Fahd

@fahdahmed987 • 17,365 subscribers

MSc Sport Management @lborouniversity I Founder and Host of @TheCheBluePrint I Writer @BetweenThePosts I Articles on @Medium I Work Portfolio Link Below

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

I was surprised and intrigued while watching Chelsea's performance against Fulham yesterday by Alonso's tactical choice. Specifically, I'm referring to his willingness to try and control the game without the ball - another detail that I pointed out during the live analysis. I've been thinking about it today and have come to find more logical reasoning (especially point 4 of advantages) in Alonso's decision. I still hold the same reservations but it is an interesting trade-off. Let's start with the cons of trying to defensively control the game. Risks: 1. Lack of influence on how the game is dictated. 2. 5-2-3 passive structure prevents easy transitions into man-man press and regularly force turnovers. 3. Collectively, Chelsea seemed to struggle a bit with the structure since the team isn't yet used to defending deep in a zonal system, which wasn't used by Maresca often. So, the players aren't used to it. 4. Susceptibility to conceding long balls, which Chelsea, sometimes, looked uncomfortable when trying to deal with it. 5. More territory for opposition closer to Chelsea's goal and attempt shots against an inconsistent goalkeeper. Advantages: 1. Energy conservation during the game. 2. Opportunities to attack on transitions against players who are not elite large-space defenders. 3. Protection for Chelsea's midfielders as they do not have to consistently defend large spaces. 4. Potential transferability of this defensive system across seasons. As in, if we employ intense out-of-possession tactics this campaign with fewer games, Alonso would need to alter the system next season, assuming we qualify for Europe. This way, we can already begin practicing a potential long-term solution. I want to highlight this as the most beneficial takeaway. I find Alonso's comments quite fascinating with him suggesting the need to be "comfortable without the ball", and mentioning how he wants the team to decide which spaces to defend and when. The latter is especially interesting. I think it will take time as many of these players are used to controlling games with the ball. So, I expect there to be a period where we make individual and collective errors due to poor defensive decision-making before it gets ironed out.

I was surprised and intrigued while watching Chelsea's performance against Fulham yesterday by Alonso's tactical choice. Specifically, I'm referring to his willingness to try and control the game without the ball - another detail that I pointed out during the live analysis. I've been thinking about it today and have come to find more logical reasoning (especially point 4 of advantages) in Alonso's decision. I still hold the same reservations but it is an interesting trade-off. Let's start with the cons of trying to defensively control the game. Risks: 1. Lack of influence on how the game is dictated. 2. 5-2-3 passive structure prevents easy transitions into man-man press and regularly force turnovers. 3. Collectively, Chelsea seemed to struggle a bit with the structure since the team isn't yet used to defending deep in a zonal system, which wasn't used by Maresca often. So, the players aren't used to it. 4. Susceptibility to conceding long balls, which Chelsea, sometimes, looked uncomfortable when trying to deal with it. 5. More territory for opposition closer to Chelsea's goal and attempt shots against an inconsistent goalkeeper. Advantages: 1. Energy conservation during the game. 2. Opportunities to attack on transitions against players who are not elite large-space defenders. 3. Protection for Chelsea's midfielders as they do not have to consistently defend large spaces. 4. Potential transferability of this defensive system across seasons. As in, if we employ intense out-of-possession tactics this campaign with fewer games, Alonso would need to alter the system next season, assuming we qualify for Europe. This way, we can already begin practicing a potential long-term solution. I want to highlight this as the most beneficial takeaway. I find Alonso's comments quite fascinating with him suggesting the need to be "comfortable without the ball", and mentioning how he wants the team to decide which spaces to defend and when. The latter is especially interesting. I think it will take time as many of these players are used to controlling games with the ball. So, I expect there to be a period where we make individual and collective errors due to poor defensive decision-making before it gets ironed out.

284,967 views • 1 month ago

I only just got around to watching this video - a fantastic interview by Nieve Petruzziello with Berbatov. I've specifically clipped a section of the video where they speak about how price tags can affect footballers. I thought they spoke so well and touched on many important points. I'd highly recommend that you check the whole video out. I've attached the link below.

I only just got around to watching this video - a fantastic interview by Nieve Petruzziello with Berbatov. I've specifically clipped a section of the video where they speak about how price tags can affect footballers. I thought they spoke so well and touched on many important points. I'd highly recommend that you check the whole video out. I've attached the link below.

268,703 views • 1 year ago

"The best players in the world can play close together and combine... The closer you are together, the faster the ball moves... It can be really really hard to defend."

"The best players in the world can play close together and combine... The closer you are together, the faster the ball moves... It can be really really hard to defend."

47,276 views • 6 months ago

Chelsea's second goal is an apt summary of many tactical details I saw in the game. Relatively passive high press -> Palace can't access the center -> forced wide then long -> Mateta eventually loses the duel -> Chelsea effective in the transition.

Chelsea's second goal is an apt summary of many tactical details I saw in the game. Relatively passive high press -> Palace can't access the center -> forced wide then long -> Mateta eventually loses the duel -> Chelsea effective in the transition.

47,014 views • 8 months ago

One of the biggest positives for me with Rosenior's appointment is to do with the different solutions he looks for from an out of possession perspective. This is especially crucial for Chelsea who've mostly defended the middle third specifically in a mix of a man-man and zonal approach, which, as I've pointed out so many times, can leave the team open. As h and Patrick explain below, and as mentioned in my Rosenior analysis thread, this can often look like a 5-2-3 defensive structure which then transitions into a man-man. I think this is a better way to go because Chelsea can now choose to be more passive, at times, while still having the option to selectively press aggressively. I'm specifically referring to the middle third again. Shifting to this, I think, can help improve Chelsea defensively. Adding more supplementary material below.

One of the biggest positives for me with Rosenior's appointment is to do with the different solutions he looks for from an out of possession perspective. This is especially crucial for Chelsea who've mostly defended the middle third specifically in a mix of a man-man and zonal approach, which, as I've pointed out so many times, can leave the team open. As h and Patrick explain below, and as mentioned in my Rosenior analysis thread, this can often look like a 5-2-3 defensive structure which then transitions into a man-man. I think this is a better way to go because Chelsea can now choose to be more passive, at times, while still having the option to selectively press aggressively. I'm specifically referring to the middle third again. Shifting to this, I think, can help improve Chelsea defensively. Adding more supplementary material below.

42,074 views • 8 months ago

We've seen many teams across Europe utilizing a 4-2-4 build-up shape as it has many benefits, as explained by Fabregas. It's the versatility that's offered, which is arguably the biggest advantage. If the opponents try to press with a -1, then the free man will try to be found. On the other hand, if they go man for man, there's the option of trying to find players between the lines (if the opposition center backs do not jump quick enough) or play direct for the wingers. I was introduced to this idea by watching De Zerbi's Brighton. Hurzeler still uses it.

We've seen many teams across Europe utilizing a 4-2-4 build-up shape as it has many benefits, as explained by Fabregas. It's the versatility that's offered, which is arguably the biggest advantage. If the opponents try to press with a -1, then the free man will try to be found. On the other hand, if they go man for man, there's the option of trying to find players between the lines (if the opposition center backs do not jump quick enough) or play direct for the wingers. I was introduced to this idea by watching De Zerbi's Brighton. Hurzeler still uses it.

61,483 views • 1 year ago

Below is the video analysis breakdown of the points discussed in the post and article that I shared recently. We can clearly see how PSG decompress Bayern's block to find Doue between the lines. And then Kvara's movement to go against Stanisic's flow.

Below is the video analysis breakdown of the points discussed in the post and article that I shared recently. We can clearly see how PSG decompress Bayern's block to find Doue between the lines. And then Kvara's movement to go against Stanisic's flow.

19,285 views • 5 months ago