F365’s early loser: Lampard’s Chelsea flattered by rush to judgement

Seb Stafford Bloor

If Chelsea’s November and early December felt patchy, that’s because it was. The intangible warmth of Frank Lampard’s return may still have its glow but, ahead of this game with Bournemouth, he and they hadn’t won back-to-back games since October.

That binary sequence will now continue and, with the added testimony of this dismal defeat, can be trusted as a description of a side who haven’t yet the dexterity to navigate effectively around the Premier League.

Sometimes teams like Bournemouth smash and grab their way to points at places like Stamford Bridge, riding their luck, feeding off the growing anxiety, and the taking of that one late chance that everyone in the stadium knows is coming. It’s one of those inevitabilities in football and, as such, isn’t really cause for alarm.

But this was concerning, because it only superficially suited that description. Chelsea didn’t exert that much pressure and they can’t take any consolation from knowing that they deserved these dropped points.

There was some mitigation in Bournemouth’s performance. Having lost five in a row, their resilience will have encouraged Eddie Howe and suggested that a corner, if not yet turned, is at least now in sight. This was better. Better than Spurs, better than Liverpool and much better than that dismal loss to ten-man Crystal Palace.

They deserved their win and they worked really hard for it too. When the full-time whistle blew and Howe’s players celebrated in their little clumps, that scene described everything that had been at the heart of their victory.

But those qualities – organisation, discipline and boundless energies – should have been easy for Chelsea to overcome. They’re a talented side. They’ve produced the football to prove it. But this was a step back and a loss which makes you wonder whether, at this stage of their union, Lampard and Chelsea have been badly over-estimated.

He will have been particularly discouraged by his side’s lack of craft. The first half had caught them in the wrong mood. They looked tired and jaded, with long, right-to-left diagonals the limit of their attacking plan. Direct football, yes, but not with any purpose. These weren’t arrows or exocets, but big loopy balloon balls under which defences can quickly re-organise. Needless to say, the crowd didn’t enjoy it. When Rudiger picked out a steward once more, early in the second-half, Stamford Bridge became as hostile in response as it has been since Lampard arrived.

It’s probably right to wonder about inhibition as a root cause. It’s clear that Lampard’s younger players have benefitted from a fairly benevolent crowd to this point. But these recent weeks have brought a confluence of factors which have changed the mood: the CAS ruling, the declining results, and the improvement in rivals (Tottenham and Manchester United). Not only are there problems, but the club is now free to fix them.

That seemed to weigh heavily on Saturday afternoon, as Chelsea showed all the signs of creative inertia. Bournemouth ‘keeper Aaron Ramsdale made one good save in the first half and two in the second, but – generally – the rear-guard action was limited to routine headers and composed interventions. It was never desperate. It never had to be.

What was really troubling, though, was just how little the game changed. Having had its pattern established in the first-half, Lampard was never able to alter its rhythm. Bournemouth spent the entire game facing the same questions and answering them with relative ease. Chelsea’s accuracy would never improve. In fact, it’s difficult to recall a phase of theirs which lasted more than four passes. Centre-back to full-back, full-back to centre-back. Centre-back or midfielder to… interception.

Perhaps this was an off day. Or maybe even a hangover from another European week and what was ultimately a long, taxing night against Lille. But it seemed to have a more malignant diagnosis. At no point, for instance, did any of the attacking players take responsibility for finding the ball which would have changed the game. Not Mount, not Pulisic. And not Hudson-Odoi or Kovacic when they came on.

Tammy Abraham had just 29 touches of the ball in 90 minutes. Michy Batshuayi had four in 18. It was emblematic of the poverty of supply, of course, but it also described a recurring an issue which is becoming familiar – Chelsea’s impotence against teams who are happy just to stop them playing. Really, this was just the West Ham defeat again. Lots of possession and lots of benign statistics compiled, but with little overall effect.

It’s something which Lampard is well aware of and he voluntarily mentioned in his press-conference, without being prompted. He understands what this sort of challenge asks of his players.

“Can you do something extra? Can you find ways (to win the game)? And that’s been a problem for us.”  

Is that really it though? Shouldn’t there be a more systemic response to a problem which – ultimately – Chelsea have had to cope with since Roman Abramovich arrived. Most teams will defend at Stamford Bridge. Almost all of them will be happy with a draw. On the basis that that will be the dynamic in the majority of home games, Chelsea need to do more than lean on individual expression.

They also need to defend much better. A lack of penetrative football was one issue on Saturday, the repeated exposure and vulnerability to Bournemouth’s counter-attack was another. Nobody in the ground saw Dan Gosling scoring in the precise way that he did, but most will accept that the visitors had promised a goal for well over an hour. Ryan Fraser was constantly dangerous. Josh King was a threat, even in one-on-three situations and even when pincered between Antonio Rudiger and Kurt Zouma. And, as they do to most teams, Howe’s set-pieces made Chelsea very, very nervous.

So, again, expression is just one issue. It may seem like a contradictory analysis, but Chelsea are both too loose and too tight. Suddenly they’re inhibited by their lack of form and what lies on the horizon. That explains the square passes and percentage balls. But perhaps this recent run – and this specific result – exposes that there really isn’t enough of a coaching imprint on their identity either. Instinct and talent is still too important.

They’re a group of very good players. That’s already been proven. But perhaps we’ve been much too quick to buy into this union and celebrate Lampard’s Chelsea. Are they even properly his side yet? Do they really reflect his ideas for how the game should be played? Not on this evidence.

Seb Stafford-Bloor is on Twitter.