Watching Chelsea this season is not for the faint-hearted. Goals have flowed at both ends, advantages have been established almost immediately and clean sheets have proved extremely difficult to achieve. Xabi Alonso has turned Chelsea into one of the Premier League’s most exciting teams to watch. With 15 goals scored and 13 allowed across six matches, their games have averaged 4.7 goals. That makes them hugely entertaining for neutral viewers, but questions remain over whether this approach can deliver lasting success.
Chelsea’s 15 goals have come from an expected-goals figure of only 8.4, meaning they have exceeded that total by 6.6. Their conversion rate of 18.3% trails only Manchester City’s 19.1%, while eight of those goals were produced by attempts valued below 0.13 xG. Their five-goal display against Bournemouth, for example, came from just 0.75 xG.
Cole Palmer, João Pedro and Morgan Rogers form an attacking unit whose strengths fit together effectively. Palmer moves intelligently into open areas and controls attacking moves, Rogers disrupts defensive lines with his direct running and ability to carry the ball, while João Pedro stretches opponents with runs in behind and finishes chances calmly. Their willingness to exchange positions makes them even harder to contain, because focusing on one player inevitably creates room for another.
Chelsea’s attackers deserve praise for taking their opportunities so efficiently, although such exceptional finishing is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Defensive improvement is therefore essential. Alonso’s team have conceded 13 times, the joint-highest total in the division, and their run without a Premier League clean sheet stretches back 22 matches to January. That level of instability is not suitable for a team with serious European ambitions. Alonso’s strategy depends on sending players forward, and although a similar high-risk approach brought him Bundesliga success with Bayer Leverkusen, Chelsea have yet to develop enough security against counterattacks.
In possession, both wing-backs advance alongside the two attacking midfielders and João Pedro. This usually leaves three defenders and two midfielders responsible for covering, with one member of the central pair often moving further forward as well. Chelsea can consequently become exposed whenever possession changes hands. Their midfield must protect a vast amount of space, gaps appear behind the wing-backs and the back three are frequently forced into emergency defending.
The 3-0 loss to Brentford before the international break gave Alonso a clear warning. Andrews’ team repeatedly attacked the areas vacated by Chelsea’s advanced wing-backs. This forced the midfielders either to follow wide runners and leave the middle exposed or remain central and allow Brentford to advance along the flanks. Each goal highlighted a different weakness: pressure on the wing led to the corner behind the opener, Kevin Schade then raced beyond the defence before Thiago scored from the rebound, and Schade was later afforded enough room out wide to deliver the cross for a finish at the far post.
Chelsea became increasingly open as they committed more players forward in pursuit of a comeback. The match illustrated the fundamental problem Alonso must solve: greater attacking numbers make his side more dangerous, but they also create spaces that opponents can punish.
There were, however, promising indications during the 5-1 win over Bournemouth that Alonso had used the international break to work on an answer. At first glance, it resembled many of Chelsea’s other matches this season: they established a two-goal advantage within three minutes, finished far more efficiently than the xG numbers suggested, took part in another six-goal contest and again failed to keep a clean sheet. A closer examination, though, revealed signs of a more balanced setup.
The key adjustment was Chelsea’s switch to a 4-4-2 formation when they did not have the ball, replacing their usual defensive line of three with a back four. Josh Acheampong operated more as a conventional right-back, Levi Colwill and Maxence Lacroix narrowed the distance between them, and Pep Chavarría remained deeper on the left as Neto advanced down the right.
This gave Chelsea a more familiar defensive structure and made the gaps between units easier to control. Moisés Caicedo’s return also strengthened the side considerably, adding intensity, defensive cover and the ability to recover possession in front of the back line. He won seven duels, shared the highest tackle total in the match with four and recorded 11 defensive contributions, the second-best figure on the pitch. Jordan Henderson also added experience and discipline in midfield, coordinating the press with impressive organisation.
The adjustment was not a complete answer, as Chelsea continued to take risks and send significant numbers into attack. Bournemouth still found openings behind them on several occasions and registered 67 entries into Chelsea’s defensive third, compared with 39 at the opposite end. Alonso must now build a stronger collective understanding among his players. They need to identify the same cues, react together at the correct time and rely on one another to protect any spaces created by their movement.
Chelsea may be the Premier League’s most entertaining team, but excitement alone will not earn qualification for European competition. Their current finishing rate is unlikely to remain so clinical, making defensive progress crucial. The Bournemouth performance provided encouraging evidence that they can become better organised without losing their attacking edge, while Caicedo’s return restores much-needed energy and authority to midfield. If Alonso can turn these improvements into a consistent pattern, Chelsea could continue exciting their supporters while causing them considerably less anxiety.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
