up with four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards, but this formation was constantly broken in order that each player adjust his position to meet the ball possessor. In order to break through the hard tackling Chelsea midfield diamond and feed the forwards of Arshavin and Silva, Wenger moved his right midfielder, Samir Nasri, to the middle of the pitch and played four central midfielders. The young and masterful midfield four of the tackling Song alongside the ball carrying Denilson, Nasri and Fabregas had the task to control the ball and feed the forwards of Arshavin and Silva. Yet this strategy did not work effectively against Mikel, Essien and company. With this eye on midfield dominance as the key to success, Wenger had his forwards - the decisive and highly skilled Russian Andrei Arshavin and the striker, da Silva - constantly dropping back to support the midfield when the path to goal clogged. Arsenal did indeed control the majority of possession, but Chelsea ensured this was meaningless to success.
Many opponents would have been bewildered by Arsenal’s slick passing. Fifteen years ago, if a Premier League team passed the way Arsenal did - with effectively three ball carrying midfielders and quick, highly skilled forwards constantly dropping back to within reach of the ball carriers - any opponent would have been made to appear like the local pub team. Even today, most teams cannot keep pace with Arsenal and they are deservedly the top scorers in the 2009/10 Premier League. It is the brilliant Fabregas, the best player in the Premier League in my opinion, who is the architect of this strategy of dazzle and goals. His task is to meet the ball carrier as often as possible to get on the ball and then use his creativity to bewilder his opponents, create goals and score goals. Against Chelsea, he did once again gain possession of the ball more than any other player in the game, helping Arsenal play with slick, acute passing. But unfortunate for Fabregas and his teammates, Chelsea are not a Premier League team of fifteen years ago (Tim Sherwood at his peak would not break into the current Chelsea side) and are equally innovative in their approach to the game. Arsenal could opportune little from their dominance in the realm of ball possession, while Chelsea did opportune much from what little possession they gained.
While Arsenal controlled the majority of possession and conducted the bulk of attacking, they were shutout - the ultimate embarrassment for attack minded players - while Chelsea scored three goals. This was the first time that Arsenal had conceded three this season. It would equate to nothing but folly to suggest anything other than the fact that Arsenal were fairly beaten by a more effective team. But what about Chelsea‘s play allowed them to leave Arsenal’s stadium as comfortable winners?
Chelsea entered the game intent not on controlling possession but on maximizing the use of each individual toward the team goal of leaving leaving victorious. I cannot resist but to offer this quip from a manager of old explaining how his side begot a victory:
“While they did the bulk of the attacking we scored the goals that mattered. Yet often, for all their pressure, the opponents had few dangerous shots, and their efforts were either charged down or kept to long range. In contrast, we had the clear-cut opportunities. At times we must have seemed to have thirteen players because we had an extra man helping to block our own goal and yet a spare man popped up to score at the other end of the field. Our victories were triumphs of tactics. We planned to make the utmost use of each individual, so that we had a spare man at the right moment in each penalty area.”
Arsenal did the bulk of attacking, but they had only two shots on target, one from within the penalty box. Chelsea restricted Arsenal to shooting from beyond scoring range, while even these shots were charged down at maximum speed. Concretely, the Blues blocked six of twelve Arsenal shots. Though, for all the deserved praise of the Chelsea defense, I want to articulate how Ancelotti’s midfield setup was the key to victory.
Chelsea lined up in a 4-4-2 diamond formation with essentially four central midfielders - the tough tackling Jon Obi Mikel, Michael Essien, Frank Lampard more to the left and Joe Cole as the most attacking midfielder. It needs little proving that this four has a greater physical presence and defensive skill than the Arsenal four. For all Fabregas’s ball touches, the best player in the Premier League did little when it came to planting his stamp on the game. Mikel and Essien kept watch of his every move and prevented him making a mark, even with Nasri adopting a middle position to power up the Arsenal centre. With this accomplished, Arsenal struggled to create opportunities, leading the Arsenal forward duo of Arshavin and Silva, as has been said, to drop back and serve as auxiliary midfielders (I will not understand why Wenger dropped Silva back deep where his effectiveness is minimized. He is weak on the ball. His strength is on the defensive line. Under any other manager, his ball possession skill would take a back seat). Ask any defender and they will tell you it is better to stop the ball reaching a striker in the penalty area than to tackle him. You shepherd your opponent, moving him away from the danger zone or into a crowded area. Chelsea did this. Aresenal’s forwards obeyed. This clustering in midfield allowed the Chelsea defense to prepare more effectively for Arsenal’s attacking moves. Silva, as Arsenal’s centre-forward, had a total of zero shots. Arshavin had a total of two shots, both blocked. Coming from deep, these guys were watched like hawks and given no space. Quick passing matters most in the offensive zone. Chelsea offered quick attacks. Arsenal did not. A key task of Mikel and Essien was to slow down the Arsenal midfield, force the attacking duo to drop back and thus ensure any Arsenal attacking move was easy to read. This was accomplished. Arsenal were too short in attack to change things up and send the ball long and could not send the ball wide due to the fact that they started with no wingers while Sagna and Traore clearly have weaknesses in attack. Sagna was not going to trouble Cole the way Cole was going to trouble Sagna, while Traore was not going to trouble Chelsea’s right-back, Ivanovic. Chelsea limited Arsenal to one method of attack: short, quick passes through central midfield. Ancelotti read Wenger’s book and understood Arsenal’s weaknesses. The Gunners could not break through the Chelsea defense to get shots on goal.
In attack, Chelsea outmatched the Arsenal defense. Keys to victory are having a multitude of attacking means and quick, acute passing in the application of these means. Arsenal, as I have explained, did not have these. Chelsea did. First, in addition to goals, Chelsea had the greater number of shots on goal and the grater number of shot in the opposing penalty area. They were quicker with their passes in the offensive zone and enabled their forwards to get space in the Arsenal penalty area, something Arsenal could not accomplish.
For all Chelsea’s defensive skill in central midfield, it is simply impossible to call any of Mikel, Essien, Lampard and Cole weak ball possessors. Each of these players is a two dimensional player. He can contribute to his attack and defense. Lampard is one of the top three attacking central midfielders in the Premier League. In short, Arsenal had to take caution with Chelsea’s central midfield. But, while Chelsea’s central midfielders are two dimensional players, Arsenal’s, though as a group better in attack, are significantly worse when it comes to defending. Arsenal’s midfielders had to always be aware of this Chelsea threat from central midfield. They could not run out of position in the middle of the pitch for too long at risk of the side getting outnumbered in a Chelsea counter attack.
With both sides clustered in the middle of the pitch, the wings became of prime importance and this is exactly what Ancelotti wanted. Ivanovic and Cole, it was known, would eat Sagna and Traore for breakfast. In terms of the wing battle, most important for this game was the battle between Sagna and Cole. Sagna is a great right back, but a one dimensional, defensive right-back. Cole is a great defensive left-back. He is also a great attacking force. With no right winger running at him and minimal threat posed by forward runs by Sagna, Cole had the green light to surge forward whenever an opportunity presented while his teammates had the instruction to quickly get their left-back the ball when he surged. Cole surged. His teammates quickly passed to him. Cole set-up two. Cole 2 - 0 Sagna.
Chelsea’s multidimensional and quick attack caught Arsenal by surprise. Quick passes through the middle and wings troubled the Arsenal defense, while the Arsenal offense could only offer passes through the middle.
The game of football is not about possession. It is about goals. Arsene Wenger and Arsenal showed their weaknesses in the game against Chelsea. They have one dimensional players who, for all their skill, can be read and restricted by a strong team with an intelligent manager. Chelsea, on the other hand, have few players with noticeable weaknesses. Each of Chelsea’s defensive and midfield players is a two dimensional presence on the pitch. This enables Chelsea to shut down opponents in one area of the pitch knowing an attack can be set-up in a different area - through the middle, left or right. A manager’s task is to maximize the use of each individual in his team toward the goal of winning. When his team has the ball, each player must adjust his position to meet the necessities of the attacking strategy, exploiting the opponent‘s weaknesses. When his opponent has the ball, the manager must ensure that each of his players adjust his position to meet the necessities of the defensive strategy, restricting the danger of the opponent. Each of Chelsea’s defensive and midfield players can perform well according to both offensive and defensive strategies. Arsenal’s brilliant midfield and attack, led by Fabregas, was forced to cluster, while Chelsea could attack with ruthless speed in multiple areas of the pitch. Arsenal had certain players who struggled to adjust to defensive strategic necessities, while others who struggled to adjust to offensive strategic necessities.
Ancelotti’s outsmarted Wenger in his approach to the game.
For all of this analysis showing Ancelotti‘s skilful approach to the match, there are still questions that remain unanswered about Wenger. Why did Wenger tell his forwards to drop so deep and feed Chelsea’s original strategy to cluster and so easily read the Arsenal attack? Why did it take so long for Wenger to send a winger onto the pitch? Why has Wenger not purchased a strong defensive central midfielder who would provide those in front of him with greater freedom of movement on the pitch? Why has Wenger not purchased a strong striker to allow for greater diversity in attack? It appeared as if Wenger was so focused on ball possession as the variable of success that he allowed his team to control possession without creating scoring chances, something Ancelotti was fine with. Ancelotti displayed his managerial acumen this match. Chelsea were deserved winners.
Sources:
Daily Telegraph, Arsenal 0-3 Arsenal
ESPN Soccernet, Gamecast
Bernard Joy, Soccer tactics, Phoenix Sports Books, London, 1956
The Guardian's Jonathan Wilson offers a historical examination of Fabio Capello's use of Steven Gerrard in the England team.
It is an interesting read. Wilson could have provided greater analysis of Capello's tactics, but I nevertheless recommend it.
It is an interesting read. Wilson could have provided greater analysis of Capello's tactics, but I nevertheless recommend it.
The hidden cost of buying and retaining players has been revealed for the first time after the Premier League disclosed that its clubs spent more than £70 million on fees to agents in the past year, says the Telegraph.
"The figures, published for the first time after the League struck a deal with the Football Association over the regulation of agents, reveal that Manchester City were the biggest spenders, paying out almost £13 million to middlemen during their £173 million transfer spree in 2009.
Figures in the game argue over these questions.
"Footballers think they need agents - but it's not the case," says Manchester United veteran Gary Neville.
"Players need good advice and good accountants - but they don't need people taking hundreds of thousands of pounds off of them."
"A guy can go in to a deal and expect to be giving hundreds of thousands or, these days, even millions to an agent. That money's going out of the game."
"It is one of my pet hates when I see players who have agents that do everything for them," Neville later emphasized.
"The figures, published for the first time after the League struck a deal with the Football Association over the regulation of agents, reveal that Manchester City were the biggest spenders, paying out almost £13 million to middlemen during their £173 million transfer spree in 2009.
Chelsea were ranked second, spending £9.6 million despite relatively modest spending in 2009. The bulk of the fees are understood to relate to fees payable on contract renegotiations."
Are agents really this valuable to players? Cannot someone come along and perform the same job for a quarter of the price?Figures in the game argue over these questions.
"Footballers think they need agents - but it's not the case," says Manchester United veteran Gary Neville.
"Players need good advice and good accountants - but they don't need people taking hundreds of thousands of pounds off of them."
"A guy can go in to a deal and expect to be giving hundreds of thousands or, these days, even millions to an agent. That money's going out of the game."
"It is one of my pet hates when I see players who have agents that do everything for them," Neville later emphasized.
"They don't know how to set up their own bank account, they don't know what they're spending their money on and they can't make their own decisions.
"Not every player is like that, but some are now totally dependent on agents and advisers."
Neville has urged his fellow professionals to take more responsibility for their careers to avoid being left to pick up the pieces once they retire.
He said: "There are some agents who do a good job looking after players, but there are others who stifle and mollycoddle players.
"Some agents will come into a player's life when he is 20, leave his life at 34 and never want to know that player again.
"For me, life is an education and you learn things as you go through it. I think a footballer should sit down and negotiate with a club, even if his agent is sitting with him.
"It is in a player's best interests to be there and see what is going on.
The idea of allowing someone to look after your financial and professional existence is something I cannot agree with.
"Every footballer needs an adviser at some point. But a player doesn't need to pay between five and 15 per cent of his wages to a guy to set up a bank account, buy him a new fridge, or ask his club's chief executive for a pay rise."
However, Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger believes agents play an important role in the sport."I have worked with agents my whole career and I do not share that opinion," he said.
"I am confident that once Gary Neville is a manager, he will change his mind.
"There are agents who do very well for the players and there are very few who do not do well for the players.
"There are also some agents who do very well for the clubs, because I have got some players through agents - they have a good eye to identify a player, talk to you about him, you go and watch and find a good player."
PlainSoccer.com EPL Player Leaderboard: Week 14
Didier Drogba takes the lead at the top of the leaderboard after a two goal performance versus Arsenal at the Emirates. Wayne Rooney finally joined the leaderboard after a hat-trick versus Portsmouth, though observers will note that two of those goals came from the penalty spot. Teammate Ryan Giggs also joined the leaderboard.
I added a new category this week in the form of goals + assists per 90 minutes of playing time. Cesc Fabregas ranks first in this category, followed, in order, by Robin van Persie, Didier Drogba, Fernando Torres and Jermain Defoe. Defoe is having a career year. Spurs fans will be hoping he can keep his current form for the remainder of the season.
| Player | Club | Goals | Assists | Combined | per 90 minutes |
| 1.Drogba, Didier | Chelsea | 11 | 5 | 16 | 1.27 |
| 2.Fabregas, Cesc | Arsenal | 6 | 9 | 15 | 1.35 |
| 3.Persie, Robin van | Arsenal | 7 | 7 | 14 | 1.31 |
| 4.Defoe, Jermaine | Tottenham | 11 | 1 | 12 | 1.18 |
| 4.Bent, Darren | Sunderland | 9 | 3 | 12 | 0.72 |
| 5.Torres, Fernando | Liverpool | 10 | 1 | 11 | 1.2 |
| 5.Lampard, Frank | Chelsea | 4 | 7 | 11 | 0.85 |
| 6.Rooney, Wayne | Man Utd | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.8 |
| 7.Giggs, Ryan | Man Utd | 2 | 7 | 9 | 0.92 |
| 7.Gerrard, Steven | Liverpool | 4 | 5 | 9 | 0.88 |
| 7.Lennon, Aaron | Tottenham | 3 | 6 | 9 | 0.77 |
I added a new category this week in the form of goals + assists per 90 minutes of playing time. Cesc Fabregas ranks first in this category, followed, in order, by Robin van Persie, Didier Drogba, Fernando Torres and Jermain Defoe. Defoe is having a career year. Spurs fans will be hoping he can keep his current form for the remainder of the season.
