Are the Chelsea attackers being judged too harshly as of late?

There’s a general consensus around the fanbase that Chelsea’s forwards are not good enough to help the club compete in a title race. This is largely fueled by the fact that the Blues have scored much less than Manchester City and Liverpool, two teams that seem to be better placed to compete for a league title due to their years of team building and consistency. Are the Chelsea forwards being judged too harshly, are there ways in which they can improve and what could be the problem (if any) with the Chelsea attack?

This narrative of the Blues’ forward being worse than the attacking players at other clubs has inspired this in-depth look at the attacking numbers of the forwards at Chelsea, Manchester City and Liverpool. This piece looks into the chance creation, big chance creation and shooting statistics. The data has been adjusted to account for the fact that some of the players have played much more than others, and some figures are subject to game time. At the same time, being on the pitch doesn’t necessarily mean being on the ball, and so some statistics have been adjusted to account for the fact that some players have far more chances to make certain types of passes.

Are Chelsea’s forwards being judged too harshly? We search for the answer here

The purpose of this is to be as fair as possible and to determine if other forwards truly outperform the Blues’ forwards in every facet of attack or if the Blues’ scoring numbers are impacted by things greater than the ability of the attacking personnel.

Statistics are as of January 18, 2022:

Figure 1.1: Big chances per 90

Figure 1.1 shows that Chelsea’s four best creators are on par with the best creators of Liverpool and Manchester City. In terms of big chances created per 90, the Blues have three attackers who have created 0.3 big chances per 90 or more. This is one less than the number of forwards hitting this mark on the other teams. Chelsea’s Hakim Ziyech and Liverpool’s Mohamed Salah are the only ones from either team that create over 0.5 big chances per 90. Two forwards from Manchester City cross that mark, as well.

0.3 big chances per 90 roughly means a big chance every three games, which is decent for a Premier League forward, as big chances are very difficult to create. The figure shows that Ziyech, Salah and Manchester City duo Riyad Mahrez and Phil Foden are the more creative forwards across these three teams.

Note: Not all chances created are big chances, but all big chances are chances.

Figure 1.2: Key passes per 90

In terms of chances created per 90, it is unsurprising that Jack Grealish and Mahrez are the only forwards across all three teams that create 2.5 chances per 90, as shown in Figure 1.2. Both Manchester City players. The Citizens create the most chances in the league and that will turn out to be relevant later on.

Another interesting observation is that four of Chelsea’s six forwards create more than two chances per 90. Both charts so far show that the Blues are on par with the other teams in terms of creation. On par in that, while they don’t have identical numbers with the others forwards, their numbers aren’t glaringly lower than the others when they’ve been lower. Some of Chelsea’s forwards create more per 90 than Raheem Sterling, Sadio Mane, Diogo Jota and Salah.

To lay emphasis on the chance creation, why not check the frequency with which these forwards create chances/make key passes?

Figure 1.3: Passes per key pass

For Figure 1.3, I created a chart that shows how frequent the forwards create chances/make key passes* per 90. I name the statistic “Passes per key pass.” This chart is one of particular interest.

The chart in Figure 1.3 shows that Callum Hudson-Odoi, Romelu Lukaku and Ziyech make the fewest passes between key passes, meaning that they make passes more frequently than other forwards compared to the amount of control they have of the ball. Note that this doesn’t mean they create more chances, it just means they create chances more frequently than other forwards compared to the amount of the ball they get. The premise is that a forward who makes a lot of passes has more opportunities to make key passes and should be expected to create more.

Another noticeable thing this chart shows is that of all the forwards in question, Chelsea also carries the torch for players who make the most passes between key passes. Kai Havertz makes a key pass every 88 passes. Timo Werner is also close to that end of the chart at 56. Numbers here within the 10 to 16 range are decent intervals for key passes. The purpose of highlighting how often a player’s pass is a key pass is to predict how often players can be expected to create chances when given the ball.

It is clear now that in terms of chance creation, Chelsea’s forwards are about on par with the rest of the league, and the differences in creation numbers aren’t alarming when different. What accounts for the alarming difference in goals between these three teams then? Chemistry.

Figure 1.4: Minutes played

Liverpool and Manchester City’s forwards have much better chemistry than those of the Blues. This isn’t a myth either, as the “Minutes played” chart shows a clear story. Figure 1.4 displays that four of Chelsea’s seven forwards under scrutiny appear on the lower end of the chart, indicating that they get fewer minutes than their counterparts. In fact, the Blues only have one attacker that has played more than 1,000 Premier League minutes this season. For context, Manchester City has four and Liverpool has three.

Chelsea also has four players that have played less than 800 minutes this season of a possible 1,900+ minutes available. The actual problem with Chelsea’s attack begins to show. Front lines need synergy as much as defenses do, probably more so. When the forwards don’t play together enough times, it takes from the attack because passes are slower, decisions aren’t made in time and valuable moments that could have caught the opponent out will inevitably be lost.

*-Key passes are also chances created. A key pass is a chance created.

Figure 1.5: Percentage of shots on target

Attackers of Liverpool and Manchester City shoot more than Chelsea forwards, but that’s to be expected as they create more chances than the Blues. How good are these shots though? Figure 1.5 shows that Chelsea has some of the best shooters under scrutiny, but also some of the worst. Perhaps that’s because the Blues are the most represented team on this chart.

Hudson-Odoi, Mason Mount and Christian Pulisic all record percentages of shots on target higher than 45 percent of the players under scrutiny. That’s three of the four best shooters on this list. Unfortunately, Havertz, Werner and Ziyech also record the worst percentages of shots on target,. However, these numbers are closer to those of the forwards of the other clubs.

Non-penalty expected goals per 90 (npxG/90) tells us more about the ability of these forwards to put themselves into good goal scoring positions.

Figure 1.6: Non-Penalty xG per 90

Attacking play is extremely difficult to analyze/compare for several teams at the same time because of game state, as well as a multitude of other factors that all play a part in it. This is why it’s much better to use on-the-ball actions to compare.

Chelsea was heavily represented in this study, featuring seven players. This is one more than Manchester City and three more than Liverpool. These numbers show that the Blues are not far off the other clubs in terms of technical quality of the attackers. However, it is clear that Tuchel has way too many options.

Liverpool’s Jurgen Klopp almost always uses Roberto Firmino, Mane and Salah, except when he decides to rotate out Firmino for Jota. Similarly, Pep Guardiola has a recognizable pattern of forwards he starts. Guardiola admittedly rotates a lot more than Klopp. There is still an ongoing debate in the Chelsea fanbase on who the Blues’ ‘best’ front three should be. Klopp has about four or five senior options for three spots in the front line. Guardiola has five senior options, as well. Tuchel, in comparison, has seven. Amongst those seven is a £97.5 million striker, four young, highly-rated talents under the age of 24 and two players in the prime of their careers.

Tuchel needs less options for the three attacking spots in his formation. It does not matter who he sells because almost every one of these Chelsea attackers has a following of people that will be very irritated to see them out of the team. In the end though, it must be done if the Blues are ever going to have any hope of building chemistry and synergy into the attack.

It is normal being envious of Manchester City and Liverpool, but Salah, Mane and Jota have started more than 10 games together this season alone. By comparison, Chelsea used a combination that it had never used before in the game against Manchester City at the Etihad last week. That combination was used again later, but that only increased the count of usage to two. The distribution of minutes shows a clear difference in the way the attackers are being selected.

Conclusion

This study has shown that while some Liverpool and Manchester City attackers have been truly exceptional, a majority of them haven’t been mind-blowing in many key attacking metrics. The formation, supporting personnel, coach’s influence and many other things see that these clubs create quite a lot and also score so much. Why? It’s simple, Liverpool and Manchester City are not where they are right now mainly because of their attackers and neither is Chelsea.

What do you think about Chelsea’s attacking personnel: are they good enough and can the Blues compete for the league title with them? Let us know in the comments or on Twitter!