The Carabao Cup semi-final between Chelsea and Arsenal left one pundit, Paul Merson, utterly bewildered. He expressed disbelief at Chelsea’s surprisingly cautious approach, lamenting a performance that felt like a surrender rather than a spirited attempt at victory.
Merson couldn’t comprehend the decision to field five defenders, especially given Chelsea’s league position. He argued that a more aggressive strategy, a “blaze of glory,” was warranted in a crucial semi-final match, rather than a meek exit.
He dissected the midfield battle, acknowledging Arsenal’s trio wasn’t dominant, but highlighting the strength of Chelsea’s Caicedo and Santos. However, he questioned the deployment of Enzo Fernández on the left wing, feeling it wasted his talents against a capable defender like Timber.
Merson pinpointed a critical tactical misstep: the continued reliance on Viktor Gyokeres up front despite his struggles. He believed Chelsea should have opted for a more attacking formation, utilizing their strong full-backs and adding an extra forward to the lineup.
The substitution strategy also drew criticism. Merson felt bringing on Estevao for only 45 minutes, while leaving Cole Palmer on the bench, was a waste of valuable time and opportunity. He questioned the logic of such a limited impact.
He further emphasized that Chelsea’s defensive setup seemed unnecessary, particularly against an opponent with a forward like Gyokeres. Merson wondered if Arsenal’s players themselves were surprised by Chelsea’s passive approach.
Merson concluded by suggesting that manager Liam Rosenior’s assessment of the team’s situation felt disconnected from reality. He predicted a negative reaction from Chelsea supporters, who wouldn’t appreciate the implication that significant improvement was still needed.
