Analysis of WSL champions Chelsea’s win over Manchester City in the FA Women’s Cup Final.

City’s narrow pressing

City pressed Chelsea’s buildup with quite a narrow focus in the front line thanks to the indenting of the wingers in their 4-3-3. Chelsea built up with a back three of Bright, Nouwen and Eriksson when they had the ball. Ingle was then mostly around the #6 zone, while Cuthbert started to the right of her, usually a little bit higher.

City’s narrow 4-3-3 pressing

To try and neutralise Ingle’s role in the buildup, City’s nominal striker Shaw would often drop back into Chelsea’s #6 space rather than being the first point of contact in pressuring the ball. Instead one of the wingers would usually initiate the pressing by approaching Chelsea’s side backs from the outside to try and cover the simple pass into the wing-backs. Sometimes they would even indent to pressure Nouwen, as Shaw still remained withdrawn to protect the midfield.

Chelsea’s best answer to this pressing saw them targeting the zones in behind City’s wide central midfielders through Harder drifting into the halfspaces or one of the strikers dropping to receive into feet. Chelsea could then look to build attacks from here, such as the move that led to Kerr’s disallowed goal in the first half, where England dropped in to facilitate the up-back-through combination to release Kerr in behind the defence.

It was not necessarily easy for Chelsea to outplay the press, but once they established possession higher up the pitch, it was not a simple task for City to regain that territory and get back into a high pressing situation. Due to Shaw’s withdrawn role protecting the midfield, once City’s wingers got pushed back towards the midfield line to help out in deeper defending, it was harder to generate pressure on the Chelsea backline as they recycled the ball.

Shaw pivotal against Chelsea press

Chelsea’s system was something of a hybrid between back four and back three. In possession they played with a chain of three, but without the ball they often appeared as a four, as right wing-back Carter joined Bright, Nouwen and Eriksson in the back four, although still very proactive in pressing. The player with the variable role was Reiten, the nominal left wing-back. Without the ball, she often played as part of the midfield line, although was not always integrated perfectly.

Reiten’s behaviour was partly dictated by that of Bronze, City’s dynamic right-back. Bronze often played an inverted role, moving into central midfield positions alongside Walsh in City’s #6 zone. This brought Reiten further inside, particularly as Bronze was doubtless seen as a player requiring close attention. Eriksson was then left to deal with Kelly who provided the width on the right for City.

Chelsea’s shape was then something between a 3-4-1-2 and 4-3-1-2 when pressing, depending on how the roles of the wing-backs were interpreted. Harder, Kerr and England as the front three were able to mark the City centre-backs and #6 tightly. This was where Bronze, or sometimes Stokes from left-back, would drift inside to try and receive the ball from the goalkeeper, since the closest options were marked.

Chelsea were tight to City’s buildup for the most part, but faced issues dealing with Shaw who isolated Nouwen. Ingle tried to offer assistance, however this increased the space for Stanway who took up smart positions in the right halfspace.

Cuthbert tended to stick close to Weir and made it hard for her to influence things, while Ingle’s attention was split between the strategic concern of maintaining some degree of coverage in the #6 space, and on looking after Stanway, who took up smart positions in the right halfspace for City. Stanway’s positioning was even more of an issue in deeper defending for Chelsea, as Ingle had to focus more on the spatial coverage when closer to her own goal. This was also where Reiten’s role was also not always perfectly integrated, as she also was unable to cover this option well due to her orientation towards Bronze, meaning Stanway could get free in the space behind her.

The truly pivotal player for City’s buildup though was Shaw. With Chelsea’s high-pressing scheme, Shaw often found herself in a one-versus-one battle with Nouwen. More and more often, City sought, with success, the chipped passes towards Shaw with her back to goal as a means of playing through the Chelsea pressure. Nouwen struggled immensely to deal with Shaw in these situations, with the City striker able to outplay her and bring others into play, something which was perfectly encapsulated in the buildup to City’s first equalising goal.

Chelsea have to suffer to win

City were on top for much of the second half and ensuing extra-time. Much of this was incentivised by the game state, since Chelsea were in front for much of the time. The advances that City were able to make through the likes of Shaw and Stanway were of concern to Chelsea throughout. Stanway’s role in City’s deeper buildup also adapted a bit as the game went on, as she more often dropped deeper into the slot previously occupied by Bronze, who now often remained wider in these phases. Reiten then adapted accordingly, remaining a bit wider which left the halfspace more open.

To their credit, Chelsea did try to remain somewhat proactive during the periods where they were protecting a lead, in an attempt to avoid inviting too much City pressure. There were inevitably phases where the intensity of the first half would not be possible though. There were more occasions where the strikers dropped off slightly and the City defenders had more room to bring the ball out, as occurred in the buildup to City’s second equaliser, where Greenwood was able to stride forward and pick out the pass over the top of the defence to substitute Raso.

Deeper into extra-time, a more orthodox back five was seen from Chelsea, often dropping into a deeper 5-3-2 against City’s attacks, with Andersson now on at left wing-back in place of Reiten. In the end Emma Hayes’ side were able to see out their hard-fought win and lift the trophy.