Chelsea did not have a striker in their squad to face Bournemouth, and played 62 minutes without one of their two most reliable centre-backs. Nothing Antonio Conte could have devised could compensate for these holes in the lineup and the individual mistakes of the remaining players.
In Chelsea’s season-opener against Burnley, the Blues allowed three goals in 19 minutes after Gary Cahill went off under a red card. On Wednesday against Bournemouth, Chelsea were depleted despite having 11 men on the pitch for 90 minutes. And when the dam broke, it broke in much the same way. The Cherries scored three times in 16 minutes.
But unlike the Burnley fixture, Chelsea did not have Alvaro Morata to come off the bench for a goal and assist to give Chelsea hope and respectability in defeat. In fact, the Blues had no striker in the match-day squad. Morata was injured, Michy Batshuayi was taking his welcome pictures at Borussia Dortmund and Olivier Giroud watched from the bench because he arrived after the deadline to register for Wednesday’s game.
Until Wednesday, Antonio Conte could count on the false-nine 3-4-3 because he had Michy Batshuayi available to change the tactics. For as much as Eden Hazard can do as the ostensible centre of the front-line, he is not a reference point and he is certainly not a target man. If the swirl of Chelsea’s wingers cannot create scoring changes, Conte needs the backup option Batshuayi provides. But because of the late timing of Batshuayi’s and Giroud’s deals, Chelsea had no option but to play headless for the full game against Bournemouth.
Antonio Conte was not alone in pointing out lack of footballing common sense in scheduling games on deadline day. When did Conte learn he would not have Batshuayi available for Bournemouth? Tuesday morning? Tuesday evening? Wednesday morning? When his daughter texted him after seeing the Twitter video of Batshuayi doing his medical?
Must Read: Chelsea eye Juliano Belletti and Luis Enrique tag team
Whenever it was, it denied him enough time to plan for a full game with no centre-forward. Nor did he even have the option of bringing on Giroud to simply stand off the defenders’ shoulders and do what tall strikers do.
Fate compounded the Premier League’s folly. Andreas Christensen, who has been increasingly fatigued and sloppy, left the game in the 28′. After kicking the ball out he dropped to the pitch and then limped off. Given his recent performances and packed schedule, the only real surprise (relief, in a way) was him succumbing to a hamstring injury and not sequelae from his head contusion a few weeks ago.
Christensen’s exit brought Gary Cahill into the centre of the back-line and Antonio Rudiger to the left. Cahill moving to the linch-pin position of the defence was a god-send for Bournemouth. The Cherries targeted Gary Cahill, and unfortunately, the captain obliged.
Cahill’s individual errors led to each of Bournemouth’s goals. Tiemoue Bakayoko had the first contributory error on the opening goal. He gave away a weak, inattentive turnover that Callum Wilson recovered. On the ensuring one-two Wilson played with Jordan Ibe, Cahill focussed on Ibe as Wilson ran in behind him.
For the second goal, Wilson and Junior Stanislas completely deformed Chelsea’s right-side defence. They pulled Cahill, Azpilicueta and N’Golo Kante out of position, creating an open diagonal swath straight to Thibaut Courtois. Tiemoue Bakayoko held his ground in the centre as the play ran straight past him. Davide Zappacosta and Cesc Fabregas were late arrivals as the Bournemouth pair drove in. And Wilson and Stanislas turned Cahill every which way en route to goal.
Bournemouth’s third goal also resulted from Gary Cahill losing his man, and Tiemoue Bakayoko watching only the ball in front of him rather than knowing the full play happening around him. It was nothing more complicated than that.
The scoreline flattered Bournemouth’s chance creation. The Cherries had an expected-goal (xG) of 1.5 en route to a 3-0 win. They made the most of the few opportunities they had – opportunities Chelsea had as much a hand in creating as the visitors did.
Chelsea may have been able to withstand one or two goals if they could have instantly responded with pressure. Had Chelsea scored first, the entire tenor of the game may have been different. And if Chelsea had lost 3-1 or 3-2, the anti-Conte takes proliferating on Twitter and in blogs would merely be “hot” instead of “thermonuclear.”
But Chelsea had no alternatives to the false-nine 3-4-3. Callum Hudson-Odoi played an impressive 25 minutes, but he could not introduce any new tactics. He is still a winger (let alone a 17-year old on his Premier League debut). Chelsea simply did not have an option for changing tactics.
The Blues came into the game with unimaginable gaps in the squad, and within 30 minutes suffered another. The scoresheet looks very much like the 10-man battle against Burnley because playing without any available strikers and without the best central centre-back is tantamount to playing with one fewer man.
Next: Chelsea take a justified and calculated risk with Emerson deal
Blame the Chelsea board for not conducting business sooner. Blame Edin Dzeko for not wanting to give up his security at AS Roma for a series of one-year contracts. You can even blame yourself for not wearing your lucky game-day kit. But don’t blame Antonio Conte. No tactical maneuvering or half-time motivational speech could overcome these disadvantages.