Liverpool FC Forum

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:37 pm

Just one other thing which sprang to mind as well regarding Chelsea, I though they defended set pieces extremely well. They look to me to employ kind of a hybrid system where Terry essentially never moves form the central zone, but there is man marking mixed in as well. They did though attack the ball extremely well wherever it came in from, and it mirrored the desire they showed throughout the pitch. Terry though is pivotal to their set up, and given our slim chances and the fact he is banned for the second leg, I wonder if the manager may consider Hyppia as he is just about our only genuine aerial threat from set pieces and who may be able to exploit the situation.

One last last point as well. Despite the fact that I have been consistently a "pro" as far as zonal marking is concerned, like all systems clever people can find ways around it. Tim Cahill for instance will in all probability be always marked man to man whenever we play against Everton from now on. I should think this Invankovic bloke will get a bit more of the treatment which our left back gave him from one set piece at the start of the second half as well. One of the main problems though that I can see with zonal marking in the way which we set mit up, is one which you can do absolutely nothing about. If you set up in the same way for every single set piece delivery from certain areas, clever coaches will study the alignment and work out a plan. This is why if the basics aren't right, scoring goals against it is maddeningly easy.

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:47 am

feck me, micks back

by **Madmax** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:58 am

Big micky is back good to see your big b@alls back here... Couldnt go to sleep these past few days glad to see you posting here again.. Will get to reading your posts and end my insomnia..

by **aCe'** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:13 am

Welcome back Big mick... interesting take on things i just thought we were sh!tty and they were pretty alright.... but i guess ur take on things makes more sense...

keep it up fella...

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:43 am

the problem with zonal marking is that it makes it easy for them to put their strongest header against our weakest header, or put more than one man in each zone

by **RedShredder** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:54 am

Giving Chelsea an :censored:

-kicking right back will solve these problems for us

by **LegBarnes** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:55 am

To beat the chavs you have to make them play up center its only way they are very dangeeerooous on the wings.

To do it I would play 1 DM vrs them and 2 CM gerrard and alonso.

FB CD CD FB
DM
<--CM CM-->
RM LM
CF

I would set team up like this and make the CM double cover in wide areas cos so many times they was 2v1 on wings which got us into alot of trouble.

Well 2 corners lost and 1 goal from wide area.

It will also help when we counter attack if we can break up play on wings we will have alot more good op's to break faster and play balls down side to torres or what ever side we are attacking on.

by **bigmick** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:33 pm

Well there's been plenty of talk recently (probably too much) about managers "outwitting" others, but the mindset of Hiddink was very interesting when confronted with the distinct possibility of his team going out. I think the first change (Anelka for Kalou) came around the half hour mark and was seemingly for tactical reasons entirely rather than for any injuries. Equally, there were a couple of fairly obvious tactical adjustments made at half time, and I think the game was probably won and lost in that 20 minute period at the start of the second half. All the changes were entirely necessary, as at the time we were absolutely bossing it and Chelsea were shipping water all over the pitch.

Probably the main focus of his changes was to get Lampard and particularly Ballack out from under the feet of Essien and the back four, and to give Chelsea some room to play in. Annelka looked like a better player than Kalou simply because he is, and although Pepe's error really couldn't have come at a worse time for us, the changes made by Hiddink were definately already having a positive effect for Chelsea.

Despite his theatrics and nonsense, Drogba looks rejuvenated under the Dutchman and once again I definately think that if Hiddink had been there all season, they would be significantly more in credit points wise in the league than they are now. That they managed to eventually overcome a fantastic effort by us is ample demonstration, that their team spirit and organisation is entirely different from that which was on display when they meekly surrendered at Old Trafford under Scholari.

by **JC_81** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:46 pm

bigmick wrote:Well there's been plenty of talk recently (probably too much) about managers "outwitting" others, but the mindset of Hiddink was very interesting when confronted with the distinct possibility of his team going out. I think the first change (Anelka for Kalou) came around the half hour mark and was seemingly for tactical reasons entirely rather than for any injuries. Equally, there were a couple of fairly obvious tactical adjustments made at half time, and I think the game was probably won and lost in that 20 minute period at the start of the second half. All the changes were entirely necessary, as at the time we were absolutely bossing it and Chelsea were shipping water all over the pitch.

Probably the main focus of his changes was to get Lampard and particularly Ballack out from under the feet of Essien and the back four, and to give Chelsea some room to play in. Annelka looked like a better player than Kalou simply because he is, and although Pepe's error really couldn't have come at a worse time for us, the changes made by Hiddink were definately already having a positive effect for Chelsea.

Despite his theatrics and nonsense, Drogba looks rejuvenated under the Dutchman and once again I definately think that if Hiddink had been there all season, they would be significantly more in credit points wise in the league than they are now. That they managed to eventually overcome a fantastic effort by us is ample demonstration, that their team spirit and organisation is entirely different from that which was on display when they meekly surrendered at Old Trafford under Scholari.

No doubt Hiddink is a good manager Mick, and he's getting more out of that squad than Scolari did for sure, but I wouldn't give him too much credit for last night.

Bringing on Anelka so early was simply an admission that he got the team selection and tactics wrong from the outset. I don't think they came out looking any better after half time, until of course Pepe's blunder and then a series of generous free kicks given to them around our box which led to Alex's stunner. IMO it was the early goal conceded second half that breathed life back into Chelsea, not whatever Hiddink did, or did not, say at half time.

Last night was all about the players on both sides, and I think the managers had little influence on how the game panned out, it was a freak game. When goals are going in from all angles like they were last night, I think tactics take a back seat and the players simply have to adapt to the situation that is unfolding.

by **bigmick** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:00 pm

I'm not so sure John. I think we were set up great from the start, and we were massively good value for going two up despite our penalty being being the kind you get once in a season playing Away. Also, as soon as Aurelio's free kick hit the back of the net he pointed at the bench. It may have just been a "that one was for you" but my suspicion is that someone in the backroom team had identified the possibility of beating Cech near post from such a situation. Whether or not that was our manager I guess we'll never know, but at the very least they will have worked on the ploy, of getting the corrdoor cleared out by having absolutely everybody back post out of harms way.

The most interesting thing about our set up for me was the starting position of Lucas who played much more advanced than you normally see. At times in the past he has looked lost and has got in the way, not this time though as he was pushed on. Equally, the omission of Riera was a surprise, not so much after his awful performance in the Home leg but more that he played well at the weekend. Benayoun did well though, and his constant tracking inside seemed to unhinge Ivanovic, and opened the door for Aurelio who I thought was good all night.

Ultimately though once the sh!te hits the fan as it did for both teams, you're right in that the players decide it. My point wasn't at all that Hiddink had "outwitted" Rafa because he certainly didn't this time, but more that his approach was interesting in that he was prepared to make the changes early, while they were still ahead in the tie. I do definately think that if he hadn't done so, we would have put them out. In that sense, his recognition that he had been "outwitted" early enough, and crucially his willingness to admit as much made a telling difference on the outcome of the tie IMHO.

In the end however, the smallest of things decided it. We could well have gone through, which considering where we were before the game was a remarkable effort.

by **stmichael** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:03 pm

Beglin was pi$$ing me off the other night by claiming that Hiddink somehow inspired his team at half time into a comeback.

There was no great team talk, no inspiring performance by moonface to drag them back into the match. It was a freak goal and a free kick that shouldn't have been given.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:10 pm

They're still a bunch of dirty, diving, cockney chav b*stards, though...

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:30 pm

stmichael wrote:Beglin was pi$$ing me off the other night by claiming that Hiddink somehow inspired his team at half time into a comeback.

There was no great team talk, no inspiring performance by moonface to drag them back into the match. It was a freak goal and a free kick that shouldn't have been given.

I don't know about the inspirational team talk because I wasn't there, but clearly they made a couple of subtle changes to their setup and method which had an effect on the result. As I said earlier, the decision to swap Anelka for Kalou after half an hour was a courageous one, and the half time alterations were hugely significant. As I also said earlier, there's no question about anybody "outfoxing" anybody else, it was simply an example of top-class management.

As for the free kicks and freak goals, I'm not so sure. They would say the award of the free-kick for our first goal was harsh (for the push by Lampard) and that Aurelio's free kick was a bit unusual. Equally, they would probably contest that if the second goal was actually a penalty, then there should be ten awarded per game.

I firmly belive that the period of 20-25 mins after half time decided the match. It was during this period that Chelsea scored three goals without reply and completely turned the match on it's head. Such was their dominanace, that Rafa decided to withdraw Torres for another day. Only a "freak" deflected goal gave us hope, then probably the best piece of striking play Kuyt has shown since he arrived at the club made it a Grandstand finish. Perhaps it crossed Rafa's mind at that point that it would have been better leaving Torres on, but nobody could have forseen the final twist.

As it was, we gave them a royal scare and it was a fantastic performance from the manager and lads. Ultimately, that period after half time and the one sided first leg decided the tie, but it was still a famous effort from the team.

by **Sabre** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:42 pm

It's undebatable that the decission to make a sub in min 35 was a courageous one.

It's undebatable IMHO aswell, that making a sub in min 35 when there's not an injury involved, is something rare to see at professional football. And when you see it, it's normally to fix a tactical disadvantage that is making the opposition better (regardless fluky goals) or to punnish a dismal performance of a player. In any case, as I say, it's a rare measure in professional football.

It's undebatable aswell that Chelsea knew well to read the game, to adapt to the kind of the refereeing they're getting. When you have a ref like that, you have to know where you can concede a fk and where you can't. Where to tackle and where to "hold". And despite I wasn't there, I'm pretty sure Hiddink used his knowledge of Spanish reffereeing and match style to tell their players how to behave. They did that better than us.

What I'm not sure is about the percentage of influence that Benitez or Hiddink on the game. A fluky goal, a moment of insiiration, can change a game more than any Manager decissions. Matches get momentums, and I'm not sure Benitez, Hiddink or Ferguson for that matter are able to modify those momentums with a sub, or a shout, or a word in the ear when a player approaches for water.

And a last comment about Hiddink, he's doing very well at Chelsea, and he deserves a lot of praise. Making a team work from moment one is difficult. Very difficult. He has surprised me, because he hadn't coached a top top club from a long ago. He has done an excellent job. Oh, and BTW, I didn't hate Hiddink when he was a Madrid and Valencia manager. He's a respectful guy, normally. He's not the kind of manager that needs to píss off rival fans to make his team effective.

Liverpool FC Forum

Chelsea under hiddink - Look a different team to me.

Who is online