THIS IS MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN CHELSEA VS PSG 1-2.

yesterday chelsea played in their home against PSG . chelsea needed a goal to advance but were beaten with the same scoreline with which they lost the first game .

LINEUPS FOR BOTH THE TEAMS 

the lineups are very well known to all of us . the only change and which was positive one for me was playing kennedy in place of baba rehman . kennedy has a decent pace and certainly can match his brazilian compatriot in that one and is decent going forward so playing him was good sign for me . while he made on good change he kept the stupid mikel who is lazy and who's game reading is very poor in the middle of the park . his ineffectiveness does can be considered a reason for chelsea's downfall .

MOVEMENT FOR FIRST GOAL BY PSG

now the started the game with both teams playing deep . i dont know why PSG play deep they have two decent pace in their legs . the trouble was for chelsea . chelsea were playing deep and it is rightly so because both cahill and ivanovic dont have pace in their legs and would struggle if di maria or lucas runs past them. the trouble with chelsea was that even though they were playing deep . they were holding their last line 5 yards in front of the box so there was a space behind the back four to exploit . the trouble was that chelsea were offering psg time and space in the middle of the park which was dangerous . there were two errors in the first goal scored by psg which chelsea committed . first off zlatan made the diagonal run across the back four and cahill who was man marking him should have gone with him . had he gone with him then zlatan wouldnt had been able to turn that easily and pass the ball across the goal . secondly mikel  and fabregas with their support cast in the middle of the park . they didnt work hard to close psg down and make it hard . psg played the tactics well by bringing the wide playes inside and trying to achieve the numbers superiority in the middle of the park but then chelsea should had been able to deal with it . if you look at the statistics then psg had so much possession but was it worth it or did  they threaten each time when they had the ball . the passing game that they played in the middle and the back couldnt be replicated in the final third . psg had all the possession but were they able to play through zlatan or get zlatan properly in the game in the first half . except for the first half goal psg's threat was minimal and courtois goal wasnt  threatened . in the second half they brought zlatan more in the game . the script was just like the first game .
i was disappointed with chelsea's tactics . if you look at silva and luiz then first thing they were staying goal side of costa . they were not trying to press him up . he was offered time and space in the hole and i expected it to be exploited . if you look at the first chelsea goal then it is a proof of that where costa was given the time by silva to twist and take the shot . this was in the first half . i expected hiddink that he would exploit the space that costa was offered and try to have somebody run beyond costa and costa passing him on . costa cannot pass properly . i havent seen players playing off him just like lampard use to play off drogba . plus his positioning sense is not good . i will explain this later . willian and costa didnt had any cohesion between nor is any cohesion in the chelsea team and because of that chelsea cannot move the ball faster . they have to find to out where the support cast is . there were moments in match when chelsea won the ball in the middle of the park because psg were trying to be too cute and could had been to paid had chelsea had any cohesion .

COSTA'S POSITION WHEN WILLIAN TURNED ON RABIOT.

the most interesting statistics that i would like to not is the numbers of times that psg lost possession in the middle of the park where on i think they over pass the ball . psg pass the ball better but at times it is aimless . they try to take the risk by trying to outpass the opposition but in doing so they dont bring the ball up in the final third quickly enough instead they keep it passing in the midfield and at times they loose it and that happened number of times last night . had chelsea had a better cohesion and better couter attacking ability then i think chelsea could have had psg pay. the trouble with chelsea is that this team never had cohesion instead it is dependent of players qualities to open the opposition rather than team interplay .

THIS IS THE POSITION WHERE COSTA SHOULD HAD BEEN .

the explaination as to why costa has no positional sense is being explained in the following pic . chelsea broke psg attack and willian went past rabiot and he searching for the players in the box . at that time costa sould be lurking in and around the six yard box . his position would had kept back four occupied which would had created space between the back four and middle on the cut back or if there was a space between back four and goal keeper then ball could had been played there . but costa staying inside for the cut back meant the chance was lost .