Having seen Chelsea’s recent performances against Manchester City in the Carabao Cup final and the determined victory against Spurs, one wonders whether the embattled Maurizio Sarri has been mugging up on his biology. As a former banker he is more likely to be familiar with the aphorism “Adapt or Die” commonly used in most business texts. Either way, it seems very appropriate to his current situation.
The Chelsea supporters who vented their anger at him during the dreadful defeat to Manchester United in the FA Cup a couple of weeks ago, did so predominantly due to his perceived stubbornness. His firm commitment to playing ‘his football’, ‘Sarri-ball’, in spite of the evidence that it wasn’t working was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Add to this his habit of only using around 14 members of the squad; an unwillingness to risk the talented young players ready to break through to the first team; metronomic like for like substitutions and the bewilderment as Chelsea’s open and vulnerable defence were torn apart again and again. Little surprise that the usually supportive Chelsea supporters made their feelings on the matter audibly clear.
It seems that the penny has dropped. Perhaps sensing a real risk that his employers were getting twitchy, Sarri, out of nowhere, apparently can change his mind. Perhaps when push comes to shove, his inner pragmatism has won over. So much for ideology when you want to keep your job. The ex-banker has rediscovered his prudence.
This has been all but confirmed in recent interviews with players such as Antonio Rudiger, as well as the evidence of our own eyes. Rudiger made the salient point that Sarri’s tactics have indeed adapted as the team have defended deeper against opposition who are equipped to expose the high-press. Many supporters have been saying for months that while laudable, ‘Sarri-ball’ without the right players to execute it perfectly, can be horribly exposed in the Premier League.
The Premier League is different to Serie A. Teams will press the opposition individually and ‘Registas’ like Jorginho will be targeted and closed down so that he has no time on the ball irrespective of whether there is enough movement in front of him or not. The Premier League as well as being much quicker than its Italian counterpart, is also much more physical. No surprise then that Rudiger who is a commanding physical presence at the back for Chelsea has encouraged Jorginho to put on some muscle weight in the gym.
I confess to being surprised by Sarri’s change of heart, so strident were his claims that he cared more for his ideology than for the results on the pitch. But in truth, his career at Napoli started in much the same way. After a poor start to his Napoli career, the players agitated for a change in formation where they could play to their strengths and mitigate any vulnerabilities. As a result, ‘Sarri-ball’ was born and he hasn’t deviated since, until now at Chelsea, one presumes after a similar discussion with the players.
It may well have earned Sarri a reprieve, although at Chelsea reprieves tend to be temporary and sackings come sooner rather than later. But for the supporters it is certainly encouraging and the recent improved performances have provided hope that Chelsea can challenge for a top four finish this season. The fact that Sarri has shown that he is prepared to adapt is also encouraging and opens up the possibility that he may bend in other areas too.
The recent laboured win against struggling Fulham revealed other issues that need addressing if Sarri is to ultimately succeed at Chelsea. Not for the first time this season Chelsea conceded a terrible goal from a set piece. It gives rise to the suspicion that zonal marking, often found out in the Premier League, is not working as it should. Perhaps without the vocal organisational and leadership skills of a John Terry or a Petr Cech this is no surprise, but clearly this is an area Sarri needs to address.
The biggest problem against Fulham was recognised by Sarri in the post-match press conference. Fulham gained momentum in the last half an hour as Chelsea players visibly tired. Considering their efforts in extra time in the Carabao Cup final and the intensity of the Spurs match this was hardly surprising. How much of this is due to Sarri’s unwillingness to rotate his squad, relying instead on a core of 14 players in the main? Of course, the counter argument, as it was under Antonio Conte and Jose Mourinho before him is that he doesn’t have quality in depth or simply just doesn’t trust many of his squad when his job is on the line.
The bigger issue is that like Napoli, where Sarri relied on a similarly small group of players, they perennially burnt out and faded away at the business end of the season, leaving Napoli and Sarri trophy less. Will this be a similar issue for Chelsea as they chase down a place in the top four, in a far more gruelling league?
Furthermore, the over reliance on Eden Hazard, while hardly surprising or a new phenomenon is worrying when he is the only player Chelsea has capable of winning a game on his own. Which makes Sarri’s reluctance to risk Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Callum Hudson-Odoi all the more frustrating. It is true that they lack the experience and defensive awareness of Willian, Pedro and Kovacic, but they certainly offer something unpredictable and arguably a more direct attacking threat. Of further concern is that Chelsea’s brightest prospects may well leave if they continue to be given scraps in terms of game time.
Arguably the biggest conundrum facing Sarri at the moment was also evident in the win against Fulham. Understandably, Sarri reverted back to his more traditional attacking formation. As a result, Chelsea were far more threatening having 20 shots, 7 on target. This was a vast improvement on the matches against Spurs and Manchester City where Chelsea managed just one shot on target in 210 minutes of football. However, Fulham were allowed 12 shots, 5 of them on target. A better side than Fulham would have surely punished Chelsea.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Playing ‘Sarri-ball’ Chelsea look more threatening but far more open and vulnerable defensively. When Sarri adapts to allow the team to defend deeper they become defensively more solid but are toothless up front and don’t create. If Sarri is to succeed at Chelsea this problem will need to be solved and more quickly than the revised timeline he now envisages of a season or even a season and a half before ‘Sarri-ball’ is seen in full attacking harmony. It is ironic that Sarri faces a similar dilemma to Antonio Conte and Jose Mourinho in sacrificing creativity for defensive solidity and an over reliance on the individual inspiration of Eden Hazard. We do indeed seem to be a long way from the creative team ethic he prefers to cultivate. {source; football.london}