Was Thomas Tuchel to blame for Chelsea’s misfiring attack?

‘TT’ made the right decision. It was the right decision because you’d logically win more games with very good defensive performances than with very good offensive performances. Why? Teams are more in control of their defensive outcomes compared to their attacking outcomes. You’re more likely to go from a 0-0 scoreline to a 1-0 or 2-0 win than you are to go from a 1-0 down scoreline to a 2-1 or 3-1 win. The baseline is you cannot lose if you don’t concede. This made optimizing the part of the squad that got you more clean sheets smarter than focusing on the element which produced more finishes.

Tuchel’s gamble was also predicated on the premise that he had a good enough attack to put away enough chances in games to win them if they didn’t concede. He was right. Chelsea’s forwards scored seven out of nine goals in the second half of the Champions League campaign en route to winning it in the 2020-21 season. Chelsea had the best defensive record in the competition that year, and the forwards did enough to win the games.

Unfortunately, while it was completely fair to sacrifice the attack for the system, the fact remained that the attack was sacrificed for the system and it made all of them worse for wear. Think about it, if a complete set of attackers are all grossly underperforming after a system has been changed to optimize the defense and midfield, what’s more likely? That the attackers are underperforming because they were never good OR that the attackers are underperforming because the system they’re in was not deployed to get the best out of them?