Mourinho and the Chelsea formation debate - Part 1

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