Chelsea’s defense is almost where it needs to be as results are not showing it

Chelsea has yet to keep a clean sheet this season. But the defense is much closer to where it needs to be even as results are not showing it.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that followed Derby County that Frank Lampard’s Chelsea is no defensive example to be held up and emulated. Derby County was defensively all over the place and Chelsea seemingly is following suit.

But the overall structure of the defense is improving even as the results fail to match that perspective. Since the break, Chelsea has had three matches where they have been far more defensively sound than before the break. But they are still conceding almost two goals a game and a clean sheet is still nowhere to be seen.

The first main change Lampard made was using the 3-4-3. This came about for several reasons but it put several players in better positions to succeed. With a three man back line, the Blues were better able to deal with crosses coming in and passes that would normally split centerbacks. With wingbacks, the defensive duties of the fullbacks were lessened (more or less, Lampard’s wingbacks play exactly as his fullbacks did in a back four). Furthermore, the overall setup helped to make a duo of Mateo Kovacic and Jorginho viable.

Against Liverpool, Lampard opted for a return to the 4-3-3. This was likely due to the return of N’Golo Kante but also to help match Liverpool in the middle more. Indeed, most of the game came down the flanks as Chelsea effectively crowded the center (also both sides would prefer a game down the flanks).

But how does all of that equal a better defensive set up? Look at the two goals Liverpool scored. The first was a free kick from outside the box, the second an unmarked corner. On open play, Chelsea very much nullified what can easily be considered one of the best offensive trios in the world. How did Chelsea lose to Valencia? A free kick into the box for a goal. And how did Chelsea concede the first goal to Wolves? A corner kick became a header into goal. Since the break, Chelsea has conceded only one goal in open play (Wolves’ second).

Creating chances and stopping opponents from creating chances is the majority of the game. Set pieces are a small, underutilized, but important part of the game. And in two out of three games since the break, set pieces have been the difference between points and losing.

Many will rightfully point out that Chelsea defends zonally on set pieces (something that they do not do in open play this season). The question many will have is why and the unfortunate answer is height. Chelsea is not a particularly tall team. That may sound like a silly thing to be a difference maker but think about it in simpler terms. If the team is full of players shorter than the opponent, why would they mark up man to man where they know they will likely lose the aerial battle?

Defending in zones is far from ideal because it takes so long to perfect the understanding, but on set pieces it does help to alleviate the height disparities. Stick taller players in danger zones and shorter players in lower yield areas. That may mean that sometimes someone like Tammy Abraham loses his marker because defending is not his game.

Defensively, Chelsea’s only true weakness in the games since the break has been set piece defending. Of course, the club should focus on that and consider a specialist to help. But the open play defense is much better than before and that will be where the majority of battles will take place. Chelsea is getting closer to a clean sheet; they just need to figure out a better way on set pieces. The rest of the work is done.