Real Betis Vs Chelsea [1-4] UEFA Conference League Final 2024/2025 – Tactical Analysis

Listen to this article free on the Total Football Analysis podcast. 

Available on Spotify, Apple Podcast, or RSS.

Chelsea defeated Real Betis 4-1 in the 2024/2025 UEFA Conference League Final to become the first club to win all three of Europe’s major continental trophies.

With this win, they also became the first foreign side to deny a Spanish team in a European final since 2001.

For Enzo Maresca‘s Chelsea, the season ultimately proved successful, having already earned 4th in the Premier League and a UEFA Champions League spot.

Now, they’ve added to that success by lifting a European title, too.

On the other hand, Manuel Pellegrini‘s Real Betis were unlucky in facing a powerful team like Chelsea in the Final.

Although they did their best to win and were even ahead on the scoresheet during the first half, they failed to resist Chelsea’s attacking dominance in the second half.

That said, Real Betis’ defensive aspect is not one of their strengths as a team, and trying to play a defensive game does not really suit their team’s characteristics and style.

In this tactical analysis, we will examine what helped Chelsea turn the tables on Real Betis while also considering how Real Betis could have better exploited their first-half advantage to “kill” the game before injuries had a major impact on their performance in the second half of this year’s Conference League Final.

UEFA Conference League Final: Real Betis Vs Chelsea – Lineups & Formations

However, before delving into the Conferleague Final analysis, let us present both formations and lineups, noting that there were a few changes compared to what was initially expected from both teams.

For Real Betis tactics, Manuel Pellegrini started the game using his preferred 4-2-3-1 formation, with Adrián as the goalkeeper, and Youssouf Sabaly confirmed his starting spot, contrary to rumours that predicted his doubtful participation and the use of Aitor Ruibal on the right flank.

Ricardo Rodriguez was the starter on the left flank as expected but was replaced by Romain Perraud at the start of the second half due to injury.

Marc Bartra and Natan were the two centre-backs, and they played 90 minutes.

In midfield, Pellegrini preferred to use Johnny Cardoso and Pablo Fornals as central midfielders, guaranteeing more attacking support.

This was especially true during the first half, when Fornals and Cardoso successfully supported their team’s attacks, whether through key passes or shots.

However, during the second half, both players’ impact was not as impressive as during the first half, given that they failed to stop Chelsea’s penetrations or cover all their attempts with success, especially on the wings, which contributed to conceding the first two goals.

Attacking-wise, Antony and Abde Ezzalzouli were the starters, as expected, with Antony on the right wing and Ezzalzouli on the left.

Both players were shining, especially during the first half, when the team excelled at what they do best: high pressing and counterattacks from the wings.

Ezzalzouli was even the goalscorer of the team’s single goal, thanks to the advanced playmaker Isco’s outstanding assist.

Pellegrini started Cédric Bakambu as the striker, mainly because Cucho Hernández was unavailable due to a registration issue.

On the other hand, Enzo Maresca tactics also employed the 4-2-3-1 formation, albeit with a few alterations in the starting lineup.

He started the match with the Danish goalkeeper Filip Jörgensen instead of Robert Sánchez, and Malo Gusto as a right-back instead of Reece James.

This use of Gusto to play the defensive duel against Ezzalzouli was a mistake and an underestimation of Ezzalzouli’s abilities.

In our UEFA Conference League Final preview, we pointed out Ezzalzouli’s possible threat and how he can be a source of danger for Real Betis on the left wing.

It would have been wiser for Maresca to start the game with a more pacey and physically powerful right-back, such as James, on that side since he is more likely than Gusto to win the duels against Ezzalzouli, especially considering Gusto was also instructed to join midfield and attack during possession phases.

That attacking contribution impacted Gusto’s defensive performance, as he was unable to retreat in time to stop Ezzalzouli on most occasions, which also led to conceding the goal.

Maresca opted for Trevoh Chalobah and Benoît Badiashile as centre-backs and did not change them afterwards while choosing Marc Cucurella for the left-back role.

In midfield, he selected Enzo Fernández and Moisés Caicedo as central midfielders, as both players were fundamental in the team’s defensive and attacking phases.

It is sufficient to say that both players scored goals in this match to understand their attacking input and the impact they can have each time they advance to the final third.

Maresca made another starting line-up error by starting with Pedro Neto as a right-winger and leaving Jadon Sancho on the bench despite the latter’s more impactful dribbling and agility.

Although Maresca made the correct changes in the second half to make up for the starting lineup decisions like this one, it would have been less tiring and complicated for the team to start with Sancho and Noni Madueke on the wings, as it would have facilitated the scoring process given that the trio Sancho-Cole Palmer-Madueke can be much more dangerous as we saw in the second half.

It may not have been the best call to start with two left-footed wingers when having a right-footed inverted winger on the bench, who can be much more dangerous when cutting inside and penetrating the box, as Sancho confirmed during the third goal.

Chelsea started the match with Nicolas Jackson in the striker position, as expected.

Real Betis Decisive Finishing Misses

Real Betis succeeded in scoring first and were excellent from an attacking perspective during the first half of this year’s Conference League Final.

This was thanks to Isco’s dynamism and passing accuracy, as well as Antony and Ezzalzouli’s exceptional work on both wings and the attacking input of Fornals and Cardoso.

Yet, they still failed to kill the match when they needed to due to some finishing errors.

Chelsea later penalised them mainly because they did not capitalise on their momentum as they should have and were unable to add a second goal despite creating some dangerous opportunities following their first goal.

The first decisive miss was Bartra’s surprising shot from distance that almost went inside the net if Jörgensen had not been attentive and reactive enough.

Johnny Cardoso: Poor Finishing

The second one was Cardoso’s abysmal finishing during a good play that started from Antony before moving progressively from Fornals to Isco and then to Ezzalzouli, who had done great work to cut inside and get past his marker, providing a key pass to Cardoso, who missed the target.

This misfired shot highlights Cardoso’s decision-making and execution of the shot.

Real Betis succeeded in reaching the final third but could not pose a concrete threat to Chelsea’s goal.

Bakambu did not receive the ball often, and his teammates were unable to serve him accurate passes or crosses despite having the opportunity to do so.

Abde Ezzalzouli Crossing Decision-Making

In this example, we see Ezzalzouli penetrating inside the box after he received a key pass from Isco and planning to cross the ball.

Nevertheless, his final ball was not as dangerous as required because it was neither destined for Bakambu nor Antony on the far post.

Ezzalzouli launched a through pass that went directly to Chalobah, who was in front of Bakambu.

Ezzalzouli had the chance to cross the ball slightly ahead of Bakambu, allowing him to score and gain an advantage over everyone else, knowing that Ezzalzouli has the crossing abilities needed to do so with accuracy.

Moreover, crossing to the far post where Antony was relatively unmarked would have been much more dangerous than providing a pass to Chalobah after creating a dangerous action and reaching the box.

This kind of wrong final decision-making and lack of experience in dealing with the advantage complicated things for Real Betis in the second half, when Chelsea were motivated to score.

Real Betis were mentally relaxed after scoring and creating chances.

Real Betis Defensive Mistakes

Furthermore, Betis’ defensive mistakes were very obvious during the match, and that was the direct reason for failing in the second half of this Conference League Final and conceding a big number of goals.

Poor Marking During The First Goal

The first Chelsea goal action was a perfect example of Real Betis’ passivity and lack of reaction in terms of marking inside the box.

As soon as Palmer aimed for the early cross, it looked like Real Betis defenders were not prepared for it and did not even react to Fernández’s movement to get to the ball despite being surrounded by two Real Betis players.

The lack of communication between both Bartra and Sabaly allowed Fernández to finish without disturbance.

Moreover, neither Sabaly nor Bartra marked their designated players in this action, as Sabaly should have been marking Sancho near the far post, while Bartra should have followed Fernández as soon as he started advancing into the box.

However, since Bartra was focused solely on the ball and did not see Fernández returning, Sabaly could have done better to follow Fernández or quickly inform Bartra to do so.

Instead, Sabaly did not react to what was happening and tried to follow Fernández without conviction or determination, as that was noticed during the action.

The second goal was also scored due to Real Betis’ defensive issues on the left side of their line.

Jesús Rodríguez and Perraud were very poor at closing down Palmer, allowing him to dribble and turn freely.

Lack Of Aggressive Defending Against Cole Palmer

Rodríguez did not behave as needed during the duel against Palmer.

He let him dribble, return, and block him before restarting his run on the edge of the box without disturbing him, obliging Perraud to intervene, but inside the box.

Perraud was also unable to prevent Palmer from crossing, or at least divert his cross to a corner, which highlights the poor defensive resistance of Real Betis during the second half.

Chelsea Comeback: The Impact Of Cole Palmer & The Midfielders’ Attacking Roles

Although Chelsea were unable to create danger on Real Betis’ goal during the whole first-half and only had passive possession that led to counterattacks on several occasions, they succeeded in turning the table during the second-half of the Conference League Final.

This was thanks to the substitution of Sancho and the liberation of Palmer, who took his responsibility more extensively and touched the ball much more than in the first-half.

With Palmer getting the ball more and trying to penetrate more often, numerical superiority inside the box was crucial, and both Fernández and Caicedo ensured their presence in almost every attacking action.

Enzo Fernández Importance Inside The Box

This weakened Real Betis’ defensive organisation and led to committing marking errors that helped Fernández score the first goal.

In that goal action, Fernández’s movement to the box and his ability to detect the empty space within their defence and attack it as soon as he noticed Palmer about to cross the ball was crucial for being able to reach the ball freely and score it, knowing that Bartra and Natan were mainly confused because they did not expect to have someone else inside the box apart from Jackson who was marked.

Jackson then scored the second goal thanks to his excellent positioning during Palmer’s cross.

In the same context, we must point out that Fernández was involved in the fourth-goal action with an excellent progressive run and an assist to Caicedo, who was advancing to the edge of the box and successfully scored with a shot from distance.

This adds to Chelsea’s goalscoring solutions, which need to be further exploited next season.

Cole Palmer Progressive Runs & Awareness

Additionally, Palmer’s role in the third goal should not go unnoticed, as he was the one who received the ball in a complex zone before escaping with a body feint and attacking the space centrally to draw defenders and create space for Sancho on the wing, ultimately providing him with an assist.

This type of progressiveness, combined with awareness of when and where to run and when exactly to pass the ball, is what makes the difference for Palmer and Chelsea during such actions.

Conclusion

Chelsea were the better side in the UEFA Conference League Final, mainly because they knew how to turn the tables on Real Betis after falling behind in the score, not only thanks to the substitutions but also thanks to their diverse attacking efforts and the conversion of most of the created chances.

On the other hand, Real Betis were unable to protect their lead, mainly because they failed to manage their momentum effectively and did not capitalise on it to add a second goal.

As a result, they started the second half with less motivation, conceded many actions to Chelsea, and were not as effective defensively as needed.

That said, the team built this year is very promising, especially from an attacking perspective, as they have proven that they can trouble any team.

Consistency is lacking in finishing and improving their defensive performance so that they can become more powerful next season.