Battle of London- Arsenal vs Chelsea

Arsenal have just picked up where they left off from last season, winning their first two games without conceding a goal (and barely getting out of 2^nd gear).  Chelsea have secured their six points in wildly contrasting fashion, scoring seven goals and conceding five with some of the most high-octane, exposed counterattacking football you will wish to see.  This study in contrasts should make this a game to remember, presenting Chelsea with an opportunity to upset the status quo and land an early psychological blow in the title race.  I just wanted to point out a couple of pros and cons for both sides ahead of this weekend’s mega-clash. 

Arsenal 

Pros

1. Historical Advantage

There was a time where Arsenal were Chelsea’s whipping boys.  Who can forget Eden Hazard bouncing off the entire Arsenal side like he was in a pinball machine back in 2017?  Times have most certainly changed.  Arsenal are unbeaten in their last nine Premier League games against the Blues (six wins and three draws).  Chelsea have lost their last four away trips to the Bridge by an aggregate score of 11-2, last tasting victory in 2021.  In fact, Arsenal have lost just one of their last 29 Prem League London derbies.  Arteta has managed to turn the Emirates into a fortress, and you can expect a rowdy atmosphere come Sunday afternoon. 

2. Defensive Solidity

The protracted absences of William Saliba and Jurrien Timber would be a problem for any other top European outfit.  Not Arsenal.  The Gunners have looked as defensively rigid as ever in their first two outings, conceding just one shot on target over both encounters.  Mosquera has stepped up to the plate manfully while Ben White has looked as solid as I can remember.  Califiori has been a minor revelation down that left-hand side, providing genuine cutting-edge without shirking his defensive responsibility.  You must fancy their chances of containing a Chelsea side that only seems to have the ball for a 3^rd of a match. 

Cons

1. Lack of Flair

I’m clutching at straws looking for signs of weakness.  But there are a number of Arsenal fans who are not overly enamoured with the current playing style (especially considering their lack of attacking signings).  Arsenal are a side that builds from the back, ratcheting up the pressure through resilience and repetition.  What if Cole Palmer mazes his way through the Gunners’ defence to give Chelsea an early lead?  Is this current, more stoic Arsenal side capable of chasing the game against a side that counterattacks so efficiently?

2. The Saliba factor

While Villa failed to get one shot on target on Monday night, they did spur a couple of gilt-edged counterattacking opportunities.  I don’t think that the front-three of Pedro, Palmer and Rogers is going to be as obliging.  Saliba has a masterful, three-dimensional view of the game that would have been ideal for containing the counterattacking threat posed by Chelsea.  I can see a world where the more inexperienced Mosquera rashly brings down a Chelsea player on a quick counterattack (Saliba is incredible in those situations). 

Chelsea

Pros

1. Attacking Flair

Just as he did at Leverkusen, Xabi Alonso is easing this Chelsea side into his 3-4-2-1 philosophy.  Leverkusen started as a heavily counterattacking unit before slowly integrating into a more possession-based side.  Chelsea have barely had the ball in their first two games, averaging around 32% possession.  Yet despite this, the Blues have scored seven goals, with the attacking trio of Palmer, Pedro and Rogers relishing the freedom to pounce on the counterattack.  The speed and incisiveness of Chelsea’s attacking unit can be a thing of beauty. 

2. Getting the best out of Neto

While the likes of Palmer and Pedro have been getting all the plaudits, Pedro Neto has quietly been Chelsea’s most transformative player.  I really think Alonso may have unlocked something playing him in that right wing-back role.  Neto has struggled for consistency playing as an out-and-out winger, lacking the productivity of an elite wide man.  This new hybrid role affords him the opportunity to maraud the wing without the explicit demand for goals and assists.  It reminds me of the miracle that Conte pulled off when converting Victor Moses into a makeshift wing-back.  I expect him to offer Calafiori plenty of food for thought on that right-hand side. 

Cons

1. Tactical unease

Xabi Alonso is in the ideal situation to implement change.  He is at a club that is willing to spend ludicrous sums of money (they have the fiscal responsibility of Nicolas Cage).  Also, the fact that Cheslea have no European football is a massive advantage, affording Alonso the opportunity to trim the bloated squad and create some more consistent combinations.  Still, this new formation is going to take some time to bed in (as evidenced by the five goals shipped in the first two games).  The Chelsea back-three of Fofana, Lacroix and Colwill may find themselves exposed by the slick passing and interplay of this Arsenal frontline. 

2. The Midfield Dilemma

This is really the biggest area of concern for Chelsea, and possibly the defining tactical mismatch of the upcoming clash.  Moises Caicedo played a few minutes against Brighton but was quickly brought off for a reoccurrence of his leg issue.  With Enzo departed and Caicedo injured, Chelsea are seriously lacking athleticism and bite in the middle of the park.  That’s probably one of the key reasons that they have been surrendering so much possession.  Lavia and Reece James are the likely double pivot for Sunday’s clash.  How do you see them faring against Rice, Guimares, etc?