Defensive Solidity and Game Management
With a 3-0 lead by halftime, Chelsea had established dominance. Their defensive resilience was a key factor in maintaining control throughout the second half.
Without possession, the hosts' compact 4-4-2 shape in the middle third made it difficult for City to break through. The aggressive and organized mid-block forced City to play wide, limiting their ability to create chances through central areas. When pushed deeper, Chelsea even transitioned into a 4-5-1 shape, further frustrating City’s attempts to penetrate.
City struggled to find solutions, often resorting to wide crosses—similar to their approach in the FA Cup match between these sides. However, Chelsea’s strong box defenders, Bright and Bjorn, dealt with aerial threats effectively, and goalkeeper Hannah Hampton commanded her area well.
Meanwhile City found it really challenging to break down Chelsea. I'd attribute this to a consistent off-ball aggressiveness from the hosts. Even when City players received the ball between the lines, the Chelsea backline weren't afraid to step up and press them. This would often… pic.twitter.com/UtpWaTWpFk
— Fahd (@fahdahmed987) March 30, 2025
One potential downside to Chelsea’s narrow defensive shape was the space left for City’s fullbacks. When City managed to switch play effectively, their fullbacks found themselves in open spaces, allowing them to carry the ball into dangerous zones. However, despite this minor vulnerability, Chelsea’s compact structure and aggressive pressing ensured that City rarely capitalized on these opportunities.
Something I did notice from the game - a potential downside of Chelsea's narrow out-of-possession approach - was that the opposition fullbacks could find themselves in a lot of space.
— Fahd (@fahdahmed987) March 30, 2025
Since Chelsea's first and second lines of pressure were narrow, if the fullback advanced from a… pic.twitter.com/6SlUJt33G5