The conventional wisdom is that Chelsea plays a more direct football when Drogba leads the attack rather than Torres. Is that really the case?
One way to determines whether a team uses a direct approach or not is looking at the distribution of the goalkeeper. Although this is not the absolute measure, it is a good start.
 |
| Petr Cech's Passes against Wolves (left) and against Manchester United (right) | Source | |
Here we have Petr Cech's distribution against Wolves, a game which Drogba started and played the majority of the game, right along side his distribution against Manchester United, a game which Torres started and played the entire game (Drogba didn't feature in this game).
Of course, no two games are alike and there are bound to be confounding factors in any of the game comparisons. But the important point is that there are little difference between the two distribution chart.
Against Wolves, Cech made a total of 36 passes, 16 of them landed in the opposition's half (44.4%). Out of those 16 long balls, 7 were successful and Drogba was the recipient on 5 occasions.
Against Manchester United, Cech made a total of 34 passes, 13 of them landed in the opposition's half (38.2%). Out of those 13 long balls, 7 were successful and Torres was the recipient on 5 occasions.
There are difference between the two sides of the chart. First, Cech's long balls against Wolves are more centrally aimed, while those against Manchester United are more spread out horizontally. Second, Cech's distributions in the Wolves game reached higher up the pitch than those in the Manchester United game.
Not sure if we can draw any solid conclusions from this, but there seems to be more complexities to Chelsea's game than say, "Drogba = direct football; Torres = passing football." Any theories or thoughts?
Carefree, wherever you may be...
Against Man Utd, both Lukaku and Anekla came on as subs to play in the wide ares. More distribution to the flanks? It would be good to see the chalkboard of just the first half of the United game.
ReplyDeleteI went back and checked. Out of the 13 long balls against United, 6 were made in the first half and 7 in the second. Torres received 2 in the first half, near the center circle. In the second half, he received 3, all on the left side.
ReplyDeleteHow about looking at the Liverpool and Leverkusen games though? There seem to be hoofing from Cech in those games and AVB probably asked him to tone it down for Wolves. In addition Wolves a lower quality team than the former two.
ReplyDeleteIt would be silly and short sighted to declare goalkeeper distribution as the only evidence for direct football. Take a look at WhoScored.com match stats, they include long ball statistics. However this would have to be analysed with a pinch of salt as the stats do not reveal the success rate and also the amount of long balls would be proportional to the amount of passes and possession in a game.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Drogba does stylistically tend to contribute to a more direct game. Not necessarily a bad thing!
I understand. That's why I was careful to say that it is NOT "the absolute measure". Just a "good start."
ReplyDeleteThis post is meant simply to start a conversation and try to go beyond the usual "Drogba = Direct Football" assumption.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with you that Drogba's direct style is not a bad thing. Another useful tool in the box we can use against appropriate opposition.
Didn't mean to come across as condenscing, just making a general comment on the issue.
ReplyDeleteCan I possibly grab your email? Like to talk to you about something if possible.
*condescending
ReplyDeleteYou can write to this email: carefreechronicles[@]gmail[dot]com. Cheers!
ReplyDelete