How Dynamo Kyiv’s timid approach played into Chelsea’s hands

An inspired Chelsea secured their Europa League quarter-final spot by demolishing Dynamo Kyiv in their own stadium. After winning 3-0 at Stamford Bridge, the Blues didn’t give any chance to the Ukrainians, knocking them out with 8-0 on aggregate. The win was a result of the great connection between the players on the flanks but also of the lack of creativity and structure in Dynamo’s starting XI.

Chelsea’s secret weapons Olivier Giroud, Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Callum Hudson-Odoi put in outstanding performances and proved that Maurizio Sarri can rely on them in the tournament, without missing the presence of players like Eden Hazard and Gonzalo Higuain.

Giroud has been the main reason for the team reaching out the quarter-finals, scoring nine goals in nine games, including a hat-trick in Kyiv. His positional flair in the box has been of great help especially when attacking using the wings and during set-pieces.

The Londoners hardly had any problems defending against the home team, although they had to put in more effort during the second half. The absence of Benjamin Verbic due to illness had a huge impact on Dynamo’s performance as they struggled in the attacking phases.

But what was the reason behind Chelsea’s win, and why did Dynamo struggle so badly defending against them?

Dynamo’s non-existent press

Dynamo started in a 4-2-3-1 formation transforming into 4-4-1-1 out of possession against Chelsea’s 4-3-3. Sarri meanwhile made seven changes after the Wolves game at the weekend but still had a team strong enough to not allow any surprises.

The Blues’ plan of applying a high press using Giroud and Loftus-Cheek was clear from the early stages of the game. With them both marking the central defenders Dynamo struggled building up from the back. They were forced to make short pass combinations with the goalkeeper and the lack of creativity didn’t help them when trying to proceed the ball further.

Because of that high press Kyiv’s midfield line was stretched out wide trying to escape their markers and open the passing lanes, but a brilliant defensive performance by NGolo Kante didn’t allow them to use these newly opened spaces.

On the other hand, the lack of any press and organisation during defensive transitions was the reason for Chelsea building up from the back pretty frequently with a huge success rate. Dynamo’s players were stuck in the midfield area and didn’t put any pressure on the centre-backs Antonio Rudiger and Andreas Christensen, which allowed them to keep possession for longer periods of time and use series of one-touch passes to form attacks.

Because of the overloaded Kyiv midfield, Chelsea rarely used the central areas as a way to build up. The only reason for the higher amount of passes between Rudiger and Kovacic was them trying to slow down and play combinations of short passes in order to keep the ball.

The centre-backs would often position on both sides of the box which made it hard for their markers to follow the ball and cover them. Meanwhile, it made it easier for the Londoners to use the full-backs Marcos Alonso and Davide Zappacosta. They would position midway up the pitch and pick up the ball to form attacks on the flanks.

They nee