Chelsea’s substitutions are not having the game-changing impact they have in the past. They are more about doing the same job better, rather than doing a different job to maximum effect.
Eden Hazard was two minutes late. Four minutes separated the key events of Chelsea’s games against Newcastle and Bournemouth, except for Hazard’s goal against the Cherries. Against Newcastle, Chelsea made their first subs in the 65′ (Olivier Giroud for Alvaro Morata) and 69′ (Willian for Pedro). The goals followed in the 76′ (Hazard’s penalty) and 87′ (DeAndre Yedlin’s own goal). Against Bournemouth, Giroud replaced Morata in the 61′, Pedro replaced Willian in the 65′, the Spaniard scored in the 72′ and Hazard scored in the 85′. Everything was offset four minutes, except for the second goal. Hazard was two minutes late.
Beyond the strange symmetry between the two games, the real question is what changed shortly after the hour mark to allow Chelsea to score two goals and turn a possession-dominant scoreless draw into a win. For once, Occam’s razor does not comport. It was not the substitutes.
Chelsea’s substitutes in the last two games did not offer the team anything new. Despite the well-understood differences between the players who play the same roles, so far under Maurizio Sarri the substitutes are a second chance rather than a new approach to the game.
Pedro / Willian and Olivier Giroud came off the bench with fresh legs, but they did not tweak or rejuvenate the Blues’ tactics. Same formation, same passing rhythms, same service (or lack thereof), same runs. Olivier Giroud was not pulling off defenders and terrorizing the airlanes, nor was the new winger challenging the tired legs of their marker with clever runs behind with or without the ball. They did the same as the men they replaced. They just did it… newer.
Sarri’s emphasis on roles may be part of this. One of my long-standing criticisms of how people talk about Sarrismo – distinct from my criticisms of Sarri’s methods themselves – is the habit of talking about the Jorginho role, the Hamsik role or the Allan role. This does a disservice to both the players and the coach.
For the players, it neglects the unique attributes any future player can bring to a given task on the pitch. Ruben Loftus-Cheek is neither Marek Hamsik nor Allan. Trying to force him to be like one of them cripples his unique abilities, and is doomed for failure. Loftus-Cheek will be the best Loftus-Cheek. He can be only a fuzzy reflection of Hamsik or Allan or anyone else.
For Sarri, it conveys the idea that he can only conceive of football through the lens of Napoli 2015-2018. Rather than adjust his tactics for his players, harping on the [Napoli player] role implies he cannot do anything with his Chelsea players other than pound their square pegs into the Napoli round holes.
However, there may be something to the role-oriented nature of his coaching. The Chelsea players who occupy each role in his systems seem to be giving up something of themselves when they take the pitch, at least in these early stages. Willian is a direct, run-at-you dribbler, sometimes to his detriment. Pedro is a harrying, frenetic runner, getting in opponent’s faces in the press and getting behind them on attack. Yet many times in these opening games, they are doing much the same thing. Pedro is simply doing it better.
Likewise, Olivier Giroud is a physical striker, one made for a possession-oriented team. Alvaro Morata is a more well-rounded striker, one who can play fast and with finesse on the move. Yet both have been doing much the same thing in Chelsea’s first few games. The possession has not helped Giroud, and the pace of passing has not helped Morata.
Much of this is due to the minimal service they have received. But that, in itself, is a function of the broader picture around them. Chelsea are not playing differently when they have Giroud leading the line than when they have Morata at the No. 9. Therefore the man up front is dealing with the same set of circumstances, which are not crafted for him anyway.
For the most part, Chelsea’s substitutes have been incidental to the changes that have taken place after their introduction. Neither Willian nor Olivier Giroud did anything to unlock Newcastle last week. They were simply the ones on the pitch when Newcastle hauled down Marcos Alonso in the box and later turned his shot into their own net.
The run of play accelerated and opened up after the hour mark when Chelsea played Bournemouth on Sunday. But this was due more to Bournemouth showing some (over)confidence in the 0-0 scoreline. The Cherries relented a bit from their compact shape, and may have been a bit fatigued. This allowed Giroud to be more involved than Morata was, but through Bournemouth’s doing, not his.
Pedro’s goal was a combination of the factors. His shot from the top of the box was quintessential Pedro. He has scored many goals like that and, while Willian has as well, Pedro is much more inclined to take the shot. The Spaniard provided the Blues something the Brazilian did not.
But he did so from the same tactical mandate that Willian had occupied for the first hour of the game. And his shot was still the same sort of long-range effort that Chelsea have had to settle for in the last two games. The Blues enjoyed plenty of possession but little penetration in both games. This left them searching for goals from distance. Newcastle’s compact low block eliminated shooting lanes from outside the box, part of their overall defensive success. Bournemouth played a similar,slightly more open shape but did so 10-15 yards further up the pitch. This left enough space for a shooting lane, and Pedro’s shot still took a fortuitous deflection to find the back of the net.
Chelsea are used to game-changing substitutions, players who will come on and offer something new, something that a fatigued opposition cannot handle mentally, physically or tactically. Under Maurizio Sarri this season, their substitutions are a swap for freshness. Their goal is to do the starters’ job better, rather than add something new to the final span of the game.
This is coming at the expense of some of the individual factors that underlie each player’s success and place at the club. The players know their roles, but so do the opposition. As they get more comfortable with Sarrismo, they will hopefully strike the balance between what the coach expects them to be and who they are at their best.