The Pride of London
Fansided

Chelsea’s Werner may be profligate, but that isn’t the problem (Pt. 1)

By Olaoluwa Nwobodo

LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 15: Timo Werner of Chelsea in action during the Premier League match between Chelsea and Newcastle United at Stamford Bridge on February 15, 2021 in London, England. Sporting stadiums around the UK remain under strict restrictions due to the Coronavirus Pandemic as Government social distancing laws prohibit fans inside venues resulting in games being played behind closed doors. (Photo by Adrian Dennis - Pool/Getty Images)
LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 15: Timo Werner of Chelsea in action during the Premier League match between Chelsea and Newcastle United at Stamford Bridge on February 15, 2021 in London, England. Sporting stadiums around the UK remain under strict restrictions due to the Coronavirus Pandemic as Government social distancing laws prohibit fans inside venues resulting in games being played behind closed doors. (Photo by Adrian Dennis - Pool/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit

Chelsea didn’t get what it wanted from Alvaro Morata after making him its then-record signing from Real Madrid. Therefore, the Blues bought Timo Werner from RB Leipzig two seasons later for £47 million. The difference is that Morata was a back-up striker at Real Madrid prior to his move to Chelsea, and Werner was a key player in a high scoring Leipzig side. Chelsea had scoring problems and needed what Werner was providing for the Bundesliga side.

Werner scored a disappointing six league goals for the Blues last season, albeit having a team-high 12 assists. The German has also missed 18 clear cut chances for Chelsea in the league, creating frustration amongst fans—understandably. Werner has had some truly terrible misses, however, his lack of a high goal tally is not on him alone. Teams have as much a role to play in providing goals as strikers have in scoring them.

More from Chelsea FC Starting 11

Timo Werner’s struggles are not all on him, but other Chelsea players, as well.

To paint a picture of an extreme case, if a striker gets three clear cut chances every match and he misses two of the three, he’d end the season with 76 big chances missed. Many would be quick to scream out “oh my God, he missed 76 big chances!” However, if our hypothetical No. 9 converted the remaining opportunities in a 38-game season (assuming he plays all), he ends up with 38 league goals. The narrative then switches to “oh my God, he’s incredible, he scored 38 league goals!”

Stay with me, I’m going somewhere, I promise.

In that unrealistic example, the forward would score more than 38 league goals because he’d definitely convert some half chances, so he could end the season with up to 45 league goals. “Oh my God, 45 league goals…” You get the idea. Now, 76 big chances is a lot of chances to miss in a season, but 45 league goals is also an insane amount of goals, as well. No one would talk about the 76 big chances missed, so long as there’s the 45 league goals.

Now, imagine a striker who only gets one big chance per game when playing each match in a 38-game season. He misses 30 out of the 38 big chances, scoring eight goals. There’d be outrage because he’s only scored eight times. The perception of him would be opposite of the perception of the first striker who missed 76 big chances and scored 45, despite the latter missing more than double that of the former. The perception would be different because the latter still scored a lot more goals.

Here’s what’s interesting, both strikers’ goal tallies are almost beyond their control—emphasis on the ‘almost’. The perception would be that one scored 45 while the other scored eight, which would be true, yet one had access to 114 big chances, the other had access to just 38. I’ve mentioned before that it’s an extreme example, but the point is, if you want a striker to score 11 goals, you don’t give him 11 or 13 clear cut chances to score. Instead, you give him about 20 to 23 because he won’t convert everything he gets.

The rate of conversion of clear cut chances is less than people think. When you create 30 big chances for a player and they end up with four or five goals, you’re well within your rights to criticize them for wasting chances and hurting the team’s fortunes.

Leipzig created 3.5 big chances per game as a team (both through its own brilliance and through opposition errors). Werner scored 28 goals in the league, and missed 21 big chances. Leipzig’s ability to create 3.5 big chances per game was possible because of the inclusion of Werner in the side. His movement and positioning ensured that space could be created for himself and for others. This means that his teammates still had to do their part for these chances to be created, as often as they need to do it. If Werner is running in behind the defensive line, his teammates have to play him in, otherwise no big chances are created. Big chances are tied to top strikers being on the pitch, but the teammates need to do their part to make this a reality.

While Werner was at Leipzig, the German club’s 3.5 big chances per game tallied about 119 big chances in the 34-game season. Werner left Leipzig after the 2019/20 campaign and since then, it’s created 2.8 big chances per contest (or about 24 fewer chances). It’s also scored 21 goals fewer in the league. Werner’s goals have not been replaced at Leipzig yet. Werner accumulated a 24.04 xG last season, over-performing it and scoring 28 goals. The above numbers indicate that Leipzig benefited from Werner’s presence, and felt his absence when he left, so why didn’t Chelsea feel his presence? That question will be answered in part two.

Next. Chelsea's modern fullback: What's next for Reece James?. dark

Statistics found on SofaScore unless stated otherwise. xG stats are retrieved from Understat.

Home/Chelsea FC Starting 11