Chelsea held a 1-0 lead over Brighton for 74 minutes. How they handled the second half of that span shows their continued search for an identity in game management, and a decision point for the January transfer window.
Chelsea overperformed in the first half of the season, and now, as things tend to do at this time of the footballing year, they are regressing to the mean. Let’s point out, first, that “regressing” – in the statistical context we are using it – does not necessarily mean going backwards or declining. It means returning to baseline, to the average, to the expectations and to the overall level that will eventually define the entire season.
Part of their baseline of performance this season has been their struggles to kill off games. Whatever else they do, good or bad, no lead is safe until the final whistle. Frank Lampard’s second substitution at Brighton – Mateo Kovacic for Mason Mount in the 73′ – points to Chelsea’s struggle with squad and tactical identity.
On paper, that is a defensive substitution, one suggesting that Lampard was looking to close up shop and take the 1-0 win.
However, calling it “defensive” is more down to Mount than Kovacic: the Englishman is more offensively-minded than Kovacic, but Kovacic is hardly a defence-first midfielder. His top contributions for Chelsea this season have been advancing the ball across midfield up the centre of the pitch. Kovacic’s best work on defence usually happens close to Chelsea’s offensive third, as he cuts off nascent counter-attacks. Simply being “more defensive” than Mason Mount does not mean Kovacic is in the mould of N’Golo Kante or the greatest defensive midfield super sub in club (league?) history, Mikel John Obi.
Most of what Kovacic offered on defence was his usual contribution: getting the ball out of Chelsea’s zone quickly, but this time with the intent of relieving pressure rather than creating chances. It’s the complete opposite of how the club have normally dealt with increased pressure while holding on to the lead late in games: absorbing ever more.
Bringing Kovacic on in this capacity, then, suggests a few lines of thought from Lampard.
He may have brought on Kovacic as a defensive option simply because he has no other defensive midfield options once N’Golo Kante and Jorginho are already on the pitch. Andreas Christensen was on the bench, and we have long advocated for him as a defensive midfield “destroyer,” but Lampard clearly sees him as not much more than a distant fourth choice centreback. Ironically, Brighton’s goal came from a less-than-fully cleared corner kick, which an additional centreback could have cleared out of danger.
Lampard may also have sent Kovacic on because this is how he wants to see out games: not by parking the bus and absorbing pressure, but by subtly shifting the balance through midfield to keep the ball in midfield and not in the defensive third. That would be consistent with the idea that the best way to protect your goal is to keep the opponent away from it.
But that’s an awkwardly middle of the road option. For the first few months of the season, Chelsea seemed to be quite alright conceding a very un-Chelsea amount of goals provided they were always in a position to score more. They stayed with the overall game plan of maintaining possession high in the offensive zone. This gave Chelsea control of the game in an area where they are more likely to score additional goals while keeping the opponent as far as possible from Chelsea’s goal. This is worth the trade-off of being exposed to sporadic chances on the counter.
Using Kovacic to protect the lead via midfield also keeps Chelsea in transition for extended stretches. They may not be have the discipline and strength necessary to defend deep for prolonged periods, but they are also not secure in more fluid situations. Letting the fox approach the hen-house is not much better than letting him in.
If Chelsea wanted to clinch the game on the front foot, though, this is still an odd substitution to make.
If Frank Lampard thought Mason Mount was fatigued or not adding anything tactically, he could have made an offensive substitution. Michy Batshuayi was on the bench, as usual. Lampard also could have used Emerson or Tariq Lamptey as fresh, pacey wild card options to make runs along the wing and cover back to chip in on defence. Given how many times Reece James drifted into the middle of the pitch on offence and defence – several times to Chelsea’s detriment – a free-floating full-back could have given Chelsea presence and speed on the outside.
All this comes back to our original question: Did Frank Lampard send on Mateo Kovacic because he was the best of unsatisfactory options, or is the new plan to kill off games not by absorbing pressure at one end or maintaining it at the other, but by distributing it across the midfield?
If it’s the former, Chelsea’s transfer activity in the coming month will point to how Lampard intends to address this recurring issue. If Lampard wants to get back to the more familiar way, the Blues will need another centreback for rotation and a true defensive midfielder, someone like Wilfried Ndidi. Another approach would be buy an attacking or box-to-box midfielder so N’Golo Kante can shift deeper – someone like Ross Barkley was supposed to be.
On the other hand, if the plan is to score many goals through relentless pressure from possession, perhaps at the expense of conceding more chances, they will focus their January window on the attack. Timo Werner would be an option for playing a two-striker formation, or a winger who – like Willian – can maintain possession and pick his moments from those long stretches to create a chance. This points to someone like Wilfried Zaha who, among those linked in the rumour mill, would best fit that profile.
The way Chelsea are currently playing is so unsatisfactorily in the middle ground it can only be a compromise.
Even if the transfer ban was still in place, this squad could still achieve their goals of a top four finish and a deep run into a cup competition.
But with the ban lifted and an apparent desire to buy this month, how Chelsea focus their early spending will illuminate where Frank Lampard has been doing the best with what he has, and where things are on track, even if still in the earliest stages.