Mourinho and the Chelsea formation debate - Part 1

This has been a question that has intrigued many ever since Jose Mourinho took charge.

Chelsea had settled comfortably into a 4-2-3-1 formation after Di Matteo entered the fray and have continued the same, albeit with slightly lesser flexibility, under Rafa Benitez. Naturally, they would not want to disturb this set pattern.

But with Jose coming in, a change of formation may not be out of the question.

In his first spell (2004-07), Mourinho used a 4-3-3 system which surprised opponents. The midfield had the industry of Claude Makelele, the powerhouse Michael Essien, and the ever-prolific Frank Lampard. Since 4-4-2 was a widely used shape in England during that time, this tended to dominate opponents in central midfield.

Apart from the formation, Mourinho built his team with physique as the primary attribute, with the aim of intimidating the opponents. This, combined with a stingy defence, ensured Chelsea achieved victories in a somewhat workman-like manner. The style used was described as boring and dull, a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, but effective nonetheless.

Mourinho was successful in instilling an ‘us against the world’ mentality in his first Chelsea spell.

Six years have passed since Jose’s departure. During the time, the club and Jose have evolved, while 4-4-2 has reached its death in England.

The experience abroad has shown the world that Mourinho can change his tactics. He built his Inter Milan side in a similar way to his Chelsea team, but placed more emphasis on the playmaker, with Wesley Sneijder being the architect. Inter also showed the utility of sitting deep and playing on the break on their way to Champions League success.

Moving on to Real Madrid, Mourinho mostly used 4-2-3-1. The two layers of midfield had Xabi Alonso and Sami Khedira in the double pivot, and Di Maria, Ozil and Ronaldo as the attacking trio supporting the lone striker.

This team was a mix of everything good in Jose’s past – the defensive resolve and tactical discipline of Chelsea, and the pace to play on the counter like Inter. Mourinho combined these and simultaneously changed the formation at Real. The first season required getting used to, but the implementation of the system was vindicated by the La Liga success the following season.

Now, he faces another riddle to solve. His supposed preference for 4-3-3 has been well documented, and the voices supporting Chelsea moving to 4-3-3 have picked up pace with his reappointment. But opponents no longer use the flat 4-4-2 against which he was so successful last time, so what might be on his mind?

Should he continue with 4-2-3-1 from his previous club and Chelsea’s previous season, or should he revert to 4-3-3? Sadly, there are cons to both sides.

In some cases last season, Chelsea’s 4-2-3-1 was countered by defenders playing deep and squeezing out spaces which made the midfield trio scamper for options. In short, a way had been found to defend against the trio.

While a continuation of 4-2-3-1 would make Chelsea predictable, a change to 4-3-3, even though it will be played against more modern shapes than the 4-4-2, may prove to be more successful. In either formation, the shape of the defence remains the same. Hence, this shall not be discussed henceforth.

The analysis starts with the double pivot in 4-2-3-1, which has been Chelsea’s Achilles’ heel for a while. What are their current options?

Coming back from his loan spell, Michael Essien is a contender. The spell helped Essien as he found his feet again and had an almost injury-free season. He should be refreshed now and ready to stamp his authority in his preferred position.

On the flip side though, age is catching up to him and the league has got more physical. An injury-free season is still too much to expect. Besides, Mourinho used Essien more at right back at Real Madrid. Considering Ivanovic’s reluctance to play there and Wallace not being eligible due to work permit issues, Essien may find himself pushing Azpilicueta at right back more often than featuring in midfield.

Michael Essien provides another option at right back, in addition to his natural position (Essien featured more prominently in defense for Real Madrid).

Frank Lampard and Marco van Ginkel are next in line. Neither truly comes across as a true holding presence in the middle of the park, given their preference to creep forward unnoticed.

Lampard took a long time to adapt to his new position where he is required to keep the play ticking and distribute, and maintain his position simultaneously. But given his natural tendency to go forward, the central midfield was left wide open.

Van Ginkel is tipped to be Lampard’s successor, and we can expect similar traits in his case. The same goes for the forgotten boy, Josh McEachran (remember, he was tipped to be Lampard’s successor as well).

One player who is perfect for this position though, is Ramires. A typical box-to-box midfielder, Ramires makes his presence felt everywhere. He can beat anybody for pace and burst forward in the blink of an eye, and is equally aware about tracking back. Despite his small stature, he is not afraid to take a booking for the team with the odd bad but necessary foul.

Ramires is the engine of the team – the extra man in defence and attack, plus the spoilsport in the opponent’s move. If Mourinho continues with 4-2-3-1, Ramires is a definite starter.

David Luiz meanwhile is too similar a player to Ramires. Despite being a centre back to start with, fans would prefer to see him further up the pitch as his skill on the ball has outgrown his original position.

We saw how effective he could be from midfield under Benitez, specially considering his eye for a killer pass from deep. Yet, like Ramires, he is sure to make one dashing run forward and go for glory rather than stick to his starting position. He does nick the ball from the opponents’ feet, but is equally likely to concede a foul. Plus, one needs to get accustomed to the occasional howler (though they are getting increasingly rare).

This season is a crucial season for him, because he will need clarity on whether he is primarily a centre back or a defensive midfielder. Yet, playing Luiz in the midfield for a whole season seems risky.

John Obi Mikel has always split opinions and is reportedly considering a move. Right now, he is the only true defensive-minded midfielder in the first team, but sadly, his ability has always been subject to debate in spite of some heroic performances (the Champions League final in 2012 and the FA Cup game at Old Trafford stand out).

Mikel is still prone to the odd blunder of gifting possession in dangerous areas and still slows down the play way too much in transition. This was one of the reasons for Chelsea’s 4-2-3-1 being ineffective sometimes last season.

His understudy Oriol Romeu, who missed the majority of last season due to injury, has inexplicably been shipped out on loan (to Valencia), which leaves Nathan Ake and Nathaniel Chalobah as like-for-like alternatives. It would be too risky to sell Mikel now, with only two youngsters left to fill the void.

Daniele De Rossi

Perhaps this explains the club’s interest in Danielle De Rossi, a player perfectly complementing Ramires. While the former is more reliable than Mikel in holding up play and passing the ball, the latter can perform his destructive flying role.

Thus, if Chelsea intend to continue with 4-2-3-1, they must sign De Rossi to solve the problem of the ’2′ in it. Ramires and De Rossi will be sure starters then, while the likes of Lampard, van Ginkel, Luiz, Essien, Ake, McEachran and Chalobah would remain as secondary options.

But by solving one problem, they would be creating another. If they sign De Rossi, and presumably stick to 4-2-3-1, they can solve their defensive midfield woes in one stroke, but that would mean the addition of another midfielder to the outrageous depth that they have already to fill the three spots behind the striker.

Their current options are Hazard, Mata, Oscar, Moses, de Bruyne, Piazon, and possibly van Ginkel. Lampard can also fill in. I’m still not sure of Schurrle, but he is yet another option in the trio. Plus, the potential arrival of Wayne Rooney would provide even more depth there (true, he wants the striker’s role, but isn’t he extremely effective just behind the striker as well?).

Torres, Lukaku and Ba will contest to be considered as the main striker. Also, Schurrle and Moses can have a shot at it, so can Wayne Rooney if he is signed.

Thus, potentially six players may be contesting for one spot in the team – not an ideal situation to be in. Also, Torres can play on the left behind the striker as we have seen occasionally in the past. Schurrle has also declared that to be his favoured position, while Rooney is an option to play in the CAM role.

Withdrawing Torres and Rooney from their natural positions may work on the pitch, but not too well in their minds. Besides, Rooney would not want to play the role, that being the major reason for him wanting to leave the Red Devils in the first place.

Summary: Chelsea have to sign a player as an upgrade on Mikel to start alongside Ramires or risk trusting Ake or Luiz for that role the entire season.

The safer option would be to spend again, most probably on De Rossi. That would push Lampard and van Ginkel further down the order in contesting for that position, and the duo must be considered further up the pitch. This would create an overkill of depth in the trio, with even some strikers potentially being played there.

Verdict:

1. After the initial fireworks last season, teams figured out a way to stifle the attacking trio and cope with their rotation. They would not track back under Di Matteo, which created a huge hole in the central areas. That was fixed under Rafa, at the cost of creativity.

Plus, the team seems to have stuck to that formation now and looks unwilling to change to any other system (Rafa used either of Torres or Ba out wide even when the other was on the pitch rather than switch to two upfront – a clear sign of resistance to change).

2. Continuing with the 4-2-3-1 requires a fix in the middle, which must be addressed by a new signing to be on the safer side. This, as explained earlier, would overload all the other advanced areas. Thus, fixing one problem (deficiency) leads to the creation of another (overload). Therefore, 4-2-3-1 is not the way forward.

So could a dynamic 4-3-3 work better considering the depth they have? Would that eliminate the current predictability of the present shape? At this stage, that does seem to be the better option of the two. To know why, wait for Part 2.

You can read part two here: Mourinho and the Chelsea formation debate – Part 2