Liverpool, Man U showed Chelsea what could have been vs. Man City

After four losses in eight months, Manchester City dropped their second game in four days to a Premier League side. Could Chelsea have done more against the prohibitive champions when they met one month ago?

Liverpool and Manchester United each scored three goals en route to defeating Manchester City in consecutive games, the first time Pep Guardiola has ever been on the receiving end of that combination. Both clubs won on the offensive efforts of a single half. Liverpool gegenpressung-ed for the first half to take a 3-0 lead, and then clung to that scoreline. Manchester United were flat and lethargic for 45 minutes, and somehow overcame 2-0 at the half for 3-2 final.

When Chelsea played Manchester City on March 4, the Blues played their gameplan for the full 90 minutes. They were locked-down, disciplined, held their formation and followed their orders from whistle-to-whistle. And they lost 1-0.

Antonio Conte bore more criticism for his tactics in that game than any other this season. Even though it was only slightly more extreme than his approach in the earlier games against Tottenham, Manchester City and Arsenal, the apparent lack of ambition going forward was unpalatable to most watchers.

The most puzzling part of Chelsea’s loss to City – and the reason so many accused Antonio Conte of self-crippling apathy – is that it did not have to be that way. Liverpool had already shown how to defeat Manchester City a few weeks earlier. Other teams, including some far down the table, showed how to stay alive in a game and blunt City’s dominance even with far less talent than Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp or Antonio Conte have. Run at City’s defenders. Press them in their defensive third and at midfield before taking defensive station. Make them think twice before they start a play, and never let them think they can get away with it.

Must Read: Chelsea should learn from Pep Guardiola's icy dismissal of Mino Raiola

Chelsea gave City nothing to think about. The Blues defended resolutely and were difficult to break down. But City never had to second-guess, check themselves or look over their shoulder. They had the run of the pitch.

Liverpool and Manchester United had similar secondary statistics in victory as Chelsea had in defeat. They had 34-35% possession while Chelsea had 29%. Manchester United took only five shots, while Chelsea took three. Of course, United put four on target while Chelsea had none. Chelsea completed 392 passes against City, more than either Liverpool or Manchester United.

The red clubs – Liverpool, in particular – played their own best football against Manchester City. Liverpool did not hedge their style or try to be someone they are not (e.g., a defensively astute team). They pressed, because Liverpool presses. They attacked, because Liverpool attacks. They clung for dear life in the second half, because that’s what Liverpool does.

Jose Mourinho treated this game like a final. He was unperturbed at going down 2-0. He knew the structure he had in place for the first half was solid if they could turn on the attack. Mourinho knew when to park the bus and when to steer it, and trusted in “Mourinho ball.”

Antonio Conte made Chelsea someone different than who they are. The Blues are a defence-first team, and Conte is a defence-first manager. But first implies something that comes next: the counter, the movement forward, the press. Against Manchester City, they were a defence-only team. They neglected the other half of their nature in early March, the offence which springs forth from the solid defensive platform. They denied themselves their attacking talents, who are on par with anyone at Anfield and Old Trafford.

Chelsea’s gameplan against Manchester City depended on immaculate execution of tactics and fundamentals. That is a fatally brittle structure, as the single mistake by Andreas Christensen and Marcos Alonso showed. Liverpool and Manchester United opened the game up enough to where it could tolerate the flaws and faults of human beings playing a game. They could execute their strategy perfectly without perfection.

Football is as short on guarantees as it is generous in what-if’s. Chelsea could have had a tactically brilliant if mind-numbing 0-0 draw or a quintessentially Blue 1-0 win with Antonio Conte’s tactics at the Etihad. If they had opened up, they could have had a calamitous 4-0 loss. But they also could have had a 3-0 or 3-2 win in an entertaining game that no one would describe as a “crime against football,” and that would dampen the criticism around the club, their future and their ambition.

Next: 'Young and dynamic': Ten managers Chelsea could be considering

Liverpool and Manchester United showed Chelsea the sort of football we missed on March 4. They also showed the Blues a result that could have been theirs.