Chelsea defence defining new levels of porousness
Chelsea might have travelled to Bramall Lane on Saturday with only one thing in mind: all 3 points. Frank Lampard is not the one who sets his team up to defend and earn a draw. He always wants to win and organises his team to take the game to even the big guns of England and Europe.
But the result and intent from the team was lacking on the pitch on Saturday. Sheffield United had resumed their Premier League campaign on a sluggish note, but their 3-1 win against Tottenham and a last gasp win against Wolves were a timely reminder that Chris Wilder’s men had shrugged of their rustiness.
As it turned out, Chelsea fell to a humbling 0-3 reverse at Sheffield.
What could Lampard's Chelsea have done better against Sheffield?
In his first term at the helm in his beloved club, Lampard has been revered for his tactical flexibility. He always urges his team to play fluid football and loves possession. He doesn’t mind tinkering with the teamand gives due respect to the opposition he faces.
But at Bramall Lane, it looked like Lampard might have taken the opposition a little too lightly. Or the fact that Sheffield United were playing lethargically seemed to have blinded his foresight.
Sheffield United always plays three men at the back, with the wing backs providing width and delivery in the box. Additionally, they play two physically dominant centre forwards.
With Chelsea’s inability to defend their box and their aerial frailties in recent times, if not the whole season, it would have been prudent for Lampard to start with a back three. With Alonso at his disposal who is at his best in a 3-man formation at the back, the gaffer had no logistical issues to prevent him from doing that.
Chelsea did move to the aforementioned shape after half time, but overcoming a 2-goal deficit against a defensively resolute Blades looked next to impossible.
Even at half time, Lampard’s decision to withdraw Mason Mount and retain a midfield-two of Jorginho and Barkley negated Chelsea’s drive from midfield. Jorginho is one of the best in the world when it comes to sitting back and conducting the play.
But in a 2-man midfield, a lot more forward going action is required from the personnel manning the engine room, which was hard to expect from the Italian.
What will revive the Chelsea defence?
It’s a question that even Lampard and Jody Morris seem to be at a loss for. From zonal-marking to man-marking and shuffling his centre-back pair, Lampard has tried it all but to no avail. Another similarly perplexing question is: “What is Lampard’s preferred centre-back pairing?” I would be surprised if Lampard has an answer to this question as well.
Andreas Christensen is the most comfortable of the lot on the ball. There are matches where he hardly puts a foot wrong. When the world starts to believe he is the one to be the mainstay of the Chelsea defence, he flummoxes everyone with an indifferent performance.
Consistency has betrayed the young Dane; confidence about his own performance and that of Chelsea in defence hasn’t been anywhere near to draw inspiration from.
Kurt Zouma is a towering presence and the best Chelsea have on their payrolls when it comes to ability in the air. Athletic and well-built, he has recently found himself featuring in the back pages of sports dailies about a transfer away from Stamford Bridge. But since the loss to West Ham United, Zouma has replaced Antonio Rudiger and has been doing well, only to be let down by his partners.
Rudiger is the most experienced centre-back at Chelsea and has been a fan favourite since he arrived in West London. He has had a difficult season marred by injuries, but statistics would suggest that he has been performing in and around his usual standards.
Then there is the young Fikayo Tomori, who hasn’t featured since the restart owing to an injury that has kept him sidelined. He is blessed with pace and is still a raw talent that requires polishing.
On paper, Chelsea's do not look like a defensive unit that should ship 1.4 goals per game. The numbers become more difficult to digest when the team keeps an average possession of 57.1% (only bettered by Manchester City and Liverpool) and are in contention for a top-four place in the Premier League.
In the below picture from the game against Sheffield United (at a very early stage of the game), Chelsea look well organised at the back with hardly any exploitable space in the centre.
At the edge of the box, though, Barkley looks switched off and is not marking Ben Osborn who is looking out for the second ball. The Chelsea midfield comprising of Jorginho, Mount and Barkley is no match to Berge and Norwood, both in terms of physicality and tenacity.
The run-up to the first goal is a clear example of Sheffield United taking advantage of widening the pitch with their full backs and creating a numerical advantage in the final third (Mason Mount was equally at fault for it). A three-man formation at the back might have helped the team defend this situation in a much better way.
The second goal was deja vu. It was like a well-rehearsed training ground technique and implemented to perfection to ship goals to the opposition. The picture below shows the positioning of Zouma and Christensen moments before Enda Stevens played a one-two with Sander Berge to send in a cross to the Chelsea box. (Yes, there was also a Willian – James mix up.)
There is no Chelsea player at the near post to provide cover. Ideally Christensen should have closed the gap and sandwiched Oliver Mcburnie.
Zouma is well-placed between Mcburnie and David Mcgoldrick. But Christensen moves farther away from Mcburine to create a glaring gap and hence provides an easy header to the latter.
These are instances where a vocal leader in the back line helps, one who can marshall his troops and keep the focus on the game.
Declan Rice is rumoured to be under consideration by the Chelsea hierarchy. His communication and leadership might instill the much-required calmness to the Chelsea back-line, even though there are questions about Rice’s suitability to a centre-back role.
How good are Chelsea going forward?
Let’s look at Tammy Abraham for a change.
In the above situation, very early in the game, with the game goalless, Tammy Abraham finds himself in a very promising situation. Christian Pulisic has the ball and has space to play in Abraham, who should then have had a decent chance to pull the trigger from a promising position.
I guess there wouldn’t be an explanation why Tammy Abraham chose to take the hard option. It forced Pulisic to hold the ball up till Abraham made ground, and by then a Sheffield United player was on the American’s toes.
That effectively, or the lack of it, sums up the story of young Tammy Abraham’s first season at Chelsea after his initial exploits. Often found out of balance, his decision-making and inability to anticipate and reach the right place has come under scrutiny.
There is more. Chelsea have created 430 chances this season, eight more than champions Liverpool have. But it translates to an underwhelming stat: Chelsea need 6.8 chances to score a goal, and the team doesn’t feature in the top six in the Premier League in this stat category.
When it comes to big chances created, Chelsea have created 95 and comes third, trailing behind Manchester City and Liverpool. But in terms of finishing off these chances, the team doesn’t feature in the top 10. Nor does this team feature in the top 10 when it comes to finishing of the big chances in the 6-yard box where Tammy Abraham is expected to be at his most productive.
These stats provide enough reason why Chelsea were keen to wrap up a deal for Timo Werner and remain interested in Kai Havertz, who has earned a name for himself after his goal-scoring exploits from midfield.
Despite their deficiencies, Chelsea should be able to stoke a fire within themselves to keep them hungry. Goalkeeping gaps are too significant to be addressed here)( The onus is on Lampard to keep the flame raging in his Chelsea squad for next season, or it won’t be long before the unforgiving hierarchy at Chelsea turns their back at a club legend.