FC Copenhagen vs Chelsea: Tactical Analysis & Match Report (1-2)

Chelsea's 3-2-5 Shape Versus Copenhagen 5-2-3 Block

Let’s start with Chelsea’s in-possession and Copenhagen out-of-possession structures, as the visitors dominated possession for most of the game.

Chelsea set up in a 3-2-5 shape, with Reece James playing in midfield alongside Moisés Caicedo, while Malo Gusto held width on the left and Tyrique George played on the right wing. Notably, this match saw Shim Mheuka earn his first start for Chelsea.

Copenhagen, on the other hand, defended in a 5-2-3 mid-block with a high defensive line to compress the space between the lines. When Chelsea pushed Copenhagen deeper into their half, they switched to a low-block while maintaining their 5-2-3 shape.

For Chelsea, this setup presented significant space outside the Copenhagen frontline press. Since
Copenhagen were narrow up front, Chelsea were often able to find their no.8s or wingers in space. However, Copenhagen's manager, Jacob Neestrup, instructed his fullbacks to press Chelsea’s no.8s immediately to prevent them from having time and space to dictate play. As a result, the center-backs would drift wider to cover for the advancing fullbacks.

The hosts defended passively in the middle third for most of the match. However, during certain chaotic moments when Chelsea tried to play through the middle and the ball became loose, Copenhagen were quick to pounce. They also demonstrated an ability to ramp up their intensity, transitioning their zonal defensive block into a man-to-man press, going 5v5 against Chelsea’s 3-2 build-up shape.

Furthermore, from the home team's perspective, the 5-2-3 structure provided them with a solid counter-attacking setup. With three attackers in the frontline, they had sufficient players to charge at Chelsea’s backline, with two midfielders joining the attack late. To counter this, Chelsea deployed a solid rest defense structure, maintaining a 3-2 base to compete in those transitional moments.

Copenhagen had one notable opportunity in which they penetrated the visitors' defensive block through a quick passing move. However, this wasn’t a regular occurrence. When they had possession, Copenhagen struggled to create much, as evidenced by their low 0.06 xG in the first half.