Chelsea: Zero-sum view of rotation disregards tactics and player readiness

Players returning from injury and others having normal fluctuations in performance are driving rotation in Chelsea’s squad. No one who has been a regular in the starting XI should be out of contention at this point in the season.

Frank Lampard has given minutes to 26 players, and his recent selections imply he will continue turning to 24 of them (Olivier Giroud and Pedro seem to be the exceptions). Ruben Loftus-Cheek will most likely be his 27th player. If Loftus-Cheek returns with a positive prognosis before the January transfer window closes, it may nudge Ross Barkley out the door. Any new purchases in January if the transfer ban is lifted will likely come on a one-in, one-out basis, so barring any new youth promotions, Lampard will probably settle out on about 25 players in his full, regularly-used depth chart.

And that is how it should be. The choices for a given XI are zero-sum. But with so many players whose age and homegrown status allow for a large squad, a player coming back from injury should be additive. There is very little reason to use and carry fewer players than the full allotment, particularly at a club who could go deep in four (now three) competitions, one that has a lot of international players and is dealing with a persistent injury situation.

Chelsea have recently welcomed Reece James, Emerson and N’Golo Kante back to the squad. Those first two have revived the anti-incumbent chatter around the Blues’ full-backs.

Marcos Alonso’s performance against Ajax was enough to attract much of the vitriol that usually goes towards Cesar Azpilicueta, giving Azpilicueta a brief respite from the braying mob. Frank Lampard’s decisions to pull Alonso at half time against Ajax and leave him out of the squad against Crystal Palace, along with starting Emerson and Reece James with Azpilicueta in reserve on Saturday, predictably cemented the consensus around Alonso’s future.

But as it stands now, Chelsea are in a situation they have not had for years: they are two-deep at both full-back positions. And they are so with two “natural,” full-time options at each position. Azpiliceuta’s ability to play left-back makes the team three-deep on that side.

Of the four, three have extensive experience in top flight football, including European competitions. Those three have a healthy array of trophies between them, and contributed significantly to those victories. Reece James is the least experienced, least proven and – given those factors and his continuing return from injury – still the riskiest option. But Cesar Azpilicueta is the least risky option, given his experience, conservative defensive attributes and ability to play both sides. He almost fully mitigates the risks around James, regardless of which is on the pitch, and where.

Having these four full-backs gives Chelsea an enviable and critical amount of flexibility. Every combination of those four can be the ideal battery for a given opponent. Depending on the opponent’s overall pattern of play, what side their most potent attacks come from, how they defend their penalty area, their speed on transitions and other factors, Alonso may be preferable to Emerson with James on the other side; or maybe Emerson would be more suited complemented by Azpilicueta; or Azpilicueta on the left with James on the right, and so on.

Even if the opponent does not call out for a specific full-back duo, by having four players the coach can trust implicitly he can ensure none of those players is pushed over a risk threshold.

No one deserves a day off more than Cesar Azpilicueta. But what option have any managers had in Premier League games over the last few years? James starting at right back against Crystal Palace on Saturday was no further than step one of a very long transition plan. Azpilicueta simply had an overdue chance to rest and recover, with both he and the manager secure in the team without him.

Chelsea are never short of game minutes, just players they can trust to take them across four competitions. This has been particularly true at full-back for most of Azpilicueta’s time with the club.

The same situation will start to develop at midfield. Even the most ardent Jorginho-skeptic does not expect nor want N’Golo Kante’s return to be the end of Jorginho’s time in Blue. There’s a time, place and circumstance for what both players bring to the side. Sometimes those circumstances will be driven by tactics. Other times that circumstance may just be permitting the other (or Mateo Kovacic) to rest, avoid a potential yellow card suspension ahead of a more difficult game or take a cautious approach to a knock picked up in training or some finding by the sports medicine staff.

Likewise, Ruben Loftus-Cheek’s eventual return will not push out Mason Mount. The two academy graduates will complement each other in and out of the squad, and Loftus-Cheek may also work into the rotation at positions ranging from Mateo Kovacic’s to Willian’s.

The only players who might be knocked out of the depth chart – as opposed to down the depth chart – by a teammate’s return are those who are currently not picking up any minutes at all.

If Ross Barkley recovers from his current injury and still is not coming off the bench, then Loftus-Cheek’s return may be the end of his time. Lampard may be keeping him around now as the emergency back-up option, an option precluded by the semi-regular availability of anyone else.

Similarly, if a striker or winger goes down with injury and Frank Lampard changes his formation rather than bring in Olivier Giroud or Pedro, then nothing will salvage the remainder of their time.

The distinction between Giroud, Pedro and possibly Barkley on one hand and Alonso, Azpilicueta and the midfielders on the other is that Lampard is not currently using the former group. Lampard has options. As many people have pointed out, he does not have to be playing so many youth. If he wanted an older XI he could have one. His choices, not the transfer ban, is keeping the average age of the matchday squad low. Likewise, he could have avoided using Cesar Azpilicueta and Marcos Alonso as full-backs by changing the formation, repurposing players or bringing even more youngsters (like Ian Maatsen) into the side.

He had choices, and those were the ones he made.

Those players who have picked up most of the minutes so far may not continue playing as much once other options become available, but it would be foolishly short-sighted to compromise tactical flexibility and players’ readiness by taking a zero-sum approach to injury returns and performance fluctuations.

One-in, one-out may be a smart way to handle transfer business, but not intrasquad relations. Chelsea are better off using all the players they have, rather than finding themselves down the road needing players they gave up.