Wednesday, 17 February 2016


now yesterday chelsea played psg at their home . before i write about the match i think chelsea under hiddink are better than they were under mouriniho . they are moving the ball better . the players are working harder plus the team structure is far better than before .for last match i think he got the selection very correct .he didnt went defensive like mouriniho and played only three attackers but instead he went with a good lineup who could play good football . they didnt show value of themselves when they had the ball . i think terry getting injured was a boon in disguise for chelsea and i will tell why in the analysis of the game .
now PSG started the game with a 4-3-3 game . they had ibramovic up top with lucas and di maria along side him . while the midfield consisted of motta,matuidi and veratti . while the back four consisted of marquinihos,thiago silva ,luiz and maxwell . while chelsea started the game with a 4-4-1-1 formation with costa uptop with willian just behind him . the middle four consisted of pedro,fabregas,mikel and hazard . while the back four consisted of azpilicueta,cahill,ivanovic and baba rehman .

now as i had said that terry's injury's was boon in disguise because ivanovic would started as a right back had terry being fit and it would had been a problem for chelsea . ivanovic would have had to deal with lucas who is very tricky and has lot of pace and he would had struggled against him . but instead hiddink moved azpilicueta to right back spot and he can match lucas's pace and negotiated successfully with him . PSG was continously trying to release lucas and di maria behind the back four and chelsea playing proper fullbacks helped them deal with these two threats properly . plus i think ivanovic is better centre back than terry . he very mobile and does comes out of the defense to close down his opposite number . while terry does sticks with his position which allows the opposition time and space on the ball which can be fatal .
now the game started with decent pace to it . chelsea were sitting back with two banks of four and sitting deep . the reason with chelsea sitting deep was that both cahill and ivanovic struggle against pace and they like to players in front of them than having them on the shoulders and trying to catch them on in offside trap . chelsea didnt want to offer the opposition the space behind the back four since ibra was coming deep and allowing lucas and di maria to make diagonal runs in the box . now psg passed the ball around but they never threatened  the chelsea goal . they passed the ball around crisply around in the midfield but never played that sort of passes in the midfield . for the first 20 min they passed the ball around and tried to outpass chelsea and tried to open up chelsea with their passing game . the troubel with chelsea was that they didnt had anybody who was going beyond ibra through the middle . lucas and di maria were trying to make diagonal runs from the wide to the middle but chelsea fullbacks kept good tabs on them . for me PSG made one pass two many they passed the ball just in the midfield and never brought it up in the final third quickly to threaten chelsea . for the first 25 min i think they couldnt just involve ibra into the game . when psg's attempt failed to outpass chelsea and open them then they took the ball wide and cross it into the box and it did created the chances for them which ibra couldnt finish .
now for the first half hour chelsea were just sitting back and defending whenever they had the ball they were closed down very aggresively by psg and the possession was lost . why i lauded hiddink for choosing such a good team was shown in the 30 min when chelsea had the ball and they passed it backed and forth and kept the ball which mouriniho's team certainly lacked . they didnt spend time on the ball and passed the ball very nicely . now chelsea were negotiating psg very well in every zone but they had obviously one weakness in the form of mikel . if somebody had noticed then there was space between mikel and fabregas plus fabregas was very good today in his defenisve pressing while mikel was less so . he was the reason why chelsea conceded the first goal .it wasnt because he turned on the free kick but because he couldnt defend lucas properly in the first place . fabreagas was very good with his defensive pressing very good but mikel lacked that energy plus his game reading is also not that nice . it was his zone that was exloited in the second half .
in the second half psg changed the approach they started to bring the ball in the final third very quickly . they created some very decent chances but chelsea dealt them very nicely . chelsea's centre backs dont like to ccome out of the defense and it was the reason for the second goal . in the second half psg started to play through ibra . they had lucas and di maria going beyond him . ibra was getting time and space between the line where on he could play the ball for the player who was making the run from the midfield . earlier psg had changed the personal and brought cavani and pastore . cavani exploited the space left on by baba rehman who had came out of the defense to press him . earlier too ibra too had a shot saved by courtious when the similar thing had happened when rehman came out to press somebody and left the space to exploit .
now chelsea were sitting and hitting back on the counter and it was a bit helped by psg who played a bit of deep defensive line . the reason being that even though thiago and luiz could deal with costa . the trouble was with pedro and hazard who would put psg in trouble . plus the thing was that with playing a deep last line meant that chelsea would get stretched they would have to cover that much more distance to get beyond the last player or keep hold of the ball longer which inturn would bring more psg player back on defense and get the ball back . there were times in the match that both willian and costa had time and space in between the lines but they just couldnt exploit that advantage . the trouble with psg was that they were pressing but it meant that only with the player with possession of the bal not all around . so chelsea could move the ball around and they were good value for money .
as i had said that the lineup choosen by hiddink was very good but i would had just tweaked it a little i would had played pedro or hazard as the furthest player and played costa behind them . it a formation costa is familiar with when he played at ath. mad with david villa .  it would had trouble psg more than what the formaiton is .