Chelsea kept a clean sheet against Crystal Palace - but still proved Enzo Maresca’s point about the need for a replacement for Levi Colwill.
A few weeks ago, Levi Colwill was telling the press that he believed Chelsea could win the Premier League. Then, because the footballing gods are nothing if not capricious, the defender was struck down with an ACL injury and Enzo Maresca was left with a headache ahead of the new season.
Maresca told the media that he was “trying to find a solution internally” but also that “the club knows exactly what I think and we will see what happens - I think we need a central defender.” In short, Chelsea’s head coach wants a new player to shore up his squad with his best centre-back out for most of the season, but knows that he likely won’t be getting one.
Chelsea’s remaining transfer budget seems to be slated for Xavi Simons and Alejandro Garnacho. That leaves Maresca to choose from a list of centre-backs who are either very young or who have largely been viewed as back-ups so far. But after keeping a clean sheet in the 0-0 draw with Crystal Palace on Sunday, does it still look like Chelsea need a new defender? Or are they strong enough at the back to mount a title challenge anyway?
Chelsea’s defence remain a solid unit without Levi Colwill
Although Chelsea’s defence didn’t necessarily receive rave reviews last season, only Liverpool and Arsenal conceded less frequently – and based on their performance against Crystal Palace, their back four remains tight enough to keep plenty of clean sheets.
Sunday’s centre-back pairing of Trevoh Chalobah and Josh Acheampong mostly held up well. There were a couple of scares, with Acheampong betraying his inexperience with a poor pass directly to Eberechi Eze in the first half, but the 19-year-old was excellent in the air and in one-on-one situations, winning six out of his seven ground duels, and Palace had very little joy in and around the penalty area.
Chalobah is a known quantity and a very composed defender whose only significant error against Palace was a bad miss at the other end, and they will soon be able to call upon Tosin Adarabioyo again after the towering defender missed out with a minor injury. Wesley Fofana and Benoît Badiashile represent another £105m worth of defensive talent further back in reserve.
Colwill’s absence still presents something of a problem with numbers as it’s plain that Maresca does not believe in Badiashile, while the unfortunate Fofana has had so many fitness problems that his capacity to contribute has to be in doubt – but either way, Chelsea have still have very decent defenders to call upon, and likely enough of them.
They also have arguably the Premier League’s most effective defensive shield in front of them in the form of Moisés Caicedo, who was exceptional again against Palace, shutting down any number of potential attacks and ensuring that the visitors’ playmakers seldom had time or space to achieve much of note. Throw in a penchant for maintaining possession – 72% on Sunday – and Chelsea have every reason to believe that they can keep their sheets fresh and clean despite Colwill’s injury.
Given that they have a seemingly effective combination of personal, coaching and system and a certain amount of depth, it’s not too hard to sympathise with the apparent view of the team’s transfer team, led by Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart, which is that Chelsea don’t need another defender and instead should reinforce their attack with Simons and Garnacho. It’s a view which was reinforced by a game in which Palace were largely kept at bay while Chelsea struggled to create and convert chances at the other end.
The question, one tangentially raised by Maresca ahead of the weekend, is whether the defence is a part of the problem with Chelsea’s attack. There is, after all, more to being a defender these days than merely defending…
Why Chelsea will miss Colwill – and why Enzo Maresca may be right after all
While Chelsea dominated the ball against Crystal Palace, they failed to make the best use of it – often stuck making pedestrian sideways passes and seldom putting Palace on the back foot. Maresca’s side completed 510 passes all told, but few of them counted for anything substantial.
Cole Palmer touched the ball just 48 times in 90 long minutes. Debutant Jamie Gittens got only 28 touches before he was substituted before the hour mark. João Pedro only got 23 looks at the ball in his time on the field.
Damningly, João Pedro and his eventual replacement Liam Delap only got to touch the ball inside the Palace penalty area six times in total. Chelsea had control of the game but failed to find ways through Palace’s disciplined back three, and the result was a relative paucity of clear-cut chances.
Some of the responsibility for that failure of creativity has to fall upon the shoulders of the midfield – Enzo Fernández was certainly some way from his best – and much credit has to be given to Palace’s work rate and positional nous, but Chelsea need to find ways to be more dynamic with possession. That’s a process which starts at the back.
In discussing Colwill’s absence and his desire for a new signing prior to the game, Maresca noted that “we build with Levi in the middle”, adding that the England international “was a huge part of our build-up”. He wasn’t exaggerating.
They were undoubtedly missing some drive with the ball from the defensive line. Acheampong has an impressive passing range but used it sparingly on Sunday, perhaps preferring to keep it simple given that it was only his third league start. Chalobah, likewise, is hardly poor in possession, but on average attempted passes of over 15 yards in distance only around two thirds as often as Colwill did for Chelsea last season.
Colwill gives Chelsea the kind of precise, quick and penetrative downfield passing that allows them to break through opposing midfields and get at their back lines more quickly and efficiently. Last season, only Manchester City attempted or completed more ‘medium distance’ (15-30 yard) passes over the course of the campaign. This time around, Chelsea may be find it hard to rack up quite such a high number without Colwill, or at least to be so effective with them.
All of which is a rather nerdy, stats-driven way of observing that Chelsea like to get the ball from back to front quickly without hoofing it long, and Colwill makes it much easier for them to do that. Suggesting that his absence was the primary cause of their lack of attacking threat on Sunday is going too far, but it was probably a factor.
Maresca was at pains to point out that the absent Adarabioyo is “the only one who can do that job well” and perhaps with the gigantic Mancunian back in the side Chelsea will find a bit of that quick downfield movement again, but until then one takes Maresca’s point – he has set the team up to benefit from defenders who distribute the ball in a certain way, and without players who can do that they are operating at a disadvantage and lack some cutting edge. The pace of their attacking play suffers.
Still, Maresca does not have the final say on transfers at Stamford Bridge and is likely to have to make do with what he has – which is, in fairness, a defensive positional group that a great many managers would be rather jealous of. Chelsea needed to be better on the ball in a number of ways on Sunday, and Colwill’s presence would not have solved all of the apparent problems on their own. A rather indifferent debut by Gittens and a continuation of Palmer’s curiously subdued form in the league also served to make the case for signing Garnacho and Simons respectively.
But when the best teams in the country are so strong and offer the chasing pack so little room for error, one wonders whether the absence of Colwill - or a defender much like him - could make it that much harder for Chelsea to challenge for the title that Colwill himself believed was possible. The defender’s injury may prove to be one of the fine margins that makes a serious title challenge too much to ask this season, and which stop Chelsea from reaching the next level.
Continue Reading