Analysing Bayern Munich Women — Part Six
Having analysed Hansi Flick’s Bayern Munich in the past, I wanted to examine the tactical framework of FC Bayern’s women’s side, who currently rank first in the Frauen-Bundesliga (two points ahead of Wolfsburg). The team’s goalscoring and defensive record (at the time of writing) is scarcely believable — 73 goals for, and a measly 8 against. They are by far the Bundesliga’s most potent side — Wolfsburg rank second in goals scored, with 59 across the 19 games played so far. Through this series, I wanted to analyse the games that Bayern have played in the UEFA Women’s Champions League, in a bid to understand the trends that underpin this team’s tactical framework.
[Previous posts in the series: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four and Part Five.]
Line-ups:
First Half — Bayern Risk Exposure in Changed Shape
To begin with, it is important to recall the fact that Jens Scheuer changed Bayern’s formation in the first leg to a 5–3–2 shape. We noticed how this structure offered protection against Chelsea’s forwards by completely cutting off space in advanced areas, even though it blunted Bayern’s offense in the process. Wingback Hanna Glas’ performance allowed the home side to take a 2–1 victory, and they arrived in London looking to defend this slimmest of leads.
Against this backdrop, one might reasonably have expected the coach to stick with the shape; instead, Scheuer went for the usual 4–2–3–1 shape. Lea Schüller returned to the starting line-up, with Simone Laudehr benched as the four-woman defence was selected. Sydney Lohmann was picked as the #10 ahead of the Magull — Zadrazil double pivot, with Lineth Beerensteyn and Klara Bühl flanked the striker.
Before examining the dynamics of the shape, it has to be emphasized that this was not a good decision on Bayern’s part. In fact, according to The Guardian, Emma Hayes was reportedly “delighted when she saw that Bayern Munich had switched to 4–4–2 from the 3–5–2 that was so successful at stopping the potent Chelsea forward line in the first leg.” Specifically, these were her words:
Once I saw they lined up with four at the back I thought: ‘Happy days. I’m going to get Fran [Kirby] into those spaces and they are not going to see her coming.’
Unsurprisingly, this is exactly what happened. Rather than go for their typical high press, Bayern sought to sit off in a medium block, with Schüller and Lohmann taking turns in pressing the center-backs and the defensive midfielder (Sophie Ingle).
A pass to the fullbacks attracted immediate pressure from Beerensteyn and Bühl, and the dropping movements from Ji and Kirby — this time as part of a deliberate scheme in a clear 4–3–3 structure — attracted pressure from the double pivot. Unfortunately, this kind of pressure was not accompanied by the defensive line stepping up in concert; instead, they remained anchored in front of their box. This was because Melanie Leupolz, Pernille Harder and Sam Kerr stalked the space that opened up between the lines, drawing the defence’s attention and putting immense pressure on them in the process.
Perhaps recognising this situation, Scheuer seems to have instructed his wingers to drop into the second line midway through the half, shifting to a clearer 4–4–2 shape in the process. However, this did not prove too effective for two reasons: first, both Chelsea fullbacks were usually in deep areas, which increased the distance to be covered by the winger in the press; and second, when Chelsea moved down one flank, the far-side winger was in a dead zone — neither did she join the defence, nor was she advanced enough to act as an outlet. We saw this happen particularly with Beerensteyn, since Chelsea attacked more frequently down the left.
My theory (and I am speculating here) for the retention of approach/change in shape is that Scheuer perhaps did not feel comfortable with the game state. He was not comfortable with the way the 5–3–2 shape limited Bayern to transition opportunities; further, he seemed confident that his team could maintain the low block despite missing the extra defender. I sympathise with him on the first point — as we saw throughout this series, Bayern are a possession heavy team — but the warning signs were present since the beginning as to the validity of the second point.
Chiefly, Scheuer did not accommodate for the gaps that opened up between midfield and defence and he not take into account the dynamic overloads that Chelsea could create against which the extra defender would come in handy (Harder and Kerr are adept at this). Chelsea’s first goal emerged from a combination of the two — a transition situation, where it was just the defensive line against Kerr. Secondly, Kirby made a phenomenal run from Carolin Simon’s blind side to get on to the end of Kerr’s pass; had Laudehr been involved, she would have tracked the run as the extra body in the box.
Together, these factors led to Bayern surrendering their advantage from the first leg — by half time, the score was 2–1 on the evening and tied at 3–3 on aggregate. With the deeper position of their fullbacks and the movements of Ji and Ingle ensuring that one of them is always advanced, it was easy for Chelsea to build securely and move between the lines. Attacking the defence also became easier, since Schüller remained focused on acting as an outlet than helping Bayern defend.
Second Half — Chelsea continue the Onslaught
Bayern opened the second half with a more aggressive tone; however, their structure and approach remained similar to the first half 4–4–2 shape. If anything, the formation became even flatter, since the wingers fell deep to protect the fullbacks. In the middle, the frontline and midfield moved in concert to press, and passes/runs by the fullbacks were then defended against by the wingers.
A facet of Bayern’s first half play had been the use of long goal kicks, which was both by design and a consequence of Chelsea’s press. However, the low block maintained in the first half meant that Bayern rarely got on to the end of their kicks, and there was no real structure for the capture of the second ball apart from immediate pressure by the strikers. With the more aggressive approach manifested in the second half, second balls could be secured more often, and Bayern generally asserted themselves more in possession. This placed Chelsea under pressure at times, though they always carried the threat of transition.
Midway through the half, Scheuer removed an injured Schüller for a midfielder in Linda Dallmann, who continued to press from the front and looked to involve Lohmann and the wingers when in possession. There was also a change in the shape, which now resembled a 4–2–2–2 formation. Attacks in this period came down Bayern’s right, since Bühl and Glas provided quite the challenge for Leupolz and Charles on the wing. Further, Dallmann brought a passing presence by drifting to the by-line and attempting to cross inside, though Chelsea captain Magdalena Eriksson repelled these efforts. Throughout all of this, Chelsea maintained their formation and composure, constantly providing width to stretch Bayern and providing passing options inside to tire the midfield pivot. Bayern were, in essence, treated to a showing of their own kind of dominance — with momentum on Chelsea’s side and the visitors fading, they were able to secure the breakthrough before adding the icing on the cake in stoppage time.
Conclusion
The game marked the end of Bayern’s Champions League campaign, and it is difficult to lay the blame at anyone’s feet except that of the manager. Scheuer surprised everyone with the 5–3–2 shape in the first leg, and perhaps should have continued with it in the crunch tie in London. However, both legs offered an insight into what makes this team tick — from this perspective and taking into account the nature of the games, the semi-finals were a superb exhibition of quality and execution from both sides.
