Chelsea: Lampard’s in-game management did not fail vs. Southampton

Many fingers have been pointing in the direction of Frank Lampard, but his in-game management wasn’t the reason for Chelsea’s meltdown.

Chelsea fans always look for something—or someone—to blame after results like the one against Southampton. It’s understandable, as it’s very frustrating to have seeming control over a game and then not go home with maximum points. However, Yoruba people say “Taban sunkun, ka ma ri ran”, which, when roughly translated, means “even when we’re crying, we should still see clearly”. Frank Lampard’s in-game management simply did not fail in the Blues’ latest disappointing result.

When irritated and frustrated, many fans try to pull reasons out of the air to explain the loss—or in this case, the draw. However, not everything happens because of a substitution, a player starting or a non-substitution. A rough example of this was Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang’s second goal in the FA Cup final, where many fans said Kurt Zouma should have showed Aubameyang to his weaker foot (left). One wonders how that would have made a difference, seeing as Aubameyang did score the goal with—and get this—his left foot!

Is it that Zouma couldn’t have done better? Of course he could’ve, but if Nicolas Anelka hadn’t converted a penalty in Mourinho’s first season at Chelsea, the Blues have gone unbeaten that season. If John Terry doesn’t miss that penalty in the 2008 Champions League final, Chelsea maybe still doesn’t win that shootout—if, if, if.

More from Premier League

• Bournemouth 0-0 Chelsea player ratings: Abysmal, reckless, wasteful
• Bournemouth 0-0 Chelsea: 3 Blues talking points
• Chelsea vs Bournemouth: 3 things to look out for on the south coast
• Is there cause for concern about Chelsea being in 12th place again?
• Chelsea’s risky youth gamble amidst turbulent times

This not the first time that Chelsea has given away a lead; it’s something that happens when you have a young squad. Holding one’s nerves and not getting jittery is easier to do on paper for players who have played a considerable number of years at the top level. The more the Blues play, the better they get at game management.

Therefore, no, Chelsea didn’t concede a third goal because Mason Mount went off because Mount shouldn’t have been on the pitch in the first place. He wasn’t effective. Mount is crucial to how Chelsea plays, but if that is true, it means that Mount is of no use to Chelsea at 50 percent fitness. Mount won four duels, but lost five, he also made just one tackle and one recovery in 72 minutes. Lampard had to select a line-up with the Sevilla game in mind, so it would be unfair to say he selected a wrong line-up. Chelsea lost control of the match the moment Southampton scored its first goal. Chelsea had two shots in the second half, compared to Southampton’s nine; the in-game management did not implode for the Blues.

Nor did the game end level because “Andreas Christensen started”. Bar the scuba diving red card, Christensen has been one of Chelsea’s more stable defenders. He did well against Southampton, as well. The Dane, like Zouma, won 100 percent of his aerial duels (3/3), made six clearances and blocked one shot. In other words, the 24-year-old did his job. His involvement doesn’t suddenly become an issue because of his poor performances last season.

Chelsea didn’t concede a third goal because Hakim Ziyech was introduced into the match, either. In the 18 minutes he was on the pitch, he did almost as much as Mount. This included taking a perfect corner that Havertz didn’t score on—granted headers are difficult to convert.

Lampard couldn’t have brought in any player to make Chelsea more solid defensively, especially with Mateo Kovacic out of the squad for the day. The most defensively solid player was on the pitch already in N’Golo Kante and Chelsea was struggling. The other option was to bring in a creative player to try and add to the lead and put the game out of reach—it was a good plan. If Havertz converts the header, the Ziyech substitution would have been hailed as genius.

Why did the Blues concede three then? In the Premier League, sloppiness gets punished quickly. Teams in this league gain confidence quickly. Southampton has been difficult for Chelsea to put away in recent times. The Blues took a two-goal lead and stagnated, their opponents met them at 2-2, they made several errors in the defensive third that the opponent punished swiftly. The players lacked game management and that is something that’ll improve as they play more matches. The players are tasked with making the right decisions at every point in the game in Lampard’s system, that is going to take time. Although we can, we don’t need to cite the Guardiolas and the Klopps to know this.

What we can do is acknowledge the players made mistakes. We can even criticize players for not doing enough on the day, but we cannot dwell on it; mistakes happen. Chelsea made two errors leading to goal, Southampton made none. When you make that many errors in a match, you sign off your right to maximum points, and anything you get from the match becomes a bonus. On to the next one.