Chelsea’s plan got figured out, so time for a new one with a back three

Chelsea’s switch to 4-3-3 with dual eights was the right idea and worked for a long while. It has now been figured out, so the Blues need a new plan.

One game, which was the second league loss of the season, wasn’t the time to throw the baby out with the bath water. A second game in a row, however, is a concern. All fairness to Everton and Wolves in that they nullified Chelsea’s tactics perfectly. Maybe it still isn’t time to throw the baby out with the bath water after only the third league loss of the season, but the back to back nature means the Blues need to stay ahead of the curve.

What made Sir Alex Ferguson so long lasting in England was that he could recognize when his methods were getting figured out by opponents and he would change them. Like in an old spy movie where the code can’t be cracked because it is constantly changing, SAF stayed ahead of the opposition. Mind, he was successful because that trait is exceedingly rare. At the very least, however, the codes have to be changed when they have been figured out if they can’t be changed beforehand.

That is where Chelsea is now. The 4-3-3 with dual eights has been solved. Yes Hakim Ziyech is missing, Kai Havertz is recovering from Covid, and a plethora of other excuses but even with all those present, it was bound to be cracked at some point. No tactic works on match day one and match day 38. It is time for another evolution, and that can simply be a return to the 3-4-3 or perhaps even the 3-5-2.

Why three at the back? Well Chelsea’s current issues are twofold but all encompassing. Space, whether offensively or defensively, is largely controlled vertically or horizontally. Vertically is Jurgen Klopp’s preference. The team aims to pull teams into them to create space to exploit through the lines. Horizontally is Pep Guardiola’s wheelhouse. They look to stretch opponents to create space in lanes to attack. There are elements of both in both manager’s tactics of course but that is the dissolution of them.

Chelsea’s issue is they have now lost control of both on offense. To control vertical space, the team has to play backwards and forwards. The team might also need to commit more bodies into buildup to draw more of the opposition out while leaving forwards higher.

To control horizontal space, the opponent needs to be stretched to both flanks. This is primarily what Chelsea has done throughout the 4-3-3 run but lately opponents have countered with wide defensive formations like the 6-2-2 and 5-4-1. Given that Chelsea almost exclusively plays the ball into the box from the wing, it becomes easy to ignore the midfield and just push out to the wide areas.

So what do these two look like on paper for Chelsea? The Blues play their way up field through the flanks in a controlled way. By the time they get to the final third the opponent has set up defensively. All of this is a result of losing the vertical control. By this point, Chelsea could play back to regain that but they rarely do.

Horizontal control in play now, the Blues look to stretch the opposition. With wide defensive lines though, the opponent doesn’t have to come out far to defend. One solution to that would be to play it to the midfield to play it through. That doesn’t happen because no Chelsea midfield has that toolset. So instead the cross comes in to a crowded box.

So why would three at the back solve this? The clues are already there. Three at the back naturally commits more players deeper into the buildup. This will pull more opposition players forward, creating that vertical space. This would suit Timo Werner much better than the current setup.

Horizontally it would also have more numbers. With a back three, the base can widen out further than they normally would. The midfield can as well, entering more of a half space location. There would also be an impotence for the wingbacks to cut in instead of always going wide. They could do so knowing the shape behind them is more solid than previously.

The main issue that comes with a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 is that it is much easier to get pushed back into a defensive shape when possession is lost. Whereas other formations can have at least two pressing moments before collapsing, three at the back generally only offers one. Given the Blues’ newfound defensive solidarity this season, that may be more survivable now than it was last sea on.

The second issue is who drops to make room for a third centerback. In most cases, it will be a wide player which Chelsea already doesn’t use much even when they are fit. But would that extra barrier cause more issues? It is worth considering.

It is also worth considering that this should only be a temporary fix like it was at times last season. The Blues do not need to go to a back three and stay that way for the remainder of the season. Just a few games could be enough to revamp the 4-3-3 for round two, especially if opponents begin to expect the three at the back. This is what SAF would do with 4-4-2, 4-diamond-2, and 4-4-1-1 throughout the seasons. The hardest part is knowing when to make that switch.

With the longest time off in a while or for a while until West Ham, Lampard has time to sit and rethink somethings after back to back losses. He doesn’t need to change the entire script, but some rewrites might be in order for the next few scenes.