Mason Mount’s absence and why it hurt Chelsea most against City

A common refrain since Chelsea’s lost to Manchester City was that the Blues missed Mason Mount. A common counter, because there literally always will be one when Mount is involved, was that the same didn’t hold true against Tottenham.

This shouldn’t be something that has to be said, but different games against different opponents require different things. Tottenham is not City and how Chelsea approaches a game against one is not like the other. So let’s get into why Mount wasn’t the missing piece against Spurs but was the missing piece against City so we can lay this comparison to bed.

Against Spurs, the Blues were running into an issue they have commonly at least since the last international break: too many cooks in the kitchen. Both Mount and Kai Havertz (and Hakim Ziyech) want to get into similar areas. They do similar things and having any combination of those guys on together is bound to see them trip over one another. Tottenham also recognized that if they marked out the pivot and the inside forwards, Chelsea would have a much harder time of building out (especially without fast wingbacks).

Spurs planned worked well in the first half as Chelsea struggled to get a foothold through their marking. Mount was certainly not the worst player on the pitch, but he made the most sense to come off. The Blues switched to 3-5-2 late in the first half and that destabilized Spurs’ plan, but Thomas Tuchel still seemed upset about Mount trying to win the game by himself. He took him off for the steadier N’Golo Kante.

But more than anything, that game changed because of the early second half goal scored by Thiago Silva off a corner. The formation switch and Mount coming off steadied the ship, but that goal was what really changed the game. It forced Spurs to abandon their conservative plan (seem familiar?) and come out to play. Chelsea then found more space through the lines and punished their London rivals for it. In short, the change in the game state was the true pivotal factor, not the presence or absence of Mount.

Tuchel opted for the 3-5-2, and the midfield used against Spurs, for City. The plan was the right one, but the execution was lacking. City’s first shot on goal was the Gabriel Jesus goal. Until then, the Blues had done well to clog the pitch and prevent City from getting any real control. But, when Chelsea looked to counter, they kept running into the same issue. Timo Werner and Romelu Lukaku would find themselves isolated. It was too easy to mark out one or the other and prevent any connection between the two. The wingbacks couldn’t get up in support quickly enough and the Blues would quickly return to the back foot.

When Chelsea’s used 3-5-2 before under Tuchel, it’s almost always been with Mount as one of the three. That’s important because he would be able to get forward and effectively recreate the 3-4-3/3-4-2-1 shape while the Blues had the ball. The trio of Mateo Kovacic, Jorginho, and N’Golo Kante lacked that, just like they lacked it while Maurizio Sarri was manager. Then, the solution eventually became Ruben Loftus-Cheek. Loftus-Cheek could have been the answer against City as well, but Tuchel opted for Kai Havertz first and understandably given Loftus-Cheek only recently started to show he still has a Chelsea level to him.

But the reason why Mount, more than anyone else, was the missing piece is that he is practically made for the role. The reason he works so well as an inside forward is because he’s comfortable shuttling from midfield to the forward spots and wide of both. If he’s an eight by trade, this is quite literal the role for him. Loftus-Cheek was the same once and could be again, in theory. Havertz and Ziyech are both a bit too aggressive to pull off the same sort of role against City. Kovacic was supposed to be in this sort of role back when Sarri saw him loaned in but Kovacic almost always prefers to stay behind the play. It was a match that truly cried out for the exact type of player Mount is.

And, again, the need for Mount against City is separate from the Spurs match. The Spurs match wasn’t asking for a midfielder to shuffle between lines, it was just asking for a way to break the marking. The switch to 3-5-2 helped with that in that match, but the early goal really tipped the apple cart.

Should 3-5-2 remain the plan with Werner and Lukaku up top, Mount’s the best suited player in the midfield three to connect the duo to the rest of the squad. The Blues may not have won against City with Mount, but they certainly would have been able to connect the forwards better.