Chelsea vs. Manchester City: Blues lost in the manner of their choosing

Chelsea went to Manchester City and played for a 0-0 draw. They continued to play for a 0-0 draw even after going down 1-0, demonstrating the worst combination of fear and apathy.

In a starkly utilitarian way (think Cold War-era science fiction dystopia), Chelsea’s first half against Manchester City was a success. Chelsea’s rigid defensive lines took away Manchester City’s favourite operating areas in the half-spaces, forcing City out to the touchlines. By keeping close control on Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Kevin de Bruyne, Chelsea held City to only one shot on target in the first half despite nearly 80% possession.

Both teams had every reason to continue as before when they came out for the second half. Chelsea would need to change dramatically if, at any point, they decided to go for the win. But before they reached that point – before many fans returned to their seats after half-time – Manchester City went up 1-0.

Within seconds of restarting play after the goal, both teams settled back in to the first half dynamic. Manchester City did not sit deep to protect against conceding a quick equalizer. The Blues did not press more aggressively to try to regain the draw nor prevent City from going on a run. Chelsea settled back into the 5-4-1, and City continued their training session.

After spending the first 45 minutes of doing nothing more than denying City one goal, Antonio Conte’s side spent the final 44 minutes working to deny City a second. Once the 0-0 scoreline was no longer possible, they no longer aspired to a draw. Winning – if it ever was – was no longer the aim. A 1-0 loss became the objective.

Must Read: Player ratings: Blues embarass badge, fans, coach and families

And in that, Chelsea succeeded wildly, beyond anyone’s nightmarish expectations.

Chelsea did not need to lose this game. As with their previous two games, individual errors – not a failure of tactics – cost them the goals. Had Andreas Christensen made strong contact on his attempted clearance or if Marcos Alonso had been aware of (a) the amount of space, or (b) the man behind him, the 0-0 draw would have held for at least a few more minutes.

Antonio Conte’s defensive set-up worked phenomenally well. No matter what City did, they could not break down Chelsea for 90 minutes. The leaders needed their hosts to commit a mistake (two, actually) to nab a goal. Capitalizing on such moments are the mark of a championship team, but Chelsea made it easy for them to get by on so little.

However, in terms of outcome, the defensive strategy only worked so long as City scored no goals. It was a perfect plan for a goalless draw. Conte’s decision to change absolutely nothing after the goal suggests two thought processes: he was not interested in pursuing even a single point, or he believed a one-goal loss was somehow better than a multi-goal loss.

Opening up the game to attack Manchester City certainly raises the risks of City scoring more goals on counter-attacks. However, the teams who have had the most success against City – including the one who defeated them – played City’s game against them. Liverpool accepted conceding three goals against City because they scored four (and, well, because they are Liverpool). They set out to win, in large part because Jurgen Klopp surely knew he could not play for a draw with his defence. His options were either a 4-3 win or a 7-2 loss.

Antonio Conte has the ability to play for a 0-0 draw given the defensive nature of his players and the club. He also has the ability to strike hard on counter-attacks, bring on a super-sub striker, expose defences and create individual moments through Eden Hazard, Cesc Fabregas and Willian. In short, he has the ability to fight back from a deficit against any opponent. Conte did not authorize any of these, and his players did not take the ambition upon themselves.

Perhaps if the score remained 0-0 in the 80′ Antonio Conte would have flipped the switch for his players to go for the late goal. Perhaps he would have sent on both strikers, with the explicit mandate for the wing-backs and Cesar Azpilicueta to find them with crosses. He may have told the wingers to press high and hard, unleashing Pedro the Deranged Hummingbird to push City back into their zone and force a turnover.

Unlikely, though. If a team would rather lose than draw, or would rather lose by one goal than many goals in search of that draw, they are not a side who will opt for a win.

Next: Chelsea and Eden Hazard are stuck in a twilight zone with one another

Last season, Antonio Conte instilled Chelsea with a much-vaunted winning mentality, one he seemed to personally embody. Chelsea did not even muster a drawing mentality at the Etihad, and deserved all zero of their points.