The Liverpool versus Chelsea match was predicted to be a close one and was highly anticipated. But the end result would suggest it was not as close as many thought it would be.
Both managers, taking on roles of mentor and apprentice, were coming into the game in full confidence.
Chelsea was coming into the game on the back of a 0-0 away draw at Atletico Madrid while Liverpool were on an impressive 11-game unbeaten run in the league and were the only undefeated team of 2014.
Each manager was expected to come into the game with a tactic that had worked effectively for them previously.
Liverpool have been known for their quick and electric start to games, while Chelsea have the best defensive record in the league. With Mourinho at the helm, a defensive approach to the match was inevitable.
Liverpool didn’t start the game as they usually do. Raheem Sterling was not peeling behind the defenders as we’ve become accustomed to and Suarez was spending too much time on the wings. He’s at his most dangerous when he is in the box.
This was down to Mourinho’s tactics, Chelsea had set up their defence to repel every attack. As the game wore on and Liverpool kept pouring forward, I grew wearier because they felt porous at the back. Mourinho had set up his team not to lose the game and I expected Brendan Rodgers to do likewise.
I would have thought after the first 20 minutes staying goalless, Liverpool would have sat deeper and attacked on the counter. The game would have been a bore to watch for the neutral but they might have gotten the point(s) they so needed. Chelsea wouldn’t have attacked or pushed higher if Liverpool sat deeper themselves because Chelsea didn’t have the players to do so.
People kept on repeating after the game that Liverpool need to learn to win ugly, but I completely disagree. Previous games against Manchester City, Norwich and West Ham were games Liverpool could have lost or dropped points, but they won ugly and took maximum points in each game.
The problem with the Chelsea game was that Liverpool kept on pushing forward without creating too many chances. They should have retreated to get the single point they needed to still be in control of the title race.
The title race is not over for Liverpool because their neighbours could do them a huge favour and steal points from Man City. In that case, Liverpool would need the maximum six points from their remaining two games to end the 24-year wait for the Premier League.
j binnie
Guest
Steven I take you back to what is recognised as the first of the fatal blows delivered to the football tactic "catenaccio".The year is 1966/67 and the European Cup being played for at that time contained such luminary teams as Ajax,Liverpool, Internazionale and ---an "upstart" team (virtually made up with players from the city of Glasgow) from Scotland The format in those days was home and away ties which had to be won to progress. In it's 8 games to the final,the masters of the tactic,Inter,under the famous Hererra,had scored10 goals and kept their opponebts to blank scores in 5 of those games,conceding only 3 goals in the other 3 games. In their 8 games to the final Celtic had scored 16 goals and conceded 4 . In the final Inter scored within minutes ,a penalty (your point) ,and settled back to protect their lead,(remember their reputation). It is history now that Celtic,with speed and aggression proceeded to run Inter literally "off the field" at the same time scoring 2 goals,one a rocket shot from well out by the left back,the other a penalty box move to get the winner. And so began the death throes of "catenaccio". The lesson,as you say, score first against the practicing defensive team and a whole new ball game emerges That takes us back the Chelsea game.They scored first but could not hold out Athletico. Liverpool couldn't score and the game went as Mourhino had planned. The tactic has flaws. Cheers jb
j binnie
Guest
Chucks - You are suggesting just what I described to you as a possible 90 minutes of boredom.As I also said ,it has happened in Italy with almost disasterly results. Cheers jb
CHUCKS OKORO
Roar Pro
you got me all wrong. I dislike Mou's tactics but the tactics because it bores the game and with all the attacking talent in the squad, I expect much. The tactic is meant to subdue attacking teams and it worked on sunday. when it doesn't work, it's disgraceful jsust like against A.Madrid, My point is Brendan should have expected the parked bus tactic and should have played a safer tactic to get a point or more from the game.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
I think the whole tactics thing has been done to death a bit this week as it goes. Football constantly changes and involves but it's still about defending at one end and scoring goals at the other. Chelsea is not yet Mourinho's team in terms of personnel and balance. Assuming he gets the players he wants you'll see a different approach next year which will have more balanced pragmatism. He's not happy with his attacking options right now so is playing to his strengths in matches at the stage of the season where the result is simply everything. Personally I think you'll see him move to more of a 4-3-3 than a 4-2-3-1 next season, that's more his gig. His previous Chelsea and Real teams counter attacked without being overly defensive. This team will evolve. With regard to Guardiola and tiki taka. I think it's like anything. New formations or tactics come along and for a while they are very successful. We've seen in the past year or two though, Barca get humped by Bayern, Spain be soundly beaten in the Confederations final by Brazil and then Bayern (now playing tiki taka) getting tanked by Real. I think it was dizzying opposition teams for a while but they have learned to deal with it. It's not that it has become a poor tactic overnight but what it does allow is the opposition to defend very deep which if they get the first goal means it's very difficult to play against. Much of the tactical debate that has taken place this week hasn't considered what would have happened if the other team had scored first. Much of the deep defending has taken place for that very reason, that team scored first.
The artist formally known as Dave
Guest
I tend towards jbinnie's and Jonjax's view on this. In a fledgling league like ours struggling to gain traction in terms of fans and media, I think there is almost a moral obligation on clubs to entertain. And I think it's hard to argue that dour defense first football entertains the majority of fans.
j binnie
Guest
Chucks - I will pose you a simple question.Let us assume every team in the HAL adopted the same tactics as used by Chelsea in their recent 2-0 win over Liverpool.Remember there is not one "frightened" team here but two,so the time wasting and spoiling tactics would be getting used all over the field. I can actually answer the question for you for it has already happened when literally thousands of spectators chose to stay away from their favourite sport, football, when Italian teams elected to play catenaccio in the years 1958-1967.The resultant problems nearly sent long ,long established clubs to the wall and it was only the return to skillful football that saved the day. Don't get me wrong,there is a certain amount of examination into the tactic that uncovers tremendous discipline and application by players but the fans back then gave it a resounding thumbs down and showed it by non-attendance.We in Australia do not need that sort of reaction to our football at this stage of our development. jb
Patrick Hargreaves
Roar Guru
Yes but Mourinho's negative tactics aren't sustainable, and Athletico Madrid showed that. Same with Pep at Bayern - he tinkered with the system that demolished tika taka and got deservedly pumped. Bayern Munich of 2012/13 and Dortmund was football at it's best.
Mick
Guest
Dross? What about intelligent use of resources within a realistic game plan? Tell us how you'd utilize this rebuilt squad, somehow contending at the end of the domestic season, with every second or third game an ACL fixture? Moss has done superbly well with the limited resources at his disposal and most people are willing to acknowledge it. You're living in la-la land mate.
JonJax
Guest
Interesting title.Perhaps serendipitous that Cockerill in today's legacy media seems to be running a similar line. My response to Cockerill's football nihilism is simple. Yes Mr Cockerill you HAVE missed something- our fledgling A-League resides in the planets most competitive sports market and the dross delivered by Mr Moss at the CCM at the tail end of this season is similar to lacing the coffee of a diabetic with sugar- perhaps a short term fix is gained by winning the odd game but the style and lack of entertainment will prove terminal in the long term.
Adam Julian
Roar Guru
Anything Man United does this year has been wrong.
Johnno
Guest
Venables not playing Ivanovic V Iran 1997 Holges Olseik's time coaching the socceroos Pim Verbeek V Germany 2010 WC Hiddink playing Kalac WC 2006