4. Kepa Arrizabalaga’s Torres trajectory
By this point, Arrizabalaga’s struggles have been well documented. A Spaniard joining the club for a record fee and subsequently putting in average performances, with some moments of glory. Sound familiar?
Arrizabalaga’s career trajectory seems to be eerily similar to that of former Chelsea record signing, Fernando Torres. Both players arrived at the club with huge price tags, which weren’t their faults, but were still expected to justify them. Torres failed to do the latter by the time he left and Arrizabalaga is going down that exact path.
Arrizabalaga is not a bad goalkeeper. He has quick reflexes and is not terrible with the ball at his feet. He, in fact, has had some good moments, like the penalty heroics in the Europa League (much like Torres’s Europa League heroics in 2013).
These moments, though, have occurred too scarcely to be considered definitive proof of world-class potential. Not when held alongside the multiple average and woeful moments he has had.
Terrible defence ahead of him or not, there are some clear drawbacks to his game that cannot be overlooked. His inability to organise the defence, deal with crosses or play out effectively from the back hurt the functioning of the team, creating avoidable dangerous situations. He will never be at fault for coming on top of a 1-v-1 situation where the striker is at an advantageous position.
The problem is that people have automatically come to expect that he has 0% chance of saving a goal where Petr Cech or Thibaut Courtois would have had a 15% chance. The problem is that while Arrizabalaga is not expected to save a free header, Alisson or Ederson would be, and would probably do it.
That is the differentiator in goal between Liverpool or Manchester City and Chelsea.
Arrizabalaga’s supporters point at David De Gea’s early years at Manchester United to demand patience for the keeper. But De Gea built on a shaky first season at United with a much improved second year. He showed tangible signs of working on his weaknesses. Arrizabalaga, on the other hand, seems to have stagnated, or worse, deteriorated this season, showing absolutely no signs of progress.
Much like Torres, Arrizabalaga could probably continue starting for Chelsea for years, as those responsible for bringing him in will not accept an investment failure to this degree.
There are two critical differences between Arrizabalaga and Torres. First, the striker was signed after proving his world-class ability while Arrizabalaga had only showcased flashes of being a good goalkeeper. Second, the goalkeeper has more time on his side before he is considered to be in the “prime of his career.”
Chelsea must not repeat the same mistakes they made with Torres. Arrizabalaga needs to be pushed to his limit with legitimate competition in the form of another young, promising goalkeeper. The management must ensure that Arrizabalaga earns his place in the team rather than feel like a guaranteed starter because of his transfer fee.
The world might laugh at the Blues for splurging again on a keeper, but urgent corrective action needs to be taken for overspending an unproven goalkeeper.
“Not a bad goalkeeper,” after all, cannot be the return on a £72 million investment.