Bournemouth and Chelsea: two clubs with the same problem, but different solutions

 

 

• How referees change season by season and how it affects clubs
• From Man Conto Bournemouth. What next for Arsenal?

By Tony Attwood

The biggest issue AFC Bournemouth have is that they have a limited squad, and yet are trying to play a high pressing game in one  of the toughest of leagues.   And this can lead to problems because it can get the players much more tired than if they are playing  a passing game in which, to use the old phrase, the ball does the work.  (Consider Odegaard’s magical pass last night). 

Without such a style change, players get more tired more quickly, but it appears that those doing the transfer business for Chelsea forgot to factor in this issue when choosing who to buy or who to promote from the youth squad.

A further problem for both smaller  clubs like AFC Bournemouth and larger clubs like Chelsea, is that since every game is filmed, all clubs have the ability to consider in depth the next game’s opposition and their tactics.   So the more stable clubs with cash to spend (Arsenal are an example) build a backroom team whose prime job is to study the approach of the next opponents, allowing Arteta and his group to adjust which players they pick and how they play them in each game. 

Thus the old idea of the manager dropping player x because of a row or a poor performance in the last game, is not how it works any more.  Now it is a case of picking players according to the way of opposition approaches the match.   It’s as much a game of out-guessing the opposition before the team sheets are handed over one hour before the game, as it is of how you play on the pitch.

This is one of the things that invariably catches the media out, as they tend to pick the team they suggest will play based on recent performances of those players, not on the issues raised by opposition.

But of course, also, the players selected need to be able to work together.  This is why many clubs, including Arsenal, don’t have a 25 man squad, but stop around 21 players in August.   They can find players who might be technically able to play in a certain position, but there can be a doubt as to whether they will be able to play against certain oppositions.  

Now this is something avoided by some writers and ignored by others as journalists do their daily chitchat about who is going to be signed by a club.   Player X might well be a superb player in a particular position, and exactly what a prospective buying club needs – but the question is still, will he fit in with the players around him?   After all Odegaard’s perfect passes would be meaningless if Arsenal didn’t have someone to receive them and turn them into goals.   Both players need the right personality and ability to work together.  

Such problems can be multiple, and it is quite possible that Enzo Maresca has just left Chelsea exactly because of issues like this.  Somewhere within the ranks of players and administrators at Chelsea there almost certainly was a clash, which the manager felt he wasn’t likely to win.

Maresca moved from manager of the month to the man who had to leave the club before he was sacked in a very short time, suggesting there were broader issues.    What he got by way of compensation is a matter between the manager, the owner and Inland Revenue, but I suspect there was something, and it will count as part of the transfer and salary payments, which are limited by Uefa.

Chelsea announced they wanted to get the season “back on track” – but so does every club that has only won two of their last nine games in the major competitions.   But it does follow on Chelsea’s approach to players, buying, selling and loaning men at a faster pace than any other PL club.

But the problem with managers, as Tottenham have also found, is that endlessly changing the top man doesn’t work.   Arsenal sacked Emery because of the fiasco over his transfer dealings, but held on the Arteta even when the club had two 8th place finishes in the league, followed by a 5th.   Arsenal believed in the longer term which is the difference between Arsenal and Chelsea.

Chelsea won the Club World Cup and the Europa Conference League, but these trophies were gained at a huge transfer cost and with a constant movement of players.   They now need to find another manager who will agree to more of the same – an approach that is indeed the very opposite of Arsenal’s, and one that is going  to be difficult to use in the task of closing the 15 point gap behind Arsenal.   

Chelsea’s problem is thus the opposite of Bournemouth’s – one has a surfeit of money, one doesn’t, but the difficulty is the same for both of them.  How to convince players to come to a club and believe in what the club is doing is tougher than it souneds.