Enzo Maresca has been adapting his style of play and setup depending on opponents and how they play/setup. For me, it’s becoming pretty clear to see this.
He has even said that he prepares games based on how the opposition team attack and defend.
I wouldn’t call ‘Maresca-ball’ possession football. So far, from what I have witnessed, I would call it transitional football.
So perhaps the ‘mini-Pep’ shouts were not accurate at all, and maybe he is a ‘mini-Conte’ instead?
And also, maybe the ‘he has no plan-b’ and can only play one style of football claims are also wrong?
In fact, for me he has already proven those claims were wrong after just six league games at Chelsea.
Whatever happens next and down the line, what Maresca has shown me is that he actually is a pragmatic manager, and right now I am seeing more comparisons in his Chelsea setup to that of Antonio Conte, than what I am to Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City setup. And for me, that is a good thing.
I mentioned in my match report from the Brighton win that I saw us playing in a counter-attacking style, and for me, this suits our players.
Just look at these examples from the game as quick transitional plays and how devastating we are playing them…
We have so much pace and quality in attack now that it just makes sense to play this way. But Maresca is doing this based on the opposition. It doesn’t mean we will play every game like this, because not every team we meet will play with such a high-line as Brighton do. Maresca would have known this, done his research, and opted to play a transitional game against them. And it worked a treat. As I also said in my match report, we exploited their high-line in transition and looked like we could score every time we did.
We utilised the vision and creativity of Enzo Fernandez and Cole Palmer, who were looping passes in behind for fun, and the pace and direct mindsets of our attackers really caused Brighton problems.
We stayed compact and organised at the back, we broke up their attack, and we went in to attack mode ourselves. And this isn’t the first time I have seen this style of play under Maresca at Chelsea this season, and it isn’t the first time we have had less possession than our opponents but still won the game.
This is not dominating football, this is transitional football, and it’s getting results so far.
Maresca mentioned after the game that he would prefer to have more possession. But the reality is we didn’t need it. Goals win you games, not possession.
The Maresca and Conte Italian connection is shining through, but whilst there are some comparisons in how Maresca is playing and they are also both Italian, they are also very different coaches too.
The comparisons are the counter attacking style, but Maresca is showing pragmatism, meaning that we wont see this all the time and we will see different setups for different opposition.
I am eager to now see us play against a low block and how that will work. But this current Chelsea squad for me is setup to play transitional football, and so far, that is what we are thriving at.
So maybe what all the big outlets were saying about Maresca and his dead set style of play and how Chelsea want to play that way before he arrived was not actually true at all?
In case anyone gets confused with this, this article is all positive on Maresca, I am saying all of this as a good thing. I think some of the best ever football coaches are pragmatic and are able to adapt and be flexible, and Maresca is showing that he can do that as well right now. I believe he is setting up to the strengths of what he has in his squad, and that is a good thing.
Maybe I’ve judged this wrong, maybe not. But this is what I am seeing looking from the outside in. I am intrigued to see games going forward against different opposition to see if it stays like this or not. Personally, I think Maresca has seen what we have and believes a transitional setup is best for us.