Arsenal disregard the neutral's demand to be entertained

Chelsea's caution killed the potential drama, with Arsenal's mature performance sending them to Wembly

The second leg of the Arsenal vs Chelsea League Cup Semi-final featured just 19 shots, with just 9 coming in the box and just two big chances. Overall, outside of the final goal scored by Kai Havertz, there was a combined 1.07 expected goals created in the match.

Not exactly edge of your seat stuff.

This leads to asking the question, which team, if any, has a duty to entertain? Does the leading team (or home side) owe spectators entertainment, or is the onus on the trailing team to chase and create?

The first leg of this match was exactly what you would want to see in a match between two good teams and ones that have a rivalry.

With the tie still to be decided, Arsenal came out to try and put it to bed in the first leg and nearly accomplished that. They jumped out to two, 2-goal leads but Chelsea were given a lifeline each time converting from the scraps that they were able to generate.

This was a thrilling, open end-to-end affair and Arsenal very well could have had the game dead and buried without some good finishing/questionable shot stopping.

This put Arsenal in a strong position coming into the second leg at home. In the 18 matches this season before this match at the Emirates Stadium this season, half of them had seen the opposition leave without scoring, with another 6 matches where they scored just 1. Only, weirdly the two most recent matches have seen Arsenal allow more than 1 goal.

On top of this, only Liverpool in a nil-nil draw have stopped Arsenal from scoring.

This set up things to where this was going to be a tough task for Chelsea (obviously it is a semi-final after losing the first leg, and these aren’t typically easy). For Arsenal things were in a much better situation but they still had to respect Chelsea and not assume that it was game over.

My expectation here would have been, that Chelsea would have come out quick and look to put Arsenal under pressure early. One of the hallmarks of the goals Arsenal have allowed this season is when they are forced into a mistake, Arsenal are also not so far removed from basically panicking and losing their composure against Manchester United.

This was basically the opposite of what we got here. In the opening 30 minutes, Arsenal were basically under no pressure at the back and there was very little threat from either team.

Chelsea’s pressing numbers show that they really didn’t attempt to disrupt buildup from Arsenal and they just didn’t win the ball high at all.

Arsenal didn’t do too much of note, they tried to play a bit more directly out through Gabriel Martinelli and Noni Madueke in the channels but with Chelsea’s back five there weren’t too many opportunities to get the numerical advantages or space to exploit.

In the grand scheme of things this was just fine for Arsenal. If the result held as it was, Arsenal were through to the final. The need to take extra risk just wasn’t there from Arsenal and given that Chelsea hadn’t laid a glove on them.

This brings me back to the overarching question of who should have the burden to attack and bring the entertainment to the game?

Who should have the burden?

On the commentary in the US, we got this comment at the end of the first half:

“If this does go in nili-nil at halftime, and it looks like that at the moment. You could argue that the game has gone to Liam Rosenior’s plan rather more than it has Mikel Arteta’s.”

This thought was echoed at halftime by Troy Deeney (who really seems to hold a grudge against Arsenal), this also seems to match fairly close to what Gary Neville was saying on the UK broadcast.

I found this quite odd. There is a limited amount of time in a match, and they needed to score and at a minimum best Arsenal by a goal to force penalty kicks and they had basically spent half of the remaining time in the match doing nothing. They had taken just three speculative shots and had gotten into Arsenal’s box just 7 times.

Here is what Rosenior had to say responding to the criticism of his approach.

“I’ve been a pundit. It’s easy. It’s easy in hindsight. So, if I go and attack the game, press really high and we concede two goals early, everyone says, ‘what’s he doing?’ That’s the reality of my job. The reality of my job is if you lose games, you’ll be criticized. If you win, you’re a genius. It’s normally somewhere in between, I think.”

I do find truth in what he’s saying, when you lose your tactics are going to be picked apart and it is much easier to be right in hindsight when you’ve seen things play out and there is no way to prove or disprove whatever counterfactual you come up with as a pundit.

All that being given, I still don’t know that if he comes out more aggressive and with urgency that people would say ‘what’s he doing?’ I think most good faith people would understand that his team is losing and that is a time where you will take more risk.

Rosenior opted for caution and not risking a potential big scoreline, maybe thinking that this could be the Arsenal of old that would be a bit naive and leave openings or a chance for the opposition. This backfired, as Arteta with the lead didn’t feel the pressure to open up and give anything easy to Chelsea.

“We believed we could come here and turn it around. In terms of the control and domination we had in the second half, there were moments in the second half I thought it was there for us. We just didn’t take it.”

“[…] You can come away from home, press all over the pitch, man-to-man and you could go 2-0 up or you could go 2-0 down. I felt that the psychological aspect of the tie was very important as well and I felt in the stadium as well. 60 minutes, I bring on Cole and Estêvão and the game opens up and we have moments in and around the box. I think there was a feeling in the stadium that this tie could turn.

Chelsea did create a bit more threat in the latter part of the second half but it wasn’t anything close to resembling overwhelming pressure.

After the Palmer and Estêvão subs they managed 12 touches in Arsenal’s box (to 7 for Arsenal) and took 8 shots. The problem was that they still managed to create any moments of danger.

They had shots from the following distance: 27, 23, 9 (header from set play), 23, 25, 7 (Fofana set play), 14, 25, 16, and 9.

Ultimately, I think that this was a mature and measured performance from Arsenal. I am not going to lie to you and say that it was great attacking but it didn’t need to be and job one was to get to the final. Mission accomplished.

I can get the frustration that this wasn’t thrilling, fans pay for spectacle and this is a form of entertainment. This is also about winning and that comes with even more pressure from the fans and it is ultimately what drives the decisions of the players and the coaches.

Part of a Broader Pattern

Entertainment isn’t mandated, but mutual risk creates drama and with the set up that Chelsea came to play with that all but killed the possibility in this match. This also is part of the larger trend that we see in matches against Arsenal.

Teams do not come to play and have a go at Arsenal. I don’t blame them because the examples of teams that have tried that are littered with large scorelines against, but it does set up for a certain style of match.

This is partly due to Arsenal’s tactics and largely due to the respect that teams show Arsenal but they average the lowest defensive action height of any team in the Premier League this season and have been that way now for three seasons straight.

This isn’t a perfect proxy for the number/time spend facing low blocks that a team faces but this is something that would be highly correlated with that.

With Arsenal’s team profile as an elite defensive team, plus a patient possession heavy approach, teams will come in with a plan to see if they can frustrate Arsenal and capitalize on a counter or a mistake. That will give you a defensive heatmap against that will look like this.

I don’t blame teams, we have seen in the Champions League this season where this is less of the norm where teams will get cut open time and time again.

It also puts Arsenal and Arteta into an interesting position where they have needed to develop a counter for it. The main counter that Arsenal, and now largely the Premier League as a whole, have come up with is punish teams with set plays. It may be in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t view that as any less entertaining than shots and goals from open play.

We as fans can be a bit irrational, we want both to be entertained and to see wins and trophies lifted. These are not always compatible and to a certain extent require cooperation from both sides in a match.

Soccer fans crave drama, but trophies demand ruthlessness. Arteta’s measured mastery has propelled Arsenal to be one of the strongest in the World and now has them on the cusp of silverware, even if it frustrates neutrals. The real question isn’t who should entertain, it’s whether we value silverware over spectacle, or demand both. Because we want it all, the answer is both, even if we know deep down that the teams that have entertained us the most as a neutral are the ones that have been good but flawed and make delivering both tough.

Arsenal now head to Wembley with a chance to lift the first bit of silverware of the season and if they emerge with the victory how entertaining it was or wasn’t will be a secondary concern.