Introduction
The 2025 FA Cup final between Manchester United and Chelsea was a clash that offered tactical intrigue and highlighted some of the deep-rooted vulnerabilities in Erik ten Hag’s defensive system. As Manchester United battled Chelsea for domestic glory, one particular tactical decision stood out—Bruno Fernandes’ decision to drop into a deeper midfield role. This shift, while showing his versatility, failed to mask the ongoing issues in United’s defensive structure, especially on the flanks. In this analysis, we will break down the tactics deployed in the match, evaluate Fernandes’ role, and explore why United’s defensive woes, particularly on the wings, ultimately led to their downfall.
1. Tactical Overview of the FA Cup Final
The FA Cup final saw Manchester United fielding a 4-3-3 formation, with Fernandes initially occupying an attacking midfield position just behind the striker. Chelsea, under their manager, set up in a 4-2-3-1 formation, designed to overload the midfield and exploit the space on the flanks. Both teams focused on controlling the central areas, but Chelsea’s speed in transition and width on the wings created significant issues for Manchester United’s defense.
2. Early Moments and Control of the Midfield
The early stages of the game saw Chelsea quickly assert dominance in the center of the park. Their pressing game effectively stifled Manchester United’s build-up play. Fernandes, usually the creative spark in United’s midfield, was unable to impose himself on the match as he was heavily pressed by Chelsea’s midfielders. With little space to operate in the middle, Fernandes opted to drop deeper into midfield, effectively positioning himself alongside Casemiro and Christian Eriksen.
3. Bruno Fernandes’ Tactical Shift: A Double-Edged Sword
As Chelsea dominated possession, Fernandes’ drop into midfield was a direct response to United’s inability to hold the ball. His positioning was intended to offer more stability and support in ball recovery. However, while this tactical shift allowed United to regain some control in central areas, it also had unintended consequences.
3.1. The Loss of Creativity
Fernandes’ usual role as the link between midfield and attack became compromised. By dropping deeper, he not only lost his ability to make those creative passes into the final third but also disrupted United’s offensive flow. This move, intended to provide more stability in defense, inadvertently stifled United’s attacking potential, leaving Marcus Rashford isolated up front.
3.2. The Imbalance in the Midfield
Although Fernandes’ deeper position gave United numerical parity in midfield, it created an imbalance. Casemiro, who typically operates as a defensive midfielder, was now forced to do more of the ball distribution work, which is not his strength. Eriksen, a player more inclined towards playmaking, was left to cover more ground defensively. This left United vulnerable to Chelsea’s midfield runners, particularly when they transitioned quickly.
4. The Flank Collapse: Why United’s Wide Defensive System Was Exposed
While the midfield was struggling, it was United’s defensive issues on the flanks that proved to be the most disastrous. Chelsea’s wingers—particularly their left-winger—exploited the space left by United’s fullbacks. The Red Devils had struggled with defensive solidity on the wings for much of the season, and the final was no different. The pressing from Chelsea combined with United’s tendency to push up too high left gaping holes in their wide defensive areas.
4.1. Luke Shaw’s Struggles
On the left flank, Luke Shaw, typically solid, was unable to cope with the pace and direct running of Chelsea’s wingers. His positioning often left him out of place, particularly when Chelsea’s wingers switched positions or made diagonal runs into the box. Shaw’s inability to track these runs contributed to United’s defensive frailties.
4.2. Diogo Dalot’s Lack of Support
On the opposite side, Diogo Dalot also found himself exposed. Chelsea’s right-winger consistently got the better of Dalot, and with little support from Fernandes, Dalot was forced to deal with dangerous crosses and cutbacks. This lack of defensive support from the midfield was one of the key reasons United’s flank defense collapsed.
4.3. The Overload on United’s Fullbacks
As United pressed forward in search of an equalizer, the fullbacks were often left isolated. Chelsea’s wide attackers, including the dynamic Raheem Sterling, exploited these overloads with pace and precision. United’s fullbacks found themselves caught in no man’s land—pushing up too high and unable to recover in time when Chelsea transitioned.
5. The Influence of Chelsea’s Width and Transition Play
Chelsea’s tactical approach to utilize width was fundamental to their success in the final. By stretching the game wide, they created space between United’s center-backs and fullbacks. This allowed Chelsea’s wingers to receive the ball in dangerous positions, often in one-on-one situations against United’s defenders.
5.1. Quick Transitions and Exploiting Gaps
Chelsea’s quick transition play capitalized on the spaces left by United’s attacking fullbacks. Whenever Chelsea recovered possession, they would exploit the space on the flanks, delivering dangerous crosses into the box. This quick turnaround caught United’s defense off-guard, and it was on these counter-attacks that Chelsea found their most dangerous moments.
5.2. The Role of Mason Mount
Mason Mount’s role in Chelsea’s attack was also crucial. The midfielder’s runs from deep positions helped overload the flanks, as he often found himself in advanced positions on the wings, where United’s defenders were unable to track his runs. Mount’s combination play with Chelsea’s wingers further stretched United’s defensive structure.
6. Fernandes’ Defensive Responsibility: A Misplaced Focus?
One of the key questions raised after the match was whether Bruno Fernandes’ drop into midfield was the right decision. While it gave United an extra body in midfield, it also placed additional responsibility on the attacking midfielder to contribute defensively. Fernandes, although capable of tracking runners, is not known for his defensive solidity.
6.1. The Role of a Creative Midfielder
A deeper Fernandes was constantly caught between two worlds: needing to help defend and wanting to create. His instinct is to push forward and link up play with the forwards, but in this deeper role, he found himself defending spaces he wasn’t comfortable in. His positioning in the middle of the park often left gaping holes in the midfield, which Chelsea exploited.
6.2. The Lack of Defensive Cohesion
The most significant issue was the lack of cohesion between the midfield and defense. While Fernandes was trying to help shield the back four, the transition from defense to attack was disjointed. United’s defensive structure was already vulnerable, and Fernandes’ deep positioning exacerbated the issue, as it left them susceptible to quick counters.
7. The Collapse and Chelsea’s Victory
Ultimately, Manchester United’s defensive system, particularly on the flanks, collapsed under Chelsea’s pressure. Despite Fernandes’ efforts to shore up the midfield, Chelsea’s pace, width, and quick transitions led to United conceding two more goals. Chelsea’s victory was a result of their ability to exploit the spaces left by United’s fullbacks and the disorganization in the midfield.
Conclusion
The FA Cup final showed that while Bruno Fernandes’ tactical shift to a deeper midfield role was an attempt to provide stability, it ultimately could not mask the flaws in Manchester United’s defensive structure. The collapse of their defensive system, particularly on the wings, was a result of poor positional play from the fullbacks, a lack of midfield protection, and Chelsea’s intelligent use of width. For United, this defeat underscores the need for greater defensive cohesion and a more balanced approach between attack and defense. Moving forward, United must address these weaknesses if they are to challenge for silverware at the highest level.
Discussion about this post