Below, in an in-depth thread, I break down the Chelsea-Arsenal game with a specific focus on:
- Pochettino's surprising usage of Palmer/Gallagher in the pockets with pacey wingers either side of them,
- Arteta & Arsenal's performance,
- the role of Martin Ødegaard.
THREAD! 🚨
- Pochettino's surprising usage of Palmer/Gallagher in the pockets with pacey wingers either side of them,
- Arteta & Arsenal's performance,
- the role of Martin Ødegaard.
THREAD! 🚨
Pre-game, Arsenal had several advantages against Chelsea due to the way the game looked like it was going to pan out on paper.
Both teams typically man-mark from opposition goal kicks which meant there would be long balls, duels, and transitions.
Arsenal had a slight edge here.
Both teams typically man-mark from opposition goal kicks which meant there would be long balls, duels, and transitions.
Arsenal had a slight edge here.
Arsenal are slightly more physical than Chelsea and they are also slightly more dangerous in transitional situations than Chelsea are.
Guys like Rice, Gabriel, Saliba, and White, for example, are monsters in these situations.
Chelsea aren't bad here, but Arsenal had an edge..
Guys like Rice, Gabriel, Saliba, and White, for example, are monsters in these situations.
Chelsea aren't bad here, but Arsenal had an edge..
Then, as I said, they are slightly more dangerous in transition due to Chelsea's inability to reliably put the ball into the back of the net.
Arsenal, on the other hand, have frightening attackers.
However, these game themes were ones where Arsenal only had *slight* margins in.
Arsenal, on the other hand, have frightening attackers.
However, these game themes were ones where Arsenal only had *slight* margins in.
In fact, if one was to assess that game and ask who got the better of duels, they would likely say Chelsea, and that can largely be attributed to Arteta's failure to pick Havertz over Jesus in the #9.
Arsenal often went long when under pressure, but they lacked height in attack.
Arsenal often went long when under pressure, but they lacked height in attack.
This saw Chelsea win quite a lot of duels when Arsenal went long, and from here they could either A) attack quickly in transition or B) retain possession and mount a settled attack.
This contributed to Arsenal's lack of control in the game, but there were bigger issues present..
This contributed to Arsenal's lack of control in the game, but there were bigger issues present..
What I deemed to be an essential theme pre-game was A) how Pochettino set Chelsea up to press, and B) the advantage Arsenal had numerically against Chelsea in settled attacking situations with an overload in the build-up (3v2) and an overload in the last line (5v4).
Interestingly, Chelsea were primarily passive in the press, and this saw Arsenal have quite a lot of the ball in settled play.
Theoretically, this should have seen Arsenal win the game, but it didn't play out that way, & that can be attributed to Pochettino's in-possession plan.
Theoretically, this should have seen Arsenal win the game, but it didn't play out that way, & that can be attributed to Pochettino's in-possession plan.
Arsenal tried to press Chelsea's 4-2-4 build-up aggressively, and this was expected pre-game because Chelsea always play this way, but in settled attacks they continued to play that way as opposed to transitioning into their usually fluid 3-1-6 shape...
Saliba & Gabriel were already prepared to press Chelsea's split strikers when they were building from goal kicks, but they weren't prepared to do it in settled play.
This saw Chelsea gain some advantages when they had possession as Palmer & Gallagher dropped to create overloads.
This saw Chelsea gain some advantages when they had possession as Palmer & Gallagher dropped to create overloads.
This saw Chelsea play through Arsenal's press and either A) quickly exploit them in transition or B) mount a settled attacking situation.
They primarily played quickly though, because the idea behind the game plan was to drag the centre backs out & use Mudryk & Sterling's speed.
They primarily played quickly though, because the idea behind the game plan was to drag the centre backs out & use Mudryk & Sterling's speed.
We see that dynamic play out below.
Sterling in particular dominated his battle against Zinchenko which led to Arteta taking the Ukrainian off at half-time.
This tactical adaption from Pochettino created some chaos in the game, & it saw Chelsea go 2-0 up.
Sterling in particular dominated his battle against Zinchenko which led to Arteta taking the Ukrainian off at half-time.
This tactical adaption from Pochettino created some chaos in the game, & it saw Chelsea go 2-0 up.
HOWEVER, if Arsenal were better individually, they could have used the tactical advantages they had!
Chelsea were primarily passive in the press and Arsenal had a clear overload in the last line of attack.
Arteta's men made some careless errors which gave Chelsea encouragement.
Chelsea were primarily passive in the press and Arsenal had a clear overload in the last line of attack.
Arteta's men made some careless errors which gave Chelsea encouragement.
Declan Rice said it himself post-game.
He took responsibility and put the blame on himself because that's what leaders do, but guys like Zinchenko, Jorginho, and even Saliba gave the ball away early on when Arsenal needed to play slow, pin Chelsea back, and exert control..
He took responsibility and put the blame on himself because that's what leaders do, but guys like Zinchenko, Jorginho, and even Saliba gave the ball away early on when Arsenal needed to play slow, pin Chelsea back, and exert control..
They didn't do that, though, and it gave Chelsea chances to cause chaos and exert their own qualities on the game.
Arsenal only calmed down once Chelsea were 1-0 up.
Only then did they put their foot on the ball in the build-up, but they didn't use their advantages in attack.
Arsenal only calmed down once Chelsea were 1-0 up.
Only then did they put their foot on the ball in the build-up, but they didn't use their advantages in attack.
Arsenal had a clear 5v4 in the last line of attack and consistently isolated Saka and Martinelli in 1v1 situations with Cucurella and Gusto, respectively.
Both wingers often failed to get the better of their respective men, but Ødegaard and Jesus were particularly wasteful too..
Both wingers often failed to get the better of their respective men, but Ødegaard and Jesus were particularly wasteful too..
Ødegaard is in the team to help Arsenal sustain attacks via ball retention, pass volume, circulating play, and the initiation of combinations.
He lacks the raw power of a guy like Kevin De Bruyne or even a Bruno Fernandes in terms of offering reliably unstoppable creativity.
He lacks the raw power of a guy like Kevin De Bruyne or even a Bruno Fernandes in terms of offering reliably unstoppable creativity.
However, despite lacking those unstoppable qualities, he tried to play like those guys.
He tried to force final balls when his team needed pass volume and ball retention to enable Arsenal to pin Chelsea back and sustain high quality pressure.
Arteta subbing him off was telling.
He tried to force final balls when his team needed pass volume and ball retention to enable Arsenal to pin Chelsea back and sustain high quality pressure.
Arteta subbing him off was telling.
How often does Pep sub KDB off in a situation where City are in a negative gamestate?
The fact that Arteta did that to Ødegaard was damning of how poor his performance was..
Jesus was similarly wasteful technically, but his role is to be ambitious, so I have sympathy for him.
The fact that Arteta did that to Ødegaard was damning of how poor his performance was..
Jesus was similarly wasteful technically, but his role is to be ambitious, so I have sympathy for him.
However, despite Arsenal being so uncharacteristically poor, they came back from behind to draw 2-2.
I would argue that this is a result of Chelsea's overly passive off-ball game plan.
Chelsea have the quality to keep the ball but they didn't often try to do it.
I would argue that this is a result of Chelsea's overly passive off-ball game plan.
Chelsea have the quality to keep the ball but they didn't often try to do it.
Admittedly, though, as the match wore on and Arsenal were looking increasingly unlikely to get anything out of the game, Gallagher and Palmer dropping deep to overload Arsenal in the build-up contributed to Chelsea exerting decent technical control, but Sanchez' error was fatal..
Rice's phenomenal finish gave Arsenal the momentum they needed to try to pull the game back, and that's exactly what they did thanks to the brilliance of Bukayo Saka.
As much as Cucurella nullified him all game, all Saka needs is a moment.
He found a yard and punished Chelsea.
As much as Cucurella nullified him all game, all Saka needs is a moment.
He found a yard and punished Chelsea.
It must also be noted that in those moments when Chelsea were starting to exert some technical control on the game, Havertz came on and he proved to be a reliable outlet for Arsenal.
He won 3 out of 5 aerial duels, more than any Arsenal player, and he only played 12 minutes!
He won 3 out of 5 aerial duels, more than any Arsenal player, and he only played 12 minutes!
If he was on the pitch from the start, he could have made up for the sloppy start from Arsenal by being a target man high who enabled Arsenal to get out as opposed to Raya going long to Jesus who consistently lost duels to Silva and Colwill.
Havertz is taller than both of them..
Havertz is taller than both of them..
All in all, Arsenal were poor individually and got away with it.
It can be attributed to an uncharacteristic collective performance which was exacerbated by Pochettino's tactical change which undeniably had a positive impact on the game from Chelsea's perspective.
It can be attributed to an uncharacteristic collective performance which was exacerbated by Pochettino's tactical change which undeniably had a positive impact on the game from Chelsea's perspective.
However, although Chelsea were definitely competitive and easily could have won on the day, they weren't outstanding tactically..
They were good & easily could have won due to their tactics, but their lack of pressure on the ball saw them relinquish a lot of control on the game.
They were good & easily could have won due to their tactics, but their lack of pressure on the ball saw them relinquish a lot of control on the game.
There seems to be a sense around Chelsea that they are in a transitional period so they deserve time, & that is true, but they should be showing *more* in my opinion.
They have the quality to control games with the ball, but don't. It's largely a consequence of passive pressing.
They have the quality to control games with the ball, but don't. It's largely a consequence of passive pressing.
Not only that, but they're also typically too fluid & disjointed in possession.
They weren't yesterday, so Pochettino deserves credit for that, but the '4-2-4 across the thirds' is a once-off game plan.
They won't play that way with reliability, even if the plan was quite good.
They weren't yesterday, so Pochettino deserves credit for that, but the '4-2-4 across the thirds' is a once-off game plan.
They won't play that way with reliability, even if the plan was quite good.
All in all, Pochettino deserves a lot of credit for throwing a tactical spanner into the works which undeniably contributed to Chelsea's success in the game, even if question marks surrounding him remain long-term..
As for Arsenal, individuals need to improve in the "big games".
As for Arsenal, individuals need to improve in the "big games".
Zinchenko, Jorginho, and Saliba, for example, are typically as technically secure as players come, but their poor start gave Chelsea a foothold in the game.
The consequence of such mistakes cost unnecessary points to be dropped in games Arsenal should, on paper, be winning.
The consequence of such mistakes cost unnecessary points to be dropped in games Arsenal should, on paper, be winning.
The same frustration can be attributed to Ødegaard in attack.
Saka and Martinelli struggling to get the better of special 1v1 defenders in Cucurella and Gusto is understandable, yet they still came up trumps.
Ødegaard, however, plays a less demanding role output-wise.
Saka and Martinelli struggling to get the better of special 1v1 defenders in Cucurella and Gusto is understandable, yet they still came up trumps.
Ødegaard, however, plays a less demanding role output-wise.
The problem, though, is that recently he plays like his role is entirely about output, when it's not!
The more Arsenal attack, the more they will win games.
The more Ødegaard keeps the ball in the final third as opposed to forcing chance creation, the more they will attack...
The more Arsenal attack, the more they will win games.
The more Ødegaard keeps the ball in the final third as opposed to forcing chance creation, the more they will attack...
These are salvageable issues, though, so that is what is most encouraging from Arteta & Arsenal's perspective.
As for Chelsea, it was a decent individual game plan, but we will still need to see more from Pochettino & the club to suggest long-term success like we see at Arsenal.
As for Chelsea, it was a decent individual game plan, but we will still need to see more from Pochettino & the club to suggest long-term success like we see at Arsenal.
Loading suggestions...