Napoli Vs Chelsea [2–3] – Champions League 2025/2026: How Game Management Cost Antonio Conte – Tactical Analysis

Napoli hosted Chelsea at the Stadio Diego Armando Maradona for the final fixture of the UEFA Champions League group stage, and Chelsea won 2-3.

Chelsea’s comeback secured them a direct qualification to the knockout round without having to go through the playoffs, as the win granted them the sixth spot in the standings.

Finishing among the first eight teams would not have been possible without the win against Napoli, and the powerful personality Chelsea showed in Italy to secure the comeback only confirms that the Blues are improving significantly, especially in terms of personality and teamwork.

On the other hand, Napoli missed their chance to qualify for the playoffs because of a misguided second-half approach that allowed Chelsea to win.

Napoli played convincingly in the first half but failed to capitalise on the numerous chances they created, and some of them went to waste.

Napoli should learn from this lesson and win more points before the final fixture to avoid putting themselves in risky situations, especially since they had opportunities to win points against Copenhagen, Eintracht Frankfurt, and Benfica.

Failing to earn more points in those games cost them the qualification ticket and will force them to compete only in Serie A and Coppa Italia going forward.

In this tactical analysis, we will focus on Napoli’s attacking performance, their recurring patterns and attacking weaknesses in this match.

Napoli Vs Chelsea Lineups & Formations

Antonio Conte started the match using a 3-4-2-1 formation, with Alex Meret as goalkeeper and a defensive line of Giovanni Di Lorenzo, Juan Jesus, and Alessandro Buongiorno.

The midfield was composed of Stanislav Lobotka and Scott McTominay as central midfielders, Leonardo Spinazzola and Mathías Olivera as wing-backs, with Antonio Vergara and Eljif Elmas as wingers, and Rasmus Højlund as the main striker.

For Chelsea, Liam Rosenior started the match using a 4-2-3-1 formation, with Robert Sánchez between the sticks and a back four of Malo Gusto (right-back), Reece James (right centre-back), Wesley Fofana (left centre-back), and Marc Cucurella (left-back).

The midfield consisted of Andrey Santos and Moisés Caicedo as the double pivot, with Enzo Fernández playing in an advanced position as an advanced playmaker, on the same line as the wingers Estêvão and Pedro Neto.

And upfront, João Pedro was the team’s main striker.

Napoli Reliance On Underlaps & The Antonio Vergara Impact

Napoli conceded a goal early in the game after an error inside the penalty area led to a penalty, making their task more complicated from the start.

Napoli’s reaction to that first goal was excellent, as they have been good enough in bouncing back and launching dangerous and consistent attacks on Chelsea.

Due to numerous absences in their team, Napoli turned to their young talent, Vergara, to replace their first-choice players, Matteo Politano and David Neres.

Vergara was extremely dynamic from the start of the match and was winning duels against Chelsea’s players whenever he got the ball.

With McTominay and Lobotka’s continuous attacking support inside the final third, as well as Spinazzola and Olivera’s underlaps, Napoli were quickly able to disturb Chelsea’s defence thanks to various attacks.

The Impact Of Antonio Vergara Accelerations

As the picture below shows, Vergara’s acceleration, use of body feints, and agility to escape initial marking and start progressing quickly to gain space and time helped Napoli a lot in this match.

It surprised Napoli’s defence and gave them the chance to be in a numerical superiority situation following Vergara’s accelerations.

On this first occasion after the conceded goal, Vergara’s efforts led to a quick attack, with his pass reaching Elmas, who in turn served Olivera on the left wing.

Olivera found himself in a situation that required an instant pass to Højlund, but unfortunately for Napoli, Chelsea’s goalkeeper was attentive enough to get to the ball first, while Højlund was not able to anticipate the goalkeeper.

Wing Underlaps At The Back Of The Chelsea Defensive Line

What made the difference for Napoli in this match going forward was the ability to penetrate Chelsea’s penalty area through underlaps and movements at the back of the defensive line, followed by intelligent passes.

The following picture highlights two different situations in which Napoli used the same method to find solutions to break Chelsea’s defensive line.

The first one was with Elmas, who got the ball on the left wing and saw Vergara advance quickly and attack the space behind the defensive line.

Despite Vergara’s inviting movement without the ball, Elmas preferred not to provide that key pass and hold the ball for too long instead, without having a better idea in mind.

Providing that pass in space would have put Vergara in a very dangerous situation versus Chelsea’s defence, despite the fact that he was tightly marked.

In fact, Vergara was going to avoid that marking, thanks to his explosiveness and dribbling skills, if he’d received that pass.

On the other hand, the second picture highlights Di Lorenzo’s movement without the ball on the right wing when Spinazzola had the ball.

The latter provided the pass into the space between two defenders, allowing Di Lorenzo to create a dangerous attacking situation with his movement without the ball and a cross.

Once again, Chelsea’s goalkeeper was attentive enough to anticipate Højlund’s movements and be first on the ball.

Napoli Missed Chances: Mathías Olivera Half-Volley

Napoli could have made better use of their chances; their first goal was excellent, but lacked clinical finishing.

In most of the crosses and through passes to the penalty area, Napoli’s players failed to convert those chances, mainly due to Chelsea’s marking and poor finishing decisions.

Napoli created another big moment at the 22^nd minute thanks to Vergara’s dribble and an accurate cross to Olivera.

Despite the fact that the latter was not tightly marked, he failed to react quickly enough to get a shot off as he controlled the ball using his chest.

He took too long in coordinating his body and shooting, which allowed Chelsea’s players to start disturbing him at the moment of shooting.

Olivera could have dealt with this goalscoring situation better, knowing he had the time and space to finish before the defender closed in.

Napoli Final Pass Decision-Making

Furthermore, Napoli’s attacking errors limited their excellent performance in this regard, as scoring some of these chances could have helped them in guaranteeing the win early and avoiding any potential easy comebacks.

Instead, Napoli reached Chelsea’s box so often but diversified their mistakes.

Apart from finishing, their final passing in more than one situation was not intelligent enough to penalise Chelsea’s defence.

As an example, the following occasion sees Di Lorenzo exploit the confusion inside Chelsea’s own third, intercepting the ball and advancing vertically towards the box.

This surprising solo effort helped him avoid any marking and find himself near the goal in an inviting position for shooting or passing.

Di Lorenzo opted for shooting despite the difficult angle that favoured Chelsea’s goalkeeper, but overlooked Højlund’s excellent positioning on the far post.

Providing a through pass to the direction of Højlund’s potential run would have most likely created a goal action as Højlund was getting ready to make that forward run and anticipate his direct marker.

Napoli Antonio Vergara Dribbling, Physical Strength, Agility, & Goalscoring Instinct

Yes, Vergara embodied all of these traits and showcased them in a single action.

He showed in this match that he deserves the chance he got, as he was Napoli’s most dynamic player in the game with and without the ball.

The goal action was created by Vergara himself following Olivera’s high recovery.

As soon as Vergara got the ball, he quickly attacked the space in front of him while avoiding the sliding tackle from the back and turning to block the other opponent.

Then, he quickly turned and accelerated again without getting impacted before surprising the goalkeeper with a very quick shot that he was not able to save or deflect.

The high tempo and exceptional dynamism Vergara showed in this match, particularly in this action, made the difference for Napoli against a relatively slow defence.

Keeping the same high tempo, dynamism, and pace while continuing to work on his physical strength will certainly help Vergara create problems for most defences if Napoli continue to rely on him after their injured players return.

Napoli Underlap Tactic & The Correct Use Of Rasmus Højlund

Napoli’s second goal saw them do what they had failed to do in some of their previous attempts.

First, Elmas was able to exploit Olivera’s underlap this time and served him the ball with the right timing.

This helped Napoli reach the penalty area more easily and paved the way for Højlund to anticipate his direct marker and attack the near post, hoping for a pass in that direction.

Olivera’s pass was well-timed and exactly where Højlund wanted it, making the goal action look very smooth as Højlund shot with power and accuracy.

Conclusion

Despite Napoli’s attempts to secure the advantage, they failed to do so, mainly due to defensive errors, particularly leaving too much space and time for dangerous players like Pedro.

This, and the poor handling of their advantage, cost them points in the match.

In other words, Napoli continued to play in the same way after they took the lead, which allowed Chelsea to exploit the space behind them.

In fact, Napoli could have won if they had taken a different approach.

Focusing more on marking and on defending would have helped Napoli secure their defensive line and avoid conceding dangerous attacks.

Furthermore, that would have obliged Chelsea to reach Napoli’s goal with difficulty and not with ease.