Chelsea has no plan B because they are already using it

There has been talk recently about Chelsea’s plan B. 4-3-3 was plan B all along, so it might be time to reconsider plan A once again.

Managers are their patterns. Over time, they show their preferences and tendencies. That is why Antonio Conte’s falling out with Chelsea’s board could have been seen coming. It is why the narrative of Maurizio Sarri being a developer of talent had little ground to stand on when he kept getting former players and ignoring the youth when he had other options.

It is also why, inevitably, Frank Lampard prefers the 4-2-3-1 formation. Lampard began and spent most of his time at Derby County using the formation. He started his first season at Chelsea in the shape. The second season he did the same. When things start at zero for all involved, Lampard starts with the 4-2-3-1.

4-3-3 with its dual eights was plan B. Lampard started using it after it became clear the 4-2-3-1 in its current iteration was not ready. He did this last season as well both with 4-3-3 and the 3-4-3 as well. 4-2-3-1 was always plan A. So, if plan B has now failed, that leaves a return to plan A, plan C (the 3-4-3), or something entirely different.

The 4-3-3 worked for what Chelsea needed it for because it is naturally a controlling formation. It offers a very solid defensive structure in a 4-5-1 while always giving a player an outlet on possession. If the dual eights rotate with their wide men, it becomes very hard to stop progression in wide areas.

Control, however, often comes at the cost of ingenuity. Recent performances have shown that. Without Hakim Ziyech, Chelsea has few ideas in creation. The eights are not rotating with wingers they are unfamiliar with and Olivier Giroud in the center is simply waiting for crosses instead of creating space for others. It has all gone flat.

4-2-3-1 offers less control but can offer more of that ingenuity. It can defend either as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 but it can also commit an extra player forward on to the press. Of course, that comes at the expense of a player prepared to defend a counter and it is harder to build out of the back with four players (two center backs and two midfielders) than it is five (the centerbacks and three midfielders). That does, however, lead it to being more direct which could suit a player like Timo Werner who is used to latching on to balls with space ahead of him.

The main issue Chelsea had using this shape was finding the right pivot. No combination seems to offer everything that is needed at once. That is surely why Chelsea has pursued Declan Rice and why, if there is a signing in January, it will be him. If 4-3-3 is stuck to, then he could be depth with N’Golo Kante but it would make more sense for Lampard to revert to his preference and play Rice with Kante in that pivot.

Of course, in many ways the 3-4-3 also has a pivot. The main difference is the extra centerback for defense and, with a player like Cesar Azpilicueta, an extra player to push forward to join midfield when possession is going well. Chelsea’s issue now is not defense, but offense, so a 3-4-3 may not necessarily be the right answer. It would likely make the Blues more direct, but it would solve a problem that isn’t present. Of course, there were rumors of Rice playing as a centerback should he join, so that could offer the Blues a different option in the pivot.

It may be worth waiting for the return of Hakim Ziyech to see if the current bluntness of the 4-3-3 is made sharp again. In the meantime, or perhaps even if Ziyech returns, the Blues may have built up enough of a defensive base and understanding that Lampard’s preferred 4-2-3-1 is viable again. If the 4-3-3 is already plan B, it might be worth putting that card back in the deck in case it is needed later. Return to plan A or even consider the 3-4-3 to stop the rot, and have 4-3-3 to fall back on as needed.