wow, what a terrible performance from us and we still managed to get 1p!
Now add how many shots we had on target lol
Simiar to most of our games; territorial dominance but not creating enough chances with it
I don’t think there’s really any point in stats like this, we all saw the game and we were good enough in the last 15 mins to save a draw from a pretty shit display
No shame in it it was a great comeback but there’s no point in trying to make out like we were secretly dominating
You can argue Chelsea benefitted from one lucky handball decision and a miskick cross, but otherwise didn’t create that much. While Arsenal didn’t do that much either, we did dominate possession. That said I thought we passed the ball around a lot in midfield, not the final third
It’s also somewhat amusing that we scored our second right in their strongest period of the whole game according to this.
Yeah exactly. I do think game state is doing something for us here… Behind for 60 minutes, they had little incentive to open up and go attacking. That said they were broadly “on top” for long periods and did very little. I don’t rate them in the slightest (but we were very poor).
Was exactly this. We dominated the game but didn’t control it. Field tilt is probably the best representation of a team’s performance hence why City have ranked top of it pretty much every season of the last 5 years. It’s a good thing that we pretty much always win this because it means we are better than the opposition every game.
Uhm, you dominated possession(which Chelsea allowed you to)but not the game.
Also, any objective person knows Chelsea was the better team in this game, and Field tilt without context is borderline useless
Also, any objective person knows Chelsea was the better team in this game
I don’t think you know what objective means.
I do, tho, and that’s why everybody bar a certain section of Arsenal fans, knows Chelsea was the better team.
I don’t see how you can claim to be objective as a Chelsea fan considering you’re happy to ignore all the statistics that show Arsenal were comfortably the better team.
But sure “everybody” agrees with you. Clearly you’re being reasonable, objective and unbiased.
Lol… Not really… Chelsea had a 1.8xG vs 1.5xG for Arsenal… 0.9 of Chelsea’s XG was the penalty… They looked like they dominated but created jackshit… It was more of our own slow start than Chelsea being any good tbh…
Chelsea only has 1.8G because they squandered great attacking opportunities and because they were in the lead and didn’t need to force the action.
Also, Arsenal’s sloe start was because of Chelsea’s fast start. They were correlated
You do realize that great attacking opportunities translate to an XG right ? If they couldn’t complete the attacking sequence coz of a bad pass or good defending, then it isn’t an opportunity at all…
There’s a difference between creating attacking opportunities and creating chances. Opportunities just mean that you were in a good position to make something happen, but you let the opportunity pass by. Creating chances tho is you going one step further and taking the opportunity(not necessarily scoring, tho)
Hate to say it but I agree with you, we never looked threatening until after Rices goal. Created no chances until then. Chelsea plugged the middle and stole possession from us many times, think they just got tired legs at the end, and Teta made the right subs. Otherwise we were piss poor
So everyone saying Chelsea were the better team, this says otherwise?
i need this graphic after every game
Is there a heat map/touch map of Arsenal in Chelski’s final third? Because I feel like most of this field tilt is probably on the wings.
We barely had any enjoy centrally since they were very compact and defensive, hence why why it looked like we didn’t have much control in the midfield despite having higher possession. This is where possession stat can sometimes be misleading.
This lines up with what I saw. While I don’t think we played great, I absolutely don’t agree that we were terrible, which seems to be the prevailing opinion online.
We were poor… by our standards. We were sloppy and didn’t have a cutting edge, but we still dictated the terms of play. For a bunch of other teams that aren’t Arsenal that would be considered a good performance.
This doesn’t mean anything let’s be honest.
They were better than us until we got our goal from a Sanchez error.
We had the only goal that wasn’t a weird fluke, if that’s how we’re evaluating things.
That’s not how I’m evaluating things either.
Their penalty wasn’t a weird fluke either come on, if we had that going against us we’d be going livid. It’s a clear pen.
I just think they were better than us until Rice scored. We were so poor and they were really good.
So happy we ended up getting a point and got out of there.
Our performances need to improve, can’t wait for Tuesday hoping we get back on track performance and result wise
COYG
It’s a clear pen but not a player mistake – just bad luck it hits an arm. It was a pretty even match on the balance of play. We were better at controlling territory; they had moments of danger but ultimately not that many in transitions.
While I agree they out played us, their two goals were both very lucky. The pen was an accidental handball after a header that was not on goal. Then a shit cross that ended in the net.
Who cares. We don’t create much of anything. Don’t even try unless it’s perfect like we are playing for stats. In a super wet game there are bound to be mistakes and we still didn’t whip it in or take low hard shots from anywhere.
Possession is meaningless if you’re not doing.shit with it.
Yeah you can say they got lucky with their chances, but in football you create your own luck. They don’t get a handball if they’re not there to force one out of saliba
The narrative around this game has been skewed massively by what the expectations were, the fact that it was at Stanford bridge, and how the commentators talked about it. We did not get dominated, nor did we dominate them. The openings that we created were so much better, though our final ball was lacking. Odegaard could’ve had 2 easy goals in the first half if the simple cutback to him had been played.
I think there’s times in recent games that we’ve ended up with too many players forward, and in turn that means the defenders tend to play it back and make the safe pass. We’re seeing fewer triangles being created on the pitch, Odegaard isn’t getting as close to Saka and Martinelli often ends up isolated on the left.
It’s great that Saliba and Gabriel are comfortable on the ball but I feel the midfield leaves far too much build up to them.
We were abysmal in the first half. Gave away the ball waaaaay too cheaply when we were in their half