Chelsea over the years has played 4-3-3 formation with one powerful striker. The 4-3-3 formation is dangerous on attack and automatically converts to 4-5-1 when chasing the ball. Ideally, teams who have adopted this system will have 9players behind the ball any time they lose possession. It is these nine players that will be referred to as the “bus”. I think Chelsea did not play negative football, but changed their system depending on circumstances, the opponent and the nature of the game. Let’s look at the Napoli match for instance. This is an Italian opposition were in top form. In the end, Chelsea scored 4 goals and only one goal scored by a striker. The other two and especially the last goal was scored by Chelsea’s center half who was in the opposition territory at the time. If that is parking the bus, then he must have parked it in the wrong territory.
Chelsea versus Barcelona game, venue, Camp Nou. You are playing against eleven men. You have lost all your center backs and you are away from home. What strategy would a team employ? Would you go on an out and out attack? You have to try defending your lead and hope to hit them on counter attack. I have watched Real Madrid play Barcelona and every time “Pepe” is sent off (well, it’s always him), Real Madrid adopts the same strategy. Its dangerous to attack Barcelona when you are playing eleven against eleven, its suicidal to do it when you are one man less. I have watched Arsenal play Barcelona at Camp Nou and for 90minutes, there was no single shot on target. The only shot that came from Arsenal lead to Van Persie being sent off, and it was because he shot after the whistle for an off side on him. This is enough prove, that even the self proclaimed attacking team cannot dare attack or play possession football at Camp Nou. You would eventually pay dearly.
Back to Wenger and his “points for goals” theory of 2005. At the end of that season, Chelsea’s goal difference was +57 while Arsenal’s goal difference was + 32, to which point I asked, which was the most attacking team between the two? From there on, over the past eight seasons Chelsea has only scored one goal less than the “attacking Arsenal”. The same team that parks the bus has the highest goals scored in the history of English premier league. And they are not “own goals”.
Soccer is about competition, competition is about gaining advantage and we gain advantage in order to beat our opponents. What gives you advantage over opponent A might be different from that of opponent B. In other words your advantage varies relative to the opposition and the weapons at your disposal. It is never possible for two teams playing each other to be both defensive. When one team is attacking, the other is defending and vice versa. It's when one team attacks that the other defends and this fills the fans with hope, expectation, anxiety and even fear depending on whether your team is the one attacking or playing defense. Our adrenalin is charged to boiling points either fearing the unexpected or hoping for the expected. Should both teams attack and defend interchangeably, the emotions of the fans change as well until the point where the game is over and one group is left disappointed, heartbroken, dejected and in pain while the opposite is the case with the winning group.
Chelsea, heading to the finals had beaten Valencia 3-0, put 4 past Napoli and 5 past Genk. Nobody in their right frame of mind, who saw those games, would say Chelsea parked the bus. They played a very fluent passing, attacking game and defended very well. That was the advantage they had over their opponents so they used it. However, against Barcelona, Chelsea knew what their strength was at that moment, realized what their weakness was and decided to play a style that will maximize their advantage against Barcelona. If being 75% defensive and only 25% attacking it what offers them that advantage, they did that very efficiently and progressed. They even scored two goals. Against Bayern they again assessed the scenario and saw they were playing the finals not on a neutral ground but on Bayern's turf, the Allianz Arena. Though both teams were missing key players, Chelsea was without their inspiration captain and missing Ramirez, the midfield workaholic. They wisely decided that the best approach was to defend with military discipline and play counter attack. Folks this is called "tactics". It is not called anti football. To call a "defend first" approach anti football will mean football is all about "attack first", which is wrong.
Let’s define tactic - any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. That's what it means. What Chelsea did was to use wisdom and tactics to gain success. A good team is one that knows their strength and weakness against a particular opposition and devices a particular mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. Chelsea did that and won. Did you realize Bayern took out Muller and replaced him with Van Buyten after the goal? They also were going defensive but their tactics backfired. The good thing is that Chelsea doesn't always play like that but this match-up called for those tactics. They adopted, defended gallantly and utilized the chance that came their way. Their display was the result of sound tactical display and the symbolized efficiency at its highest level. To those of you who refuse to understand these simple applications of common sense, you can stop watching Chelsea's games, cry your eyes out and whine your voice dry; sore losers! I rest my case!
