Chelsea may falter in the league, the next two months will tell

Chelsea have shown strength against Europe's elite but it is the games against Newcastle, Burnley, Watford and Everton that will shine light on their title chances.

Chelsea may faulter in the league, the next two months will tell.

International break naturally gives us a time to unwind from the domestic game but inevitably the space becomes filled with repetitive, subjective and menial discussion around Lampard or Gerrard, Drogba or Henry, De Bruyne and whichever midfielder they’ve picked this month. Those debates were punctuated with talk about Squid Game (a show I did not watch) – so given I was talking about neither and any of those topics, my break from domestic football was occupied…thinking about domestic football.

Each team has played 7 of their 38 Premier League fixtures which total to near 20% of their games. It’s still early but we can draw some assumptions from this sample size. At the top of the league is where we set our focus and it’s a pretty sight – if only from a narrative perspective. Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and United; the four teams on everyone’s lips before the season began as genuine potential title winners. The four horse race.

After 7 games you’d expect a wildcard team to have snuck their way into the top 4 or there about or maybe for one of the title contenders to have dropped a game or two and be around the Europa League places like City last season, but this is not the case. The expected four sit at the top of the league separated by 2 points.

At a brief glance you’d assume all four teams were firing on all front, inseparable due to their immense and unstoppable quality as teams far superior than the rest of the pack. Upon watching the games though, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

Chelsea:

We begin at the top of the league. Chelsea, the European Champions, on 16 points having won five, drawn one and lost one. Before the season began, it felt as if the most widely held opinion was one that had Chelsea as favourites. On the back of the UCL triumph to last year’s Premier League champions, who they’d beaten three times in quick succession – before following upon this with the £97.5m signing of Lukaku – one of the most sought after and accomplished CFs in the league. As they stand atop the table, is there a feeling that they are the ones to beat as this dominant, untouchable side? Despite their results, I don’t get that feeling.

I have some concerns about Chelsea and light will be shed upon if they are legitimate or unfounded in the next two months. They centre around Chelsea’s set-up against teams that afford them possession and ask Chelsea to figure out the solution of breaking the compact low block.

We know that Chelsea and their European success has come as a result of their formidable defensive structure, setting to play games conceding possession before exploiting teams in transition with their wingbacks and front three with the likes of Mount, Werner and Havertz.

The big European teams have a tendency to impose themselves playing a brand of dominant, keep-the-ball football and so Chelsea are able to counter this with their newer trademark Tuchel style. In the Premier League, things are a little different with teams lower in attacking strength and stature, opting themselves for an approach more in line with Tuchel’s of 20/21.

Zenit played similarly to the style I have described above and Chelsea were relatively fortunate to come away with three points. Given 67% possession against Zenit’s 5 at the back system, Chelsea were restricted to only two shots on target all game, equalling Zenit’s tally – before being bailed out by an individually brilliant Lukaku finish: a thunderous header from a distance most would fail to score from.

Chelsea’s 3-0 win to Villa demonstrates the areas in which Chelsea thrive and tend to score from. The first goal came from a brilliant transitional goal, with Kovacic driving with the ball and picking out Lukaku in behind who sat Villa’s centre-back down before hammering home a neat bottom corner strike. We know Chelsea are good in these areas.

The second goal came from Mings’ error that put Kovacic in one on one, again not a display of systematic creation against a compact, low block. And thirdly, a wonderful Lukaku strike, demonstrating individual brilliance in a goal that shouldn’t really be put away, but again assisted by Azpilicueta in transition.

If we go opponent by opponent ignoring the Champions League – Chelsea haven’t faced a strong, compact low block. Crystal Palace might’ve been the only other team who attempted to play in that sort of style (executing it questionably) – but that game gives some insight into how Chelsea make tweaks and tackle these sort of systematic challenges.

Palace in their 442 low block, were quite passive in terms of applying any pressure on the ball. This time and space gave Chelsea the liberty to try and execute some of the actions that ended up unlocking them but even still, the goals didn’t always come from systematic breaking down of a team that sat deep.

Early on, Alonso is on an island, isolated with an abudance of time (ideally this shouldn’t occur) and he whips in a wonderful cross that is met by head of Pulisic, following a good run. This is probably Chelsea’s biggest threat against compact sides.

In five at the back systems, the wingbacks are often the primary creators and so the crosses of Alonso and Reece James or Hudson-Odoi will be paramount if Tuchel opts for the same shape against sturdy defences.

Werner has the potential to stretch teams horizontally and vertically and as traditional width on the right may be a valuable tool again.

Another common pattern comes in the form of Mason Mount. Mount drifting to the right hand side at moments throughout this season has been quite useful as he darts in behind before putting in a driven cross – in a sort of KDB-esque manner. We saw this again for the second goal vs Palace and similarly in the Southampton game in the buildup to Chilwell’s goal - albeit when the opposition were down to 10.

Both Southampton and Palace opted for a 442 and given Southampton’s red card, both factors would’ve afforded Chelsea more space in the wide areas than a 5 at the back system may do. Regardless, the wingbacks or wide right width from Werner or Mount’s runs seem to be the most repeatable method for Chelsea to create against stubborn, compact defences.

The other two goals against Palace came from an Alonso direct free-kick and a long-range screamer from Chalobah, again ‘low-quality’ chances despite being incredible finishes.

Whether these methods would be adequate against 5 at the back systems remains to be seen. Having a remarkable finisher in Lukaku means that even if a few of those high-volume chances fall to him – Chelsea are more likely to put them away though and Pulisic’s movements centrally are also valuable for these actions as we saw in his attempts against Palace.

Ideally, however, players that thrive creatively in the pockets, between the lines and centrally would alleviate the attacking burden and provide necessary solutions. Mount has the potential for this again but Hudson-Odoi quality holds him as the only player capable of creating magic against these teams, in a way you’d expect an #8 or inverted winger to do so.

Outside of Hudson-Odoi, Chelsea are relatively weak in terms of their ability to create if you can stop threat of the crosses from wide. You can do this by managing the box through numbers and profiles that aim to stop Lukaku or to prevent the crosses being executed from dangerous places in the first place (by defending the wingbacks well).

When we look at games in which Chelsea have struggled in - we see the 541/532 compact and appropriately aggressive low block of Zenit, a game Chelsea narrowly won. We also look to the 1-0 loss to Juventus, who again deployed a 532/433 defensive shape against which Chelsea mustered up a measly 1 shot on target given 74% of the possession. Scary.

In the league however, Vieira’s debut as Palace boss deployed a well-intentioned but flawed 442. Arsenal deployed a shape that was vastly open with second-choice personnel. Villa didn’t conceded in settled defence with all the goals coming in transition or through error. Tottenham pressed high before sitting in an exposed and stretched 433 and Southampton pressed high most game.

In terms of styles, it’s been a serendipitous run for Tuchel’s men. In the upcoming run of November and December, Chelsea play teams such as Newcastle, Burnley, Leicester, Watford, West Ham, (Zenit again) and Everton – all teams who may play more in line with the blueprint suggested. If Chelsea come out of these two months, looking good fundamentally and unscathed – I will regard them as back in the title race.

I think Tuchel is aware of the issues around chance creation, illustrated by his team selection against Southampton. Odoi – a wonderful creator, often deployed by the Chelsea boss at RWB, was in a rare instance given license to create at LW/left #10, where he performed well. Chilwell was given a start, Werner provided traditional width on the right, and the double pivot was a progressive, driving duo of Loftus Cheek (with his line-breaking passes) and Kovacic.

There are other issues around Tuchel’s Chelsea that would be important to touch upon, particularly the use of Lukaku and how it has differed from what had made him a success at Inter – and it is also important to also acknowledge Chelsea’s ability to beat any team one vs one, on their day, particularly in the big games. They remain a transitional threat scarier than most and defend imperiously.

Ironically, it is the smaller, ‘weaker’ teams that Chelsea have to figure out this season.

And it is up to the smaller, ‘weaker’ team to adopt the blueprint of Juventus and Zenit - conceding possession entirely, playing 5 at the back (ideally 532, although I think something like a 4141 could have success) - whilst starting a good outlet, utilising set-pieces and remaining compact defensively (in a way Chelsea have shown to be themselves last season).